 And we'll do a quick round the room of the round the room and the virtual room for the COSA members introductions. And then I will ask speakers to introduce themselves when they present. And I will also ask any participants that are not on the agenda. Excuse me to introduce themselves the first time they speak as well. So with that, Scott and Rod, I'll turn it over to you. Thank you, Stacy. And welcome everyone, both those of you joining us online and those of those of you in the room we have a big turnout today, which is very gratifying. After not getting together for so long. During the COVID period, it's, it's great to see so many old friends and and new ones and and we have a, I think an exciting and important agenda to tackle the next two days. So it's great to have folks here together for that. So my name is Scott Cameron. I'm a geologist. I've been volunteering, I guess, for COSA since it's inception. And first as an observer for the board of earth science and resources and then as a member for the last six years. This is my swan song. It's my last meeting. So I'm going to enjoy the chance for interaction with you all. And I'm looking forward to some productive constructive conversation. So over to my good friend, Ron. Hi, everybody. My name is Rod Mather. I'm an underwater archaeologist at the University of Rhode Island and I'm also co chair of COSA and also leaving COSA sadly. And this is my last meeting. I too like to welcome everybody and thank you all for joining us and I particularly like to thank the folks in Boehm, who have helped put the meeting together of course particularly Jennifer Bravo and thank you all to also to the National Academy staff and particularly Stacy and Jonathan Eric for all your hard work in organizing the meeting. And thank you to the fellow COSA members for all your work and insights. They are very valuable and we know your time is very valuable. So, so thank you all very, very much. I'm particularly grateful to the colleagues from NOAA that's going to be joining us today and tomorrow and invited expert guests for assisting us with your knowledge and with your wisdom and of course to everybody else that's joining us as well. We are looking forward to two days of very interesting meetings and discussions. We've got a kind of mouth watering series of discussions lined up. This are today we'll spend much of our time talking about Boehm's new jurisdictions and expansions into US territories and what that means for science and assessment. And this afternoon we will hear about the connections between science and assessment with in Boehm. And that's a subject that COSA has been interested in for several years. Boehm funded a study to help better understand that relationship between and the feedback loop between the studies program and the assessments program. So we'll be looking forward to learning a lot about that. A number of us on COSA have been very keen to get an update on DEI and GI initiatives and progress in Boehm. And we'll hear about those important subject matters this afternoon as well. And then very briefly tomorrow we'll discuss multiple uses and spatial conflicts within Boehm and have experts from inside and outside the agency to help us. And at the end of the day tomorrow, we will have a presentation on Boehm's mechanisms for science coordination and funding. So again, it sounds like a very interesting couple of days and welcome everybody and particularly thank you to those folks that helped put this together and to get us where we are now. Thank you. I'm going to go ahead and get us started with some committee introductions. And I'm going to go ahead and do it in alphabetical order by last name for those that are in the room and on the line at the same time. So we will start we've heard from both of our chairs. Thank you Scott and Rod. We'll turn to Jack next. Hi everyone I'm Jack Barth I'm a physical oceanographer at Oregon State University. Thanks Jack and then we'll go to Rona. Hi good morning everybody I'm Rona Cox and I'm a geologist and coastal geomorphologist at Williams College. Thank you Jeremy. Good morning Jeremy Firestone. I'm a social scientist in the University of Delaware and just would like to say Rod and Scott you're welcome back as far as I'm concerned anytime. James. I'm James Flynn I'm an atmospheric scientist at the University of Houston. Catherine for whom it's still quite early. Yeah hi I'm Catherine I can I'm with the University of Alaska Fairbanks and I'm a marine biologist. Looks good train less. No we had less on the line less are you on the line still. Alright we'll come back to less if we are able to get him is Kelsey on the line. Let's see. Alright, Carrie. I remembered this time. Good morning, Carrie Pomeroy. University of California at Santa Cruz Institute of Marine Sciences. I am a research social scientist and adjunct faculty with the coastal science and policy program there. Thanks Carrie. Kevin. Hi, good morning everyone. My apologies for not being able to attend, but COVID had a little something to do with that. So, I'm Kevin Stokesbury. I am the Dean of Science. The Dean for the School of Science, Marine Science and Technology at the University of Massachusetts. Dartmouth and I may by training a fisheries oceanographer and marine biologists. Thank you all. Thank you Kevin and for those that don't know Kevin will be elevating as our next chair for Koso once our two fearless leaders rotate off at the end of this calendar year. And last but certainly not least Lori. Morning everyone I'm Lori summa. Geologist retired from Exxon mobile currently adjunct at Rice and UT Austin. Excellent. So I think we'll go ahead and get started with our program today then, and really appreciate those that are on the line to join us and in the room as well. We're going to start by a discussion of bones recent expansion of jurisdiction into the territories. And Ariana, are we ready to kick off. Excellent. So we'll start with Ariana, and then we'll also be hearing from my grass or Brandon Jensen and James Morris today. And if you'll just introduce yourself before you start speaking. Absolutely so my name is Ariana honey cut I am in the policy group in the Office of Renewable Energy programs. I have worked with some of you in the past in my previous role when I was known as Ariana Baker so it's the name sounds somewhat familiar that's because I have engaged with some of you folks at the National Academies before. So, my presentation will be rather brief because the science is far more interesting honest I'm just going to be speaking essentially to bones process. So if we can go ahead to the next slide. So, because I'm a policy person I'm starting with jurisdiction our jurisdiction comes from the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, and the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which essentially states that for the Outer Continental Shelf we do have the authorities to conduct offshore renewable energy leasing, the focus of which commercially worldwide for a long time has been wind. So you can go ahead to the next one. So the big news and the reason why we're here today is because the inflation reduction act did give poem new authority to issue leases easements and right of way offshore the US territories expanding the definition in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of the Outer Continental Shelf to include those territorial waters. And just for a quick rundown of what that specifically means. It is the territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, US Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. It gives us the authority to lease in those listed territories subject to several conditions, the first of which is that a sale in the area is feasible, a sale can actually occur. There's sufficient interest in leasing the area so that is commercial viability of that lease that if we do send it up to auction there's a good chance that that lease will sell. And also that the secretary has consulted with the governor or governors of the territory or territories regarding the suitability of that area for when leasing so that is more of the process part that I'm going to focus on today before the other folks get into the science. All right, next slide. I did list out all the US territories that we do have the authority to do leasing with and as you'll note, most of them are fairly small populations. And for commercial scale offshore wind leases, such to the point that Boehm looks at them, we do look at larger plots of the Outer Continental Shelf generally. So there does need to be a sufficient energy demand to provide for that offshore wind resource. Accordingly in the Caribbean, we also have two US territories that directly neighbor each other in the Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands. So that expands the realm of the area that we could look at for potential offshore wind leasing, in addition to knowing that we have a certain demand. So there you see the combined Outer Continental Shelves of Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands. I will note that our authority does not begin at the Seaward boundary. It begins at the territorial waters boundary. So for Puerto Rico, that is three marine leagues or nine nautical miles. And for the US Virgin Islands, our authority starts at three nautical miles. As I said, I'm moving through this pretty quickly. So this is what we casually refer to as our rainbow graph. It is an overview of the entire offshore wind leasing process. So one of the specific items that's called out in the Inflation Reduction Act is that it does give the Department of Interior a mandate to investigate leasing options, specifically to publish a document known as a call for information and nominations and to publish that initial call no later than September 30, 2025 that the Secretary of the Department of Interior will issue that call. So you'll see within our process that is very, very, very close to the beginning of the timeline. It's a very early stage process that we have to complete within the next about 22 months. All right. Next slide please. This expands our commercial lease sale process a bit. So you can see a bit more of it. The request for interest is something that we may or may not do depending on the feedback that we see with the government. But for the most part, where our process begins is you'll see in the bottom left corner there in very small text is potential Task Force meeting. So it does begin with the formation of a Task Force, which includes the consent and engagement with the governors of those territories previously with the governors of the states that we've engaged with. It's a intergovernmental renewable energy Task Force so it is focused more on government parties as members rather than non governmental entities but that said they are invited fully to participate in the process any NGOs or academies or any other government parties that want to have their voices heard they're welcome to attend the Task Force meetings. And we try to make our public process as accessible as we can to make sure that those voices are incorporated into the process. So this is just a very, very broad view of what our process looks like, and you'll see everywhere where there's a group of disembodied people at the bottom. So that is a comment period that is associated with a federal register publication so there's a request for interest call for information and nominations area identification and propose sale notice those are all include public comment periods. So that said, as I said earlier, we don't always decide to do a request for interest, it depends on how we want to approach the leasing strategy but we will do a call for information and nominations should we proceed to this area. It's a long process, but finally at the end which my colleagues will get to if we can go to the next slide. There is a parallel process that goes on to it so of course we're not just seeking public comment on whatever we publish one of the major things that we look to for the public is marine spatial information. So, Brandon and Mike and James can all talk further in depth as to what the meat of that process looks like in processing and soliciting marine spatial information. But it is built into go along that whole paperwork exercise that I previously demonstrated in the rainbow chart. So, that is all I have for the moment I told you would be quick. Thank you for having us here today. Thank you, and I think after each person speaks we'll have time for maybe one or two quick clarifying questions, but we will also have time. I'm following this session for a more open discussion. And maybe I can take the prerogative here just to ask a quick clarifying point. Your presentation laid out the process for wind energy leasing. And I just want to be clear that the actual expansion of jurisdiction includes the authority to create easements right of ways leases for not just wind energy. But can you kind of draw the distinction for us about where and how that sort of maybe priority got established and whether that's in the IRA or. Yeah, so it's it's offshore when it's actually not specific in the IRA to necessarily offshore wind leases but it is where our focus is. So, and it's offshore wind leases and all appropriate right of ways, easements, app utterances necessary to get the power from the lease on the outer continental shelf into, I'm sorry, into shore so that does include the cable roots. And thank you for that question that is a really important clarifying point because one of the things that we very often solicit information on is, are there any features that are incompatible with cable laying between the lease and shore. Just as a follow up and then I'll turn to you Scott and run because I know he's got his hand up as well. Hypothetically speaking, would marine minerals or traditional oil and gas development also be within your expanded jurisdiction. So I cannot speak on that as not my specialty, I do not believe it is within that definition but that is outside of my expertise. Any response to my question. Thanks though. Let me try to help and. Well, first of all, the, the amendment to the definition of the outer continental shelf is is broad it's it's territories, they're easy. I personally think the more straightforward reading of it as it covers all the US territories there 14 that are undisputed but there's some discussion within the Interior Department about about that. There is, as Arianna said there's a mandate to move forward with offshore wind for the five territories that have basically that have population civilian populations of governments. And then the Pacific in addition to the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico it's American Samoa, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. The, the IRA specifically prohibits inclusion of the five in the oil and gas leasing program, but otherwise it's silent. So if, if, if, if the final sort of conclusion is that all the territories are are included then, then critical minerals would potentially be included and actually so would oil and gas except for those five although there's doesn't appear to be any oil and gas resources that are significant in the other nine. And as Arianna said, the boom is focused like a laser basically on offshore wind for those, those five and, and, and also this focusing the science program, you know, largely on that as well. Oh, and I'm Bill Brown for the chief environmental officer boom. Thanks for that excellent overview of how the IRA impacts what you're going to be talking with us about today. I have a question about Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands in particular you showed us a map as of the area. Can you put that back up again that slide that possible. As I, as I recall, the territorial waters of Puerto Rico extend out to the three league line are pretty close to that so it's different than the rest of the other states in the US that who's who's going to be actually responsible for that very shallow water. Part of the territorial waters in terms of potential wind development. So I can actually provide a direct example of that. I cannot speak. I know that the territories do operate slightly different major sectionally with engagement with the federal government, but in Rhode Island, for example, the block Island wind farm that was built within state waters so for there the lead to the permitting authority for the federal government was the Army Corps of Engineers. Boom had a extremely limited role in the only location where boom did have a role is when a offshore wind cable went between Block Island and mainland Rhode Island and pass through those two waters. So, if the territories did elect to build within their own territorial waters that would not be our role unless it did exit that three Marine Leagues. The reason I'm asking about in case of Puerto Rico is this bathymetric map shows is that on here you got some bathymetric contours is that most of the shallow waters in fact essentially all of the almost all of the shallow waters are in the territories, territorial the stuff that is proven conventional development technology right now, less than 60 meters, everything else, I think is in in deeper waters are looking off a lot of it. So, does that mean that you're not you're not going to be holding lease sales in the territorial waters, the only in the state in the Commonwealth administered waters only in the in the stuff beyond the three three legal on. That's correct we do not have the authority to hold an offshore wind lease unless any activity is occurring right outside of those territorial waters that it would be our only tie into the project and to further that one of the first listed conditions that I did state legislation reduction act is whether or not a winly sale in that area is feasible, and that doesn't include technical feasibility. So we are still evaluating floating as technical platforms for feasibility in the future, and that would need to be what it would need to be here most likely. I can't envision bottom founded foundations that water depth, but yeah, yeah, it'd be quite a quite an activity. Yeah, and just to reinforce what Arianna said that the the inflation reduction act expressly does not provide authority to the secretary for areas that have been transferred to the territory so it's, you know, it's their job. Arianna for that overview. I don't think I heard it but maybe I just missed it. I want to go back to the task force just very briefly and talk about the intergovernment consultations. Does, does that include consultations with tribal governments. It's a formal consultation process that we do have with tribal governments. And I'm not the administrator of that so I don't necessarily want to speak in elegantly as to what that process looks like but yes we do. We do. From a legalities perspective. The tribal governments of Puerto Rico are not listed tribes that the department interior does engage with. I believe actually it's limited to the lower 48 is the listed tribes isn't. Please bill you are the better speaker on this. No, I thought that I was the tribal liaison officer myself for a few years and, and, and, and still involved the, but I think it's Ariana was getting there it's. We have a formal responsibility as I think everyone knows for government to government consultation with federally recognized tribes. It's 574. They, they, there are quite a number of them in Alaska as well as the lower 48 but they're but as Aaron was saying there's, there's no federally recognized tribes. In any of these territories actually. But having said that, you know the general approach of bone and the department as well as to consult with. A broad array of, of those who are the groups that are interested communities and certainly including indigenous people in the, in the territories and, and Guam and the Virgin Islands, I'm not an expert on what's there may be rod is but, but there are, I'd like there's the Tino for example, there are certain groups that I that I'm, I'm sure we'll take a look at and try to reach out to. I thought the Tino had a government. Oh, that's good to hear so make it it'll make it easier to reach out if they do. Excellent. Thank you each. Thank you, Ariana. We're going to keep moving. And I'll turn next to Mike Rasser, Mike, if you'll introduce yourself. And I don't know if you and Brandon and James are planning to present together or separately. But if you'd each like to introduce yourself first. That's fine or if you'd like to introduce yourselves between your separate speaking. That's fine to whatever makes the most sense from your perspective. Folks hear me okay. We can thank you. Great. So I think we can start. Interaction's first makes a lot of sense. So, hi folks, let me know me. I'm Mike Rasser. I'm a great colleges in the office of environmental programs, and I'll hand it off to Brandon. Hey, good morning, everyone. Nice to be here. Thanks to the committee for allowing us an opportunity to provide an update here. I'm Brandon Jensen fisheries biologists with the environmental branch of renewable energy within O rep office renewable energy programs in bomb. I largely work on essential fish habitat and then thick fisheries interactions. As my day job, part of it also includes quite a bit of work with our partners at end costs on planning that we've done in central Atlantic Gulf of Maine. And now in the US territories. So, James, maybe you want to introduce yourself and then we can get into our presentation. Yes, hi everyone. James Morris with Noah's National Ocean Service and look forward to sharing more with you today. Thanks James and Brendan. So I could get started here. So, yeah, so I really like to give a great overview of the jurisdictional changes that occurred. And, you know, my goal here I only have three slides is to give just a high level overview of some of the science in general, and some of the challenges that we have as a program. So, as I think all the committee members know that, you know, we foam has environmental studies program that's where I sit. And we provide information to predict assess manage mitigate impacts for things like renewable energy. And so with the new jurisdiction under the array. The SP will be will be leading research in the US territories to support renewable energy projects, specifically offshore wind. And we've been given the guys that initial focus is going to be on the US Caribbean. And so we're currently working on identifying research needs and developing approaches to stress those need to talk just a bit about that. And we're also beginning a collaboration with with Noah and cost for a bio geographic assessment and later James will provide some more detail about the know a bone relationship for green spatial planning and and a bit about what that bio geographic assessment involves kind of a first Next slide please. So, you know, we've been communicating among our scientists and there's obviously a long list of science needs and this is not comprehensive but just some ideas about things we've discussed. So science research, you know that fisheries and tourism and really important, as well as storm impacts, it's like hurricanes. And that is always important. You know, especially when it comes to things like cultural resources and tourism. So should economic impacts. So hopefully, for example, we're not going to grow out employment to provide greater access to reliable, accessible energy. Very much in tourism, just sort of knowing where, where the important areas are for tourism and how to address that physical oceanography so things like hydrogen modeling of impacts for larval dispersal cultural and traditional properties. And, of course, the distribution of the marine resources, so things like where the sense of habitats, or where are the abien resources where the birds, it's very hot spots. So, so in general those biological physical resources, as well as the human use of the ocean. Next slide please. So, one of the challenges that we have is that, you know, boom, we need that rapidly gain knowledge of the capacity. So the Caribbean and the U.S. General is an area where we don't have a lot of, we haven't worked before. And so, working on some different approaches, thinking about how we can better do that. And I'd love to hear ideas from the committee on that as far as how to approach this and how to collaborate with local scientists. Just some of the things we've discussed. One of them is, we're really keen to use cooperative agreements with local institutions. And so, we're considering using issuing a notice of unavailable to do studies through the South Florida Caribbean eagles and studies and CSU. And that would allow us to really, you know, put a call out for for studies and information that would that can engage a lot of local universities, I think the University of Puerto Rico, universities in Virginia Island, they're all, they're all part of that. We've also discussed the possibility using workshops to identify existing information. That's really, you know, important to us. We'll talk about a workshop and a bit that looked at some of the spatial data that's out there and what's available. But I think more broadly, we need to know about what research has been done, who's doing the research and how we can work to fill any data gaps or associated research needs. And, you know, last but certainly not least, we plan to continue to collaborate with our NOAA and COS partners on research and spatial planning. So a lot of the data that I mentioned in the previous slide, that goes in directly into working with and costs on that on that spatial planning piece. And so with that, I'm going to hand it off to the James. Sure. Thanks, Mike. Hi, everyone. It's a real pleasure to be here today and talk with you about some of the marine special planning partnerships that we have underway. Again, I'm James Morris. I work in NOAA's National Ocean Service in the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science or INCOS. And we've been working to provide coastal and ocean intelligence for conservation and blue economy work for a long time. I'm going to talk a little bit about sort of how marine spatial planning has been evolving rapidly in the last few years and some of the work that we have going on with phone. So just to kind of, you know, reorient folks, I know we're talking a lot about Bones work today, but NOAA's role in offshore wind, you know, also is important in terms of, you know, protection of coastal and marine resources, interagency engagement and supporting the administration's goals, environmental intelligence. So we're going to focus a lot on environmental intelligence in the next few slides, then of course research and operations to understand and monitor impacts and those kinds of things. I'm excited. We're excited about the partnership, this interagency partnership with Bones on marine spatial planning. This is a relatively new partnership, although NOAA and Bones have been collaborating for decades. Being able to work in a marine spatial planning process together is relatively new. NOAA has been providing data and intelligence to support Bones mission and various other federal agencies missions for, as I said, for decades. However, we only have recently come together and been working on developing marine spatial planning processes that are across federal agencies and I'm going to share a little bit more about that with you today. Here's a snapshot of all of the wind planning, wind spatial planning activities that are happening around the nation. You can see that, you know, they are, there's various levels of planning underway, whether it be using marine spatial planning and specifically spatial modeling, which we'll talk about in a second, to a site call areas or wind energy areas or informed cable routing. At each step of the planning process, there is now a partnership underway and an interagency agreements that are established to work together between NOAA and Bones on marine spatial planning. NOAA, of course, our agency does not get to make the decisions. The Bones is the decision maker here when it comes to offshore wind. We're very much in a supporting role in terms of providing ocean intelligence and providing spatial modeling capabilities. I want to go to the Caribbean for just a second, to the US Caribbean. We just completed a couple of workshops where we were working to establish baseline data at baseline data inventory. And I captured this quote from Nicole Angeli, who's the director of the US Virgin Islands Department of Fish and Wildlife. I thought it really captured sort of our goals in terms of why we are so serious about developing better and more comprehensive marine spatial planning approaches. The quote that she shared at the end of the workshop basically says this, that they are hopeful that the territories are hopeful. And I think any and all coastal communities are hopeful that the results of marine spatial data will bring us closer to respectful, sustainable uses of our natural resources. But just that better understanding and respect for those is purposeful in that it can elevate the quality of life of our friends, families, and neighbors. And that's the purpose here is to work to create community through that marine spatial planning process and to everyone to be able to rally around the process and spatial planning models to be able to better understand the ocean and the interactions of these new pioneering ocean industries. Here's a brief overview. We held two workshops, one in San Juan and one in St. Croix in late August, early September. These workshops were very well attended. The purpose of these workshops was to begin to build a community for marine spatial planning. We worked to bring in such matter experts across various ocean sectors and began to inventory the data and be able to talk about and to better understand the data in terms of the shortcomings and opportunities for data improvement and to collect information that would feed into the environmental studies programs, bonus environmental studies programs as well as NOAA's programs and support the state or territorial governments as well. There you can see the members of the steering committee that was involved in planning the workshops and the local workshop participants included government territorial leadership and staff, environmental organizations, scientists from various academic partners and territorial and federal agencies, Fisheries Management Council and such. The format of the meeting of the workshops was essentially we went through each ocean sector including national security industries, fisheries, natural resources, cultural and social resources and medicine data and other and we went through a facilitated process where we basically dissected each ocean sector. We talked about the data that we knew existed, which we had harvested and gave presentations on that data. And then we asked the community what were their concerns or questions about those data and if they were aware of any additional spatial data that we were not aware of in the energy database. And then we worked to prioritize and better understand the needs for acquisition of new data. And we were impressed with the community that came together to be able to look at what the available data and interact with each other and certainly we saw many instances where ideas were generated by the community that would not have been generated individually as that community worked to come together. We're serious about increasing our ocean intelligence endeavor in NOAA of course and we're going to continue to work towards this. We've been working in biogeographical assessments as Mike mentioned earlier for forever a decade working with BOEM to do habitat mapping and developing these sort of these holistic and comprehensive biogeographical assessments. We have one underway in partnership with BOEM for the U.S. Caribbean to help create a better baseline of environmental data to support BOEM actions going forward should they move forward. Our biogeographical, biogeography work, biogeographical branch not only has been working in habitat modeling and habitat mapping but also marine bird distributions and social science surveys. We're able to work in various aspects of the offshore wind sector and science and data challenges there. I want to touch briefly on what's newer in terms of marine spatial planning and spatial modeling. Previously marine spatial planning efforts did not utilize regional ocean models. They worked to essentially manually inspect data layers and did not work to bring a model together for the entire ocean region. We've been working towards being able to have the capacity to execute regional ocean models now for a few years and we have in fact built those for a number of the wind planning efforts around the nation. We're gaining a lot of experience in this field and I think later in the meeting there's going to be more discussion specifically on the Gulf of Mexico. But I want to touch on a couple of things in terms of how spatial suitability modeling works and why it's a game changer in helping coastal communities and stakeholders and federal agencies work together to understand, to better understand conflict and more importantly understand relative suitability for what might be possible going forward. The goal of spatial suitability modeling is to build a heat map like the one you see there on the right hand side. And what we will do to do that is we will at first identify the study area and this could be for example the call area boundaries or just an ocean region like the Gulf of Maine or the Gulf of Mexico where Bohm is interested in doing planning and eventually leasing. We will subdivide that entire area into we use a 10 acre grid cell and then we're essentially working to calculate a suitability score, a unique suitability score for every 10 acres of that ocean region or that study area. The next step is to compile all the data that is relevant to that particular study area so we will work through a planning process and stakeholder engagement process. We generally convene a NOAA Bohm collaboration team where we work together with our subject matter experts in both agencies as well as in the private sector and state and government agencies and just work to assess and inventory all of the available data that we can. After we have compiled data, we will organize that data into categories or sub models that reflect the ocean region such as national security data, industries, fisheries and those kinds of things and natural resources. Ultimately we want to be able to assign each one of those data layers a compatibility score. We generally are able to utilize a fairly simplistic scoring approach. We think of it as a bit of a stoplight approach where we will assign data layers that have low compatibility closer to a zero score whereas data layers that represent high compatibility will be closer to a one. We are then able to average essentially the scores across all of the data layers and sub models for each unique ocean space. Again, back to that 10 acre resolution and that is how we then can assign those scores to colors and produce those heat maps to give us a better understanding. So for example, just looking at the Gulf of Mexico, this was our first spatial suitability model for siding of offshore wind. We have since built suitability models for the Central Atlantic, the Gulf of Maine, for Oregon. We have a few others underway as well. This is the first thing that you look at in terms of what's actually constraining or what are those things that are happening in the ocean that it's incompatible with offshore wind development. We then want to look at the green areas and better understand within the green areas, the areas that are potentially suitable of the green areas, where are the areas that have the highest suitability. And to do that, we're able to look across these ocean sectors. And it's really a wonderful experience to be able to bring the intelligence, all of the ocean intel together and be able to look at it by ocean sector. And you begin to see the geometries and the hotspots of sensitivity and hotspots of conflict that emerge as you look across these sectors. We then are able to average the scores across all of these sub models and eventually come up with a suitability map or a heat map for the whole entire study area like the one you see there on the left-hand side. Using cluster analysis and now that we have scores for all these grid cells, we can ask the model show us where the highest suitable clusters of space are based on the math and calculation of all those suitability scores. Again, we're looking at this many times across 50 to 100 plus data layers that represent the most authoritative best available data for the ocean region. And that's essentially how we work with Bohm and Bohm ultimately selects and makes decisions based on this spatial intelligence and these new spatial modeling runs. So we're excited for that collaboration and how it has grown around the nation and particularly in the U.S. territories and particularly in the U.S. Caribbean. We're working to just now begin to build the spatial planning infrastructure to be able to understand this ocean region and be able to bring it into a spatial modeling context such as this. The work in the Caribbean was co-funded by the NIMPS Southeast Fisher Science Center. Our agency certainly appreciates the ability to work and collaborate with Bohm as early as possible in the planning process. We know that the best conservation and the best deconfliction for industries such as fisheries and such happened early in the process, happened early in the marine spatial planning, and we appreciate that collaboration opportunity. So with that, I'll stop and be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Should we go ahead and turn it to Brandon next or Brandon, did you have any prepared remarks? Yeah, I think I just wanted to add to this and it's a great presentation that Mike and Jane were able to provide here today that really this process was the adopting of the process and working with and causes a partnership was really in response to a lot of comments were received from other engagement with very stakeholders and planning. Meetings and even during the environmental review process. I'll just add that it's a process that's easily followed and widely understood now across many different regions, allowing for some transparency within Bohm's modeling process and just really facilitating very focused engagement. Looking through the data layers, understanding how certain values were incorporated in the modeling process is something that's understandable. We provide white paper documentation on the entire process that various folks are able to track and it's amazing coming into meetings. Now when we talk about planning with task force members or members of the public or specific fishery sectors that people do their homework and they bring very focused questions and so I just want to really applaud this partnership and I guess we're open for questions now so thank you. Thank you just a reminder for those in the room if you'd like to use your tent cards. Otherwise I'll be looking for the raised hand feature on zoom as well. And if I could go ahead and start while we're waiting for folks to raise their cards or hands. One question I had I think probably this goes mostly to Mike, but maybe Brandon to you also is. I know in our conversations as a committee and on some of our calls we've talked about the need for consideration of in distinct categories. The social science and also the outreach that's going to take place in these new areas particularly given the nuance of them as a territory quite being quite different from the other states and regions within which bone currently operates. And I'm wondering if you can just shed some light quickly on how you all are thinking about approaching those two topics we've heard quite a bit I think actually about engagement between the workshops and the public comment periods and the like but in addition to you know some of the natural science that's been put forth I'd be interested in hearing more about plans to conduct social science in these regions and any similar leveraging that's being done with partners. Either in the regions or otherwise on those points so I'll start with that and I'll continue to look for raised and cards or hands. I'll actually go ahead and start with that one. Thanks Diana. So, with regards to the process for soliciting social science engagement culturally relevant information. Anything that is more, and I hate this term because soft sciences are still sciences on the softer sciences side of the discussion. The actual functionality of it. I don't think we'll have much of a difference from the way that the state process is operated. As we said with the state process we've set up the task force where we're working with the government and bring in all those responsible governmental entities, and then also working with the side outside of the task force process with other relevant groups who are very important voices in the conversation. That same thing can be applied to the regional planning process with the states or to the regional planning process with Puerto Rico. So I'll let them speak on more of the science gathering and information gathering side but in terms of the engagement. We approach every area we go into with an understanding that each area has its own specific needs and we need to be responsive to that. Thank you. It's one to add that, you know, I'm not social scientists and I'm pretending to be one but I have had some conversations with our social scientists, especially John Fremont. But I think one of the things we discussed was having a workshop to sort of get the people that are doing the research in social sciences together to identify what research has been done, what research is being planned and how we can best build data gaps and work with local scientists. Thank you. Scott. Thank you. Thank you all for very helpful presentations to sort of set the set the stage for us for not only today's discussion on the territories but tomorrow's discussion on the bigger topic of marine spatial planning and I'm going to withhold any comments about the materials on the Gulf of Mexico till tomorrow because I think that's a rich and deep subject to dive into on its own, but I want to turn back to the Caribbean example here, and, and observe what I see as a significant gap in your data collection and participation from other agencies that could help you I didn't see anybody from the US geologic survey in your consultation nor did I see anybody from the tsunami warning center, but Noah. I know that's a gap is that the northern Caribbean Puerto Rico Virgin Islands was in the top five of the seafloor hazards area identified in the White House report on the key science needs for the easy wasn't mentioned at all. There's a I've got a couple papers I'm glad to share with you and one of them by a local scientists import from Puerto Rico. But the this is that areas has is an area that has has a history of Earth major earthquakes on related to the plate boundary that occurs there there's a major subduction zone with strikes that motion on the north side. There's another big thrust boundary on the south side of the island. These things move they've moved within the last several hundred years, they've generated earthquakes that have killed fair number of people and tsunamis. In addition on the north side of Puerto Rico, the whole margin is tilted seaward. That's probably the main area I would think you'd be looking for a floating wind to go in. There are landslides that occur along there. The failure to include folks with expertise in seafloor hazards both the potential risks and the timing of the events and the magnitude of what could occur in your assessments. I think is a significant oversight. I would strongly encourage you to rectify that I'll retain hold off on my comments about how that might apply in other areas where you've already leased until tomorrow. But I would like to say that it does have relevance to the territories more generally. As you go into the Pacific, you're going to also be needing to deal not only with earthquakes, tsunami issues, but both near field and far field, but you're going to have to worry about volcanic hazards as well. So it's some different stuff that's going to come into the mix. And I think it's only prudent for bone to make sure that they have talked to their other colleagues, for instance in the USGS and other parts of NOAA that can help you address some of those natural hazards, exposures. Thank you. Thank you, Mike. Is your hand raised in response to that? Yes, it is. I just wanted to say, Scott, please hold along those papers. And I just wanted to mention with respect to the Caribbean's Puerto Rico. We're in the process right now of scoping, for example, what could be included in that fire geographic assessment. And certainly, you've been a very good point. And we have worked closely with USGS on that same issue in other areas, like the Gulf of Mexico, for example, or mudslides and that sort of thing. I'll be glad to send that material on to you. So I think I know what I reached out to at USGS as well. So thank you, Scott. Excellent. I'm going to turn Jeremy, Kevin, and then Carrie. Just real quick. I also want to add that the team has not necessarily been formed yet as to who we are soliciting information from who we decide we need to get information from. We are still so early in the process. And in the process of communicating with the Puerto Rican government and the US Virgin Islands government, there's not been an establishment of a task force by any way, shape, or form at this point yet. Just to follow up comment, the reason I brought this up here, because I suspect that you're in the early days, I would hate to, we already had an example where this gap occurred in the leasing off the Pacific Coast for wind. And I'm worried that's going to happen again with a call for leasing off of Oregon. I want to alert you early on that you've got same kind of exposures here in Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands. Let's not let's let's nip that in the butt if we can by engaging some experts. Jeremy. Yeah, so I've got a couple of points. I mean, the first I agree that bone tries to tailor things to, to local conditions, but we also have to recognize there's a fundamental difference between the territories and the states and what worked there may not work at all. So we also have to be cognizant that they don't have represent representatives in Congress. They didn't participate in drafting this legislation or or moving on this legislation that expanded your jurisdiction so things are different. There are different cultural sensitivities. I mean, you know, there, there, there's a legacy of a different kind of colonialism in say Puerto Rico than there is in the United States proper so we need to think about that. And as well, islands are different than the states in that the only place you can connect to the grid is to go to the island. So if we you've got, you know, a wind energy area off the state of Maryland, they can go into Delaware. So there, there, there's just different. It's a different game. And I think, you know, you need to be thinking about that as you're moving as you're moving forward on the issue of the mapping. I guess I was glad to see that it was only sort of broken into low, medium and high versus sort of these these when we try to break it into 10 groups and then we're really often going more into the data than we can really be comfortable with. But I would encourage you to think about sensitivity analysis. It's not clear what you how you're waiting things when you do trade off analyses and those are obviously going to be critical. I didn't really see much on the lot on about how you're incorporating social data into that, other than to the extent that that would be incorporated into the context of commercial fishing. Obviously a social and cultural context there, but otherwise not clear. And then it also wasn't clear on this how you're looking at the land based grid. So where are you going to locate wind energy areas also has to do with the grid. There's a big difference between having to cable 100 miles versus having to cable just sort of direct to shore so all of those, you know, there's a different ecological there's different expense economics so it wasn't clear to me how those those aspects were being incorporated either. Thank you. Thanks, Brandon. Did you raise your hand in response. Yeah, I'm going to try here, Jeremy. Thanks so much for your statements there. I just want to reiterate and I love that you're already getting into the mechanics of the modeling and wanting to see probably a little bit more under the hood. What James was able to present today was really sort of a high level overview of other MSP examples around the nation that we've employed within our partnership so you know if you want to kind of have a better sense for the way things are weighted and the way the model is has been set up for other regions, we'd be really happy to share some of those white papers I've mentioned earlier and we can probably drop those in the chat but I think that you bring up some really interesting points and that there's really this very protracted process for collecting these kind of data and engaging with public. And it's a very iterative process and some of the comments that Scott had made up front with, you know, you'd be nice to have some of the social science data or some of the USGS data with respect to geo hazards and this is all the kind of information that we're trying to get our friends around really early in a process such as this so I think that really the purpose today is for us to share with you a bit about that process but not necessarily get into a great number of details with respect to like the technicality of the model and the way that it's run and but we're certainly happy to maybe join another conversation at some point to do that or if there's time to really dive into the weeds on some of those but you bring up some great points and I think from a social science perspective. There is actually a lot of overlap to some of the resources that we have been discussing here today with respect to fisheries fisheries, commercial fisheries, traditional fisheries, sustainable ones, these are the things that I'm really keyed in on to and so I'm excited to understand a bit more about these regions. Certainly, from the workshop that we were invited to participate in with no end cost in the Caribbean, it was quite eye opening in terms of the sort of the differences in the way that these working groups work together or not who sort of who's who or the data holders in the regions and really just kind of getting a flavor for that now and I got a can emphasize more how important it is to establish these relationships and to maintain some consistency with the people that are involved all throughout the process. Something that we've definitely learned through our planning work in the Central Atlantic as well as the Gulf of Maine is that it's very important and so is engagement, building that trust to receive that information so I don't know if there's anyone else of my colleagues James that want to add to that but just wanted to follow up thanks. Thank you Brandon. James or Mike did either of you want to respond otherwise I'll turn next to Kevin. Okay, Kevin. Oh, go ahead Rodney is coming to the table just a minute Kevin. Yes, I'm Rodney click with the Division of Environmental Sciences with the phone. I just wanted to respond to Jeremy briefly, just to say that we would love your advice to help identify and and how to incorporate some of this data you know into the modeling it is it is challenging. I totally agree with you there's there's differences from what we've done before with regard to you know working in states and now with working in the territories at the shift. And we're, you know, definitely thinking through those challenges. And we have social scientists, you know, as you know people like John Primo and others that are kind of documenting what what information needs are but I think it's going to take a dialogue and you're having that back and forth. And I think with the coism and with the committee and throughout the National Academy of Sciences would really be valuable. We're at the very early stages now. Now's a really good time to actually, you know, engage and work this out because this could really kind of, you know, set the bar, you know on on a white information we need to collect as we're moving forward so and sure we get it right. Thanks Rodney. Kevin and then carry. Thanks. My question is really, really quick I think I was wondering. I didn't see in the spatial maps I didn't see a reference to endangered species is that and like the endangered species group and know are they are you pulling that in the reason I say is that it just driving in this morning there was a NPR story on the rice whale down there which I guess there are only 50 individuals left and and and they were playing the you know the songs of the whale and you could hear the seismic surveys going on in back for oil and gas so it was a pretty, pretty pointed news presentation on it and so I was wondering if if you're taking into account and working with it that you know that part of know what to pull in those and endangered species issues. I can take a step at that thanks Kevin for that question. Definitely in our process again going back to some of the examples James was able to share within the cult, sorry the natural resources sub model is where we incorporate typically like what we would call a combined data layer which would incorporate a number of endangered species and respective weights in terms of their, you know, distribution and potential for conflict any spaces. So that is certainly nested within within the model. And we can share a bit more about that and again, I probably need to drop in a in the chat here a link to those white papers. Thank you Brandon and thank you Kevin for the question I'm going to just take a quick moment before I call and carry to note there. There has been a dynamic chat going on, and I encourage folks to make use of the chat in zoom if they'd like to. I will not be referencing it for the sake of incorporating questions into the discussion, primarily because a lot of them are getting responded to in the chat. And also it's it's there and available for folks to check at any point but but I do encourage folks to use it. You're welcome to do so. So with that I'll turn to Kerry. Thank you. And thanks for all of this really thought provoking dialogue and the information you all have shared. Big picture, thinking about the social science which always seems to be like what about the social science. I think I don't know if this is appropriate to offer up but I, I think about forming a task, you're forming a task force or whatever to pursue these ideas and so on and how potentially useful it could be to identify. The natural sciences is sort of like the natural sciences how much diversity is there right, but to identify two or three individuals in particular that cover maybe a broad spectrum of that, or at least some portion of that spectrum of expertise, and engage them in an advisory capacity or some capacity, obviously not as decision makers because that's not their job, right, but to engage them to broaden but also hone the attention to the human dimensions of these processes and the activities that will follow, and the impacts and ways of mitigating them to the most of these opportunities whatever that may be. So, I too often I think we say well where is the social science data data is just one part of it data becomes information eventually maybe you get some understanding. So, by engaging with that in a very deliberate and transparent way from the get go, especially in these more complex contexts in some respects, I think that would be really fruitful. And so I just put my two cents in there. And then the one other thing sort of drilling down into the spatial modeling discussion. And I'm thinking about fisheries in particular because that's the primary area that I work in but I've been involved in a number of these different efforts. And obviously we're at the, you know, 10 or 15,000 foot view right now. But in, even at that point, and then moving forward, I think transparency on the assumptions that are being made about what those data do and do not represent, and vetting with the people who are behind those data and by that I mean the people whose activities you're capturing, as well as as agency folks who monitor those activities and so on, is really important and really valuable I recall a project I worked on a long time ago, where there was a Channel Islands Marine Reserve working group process in California. And we were working with fishing community members to map the fishing grounds and then assigning value based on a procedure we had outlined and had shared with people and so on and so forth. But one of the biggest issues was the time period we had chosen to represent in that information. And so those are the kinds of things what what fisheries are represented and how what are the time periods being used what are what what else was going on that might influence what you see there. How might those activities vary and change over time how have they done so. How might they going forward climate change, other activities emerging and things along those lines, maybe I'm stating the obvious but anyway, this became really important and we actually adjusted our choice of the time period to represent in those static maps. With fishery participants and the analysis that followed, but we were really explicit about why we were making those choices, and we were really trying to choose a breadth of time that would capture a lot of that variability. You lost the detail, but you captured that breadth of variability, but then being able to speak to that right and explain how that might influence things moving forward. So anyway, just a bundle of thoughts there. But thank you for the opportunity to weigh in a little bit. Thank you Carrie and I'll just make note of the time because of the agenda that that we have already moved into the open discussion. I hope we can continue that if we do wrap a little bit early for lunch that won't be problematic but encourage folks to raise their hand and participate in the conversation Brandon I saw you raise your hand I assume in response go right ahead. Just a bit of a follow up and I really appreciate those comments Carrie it's really spot on with some of the observations I've made through our process in working with N cost and engaging with this particular model kind of going back to my comment earlier, how this platform really offers a very tangible opportunity to engage with folks again sharing data and, you know, spatial things and trying to collect some of that information but as you say, there's context that need to be incorporated as well in some of that fact finding or data finding. And we really, we explained that quite a bit in our process while we're engaging that it's not just a point on a map or a polygon. It's really trying to get a better understanding of what actual activities are happening happening here, which are, you know, what are the trade offs, what are the time periods that are most most relevant there's some really great good examples that others might speak to with the Gulf of Mexico planning and working with shrimpers and really taking a hard look at the availability of data and, and focusing in on particular time periods where, you know, for example I think COVID had a big impact in some of their productivity. And so the idea was to use a different your class of data in order to really best represent some of the phenomenon out there and you know potential constraints. You know, I think that the engagement process actually is something that we're really looking at next or kind of evolving as well, just again through this very hands on tangible process we initiated with our planning, in that we're going to be able to, you know, tie in things like fisheries ecological knowledge traditional ecological knowledge and setting up really meaningful ways to engage to collect specifically that type of information so, but your points will received. Yeah, and I'd like to expand on that just slightly. My previous role was as a subject matter expert in the navigation field so I did do a lot of this engagement and data collecting and there you can't separate the two processes out from each other. The, we need to share information with the affected groups for them to understand what our process is and what information would be most useful for them to give us at a given moment. And then we need that information not just from them but also we need that information contextualize so we can understand what it means when we start putting it in maps and doing the mathematics with that exercise so I completely concur with your comments and I think that's one of them there are good ones, especially as we move into this new area. Thanks Ariana. Looking around the room. Rod. So thank you, Brandon in particular for those last comments you brought up the subject that I was going to raise which is, you know, including people and data that are important to the risk of being a broken record I'm going to say in any way. So in the workshops including tribal members is often is essential of course and then in MSP efforts, including indigenous traditional knowledge and also thinking and considering spatial. I'm sorry sacred landscapes is important when we were involved in the in the ocean sound which is the special area management plan up in Block Island. We were heavily engaged with local tribes early and that helped a lot with understanding some of the aspects of traditional knowledge and also sacred landscapes which had caused a lot of problems in other areas before so. There you go ahead again. Yeah, and thanks Rod points appreciated here too. You know the one other thing I'd like to add is that. These are human and ecological systems, and they're dynamic, and there are connections. Within and among people within among groups of people and activities and one of the things that I think is really valuable and you may be addressing this but I just want to give an extra plug for it which is. If something changes different people. Change what they're doing in different ways. And that depends in part on how they use space now. But it also depends on a lot of other factors that influence their opportunities and constraints and the way they think about the world. And so, with the one of the, I think one of the challenges to modeling and a great opportunity in engaging with people both with the social and natural scientific expertise and with the other forms of knowledge the local knowledge is to sort of. You know, brainstorm scenario considerations right, but a practical look at things. Ah, you mean if you're going to do something there well. These kinds of activities are occurring here these kinds of activities are occurring there and this is what it means for them and you're not going to get down to the very fine scale that would be unrealistic impractical. But understanding that there are these different ways that. It's really dynamic and it's not always predictable and to get people who have different kinds of expertise engaged in that. To avoid unintended consequences if nothing else is and by that I mean social cultural and economic consequences as well as for energy development and ecologically. It's really worth while to get that conversation going and build the trust and shared understanding of what it is you're actually talking about because we all come at this with different lenses. So anyway, thanks. Thanks Carrie. I'm going to just take a moment to encourage folks around the room to really enunciate when you speak because the room is big enough and empty enough that it's not necessarily easy for everybody around the peripheral to hear. So just the mics do a little bit of amplification but not that much. It's mostly for the folks on the line so just encourage people to really speak up. I'm going to ask Mike if your comment is in response to carries. Yes it is. Sorry. So we'll turn to Mike and then less and then Scott. Carrie just wanted to ask it. You could have something obviously it's a really important thing you just said obviously to understand the the people the places, their connections. I don't think any further thoughts about what kinds about how best phones to sort of gather, collect sort of approach that from given that, you know, you know, we're sort of totally new to the area so when we come in to the communities where we're outsiders. So I just wanted to be sort of just a little bit more methods and approaches that might be useful. It might be a conversation for sort of a broader group like you mentioned later on with the with our social scientists and maybe a couple people you know. I don't know that's been scope of what they're close it can do. I'll leave it to Stacy and others just to figure out but it sounds like that might be useful. Sorry. Hit the wrong button. I'll respond briefly. Thanks. I appreciate that, Mike. Yeah, I mean, I think that's a longer conversation and I think it's worth it. I think it's a focused conversation. I think it's really worthwhile. And there are. I wouldn't be the only person on coastal though I am cycling off. And then I definitely can think about I think of a few people I know in those in that area who would be really appropriate to engage with for some. To think this throughout loud and then and then proceed. However you determine so yeah, thanks. And like to your point about the appropriateness of COSA as a venue for this. Let me just say that we are a committee established to be of service to bone. And if this is a need or a want for the agency. We would love to find a way to support it. And so certainly it's something we can chat about. And you know, I think to Arianna's point. What you described is very much similar to this committee as well, which is we need enough education. To be able to provide you all the support. That you need. And we also. I think that it would be nonsensical for this committee to be stood up just to be educated. So we need to provide value back to you as well. And if there's a way that we can convene a group. To assist with that. That is within our charge. So I'm going to turn next to less and then to Scott. Hi everybody. I just want to mention that pursuant to James's presentation and Kerry's comments just now about uncertainty. When I was watching James do his show, it struck me that we're still at a very early stage of uptake in marine spatial planning. There are two giant leaps that we have to make. In getting the groups are working with to understand what this modeling is all about. The first is to understand what James presented. Basic data overlays and exploration of potential interactions. The second greatly is one that we're working on now to get people comfortable with scenario exploration based on theory based models. And that's a huge, that's a huge ask, much bigger than we realize when we try to work with people using dynamic models. It's too much of a black box for them. They don't understand what's going on under the hood. And it's really hard to explain it because it's like several hundred equations. So I'd like to see us make this jump first to broad acceptance of basic MSP approaches, and then make that second jump to being willing to think about the future, knowing that what comes out of models is just a thinking tool. This is not an actual prediction of what's going to happen. Thanks less. Scott. Two, two, two more comments here about the first one really about the territories which is the focus of this discussion this morning and the second one will be about marine, marine spatial planning a bit. In the territories that there is a document that the White House put together a couple of years ago, the no Mac document which I know bone has, has, has taken a look at looking at the strategic priorities for ocean exploration and characterization of the US exclusive zone. It in characterizes key science and not only physical science with social science gaps and white space, you know, kind of across the easy. It includes in the territories. I would commend you to take a as you contemplate going into other new terror, new, new, new areas, take a look at that in terms of potentially identifying some opportunities for, for other insights that could programs that you might want to encourage to address some of those gaps I think they did they did a nice job. I also note that in their emerging priorities which I assume is going to be tackled in the next round of this. They flag some key additional themes that they want to work on, which include impacts of climate change, biodiversity issues and environmental justice so it's it's not just in the physical sciences it's also social sciences as well so I would encourage you and I know Mark Mueller's. As your representative there so so you've got a seat at that table, and it's it's got folks from NOAA and USGS and other agencies so it's it's it's a useful group to deal with the second thing. Yeah, I think let's just touch on it but Jeremy brought it up initially as well. And I think we'll. I don't know if we want to get it start into it today but or really wait for this until tomorrow when we get some more tangible examples from the Gulf of Mexico, but marine spatial planning I. I think it's going to be one of the biggest challenges that bone is going to face in your in your mission I think it's and the reason it's going to be one of the biggest challenges you face is because your program has gotten mighty complicated. You know it was so easy when it was just oil and gas and a few sand projects, and you were limited and where you were working but now you've got this huge waterfront. So, you still have oil and gas, your marine minerals program is getting bigger, your, your renewables program is getting bigger we've got when now, I'm sure at some point we'll talk about potential floating is floating solar in the game I don't know we'll hear more about what they're thinking about that in the in the North Sea tomorrow. CCNS is coming, and it's huge. And I just read the latest from Exxon that they were upping the forecast or their assessment of what the storage capacity was for CCS and the Gulf of Mexico shelf from 300 gigatons which is what we heard about a year ago at a National Academy meeting to 500 gigatons that make would make the US Gulf of Mexico the Saudi Arabia of CCNS storage capacity. And I thought about that when you realize how much, how many, how much greenhouse gas volume has to be removed. Even if we do all the mitigation stuff we were talking about, we're still going to have to take some of that stuff out of the air. It's a huge, huge resource. So, you guys have all these and you're going to have some you're going to have blue hydrogen green hydrogen you can have all sorts of you'll have aquaculture in place you're going to have all these things to sort out we're going to have great examples tomorrow in the North Sea about what they're trying to sort where you guys are going to be at the forefront are trying to sort this out, or at least for the federal waters, and somehow figuring out how to make the trade offs. Jeremy said, said the word earlier but the trade offs between these different kinds of programs, how we're going to make those assessments is going to be important scenarios I think less is right is going to be a key element that in terms of guiding how we assess, you know, the different trade offs, you know, is is is a square kilometer in the Gulf of Mexico more valuable towards reducing greenhouse gases for use for CCNS or is it more valuable for winning a wind farms out there. I don't know the answer to that I have a suspicion but I don't know the answer. And, and I think these are coming up with a logic for how we do trade off analysis on on on your multi program system. You have to look after energy systems you have to look after is going to be a critical challenge so I'm going to look forward to that discussion tomorrow but I think it's going to become even equally pressing in that in the territories and that's not enough set. Thanks, Scott. Brad, I'll turn to you next. Yeah, let's look at real quick some Brad Blythe I'm the chief of the biological and social sciences branch and headquarters for bone muscle scientific integrity officer which isn't super relative to this conversation but does tie into some of it. It's really an important conversation for us and right now, you know, the COSA is is getting in on the ground floor with bone right now on these on these discussions, and just talking about the science side and the research side. One of the things that I know we've been talking about internally that are a little. I mean concerning is not the right word the considerations we have to take in one is that when Congress gave us this new authority. They did actually give us some money which was nice because it doesn't usually happen. One of that was that that money is time limited right so that has to be spent within a certain amount of time so that puts us under a little bit of of a clock and while doing research in in the Caribbean and the territories is new for bone. Right, but we don't necessarily know who those people are and having those conversations with you all and you know noting where like where we should be finding those things is really critical because the last thing we want to do is to be seen as you know parachuting in white night to solve all of your research question because nobody knows anything like what we know that's not the case but we are absolute novices in this area for the most part because we haven't been there in 50 years like we've been in other places. So I just really want to say we're grateful for this, and even just beyond the science advice that you all are giving ideas about where those connections are who we should be reaching out to we're starting to piece those things together. So we can figure those out, the better, like you don't want to inadvertently leave somebody off or leave some critical aspect out of the conversation, just out of ignorance and being novices zones area so just wanted to put that out there that the intent like Mike said is not, you know, we want to engage with the local research communities. We just need to figure out who and, and how, right. Thanks. Thank you, Brad. I'm going to quickly just respond to what Brad said and then I'm going to turn to Jake as well. I think that was a part of the motivation for the talks today. Excuse me. In particular after lunch we'll hear from three people that are serving in Noah's coral reef conservation program as liaisons. And then some of the informal planning conversations we had for this meeting. One of the topics that came up was how do you start to identify both the academicians and the holders of local or traditional knowledge or the other agencies organizations institutions that have been active in these areas. And I'm hoping that the folks we have participating after lunch that have served as liaisons can shed some insight on what has worked really well in developing those relationships and building on the existing knowledge and not looking like you're parachuting in. So appreciate that question it gave me a nice opportunity to sort of set up what I think we're hoping to hear after lunch as well with that Jake I'll turn to you. Hi everybody I'm up there we go I'm Jake Levinson. I'm a biologist in headquarters under Brad's group in the studies program. I wanted to mention one quick thing because it was that exchange between less and Scott earlier. And that's the difference between thinking tools versus policy needs. One of the things that Les and I have been working for a long long time on not a long time now but a few seems like forever but I think it's probably only been a year. On this ecosystem based management tool to develop this national framework for bone. The challenge has been communicating and less feel free to tell me if I'm wrong here but communicating what is a thinking tool to something where we need a actual policy decision need where lines on a map have to actually be drawn and things needed for NEPA and and hard concrete things that are not just thinking tools. And so one of the things I would encourage COSA and and folks at Bowman Evers. If we could maybe have that discussion about how to how to incorporate thinking tools about projecting the future versus something that is actually a line on a map. And so Scott and Les I just wanted to chime that in that that that's a challenge on our end when people are asking us for you know lines on maps and make certain determinations as opposed to things that are largely thinking tools. Go ahead Les. I want to thank Jake's for for bringing that up. And I think that that that it will be impossible to engage with local populations the way we would like to, until we solve the problem that Jake mentioned. And it's it's not I mean we invested heavily in the technical side of how do you do it. How do you model it, but this business of how do you get people to understand how to use it is just absolutely critical and really really challenging. Arianna were you going to say something. Let's talk. So, there's a lot of good things coming out here and I there is one plug I do want to make to share which is we have put a lot of time and effort and energy into our website every project that we're working on has its own project page, which goes through the status and all the past documentation also has all the previous meetings associated with that project on there that have been recorded so presentations associated with the project, the end coast reports are published to that website as well. So, we do try and make sure that we do have access for people to suss out those resources in the best way possible. We do have some historical examples there in terms of information sharing, but as always we're very happy to try and improve we do have a communications team that wants to make sure that people are being accessed in the way that's most functional to them and we're talking to the right people. So if anyone has any suggestions based on those examples, we'd also very much welcome that as well. All right, I'm looking around the room I don't see any additional tent cards but looking around the peripheral any, anybody holding back. All right, and and one more opportunity for folks on the line to chime in. Excellent. Well let me just say, pardon me excuse me. Let me just say thank you to Ariana to Mike to Brandon and to James really appreciate the time. I know that COSA has been very intrigued and interested since hearing about the expanded jurisdiction into what sort of bones current thinking is and recognizing that it's very early in your process that there's still a lot to do I think. As much as anything we appreciate the opportunity to to shed some insight and also to gain some understanding at the early stages. So while I know it can be uncomfortable to to say much when things are still in so much flux we really appreciate you offering us this opportunity today. I am as I mentioned really excited to continue the conversation after lunch. I think one of the things that I've heard come up in the conversation a few times today is the need to capitalize on existing information knowledge networks, etc. And again, the speakers that will be coming after lunch I know one of the important caveats they wanted me to share with this group is that they're not experts in the energy field that their focus is in coral reef conservation and fisheries. Nonetheless, I thought that they would add value to this meeting by being able to share with us their experiences serving as a liaison between Noah and the communities within which they operate. And again, some best practices or thoughts or reflections on developing networks, engaging in a territory different than necessarily another state or region within which you all have operated before so. You know, recognizing their limited focus in terms of subject matter, I think they'll be able to offer a wealth of input in terms of, again, best practices lessons learned and some connections in these areas as well. So I have a quick question I understand, of course, that much of the focus is on wind and Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. And so my question is about the other uses and the other territories is. And I'm not quite sure who this is directed to but is the other areas of the other uses being folded in at the same time and considered, or is that is this going to be a kind of sequential kind of process. Yeah, I'll just start with we're focusing on the Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands and the Caribbean US territories right now as a matter of resource prioritization that is the most likely scenario where there will be commercial demand for a commercial scale project. And accordingly we're doing that we're not foreclosing that option, but it is where our efforts are focused. And I guess, Ron, I don't know if this is getting to part of your question but in some of the planning work we've been doing in Central Atlantic Gulf of Maine we're certainly consulting with other folks within Boehm like from our marine minerals groups to make sure that we're you know, not potentially impacting some of the resources that they're concerned with is does that get at all what you're also asking about in terms of sort of overlap with other programs within Boehm and how we applied some of the planning tools. Yeah, a little bit but I was also thinking about expansion of US territories, the other territories and the other uses and the other programs. Yeah. Jeremy. Yeah, there's just a quick question about the money that you have so how much. And then someone mentioned that there was a deadline by which you needed to spend it so is it when is that deadline is it an allocation or is it an actual spend out so it'll give us, you know, as a committee some some thoughts about maybe how you might go ahead and use it. Thank you. Well, let me let me try to help it actually I'd look to Jessica Bravo to be make sure we got the number of years right on these statutes but I mean essentially message it again Rod I thought what Arianna said is there's some discussion about the the actual scope, given the amendment but I bet I bet I think the amendments pretty clear that it's all the US territories, but the administration has decided. Right now, the focus is the Caribbean and probably next would be a look at Americans who go home and the Mariana. And very few resources are being applied elsewhere at this point. And then it's three or four years. Jessica, do you recall. We have to have obligations made by the end of the fiscal year 2026. So that that's not expended that's obligated. So it can we can spend past that, but it has to be assigned to a project by and how much is seven and a half. So I just just over $7 million and that was correct so we're basically are 24 right now. So we have the rest of this year, and then 25 and 26 but to be honest, we don't like to wait for the last fiscal year because sometimes projects don't get it don't launch as expected and there's delays so I would say that really want to spend that money with the next two years. Thanks Mike. Hello everybody. It's nice to see some new faces around some old faces I've been away for a while my name is Jeremy Potter I'm the Pacific region studies chief. I was overseas for a year so I've been kind of out of the loop on the discussions within COSA. So you see Scott wanted, I think there are a couple things being intermixed right now related to the IRA funding and the territories. It is worth noting that the Pacific region and the studies development plan that you would have reviewed, maybe a couple years ago maybe two years ago we had some work in Pacific Territories culture marine heritage. Geneva right, who I am ecstatic has joined the Pacific region as a marine archaeologist, just two months ago was online can speak a little bit about the those two studies in the territories, which are completely separate from the IRA funding. And it happened. So it's been two years in the process worth in those cameras now but Geneva are you online. Hello everyone. Thanks for the introduction. Yes, I can speak briefly to the two studies and I think that it goes in alignment with a lot of what we've heard from the other discussions that you know we really recognize the need for baseline information and for these two studies that data that you're seeing is focused on cultural heritage so specifically looking at gaining some archival information and desktop based based information on historic properties on indigenous communities, but also trying to think through not only how those would be in terms of bombs activities but also trying to develop some best practices and protocols for our engagement and consultation responsibilities with indigenous communities in America Samoa and the CNMI and happy to gather more information is needed for this group. Thanks. Thanks Jeremy and thank you Geneva as well. Mike. That was legacy and politics. No worries. Jeremy is your card still up. No, that's okay. Excellent. Bill. I think to sort of put it, maybe a little bit more of a cap on it. We do have a significant expiring funding under the IRA and it's seven something for the studies program. But there's nothing that to stop bone from using other funds with the same kind of flexibility we have now, and the work that you know that the cost of what Arianna is doing is not not the studies program. Just a quick follow up though is, is it is it all going to be restricted to wind only or can other resources be considered in those programs. I'm thinking about some of the Pacific territories. To remember for sure. I would say and Mike please add on if I if I capture this incorrectly but the the intent behind collecting a lot of this bio geographical data this social sciences data is broadly applicable for other programs if we are pursuing that in the future. Yeah, I mean that's for sure the case much of what we're looking for is broadly applicable as Jessica said. Thank you. Brad, were you coming to the table to speak. You're good. Excellent. All right, less your hands. Yeah, I just want to point out that we're starting to define areas of major challenge that have to be brought together into one puzzle to be able to do ecosystem based management. And another thing that's going to cause a communication frenzy is when we start using AI very heavily. Which is coming. And we use it to pattern search to identify processes that could impact human well being or or the benefits and costs of any particular project. So I really think that some help with communicators would be great. To define these areas of novelty that it would be really great for bone to integrate into its practices, but along with that, a plan to help explain to people how it works and why it's useful. Thank you less. All right. I'm not seeing any more 10 cards. Not seeing any more hands. Yep. Go ahead and break a little bit early for the lunch. And for COSA members. Eric, can you tell us what they're doing in terms of lunch? Yeah, lunch is right across the hall in room 010. And for our guests in the room. Apologies that you had to come a little bit further because I know this facility is not nearly as nice or accessible as our in AS building, but it is more food friendly. So there are lots of options for dining around here. We also have an atrium that has a step up from vending options. It's a small cafeteria without live service on the third floor. But it does have access to things like microwaves and coffee and other things you may seek on our third floor. And if you have any questions about what's available around here, don't hesitate to approach me or Eric. We'd be happy to point you in some directions. And we will reconvene after lunch at 1 o'clock. Thank you. We are moving so I think we will be getting underway here in just a moment. Thank you for your patience those on the line and thank you all in the room for coming back promptly. We are going to get started by continuing our conversation about bones expansion of jurisdiction into the territories. And as I mentioned. In the discussion session of our last conversation. One of the things that we heard in our planning calls before this meeting was about a mechanism that in costs is used in their coral reef conservation program. To help with the development of networks. And that's been tapping into a liaison program. So again, it's one mechanism that they've used. And I thought we would reach out to some of the liaisons in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. To see if they could share with us a bit about their experience. Some sort of best practices thoughts about how an agency operates in the territories builds networks there earns and gains trust. What are some considerations as bowman barks in this new jurisdiction that you know based on their experiences are best practices. And I've asked them each just to give a few minutes of informal remarks. And we can really create more of a conversation over the next hour. And I'll turn first if I could just ask each of you to introduce yourselves before you speak. That would be very helpful. We did round the room introductions this morning. So I apologize we won't go through the full committee again. But if folks have questions on who we are, feel free to ask and we'll try to remember to introduce ourselves. When we're speaking also. So on that note, I'm Stacy Karris senior program officer and director for the Costa committee from the national academies. Leslie, can I turn it over to you first. Sure. Hi everyone. My name is Leslie Henderson, and I am the US Virgin Islands Coastal Zone and coral management liaison. So I'm funded through office for coastal management and I handle both coastal and coral liaisoning liaising with the territory I sit in St. Croix. So I have a small office here in St. Croix that I share with DeNora. I mostly work from home. So I'm going to pass it to DeNora next to introduce herself. Good afternoon, everyone. Hi, nice to meet you. My name is DeNora Chassine, and I am the NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service liaison for the USVI. I don't know if I should give a little bit background on my position, but essentially my position is funded by the coral conservation program. But it's housed by NOAA Fisheries under the Habitat Conservation Division. So I'm involved in assisting coral restoration activities in the USVI. I sit in St. Croix like with Leslie. My position also implements the provisions of the Magnuson Stevens Act, which involves essential fish habitat consultations for regulatory projects that have federal nexus. And so for these projects, I work closely with NOAA Protective Resources Division and usually the US Army Corps of Engineers, who is the main permitting agency. Yeah, so I think I'll stop there. But some aspects of my position have already been established, such as the regulatory component, while others fall within the general topic of habitat conservation and whatever the need is in the territory. And here in the USVI, there's a lot of need related to coral conservation, restoration, and disease response. And so I work with Leslie and many others on those topics. I'll pass it on to Elena. Thank you, Dinora. Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for having us. My name is Helen Antoon. I am the NOAA Fisheries, Fishery Liaison for Puerto Rico. Like Dinora, I am funded under the Coral Conservation Program, but I sit in the NOAA Fisheries line office and I am in the Protective Resources Division. So as Fishery Liaison, I provide jurisdictional support to the Puerto Rico Department of Natural Environmental Resources. And I also do section seven consultations. So I also work with permitting in the consultation process of section seven. And yeah, if you have any other questions, I'll be more than happy to answer it later on. Thank you. Leslie, did you want to provide any initial remarks? Initial remarks, that sounds really fancy. Sure, sure. Yeah, thanks for having us. I think I mentioned the other day, like, I think it's, it's really good that you guys are asking this question and asking how best to approach local community. One of the things to keep in mind as you are starting to work in an area like the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico is that the staff capacity of the government agencies that you're trying to tap into is very, very low. And many of those folks will be being asked by not just you, but lots of other federal agencies, private industry, nonprofits, everybody's coming to the same people. And so they have limited bandwidth and limited time. And sometimes it can seem like, oh, this person's not responding to me, but maybe, you know, email's varied. So little frequent reminders can be, can be really helpful. So that's one overarching thing that as you're coming into the territory that I like to tell people, everybody's very busy because they are very busy. Are there any like specific questions that you want me to just kind of go over a few tips and tricks or are there specific areas that. No, I think this group's particularly interested at least in starting the conversation with some best practices for developing networks and inroads and trust among the communities, the institutions and the organizations within the territories. So if you have any feedback on that starting there and sort of pose that question to all three of you as well. Okay, so it's good. Well, the first thing is, if there is any way to have local staff that is night and day makes a difference having someone here or there in Puerto Rico in the island that is living the same challenges and is able to meet with people in person that is very valuable and that's obviously coral program solid value and that which is why we exist. And I think, I mean, I like to think our jobs are very worthwhile and usually the territory is very, very happy to support us. So having local staff not only located in the island but if you're able to hire a local person that's even better because they're going to really understand intricacies of the community that you're trying to tap into. Obviously, if you can't find a local candidate that that fits your criteria, you know, hiring off island but bringing them down here is really, really important. One other thing that I definitely usually will recommend to people who are trying to get touch with local partners is, I know we like to email a lot of a phone call will work a lot better with some of these agencies, there are quite a few agencies and people that I work with that almost never answer my emails but if I give them a phone call like they're like oh yeah what do you need I'll do that right now. So, keeping that in mind that emails not always the best method of communication. That's one thing. Another common courtesy thing to just keep in mind for the vi is always start every conversation with good morning or good afternoon. It's considered very, very rude to just start. Hey, I need this from you or hey can you do this or anything else it really needs to be good morning good afternoon, or good evening if you have it to be working later. Let's see I'll pass it to denora if she wants to say a few things and I'll think of a few more. Thanks Leslie although you're ready cover some of what I was going to say. Yeah, so in general, I would say tapping to your connections if you already have their existing networks that have been established. Use them to your favor as a way and so I, I'm definitely involved in the conservation world so that's like, you know, what I can think of but I do know for example some things some, I guess connections come to mind like there's a Caribbean area of practice that was started by the Southeast Conservation Adaptation Strategy. This is a group of biologists, conservations resource managers all in the southeast region and they have been working on on a blueprint and expanding here in the Caribbean region. There's a lot of people involved there from, you know, the local folks and so there's already connections being made there. I think we talked briefly the other day about the spatial planning workshop that took place earlier this year. I think Jennifer right from and because was the US Korean person coordinating this event and there's a lot of folks that attended this meeting which includes some from BOM and the local government DPNR, Department of Planning Natural Resources, there's people from the Caribbean Fisher Management Council in there. There's like a whole list of folks that were here all talking together communicating specific, you know, related to this topic of bringing, you know, energy and whatnot into the territory so tapping to those connections that you may already have. I work a lot with the US Army Corps of Engineers and Tilly's Regulatory Office so that covers both Puerto Rico and the USVI so I think Jose Alicia was the new chief if I am correcting his position but I work a lot with Karen Eurelius on all the permitting for projects here so they're, you know, they're already working with the local government here and in Puerto Rico so I highly suggest to talk to them and they may be able to facilitate some connections to a few comments that let's see already touched on the capacity in here in the Caribbean is limited the folks wear many, many hats everybody is maxed out so I, you know, I repeat basically just reach out more than once in the first time doesn't work out and find other ways to communicate. Leslie suggested a phone so that may be a way cultural etiquette so good morning good day good afternoon Leslie was kind enough to let me know about that pretty early on when I started and seems like a small detail but goes a long way. Let me see what else so that I can think. Yeah, the USVI is very small and like I said, folks wear many hats and so everybody works in collaboration a lot and so one folks may know someone else, even if they may not be the one person you're looking for they'll be happy to connect you. It's a small community and everybody like to think that works well together so and has been very welcoming at being only two years here in the territory and has been a pleasure working here. I think I'll stop there maybe pass it on to Elena see if she would like to add some other thoughts. Thank you, Deenora. Yeah, definitely everything that Leslie and Deenora just said also applies to Puerto Rico in terms of capacity and, you know, people here are wearing many hats and it is very difficult sometimes DNA are they prominent natural resources they outsource a lot of their work because they don't have the capacity to do it themselves so yeah that is a big, big issue. In terms of recommendations, working in the territories, just to add on to what has already been said, just, you know, fostering good working relationships with local and state, local state and federal partners is really important. You know, just having that one-to-one conversations with DNER with Sea Grant is a really key component here in Puerto Rico, Caribbean Fishery Management Council, they're also very, those are key people. Other things that I would say is stay engaged and up to date on current events, specific to the topics or areas that are of interest to you. So if you're interested in doing some energy expansion into the Caribbean, to Puerto Rico, stay up to date with what is happening here in the island in terms of what people are looking for and what their perceptions are and, you know, where they want to go. There are a lot of people that are looking into the wind energy, as we know there was that workshop. My recommendation would be, you know, keep those connections and, you know, engage with them a lot as much as you can. And hold regular check-ins with people, really important, out of sight, out of mind. If you don't, you know, keep those check-ins, you kind of get lost in the background. And in terms of community, this part gets a little tricky. You need to get to know the community. This is really, really important. And I was listening in a little earlier to the conversation and I think you guys are pretty well, you know, you're pretty down on what you need and what you need to do. And was it Carrie? She gave a list of people, names of people. I'm not familiar with the USVI ones, but she was spot on with the ones in Puerto Rico. I would just add Juan Agar to that list. Yeah, get involved, you know, stay connected with the community. Get to know who can help you connect with them. And the list that Carrie provided is an excellent list. And understand the community's needs. That is, that was my first thing going into, when I first started as, before NOAA, I was a Fisher Liaison for the Caribbean Fishery Management Council. And I did a lot of outreach to commercial fishing communities. And it was really, really key, understanding what were their needs and what were their perceptions and listening to them. And addressing that before coming and bringing in whatever other thing we had in, you know, in our agenda. You know, putting in the community's needs first and, you know, prioritizing it, that was really, really important. And be very transparent with them. That I learned is, you know, it may not be easy. I mean, there's, you know, especially in my case, you know, we are the face of the government. So we get a lot of the frustration and anger and, you know, from, you know, things that they go through and just understand it's not personal. But once they see that, you know, that you're coming in with their concerns and interests in mind and, you know, something that you are concerned about. And when they see that you're being transparent with what your intentions are and what you want to do, start building the trust. But it's also very important to connect with the community with key people. At least that was my experience. Having, you know, community leaders or people that already have well-established trust within the community, you know, have them help you do all the connecting. And then from there, you can snowball. Sorry, you can snowball it. If I may add, I just added something in the chat, but if I may speak for Puerto Rico, someone who speaks Spanish, you need to have someone who can handle the language and can communicate effectively with, you know, local government and the community. Yes. Thank you, Dinora. Very important. Yes, that is, that's a must. With the agencies, it's not so important. Everybody pretty much is pretty much bilingual in the agencies. But yes, if you are going to be out in the communities, it has to be fluent in Spanish. Thank you, each so much. I think this has been sort of a wonderful catalyst for some discussion. And I want to give folks an opportunity if you're in the room to either use your, your tent cards or your actual hands to raise your hand if you're online to use your raise hand feature to start some conversation in this regard and really about thinking about how bone might tap into some of the existing resources in these territories. Maybe I can start and then I'll turn to Jeremy. One question I'd like to pose to the three of you is what, what in thinking about sort of the uniqueness of the territories relative to other regions that bone has operated in, and, and perhaps Noah before they were there as well. The sort of democratic differences, the representation on the hill, the history of the areas, etc. How do those shape or does that shape how you all approach communicating with local people, local institutions, other territorial departments and agencies. How does that shape your communications with them or doesn't have any influence at all. I'll jump in and I'll just say I try to keep politics out of everything. Great. All right, I'll turn to Jeremy less and then Jack. Yeah, yeah, thank you. Thank you. All three of you is really, I think, in part it's some quite useful information I've got two questions. One is in the territories that you're working in. Is there a different conception of time. Then, then we all have sort of in the lower 48 because I know that's true of a lot of other cultures and then that has to then go into how what our expectations are and how we, we interact with different different cultures so that would be one and then we see things like transparency are going to be really important and building up these trust relationships. How important though is sort of moving towards you know somewhat towards the model that the administration is moving towards with indigenous people of moving more towards a sort of co management model and is that becoming something that's being discussed in the in the territories even in the, in the, the federal waters. Thank you. I can try and answer that one island time is definitely a real thing things take longer everything takes longer. So whatever you think you can get done in two weeks, double it. We usually I usually deal with that by making sure I give like early deadlines that leave wiggle room, but also hard deadlines are kind of setting yourself up to fail. So, yes, time, time moves slowly and you have to you have to account for that. I also will say in answer to the previous question that church church groups are really really important down here. So there's a very strong religious component. So I also stay out of politics and kind of like try not to talk about that with with folks but it's very religious and the VI. And then the second happier question was can you repeat the gist of that or did somebody else hear it and want to answer. It was just going to the issue of is there becoming some sense that there should be more coma co management in the territories in the federal waters. I would say, not necessarily. I think that the local community is definitely jurisdictional waters. We also have National Park Service that has those federal waters, they do co manage specific areas but things outside of the three, the three mile limit. Don't usually come up in a lot of conversation, unless there is a spawning aggregation there are a couple spawning aggregations out there with lots of reefs and fish and so that would be a significant interest to the local government but a lot of open areas. We don't have challenges with like large shipping vessels coming into to ship just outside just outside there so we don't have that challenge that I know the Pacific Islands do, but I'll pass it to my colleagues if they have a different answer or the same answer. Yeah, I just I just wanted to briefly add on to like the timing question. Something to keep in mind, you know the US and Puerto Rico are part of the US but they're also in terms of shipping and traveling considered like international. So you need to think about, you know, when you're shipping or everything takes longer you have to cost them so you have to do all these processes so for operation purposes if you're shipping equipment or whatever you know all that you need to maybe think about that and well folks here you know are very busy and very efficient at your other jobs. There's also other things that are out of their control that kind of do rolling to that you really need to be flexible with time if you can and deadlines just because they're just things that everybody smacks out and some things are out of their control so yeah I think that's all I wanted to add about the questions. So Puerto Rico same thing island time. Same issue. I would just say regarding the Co management. No, we haven't moved in that direction. Definitely something that I think we should aspire to in many areas and for many reasons. What I will say is there is you can you can notice a difference in how, at least when it comes to federal management, even, you know, even though it's in the there isn't really any co management happening but there is definitely an effort to have more community engagement and providing more opportunity for the community to engage in management and discussions and management decisions. At a state level, it is very top down. It's not easy for the community to get engaged with the local government and that has been one of the challenges that we have always had in terms of outreach and and management, per se and fisheries. Thank you each. So, Les Jack, Katrina, Scott, and Bill. Yeah. Thank you guys so it was great. I have two quick questions. The first is, has the big push for coral reef restoration and stewardship in the territories, been of any help as a catalyst in engaging more with local communities more directly. And the second question is, we have very little site specific data on the meso pelagic the reef faces, the drop offs, and on the bathroom habitats at the base of the reef in excess of 400 meters. I'm just wondering if the local people include those zones in their conception of the ocean that they're relating to. That's it. Thanks. I can start by saying that one of the challenges we do have is getting locals involved in coral restoration and and that is largely a training gap right it's expensive to be a scuba diver. But we have a lot of initiatives that are focused on how to engage them in other ways or how to help them get certified and trained. So we're trying to address that but because it is an issue. So I think restoration itself. I don't know if it's been a catalyst. It's just the latest thing that we are trying to engage local community in another university the Virgin Islands does a great job in tapping into the local community and youth groups and getting them trained in things like the water tables or mangrove outland where they're not they don't have to go swimming because swimming is not innate for the local community. A lot of people do not swim. So it's hard to go from not swimming to scuba diving and doing restoration. Anybody else want to want to chime in on on that one. I will say yes. A short answer. I would. I mean as an example. One of the things that we have I mean locals usually the local NGOs that do a lot of the restoration work. And they have made it you know one of their key priorities to engage local communities and to hire. The local communities of the area to be more involved in one great example I can give you is Sociedad Ambienta Marino. They have a lot of cooperation projects in Pulebra and they work with the people in Pulebra and they bring those young kids and you know they have you know and they train them they take care of everything so I would say yes. I would agree. I forgot what the other question was. Oh the benthic. I'm not sure. I mean it's just I'm not sure like in terms of what I would say the fishermen are very well knowledgeable very knowledgeable about the benthic that you know that you know they're fishing grounds and like they understand you know what is where deep water fishing and all that sort of stuff. But I'm not sure if that is the direction that you were you were going with the question. Yeah I agree. I think just just like what you're saying depends who you ask right some people are going to be very aware of. I think you call that Miso Benthos but you pull the average Virgin Islander and and no they're not going to know what's beyond what's beyond the surface of the water much less what's down what's down deep with our managers. Wildlife CCM and fishermen you know those folks there they are going to include that in their thinking. Yeah and there's there's I mean definitely more in the shallow will have more you'll be able to find more data but there's definitely data available I don't know specific areas that you're looking in that you may identify as there's a gap. But there's lots of efforts to survey and. You know quantify categorize as much as possible in in both jurisdictions. And Noah was a lot of those platforms. Thanks Jack Katrina and Scott and then Bill. Good afternoon thanks for joining this conversation with us I'm Jack Barth I'm an oceanographer from Oregon State University. And I'm just wondering about another Noah group, the integrated ocean observing system Caracus in your region. And I'm wondering, do you participate in that and could it be a framework for bone as they enter into this area. I think Caracus is a very important. They are very important to include in the conversations they are, you know they have their buoys they have their oceanographic oceanographic data. So, yeah, definitely agreed. Thank you, Katrina. Thank you I really appreciated the contributions that were made from the island perspective. And maybe odd as it sounds it really resonates with me I'm located in Alaska and so we do have a lot of tribal entities in Alaska, particularly in the architect where I mostly work. And so a lot of the things that were that were being said in terms of respect and those kind of things resonate very, very deeply. And I actually was about to take my hand down because Jeremy asked the two of the main things that I was interested in the timeframe as well as their co management approach but then left it up. Also just to say and wonder if that's similar for the, the territories here. If we go and we try to engage with Alaska indigenous tribes. There's that fatigue that that I think was mentioned before. And everybody wears 58 hats in the communities and they just don't necessarily have that capacity. So it does require a lot of patience, but also one of the things I think that that that feeds into this fatigue is that a lot of community members feel that western scientists come in and they bring this idea forward, and they basically overpower any, any, any, you know, local knowledge or whatever they don't take that time. It's not really response time but also the time to develop a relationship, the time to, to give people to respond. It's not, you know, it's not a conversation that you would typically have as if you have, let's say to western scientists in a room that is not on spec and force but there is oftentimes a time to think and to collect thoughts and to just be there and listen to these things is very important. And then the one thing long, long winded story short is to also then bring back to the community. Here in Alaska at least and again I wonder if similar experiences in the islands in the territories. You can't just go and say, okay, listen, this is what we want to do. Does that sound good to you and then never show up again. The relationship means you need to come back and you need to bring back results or, you know, inform and the community about what was done what, you know, how it's being pushed forward or whatever, and engage them and those in those processes as well. Thank you, Katrina. Scott. Hi, my name is Scott Cameron I'm a geologist from the Olympic Peninsula of Washington state. I have really appreciate your perspectives on on trying to implement your program there at the local level. And this is looking at, you know, a fairly ambitious effort to install, you know, wind capacity and power capacity, you know, throughout the US on the offshore, and, and I think the look at the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico is a relatively I'm wondering how, how much information has been shared with the communities there how aware of is the community are the local communities about what's involved with offshore wind. That's my first question and and how and relative to that how important would you suggest to bone that having a consistent communications package on that would be helpful. My second question has to do with clearly areas of interest overlap both with federal jurisdiction and and state or territorial jurisdiction. And to what degree in your projects, you know, have you handled engagements jointly with state or territorial representatives, or not, and any kind of lessons learned you have from that experience so those kind of two questions there. Thank you. So I'll jump in and start with with saying in terms of how aware it's a community on the projects that are being proposed. Honestly, I have no idea. A good but but then again it goes back to my what I was saying earlier like stay connected with the community. So there are NGOs that I do know the environmental NGOs and El Puente is another is an NGO here that we have in Puerto Rico. They are very, you know, focused in getting that outreach and education on renewable energy and, you know, sustainable energy so they would probably be a good contact to get, you know, get in touch with to disseminate that kind of information and then again Sea Grant would also be like another source that you could, you know, help disseminate all that community information. Very good question. It has to do a lot with communications like what is the best way to get the information out there. But I think if you start with like the local NGOs and some of the other programs that we have like the Sea Grant program, I think that's a good start. And then from there you can, you could snowball it. Leslie. Yeah, I'll just say for the VI folks are very aware of wind energy right you know like it's a very sailing is very popular that's wind energy and a lot of boats have little wind turbines and there are a few folks with small windmills. I don't think that the views, the view scape of a wind farm would be palatable to most people. I think looking out and seeing the horizon like you're going to be fighting that whole view scape thing that I think you're probably used to fighting. And so messaging, maybe, you know, you want to say propaganda about beautiful wind turbines and how they they don't really take up your, your skyline would be would be important. I don't think the communities aware of this initiative and this project for the VI solar is is king everyone is investing in solar. We understand very well the importance of not relying on the power grid. You know, we've had lots of months without power and so people have really turned to solar as the solution so maybe tapping into some of the inroads that solar has already made to be so accepted. The one the one hurdle for solar is just the cost, not everybody can install panels on their on their house but that's that's what I would say for the VI. Yeah, I think the only thing I would add is that I'm sure you're well aware but power here the cost of electricity is very expensive, very, very expensive. And so it's my personal view but I would like to think that the VI would be open to consider or happy to have another option that may help with that, you know, challenge of really paying your bill every month that is astronomical. And what was it, I think there was a second question. And thank you, thank you all that was all extremely helpful and then the second kind of question was, you know, you have joint jurisdiction out here between the, the territories the states if you will, and and and the feds. How would you, based on your experience in having dealt with some of those overlaps trend, you know, boundary issues, how would you recommend BOM aimed to work with the the local agencies on engagement. Well, I don't think you'd have a problem with the engagement I think the engagement will be there the only thing I would just caution is be sensitive to the local government. Sometimes, you know, we feel like the federal government is encroaching over us. So I would just, you know, say just be, you know, sensitive, sensitive to that. Like, don't, don't automatically assume that something that the federal government would implement in their area will be automatically, you know, adopted in state waters, you know, they're, they're, they're the differences. So, yeah, just sorry. Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, no, I didn't mean to cut you off. I was just trying to think of, I don't know if I work in a project yet, but there's like an intersection there. But I mean, a lot of the projects for that are regulatory in terms of and we do essential fish habitat consultations. Because there's a, you know, some federal nexus, we work closely with most of the time is the US Army course of engineers, but also the local government in terms of like the permitting and all that. So there's, there's a good connection already established and system. Yeah, you know, what's, what's, you know, what, what, what are shut off the different checkpoints that the US Army comes from engineers needs needs to work on depending on what the work is. Is it, is it on the land? Is it close to the ocean? Is it in coastal water? Is it like, you know, where is the project located? And there is that intersection depending on the project location of the agencies involved in that. But my experience so far has been always, at least here in, in US BI, good relationship between the US Army course of engineers and, you know, the permitting aspect of the coastal soil management that helps. Call on Bill and then Jim and then myself. Good afternoon. I'm Bill Brown with bone and, you know, we're interested in potentially leasing offshore, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands for wind and I, and I'm interested. And we've sort of, we've touched on issues of indigenous peoples, but actually we've, it's that clear so far from the conversation, whether the, what we're talking about our particular indigenous peoples, our communities, you know, versus the broader community. I would love to have, you know, you know, I'm sure you appreciate that the federally recognized tribes here we're making a huge effort to connect with. Are there particular indigenous groups in VI or Puerto Rico that we should be sure to make sure we approach early and engage in if we can. Are there. So in Puerto Rico, we don't have indigenous tribes or that sort for such such groups what I would just say is we do have communities. And of course the coastal communities will be more, you know, affected than the inner communities or those that are living in the city and don't really have any. Don't have, don't are not affected by what happens offshore. So it would be similar in the sense that you would want to identify what the, what communities, you know, which communities are there and which ones will be impacted in any sort of way by any potential project. And, and yes, I mean, you would have to, I mean, I would recommend that you do try to engage them and get the information and do a lot of outreach with them. But look at it in terms of communities and not tribes, because we don't have that sort of separation here. Let me just follow up. I don't mean tribes. I mean, like Taino or any other, any other communities that were there before colonization, but I hear is no. Oh, no, well, well, I mean, yes, I mean, there were in the Indian, the Indian tribes, the Taino Indians that were that were here. Exactly. See, see, I was at, yes, there were Indians, but when in the US, I mean, I know my question is, are they still there and we should know to them. Yeah, yeah, that's, that's what I understood. Okay, my name is Jim Kendall. I'm the regional director for Balm in the Gulf of Mexico. Just recently, I just moved there about this time last year and took over in February. Before that, I spent 11 years in Alaska. And listening to the conversation here, the islands, I've been hearing terms very familiar to me with Alaska and our colleague, your colleague there from Alaska sort of connected for me. I heard terms like the integrated ocean observing system, you know, co-management, relationship building, benefits to local communities, etc. My very last meeting in Alaska was in Yüktyogvik, formerly known as Barrow, where we met with the community. In that case, the community was basically the whalers, but that included anybody on the North Slope who wanted to join us for three days at the museum. And we did something that is one step beyond using indigenous and local knowledge. And that is the co-production of knowledge involving the local people in the design of a study. In this case, the IUs, or the Usas as we call them, from Alaska, the North Pacific, and the Pacific Isles visited with some of us who were on the board to talk with the community on if we're going to put wave bullies out there. Where do you think they should go? I mean, after all, if you're going to put something in their backyard, you ought to ask to them. Lo and behold, that was probably the best meeting I've attended and it was my send-off. I even got an Inupiat name there. But the whalers agreed to install the buoys for the Usas, in this case, AUs, where they thought the measurement should be made. And in return for that, the Usas were developing an app for the whalers iPhone so they could get the data and use it. So the Usas, in this case for Alaska, AUs, got observing data in the offshore in the Arctic for the general Usa system. But the community immediately got the data for their own safety and use. And so that was the co-production of knowledge one step better than the use of indigenous knowledge. And that was a relationship that was absolutely fantastic. So I know we're talking about projects for bone building wind farms and stuff, but we're also talking science. So if you can get the local communities involved in the decision making for the science, like where do you think we ought to make measurements? You'll probably learn some things that you didn't think about, especially people that have lived there for generations. They've got 50, 60, 70, 100 years worth of information and you've got data for maybe 20 years from a mooring boy. So anyways, that's just sort of what I got from this, that there's so much you can get from communities, but you've got to go one step further and let them invest in what you're doing. So I'll try to end it there. Thank you, Jim. That actually is a great segue to the question that I was going to pose, which I heard the feedback earlier about opportunities and mechanisms like Sea Grant and local NGOs for communicating information to the populace. But what about tapping into the knowledge that exists there or the science that's being conducted there, whether traditional knowledge or otherwise? And I guess I'm wondering if there are some outlets or opportunities for tapping into that and sort of what are the best practices for attempting to do so? Are there sensitivities about sharing information with the government or anything of that nature that they should be aware of and trying to capitalize on and also engage and involve the knowledge of others that are already present in the area? I'm not sure I can answer this question, but something did come to mind while hearing the question and it's just cultural resources and sensitive areas. And, you know, for that, you may need to tap into the cultural resource specific, I guess, agender groups here. I can think that the Nature Conservancy, for example, who's here in St. Croix, they have a partnership with or a relationship with the Society of Black Archaeologists. And they work along with them. And I mean, their location, their inland nursery locations are, you know, in a plantation located in a plantation of, you know, very historical importance. And so, you know, there is ways to communicate with, you know, the people that have knowledge on cultural resources and that they also conduct outreach to maybe tapping to communities that you may be seeking to reach out. I'm not sure that answers your question, but that's what has come to mind. Maybe I can provide it like an example or I'm thinking, as one potential example, things like really productive fishing areas or fishery resources, you know, is that something that they are eager to share information about or perhaps reluctant to share information about? Are there ways to build the trust so that their knowledge of those resources can be more readily shared? Is that, is your role as a liaison for NOAA, has that helped to lubricate some of those channels? Sorry, I got disconnected for a second, but I think I caught what you were saying just before. Okay, so speaking of the fisheries point of view, they will, you know, they will provide you some information, but yes, there's definitely, like, they will not give you the specifics of, you know, where they go fish. That's, you know, that's a taboo. You don't try to know where the fisherman, where his exact spot or site is. That's, you know, very top secret information. This is, I'll just say it just goes back to talking with, you know, engaging with the community and building that trust. They can provide, I mean, you can get, like, pretty good engagement with the community and get, you know, very, you know, valuable local information, as was mentioned before. It's, we've done that before, there have been workshops before and they have been very successful. But yeah, it is just getting that connectivity with the people. That's where getting to know who you need to connect with that will help you connect with that community. That's where, you know. Yeah. And I think a role as fisheries liaison, for example, like my role, always people say, oh, you work with a fisherman and actually that's not true. I don't really work directly with fishermen. I, my role connects the habitat conservation aspect of, you know, fisheries with the local government here. Now within the division of Fish and Wildlife, they have their own liaison, I think, with the fishermen. And the liaison with the Caribbean Fisheries Management Council. And so, you know, there are different liaison roles to make those connections with the group that you need to tap into, I guess. Rona? Hi, I just like to come back briefly to the issue of indigenous peoples in the Caribbean, the Taino, and there are Taino people on Puerto Rico. They're a very small group, but they have been vigorously fighting for recognition within the Puerto Rico government over the past decade or so. And the Taino tribe within the Virgin Islands was officially recognized by the U.S. Virgin Islands government in 2021. So those people are there. They have national pride. They have a strong sense of colonial oppression. And although they might not be large proportions of the population, I do think it's important that BOM and other agencies reach out to them and talk to them and get their perspectives and input on any matters going forward. I'll say that is news to me. Thank you for that. I did not know. Yeah, and thank you for that. I appreciate it. But it was also very interesting. I think the conversation we had before probably is a comment on sort of the profile of indigenous people. Of course, one thing we want to do is to help those whose profile has been diminished and try to make it stronger. But I have a separate question, which is so in addition to a special place for indigenous people, the administration is keenly interested in pursuing what's called environmental justice. And there is a recent executive order from President Biden, other orders, and actually beginning really with an order from Bill Clinton when he was president. And so whatever BOM does in the Virgin Islands of Puerto Rico, environmental justice will be something that it'll be in our mind and we will need to try to live up to those orders. And so I'm curious about any insights you have on that, whether any people have actually heard of the term more widely or are there groups that are pursuing it? What's the story on environmental justice? I'll jump in really quick because I do have another call I have to go to. But I think it's just for the VI, it's important to keep in mind that 90% of our population is identified as Virgin Islander or black. And they were brought here from Africa and are descended from those peoples. We do have mixing up and down the island chain. There are small portions of Indian and there's like Indian from India, there's small portions of whites, but it's majority descendants of slaves. So when you talk about environmental justice, like the entire island could be considered underserved. And so we do have black locals and I would not use the word indigenous when referring to the local people at all, they just don't like it. It would apply to the small group of Tano Indians that are still here, but the locals they do not use that word. They call themselves locals or Virgin Islanders, and they're not indigenous. So I think that's why they don't like it. But I forget where I was going with that. But yeah, definitely anything that is all the funding here goes to an underserved community. We are an underserved community. Unfortunately, there are a lot of, you know, what we might consider one percenters that hold a lot of land and a lot of power, but you will find a lot of black Virgin Islanders in roles of power in the judges and the policemen and the, you know, school system teachers like we're 90% black. So just wanted to make sure that that was understood. But I do have to jump to another call. And so I don't know if D'Nora can stay on. Oh, no, she can't either. So it was nice to talk to you guys. Questions you can follow up. Yeah, I'm also on the same call that we have now. And I want to just take a moment to thank you each. It is two o'clock, so we will move to our next session, but very much appreciate the time you've all given us. And I hope you don't mind if we do reach back out if we have any further questions, but really helpful for the session today. No problem. Thank you for pleasure. Pleasure. Thank you. All right. So we're going to switch gears a bit. And I appreciate everybody and the participation in that last session. We're now going to switch to a topic that is near and dear to some of us that have been with Cosa for a really long time. We're very excited to hear an update on the evaluating connections work that's being done by bone. I've sort of briefed the newer committee members on this, but for others in the room or online. The history of this is that Cosa several years back had some meetings with bone, in which we discussed the feedback loop between their science program and their assessment program and the transparency of how the assessments are being done. So what we're going to do with this program is driving some of the needs for science, as well as how some of the science being conducted and funded by bone is ultimately getting integrated into the assessments. So here's some updates on the work that has resulted from those discussions, which was a, I believe SDP funded study on this feedback loop. So without taking up too much more time. The same goes, Daniel more for each of you if you don't mind just introducing yourselves before you jump in. Good afternoon and thank you for having us. My name is Daniel Kauffman. I'm a principal with industrial economics or IEC for short. And I was the IEC project director for the evaluating connection study with bone. I'm Mara Flight. I'm also a principal at IEC. I'm an applied economist for the focus and natural resource economics by trade. And I've been working with bone for about 12 years on various studies and assessments and I served as the deputy project manager for this work. Thank you each. We'll turn it over to you for your presentation. Yes, great. Well, thank you all and just a quick check. Can everyone see our slides? We can they're presented well. Thank you. Okay, great. Thank you. So I'm excited today to be talking about the results of our evaluating connections, bones, environmental studies and assessments projects. And as you mentioned in the introduction, this is the culmination of a significant effort which took place over more than 3 years, which was designed to test the linkages and the effectiveness and reach of bone science and assessment work. The COSA provided very helpful input into the concept and initial design for the study. And COSA members have also provided really valuable input along the way, including the methodology and some of the preliminary study findings. So we're really excited to share the results with you today. This project really took a systems level approach that looked at science across various bow and programs, different operational phases and the relationships between these phases, as well as relationships across bone and between bone and the science community external to the bureau. As we go through the evaluating connections findings, you may hear some resonance with some of the findings and recommendations of the first in class report as well. Although this study was conceived before the first in class report there are some some nice synergies there. So I'll give a brief recap over the next hour or so starting with briefly with what the project sought to accomplish why boom initiated the study. I'll also be recapping what we did throughout the study, our methodology, and then we'll spend the majority of the time talking about the results and the recommendations from the evaluation. So, overall, the study aim to answer four main research questions. The first was the extent to which study results are incorporated into bones environmental assessments and informing policy decisions. The second was what information needs are being identified through the assessment process that can inform future studies. Third was how well boom is communicating information needs and study results across different parts of the bureau. And finally, to what extent our studies and assessments used externally by the broader science community outside of bone and underlying these four research questions or study objectives were this ultimate goal of identifying the recommendations to strengthen the studies to assessments feedback loop, as well as to identify metrics and a repeatable process that boom can actually repeat in the future to continue to evaluate and strengthen the feedback loop going forward. The feedback loop is the sort of shorthand term for the evaluating connections project which is encompassed in the diagram on these slides here. So the study, as I said before was conducted over a period of three years. So the first two years focused internally on the feedback loop within bone and the third year focused externally on bones impact on the external environmental science community. So we initiated the study, really to test the assumptions that underlie the feedback loop that we showed on the previous slide. And it will be helpful to give a brief recap of some of the processes and feedback loops that boom aim to evaluate through this project. Earlier study ideas are submitted as short study profiles as part of the annual studies development process. These profiles are prioritized according to seven criteria, the first and foremost of which is the relevance and importance to bone decision making. The results of bone studies are meant to inform assessment documents consultations and other environmental work products that bone produces. And bones environmental assessments consultations and work products identify additional information needs, which are then intended to shape the future studies that are funded by bones. So this is a really important part of the environmental studies program. These connections are assumes, but up until this project boom had not quantitatively qualitatively or categorically tested these linkages between assessments and studies and with input from the COSA boom initiated this project to really test and understand those linkages. This is a significant undertaking and it was a really collaborative efforts. It involves multiple points of engagements with boom, as well as with the COSA or COSA members at various times throughout the process. And within BOEM there is really a lot of great participation that made the study possible. There were multiple opportunities where BOEM provided inputs throughout the development of the methodology, the preliminary findings and discussions of the conclusions and recommendations. The cross agency team with representatives from every program and region. And each program and region started by providing an overview of what they do and what was unique about their processes. And then as we developed the methodology and implemented that methodology. The study team continued to have opportunities to review the information and to provide their feedback, which made sure that the study was relevant and rigorous to meet BOEM's needs. So the scope of the internal evaluation looking within BOEM that BOEM's processes was significant. And it was significant largely because this was the first time that BOEM had undertaken a study like this. And so it covered the past 20 years. We included 256 assessments and 876 completed studies. We also conducted almost 40 interviews and surveyed over 125 respondents. And also drew on information from BOEM's SBAT tool, which provides information on certain studies and their intended uses. It was a significant undertaking because it was new. However, part of the project was to develop a repeatable process. So the hope is that BOEM will be able to build on both the study findings and the process that we develop together in the future so that it won't be as heavy a lift going forward if BOEM chooses to repeat this process. So as I walk through the findings now, we'll be talking both about what we found and about what might make this process easier to repeat going forward based on the lessons that we learned. In the interest of time, I won't delve too deeply into the methods that we used. We looked at trends in study and assessment topics over time. We conducted a variety of citation analyses, which looked at citations of BOEM studies and BOEM products, study products, both within assessment documents, as well as in the scholarly literature. We tried to trace information needs over time to figure out what was identified as an information need and whether and how it was addressed. We surveyed stakeholders internal to BOEM during the internal evaluation and then surveyed stakeholders external to BOEM in year three of the project as part of the external evaluation. We conducted a number of interviews and conducted qualitative coding analysis of those responses, and we conducted a social network analysis, which used survey responses to understand who's talking to whom, and how information is exchanged, both throughout the bureau and between BOEM and external stakeholders, so how information gets disseminated and how ideas flow across BOEM's network. The slide provides an overview of the studies and assessments that were within the scope of the internal evaluation. There were just over a thousand studies in the data sets. Again, this is looking back over the past 20 years. So, up to those studies, there were some, particularly from older years, that we weren't able to incorporate due to not having enough information to trace the study through the entire studies process, or because upon further review, it wasn't exactly a as defined for purposes of our projects. For example, there were various efforts to support conferences that we didn't include in studies. So, overall, we ended up with 876 studies in scope. In terms of assessments, I mentioned before, there were 256 assessments within the scope of the projects. Importantly, we did not limit assessments to NEPA environmental assessments, although NEPA environmental assessments accounted for the highest number of assessments. We also included DEPA environmental impact statements, as well as a variety of other types of environmental analyses, including resource assessment reports, oil spill risk analyses, ESA section 7 assessments and evaluations, essential fish habitat assessments, and so forth, as depicted on this slide. Before I move into summarizing the findings for each study question, let me just pause and see if there are any additions from Boehm or any questions on what we've presented so far. I'm not seeing any raised hands or tin carts. Thank you. Thank you. So, the first overarching question was, how well do studies inform assessments? So, to get an initial kind of high level read on to what extent studies are informing assessments, we looked at the extent to which assessments are citing back to Boehm's studies or to the study products that results directly from the studies. And so, looking back over the 20 year period from 1999 to 2019, the average across all years was 75%. This is a simple average of the assessments that cited at least one Boehm report or publication. The percentage of assessments varies widely across different types of assessments. So, NEPA environmental analyses, EISs, ESA section 7 biological assessments and evaluations, and essential fish habitat assessments all typically cited at least one Boehm study. Other types of assessments on the list overall had a somewhat lower number of citations, although, again at a glance, this provides some initially encouraging information. We also parse this out a bit more to look at the average number of Boehm studies that were cited by Boehm assessments. We not just did the assessment site at least one study, but how many studies were they citing? And that's what this graph shows. So, specifically what this shows is out of our universe of about 256 assessments, 57 of them did not cite to any Boehm studies. The rest cited to at least one, 66 cited to between one and five. And then on the far right, there were 14 assessments that actually cited to more than 50 Boehm studies or Boehm study products. We also use the survey and interviews as an opportunity to ask people within Boehm who work on studies and assessments, what they perceive to be the link between their study work and their assessment work. And so as part of that survey, we surveyed or attempted to survey all staff within Boehm who work on environmental studies or who manage staff who work on environmental studies. Everyone who works on assessments or manages staff who work on environmental assessments, as well as those who work on both or manage staff who work on both. And this particular question was asked for those who work on assessments. And a majority of survey respondents who work on assessments, either somewhat agreed or strongly agreed that ESP funded studies are useful to their Boehm assessment work. We also asked about this question in the interviews, and the interviews really highlighted the importance of studies for informing Boehm environmental assessments. And interviewees were able to provide multiple examples of how Boehm studies had influenced Boehm assessments. These types of influences included informing key policy decisions, including mitigation measures, informing notices to Lassise and various other types of influence that we'll talk about on the next slide. So specifically mitigation measures, NEPA reviews, consultations, models, as well as follow on studies, oil spill risk analysis, identification of resources, changes to policies and NTLs were always that were identified in the interviews of how Boehm's environmental studies program informs Boehm's environmental assessments. And the call out box here provides just two examples. One is from the Nantake Shoal area, where a study on the density of birds in the middle of a proposed wind energy area resulted in Boehm changing the shape of the wind energy area to avoid an adverse impact on the bird population. The second example in the call out box was in the Gulf of Mexico, where a series of studies expanded the knowledge of potential archaeological features, and Boehm actually updated its assumptions and considerations that it used in its assessments based on the results of these studies. So we found pretty strong evidence and indications from the interviewees and survey respondents who work on assessments that studies are informing assessments. Our second question was how well do assessments inform studies. And our theory here that we sought to test was that the assessments would identify information needs that would then feed into the development of future studies. And we found that overall, that is the case. Information needs identified in assessments do inform studies. This was voiced particularly strongly by interviewees who really reported overwhelmingly that Boehm developed studies based on information needs that are identified in Boehm's assessments. We also asked survey respondents what they consider when they submit study profiles or what they consider when they're developing studies. And just over half of survey respondents indicated that their own scientific work, including work on assessments was a source of study ideas, either their own study ideas or other study ideas. One of the interesting findings that came out of this evaluation was that Boehm also pursued studies based on anticipated information needs for future assessments. So it wasn't just the case that Boehm was looking at assessments that had already been conducted, but was also really thinking ahead and planning for what information would be needed to inform future assessment documents and was building that also into its study design. We also looked at funding over time. We coded the different studies that had been funded over the past 20 years by topic area, and we did the same for assessments. And within assessments we looked specifically at trying to identify information needs that had been identified as part of the assessment process. And we found that overall the topics that had more identified information needs actually had total higher studies funding. So again, the correlation there suggests that there is a positive relationship between where information needs are identified in the assessment process and what's being funded under the studies process. However, while all these indications are positive and confirm what we would hope and expect, the assessment documents themselves we found really don't comprehensively or systematically record information needs. And this makes it very difficult to track what information needs exist, and also to track over time the extent to which information needs are being identified or rather are being addressed. And so this is one area that we'll be coming back to when we go into our recommendations is this idea of being able to track from when an information need is identified to then seeing whether or how that information need is picked up in a study development profile, and then ultimately reflected in an actual study that gets funded. While all the evidence that we were able to piece together suggests that certainly this is happening, a more systematic process and more systematic way of tracking information needs throughout the study development process would certainly be very helpful for being able to study this topic going forward. So, I related question that we looked at under this project was, when studies do address information needs, how well are they addressing them. And for this we looked specifically at how well studies are addressing the information needs that were identified in the study development profile. One takeaway here is that study results do generally address the information needs identified in the study profiles. However, there were a variety of reasons that came up in the interviews about why this doesn't always occur. And I noted that in some cases the information needs section of the study profile didn't include enough detail to sufficiently explain how bone would use the data from the study, which made it difficult to to be able to assess whether the study had actually fulfills the information need that was identified. There was a disconnect between the person who authored the study profile and the individual who authored the statement of work to carry out the study, which, again, interviewees reported in some cases could result in the study actually addressing an information need that was somewhat different from the original study profile. The survey responses also identified some challenges to bone pursuing an information need, even if it was developed into a study profile, not all study profiles move forward. And this can include oftentimes includes just limited funding, and not necessarily matching bones highest priorities or the most pressing priorities for given study funding cycle. There can also be a question of timing some information needs persist. Others are information needs that need to be addressed as part of informing a particular assessment and if they're not addressed in that timeframe, then they may not be able to inform what prompted the information need. So these are all, we think important caveats or nuances. But again, the, these are nuances or caveats to the overarching finding which is that in general study results do address the information needs that are identified in the study profile. And so our third question asked, how the feedback loop functions. And within Bohm, this was really about trying to better understand the processes by which information needs are actually informing studies and how studies are informing assessments and how that information is exchanged between studies and assessment authors and across the bureau. We started with some straightforward survey questions, we asked how, how, how people learn about study findings within Bohm. As we can see on the slide the top three responses were word of mouth study reports and presentations. Similarly, our interview respondents emphasize the importance of communication and collaboration as a really essential piece of the feedback loop. And they noted that the communication of study results often occurs through informal channels, which is consistent with the survey findings that word of mouth was a common communication method. So it's peers talking to peers, people exchanging information with each other, sometimes through formal processes but often through their personal or professional relationships. Survey respondents were also asked, what was the most useful means of disseminating information about studies. Overall, they identified peer reviewed articles, presentations and study reports as the most useful means. Interestingly, the word of word of mouth was slightly lower on the list, although it was still seen as an important way of disseminating information. And ESPIS was considered the least useful method. It received critique from interviewees regarding the navigability or searchability of ESPIS, although as we'll address later on when we get to the recommendations. BOEM has actually taken actions since this internal portion of the evaluation was conducted to really address the critiques that were raised here. So getting back to this question of how information flows across the network. What we're showing here is a social network map. I realize there's a lot going on here, but what this shows in general is the different clusters within BOEM and the arrows represent who's communicating with whom. The dots represents contacts within BOEM. Not surprisingly, a lot of communication occurs within a particular office or within a particular program. So we see Alaska, the Pacific, ORAP, Gulf of Mexico, MMP and headquarters. The numbers that are associated with each of these offices are the average number of intra office contacts. What really stands out here from the network map, though, is how central headquarters is to communication. It's not necessarily surprising that individuals exchange information within their respective offices, but notice how much of the information from one office to another actually flows through headquarters. And that could be because of presentations or meetings that could be a result of information blasts that are sent. It could be because headquarters has common contacts with people in different parts of the bureau. But that's really what stands out for us is the important role that headquarters plays in facilitating communication across the bureau. We also reinforces the role that headquarters has to play in ensuring that there's good communication between offices and across different regions. Before I pivot to the external evaluation findings, I'll just pause here again and see if anyone has anything to add or any questions about what I've gone over so far. Scott? I have a question about this slide. I'm just trying to understand this slide. So for each of the regional offices, there's a number. What does that number mean? That number is the average number of contacts within that office. So on average, people who identified themselves as being with the Alaska region reported having between seven and eight other contacts within the Alaska region with whom they exchange information on studies or assessments. Okay, so it's, I guess it may have to do then with the size of the office to some degree. Is that it? That's fair to say. That's fair to say. And what are the circles? The circles can note the number of individuals within the office who are responding to the survey. I see. Okay. Okay. So, and then there's one out there that's a Pacific, a green out in the Pacific there. Is that somebody in a Y or something? I don't know. I would have to check who specifically, who specifically that individual was. I don't know off-hands. I'm sorry. The colors, the colors are, the colors kind of connote the office though. I mean, that's ideally what you're trying to show here. That's right. That's right. And not necessarily the physical location of the person so that the one that's in the Pacific that's associated with headquarters is probably there just because the lines are more easily seen to the connections they make to Alaska and over up in the Pacific. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. This is Stacy speaking, and just another clarifying point on this slide before I turn to Les, who also has his hand up, but the dots that are the circles that are outside of a yellow circle. Indicative of a contact that is not within a region or are the colors, are the colors indicative of the regions and offices or yellow circles? The colors are indicative of the regions or offices. The yellow circles are indicative of clusters, which are defined mathematically based on who's most densely or closely connected to whom. In most cases, there's a fairly good degree of overlap between the circles and the different colors indicating that clusters tend to be clustered by region or by headquarters. But as you pointed out in your question, that isn't 100% true or universally the case. Excellent. Les. Hi, Daniel. If we consider different kinds of information ranging from raw empirical data that's just particulate and one time stamp, all the way to process understanding the equations you can put in a model to make predictions. Is there any, were you able to get any sense of how successful bone has been in communicating about one kind of data versus another? In communicating about one kind of data versus another. Yeah, in other words, sharing information within bone particularly, but also outside about, okay, here's the state of the world. We have all these instantaneous data or we've really been wondering what the impact of a floating wind installation is. And here are experimental and observational data that speak to that. And this is how you can now model it. Great question and I can provide some general thoughts and would certainly invite others to weigh in as well. In terms of general observations about the most influential studies that stand out for me, in many cases it was a series of studies that was addressing a particular topic. And that topic might be how do marine mammals react to sound in a particular environment, for example, or what is the effect of wind turbines in a particular geographic area. But typically the examples that again at least stood out for me are we're not one time answers to very discrete questions. It was knowledge that was accumulated over time through a series of studies. And in some cases with kind of mini feedback loops where, you know, you answer the question part of the way and then that gives rise to new questions that then give rise to new studies, which gives rise to new questions. And so then over time produces knowledge that's, you know, sort of seen as kind of the definitive state of the science on a particular topic. So marine mammals, the impacts of various types of disturbances on marine mammals and benthic communities were two areas that were often cited as, you know, being really important areas that Bohm had contributed to through a series of studies and research over time. And then just one other thoughts on your question. You know, we've been talking a lot about study and assessments documents, but we did include data and models in here as well. And so in cases where models or a common data set can be used multiple times, or repeatedly it may be used to answer different questions. But if we treat the model or the underlying data sets, kind of on its own terms, there's, you know, sort of outsized influence there just because it's a different applications of the model or the data sets. I hope that helps answer your question. Thank you. So others, did you have anything you wanted to add? No, I think that works. I think there's a few different ways you can cut the data that when when you're tracking the links between the studies and this and the assessments, and we coded them by topic area, and by region and by year. And so when we identified which were the most cited studies, it was according to those cuts. So there wasn't a cut that necessarily said was this a study that strictly collected data versus whether or not it was an analysis to derive a relationship. So when we have the topic of marine mammals and that was one of the most cited topics in the assessments from the bone studies, we don't, we don't have the, we don't have the cut of how much of that was just collecting data on population distribution, for example, versus the impact, the effect of GNG surveys on marine mammals. Thank you. I hope it's a little bit isolated though. One really important caveat here actually is that this internal evaluation was done just on the cusp of or even just before the real, you know, major focus that we're seeing now on offshore winds. And so this is an example of particularly this network map for the internal evaluation, which is what this is showing is something that is, you know, date stamped or time time stamps and may suspect could actually look different. If we were to repeat this exercise, even just today, as opposed to a couple years ago when, you know, a year and a half ago, when we did this map. I think it's really with respect to over. There's a hand raised in the room so Jake I'll turn it to you next. Hey everybody. This is Jake Levenson from studies. I had the pleasure of co-leading this study on the boom side with my colleague mega Davidson, and there was a nuance I wanted to point out Daniel that I hope you don't, I hope you don't mind me chiming in here real quick about the studies that didn't cite them sorry the assessments that didn't set set site a study. And I think that's, you know, in that I can't remember what the universe was of the numbers I think it wasn't like 5050 56 reports or something. And what that the nuance there is that it could have cited a peer review publication that could have come out after the study report ended. Because we don't have sort of a centralized citation analysis tool that looks at the reach of our studies. We weren't able to sort of tabulate that I wanted to make sure that was clear that that when you talk about those 56 assessments, you're talking about strictly a studies report that cited not necessarily a peer review paper because linking those isn't always easy. Was that did I do I have that right. Yes, absolutely. And that was particularly true of. Of publications that came out after the contract period. We were. If peer reviewed publications were developed during the contract period. They, they tended to be reported. But. Many times there's a delay between the study reports and when the peer reviewed publication comes out and those were harder to link. Just as you said, because there wasn't a centralized or systematic way of tracking those links. Right. There's a lot of variability in how that he's are organized and that sometimes a peer review paper. We don't have the ability to control whether a paper is accepted or not. But sometimes during the period of performance. A draft paper could be submitted in which case we know something's coming down the pike in some cases. A contract ends, but obviously people want to. Get that published in a peer review journal in a lot of cases. And so afterwards they might take on their own initiative to publish something, but it's not always, you know, it's not required to send us back. You know, a heads up. Hey, we got, we published this or sometimes the acknowledgement information might not be correct and things like that, despite what we try and have in our contracts. So that's all I wanted to chime in. Thanks, Daniel. Thank you. Thank you, Jake. Really insightful clarification, Jeremy. Yeah, I just wanted to note that the DOE sort of like Lawrence Berkeley National Lab and NREL have moved to a model away from reports. And it goes to sort of the comment of the slide on peer review so that one that people have a harder time getting into peer review if there's already a published report. And so they've moved to a model with open access, but also with our point slides being posted and with webinars as far as information dissemination. And then the peer review publications, rather than the more generic reports and that may be a way to move bone forward, particularly given the information that the peer review publications are something that you like to start with. Great. Thank you. So now we're going to shift gears and talk about the external evaluation. And by external, we just mean looking at the influence of Bohm science on the community outside of Bohm. And that was the overarching research question for for the external evaluation. What is the impact of Bohm scientific research on the external environmental community, which we include defined to include other federal agencies, state agencies and academia. The methodology that we used was in many ways similar to the internal evaluation methodology. We conducted interviews with. I think and ended up being about 90 external stakeholders. And this was a very interview focused methodology, particularly for the external evaluation because unlike within Bohm, where there is a comprehensive set of studies and where IEC was able with input from Bohm to sort of pull together an inventory of assessments externally, you know, environmental products that are produced by other state agencies, federal agencies, papers produced by academics are really, you know, very dispersed, very diffused. There's no central universe or repository. And so to understand how Bohm science has been used and the extent to which it's influenced the external science community, we really had to talk to the people who are in a position to use Bohm science. We also conducted a survey of external stakeholders and as part of that survey, we updated the social network analysis to see how Bohm's network looks, not only within different parts of Bohm, but when we expand to Bohm's connections with the external community. And then lastly, we did conduct citation analysis. This included both a publication site, excuse me, citation analysis, which looked at the scholarly literature, as well as an external assessment citation analysis. So, to the extent possible, we tried to pull together an inventory of external assessments, and then we looked in that inventory of external assessments for citations to Bohm study products or to Bohm assessments. And we looked at two different types of use in the scholarly literature, these are often called instrumental use and incremental or conceptual use. Instrumental use, I tend to think of as sort of the smoke and gun where you can point to a specific study or set of studies and say that this directly is a management decision, planning or policy decisions. Incremental or conceptual use is more about how Bohm's research advances the state of the science over time. So, it might not be a particular policy decision that you can point to where we say that study informed this policy decision, but people can recognize that Bohm has played a really important role advancing the state of science in a particular area. So, we'll start with just an overview of some of the survey responses. And again, we've, we're looking at survey respondents as external stakeholders. So this includes federal states and academic respondents. We asked them where they most commonly receive their information on Bohm studies and Bohm assessments. And the top response for both studies and assessments was their direct interactions with Bohm staff. They also noted the Bohm websites, internet searches, ESPIS, conferences, and so forth. But it was notable to us that it was these direct relationships or these direct interactions with Bohm that served as the primary means by which external stakeholders receive information about Bohm science. Looking now at the external network analysis, we founds that external stakeholders are important disseminators of Bohm study and assessment results. And so one of the questions that we asked the external survey respondents was not just from whom do you receive your information about Bohm studies and assessments, but to whom do you further disseminate that information. So the external survey respondents were actually able to identify other external organizations with whom they share Bohm science. And what this social network map shows at sort of a high level here is that you really have a ripple effect when these external organizations, whether they're federal, state and local, academic, etc. and so forth, when they start to then further disseminate that information with their external contacts, it becomes a really important way of getting the results of Bohm science out there and more broadly. And to put a little bit more detail on that, we found through the social network analysis that academic researchers and federal agencies like NOAA, USGS, and the Fish and Wildlife Service in particular really play a critical role in disseminating Bohm science outward to other external stakeholders. Here the Bohm offices are illustrated in pink, but our focus here is really on the non pink dots and lines, these external stakeholders. It's interesting to see who is and isn't featured prominently in the network maps. The big universities, big agencies play an important role in receiving and then further disseminating Bohm. Smaller agencies, you know, smaller academic institutions like community colleges, smaller non governmental organizations aren't as prominent here in terms of facilitating the spread of information. Looking a little further at the social network analysis and also the interview findings, we find that Bohm staff are engaging regularly with trusted external stakeholders and collaborators. And this helps extend the reach of Bohm science beyond the Bureau. Conversely, it can also make it difficult to further expand Bohm's network beyond that core group of trusted stakeholders. Interactions generally occur among a more limited group of organizations and individuals and reliance on closely held relationships with recurrent collaborators may limit expansion of Bohm's network and therefore the reach and influence of Bohm science. This came out during some of the interviews with external stakeholders, some academic interviewees shared their perception that Bohm doesn't offer many opportunities for early career scientists or emerging scientists. There was also a sense on the part of some state agency staff, particularly those who were newly involved in planning for offshore winds. That it was, you know, really necessary to have that direct connection with individuals at Bohm and that if they didn't have that direct connection or that direct relationship with particular individuals within the Bureau. They felt in some cases that it was really hard to sort of fully get in on what was going on. There are a series of valuable long term connections. We interviewed many of them and these long term connections are really critical for building institutional knowledge and ensuring continuity. Although over time, there may be some side effects, whether that's entrenchment in terms of the way that people are thinking about different topics or operations or ways of thinking about ocean science. So that's, that's how information is exchanged and how collaboration is happening across the Bureau and with external stakeholders. We also looked for the extent to which and examples of where Bohm study products or Bohm assessments are being used by external stakeholders and how they're influencing external stakeholders outside of Bohm. We found that Bohm study products are consistently cited in external assessments of the 240 or so external assessments that we were able to identify, meaning assessments that were not primarily authored by Bohm. We found that over half cited at least one Bohm study. And the average number of Bohm studies cited by all external assessments was just under four. It's interesting to note how assessments vary across the citations rather vary across different types of external assessments and by different types of agencies. Another, which is shown on the right of this slide, another notable finding was that assessments with some level of Bohm involvement had more citations of Bohm science, which is not a surprising finding but is a notable one. I mentioned that we also looked at the scholarly literature. And what this slide shows is a distribution of citations to Bohm studies or or really more commonly Bohm study products that are cited in the scholarly literature. And this is the results of citations of journal publications resulting from Bohm studies as shown in Google scholar. Some of the feedback that we received as part of the first in class study as we were and as we were engaging with COSA members on our preliminary study findings and our methodology for the external evaluation was different ways to extend the citation analysis. And one of the key suggestions was to look not only at the total number of citations of different Bohm studies or study products, but also to look at those citations relative to other literature in a similar field and for a similar period of time. So, in other words, a Bohm study products might have been cited in the scholarly literature 500 times. But how does that compare to other non-Bohm studies that address similar topics and that were published in similar years. Were they also cited 500 times or were those other products cited 1000 times or or less frequently. And so we pushed this analysis as far as we could, and we found that the top referenced and cited Bohm publications are influential publications within their respective fields. Not just based on the total number of times that these publications were kind of cited in absolute terms, but also relative to other publications that address a similar topic. And that were published at similar times. We, I said we pushed this as far as we could because coming back to, to Jake's comment earlier on, we were limited in that we didn't have access to a citation service. So there are citation services available. That's actually tracked this information and calculate these metrics in a very comprehensive and systematic way. They're expensive. We explored some options and, you know, receive quotes in the six figures for a subscription. And so, ultimately, we ended up doing a manual search one publication at a time based on what we were able to access. Based on what was publicly available and we were able to do that for a subset of 60 articles, but having access to a subscription service would have allowed us to do this comprehensively. As part of the survey, we asked respondents to tell us to what extent Bohm science influences their decision making or how it influences them. And we found from the survey responses that Bohm science does seem to directly influence decision making outside of the bureau, particularly in the context of coastal and marine resource management for federal and state agencies. 84% of respondents reported using information from Bohm studies to inform their future research, as well as informing specific policy decisions. And this was also true for Bohm assessments. We also see a good amount of use of Bohm information to develop environmental, social or economic assessments to develop mitigation measures to inform policies and to teach others. Through the interviews, we asked for more specific examples or more specific ways in which Bohm science is influential on external stakeholders. And the conclusion that we reach is that Bohm studies do fill critical knowledge gaps and meaningfully advanced ocean scientific research. This slide summarizes by some of the general categories of influence that we identified through the interview process. This includes generating new information on the impacts of offshore renewable energy, advancing basic scientific research, informing funding decisions, contributing to publicly available databases, informing natural resource decision making and policy developments at multiple jurisdictional levels, and informing stakeholder understanding of ocean science. Now, in terms of how this information is conveyed and who's able to engage with it. We did find that Bohm study reports and data tend to be geared towards more technical audiences in the science community, and certainly meet their needs. But we also found that Bohm science may not be readily understood by less technical stakeholders, including some decision makers. So experienced technical and scientific efforts, experts are, you know, engage their understanding what they're reading in Bohm study reports. But less experienced individuals or people who don't have scientific training have a harder time engaging in Bohm scientific products. So Bohm could actually improve the use of its science and make it more generally accessible with additional attention to communicating scientific findings in a more accessible way to more general audiences. The relatively limited extent of the non technical communication of study findings can be challenging for external stakeholders who rely heavily on Bohm science to inform policy. Bohm study reports and assessment reports are long and they're complex, particularly for people who don't have scientific backgrounds. We did find that data portals are useful resources for learning about Bohm study results. Although some interviewees mentioned that Bohm data could be more user friendly, or that data sets could be pre packaged, for example, for use with GIS software. So overall, there's a strong appetite for the information, but different levels of ability to engage with the information in the way that it's shared. Before I move on to recommendations. Let me pause for any comments or questions. Daniel, there's a there's a number of comments in the chat potentially walk through here. I think starting with, well, Jessica, thank you for answering the question for the study period. I don't have an easy way to navigate these questions here. Okay, submit Atlantic and southern states. How are they covered in. Oh, I, and I do apologize for missing these questions. It looks like these go back always. I think the ones that start for the external evaluation where we started was whether or not that whether or not that will be peer reviewed. I'm sorry, it says that will be another question. What is the metric for peer review conference presentations or full publications. If the publication is not accepted will be retroactively updated in the assessment. We were looking at at published at that publications that were in a peer reviewed journal. So peer review journal articles that were published. So, if an article was submitted for peer review but not accepted, or if it was in the peer review process but hadn't completed that process yet. It would not have been captured in our analysis. There's another question here about why is an industry wind oil and gas solar and others included in the outreach. They have very robust data sets. And then, relatedly does bomb share completed studies with relevant trade associations, and I responded there that that industry was included in the outreach for bomb highlighted contacts and industry. There's a list of in table three of the external assessment and there are several survey participants described as being related to industry, though there is a mention that in the slides industry wasn't represented in the metrics listing of categories. So I apologize I don't know which slide that was referring to that one came from and carpenter I don't know if you want to try to go back Daniel. Yeah, and Mara, I'll just interrupt for a moment while if he's looking for that to know we do have a couple of hands raised in the room. And I just want to make sure to that we leave a little bit of time at the very end for some questions also so I don't know how much time is needed for the recommendations portion but I don't want to short change that by any means so. Okay. Yeah. Oh, slide 29. Okay. Yes. Oh, you're referring to maybe the key the legends here. Yeah, I think it might be one more slide for their back slide 28. There's, yeah, but there's a grouping of NGO nonprofit private. Is that right Daniel there. That's right. And that just we didn't have we didn't have a lot of privates or corporate responses to the survey. So we groups them with other types of non governmental organizations but. You know, I certainly take the point that qualitatively there's an important distinction between a private business entity versus a nonprofit or NGO. Thank you Scott and Rod, did you have your hands up or was it just to get to that point. Yeah, it's good. Okay, yep. We'll go ahead Daniel, I'll let you wrap up the presentation. Great, great. Thanks for all the all the good questions and inputs. So for recommendations, we're not going to have time to talk through all of them, which is fine. I've included all of them on the slides so that if the slides or the recording are distributed afterwards. There's a record of all our recommendations, but I'll just touch on some of the highlights. So, starting with internal evaluation recommendations, which really focus on processes within Boehm. One of our primary recommendations for the internal evaluation was to organize and strengthen the process for tracking information needs across Boehm. I mentioned that before that, you know, well, certainly there was widespread agreements and there were indications in the paper trail that studies are addressing information needs. There really wasn't a systematic process to be able to track information needs from when the need is identified to whether or how it's addressed. And so our recommendation includes a series of steps that could be taken either altogether or partially to organize and strengthen that process for really tracking information needs from when they're identified. As a result of an assessment or in anticipation of future assessments, all the way to when they're submitted in a study profile and perhaps ultimately funded as a study. One of our other recommendations from the internal evaluation was to expand the functionality and usability of a space to make it even more useful resource to obtain study information. Since publishing the internal or submitting the internal evaluation Boehm has recently released the environmental studies program hub or the ESP hub. And this was intended to improve the searchability of Boehm ESP reports and also gov info houses all environmental studies program reports and the information can now be found through Google Scholar. So this is an important step that's been taken since we developed the internal evaluation and made this recommendation. If this study were or projects like this were repeated or updated in the future. You know, a potential next step would be to to look at the usefulness and effectiveness of the ESP hub. And, you know, the extent to which it's addressed some of the critiques that were previously made about us. The second recommendation, main high level recommendation on the slide is to improve communication regarding the process for prioritizing studies to increase transparency. I can't get into this during the presentation today, but the internal survey responses and interview responses indicated a sense that, you know, when study profiles were not accepted for funding or when study development profiles were created and included in the plan but couldn't ultimately be funded that perhaps it was because they didn't address Boehm's priorities or perhaps the authors hadn't been able to fully convey how their idea addresses Boehm's priorities. And so this recommendation was partly in response to to that information to just continue to be really clear about the process for how studies are prioritized so that everyone's on the same page and can better target their study ideas. One of our other key recommendations from the internal evaluation was to create a central location for storing and accessing all Boehm assessments. And so at the time we did our internal evaluation, there was no central repository for Boehm assessments the way that there was for Boehm studies. For Boehm studies, we had ESPIS for assessments. We actually spent a lot of time working with Boehm to identify relevant documents. We did a lot of web scraping, a lot of web searches, really quite a bit of sleuthing and programming and coding analysis to be able to identify and then download all of the various assessments and sometimes they were in locked files or otherwise couldn't be downloaded. And so there's just a lot of effort that went into compiling that assessment inventory because the effort hadn't been undertaken before. More recently, Boehm has actually created SOCs, SOCS. This has been beta tested and we understand that it will be coming soon. And our understanding is that this will be an assessments database, including all of the assessments that were identified in the assessments inventory for the evaluating connections projects. But as long as this inventory is maintained and continues to be updated as new assessments come online, that would make it significantly easier to repeat this type of process in the future. In the interest of time, I'm going to move on to the external evaluation recommendations. And one of our key recommendations resulting from the external evaluation was to improve the ways in which Boehm tracks impacts on the wider environmental science community. And the primary recommendation here is to invest in a citation analysis service. Our reports identify several different options that we identified. The citation analysis services are, you know, expensive to subscribe to, but would certainly provide a great deal of insight and a much more systematic and comprehensive look at the influence of Boehm science as reflected in the scholarly literature. In addition to investing in a citation analysis service, Boehm can also use Google analytics to track web traffic on the ESP hub. Where possible, we recommend that Boehm source data downloads from data portals that Boehm contributes to as additional measures of the dissemination and use of Boehm science. And we also recommend requesting information about potential uses of study information by co-developers outside of Boehm. The study development profiles currently include a space to list co-developers identifying how the co-developers will use that information would be informative. We're not recommending that that necessarily influence Boehm's funding decisions about what studies to fund or not, but it would provide a helpful point of reference to follow up in the future about how studies that do get funded might have been used by external stakeholders. We're drawing on the results of the social network analysis. Our overarching recommendation here is expands Boehm's network. That includes planning for institutional knowledge loss or staff turnover by building relationships and funding studies led by emerging or early career scientists who are new to Boehm's network. And also includes outreach to institutions, including universities beyond where Boehm funded scientists are currently located. As well as making sure that information about specific Boehm staff and points of contact is available online as a possible point of entry for people who don't currently have a connection to someone at Boehm. I also wanted to mention here a part of this recommendation was to actively target and track engagement with scientists at minority serving institutions or MSIs and that institutions that have not historically had scientists who received Boehm studies funding. Our next set of recommendations is to develop and implement a plan for extending effective information dissemination. In short, the idea here is to make Boehm science accessible or more accessible to non-technical stakeholders. And that can include summaries and lay person's terms about different study themes or providing more concise abstracts or fact sheets and making sure that that information is easy to use. That concludes our slides and I also know, see that we are at time. So, let me pause here. Thank you so much, Daniel and Mara. We'll take a couple of minutes for questions, but I do want to reserve some time for a break for those in the room. So I'll start with Jake and then Scott. Yeah, thanks. I just wanted to make a quick caveat also to one thing Daniel said about the early career scientists and the minority serving institutions and things like that. Our national studies list captures who the prime contractor is, whether it's an interagency agreement or whether it's with NOAA or it's a contract with whatever or a cooperative agreement with an academic institution. It doesn't capture if there are subcontractor relationships on that. So we have many studies that might have a prime contractor but could have other things as subcontractor under that. That is a nuance that isn't captured that is just important to keep in mind. So thank you so much for this presentation and thanks to Bome for undertaking this study. As somebody who was on the first in class study, I greatly appreciate seeing this recommendation come to fruition. As somebody was around when we first talked about the need for something like this, some sort of look back on of this type. I also greatly appreciate the fact you've done it so well done. And I think the first piece of advice I'd give you is after you take your victory lap plan when you're going to do your next one because you want to keep it evergreen this is having those of us who've been in the business. We understand look backs on a regular basis of your activities, where you actually measure how you did relative what you thought you were going to do. Is it an extremely valuable way to keep yourself on track so I commend you and I just encourage you to schedule the next one. I have a question about this, this study. I'm assuming it focused on everything that was included in the environmental studies program is that basically anything that came out of funded out of that effort right all that those studies. What about studies that were funded by some of the other research funds that operational funds that BOEM has, which is not inconsiderable as I understand I mean I, I'm aware of some other studies that we don't often see. Or are they include were they included in this look back as well or not only if they received at least some funding from the environmental studies program so they didn't have to be funded entirely with ESP funding but if they received to know ESP funding then they were not included in they were not included that's okay and and and of the total spend of research money that goes out from BOEM how much of it is coming out of ESP and what you have an estimate of what comes out of kind of the operational pots just kind of getting it is it 5050 is it 2575 what's what's your gut gut feel about that guys guessing grabs at the table to respond to this. So we'll talk about this tomorrow. But first of all, for BOEM folks don't do environmental studies outside of the environmental studies program. We've already been held out about that once. So, we'll talk about this tomorrow. I did a look back a couple of years ago, and then started tracking how much quote anything that meets the definition of an environmental study for BOEM. And I think where we're averaging somewhere between, you know, 25 and $35 million per year for the environmental studies program. I would say the biggest years where folks were conducting studies outside of the environmental studies program. Hopefully we knew about most of them we did know about most of them. We were partnered with through the environmental studies program with a with the best small cost share, but there were some that were not done with the knowledge of the original studies program. But the biggest years were somewhere around like two and a half $3 million of research that were done outside of the environmental studies program. And most years almost all of that was captured under the ESP through the process we have to add things to the national studies list using operational funds. Sounds like it's a fairly small percentage of the total investment. Okay. And that stuff probably though was unless there was some ESP dollars and it wasn't included was not included in this look back. Yes, I think you might understand that there were no ESP funds in this it was not included. But that would be a very small number of studies over the years. Yeah, just that I don't have numbers for you but. But the broader question is research that's not environmental to if I heard that right and I that's that is pretty limited. Okay. Okay, we will talk about some of that. Yeah, we can talk about tomorrow. Yeah, so what does get captured under an environmental study and what what isn't. I'm not seeing any other. Go ahead, Rod. So I had a quick question about the it ends the information transfer meeting so. Early on in the presentation there was a discussion about or slide provided information about how information is transferred. And one of those bullets was word of mouth and another one was presentations. Did that include the itms and I was the reason I was a little confused with later on one of the recommendations was to commit to regular communication. The studies through formal channels, which I thought well maybe that is the itm so. We didn't go ahead. Okay, the itms were not called out in the survey responses as a standalone category. So, when people responded with presentations, they, they could have been including itms there but we didn't ask specifically about itms. Thank you. I can I'm going to take that as a as a softball that I made might hit back, which is we. I think there's a general shared consensus in the environmental program that we need to get together more. And we just spent the last yesterday and the day before with representatives from all the environmental program at a retreat in shepherds town near there. And one of the key points there that a lot of people pointed out was that study profiles are, there's a lot of back and forth discussion but it's become more transactional and a lot and the result is a lot of the study profiles developed by the regions and programs are pretty well baked by the time they get laid on the table that we, we don't have a good probably annual get together before things are baked very much to present those, you know, and I'm talking internal and find commonalities and challenges and so forth. So, we're, I'm very interested. I plan to do what I can to push to have an annual get together of the environmental program and then apropos of your question about the itms. I know the I know the Gulf representatives were very excited about trying to have a more regular ATM set of set of meetings, which are different than the get together on the profile so I think we should do more of that. And so I just consulted with, with Ari to make sure I was right in my recollection so the Gulf operational funds funded the itms themselves. However, and Rodney can correct me on this my recollection was that while the itms were still sort of active and and going on. There was a requirement in studies that were conducted in CR by Gulf of Mexico staff that they would come and present at the itms when those studies were finished. So I don't know how that would be captured here. Yeah. Yeah. I don't necessarily think that would be captured here. But while the Gulf itms were going on, they didn't have a requirement to present at the itm when that study was was finished or nearly finished. And then for like the Alaska Marine Science Symposium. We didn't. Jim, I don't remember us ever having requirements for bone funded folks to present at the itm, but pretty much everybody did. And then the Arctic session was pretty much 90% bone funded stuff and awesome people like Kitrin were there often and doing all sorts of great stuff. So I don't know the capture that way but there were no direct studies funding for for those things. And what would have been captured was like conference sponsorship for like things like the Alaska Marine Science Symposium, but those were pulled out as not being a study because it was a conference sponsorship. So I'm going to be a little shameless and just to ask, do the COSA members have views on whether it would be a good idea for the environmental staff to do what we're talking about more. I think it would be an excellent idea. I think one of the, I mean, having worked and I'd be interested in Laurie's perspective from, from one of our fiercest competitors but to keep our technical staff at their sharpest level. We would routinely every year, oftentimes twice a year have major technical sessions where people would come and show the results of their technical projects and an opportunity to show the results of studies that have been undertaken. And so what are the study also the ones that didn't work so people can learn from that as well. Lessons learned that's extremely valuable for the staff. And it's also a morale builder I think, and I would, I would encourage you, and it sounds like presentations are pretty damn effective and when you do them it sounds like people get something out of it, and your own staff or your best communicators and going on to the outside so I think it's a win win win so I would strongly encourage you to consider that. Yes, before I turn to you, I want to just check in with Brianna, who's our next presenter up at 330 Brianna, do you have some flexibility in your time such that if we start your session late that won't be problematic. Yes, I have some flexibility. Fantastic thank you so much for for allowing us to continue this conversation and still provide those in the room a brief break. So less I will give you the last chance for a question and then we'll take any responses to that before we move on. Okay, try to be quick. First of all, I applaud all these efforts, and it's wonderful to see these results. And in the short time I've been working with bone I think there's been a marked improvement in the in the intellectual culture, but I do have a special question. And that's about the ambiguity about the technical capabilities that bone wants to develop in house, as opposed to other agencies, and a key example is our relationship with end costs bones relationship with end costs, where end costs is now doing spatial analysis. But I've been involved with Jake as you've heard on a on a study to develop dynamic analysis. And I guess technical capabilities live in bone. So that that can be something bone develops, or is it something that's going to be offloaded to another agency. Who makes those decisions. Yeah, I make all the budgetary decisions and would have a staff of 10 and I don't, I guess I don't really have a good answer for that though I, I, I, I, I, I, I think the same thing with things like OECM and stuff like that right we need our own capable team of that can live and breathe this stuff but I think we're always going to need the external expertise as well. I think it's a combination of both. You know, I think that the big challenges that we have now is we're just we're spread really thin and and having people that can dive that deep into things that require this level of technical expertise is a real challenge. I guess I'll say I agree with what Jake said and you really have to approach these things on a case by case basis, and, you know, look at the resources of your partner and so forth. But an example where our bone actually is probably the, the deepest traveler is on the center from marine acoustics, where there are a lot of experts but we've developed a large enough staff that we're really leading from a technical point of view and I'm very comfortable we can sustain that. I'm going to chime in with one other quick thing I mean, less. I mean, I think we probably have talked about this too but I think if if Jen boss it goes on the line maybe she chime in too but I think if if I had my way for things like like EBM I guess it's a priority case by case basis like you said if it's something that we need a large team for I just don't know how how we pull the trigger on, you know, the budget side of things but if I could put Jen on the spot. I'd love to do that too. If she wants to. Well, yeah sure Jake I don't I honestly less don't think I have anything to add beyond bills sort of case by case I mean you know for the dynamic modeling our next step is the strategy right and how does it move forward and where does that expertise live so certainly that's that's on the agenda for the next year. Yeah this may just be a little bit of chauvinism I feel like we work, work hard on things and it's nice to see professional development at bone. Yeah, I think there are some places where we where we do still keep those things in house something so Bill mentioned the CMA air quality, a lot of air quality modeling work, as well as the oil spill risk analysis work that's all done in house. So this stuff will be case by case, but just for clarity, one of the reasons that we are leaning on and costs so hard for these, these new analysis that we talked about earlier today was that they actually got funding for that. And so when we came to them and said hey we need to start doing this stuff they said hey that's great. And we'll do it for you for free, because we got money for it. So that was just a great piece where you know two agencies are getting what they need coordinating. And, you know, for bones perspective, we didn't have to pay anything for it. So, yeah, I'm on board with all of the staff. There's another area where we might be the leaders we are an oil spill risk assessment so why not carbon release risk assessment. Yeah, and you know there's really close connection. Excellent. On that note, I'm going to insist we take a break. It is 332 now. And I don't want to push Brianna back too much. So if we could aim to be back. Well, you know what, let's go ahead and make it 345. Brianna, if that's problematic for you for any reason, please let me know. We will push back the discussion session that we have at the end and abbreviate that. But 345 please be back in the room and ready to go. No worries. One of the things that I do want to share is some of the outreach that bone has been participating in to get some interaction and engagement with the different science related conferences and minority serving institutions. Recently, we had a number of people and representation from across DOI attending the 2023 society for advancing. Chiquino Hispanic and Native Americans. This was a science national diversity of STEM workshop that was taking place in Portland, Oregon. So we had a presence there. We were able to talk to multiple students at that conference. And it was a guesstimated amount of like 5,000 students at that event. And this is something that bone is going to continue to participate with. We were also part of the. The Washington's White House. HBCU conference week that was held in Allerton, Virginia. And so, as we are finding ways to connect with the diverse background and skill set, we are trying to also put our face out there in front of the public and the students. To get more informed about what we are doing here at Bowman to gauge interest. And the type of projects and activities we do here. So I did want to mention that, but the. Going back to the human capital strategic plan. That was a recent plan it was before for the fiscal period of 2024 to 2028. And the strategic plan key objectives is to shape the future of bone and reflect on our commitment to recruit. Retention for our employees. And making sure we have a diverse equity and inclusion and accessibility workforce. So that strategic plan is now made available to all in bone to have a step in guideline on how we can accomplish that goal. Last time we talked about the strategic step down implementation plan. We talked about the, the strategic plan. And these are some of the things that we have so far in phone, trying to really champion diversity in our science. Okay, so there was a couple of evaluation questions that were in the report and I wanted to kind of address some of these areas of. Sample questions that we here in bone are trying to really think about and evaluate ourselves going to see if we are hitting the mark. So, just to kind of wrap up some of the ideas here. Regarding the questions. So, I will say for the 1st 1, how, how the organization characterize and implement the distinction between the surface level diversity and that deep diversity and that deep diversity. Like I mentioned before is going beyond, you know, race and gender and sexual orientation, but it's going to culture and looking at people experience in expertise. In many different areas. So 1 of the things that bone has really been focusing on is trying to for the area that we know we need a system with. We're, we did a environment to justice form. So this was a effort that is created for, for the interaction between New York and New Jersey offshore when environment to justice communities. And I think they are in the process of having their meeting. If not this month, the upcoming month, but I believe it's already in process now. But this is a way for, for, for us to hear from the communities that may be impacted with some of the work we're doing here in bone. We also are focusing more on trying to get tribal representation or for staff in the right offices to be able to connect and, and, and help us communicate effectively and also hear what the tribes are saying. There's been a number of recruitment actions and announcements that went out from the office of environmental programs, offers of renewable energy, as well as the golf recently. Recruiting, trying to recruit the tribal X back aspects of things and trying to understand from their lens of how, how the work here in bone impacts certain areas that we can really benefit from. So this is trying to understand that the work that we're doing here in bone and the impacts culturally and also in these under represented populations. Okay. And the C. So one of the other questions was, we actually did hire our first bone ever diversity and inclusion officer. A couple months back, we're super excited to have her. Her name is Lisa Broadway. She'll be helping us standing up the office of diversity and inclusion and accessibility. I'm sorry, diversity inclusion in human capital within bone and their focus is, is going to really be trying to find processes in places where we can make bone a great place to work, making sure there is access to the different resources we have in bone education opportunities to understand the diverse culture and bone and also be able to recruit that diverse workforce that we're looking forward to have. And then we currently the criteria is that would be in use to measure some of these. These areas that is identified in the question. We currently are using information from the feds survey to get us a baseline of where we compare with other departments and federal agencies and also larger. Agencies that are relatively the size of federal government. And we also are trying to understand the information and data that we are able to receive from USA job staffing. There's a backside where we can get data from applicants that are interested in a position that we may put out there and the data can tell us if they self identify themselves. If they raised their gender and their location, if they were made it to the qualification stage, if they were selected or not. So, the office of human capital is working with the different bureaus, trying to gather that information to see there are some discrepancies on the people that are considered qualified, the diverse, their diversity and if they are actually being hired. So there's some beginning analysis being done in that data collection process. But later on, I will kind of point out some areas that we might need some assistance with or some some expertise on. So I'm going to go ahead and talk about. I think I kind of write that some of the examples that we are doing to really move forward with philosophy and diversity, diverse culture within bone. And with all this work that we have been doing and we've been working with a lot of our counterparts across that see as well as the department level trying to really shape up how we are really focusing and driving our attention and commitment to a diverse workforce. We do have some information from the feds 2022 data. And I think right here is a comparison of how we perform against the government and the department of material overall. And our overall index for diversity, equity, inclusion, accessibility is around 83%. And that's a pretty good number, but we still have a ways to go we want to continue to work and improve and increase that number. I also wanted to share that this is a new measure that is being tracked in the feds results. And I'm pretty sure that we're, we're going to continue to track this information. We really want to, to make it clear and there's certain criteria and questions in each category to identify these different subsets within the index. They are really trying to find something that is measurable and get input from the existing workforce to see how we are measuring up as a bureau against the department and government overall. And then this is how we compare to the other small, large medium agencies. So government is usually considered to be a very large agency with over 75,000 employees. So we obviously are doing really well compared to large industry, but we want to do better. We want to get this, this index for a feds result as close to perfect as possible. Perfect is not. This is something for us to strive towards, but we understand that there is areas that we're going to have to to tighten up and address. And that brings me to the next slide here is the questions that bone needs to address. And we're hoping that the the Academy can help us with some of these questions. And such as what are the best practices that are identified to look at these barriers in our recruitment processes. This is something that is part of our strategic plan and step down plan about identifying barriers and our processes on bringing diverse talent in. But we would love to understand what are some of those best practices from other industry or other agencies. So we can use those as a starting point. How can we address those barriers that are identified rectified so that they can no longer be obstacles for for diverse talent and what parameters and practices can bone implement to eliminate these barriers. So those are some questions that I just want to throw out there. Just looking at where we are with some of the action items in our strategic plan, realizing that this is one area that we have not done too much work on. Besides gathering some some rough data from the USA job application pool, but we most definitely can find ways of improvement there. So I will conclude the presentation and we'll open it up for any questions or clarifying statements. Brianna, thank you so much for that presentation. I know this is a topic that folks on COSA have been eager to hear more about and receive these updates on so very much appreciated. I will open it for questions. Yes, thank you so much. That was really useful to get good understanding of where bone is. I got three questions, and they all sort of relate to the environmental studies program so do you have data on diversity in the environmental studies program versus bone proper, since that's sort of our belly wick and then is bone does bone have any data on diversity in the the individuals that it gives money to. And then related to that a number of agencies are beginning to require various kinds of diversity and community engagement as part of their research or proposals and such and is is bone requiring moving in that direction as well. So, thank you. Okay, I'll take a stab at addressing those questions. So the first question regarding is there a way that we can get data for the diversity in the science program. I think this is a step of getting away. We currently have data that we can break out with the different subject matter expertise and a different career fields that are within the, the, the agency. We do not have data specifically to the environmental program. I know that there is a very, very structured process on getting certain subject matter experts within the study development program. And so why they are reviewing profiles they have subject matter experts for certain oceanographers for birds. And so they're, they're called, if I'm not mistaken the star team, who are a collective group of individuals that should have a diverse background. Now, how those individuals are selected. I'm not quite sure I will have to go to Rodney or his team for that, but that should allow a diverse set of expertise discussing and reviewing our studies and what studies are going to be funded. So, I will let Rodney chime in on that first question. Happy to Brian, thank you. No, we don't collect that, you know, when we went for the, the kind of diverse or minority, you know, the contracts that go out or to various types of the universities that historic black colleges universities probably could pull that out but no we don't track that. We do have a small business, you know, a minority business that's tracked at a bone level and a higher level but we can pull some of that information out. I know there's other federal agencies that do track that type of information quite well. And I would like to move us in that direction where we are, you know, really, you know, getting a handle on that and tracking that through our contracts and through our cooperative agreements because we'd like to make a push to work towards and, you know, more cooperative agreements with historic black colleges and universities as well I see a lot of opportunity, especially work with environmental justice. I've been doing several of those studies, you know, this next year so I think that's an opportunity to kick in. I will give a quick promotion for our new employee, his name is Ben Queener. We brought him on board to help with our acquisitions. He's going to be our acquisition liaison. We've outlined a lot of our processes and we're also bringing him on board to do a lot of general tracking for the environmental studies program. This is one thing that I'm really wanting to do a better job of in the future with help from Brianna and the business department and support from Ben. Does that answer your question, Jeremy, pretty much? Did I forget anything? I'll accept whether you're moving like some of the other federal agencies to require sort of community engagement and diversity aspects in context of part of the research projects. Part of the context of the research. I don't know about that requirement. I think it's something we could think about, Bill, if you'd like to So building on what Rodney said, we are, we have, we're on the verge of formally inviting all five hundred and seventy four tribes to consult on the ESP. And I'm sure we'll get a lot of good ideas on the tribal front. And then, and I say this because the tribes are part of this. For them, we did a recently entered into the first cooperative agreement that bone or MMS has ever had directly with the tribe with the Mashpee Wampanoag. And we've been trying to organize different ways to provide funds and we'll go through the list for travel work. So we're so we are doing that kind of thing just by direct funding of tribes. But, but I think I think Rodney's right that we could. So the recommendation you would make is to take a hard look at that anyway, ways in which we might. Yeah, yeah. So I mean, the work that Brianna has put forward, it's a good first step. And so then the question is, where do you move from here? And so that was the sort of reason for my three. Yeah, actually, let me add that there's there's an interesting venue besides us directly. The National Academies has has launched a study that is expected to take two years on diversity, inclusion, inclusion, equity, accessibility and belonging in the ocean science arena. And so the bone was, I believe the first contributor, we gave $100,000 to the project a while ago in there, but they've got enough support that they're moving forward. And that's a really good venue probably to explore the way to do that. Yep. I was wondering, Bill, if you were going to raise that, I appreciate you doing so. If I might add a little bit to actually there is additional tracking that we do in terms of where our money does flow and what partnerships that we have. So we are now doing an annual report on relationships with HBC use. And we also do track any procurements that are targeted under the buy Indian Act. And we are being a lot more intentional with what opportunities we could have in terms of these types of relationships. And in terms of what businesses are awarded for what types of tasks, because we're very well aware that when you're engaging with some of these communities or when you want diverse, you know, information. You need to reach out and you need to be a lot more intentional and your end result will be very, very different if you're engaging with certain types of businesses or certain types of universities. So I suspect we'll be continuing to grow in this space. Scott. Yeah, that was great. Thank you so much. Can I ask you to put back up the slide that showed the comparison of BOEM to DOI and government. There was kind of a metric slide there. I'm just trying to make sure I understand what you were. Let me go ahead and share my screen again. Sorry about that. No worries. I think that one's probably okay. Can you, yeah, so big we make it bigger because I've got really bad eyes. I'm getting over every day. So the one before that the one, the other one, the one, yeah, the one you have. Yeah, that one. Okay, so this has a series of key. Oh, here. Oh, very good. Oh, yeah. And I can see it. Thank you. Thank you, Rod. And really, I'm getting older every minute. So senior moments. So, so I take at these DEI indexes are, is this a new set of metrics that were fairly recently compiled for BOEM, I take it. And because I don't remember seeing these before in any previous presentations. This is a new thing, right? This is a new thing and it's not just in BOEM is being tracked across all measures in the federal sector as well. Yes. So, so, so the, the, so BOEM kind of stands out relative to the, to the others. It looks like DO, Department of Interior is pretty within the range, pretty close to the government average as a whole, but BOEM kind of stands out. Tell me what, what, what's, what's the take? What is the, what is the, you know, the high, the high numbers at BOEM relative to the others? What does that, what does that mean? And what do you have? And do you have some sort of specific target you're aiming to, to move BOEM towards, you know. I think this is reflecting with, with all the work that we've been doing the past previous year in 2021, because there's always a lack in the information. This is reflecting BOEM hearing that there, there's needing to be some, some changes in the way we do processes and acknowledge and recognize our staff. Making sure that we have some, some reasonable accommodation for those individuals. So we do have guidance for reasonable accommodation. So we, we are able to take what the staff is saying and really have some actionable plans. And I think this is the result of us hearing the staff and what their needs are. So some of the things that we have focused more so on. When we started the Jedi, we, we looked at the racial composition and this is just in BOEM. I know it's not very specific to science, but BOEM is a science agency. So I guess it has some relevance there. But when we, when we were looking at how we can improve our diversity or minority numbers were in the low 20 percentile of diverse minorities within BOEM. And so we were starting to look at actions and items of what we can do to really get more diverse workforce. And I think by bringing awareness and having senior leaders acknowledge and recognizing that there is indeed something we need to work on, it attract a little bit more diverse background and more scientists. A lot of the things that in regards to inclusion, a lot of our scientists wanted to be a part of the overall mission and make sure that their work matters. And so we were hearing that as a, as an agency, and we're giving empowering those scientists to speak more and to have more opportunity to talk about the science they're studying. So in that way, they're being empowered and feeling included. So stuff like that, but we're doing to, to try to raise that number. But we don't have a solid number as to where we want to go. I know that 83 may look great compared to the others, but we have so much more that we can do. And I have not thought about what that percentage look like. So my question is more, just because I'm just, just, I'm retired and kind of out of a lot of stuff here. So I'm assuming that the high numbers are good. Yes. You're feeling good about your high numbers. So you are ahead of the game relative to the rest of Department of Interior. Correct. That is correct. And Department of Interior is, yeah, they're slightly ahead of the game relative to the whole government. But so, so you don't want to lose ground on these, right? And so where do you see relative to these? Where do you see your biggest opportunity that you're trying to focus on, given that you're kind of outperforming your department? So I think the area that we probably would like to really increase is having an equitable approach on how we bring it on new people. There was some rough data that we, we pulled from some of our analysis from USA job and there was some slight concern there where we looked at the qualified applicants and who actually were hired. And that diversity starts sloping down when they went to specific minority groups. So we know that there is a discrepancy or there's a barrier somewhere between when a person makes the certification list or the cert list. And then that person actually being hired. So we're trying to, one of the recommendations we're bringing in of course the diverse interview panels, hiring panels, but also trying to make training available for hiring managers as a recommendation. But I know that we can probably do more and I'm wanting to know what other, what are other agencies doing to avoid that obstacle. So, so, but it looks like you're off to a good start based on your route and, and, and, you know, so you're looking for opportunities like how can I improve my recruitment from underrepresented minorities, for example, which is a huge problem in stem across the, you know, across the waterfront. Do you have like internships, you're also blessed to have some of your locations close to HPC use in co located are you are you working on internships with HPC use to try to identify. That was, yeah, that was the area that was brought up. And it was part of our recommendation to our SLT about hiding having paid internships because we currently in bone have internships, but they are not necessarily paid internships and that doesn't really work for the diverse and minority communities. They don't have the luxury of taking off work without getting paid. So we are trying to see ways of having a consolidated program where we can actually offer internships paid internships. We still are trying to make some ground weight on that has not been a lot of movement regarding setting aside funds and resources to get that up and running but that is something that the, the new diversity and inclusion office is going to be tasked to help drive that forward. Okay, thank you. And if I can add on to that we're, we're piloting a new thing this year. We are partnering with the ORIS fellowship. We can do a little bit more targeted announcements for opportunities. These are paid fellowships for university students and post graduates, and we were able to bring to part time fellows on board to help with our environmental justice work. And we were very intentional in the recruitment and the requirements for these positions that these folks had to have deep ties with environmental justice communities because that's the best way that we could have gotten the right kind of people in to do the kind of work and nearly have the deep connections and understanding in those communities. So we're going to see how that goes and hopefully we can potentially expand that. And everyone actually, I'd like to note that after George Floyd was murdered, I adopted the Jedi Charter that Brianna is talking about. And Brianna stepped in as the chair of the Jedi committee and she does that. I don't think you, when she was introduced, she probably didn't explain. She manages the group that does the budget for the studies program, HR, editorial services, a whole range of things. So she's done this as a collateral job, but really, I mean, I credit Brianna a lot for the passion and intelligence she's brought to this. And she's not going to accept anything as being good enough, unless at the 100%. I guess we'll never get quite there, but. Thank you. You hit your card up. Do you want a last word? I think we sort of got to much of what I was thinking about. So I was wondering Brianna about the balance between recruitment and retention, and it sounded when you got to sort of a number of the things you were discussing that that retention was very much part of what you're thinking. So that was really my question. Yeah, so retention has been a very, very interesting topic over the years, mainly with a lot of new programs coming on board with bone. But I think we were able or we are able to retain a good amount of our staff here because the work-life balance and the flexibility we have in bone. There is a transparent process on how we do our monetary performance awards and is transparent to the staff and the managers, usually based on percentage, not necessarily set on dollar amounts, but percentage on their salary. So we try to acknowledge and recognize staff through that way. There's been a lot of inspiring leadership development programs throughout bone where it gives either GS 11-12 and also 13-14 opportunities to learn leadership development and also have a cohort to mentor them through that process. And there's also expansion and detail opportunities across the different offices and programs. So people are able to learn knowledge just from different sectors and bringing it back in to have a clear understanding. So I think a lot of the retention has a lot to do with people feeling needed, accepted, along, respected in the expertise as well as the freedom to try new things and learn new areas of the Bureau. Thank you. That's super. Thanks, Brianna. Bruno, last question. Brianna, I'd just like to thank you for all the work you've done. I'm responding to Bill's comment because it sounds from his description of your job description that you are an extremely busy and important person and that you've taken this on as extra labor. And so I'm wondering to what extent are you being supported by other bone staff because I worry a little bit about people of color doing all the diversity labor in these institutions? Yes, that's been a very good point to make. And one of the things that came from our senior leadership recently was we're trying to make sure that everyone has an opportunity to participate on the Jedi committee. And so there was a requirement to extend to have representation from each program in region, part of the Jedi community. And what I've seen coming through as far as with people that are interested are people that are learning more about the challenges we are having and they are not just people of color. Recently, that's been great to see that. So I have the opportunity to speak with new employees each quarter. And that gives new employees information about how we are existing within the Bureau, give them resources. And now that we have our diversity inclusion officer on board, they have some dedicated staff for that office to start working on these activities and goals here. Thank you. Yes, thank you very much, Brianna. And we are at the 430 mark, which is our adjournment time. But before we close, I want to do a couple of things. The first is I want to thank all of our speakers from today. I don't know how many are still on the line, but really appreciate the opportunity to learn from everybody to have these rich discussions. And so we were really excited to hear from Daniel and Mora about the update on the evaluating connection study and also Brianna on this topic as well. So really grateful. Appreciate especially your additional flexibility and timing. And then, you know, of course, we had a rich discussion in the earlier part of the day today on the expansion into the territories, which I know is an area that we're going to continue to be monitoring and take significant interest in. So, again, gratitude on behalf of the committee for all of the presentations. I did just want to give folks maybe a quick 3 minute opportunity total to make any comments or questions feedback on the day to day more generally. We have a very rich busy schedule tomorrow as well. And the committee will have a chance for closed session tomorrow afternoon. But I don't anticipate we're going to have a lot of additional time for just open discussion tomorrow. So with that in mind, I just, if there were any broad overarching comments or things that didn't come up today that folks want to mention. I just wanted to give a couple of moments for that. James. Thanks. I had a question. Wind energy is not really my my background but I did some looking around and I came across some stuff that Department of Energy has been doing in Puerto Rico. And an offshore wind is part of that I was curious if that's anything that that Bohm has been working with or has that been done separate of. Yeah, hi, this is Rodney. We met with DOE. I guess it was last month. I didn't realize that they were doing work in that area. And PNNL actually Pacific Northeast National Lab if I got that right. Yeah, it was some of the folks that are really engaged in that area so they had various outreach meetings list of stakeholders they shared with us. They did share with us some of the data collection that they've been doing. Mainly some physical oceanography but still still useful information we're just now kind of starting to take a look at that because the meeting was very recent but we are aware of that this time and we are trying to leverage that opportunity. Is that going to be something that's going to be collaborative going forward or you're going to continue to work with them or. I think that would be wise. DOE does have funds to, I want to say this, money bags, sometimes I call them. We have resources that I think we can partner with them and pull our resources and our expertise as well together with theirs. I'm not sure if you're aware but PNNL and others have a lot of great great scientists there that I think we can work with so we're looking at areas where we can get those synergies work together, you know, along with our work with INCOS and others I think getting federal agency that has interest and is doing work down there we should reach out and coordinate with them. And isn't it fair to say though that DOE, the National Renewable Energy Lab, I mean they are the go to people to do the initial assessments of wind energy potential around the country are they not that's where the we looked at them first to kind of tell us where the wind off blow and where the wind off blow. Right, right. Yeah, I'm talking beyond kind of the in rails, which does that assessment and looking towards the environmental and community work that these folks are doing, which I thought James was asking more towards that. That would that that work that I know that I realize they do both. I mean very quickly, I mean, we're pretty deeply entwined with them and a number of projects, particularly where they have funds they can bring in. I'm very involved at the political level because it's it's been Secretary of Interior Secretary of Energy and the Defense Department for example that announced the 30 by 30 go. Fantastic. Well thank you each again very much. We appreciate everybody's time today. So thank you so much. That was really useful to get good understanding of where bone is. I got three questions, and they also relate to the environmental studies program so do you have data on diversity in the environmental studies program versus bone proper since that's sort of our belly wick and then is bone does bone have any data on diversity in the the individuals that it gives money to and then related to that a number of agencies are beginning to require various kinds of diversity and community engagement as part of their research or proposals and such and is is bone requiring moving in that direction as well. So, thank you. I'll take a stab at addressing those questions. So the first question regarding, is there a way that we can get data for the diversity in the science program. I think this is a step of getting where we currently have data that we can break out with the different subject matter expertise and a different career fields that are within the the the agency. We do not have data specifically to the environmental program. I know that there is a very, very structured process on getting certain subject matter experts within the study development program. And so, while they are reviewing profiles, they have subject matter experts for certain oceanographers for birds. And so they're, they're called, if I'm not mistaken, the star team, who are a collective group of individuals that should have a diverse background. Hi, those individuals are selected. I'm not quite sure I will have to go to Rodney or his team for that. But that should allow a diverse set of expertise discussing and reviewing our studies and what studies are going to be funded. So, I will let Rodney chime in on that first question. Happy to Brian. Thank you. No, we don't collect that, you know, when we went for, you know, the kind of diverse or minority, you know, the contracts that go out or to various types of universities that historic black colleges, universities probably could pull that out. But no, we don't track that. We do have a small business, you know, a minority business that's tracked at a bone level and a higher level, but we can pull some of that information out. I know there's other federal agencies that do track that type of information quite well. And I would like to move us in that direction where we are, you know, really, you know, getting a handle on that and tracking that through our contracts and through our cooperative agreements because I would like to make a push to work towards and, you know, more cooperative agreements with historic black colleges and universities as well. I see a lot of opportunity, especially work with environmental justice. We will be doing several of those studies, you know, this next year. So I think that's an opportunity to kick in. I will give a quick promotion for our new employee. His name is Ben Queener. We brought him on board to help with our acquisitions. He's going to be our acquisition liaison. He's going to help streamline a lot of our processes and we're also bringing him on board to do a lot of general tracking for the environmental studies program. This is one thing that I'm really wanting to do a better job of in the future with help from Brianna and the business unit and support from Ben. Does that answer your question? Jeremy, pretty much. Did I forget anything? I'll accept whether you're moving like some of the other federal agencies to require sort of community engagement and diversity aspects in context of part of the research projects. Part of the context of the research. I don't know about that requirement. I think it's something we could think about, Bill, if you'd like to add. So, building on what Rodney said, we are, we have around the verge of formally inviting all 574 tribes to consult on the ESP. And I'm, I'm sure we'll get a lot of good ideas on the tribal front. And then, and I say this because the tribes are part of this. For them, we did a recently entered to the first cooperative agreement that bone or MMS has ever had directly with the tribe with the Mashpee Wampanoag. And, and we've been. I or trying to organize different ways to provide funds and we'll go through the list for travel work. So we're so we are doing that kind of thing just by direct funding of tribes. But, but I think, I think Rodney's right that we could. So the recommendation you would make is to take a hard look at that anyway, ways in which we might. Yeah, yeah. So, I mean, the work that Brianna has put forward it's a good first step. And so then the question is where do you move from here. And so that was the sort of reason for my three. There's an interesting venue besides us directly. The National Academies has has launched a study that is expected to take two years on diversity, inclusion, inclusion, equity, accessibility and belonging in the ocean science arena. And so the bone was I believe the first contributor we gave $100,000 to the project a while ago and there, but they've got enough support that they're moving forward and that's a really good venue probably to explore the way to do that. Yep, I was wondering, Bill, if you were going to raise that I appreciate you doing so. If I might add a little bit to actually there is additional tracking that we do in terms of where our money does flow and what partnerships that we have. So we are now doing an annual report on relationships with HBC us. And we also do track any procurements that are targeted under the by Indian Act and we are being a lot more intentional with what opportunities we could have in terms of these types of relationships and in terms of what businesses are awarded for what types of tasks because we're very well aware that when you're engaging with some of these communities or when you want diverse, you know, information, you need to reach out and you need to be a lot more intentional and your end result will be very, very different. If you're engaging with certain types of businesses or certain types of universities so I suspect we'll be continuing to grow in this space. Scott. That was great. Thank you so much. Can, can I ask you to put back up the slide that showed the comparison of BOEM to DOI and government and there was kind of a metric slide there. I'm just trying to make sure I understand what. Sure. Let me go ahead and share my screen again. Sorry about that. No worries. I think that one's probably okay. Can you. Yeah, so big we make it bigger because I've got really bad eyes. I'm getting over every day. So the one before that the one, the other one, the one. Yeah, the one you have. Yeah, that one. Okay, so this has a series of key. Oh, here. Oh, very good. Oh, yeah. And I can see it. Thank you. Thank you, Rod. See, I'm really, I'm getting older every minute so senior moments. So, so I take at these DEI indexes are, is this a new set of metrics that were fairly recently compiled for BOEM? I take it and because I don't remember seeing these before in any previous presentations. This is a this is a new thing, right? Yes, this is a new thing and it's not just in BOEM is being tracked across all all measures in the federal sector as well. Yes. So, so, so, so the, the, so BOEM kind of stands out relative to the, to the others. It looks like DO department of interior is pretty within the range pretty close to the, the government average as a whole but BOEM kind of stands out. Tell me what, what's, what's the take? What is the, what is the, you know, the high, the high numbers at BOEM relative to the others? What does that, what does that mean and what do you have a, and do you have some sort of specific target you're aiming to, to move BOEM towards, you know. So, I think this is reflecting with, with all the work that we've been doing the past previous year in 2021, because there's always a lack in the information. This is reflecting BOEM hearing that there, there's needing to be some, some changes in the way we do processes and acknowledge and recognize our staff. Making sure that we have some, some reasonable accommodation for those individuals. So we do have guidance for reasonable accommodation. So, we, we are able to take what the staff is saying and really have some actionable plans. And I think this is the result of us hearing the staff and what their needs are. So, some of the things that we have focused more so on when we started the Jedi. We looked at the racial composition and this is just in BOEM. I know it's not very specific to science, but BOEM is a science agency. So I guess it has some relevance there. But when we, when we were looking at how we can improve our diversity or minority numbers were in the low 20 percentile of diverse minorities within BOEM. And so we were starting to look at actions and items of what we can do to really get more diverse workforce. And I think by bringing awareness and having senior leaders acknowledged and recognizing that there is indeed something we need to work on, it attract a little bit more diverse background and more scientists. A lot of the things that in regards to inclusion, a lot of our scientists wanted to be a part of the overall mission and make sure that their work matters. And so we were hearing that as an agency and we're giving, empowering those scientists to speak more and to have more opportunity to talk about the science they're studying. So in that way, they're being empowered and feeling included. So stuff like that BOEM we're doing to try to raise that number. But we don't have a solid number as to where we want to go. I know that 83 may look great compared to the others, but we have so much more that we can do. And I have not thought about what that percentage look like. So my question is more, just because I'm just, I'm retired and kind of out of a lot of stuff here. So I'm assuming that the high numbers are good. Yes. You're feeling good about your high numbers. So you are ahead of the game relative to the rest of the Department of Interior. That is correct. And Department of Interior is, you know, they're slightly ahead of the game relative to the whole government. So you don't want to lose ground on these, right? So where do you see relative to these? Where do you see your biggest opportunity that you're trying to focus on, given that you're kind of outperforming your department? So I think the area that we probably would like to really increase is having an equitable approach on how we bring it on new people. There was some rough data that we pulled from some of our analysis from USAJob and there was some slight concern there where we looked at the qualified applicants and who actually were hired and that diversity starts sloping down when they went to specific minority groups. So we know that there is a discrepancy or there's a barrier somewhere between when a person makes the certification list or the cert list and then that person actually being hired. So we're trying to, one of the recommendations we're bringing in, of course, the diverse interview panels, hiring panels, but also trying to make training available for hiring managers as a recommendation. But I know that we can probably do more and I'm wanting to know what other agencies doing to avoid that obstacle. So, but it looks like you're off to a good start based on your route. And so you're looking for opportunities like how can I improve my recruitment from underrepresented minorities, for example, which is a huge problem in STEM across the waterfront. Do you have like internships, you're also blessed to have some of your locations close to HPC use in co located. Are you are you working on internships with HPC use to try to identify. Yeah, that was a area that was brought up. And it was part of our recommendation to our SLT about having paid internships because we currently in phone have internships, but they are not necessarily paid internships and that doesn't really work for the diverse and minority communities. They don't have the luxury of taking off work without getting paid. So we are trying to see ways of having a consolidated program where we can actually offer internships paid internships. I have a we still are trying to make some ground weight on that has not been a lot of movement. Regarding setting aside funds and resources to get that up and running, but that is something that the, the new diversity and inclusion office is going to be tasked to help drive that forward. Okay, thank you. And if I can add on to that we're we're piloting a new thing this year. We are partnering with the arise fellowship. We can do a little bit more targeted announcements for opportunities. These are paid fellowships for university students and post graduates, and we were able to bring two part time fellows on board to help with our environmental justice work. And we were very intentional in the recruitment and the requirements for these positions that these folks had to have deep ties with environmental justice communities because that's the best way that we could have gotten the right kind of people and to do the kind of work and really have the deep connections and understanding in those communities. So we're going to see how that goes and hopefully we can potentially expand that. And everyone actually, I'd like to note that after George Floyd was murdered. I adopted the Jedi Charter that Brian is talking about. And, and, and Brian stepped in as the chair of the Jedi committee. And she does that. I don't think you, when you're when she was introduced, she probably didn't explain she's she manages the group that does the budget for the studies and HR, you know, are through editorial services, a whole range of things. So she's done this as a collateral job but really, I mean I credit Rianna a lot for the passion and intelligence she's brought to this. And she's not going to accept anything as being good enough, unless at the 100%. I guess we'll never get quite there but You hit your card up. Do you want a last word? I think we sort of gotten much of what I was thinking about. So I was wondering Brianna about the balance between recruitment and retention. And it sounded when you got to sort of a number of the things you were discussing that that retention was very much part of what you're thinking. So that was really my question. Yeah, so retention is been a very, a very interesting topic over the years, mainly with a lot of new programs coming on board with bone. But I think we were able, or we are able to retain a good amount of our staff here because the work life balance and the flexibility we have in bone. There is a transparent process and how we do our monetary performance awards. And it's transparent to the staff and the managers, usually based on percentage not necessarily set on dollar amounts, but percentage on their salary. So we try to acknowledge and recognize staff through that way. There's been a lot of inspiring leadership development programs throughout bone where it gives either GS 1112 and also 1314 opportunities to learn leadership development and also have a cohort to to mentor them through that process. And there's also expansion and detail opportunities are across the different offices and programs. So people are able to learn knowledge is from different sectors and bringing it back in to have a clear understanding. So I think a lot of the retention has a lot to do with people feeling needed accepted along. Respect it in the expertise as well as the freedom to to try new things and learn new new areas of the of the Bureau. Thank you. That's super. Thank you, Brianna. Last question. Brianna, I just like to thank you for all the work you've done. I'm responding to Bill's comment because it sounds from his description of your your job description that you are an extremely busy and important person, and that you've taken this on as extra labor. And so I'm wondering to what extent are you being supported by other bone staff because I worry a little bit about people of color doing all the diversity labor in these institutions. Yes, that's been very, very good point to make. And one of the things that came from our senior leadership recently was we're trying to make sure that everyone has an opportunity to participate on the Jedi committee. And so there was a requirement to extend to have representation from each program in region part of the Jedi committee. And what I've seen coming through as far as with people that are interested are people that are learning more about the challenges we are having, and they are not just people of color. Recently, that's been great to see that. So I have the opportunity to speak with new employees each quarter. And that gives new employees information about how we are existing within the Bureau, give them resources. And now that we have our diversity and inclusion officer on board, they have some dedicated staff for that office to start working on these activities and goals here. Thank you. Yes, thank you very much, Brianna. And we're at the 430 mark, which is our adjournment time. But before we close, I want to do a couple of things. The first is I want to thank all of our speakers from today. I don't know how many are still on the line, but really appreciate the opportunity to learn from everybody to have these rich discussions. I know we were really excited to hear from Daniel and Mora about the update on the evaluating connection study and also Brianna on this topic as well. So really grateful. Appreciate especially your additional flexibility and timing. And then, you know, of course, we had a rich discussion in the earlier part of the day today on the expansion into the territories, which I know is an area that we're going to continue to be monitoring and take significant interest in. So again, gratitude on behalf of the committee for all of the presentations. I did just want to give folks maybe a quick 3 minute opportunity total to make any comments or questions feedback on the day to day more generally. We have a very rich busy schedule tomorrow as well. And the committee will have a chance for closed session tomorrow afternoon. But I don't anticipate we're going to have a lot of additional time for just open discussion tomorrow. So with that in mind, I just, if there were any broad overarching comments or things that didn't come up today that folks want to mention. I just wanted to give a couple of moments for that. James. Yeah, thanks. I had a question. I've. Wind energy is not really my, my background, but I did some looking around and I came across some stuff that Department of Energy has been doing in Puerto Rico. And offshore wind is part of that. I was curious if that's anything that that Bohm has been working with or has that been done separate of. Yeah, hi, this is Rodney. We met with DOE. I guess it was last month. I didn't realize that they were doing work in that area. And PNNL actually Pacific Northeast National Lab, if I got that right was some of the folks that are really engaged in that area so they had various outreach meetings, list of stakeholders they shared with us. They did share with us some of the data collection that they've been doing, you know, mainly some physical oceanography but still useful information. We're just now kind of starting to take a look at that because the meeting was very recent, but we are aware of that at this time and we are trying to leverage that opportunity. Is that going to be something that's going to be collaborative going forward or you're going to continue to work with them or? I think that would be wise. DOE does have funds to, I want to say this nicely, you know, money bags, sometimes I call them. But they do have resources that I think we can, you know, partner with them and pull our resources and our expertise as well together with theirs. I'm not sure if you're aware but you know PNNL and others have a lot of great, great scientists there that I think we can work with so we're looking towards areas where we can get those synergies work together, you know, along with our work with us and others. I think any federal agency that has interest in his doing work down there, we should reach out and coordinate with them. Isn't it fair to say though that DOE, the National Renewable Energy Lab, I mean they are the go-to people to do the initial assessments of wind energy potential around the country. We looked at them first to kind of tell us where the wind-off blow and where the... Right, right. Yeah, I'm talking beyond kind of the in-rails, which does that assessment and looking towards the environmental and community work that these folks are doing, which I thought James was asking more towards that work. But I know that I realize they do both. I mean very quickly, I mean we're pretty deeply entwined with them and a number of projects, particularly where they have funds they can bring in. And they're very involved at the political level because it's been the Secretary of Interior, Secretary of Energy and the Defense Department, for example, that announced the 30x30 Gova. Fantastic. Well, thank you each again very much. We appreciate everybody's time today. With that, I'll turn it over to our coaches to see if they have any initial words before we do our committee introductions. I'll go first. Welcome back everybody. Yesterday's meeting, I thought, was a yesterday's sessions were extremely rewarding. We covered a lot of territory and there were some excellent exchanges of information and I anticipate the same for today. And I guess the only thing I would say is I encourage folks in Boehm that are online that are not able to contribute or be in the room if they have things to add and want to participate in the conversation that we really encourage them to do so. Other than that, over to you. Thanks, Rob. That was a great, a great summary. And indeed, I would echo that please avail yourselves of the chat function. If you're joining us remotely and I want to participate in the discussion. Stacy keeps her eyes open for people raising their hands outside. So, yeah, I thought yesterday was very, very, very good session. And one thing I was particularly appreciative of is that we're focused on another new imperative for Boehm moving into the territories. That's an exciting new area that you're going to have to deal with. And I was very pleased that my perception is that you got a lot of receptiveness to some of the suggestions that came from the committee. I mean, we're here to help. You know, we're like the federal government. We're the National Academy. We're here to help. And that's what we want. We want you to be successful and we want to assist you as best we can. And but we got to, I think, all felt good about the discussions we had yesterday. Today, looking forward to some other exciting challenges that are coming your way. The whole marine spatial planning issue is a, is a, is a, I think a big frontier and a huge and important challenge. We're also going to get to hear some external perspective, which from, from our from outside folks, not part of this committee, but people with some, some deep expertise. I think that's going to be interesting as well. So looking forward to a great day. And thank you everyone for your participation. Thank you. We'll quickly do a round of introductions for those on the committee, both in the room and online. And then as we did yesterday, I'll just ask our speakers to please introduce. Prior to providing their presentations. So, Scott and Rod, we'll go ahead and still start with you all. You give a bit of an introduction, but go ahead and. Good morning, everybody. My name is Rod Mather. I'm a professor of maritime history and underwater archaeology and applied history at the University of Rhode Island. And I've been on COSA for quite a while. And I am co chair and this is my last meeting. Hi, I'm Scott Cameron. I'm a geologist. I worked for Shell for 32 years. And then the last 10 years I've been doing some consulting and a lot of volunteer work. I've been on COSA since its inception. And this is also my last meeting. And I'm going to miss my good buddy Rod here. You all are both welcome back anytime. Next, I'll turn to Jack. Good morning, everyone. I'm Jack Barth. I'm a physical oceanographer at Oregon State University. Thank you, Rona. Good morning, Rona Cox. I'm a geologist and coastal geomorphologist from Williams College. Jeremy. Good morning, Jeremy Firestone. I'm a social scientist and lawyer at the University of Delaware School of Marine Science and Policy. James. I'm James Flynn. I'm an atmospheric scientist with the University of Houston. Katrin. I'm Katrin Eichen. I'm a marine biologist with the University of Alaska Fairbanks. Thank you. Les. Les Kaufman. I'm a marine ecologist at Boston University. All right. We'll go next to Kerry. Good morning, everyone. Kerry Pomeroy, research social scientist background in applied sociology and anthropology and marine policy Institute of Marine Sciences at UC Santa Cruz. Thank you. Kevin. Hi, good morning, everyone. I'm the I'm Kevin Stokesbury. I'm the Dean of the School for Marine Science and Technology at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. I'm a fisheries oceanographer and marine biologist by training. I'm also the incoming chair for this committee. And I wanted to personally thank Rod and Scott for just leading the way and certainly setting a bar of which I hope to be able to try and at least reach hold up, but guys have just been amazing chair in these sessions and and I really appreciate your guidance. Thank you. We appreciate you as well, Kevin. Laurie. Hi, everyone, I'm Laurie summa geologist retired from Exxon mobile. I'm currently adjunct that rice and UT Austin. Thank you. Excellent. And with that, I think we can go ahead and introduce our first session. So I'm going to turn it over to Jim and Laura if you'll each introduce yourselves as well and then we'll go ahead and get your presentations ready. Okay, well, my name is Jim Kendall. I am the regional director for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management in the Gulf region. Now I started there February 1. I'm from Alaska where I worked in Alaska for 11 years. Before that I spent 11 years in our DC office. This is where everybody goes. But before that I spent 11 years in the Gulf office. In fact, right now I'm on the same floor with the same view out of my window I had when I started February 1 of 1989. I did my graduate work in the Gulf of Mexico and the Florida keys so I'm very familiar with the office. And I'm going to stay right now that I am familiar with what's going on because bone being a very small organization has taken full advantage of matrix management. People in Alaska, people in the Gulf have been helping out on the Atlantic, so we sort of are all interconnected so we really know what each other's doing across the breath of the United States. And with that before I live up to my Inuit name, a cocktail is the one who talks too much. I will turn it over to Laura to introduce herself. Hi, I'm Laura Robbins. I'm the deputy regional director down in the Gulf of Mexico working with Jim. I have a varied background. I started out in industry all in gas industry. Many, many years ago, and I have worked in private industry quite a bit and then I've done some stints in the government. I've been with the US Department of Education. I've been with the EPA. I have been with Department of Energy and my most recent home for probably almost 10 years now I guess would be Department of Interior, either with the Office of Natural Resources revenue, as well as the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. But I believe I've found my home. I love what I do. We have the best job in the world. So with that, we better give a cup to his full time because we all know he likes to talk. Well, seriously, my last meeting on the North Slope, they said it's not an insult. We all have names. We all have names like that, most of which we can't translate. So let's just see if I can actually share the screen. Let's see here. Can I share my screen? Come on, come on. Is it working? Outstanding. So let me put it in presentation mode. Is that going to work? And I want to minimize that. So it looks like it's working. Okay, well, yesterday's conversations were phenomenal. We really enjoyed it. That's probably the best day I've had in a long time listening to what was being said and the questions and the conversations. One point of note is I'm severely hearing impaired. I read lips. So if you see me staring at you while you're talking, I'm not trying to freak you out. I'm trying to understand what you're saying. It just hearing aids don't work well for me in a room like this. So if I'm staring at you while you're talking, I'm trying to get what's going on here. But anyways, yesterday's conversations were phenomenal. And I think it was a perfect setup for what Laura and I are going to say today. And so that's who we are. I like to say energy transition, minerals and sustainability working together in a multiple use basin. Because if you're into stuff like spatial planning, ecosystem based management, resolving conflicts. This is what we do. And for me, I'm a kid in the candy store. And we are going to handle, as I like to say, all the food groups, conventional energy, renewable energy, marine minerals and carbon sequestration. And recently we added dessert. So we're going to talk about something else. See if we can get this to work. Okay, I always start out with the bone mission. Now, you know this, what we do is manage the development of the outer continental shelf energy and mineral resources in an environmentally and economically responsible way. You know this, but I emphasize to all crowds, we're a stewardship bureau. We have responsibilities for preservation, conservation and resource use on a good day. Everyone likes us on the second best day. Everybody has issues with us at the same time case in point. The new five years out three lease sales industry is upset. The NGOs are upset. Well, that's a typical day for us. And so whenever we have new folks join our organization, I say welcome to bone. It's the hardest job you'll ever love. Things like spatial planning, ecosystem based management, use inspired science for decision making. That's what we do. It's hard. Get used to it. Okay, just to touch things real quick here. That's the Gulf of Mexico. Those are the leases, 2230 leases out there. There's about 1500 oil and gas structures. About half of those are manned. At any one time, there are three to 10,000 people living offshore. And there's 20,000 miles of active pipeline. A lot of it is under the peer review of Bessie, but we work very closely with the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement. Now, this is where we're going to start the story. One thing I learned living up north is stories can have a big impact. So here we're going to start the base of the story. Okay, in terms of lease sales, the Inflation Reduction Act said you will hold lease sale 257, 258, 259 and 261. Lease sale 261 is the last lease sale in the current five year program that's expired. So we have to have this one. It was supposed to happen in August. Then we've had courts and lawyers and judges involved and it was moved till September. We just found out the day before yesterday that we are going to have it on December 20th. Yeah, you missed the date in there. We were supposed to then have it November. November. It's been up and down. Up and down. But yeah, now it's September, August, September, November. And there's a lot of planning in that public outreach, federal register notices, all that stuff they have to be on. That's the stuff that's done behind the scenes no one sees. And there's dozens and dozens of people involved. See what else can I say about that. I think that pretty much covers that. This is what we have to do and we're doing it. Okay, for the next five year, the proposed final program that came out, proposes only three lease sales in the next five year. That would be one in 2025, one in 2027 and 2029, all of them in the Gulf of Mexico region. Again, there are a lot of people not happy with this. That was not our decision. But this is the world we work in. Next, marine minerals. This is something that often gets overlooked. We have the responsibility to manage marine minerals in the Gulf. It's primarily sand and gravel to take those resources, which are offshore on the OCS. And working with, for example, the states and with all the other agencies make them available to put back on the beach for erosion. And with things going on with climate change, the changing environment, that is incredibly important. I like to say no sand, no coast, no infrastructure, because whether it's pipelines for oil and gas or an electrical cable, they have to come ashore somewhere. And it's a very active environment. We all know this. We're all scientists, the coastal areas, a lot of things are going on. So our marine minerals program sometimes gets overlooked, but it's extremely important. Next, okay, November 15, 2021, with the bill, the bipartisan infrastructure law, we got the authority to manage carbon sequestration on the outer continental shelf. This is a big deal. I've got an office of 292 people, at least 70 of them are working all the time on this issue. We've got seven teams, 70 people working on it. The proposed rulemaking just went through management review. I read the document. Laura's read parts of the document. We've all got into it. It will be made public soon. But this is for us to take CO2, send it back offshore and deep into the ground. This is really some incredible high tech scientist. I've got geologists, geophysicists, petroleum engineers, environmental scientists in my region, and in headquarters working on this around the clock. This is really phenomenal. It is a big lift. It's going to hit the street soon, but we're committed to doing it and doing it safe. And it's a joint effort between Baum and Bessie. And you can jump in anytime when I miss something. He's not exaggerating. It is a very big lift and you're going to see that in the proposed regulations. It's approximately a 2,500 page document at this point. So it took a long time to review. It's very complex. Okay, now here's the dessert. We covered the food groups of conventional energy, renewable energy, mineral resources and carbon sequestration. Well, this has been on our plate for now well over a year and we've had a number of folks coming in about green hydrogen. You don't always have to use electricity generated by wind turbines to make electricity and send it to shore. We all know what electrolysis is. Why not use the electricity generated by wind turbines through electrolysis to produce hydrogen and the red there. Those are hundreds of miles of pipeline that already exist in the coastal areas of Louisiana and Texas to move hydrogen between industry facilities. There's a market for it right now. Trust me, we have more than one company has come in our door and said, when are you going to start this? We have an idea. It could be using the electricity from a wind turbine sending it to shore and doing the electrolysis on shore or generating electrolysis offshore. There's a lot of complications with this in terms of rulemaking and the solicitors office all the lawyers, but we are looking at this and it's a daily conversation. So we've got conventional energy, renewable energy. Now we've got hydrogen, carbon sequestration and marine minerals. Again, if there's any place to use conflict management and multiple use the Gulf is the place to do it and that's what we're doing. Okay, when Laura is going to go into a lot of details here shortly in part of the presentation, but on August 29. We did something that was phenomenal. We had our first offshore wind sale that red area is off of Lake Charles that's 102,000 acres a company has purchased that. There's pending, but the lease has been 100% issued. Now they're going to have to go and do site characterization and surveys and then after that they would submit if they choose to a construction and operation plan. There'll be more outreach there will be more NEPA done, but we have those two areas are that one area and then off of Galveston we had a large area that was broken up into two areas Galveston one and Galveston two. No one bit on those, but less than a day after that sale concluded, we had multiple calls that came in and said you didn't sell them can we buy them. I'm not saying we kicked the Hornets Nest, but having a renewable wind sale in the Gulf of Mexico right in the oil patch. People kind of woke up, and we have had multiple companies come in since that sale saying we want unsolicited leases well we have to have competition there. We can include those areas in the next wind sale Gulf of Mexico wind to which we're planning for but one thing I want to point out, if you notice. You see you see the yellow in the orange off of Galveston. There's a bigger area that sort of looks like a pyramid on its side. That was the original wind area so Laura I'm going to turn it over to you for a couple of second minutes to say why that wind area now had two areas in it. Oh, okay. So, so basically what he's describing the pyramid shape was basically the wind energy area that we we developed as a part of the planning model that I'm going to talk about later. So those the gray or black outlines or the actual wind energy areas on both of both of those areas so you go one step further or we went one step further based on comments within our proposal notice through stakeholder engagement and getting the comments back where we always adapt to to the feedback that we get so you see. See the two in the Galveston area those are two different leases that we offered our stakeholders wanted areas of approximately 100,000 acres in each lease. So all three of those are all approximately 100,000 acres but but to to talk more about the precision of that because some site precision was done with the model. Based on comments from our Fisher Fisher people the shrimp people, they wanted specific things pulled out after we got that far in the process, we went back and took things out we were constantly adapting these wind energy areas. So that gap you see between those two leases it looks like little corridor, those were blocks that were pulled out because we further determined that that affected them negatively. Later in the process we pulled that out you'll see a little empty block in the southern Galveston lease and that was another concern that came up after the fact after the modeling and we pulled that out the blocks in the lower part of that wind energy area. Some additional lightening issues came out so so I think Jim just wanted to point out how we were constantly adapting based on things we were hearing along the way. It's a continuous process. And another thing, since you brought up the dessert, let me let me throw this in here. He brought up the hydrogen. So I think it'd be a good point leading in before I get to my stuff leading into how how critical hydrogen is going to be in the Gulf of Mexico. So our northeast wind energy areas are in all of our partners and headquarters, they have all of these the dealings with the complications of plugging into the grid in doing these things. That's not necessarily the goal of the people coming in giving us presentations and in all of these business models. The Gulf isn't as focused with plugging into an existing grid. I'm speaking from what I'm hearing from industry. They're bringing in proposals for our wind energy to be used for production of hydrogen. So that's why Jim threw that in there. That's a new one. Our Pacific region hasn't had that. The Atlantic has not had that but that's going to be a first for us and that is that is the reason why we are faced with a hydrogen challenge in the Gulf. Next slide. I threw this in just a couple of years ago. The Atlantic was the big thing for wind. But the Gulf of Mexico, you know, it's the Gulf of Mexico. It's all conventional energy. Why are they interested in it? Why would they be interested? Well, I went to a meeting in Boston just a few months ago and it was primarily about the Atlantic. But some of the comments were phenomenal. Like for example, the jacket for some of these bottom founded wind turbines, the second one from the left, are being made in Louisiana. The first Jones Act compliant turbine installation vessel was being built in Brownsville, Texas. Then I heard comments like in some of the panels, like we have to go to the Gulf of Mexico to get people that know how to work offshore. The funniest thing was, one of the comments was that our welders on the east coast, they're used to welding for eight hours, getting in their F-150s and driving home. Now they may be asked to work offshore for days at a time. That's new to them. In the Gulf, everybody knows somebody that's on seven days, off seven days or whatever. And so a lot of the stuff that they're using on the Atlantic coast has connections to the Gulf coast because that's where the infrastructure and the experience is. And now with people coming in and talking about hydrogen, and we want that on solicited lease because you didn't sell it, the activity is ramping up. It's really kind of exciting. Okay, now. A review here. Bombs authorities, this is where I'm going to go in my lecture mode. Sorry, my old academic hat is coming out. Bombs authorities and responsibilities, conventional energy, marine minerals, renewable energy, carbon sequestration, then we added dessert hydrogen, and there may be other things coming. But it's not all about us. We have to factor in our other stakeholders and our other partners, fisheries, ecosystem services. We all like to breathe. We need our oxygen, transportation and shipping, recreation, my son's an F-16 pilot. I don't want him running into a turbine. His mother would kill me. So we have to consider all of this in what we do. So that map I showed you with the lease blocks, the green lease blocks. Okay, let's add all that stuff and you get something that looks like this. On this map, we've got the lease box. We got an endangered species, the rices whale area, the big thing that goes from Florida all the way over. The lighter blue areas are potential areas for carbon capture and sequestration. The red areas are significant sand resources. The yellow are potential wind energy areas. The light blue area off of Lake Charles, that's the lease we just issued. There is a lot going on. We could add more to this. Bottom line, the Gulf of Mexico is a mature energy multiple use area that has not been lost on us. We're in a sandbox with a lot of different people that's doing this. Now, how do we address multiple use in terms of sustainability? Again, I'm going to get in my lecture mode. I'm not telling you anything you don't know. First of all, we have to acknowledge the social, economic, environmental, tribal, and international components on areas like carbon sequestration and hydrogen. We have a lot of connections, a lot of meetings. Last year I was to Norway twice. We got people that just came back from Norway to talk to them. We had meetings at OTC. There was a side meeting hosted by the Netherlands on carbon sequestration and hydrogen that I got to attend. I was the only government representative there. So we have to acknowledge all these things. It's all going on at once. Recognize and engage all ocean users, stakeholders, tribes, and partners. Everybody needs a seat at the table and that brings up the next collaboration. Now, a lot of people use the term collaboration and partnership interchangeably. That drives me crazy. Rodney and I are co-authors on a chapter in a book that came out two years ago on partnerships. Collaboration is the highest level of partnership. Partnership includes coordination, cooperation, and collaboration. Collaboration is where everybody has a seat at the table. You come and operate in good faith. You have skin in the game. This is what we aim for with everyone that we are working with. It has to be collaborative. Except the change and transition are occurring, the energy transition. There's a lot of talk about transitioning from fossil fuels to non-fossil fuels. Well, and there's been a lot of attention on the Atlantic coast. What's already happening in the Gulf, some of the stuff they're using on the Atlantic coast is being built in the Gulf Coast. We've already had a sale and we're planning for the next sale. So it's not coming. It's here. Okay, build upon what we already know. At the very beginning of the renewable energy program, there is a little bit of angst about getting too close to conventional energy. We're the new kids on the block. It's renewable, not that old stuff with fossil fuels. Well, I think people have learned that there is so much we can learn from the oil and gas industry in terms of construction, welding, placing things. All that stuff. It is transferable. And so we've acknowledged that and we're working on it. Also, use the best available information and knowledge. Social information, economic information, tribal information, environmental. When I worked in Alaska on the North Slope, working with the indigenous folks, the Inuit, I come to really value indigenous and local knowledge. You may have the best data for the last 10 years, but if you're talking to somebody that's been out in the water for 50 years and they've got information from their grandparents. That is invaluable. So there are different forms of coming to know we have to embrace that. Now, moving on to do this, we are number one, using adaptive management, willing to adjust and adapt as we go. It's not like fire and forget, you know, it's one of those where what you're doing today, you have to be willing to change tomorrow and the day after that. We've accepted that. Number two, map the different activities. Now and for the future, using state of the art tools, modeling, GIS, machine learning, artificial intelligence, that came up yesterday. A friend of mine in USGS, a dear friend of mine likes to say map once and use forever. That doesn't hold anymore. With the climate change and the erosion and things like that, you better be mapping more often. With the change in migrations of birds and marine mammals, you've got to be cognizant of that and plan for it. You have to be willing to change and adapt everything you know, just because you got this great map that, okay, here we have this for decisions. Well, the next decision process for the next sale or whatever is coming up, we may have to update that map, especially if we have to add new things like dessert on it. Okay, anticipate and seek out and address cause and effect relationship between activities, distinct and cumulative impacts, new mitigation measures. You know, first there was oil and gas and a little bit of sand. Now there's oil and gas, a lot of emphasis on marine minerals. Oh, now there's carbon sequestration. Oh, now there's hydrogen. Those are things we're going to add. What are the tools? We have to look at the interactions between them. Okay, use an ecosystem based approach to management. We all know what that is, but it's amazing when you talk to some groups, they actually think you're going to manage the bugs and the bunnies and the fishes and stuff. No, I mean, in its purest sense, ecosystem based management is using the best information on the environment to help with your decisions. And since we're getting new information constantly, you have to integrate that into your thought processes and have to adapt. Okay, with that, I'm going to shut up and I'm going to turn it over to Laura. You can drive. The reality of this break is to give a gock to a break so he can, like, catch up and breathe before, so I'm giving him a rest. But basically, I just, I wanted to talk a little bit about the process we used within the Gulf of Mexico leading up to our first wind sale. It's basically going to be a high level overview, but I think you need to know a little bit of where we were to understand where we are. So, back in 2020, we had the, on the tails of some NREL studies about the wind speeds in the Gulf of Mexico. We had our Louisiana state governor, John Bell Edwards, approach us for requesting a task force be formed, looked at and start investigating wind in the Gulf of Mexico. So, for a lot of us, we were like, okay, you know, we had been talking about wind for a while, but in our minds, we didn't see it coming this fast. So, so we talked about it, we responded to him in December of 2020 and said, well, we'll do it. We'll put together a task force, but we want to make it a regional task force. We want to bring in all of our affected states. So, by, that was in December of 2020, by June of 2021, we were out there with our first task force meeting. At the same time, we issued a call for information, not a call, I'm sorry, an RFI to, you know, test the waters and see if there was actual interest out there based on this. So, keep in mind, that call or that RFI was issued in June of 2021, at this point in time, we've had an administration change. So, our mindset before that was a little different. We were working on wind, not to the extent that our OREP people and everyone in the northeast was, but you know, we were thinking someday the Gulf will come to the wind game. So, administration change that got up to little with introduction of these aggressive climate goals and so by, like I said, June of 2021, we're having a task force meeting we have an RFI everything is moving rapidly. So, this is just a quick look at what that initial request for information looked like. It's just a very broad geographic area. It went out, I think the RFI went out to water depths of, gosh, I off the top of my head I want to say it was about 1300 meters. We received around, I believe it was 39 comments on that. And from, from, you know, private citizens, the state agencies, Fed agencies. But yeah, there was some interest and we went down that area and took it to the, we not for a call for information. So, we took that area down to approximately, I think that was approximately 20 million acres in our call area. It's the boundaries of the call area, the red lines. And we brought the water depth into approximately a little over 800 meters in depth. We, we, again, based on comments and industry interest, we proceeded to move forward. And we're fixing to see on this next slide. No, not the next slide. I don't, my notes in the slides don't exactly match up. But part of, part of the process was getting industry interest because we did not want to, we didn't want to progress in this unless people are willing to join the game and be interested. So that's just a depiction of the industry, industry expressing interest. And it's basically, as you can see, the interest did not fall completely within our call area. But as you can see, if you remember the map Jim previously showed a lot of the interest lined up in the areas where we eventually developed the wind energy area. So this is the side I was talking about as you probably recall from James Morris's presentation yesterday from Noah, he presented the same slide we, we were, and I don't want to use the wrong word. We were in a very important collaboration. If, because if I say partnership Jim's going to have a heart attack. We were in a very good collaboration with Noah and we shared the same slide in with our extensive outreach. So anyway, you've seen this I don't really need to go over the slide again. This basically shows what spatial modeling is and what's considered so I after after we got our comments from the call for information area. And that was after November of 21. That's when we progressed with our collaboration with Noah and in cost to to go into this modeling process. I don't know, I believe James probably mentioned this yesterday but I don't recall specifically if he said how our collaboration started. Noah in cost was out there already doing aquaculture work and using this model, and they were engaging with with a lot of the same stakeholders we engage with these stakeholders already had exposure to this model. They already liked it. This is something that if if the golf was blessed with anything in this whole renewable energy process. We, we had support going in to our process where in the Atlantic, they did not have that so so so it's been it's a totally different situation. So we decided to this getting feedback from from our stakeholders we decided to engage in this process with with in costs. So James mentioned yesterday are modeling consisted of 75 different data layers. That's true 75 different data layers that were further reduced down into 54 different data sets. And in the model then that was narrowed down into sub sub models or subsets of information as shown on this. As you see the industry and operations the constraints natural and cultural resources national security, economics logistics fisheries, all of those 75 data layers are buried in those sub data sets. And I you see the constraints when that's the, that's the, the go no go area those are those are things that we absolutely that was, you know, things we could not, could not include. So, I'm going to stop here because because we keep talking about stakeholder engagement. I want, I want everybody to understand because I heard a lot about this as as we progress with our work with the territories. I just want to talk about how the golf did it. We adopted from the beginning you have to engage early, and you have to engage often, and we did. From the time we decided to put that task force meeting together. So, late 20 through the time we published our proposal notice back in probably March of this year. We had engaged in, and this these are approximately there probably a little more than this but a nice round even number of engagements would be 400. We were on the road constantly we were talking we were as we were collaborating with Noah. As we would move along in the steps we were socializing this information with with people we wanted them to understand from the beginning, as we worked through the process. So, when I say 400 this this were state governments, federal partners, NGOs, tons of environmental justice communities, tribal tribal nations. We ran the gamut. And it, I mean, someone someone made the the comment yesterday that it's important to have the people in the areas they're going to be affected doing this engagement, sitting down at the table with them listening. We didn't necessarily have our headquarters people coming down and doing that we handled that locally, because we felt like we had a better understanding of our affected are affected stakeholders. So, so we did this early and often, and we got ahead of the game and stakeholder engagement. So, as after the comments were received for the call of information. That's when the work with with Noah in cost began. They took in all of these data layers now some of the data they already had because of all of their fisheries work. But this was this is bone data of these and I can't remember what examples James pulled out and used yesterday but these are two very important ones. The one on the left shrimp electronic log books those those bright red areas or their heaviest trawling areas. So that was very important to us that we protected our, our strippers, especially, you know, being from Louisiana that is the livelihood of a lot of people. So, all of these layers built, built up as James said yesterday to this suitability model, another one that we put a lot of consideration in the model for was migratory birds the one on the right. So, part of the part of the protections we put in for that is we had a 20 nautical mile buffer around the coastline that we put in for that you can you can see the yellow by the coast is is a big migratory pattern for this so we eliminated that in the shrimp log book thing the the reds. And you're going to see where we basically eliminated all of those areas the best we could. I'll point out now this is this is I don't know if you can see those of you that have your laptops up. Do you see that that pyramid where off of Galveston where we put that wind energy area. Do you see that that little line of red cutting right through the middle of it. We talked about how we, we went back after comments and pulled something out that little line of red across there are those blocks that we pulled out we listened to them to their comments we went in and we did some revisions but that really demonstrates demonstrates it in that picture. I forgot that one was in there, but these are, I mean, I have, I brought them if anyone wants to see them. I have a report that has all of these talks about the process we followed it's got the math it's got the formulas it's got the how things were weighted, and it shows some of these data layers but we have this on our website and it's on your website for the public. Yeah, yeah we were very transparent in our process every time we we we came up with something. We put it out there so they could go and dig through it and read it and ask us questions and and these 400 engagement meetings we had basically answered those questions that they would have. It was, it was successful for us. I mean I'm not going to say that it was a cakewalk to do this in the golf. But based on what our colleagues in headquarters are having in the Atlantic. It kind of was a no one's going to be happy all of the time but through this modeling process, we modeled out an area that was deconflicted, approximately 90 to 95% deconfliction and they were the stakeholders overall were very pleased with the with the product. So as James showed this slide yesterday this was the final suitability map that came out, you know of course all the red was the the no go areas. If you see this and you saw our map where we had generated 14 identified wind energy areas. Eventually that got narrowed down to 13 because we had a DoD concern on one of them and we pulled that one down later because we listened to the DoD. But you can start to see based on corridors transit corridors you can see how it just it fell out. And that's that's what it looked like after we had the the deconflicted areas our initial wind energy areas and we were talking with them. I mean every step of the way, every time we got a piece of information, we didn't hold on to it as soon as we had clearance from from our leaders and headquarters that we could go talk about something. We were just waiting can we go talk can we go talk and we would immediately hit. So we socialized this these weren't final wind energy areas that we were transparent and open with them about where we were considering putting wind in the Gulf. And from from the beginning they they all know that these were on the table now apparently it's clear we did not go forward with all of these we went forward with two we went forward with wind energy area I off of Galveston and wind energy area and we took them off of Lake Charles but all of our stakeholders knew where we were thinking and where we were headed so we were we were we took a very programmatic approach in the Gulf to this and looking towards the future and where we may go in the future. We took a programmatic approach with with our environmental assessment. And an EA over the entire call area. So that allowed us to to be able to, I believe they built in an area can correct me if I'm wrong she's sitting back there. I believe we built into our EA where we could have up to 18 leases leases not wind energy, just the identified leases within the wind energy areas over our call area so we were we were planning ahead while in the process. So, I said that to build up to this. So, most of the other regions that have been working in wind energy. They followed a strict, we come out with draft wind energy areas we have comment periods we finalize wind energy areas we go back out with proposed cell notices and in this process. Well keep in mind again, we have these lofty climate goals, and we're trying to support the administration in the climate goals. So, we were sitting around one day and before before actually the August sale, we do all of this engagement supply chain came up supply chain development, always supply chain development, it's it's a chicken and egg situation. It's like, we want to invest in the supply chain, but are you going to be there for us when we do. We don't want to over build a supply chain that's not going to have work to do. So we were talking and we said for the Gulf, perhaps, as we're doing all of this engagement, we need to talk about the potential for a second round of wind in the Gulf, not saying we are doing it or aren't doing it but going ahead and socializing again, going back to our engage early and often. So, when I said we had a programmatic approach to this, and we had socialized all of these areas previously, we then went back and started socializing the idea of a second round. So we pulled out, as you see these beige areas, if you back up. Look at focus on J was a jkl and in and remember where I is. So we literally pulled up our previously identified draft wind energy areas. And we started having a, we had an internal discussion for a while, and we got the approval to go ahead and start talking to, to the stakeholders. Now I wouldn't, I wouldn't call this. We had our last task force meeting this in April, after our PSN came out, but we wanted to get to our stakeholders quickly and start socializing and getting feedback because we would not proceed with another round if we didn't have support and didn't have, you know, if, if they're not going to show up. So we, we need to know. So, we set up a, we didn't call it a task force meeting but it had all of our task force members there, plus a whole lot more, and we called it a round table around table session that was back in June of this year. So we started, we started talking about, hey, if we go with another one, what areas interest you the most what are your concerns, what have we missed, we asked them to bring data to us. And, you know, there's, there's data gaps everywhere, but we did this first round process. They're all familiar with it. So here's your chance to, to give us feedback on what, what additional things you would like for us to look at before we progress. And then we started having, again, we, we hit the road again, starting having all these engagement meetings. And, and it was, no one was shocked. That was what was, people can't believe us that we had the Southern Trimple Alliance supportive. And so we, we progressed with that, and we, we, we went ahead, we did not go out with a draft wind energy areas, again, because we basically had socialized those. We skipped that part of our process in the Gulf that other regions haven't skipped yet, because we did it programmatically up front. We went straight to issuing final wind energy areas. So that's what this is, and it's showing the Jkl and N in proximity to our lease that we have out there right now with RWE. And also I is showing on the map. I was already a final wind energy area, based on the first round of wind, you know, for many reasons that did not happen. There were a lot of political reasons why those leases didn't lease. The leases did some things the day before the sale that greatly scared a lot of people. And for, for whatever happened, we didn't lease those. But as Jim stated, these people came back in the very next day started contacting OREP and headquarters, contacting us trying to figure out how to get their hands on these leases. So, and they're serious, they're really serious. So I, if we do move to a second sale, we haven't made that decision yet. You know, that's still out there. We're going through the process for putting in all the work. The final decision to have a sale has not been made, but I might go back in for the next sale. It might not. It may go with an unsolicited lease request. And of course, if we get multiple, we publish that on the federal register, if there's multiple companies, it's going to turn into an auction, even through that process. And the last company that came in knew they had competitors already. So they were pre-gaming us that no matter what we do, they're coming to the table. Yeah, that was last week. It's all going together. But anyway, we don't know what areas we would put through in a PSN. We could move all of these there and then eliminate some of them after we received comments. But we're very invested in our public comment periods in the Gulf. We do make decisions based on those. Oh, so, so basically is just the key takeaways from all of that. I would have to say is, and Jim touched on this, but the success we had and we do a lot of people and we got a lot of bad press on our auction, but we define success as leasing one lease in the Gulf. That is what we had internally. Jim and I, I don't know. I can't speak for everyone else. We, we said, if we get a lease in the Gulf, because there are so many challenges in the Gulf, that is success for us in the middle of oil and gas country. But I think part of the reason why, and well, I know the reason why we were successful is we had decades of lessons learned and experience in the oil and gas industry to build on. We had the workforce. We have, I mean, we didn't have to start from scratch. We learned. Second point, I pointed this out, we took a programmatic large geographic approach, and that has proven to be a really good, good call for us to have done. And again, a programmatic EA within the call area to you know, this one to me should probably be the number one key takeaway was our extensive outreach and engagement because we built those challenges. We built those relationships early. And we've had some of these same relationships for decades. There were a few new groups that came in, but we've worked with these stakeholders for a very long time. And the process was just a little different to them. But we may maintain contact throughout. And again, I was showing Jim because I don't think Jim wasn't around when we were one of the reasons why he wanted me to talk about this Jim wasn't in the Gulf yet when we did this so we were he was quizzing me on things and when he goes well just how much outreach did you do. And I said, Hmm, it's bigger now the numbers bigger now but probably 400 meetings and he's just like the eyes go. And he's asking me how many groups and and I so I just pulled up my phone because I had the list on my phone, and he starts flipping through all of it because we record all of our engagement and what was talked about and he's looking on this list. And he looked down at the document and he goes, there's 51 pages of this here I went. Yeah. Yeah, there was. It was hard. It was hard work but it was worth it. Another key takeaway for the success was the model use. This was initiated in the Gulf our other regions had not adopted this yet I think James touched on that as well yesterday, but it was, you know, there were some growing pains there but now I think I think everyone now wants to follow this process and and they are following this process this collaboration with Noah and costs, just it caught fire and and they're all they're all doing it now. And I mean, we're kind of, we're kind of proud that we were able to help the Bureau with that, you know, we like to we like to share our information in the Gulf, and it just leads to success for everyone. But the key thing and James said this yesterday and it was so funny because I'm sitting here thinking, that's my fifth key takeaway and James is saying it we didn't even talk before yesterday. The model is only a tool, and we've made that clear to everyone it is only a tool it is not making our decisions. We humans get to do that. But with that said, a cock took has rested, and I'm sure he's ready to roll on. Well that's what it touches on we're going to go with the next part of this. As you're familiar with movies and Hollywood's. They always like to have a prequel, you know after successful movie. And so I wanted to look back. Now at our last meeting that we did virtually Scott you had some phenomenal questions that I got from other groups that I want to touch on as we look back before this started. I'm not going to date myself but I guess I am. I am a Texas and I'm graduate I did my dissertation at the flower gardens in the Florida keys. The flower gardens was studied. Now for over 50 years the original studies for the flower gardens, which is now a national marine sanctuary was funded by the Bureau of Land Management, which used to be where the studies program and our leasing program was. Okay, so we're out there doing this work. My major professor Tom bright and plus my rest of my committee, Dave McGray, Dick Resick and a few others did the pinnacle trend work. And also the hard banks you're familiar with bright bank guy or banks on your bank. These are topographic features on the top assault don'ts. So that work was being done. There's always been fair ways out there and lightening areas. We've had all of this stuff has been going on and that is before the term ecosystem based management became I hate to use the term buzzword, but before that became part of our vernacular, and then coastal marine spatial planning CSMP. I don't know if somebody remember when that came out very scientifically based. It caused a lot of angst because people associated coastal marine spatial planning with zoning and marine reserves and no take areas. It was a mess remember that Rodney. Oh yeah. Now we're calling it ocean planning but we were following a lot of those principles that make up ecosystem based management and spatial planning way back before we had these phenomenal tools. In fact, if you go throughout the history, you're going to see that we've always avoided navigation lanes. We've always avoided military areas we worked with DoD national marine sanctuaries we protected the flower gardens before Noah knew they were there. I know I've been diving on those. The hard banks the topographic features historical areas of significance we're not going to let somebody knowingly put a platform or a pipeline on a shipwreck. We have mitigations and minimizing impacts to marine mammals turtles and fisheries. The golf office when it was MMS did the first poster of marine mammals in the Gulf of Mexico because working with Noah, we did those studies. And I think there were 27 I don't know what the count is now but 27 marine mammals with poster people were shocked why are you making a poster about marine mammals in the Gulf of Mexico the only thing there is dolphins. Well, sorry there's more there. Chemosynthetic communities the year I started with MMS I believe it was Willis Peck were not from A&M and some colleagues were on a research vessel. They pulled up some weird stuff off the bottom of the Gulf and said wait a minute. This is stuff that's on the Mid Atlantic Ridge or related to it. Chemosynthetic communities do a study don't allow things to happen there. The same with deep water corals everyone knows corals don't exist below the photo zone you know the symbiosis with zoxantheli and that kind of stuff. Well, when you have a big accumulation of Lophelia in the deep it has a reef effect. So we had deep water coral reefs, new to science. We started to take into consideration view scapes. Okay. Putting wind turbines oil and glass platforms back then off of some national parks. People don't want to see that let's talk about it, and then the significant sand resources. We've always adapted as we learn more. In fact, on more than one occasion, I've been approached by someone that says, how come you never turned down a lease. An oil company comes in dangles money in front of you and you just take it. Well, we do this work ahead of time. We plan for it. It's not perfect, but we do what needs to be done so we don't make a dumb decision. So let's see here. So now I pulled this off the web. This is a typical diagram for adaptive management. Well, one thing that's incredibly important for adaptive management and we talked about it yesterday and here and Laura hit on it is stakeholder engagement. That is absolutely key you've got to sit down and talk with people you go ahead and you marry that with changes in your processes. What you're doing now is probably going to change tomorrow except that. I would like to say that we have a continuous analysis of the diverse resources in their geographic ranges, you know climate change changes and migration patterns as information strategic needs priorities and technologies evolve. I mean, we're cognizant of that we follow it we use a matrix management approach. We have a lot of experience with renewable energy. For sale, what do you know the person running our lease sale for the Gulf Bridget to plant this right. What did she do on the Atlantic. She was managing the activities on the Atlantic as well from our office so a lot of the people in our office in an Aries office doing the environmental work. For OREP on the Atlantic coast to get the experience of the processes on what we did. Sometimes we had to change them a bit to work with the Gulf because the people know us. I mean things in the Gulf of Mexico offshore are not alien like they are off the Atlantic. I mean, where do rig people go when they're got their seven days off and go fishing they go out to a rig tie up and fish. And that's totally alien in the Atlantic. I met my wife scuba diving under a platform. The culture is different you have to factor that in. So, to go back one step further how do we start to de conflict things. And so imagine a room like this. Okay, where you've got my staff that's incredible geologist geophysicist petroleum engineer sitting at the table. You've got people from Aries group for environment. I've got people with experience in renewable energy like Bridget and her team help in the Atlantic sitting at that table. I've got my sand people sitting there. And then I've got a few people who are working on carbon sequestration. They sit at the table. We bring up these maps we bring up this information and the only term I can think of and it's, I hate this term but it's the only thing I can find is the horse training. So here we have an area that's got lots of wind. Well what are the oil and gas resources at that area. Okay what's next to it. So okay this is good for wind. There's better oil and gas places over to the west. So that might be good for when wait a minute. There's a significant sand resource there. Should we take some of those areas out in that area we think for wind because there's significant sand resources we need to put back on the beach. Okay well we can do this now wait a minute what about carbon sequestration. They're sailing aquifers and depleted oil and gas reservoirs under there that might be perfect for carbon sequestration. These conversations actually take place around the table just outside my office in my conference room where we sit down with the data, the modeling runs, the experts in the field and say okay we're looking to the future. Conventional energy, renewable energy, carbon sequestration. Oh now we've got wind and now we've got you know hydrogen. First of all let's de-conflict and we've got all our other partners, the shrimpers, DOD, the Coast Guard. Where are the areas where we don't have a lot of conflict like we went through for the wind. Okay let's look at those first. Then for areas that look like they're either very good for oil and gas or very good for wind or very good for sand. What else is conflicting with them? And you sit down and you work it out. That's why Laura said and James Morrison said the modeling and the computers don't make the decision we do. And then we have to look to the future. There's an area that may have a lot of oil and gas infrastructure. Okay well eventually that infrastructure will be gone. Some of it may be used for carbon sequestration. Remember that while we're talking about future for wind turbines, sand, and then hydrogen. So all of those things are floating around in the room with all the maps with some of the best people in the world I've ever worked with. Looking at this, looking at the data, knowing where the data comes, the input from all of those 400 meetings that we've had, and where do things work best to try to keep as many people, you know, happy as possible, but we're not Burger King and we can't keep everybody happy. But how do we get the most bang for our buck, preserve the ecosystem and have sustainability. If you're into science and this kind of stuff, like myself, this is a kid in a candy store. But the Gulf is very unique having worked here and headquarters in Alaska. They've got a history of working offshore. They have a history with all the stakeholders. We know who they are. They can call us at any time we have an open door policy. We sit down with the latest and greatest data we can get the latest modeling runs. And then we work it out. What is in the best interest of everybody. And with that, I think I will shut up. Anything you want to add. Yeah, I see an opportunity as an example of how how we do adapt. We were engaged in the wind energy effort before the bill was handed down and we had to start looking at carbon sequestration so we were well underway in our modeling for wind. So, as a really prime example of how we will adapt in the future. This this first modeling effort. It is, it's just what it is. I anticipate that that was the outputs from that will will feed Gulf when to if we have it if we don't, but we recognize the need now because, you know, we use the best available science at that time. But now with all of the work that's been being done in carbon sequestration, we already had wind energy areas defined and our resource evaluation people were like but wait, we have been tasked with carbon sequestration. And as he said, I believe we had 70 people working on this seven different teams they were doing the assessments of the entire goal for for potential storage capacity. They were looking at saline aquifers and depleted reservoirs. So some of those impinged on the edges of some of the wind energy areas out of our Gulf when one modeling. They're like, hold up, you can't do that. But we are because that was the best available at that point, and we will have to adapt and we will exclude and we will make those decisions that Jim said but that was a prime example things are constantly in motion. And they're constantly changing and we have to change with it. It's like, we can't just say, well, we've got this great model from in costs, we've got to follow this like now. Now we're not going to be able to do that, because we have to change with the changes, but I just wanted to make that. And this is a lot of fun. It's a lot of work. But if you're into this kind of stuff. It's very rich conversations already you're sitting back anything you want to add from the environmental side. We miss anything. You know, it's really, it's really a neat thing. The culture of the Gulf is different than other areas. We anticipate the changes mapping. I loved it about where you got to move from us. We are, we have moved from a static way of thinking to dynamic way of thinking. Things are changing. That's the fact of life. That means everything you're doing day to day has to change. And with that, I think we're done. Thank you for listening. Absolutely and thank you for your presentation. As per our usual I'm going to look for tent cards and raise cans in the participants list. And I will start with Scott, and then I will follow myself as well. Well, I want to thank you. I want to thank you both for excellent presentations, great overview. I think you have outlined why the Gulf of Mexico is the most likely place to work on trying to sort out how BOM is going to handle marine spatial planning. It goes beyond starting out conflicts. It's actually trying to, I think ultimately aim for what is going to provide the most combined benefit for the country, maybe the world economically and environmentally. And so I applied your efforts to advance on that front. I also applied your efforts to work with other agencies to do that. I do have a challenge for you though to raise the game in terms of your adaptive management approach as you go to consider the next wind leasing round in the Gulf of Mexico. It didn't appear to me in your first evaluation that you considered the impact of the potential of carbon capture and sequestration. But even though I realize you're 70 people in your 500 page or 250, 500 page reports not out yet, but there has been a lot of work done already that's been published. As I recall, I think the BG Bureau of Economic Geology in Texas and in some maps that were reported to us at COSA and I think you guys were here a year or so ago outlined about 300 gigatons of storage capacity. In the shelf of Texas and Louisiana. More recently last week I checked Exxon, who I think is a pretty competent company. I, I, I good competitor. I, you know, my wife used to work for them to disclosure. Raise that game to 500, 500 gigatons. Now, that's a lot of storage, probably mostly in saline reservoirs, but probably maybe some in depleted fields. Put that, that storage capacity into perspective, there was a report by the National Academies published in 2019 on negative emissions is basically what's the pathway to get to net zero. Yeah, National Academy does some good stuff now and then. And I think they basically said, even if we go full on and with great success in terms of deploying new renewable energy technologies, we're still going to be looking at having to put away about 500 gigatons of CO2 storage between now and getting to net zero close to 2090. I've got the slide here, I'm glad to show it to you if you haven't seen it. And that's to stay within two, two degrees C and make the things may have gone up since then this was three, four years ago now but none it's fall apart figure 500 500 gigatons. Well, gosh, golly, what if the Gulf of Mexico could like handle that for the planet. Whoa, wouldn't that be kind of exciting. Wouldn't that be in a major environmental achievement. Is that something we ought to take a hard look at. And if that's the case. Does it make sense that we should dedicate leases to things that are not as impactful for climate change, for example, wind potential. And I'll just put it in context, you showed a great slide that showed the wind potential in the Gulf of Mexico from your NREL has this similar map I think it's published in your latest budget proposal shows south Texas where there is very low storage potential as being the best place in the Gulf, and it still would rank way below the east coast and the west coast. And then the areas that has prime CCS potential is pretty low potential. So would we be better off prioritizing. And some sort of trade off analysis we have to do that trade off analysis when we better off prioritizing those leases for use for carbon capture and sequestration to potentially a bigger and then power generation that might be able to be done other ways. And I realize the importance of blue hydrogen but maybe there's other ways to get the, you know, the energy for blue hydrogen. I'm just just thinking what I think that's probably something to take a real hard look at before we go for that next round of lease sales and I wonder if there's a bigger, you know, aspiration out there that CCS could be a part of now maybe we'll find out that it's just not that big, great thing you know we're going to hear this afternoon from from the folks in the North Sea but might be worth listening to just as a twist on that I was just at the national meeting of my professional association and the geophysical professional association there were a lot of talk about a lot of interest in CCS a lot of interest in renewables a lot of interest in wind, a lot of people talking back and forth about what they've learned so far in place like the North Sea. One caution we got was it's pretty tough to put big new projects like CCS in the middle of a wind farm, particularly the dense footprint you see in the North Sea and the shallow waters which is I think what you're going to be what you're proposing is fairly dense footprints pretty hard to put that stuff in there hard to get the rigs in part to get the pipeline vessels in very hard to shoot the 40 seismic that you're probably going to use to monitor how the plumes move over time to make sure it stays down there. So I would encourage you to take a hard look at how CCS could impact future leasing decisions and think a little bit about how we're going to do that trade off analysis this isn't the only place time it's going to come up we're going to continue to see these challenges. Thanks. Sounds like he's sitting in our already. Yeah. I agree with everything he just said. Yeah. And we are we are taking a hard look at it I may probably have downplayed it a little bit because my focus has been on wind for for a while but part of the part of the joy of my job is I can't just specialize in when I have to I have to stay on top of carbon sequestration. And part of that has been while leading this wind effort in the Gulf. I also had a big role in our carbon work at the Gulf level and also at the headquarters level. I'm one of the ones that we get put on when I talk about engagement and we always talk about energy transition. But you know that it's huge. So they put me on airplanes and I I go all over the world talking about this. So where we have been in many people in headquarters and the Gulf have been doing a lot of international travel on the topic of carbon sequestration and learning from the people that are ahead of us. I mean you know this I'm not telling you anything you don't know they're ahead everyone else is ahead of us we're behind in the game so we're rapidly learning from from you know their lessons learned. So so we're closing closing the gap quickly. But yes we are taking a hard look at it and again most recently and Bill was along on this trip for part of the trip we spent a couple of weeks in Australia and a big part of that trip was discussions on carbon sequestration. I think there were still meetings on that one bill when bill finally made it to Australia. He didn't he didn't go with the rest shut down. But but yeah we are we do see the importance of it but another part and this isn't necessarily the governmental way to do it. But for carbon sequestration we are relying heavily on our industry. Partners right there you go. You have to be careful around this one. We are the Exxons the we are engaging with them worldwide. And we have these industry groups like the OOC down in the the Gulf we we meet with them. We are actually you know how how the government way is usually to throw a bunch of regs together and then throw it out there for people to comment on that is not the process we followed this time with carbon sequestration. These these leaders these industry leaders Chevron Exxon I mean I you know they're all out there in this they are actually getting to help formulate our regulations. So you know we we we couldn't you know when we're developing regulations we can't talk about what we will do and won't do or whatever but we were all sitting at the table in these industry. We are basically cohorts where we're sitting around and they're like but you need to consider this and and we were looking you know we're doing assessments and looking at the saline aquifers and determining the same the storage capacities that you were referring to. I didn't I didn't even think to come today with gigatons of the numbers because but yeah we are looking at that we're listening to industry they even got us to look more we were initially looking at saline aquifers and they're like but you know we've got all of these depleted and it comes down to integrity and containment and plume migration and all of these things there's still so many unknowns out there it's going to be a while down the road but I just want to assure you we are taking a long hard look at it. And the one thing I'd like to add to this I was to a an ancillary meeting to OTC. This last May, hosted by the Netherlands and there was a lot of industry people both a domestic and then international, and they had a very good conversation on this and they promised to work together better and to share information I finally got so frustrated I said stop. You're already talking to each other. What good does it do to talk among yourself. If you stop somebody coming out of Walmart and told them you're involved in carbon sequestration. They're not going to know anything about this and it's going to be scary. There is a carbon sequestration process or operation going on somewhere in Louisiana like something or other and the people for me more upon more posh and that the community is up in arms they were not prepared for this. And so with things like green hydrogen. You mentioned hydrogen to some folks they're going to think of the Hindenburg. If you think of carbon sequestration, and it's already out there I know I'm sorry I got to say it is the soda bottle with a Mentos in it. And shooting up so I think we need to do a lot of outreach to the general public so they understand what this is and get rid of the fear before it really comes out so that's part of our discussions and with that I'll shut up. So that that is internationally I can speak to that that was the same concerns internationally that that they had was the, the engagement with the general public that just don't understand the science and how to break it down and and get them to understand because we, I'm going to yeah just keep us moving because we've got I think a few questions on the line and in the room so I want to make sure we have time for everybody less I'm going to turn to you next and then Jack. And then Kevin you had your hand up but you took it down do you want to be in the queue. Okay, and then we'll go to Jeremy. Thanks guys, I mean personally I'm a very big fan of all this but there's one concern that I have every structure that we put out on the OCM is an experiment that we can learn from. But learning from it requires that its impacts are monitored, and that we have reference areas to compare to. In other words an experimental design. And in addition, that has to extend far longer than the two or three years that is typically associated with the lease contract. What we do what what do we have for a sensory system to understand the changes brought about by what we're doing out there. Thanks Kevin. That's a good question we have discussed that in Nauseum. One of my first presentation was to jacuz the coastal ocean observing system where they wanted to know what they should monitor for renewable energy. Not a very similar presentation to this, but the message was, what do you not have to monitor. You know there's so much going on with conventional now renewable carbon sequestration etc that the list is endless. And so to get back to your question less. It's a very active discussion we're talking with some of our federal partners. And some of our federal partners would like us to fund them to do their monitoring. We can do some monitoring with industry. In fact, it's mentioned in the proposed rule I can't talk much about it because it's not public yet. But some of that is weaved in there for carbon sequestration, but it is an active point of discussion that monitoring means you do it and you continue it. And so we decided at the flower gardens when I was there we're going out every quarter until we realized corals don't grow that fast and bought once a year. But that took a couple of decades of experience to learn that you could go out once or twice a year you didn't have to invest every quarter. Also, also Jim those nights on the flame of the spring. There's a lot of you. And of course we use to access the flower gardens. It was a rough ride. Yes, I know exactly what you're talking about. All right, we'll turn to Jack next and then to Jeremy. Thanks for that presentation. And I'm going to ask a related question to what Les just said, and that is, as we as we make these changes in the ocean. As a public understand them we need to say something about the changes that less referred to. And one of the ways we do that is by having long term historic data sets. And there are places in the ocean where those are occurring. And what we've been doing a bit on the West Coast is considering the research community to be a user of the ocean. There's another data layer in your analysis. And these are super important places there. Their point measurements, they might be regions for biodiversity surveys they might be hydrographic lines, etc. And so it would be really good as you talk to G COOS and others that you consider that as a use of the ocean that can really help us document what's going on. Excellent. Thank you. Jeremy. Yeah, hi. Good morning. So I got a number of things I want to bring up. First, I think there are a lot of reasons why we might as a country want to develop oil and gas in the Gulf, but sustainability is not one of them. So I think, you know, we need to, we need to be careful on how we're presenting our work in the Gulf, because there are a lot of reasons. But we, you know, as a country, we, you know, the administration said, oil and gas is not sustainable. But I want to focus most on talking about the tradeoffs and the engagement. So those are sort of the main things you focused on. You showed us this schematic where you group things into seven buckets and then you equally weighted them. And that may be a good start, but it depends a lot on lumping and splitting and how you lump and how you split. I mean, I could say that natural should go in one and cultural should be another and there should be eight buckets. And it's not also clear that the weights always should be equal. So and indeed, as you said, at one point on national security, you just X out an area. So there are certain things that may carry different weights in different areas. And so I think just saying we're going to create everything equal is particularly when you're lumping, you're lumping and that is problematic. The same thing, there was a picture of 24 pelogic bird species, and it's good to lump in that way. But we also need to split because at the end of the day, we're concerned about biologically significant impacts to individual species and populations. And so we can't, you know, how you look at data and how you treat data is important. And it may be that that's where the majority of bird species go. But there might be one individual line through these other areas for one important species that would be really significant. And so and maybe you did that, but just from the presentation, it's not. It wasn't clear how you're lumping and how you're splitting. I'm a little concerned about the skipping of engagements on this next round. And I say that, you know, I mean, most of my research is focused around both social science, acceptance and issues of justice. So as you said, the focus on the next round might be more on hydrogen. I'm not quite convinced that you're going to get a lot of bids anyway, just because the wind speeds are quite low in the Gulf. You know, as your maps show, they're even in the windiest part of the Gulf over on the edge and the Texas coast are not considerably high. You've also got obviously a very large land-based wind resource in Texas, which is something that doesn't really exist on the East Coast. And so there's reasons why people went offshore on the East Coast where you may not have as much interest going offshore. But, you know, I know that there are people in Texas, including one of the Texas railroad commissioners that's opposed. So we have some politicians who are opposed, but we know, and as you said, there are concerns that people don't really understand carbon capture. They don't understand hydrogen. They may think of the Hindenburg. So that would suggest that you need to do more engagement, not skip engagement, that there are border communities. There are environmental justice communities that may have, you know, we don't know. Someone may change their mind. They may think they're going to do hydrogen at first. They may decide instead they're going to go ashore with a cable. And all of these issues, and so your communities are going to be really important. So just like, I mean, you said that you rely on your industrial partners. You should rely to the same extent on your commercial fissures and your border communities that may be impacted. I don't know if we want to rely on any of them. We want to engage with them and get informed by them. But at the end of the day, you guys are regulators to do the best for the country as a whole. Not for industry, not even, you know, and so we just need to think about this. And, you know, maybe things went pretty smoothly the first time, but as we've seen things can blow up pretty fast. There's usually being a good example. And things that may appear to be a cakewalk may become a plank. So, you know, we just need to be mindful of all all these things on both the engagement side and then again going back to the sort of more nuance the issues that were really focused on the spatial I think it's tradeoff analysis and waiting and doing sensitive quite complicated. And it's more than just putting up a bunch of maps and talking with people in rooms. So, you spot on with everything you said. Yeah. Thanks for that, Jeremy. I appreciate it. I just want to provide a little clarification on probably use the word skipping probably probably shouldn't have used that word. We haven't we're not skipping engagement. We are not we are doing the same level of engagement. The part that we skipped was the the that step in the process for going out with the draft area, and then to a final area. We're skipping that draft step because we had already determined the draft areas before previously the engagement did not change. We have we have, I don't know, probably right now, at least three engagement meetings a week with different parties. It's it's the same process we followed with the first one. So we are not absolutely not skipping the engagement that is what is going to help shape the any decisions. We, we don't rely on that we take the information in and still make the decisions like like you, you made the comment about the with the industry partners. Yeah. They're not driving the bus. We are listening to them because they have unlimited research dollars and potential and they they they have a lot of information for us that we can learn from we leverage these relationships to learn. But we're not just bending over because industry wants us to do something a certain way. We were listening to what they have to say. We're listening to our own information, but I don't want you to think it's quite that easy because you know we we have, you know, we've had a reputation in the past for for industry getting too close to industry. We were not so and the other the other point I wanted to bring up was, you know, the level of the migratory birds. I do understand what you're saying there. I, if you want to see that was intended to be just a high level overview, we could spend two days on it easily on this model, talking about what went into it and the calculations and all the species and everything. That was just intended as a high level overview. I strongly encourage any of you that are curious to go to our website and pull up this this when citing report this in cost report. You can get all of the species and how they were considered it. I oversimplified probably because I'm used to speaking to in these engagement meetings where you do have to roll up some of it together. But if you want to see the specific species and all the minutiae of it. Please, please read this. It's very informative. After the first one sale we did meet with a fishing group. I'm not going to get specific and said what did you think and they thanked us for listening. And if we were do this again. What would you recommend in the areas they said oh you should go for those where we've already discussed were the ones that we put forward to the director. So we are building on the engagement because all that engagement happened just a year before the sale. So we're continuing at those engagement constantly and Laura's right. Half the time I can't find her and half the staff because they're having engagements with everybody. And in terms of energy you're absolutely correct. I hate using the term oil and gas because it gives some people a negative connotation which probably is not a deserve. It's not intentional energy and energy, but the bones mission is to manage the energy coming from the OCS. Now it's predominantly fossil fuels but we are transitioning right now into renewables. And for us it's potentially wind, maybe hydrogen in Alaska where I moved from cook inlet is the perfect place for hydro kinetic. Now your, your point is well taken words have meaning. Appreciate that. Thank you. I'm going to take a liberty to call myself and then Kevin and then carry an apologies because I've been typing some notes so I might read a little bit here. Going back to Jeremy's point about revisiting the draft areas. I can completely understand the logic behind we just had all this consultation and engagement. Let's build from that for for round two. But I think it's important to recognize that there may be things you learn from round one. Things get underway and further that the feedback may change. Other things in the ocean are changing rapidly where fish stocks are etc. So you might, you know, you might consider at what reasonable frequency, you're willing to build off of the, the communications you've already had and at what frequency you need to revisit those draft areas in terms of engagement and consultation, listening etc. My second point deals with that I think I'm my comment is probably not giving near enough credit to what all you have been doing. It's a matter of semantics and tone. And that is to say that when I was listening, I heard a number of sort of keywords that struck me. They were engaging, talking, teaching, socializing. Only once or twice did I hear listening and learning. And I think that that's a really key aspect of the engagements that you are are probably doing you did say adapting. And I think that that's key. But as you communicate about your engagements and your communications, I think it's really important to acknowledge where and how that involves learning from the people. The recognition of the knowledge that they bring to the table and not just the naivety which I think a lot of people are fearful out of naivety but a lot of people are also very familiar with these spaces. So I would just note that I also think again, probably just a tone thing but everything I've heard was about de-confliction, the butt weights. I didn't hear a lot about and look or complimentary uses, innovative synergies, compatibility, and those are, I think areas where I would I would like to see what's being done in that space. How are we looking to make these multiple uses more compatible, or how are we looking to capitalize on infrastructures that are there or will be there for other purposes, maybe it's ocean monetary. Maybe it's, you know, you mentioned fishing by the rigs, you know, there are some of these things that maybe not just compatible but synergistic. And so I'm wondering where in the process that gets introduced. Maybe it's at the table around your outside of your office, Jim. But maybe it's in the engagements. I don't know. I just I didn't hear a lot about looking for opportunities with the multiple uses so much as considering each use detrimental to the suitability of the others. So those were just a couple of thoughts that I had that I thought I would articulate. Welcome to respond or I can go to Kevin next. Great. That was great feedback. I took that down. I appreciate that. Kevin and then Carrie. Great. Thank you. I actually did decide to throw my question. I mean, my initial questions were were perhaps a little too into the weeds. But if you could post the link for that report you mentioned Laura, that would be great because I was wondering for example about the tune I know to respond down in that that area and was wondering if that was considered. But before I jump into my my bigger question, I did have one question that where you laid out your your area of topic it seemed to me and correct. And this is from memory so I might be wrong but wasn't there a large anoxic event down there. And didn't that affect the shrimp distribution so especially with the 2015 to 2019 time series is not going to drive in your your distribution a little bit. Oh that that's part of the discussion you're talking about Nancy Rabois's work and the hypoxic zone for the Gulf of Mexico, all that stuff is factored in to the discussions for the environment. You know, in a talk like this for an hour you can't cover everything, but that's a good observation it is part of the environmental information we have to factor into all of this stuff. And of course that epoxy area could change with the changing climate it's getting warmer. And the species are changing so that was an excellent observation it is something we do look at it's one of many things. So yeah I mean that's, that's good. I'm going to get that link. I'm not just getting the link for it. Okay, saying the link. Um, what if there was one. Go ahead please. I was going to say my bigger question though and it's a little bit perhaps it's for for Bill next to you there too is that I mean by by doing this by you you mentioned the mid Atlantic a lot and how they didn't use a spatial kind of model and this kind of overlap but the you know really these wind farm developments this is just beginning right to hit our 2030 and 2050 projections of 110 gigawatts and such. I mean I know the Gulf of Maine is just coming online and stuff are you, are you thinking that your work here will now set the tone for the rest of a bone and the rest of the working in these areas that that that everyone will expect to be using these kind of models now. Actually, what I would, what I would point to is is the effort that Jake Levinson and others are leading with with socks and ecosystem based management. What Jake has described to me and I haven't, I haven't really gotten briefed on the details yet. But we're doing, we're trying to develop something that's quite like was done with and cost here but to make it even better, more dynamic. And we're doing that in consultation with with everyone in poem. So, to the extent decisions are already haven't been made and investments done were, I think we're moving at direction. Right on. Thank you. If I can, if I can add on to that bill, the, the more recently leased areas outside is the Gulf like the central Atlantic and the Oregon area went through the same process with in costs so we've been doing it beyond the Gulf recently and as bill mentioned we have, you know, our eyes on the future doing it even better. Thanks Jessica. Carrie and then less. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, I really appreciate the presentation. I especially appreciate the dialogue. And Stacy you hit on a number of my points. So thank you gratitude and you as well Jeremy. And I guess, you know, a couple of things have jumped out at me so I'm bringing I'm bringing my human dimensions lens to this, and maybe in particular fisheries but thinking more broadly as well and I guess. One of those things that to some extent has already been noted is that this is these are highly dynamic systems and they are changing rapidly and in many ways unpredictably. And I think of the Gulf in some sense as a more protected version of what we have out on on the West Coast, for example. So, those dynamics really strike me, you have people in the agencies and the external scientific community coastal communities ocean engaged people, etc. So I think that the Gulf has these observations and experiences of this dynamism and change. And so I think it's really important to keep dialogue going at all levels and be able to tap into that information and understanding and it is labor intensive. And yeah, so be it stick with it don't give up it's really it's really valuable to engage with that. So I think that's one of the diverse forms of knowledge and experience and understanding. I, I come back to using maps as a support tool to inform decision making. And I, I think maps include some things and exclude others one because they may or may not be mappable. Because they may or may not occur to the person doing the mapping, or the people who are doing the mapping or a collate collating the data to generate the maps. One of the things that I've observed in some interactions out on the West Coast is that there are data sources that are compiled. These are data and this is somewhat redundant of something I said yesterday data sources that are compiled let's say on fisheries. They are collected for different purposes and they represent certain things but don't represent others. And there are lots of other things that influence the resulting data and what they show you on the map. People who have been involved in the activities that are represented by those data, for example, fishermen. Have a fair bit of knowledge about what the relationship may be between what's actually done and experienced on the water and then what shows up on those maps of that activity. And I think it is super important and super valuable to engage with that and and make really good use of it. We've had some experiences out on the West Coast where some things have been shown on maps that grossly misrepresent the way space is used. So a huge caution. The other thing is that I hear a lot of talk about shrimpers in the Gulf of Mexico because that's what that and snapper right those are the biggies. I think it gets really complicated when you start to think about the diversity of activities within fisheries other types of uses, including research for example. And there is how you, how you accommodate that diversity of information and those representations for example of human behavior, you know, it's, it's easier to go for the top five, right, the big ones that really stand out. But those little ones also play a role in the, in the whole. And whenever change occurs in that system, all of those components have the likelihood of changing dramatically as well. So, anyway, I have a tendency to get into the weeds. But I think some of these weeds are really important to pay attention to. And so I'm, I like the idea of putting heads together and seeing if people can paint a picture of what's going on out there. I think the information that's not necessarily captured on the map is as important if not more important than what the map shows you. And anyway, I guess I'll stop there. Thank you. Thank you. No, no, that that was great. In fact, I'm having a flashback to my last meeting in the Arctic, where you go up there with our maps of where the ice moves and the currents sit down with an opiate whaler with their indigenous knowledge, thrill the maps away, because they have information that go back generations that's phenomenal. And as a, in terms of sitting down with everybody trust and bear trust but verify also talk with the folks that have that data just don't take it verbatim sit down with them. And there's an old phrase I'm trying to think of it an old philosopher, the best ideas come with a diversity of participants in the discussion. We don't sit down with one office to talk about how we're going to do this if we're going to talk about environmental issues. I want the other folks in the room to hear it, because they will raise issues and questions just like you did. You know, can you where that data come from. Is that a reputable source, or who else has dated the compliment that so yeah you're right on. Yeah, and thank you Jim and let me just find out a really important point you both have made. The culture. The relationship between the actual gas activity and other types of activity, people very and also so on and so forth. The trust. We can't hear you carry and you turn on your microphone. Thank you. Sorry, the distinctive culture of the Gulf of Mexico, right, and the relationship among different ocean users and people wearing different hats. Over time, the building of trust in many ways there's also distrust or mistrust. It's as you have rightly pointed out it's different in different parts of the country. I, there is, that is not happening on the Pacific Coast. Full stop, and at least based on what I have seen, and at least in terms of the fishing community and the offshore energy sector. I think you could get there, but it's very different. So this is a very interesting example. Relevant there and what's not or whatever how things might be approached differently to address those very real circumstances in that very different culture. I think really valuable to think very concretely about. Thank you. I am, I am so glad you said that because having worked in the Gulf office headquarters and Alaska, even though we want to have policies and procedures everybody can use. Geography, climate, local cultures have got to be considered what works at one place may not work at another for very good reason one size does not fit also I'm so glad with you just said you hear that bill. I guess. Kerry, I certainly agree with what you just said and welcome it and their. I mean it's pretty evident like Jeremy said that there's certain species that their particular rules for in fact we have rules under the endangered species act and the marine mammal act for example that that, you know, are set by legislation and we there. The weight has already been decided that if you cross a certain standard you, you have to stop. And I think that. I think I think the generic waiting is a really actually as you have to start somewhere, but I. I don't think will ever be resolved I mean there's always going to be a debate about how much certain things aren't so so it probably probably really enforces the reinforces the idea of these as thinking tools versus pretending that you can really come up with a, a number that you will follow unerringly for regulations. All right. Looking at the clock, I'm going to go to rod less and then Rona. And we'll see where that leaves us but I'm guessing Rona you're going to probably have our last word. Thank you both that was a terrific presentation and thank you Kerry and Jeremy because you covered a lot of the territory that I was interested in talking about. I have a couple of points of clarification and then a concern and maybe I even get to a question. But so my first point of clarification was that, Lord, I think you said the entire golf. Does that include. The Eastern planning area, or are you assuming that the Eastern planning area is good to remain. Subject to monitoria. When I said the entire golf would put a little more context to where I said it. I thought you said that you we did a programmatic approach within the call area. I don't. I did not mean to imply if I said the golf of Mexico know we are we are not actively looking in the moratorium area, even though it's my understanding the moratorium is not on. On renewable energy, but we are not actively looking in that part of it. No, we are not. And I don't know how much you want to say about Galveston one and two, but can you tell us a little bit about the motivations of the folks that were not that didn't apply or didn't bid on the leases and then afterwards they came in the same folks came in. I couldn't speak to their motivations. There were a lot of things in play at that time. They wanted to purchase the lease. Yeah. For for the people that didn't show up that we were expecting to show up because quite honestly there were some larger companies that didn't show up and we expected them but there was a convergence of many factors there was a there was a sale in Europe. There was the German sale that happened right before ours that involves some of the, the people we expected to show up there was that sale. There were these economic conditions the inflation is hammering everyone. It was, I would attribute it to bad timing. It was just bad timing. I think another thing and I did hear this this is fact from from someone that didn't show up and it makes no logical sense when when I say this but they said it. We didn't we didn't show up because we didn't think it would go for a low bid. So, if you really wanted that, why wouldn't you have just gone and put your little bit in and roll the dice, but they're regretting it now that they didn't show up, because they would have. But, but anyway, I, the motivations I don't, I don't really know. Right. And then me coming in late in the game and watching this and getting introduced to everything the team had done. I've been hearing some of those same comments and then originally starting in the Gulf. It's not a good analogy but this was sort of kicking the Hornets Nest, because this was the first wind sale in the Gulf of Mexico, the heart of oil and gas areas for the world in offshore. And I can see that people are wondering are you really going to do this, and then immediately thereafter, I mean it was 24 hours, people called and said you didn't sell the lease can I buy it. And then the comments about if we knew they were going to go so cheap we would have bought it, and the group that came in just last week. They were very familiar with the Texas politics and said at we're not worried about that. We have a plan, and we want to be, you know, we want to go through the process of being qualified to bid, and if we have to have competition, bring it on. So it was it's something new and it was the shiny new penny and everybody wants one. So it was a lot of dynamics part of the culture. I actually just wanted to rod on your question about the Eastern and Central Greg Gulf. And I had to Google this again to remind myself about the President Trump with, you know withdrew an area but it was that was reversed by the inflation reduction act so the. So there's not a legislative bar. There's not a legislative belief on the Eastern and and any portions of the central golf that that doesn't suggest that they should be leased necessarily that's a process we have. Okay. I don't want to take up too much time so my, my concern was about horse trading and horse trading includes both rules as bill pointed out, and then unspoken values. And there's a question I had about that. How do you keep track? I'm so sorry we have somebody on the line that's not muted. If we could have everybody mute themselves. Thank you. I know that's happened twice. I was using that term because we saw to know what it means. It's just a term because you can visualize what that is. And it's not like poker where you're going to raise one and do the other, but the discussions were okay this is an area that has great potential for a conventional energy. It's overlapping a wind area. Well what areas are also nearby that are great for conventional energy, but maybe not for wind, and then where does the sand fit in there. And then I get my folks together that actually have the expertise in conventional energy renewable energy sand, and the leasing and where the pipelines are to actually work out what is the best interest to the country, including the fishermen and the shrimpers and stuff. And so, yes, it's sort of a qualitative decision, but you also have to look to the future. And if you have an area that is got minimal use in terms of conventional resources, the sand resources are better to the east. And you've got good wind here, and the shrimpers say you can have that area if you cut out these blocks. Okay, there you go we have an area for wind. The shrimp industry is not impacted they're acceptable to that. There's a nearby area with conventional energy. Oh what's about a carbon sequestration. So that ends into the table so all that is going on. It's a fascinating discussion to watch this. Also trying to get at is tracking that horse trading, yes, and being transparent with the horse trading because then it's an important process but it also needs to be documented and understood what was happening right to a good point. And I, and I think I'll defer on my last question because I want other people to have a chance but it's about data and I'm going to ask you after this. Thank you. Thanks Rod less and then Rona. Yeah thanks guys. Jim I'm like totally aboard on all of this and getting people to get uptake to embrace the static overlay models is one thing, and then doing it with appropriate levels of engagement is a big thing. But I think sometimes the biggest thing is how are we going to incorporate change over time into this platform. And that's the project that Bill was referring to that I'm co lead on. And I just want to suggest that instead of working totally independently will be good to have a huddle kind of a bone huddle about ways of dealing with change in our models that are most transparent. And take advantage of the science at our disposal. Well said extremely well said and that hit another neuron with me about engagement. One thing I learned working in Alaska and I think we may see a little bit in the Gulf, not too much yet, but there is a such thing as over engagement or meeting burnout. And so we go back to our people we've engaged with partner I mean tribes don't like to be called stakeholders their partners. People get upset when you call industry a partner, we try to engage with everybody. We got an open door policy worthy we tried we are the honest broker. We're not Burger King we can't keep everybody happy. But, you know, we are always available to talk to. But it was very common on the North slope of Alaska to have meeting fatigue. And people will say how many times do we have to tell you the same thing. It's like when we went back with these new wind energy areas to like the shrimping alliance, we sat down with them very informally and said well we had the the lease sale. They thanked us for listening well what would you suggest it for a next step. They sort of pointed at the areas we just looked at and said you know those might work if you take that block out and that block out. So it was a continuation we're not skipping anything. We're continuing the engagement building on what we already have done, but knowing it is going to change. And those four areas that we added. That's not the end of the game there are several dozens if not hundreds of meetings that will take place between now and the next lease sale. If we have it where folks will say modify that like the Galveston one was basically cut in half. As a result of input, you know by the Coast Guard and lightening areas and the shrimpers. What have I missed. Thanks, Rona. So you know Carrie talked about getting into the weeds and I hope this isn't getting too far into the weeds but I think I can build it back out to a bigger picture issue. So I pulled up that report that got put in the chat the link was put in the chat to the siting area analysis. And I'm looking at the social and economic vulnerability map, which is on page 64. And so a question is how do the terrestrial social and economic vulnerability data play into the siting analysis. And the question is sort of sparked by the fact that as I look at this and I look at areas that I'm familiar with and particularly in the sort of rural areas like the Galveston, Parish area areas where the social vulnerability index is shown as being moderate where I know that these are areas of very high vulnerability where people like the Grand Cayo tribe lives the Ponashan people communities that are outside the Morganza to the Gulf structure system and where household incomes are measured in the thousands not the tens of thousands. So I query the accuracy of the data in the areas that I know which makes me worry about the accuracy in other places. And so the bigger picture thing other than how these these particular this particular data set factors into the offshore analysis is how do you account for or check for validity of data errors in data. And in an area that's very dynamic, both environmentally and socially, how do you modify the model as you bring new data on board and account for these changes. And that's kind of a lot but Well as you could probably expect I'm a little more high level than that but I would be happy to reach out and open that discussion with our people that did that I and yeah let's talk let's talk offline. Fantastic. I think with that I will thank you Jim and thank you Laura very much for your presentations and for this discussion. I know that the issue of multiple uses in our marine space and the, the decisions that you all are going to be faced with both in the Gulf of Mexico but also elsewhere within bones regions has been something of, you know, keen on this committee. So appreciate your time. We will break for lunch we will reconvene at one o'clock. At that time we're going to hear a little bit about what's being done in on these topics elsewhere in the world. So we will look forward to hearing from John Underhill and Michaela Freeman and folks from her team at PNL. When we return. So with that, again, committee members you all have lunch across the hall. The room is yesterday and and those that are joining us, please feel free to avail yourself so some of the great lunch options around here. All right, good afternoon for those on the line we'll get moving momentarily we're just waiting for I think maybe a couple more people to come return to their seats and get settled and then we will get underway. And while we're waiting, I just want to touch base with Dr underhill who I see on the line and Michaela Freeman as well. I see you both have joined us. I just wanted to check and make sure you're both ready and not needing anything from us before we get underway. Hopefully you can hear me. Okay, then we just check that first door. You are coming through loud and clear. Thank you. Would you like me to just share my screen for the presentation now and just check that that works. Yeah, that would be great. We can go ahead and double check that while we're getting settled. Yep, we can see your screen. It is not currently in presentation mode but yep, that looks perfect. Yeah, I think there's just the delay on transmission but hopefully it's there now. It is it looks great. Thank you so much. And Michaela any, I think we have a copy of your slides but were you hoping to share your own screen. Yes, first of all, can you hear me okay. We can we can hear you well thank you. Wonderful. Yes, I did make a few updates based on conversations this morning so I'd be happy to share my slides. Would it be okay if I just checked that those are working okay. Yep, absolutely so john I'll just ask you to go ahead and stop sharing and we'll let Michaela do that as well. Let me know when you can see that and all right. Are you seeing the presentation mode or my notes. We're seeing the notes screen. Right, let me switch that. How's that. That looks great. Thank you so much. Wonderful. Thank you. Absolutely we'll go ahead and get started now I think everybody that we're expecting is back in the room. So if you were not with us this morning. Welcome and thank you for joining us. Just want to quickly repeat some of the housekeeping items. We will use mics in the room to connect to the audio. In the room we'll use our tent cards to indicate that we'd like to speak if you're online. I just ask that you remain muted until or unless you're asked to call upon to speak. And if you'd like to speak please use the raise hand feature within zoom and we'll incorporate you into the queue that way. And for our speakers. We did a quick round of introductions this morning for the committee. And then we've just been asking speakers to please introduce themselves before they get underway. So we'll do that again and I think Michaela I had you on the agenda first if you're comfortable jumping in and I recall that you may have some colleagues on the line with us as well. They are welcome to introduce themselves and jump in. If and as you'd like during your presentation, or in the conversation afterwards. So I will turn it over to you first. And again, if you and your colleagues would like to introduce themselves they're welcome to also. Sounds great. I will let maybe Andrea and Lizelle introduce themselves while I am getting my PowerPoint presentation up. Sure. I'm trying to my video doesn't work. Hi Andrea copying with there it is. Look at that Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. I'm actually in Hawaii right now but usually Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in the US, Seattle. And we've been working on environmental effects of marine energy and small shore wind for a decade or more. So pleased to be here today. Thank you. And I'm diesel gravity so working with Andrea and Michaela on environmental effects of marine renewable energy. I'm at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Seattle. Nice to see you all today. Thank you. Thanks Andrea and Lidale just to check you can see my slide in presentation mode and not my notes that right. That's right. Everything looks great. Wonderful. So I'm Michaela Freeman. I'm from Pacific Northwest National Laboratory or PNNL. And I'm based in California. And as Lizelle and Andrea mentioned, we're working on environmental effects and marine energy. But what I'm here to talk to you today about is marine spatial planning and marine renewable energy and some of the lessons learned from international context. So I've been with PNNL for about seven years now working on this OAS environmental initiative for this whole time. Also work in other areas I have a bit more of a policy social science background. Working on offshore wind stakeholder engaged research and co-location of aquaculture and marine energy. So PNNL we kind of dabble in a lot of different areas. Okay, so to start I just want to introduce who OAS environmental is where we're coming from in the work that we do. So OAS environmental was established by the International Energy Agency Ocean Energy Systems in 2010. And the goal is really to examine those environmental effects and marine renewable energy to advance the industry responsibly. It is in international initiatives with 16 member countries, but it's led by the US Department of Energy Water Power Technologies Office, and it's implemented by our team at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. So one of the main resources that we produce is the state of the science report, which is on the right side of this slide. The last of which was published in 2020 and it includes a chapter on marine spatial planning for marine renewable energy, which is what I'm here to talk to you about today. And I do want to note that we are currently working on writing an update to this report we do so every four years and so the 2024 state of the science report will be published in September 2024. So to start off I know we've been talking a lot about offshore wind today in this meeting but I wanted to clarify what we mean for OAS environmental by marine renewable energy or MRE. So when I say MRE we're talking about an energy from waves tides, ocean currents, river flow and then temperature and salinity gradients. For those not familiar with the marine renewable energy industry it's really in the early stages of development deployment and commercialization. And I wanted to show some examples of these devices they look quite different from a little bit similar maybe to wind turbines but they are quite different and there's also a very broad variety of what these devices can look like. So the top two up at the top are both different wave energy converters and the bottom two are different tidal turbines, the left being bottom mounted, and the right being floating. And so I do want to note that our efforts don't include offshore wind, but that there are similarities between these industries that really allow for learning to be exchanged, however, especially looking at environmental effects. These are not identical so caution does need to be taken when doing so. So for example, marine renewable energy developments to date are mostly consisting of one device or small numbers of devices so arrays that may be four or so. With only a small number that extend beyond that whereas of course that's much different with offshore wind farms with large numbers of devices are being deployed. So with that background, I wanted to give a little bit of where we focus our work. And so I briefly want to talk about OES environmentals approach kind of as the basis for the information that you'll hear today. So as I mentioned since 2010 we've been working in the marine renewable energy community with researchers, developers, regulators and advisors to really understand different perspectives in need, and how best to increase information and understanding on environmental effects and address some of the barriers that the industry is facing. The key challenge of course is uncertainty or lack of knowledge of environmental effects, and due to this uncertainty and also the fact that regulatory processes are generally not tailored for marine renewable energy. This has resulted in long timelines for permitting, and then a lot of owner estate of collection and monitoring requirements that are costly to undertake. So based on these conversations with the MRA community we understand the approach that brings together different processes like marine spatial planning and adaptive management that have been used in many industries as well as with tailored approaches like risk retirement, which is what our team has been developing. Just super quick overview, risk retirement really aims to identify which potential environmental risks are well understood and can be considered retired so that they may not require data collection or monitoring at each new development. And instead we can focus study on those risks with greater uncertainty and need for research. And a key part of this process is really using data from previous marine renewable energy deployments as well as analogous industries like oil and gas offshore wind to bring in learning and guide understanding. There's a lot more complexities to this process so I have included a link here and I think Lizelle will put the link in the chat to the page with that, but I do want to note that this doesn't come ahead of any regulatory guidance but is meant to be a guide for the industry. So, using risk retirement in conjunction with marine spatial planning adaptive management will help us get towards responsible permitting and development. And we do have a chapter in the 2024 state of the science report called strategies to aid consenting processes for MRE that goes into more detail on these topics, and includes a section on marine spatial planning specifically that's an update to what's in the report. So for the rest of the time today I will focus on marine spatial planning. And from sitting in on this meeting earlier today sounds like this group is very familiar with marine spatial planning so I'll skip over the background that I had and jump into the information that we've compiled. So as I mentioned the 2020 state of the science report has a chapter on marine spatial planning for marine renewable energy. And our Ireland country representative and Maria Hagan conducted surveys of the different OES environmental nations. And so she was asking either our other OES environmental country representatives to take this survey or someone in that country with expertise so all of the information I'm going to present is compiled from those surveys. The survey asked questions such as approaches used for marine spatial planning, how marine renewable energy policies linked to marine spatial planning, how scientific information informs the process, how conflicts are managed. There's a lot of information there I'm only going to kind of pull out a small subset of that information so I do encourage you to go to the link that we'll put in the chat on the state of the science chapter and everything's kind of in nice tables by country. So the following slides as I mentioned summarized some of the information from the 2020 state of the science report a few updates from what we're writing for the 2024 report. And again is really limited just due to time and so I'm trying to pull out some high level information I think this group will be interested in. So I know this is a lot of information my next three slides have tables condensed from that 2020 report I don't expect you to read all of this and I will not be reading through all of it. But I wanted to go through a few key examples that highlight MSP approaches taken and how different countries manage conflict. So to start all the countries in this table are EU countries where there's been a basis for MSP and law since 2014 as adopted by the MSP directive. And this required coastal member states have maritime spatial plans by 2021. This dictates a lot of what European countries do. And I should note that some EU countries had MSP in place prior to this but for those that didn't it created a pathway for plan development. So two examples that I wanted to mention are from France and Spain and they showcase the spectrum of approaches used. So in both countries they take a more regional approach so as of 2022 France has plans developed for four different areas, where as of February 2023 Spain also adopted plans for five different areas so again taking that more regional area based approach. The way that these two differs really in their management of potential conflicts and I've again tried to bold the information and I think is most relevant for this group. So Spain mainly addresses this on a case by case basis rather than through their marine spatial plan. Whereas France takes a very different approach and has targeted early consultation with marine users and activities through their marine spatial planning process. And they aim to reduce and manage those potential conflicts through mapping of existing uses. And specific to marine renewable energy. France also has stakeholders from different sectors working together on a regional approach to marine marine renewable energy development specifically as well. So the next thing I want to go to is the UK and again this table has countries from the UK. And I wanted to pull this out because the UK is where we're seeing a lot of the marine renewable energy development to date a lot of progress has been made here. So for example there's an important wave and title energy test site in Scotland that's been running for years and testing many different devices. And then in Wales, we've had a lot of conversations with the regulators there actually, and they're particularly interested in moving the industry forward and processes like risk retirement that can help manage the environmental impacts responsibly but still help get deployments in their areas. So in the UK marine spatial planning has been in place since 2010, and they have a specific policy framework for plan preparation and decision making. And then I'll pull out two examples in Scotland the national marine planning system identifies conflicts and addresses and reduces these before they arise are really taking a proactive approach. Currently they focus on communication with stakeholders engaging different sectors throughout planning, assuring voices are heard and incorporating input all to try and reduce conflict. And they are, they do have marine planning partnerships, only two out of several are planned so far so this is just their current approach that they're using. The Welsh National Marine Plan was published in 2019, and it encourages conflict production measures like co location of activities and implementation. Sorry, it has implemented guidance released in 2020 that includes additional information to go along with their plan, including which conflicts and make decisions. And both of these countries call out marine renewable energy specifically in their plans, as well as offshore wind so I've kind of highlighted these in these boxes as well. Scotland noting that it's a specific sector but with no specific targets which for moving the industry forward using marine spatial plan that's really important to include. Whereas Wales notes marine renewable energy as a priority sector to develop over the next five to 10 years. So my last table with lots of information is all of our other OES environmental countries that I've pulled together. Again, a lot of information, and I will be sharing these slides with you all later so this information will be available to you and then again it is all stems from that 2020 state of the science report. But I wanted to pull out Japan is an example here so there's no specific MSP basis in Japan is generally noted in their ocean policy documents but they don't currently have it. And so, I wanted to call out that stakeholder consultation here is really noted as key to minimize conflict and also to zone marine activities. I want to note this is one of the few countries where they specifically call out zoning of different areas. And also note that in Japan coexistence with fishing is the most important issue and therefore there's a lot of engagement with the fishing industry. And they also note there's specific areas and activities to be avoided when you're planning things like marine renewable energy development. And so unlike some other countries they have a really prescribed approach and things to avoid and fishing being that kind of priority existing use. So for the next two slides I want to move towards some examples of possible synergies and managing conflicts. So this table here shows compatible in green, incompatible and red and possibly compatible in yellow as identified in the Portuguese marine spatial plan. And this figure is theoretical but it does represent how we can think about understanding the complexity of interactions around marine sectors and identify synergies between them. So for example, tourism and leisure on the, I guess, if you're looking at the bottom left, the third from the bottom has several synergies with aquaculture with some ships with artificial reefs that should be considered, whereas mining, which is kind of towards the top of the table, maybe much more limited in its compatibility with other sectors. And another thread that I wanted to mention is how marine spatial planning is increasingly being used to achieve sustainable development and growth of blue economies, including facilitating synergistic activities. I know this was talked a little bit about in the discussion in the last section. So I've highlighted two examples. The first is co-location. For us, what we talk a lot about is powering at sea uses with marine renewable energy. So this can include ocean observation systems, aquaculture, even oil and gas platforms to provide power to uses that already exist at sea. The example shown here on the right is from aquaculture and wave energy in Scotland where there was a demonstration project. So the salmon net pens already existed. They have one net pen that lays fallow, just as terms of like what's most productive for the farm and they were able to put a marine energy device within that net pen and provide power for 18 months for the aquaculture operation. So no additional permitting was needed, nothing else, but was a really great example of this co-location of uses. I heard you all talk a lot about working with Noah Enkos and James Morris, and I do want to note that Lisell and myself have been working kind of coordinating with that team. We're working on a project to look at co-location of aquaculture and wave energy in Puerto Rico and doing a suitability analysis. And so we've coordinated with them to try and make our methods similar. So if anyone's interested, I'm always happy to talk about that as well. And the second example I wanted to pull out here is multi-use planning for new opportunities. So I wanted to call out the multi-use in European seas or muses action plan that focuses on nine multi-use combination. I have a little bit of one of their graphics on the right here so you can see some of those multi-use combinations that they're considering in this plan. And through this, they're really providing recommendations that aren't focused on the technical challenge, but rather the other challenges that may arise to proactively aid multi-use planning and address things such as stakeholder coordination, regulation, financing and other things. So to wrap up my presentation, I just wanted to end with some overarching findings from the 2024 State of the Science chapter. So as shown in all the tables here, there's marine spatial planning really varies by country and sometimes even within country. And there are many different approaches being taken to manage the ever-growing use of the ocean. Several challenges really remain specifically for using marine spatial planning for marine renewable energy such as lack of clear objectives within marine spatial planning. There's remaining knowledge gaps on environmental, economic and social effects that marine renewable energy that are needed to be incorporated, that are needed to incorporate marine renewable energy into marine spatial planning. There's additional data needed to inform marine spatial planning development and also have associated tools that aid implementation. And then adequate resources to carry out marine spatial planning. This is something we heard a lot in the survey, whether it was lacking financial resources or human resources. Some recommendations from the chapter include marine spatial planning being a participatory process that actively involves stakeholders, which I think we're all well aware of the need for that. As well as identifying how needs change based on scale and purpose for marine renewable energy development. So for marine renewable energy development, are we looking at commercial scale developments, multiple devices, potentially larger arrays? Or are we looking at a smaller scale development for something such as remote or off-grid communities that has a much different purpose and a much different scale? And how do we address these differences within the planning process? And then last incorporating marine renewable energy into marine spatial planning processes includes the need to develop practical measures through marine spatial planning that can aid permitting and help the industry move forward. So with that, I just want to say thank you very much for having me and my team present here today. And we'd be happy to answer any questions. And as I mentioned, I will share my slides with you all. And I did provide some references so that you can look at some of those sources I cited. Thank you. Thank you, Michaela, very much. I think we might have time maybe to take one or two quick clarifying questions. And then we'll move to John's presentation before opening for a broader Q&A. Scott? Thank you for a great presentation and really enjoyed also the report you all put together. I'm kind of curious whether or not in the examples you looked at, you found any that country that actually or sector within MRE where they've actually put together a framework for doing or criteria for doing trade-off analysis between making tough choices between different sorts of marine spatial programs. You mentioned, for example, in Japan they kind of had ranked, sounded like they ranked fisheries above everything else. Other places that it sounded like they just kind of handled it on a case-by-case, de-conflict basis. Did anybody have a rubric for kind of more systematically handling the trade-offs? Yeah, from the survey information that we got, there wasn't any information on specific trade-off analysis. So that information wasn't included anywhere. It's possible that it could exist, but from the information that we gathered from our country representatives, there wasn't anything of that sort. As I mentioned, I think it was in Wales. There is implementation guidance that they noted would include kind of conflict resolution process. I was looking through it a bit more and I was hoping that it would have more instructions on how to do that. And I thought that a lot of these processes kind of take a more general approach as you were kind of mentioning and figuring out as they go. Is trade-off analysis a part of your next addition update? Is that going to be included in the September 24 report? That's a great question. It currently is not. I will say that chapter is drafted, but we are going through review. We'll actually have that report released in May for public comment. So I encourage if anyone would like to review it and provide us comment. It'll be open for I think two months then before it's released in September. But that is a great point and I will definitely look at that more as I'm revising it and see what we can include. I will note that marine spatial planning is not a focus of the work we do on OES environmental. It was really included from the survey in the 2020 report and we would be remiss not to mention it in the 2024 report as we look at strategies to aid consenting. So it's really more of an update of that 2020 report right now. So it is a smaller section, but it's a really great point to think about mentioning the trade-off analysis because I think that's an important discussion. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Michaela. And thank you to your team. I look forward to having a bit more discussion after we hear from John, but I will turn to John for his presentation, for his introduction and presentation now. Thanks very much. I'll just try and share the presentation so I can find it there. And just bear with me a second because I think the something's happened with the presentation. Let's just make sure it's open. Right. So I should be able to share this with you now. And again, it will come in in one form and I'll just change that so that you can put it in presentation. It's just a little complicated here with how it's set up on my screen. Just bear with me a second. Sorry about this. Can you, I might have to present it in this form, actually, unless I can. I think in the left corner, near where it says auto save, there is the, to the right of that, it looks like there is the presentation link. It's got the little play button. Yeah, I can't see that because it's sort of covered by something else on my screen. Hang on a second. You may be able to right click on the presentation as well to put it into. I can see that. Very nice. I'll try and close that up. Yeah, I understand. Yeah, if you go to slide show at the top. Yeah, and you're above your toolbar. You'll see slide animation slide show record review. And if you use the slide show there. Yep. Yep, from the beginning. There we go. Perfect. That looks great. Yeah, apologies about that. I hope you can bear with me. I'll rattle through this. Thank you very much for the invitation to present. I thought it was a great question actually from Chris Cameron just now, because I'm going to show you that it's a complete mess in the UK. The competition for offshore real estate and marine spatial planning is in a very confused position and there is a lot of overlap and conflict. And to be honest, Chris, there is no overarching, if you like, United Kingdom net zero PLC regulator that acts as an independent arbiter when conflict occurs. So it's a bit like the world west and a bit of a free range at the moment. So I'll talk you through some of this with specific examples. I could introduce myself first that I'm the university director for energy transition at Aberdeen University and Aberdeen has had as a city a rich heritage as an energy hub, particularly in oil and gas, and is pivoting towards the energy transition and renewable technologies. And we're seeing an upsurge in interest in carbon storage offshore wind, potential hydrogen sites and conflicts arising with a number of stakeholders as a result, including those in the environmental and fishing stand and gravel aggregates and the Ministry of Defence and other stakeholders as well. I'm going to talk first of all about the driver for some of the offshore real estate conflict. In the UK, we have a legally binding commitment to meet net zero targets by 2050. And the main industrial clusters, as you can see, perhaps on the slide on the right, are in eastern and northeastern England, Humberside and T side, places like south Wales, Merseyside, and there's Grangemouth in Scotland to the north. In the red letters. I'm sorry to interrupt. Are you able to just move the, there's a little black welcome screen that's covering part of them. It's not moving for me. That's the problem. I didn't, I hope she wouldn't be able to see that. Yeah, there we go. Let's see. Yeah, it's really odd. It's got a timing thing on it. Yeah, don't know how to get rid of that. No worries. We'll make sure to provide your slides. So anything in that corner we get. Thank you so much. So what's hidden behind here is the southeast. England, but you can see where the main industrial clusters are and they face the red areas that I put in. EISB and SNS. Now what are they? They are the East Irish Sea Basin and Southern North Sea basins of shore that historically have been areas where oil and gas has been produced from. And so now that we're coming to the end of the life of those two basins, they're being potentially looked at for carbon storage. And our regulator, the North Sea Transition Authority, have indicated that we need around 78 gigatons of carbon storage in order to meet our net zero targets. Now they have identified stores between a minimum of 47 and the maximum of 172 that might be used in the subsurface. Now that has led to a study of these areas in the green box and the orange box, the East Irish Sea and the Southern North Sea, where a number of carbon dioxide appraisal and storage licenses and a new competitive licensing round has been undertaken. But as I've said here on the slide, it's one thing to have the ambition to store carbon in the subsurface, quite another to turn it into reality. We've been fortunate to be able to use data sets in the public domain as well as commercial data sets to put together blanket coverage of the Southern North Sea. In the red colour are the gas fields in the Southern North Sea and the pipelines that exist. And in the green and the olive brown colours are the coverage of what's called 3D seismic data, which allows us to get a body scan of the subsurface beneath. We've had availability of 2000 wells and been able to integrate well logs, check shots, cores and gas composition reports. What that enables us to do is to analyse the subsurface and characterize it forensically for the reservoir, the seal, the trap, the overburden and also non-geological risks like legacy well integrity, holocation and regulatory considerations. And what we've done is to look at each of these parameters and in a traffic light system green for go, yellow or amber for pause and red for stop based on the geological criteria. And then stack those parameters above each other to get a combined common risk segment map to show the best areas for carbon storage, the most advantaged areas. And this diagram shows the combined mapping and the green area is shown on the right hand side offshore of Eastern England. So this is just based on the geological criteria, how you identify where the best sites are and in red those areas you wouldn't seek to do carbon storage. Independently, wind energy has been promoted in the UK and currently has 14 gigawatts of offshore wind fully commissioned. This is four times what we had just a decade ago and equates the second largest offshore wind market in the world. The British Energy Security Strategy, published something like 18 months ago now, set the ambition to go up to 50 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2030, including from five from what's called innovative floating technologies associated with oil and gas intog. Now, if we are going to monitor the subsurface, which is a legal prerequisite in European law for carbon storage, there are a number of techniques can be deployed. But normally it is seismic data of taking a boat with a wide streamer set of sound recordings in being towed in the offshore. Now, you cannot take a large boat with streamers through fixed wind turbines. It's a bit like trying to go through a ski slalom. And this example here is the first exemplar that we've got in the North Sea where conflicts have arisen. This is a map. So the warm colours are where things are higher and the cooler colours are where something is lower. And this yellow surface around here is what defines the endurance structure. The first carbon storage site identified in the North Sea, which is progressing under the Track 1 cluster scheme with the UK government support. The red area here is the overlap of the largest offshore wind farm proposed called Hornsea 4, which has a different joint venture operator. Hornsea 4 is operated by Orsted. The endurance carbon storage structure is operated by JV led by BP. Both of these were going along blissfully on a wire that they were going to effectively cause conflict offshore. Because in order to measure monitoring for the carbon footprint in endurance, you need to take that boat with the streamers behind it. And you can't do so over part of the structure or over a neighbouring structure to the southeast. Where that's outside the carbon store. But of course, if you put carbon dioxide into the ground, into this structure, you force something out. Water in this case. Water that may contain contaminants, which would come to the seabed here out with the licence. But it was covered, but partially by the wind farm. This has been a long running dispute that has just been settled commercially by BP effectively throwing money at the problem. In order that Orsted don't build their wind farm over the structure. But this dispute went to the undersecretary of state in government to make a decision. Because there is no, at the moment, independent arbiter or regulator to inform the discussion and make the final decision. This is what the typical screamer setup looks like with a boat. You can perhaps see how large on the basis of the boat showing here. This is a kilometer wide. And of course, you also need evacuation routes if there are any issues in the service with cables or pipelines and so on. So there has to be a balance between the size and the design of wind farms and the subsurface beneath. This is another example of the unintended consequences to building a wind farm in the large red box is a 500 square kilometer proposed wind farm called out of dowsing. Here within the red box are subsurface depleted fields, which are potential carbon storage sites. There is a way to take a cookie cutter to this and to ensure that the 500 square kilometer wind farm, which has to reduce by law to 300 square kilometers, could accommodate the carbon storage sites. However, the wind farm operator finds that having carbon storage sites underneath is an inconvenient reality, which might impact them in terms of insurance indemnity. And of course, a different ownership where they have no control on the subsurface if there is any carbon storage leakage. So the competition for offshore real estate is leading to this area being mighty crowded. And when you add the common rest segment layers together as I showed before, and take into account other factors like wind farms, you suddenly see there's a lot less space available for carbon storage. And this is before we weave in the other multiple stakeholders in the area, and is actually a now a threat to the UK meeting its net zero emission targets. Unless there is primacy given to specific technologies in different areas, we may find the overlap actually rules out the win-win solution between these different areas. This work was published in August of this year. I can provide the public publication for you to interrogate, but has led to the North Sea Transition Authority and the Crown Estate and Crown Estate Scotland now seeking to engage with further stakeholders. This is the situation in Scotland where, again, there are carbon stores, there are wind farms, there are fishing areas and environmental protection zones. And the question is whether wind and carbon storage and the other stakeholders can happily cohabit offshore or collocate. It gets more and more complex the more you look at this. This diagram starts to weave in all the various elements for each of the main sedimentary basins that are currently being looked at for wind power as well as carbon storage and other uses like hydrogens and gravel extraction all incorporated into this area, let alone then fishing on top. And I'll finish off with where we are in Scotland because we have had what's called a National Marine Plan 1. Earlier this year there was a forum here in Edinburgh which kicked off National Marine Plan 2, which was basically a tacit admission by the Scottish Government that National Marine Plan 1 had failed. And it had failed because the fishing communities are not being consulted and the Scottish Government had designated large areas of the offshore for environmental protection zones which were actually overlapping with Scottish fishing grounds. Which led to a sort of political standoff. And the lady here shown in the picture, Mary McCallan, is the current Just Transition Secretary and in kicking off National Marine Plan 2 basically said we're not going to make the same mistakes as we did last time. However what was interesting was in the room there were over 100 people and I actually didn't recognise very many if any and the whole room was full of the fishing communities who basically said this is going to be an interesting day for you John because we're actually going to go to Parliament we're going to protest because fishing has not had the voice and our communities are under threat. They did indeed do that and Mary McCallan, who is the Scottish National Party, represents the National Party, in coalition government with the Greens, the Green Party, took the brave political decision to put on pause all the environmental protection zones and have the fishing communities consulted for National Marine Plan 2. The reason I said that I didn't recognise many people in the room because I was surprised that offshore wind, carbon storage and oil and gas were not presented. So I'm a little concerned that National Marine Plan 2 might include fisheries but other stakeholders are left out. So what I hope I've been able to do here and I realise it's a confused picture that I'm portraying because that is the reality that we find in the UK at the moment. There are questions that are arising about whether carbon storage and wind farms can be collocated. It depends on really early engagement and spatial planning between the different operators. The use of technologies that enable the measurement monitoring and verification of the carbon dioxide plume. So what we need in terms to be compliant with European regulation for carbon storage dictates that you have to have at least 3D seismic data currently. Other technologies may exist but they're expensive like ocean bottom nodes 10 times the cost to do that to be compatible with offshore wind. And that means the commercial model for CO2 makes it less attractive in those areas. We have to factor in other stakeholders take a holistic view. So fisheries, sand and gravel, aggregates, oil and gas environmental protection zones. And I don't at the moment see that happening in a holistic way. We're about to kick off a project called co-locate with the Crown Estate and Crown Estate Scotland to look at ways to find solutions and identify areas where co-location can take place or to give primacy in those areas to one specific technique without detriment to another technique which would go elsewhere so that the UK can get back on track to meet its net zero pathway. I hope that's useful to you and be very happy to answer any questions you might have and I apologize for that little black box that hopefully wasn't too destructive. It wasn't John and thank you so much that was a wonderful presentation very very much appreciated. We do have some time for Q&A and we got started a few minutes late so I'll let us run over by just a couple of minutes as well. I'm going to turn first to Scott who can barely stand. John I can barely stand and I'm so excited by your talk this has exceeded my expectations I'm very pleased. It's only because you teed up that question before. I've been telling my colleagues here I went to the AAPG SEG national meeting here in Houston not too long ago and I talked to a lot of subsurface folks from the North Sea who worked on this very issue you've been talking about and what I was basically told was it's ill-advised to try to co-locate CCS and wind energy projects in the same place. It even becomes more of a challenge if you don't just require 3D seismic but you want to have 4D seismic time lapse seismic to monitor how the blue moves through time. Essentially, it's a deal killer. Now that was third advice and I've passed that on to my colleagues here but you got to hear the discussion. Did you sit in the discussion this morning? No, I just joined now at 6 o'clock my time, 1 o'clock yours. One of the interesting things about the Gulf of Mexico which is where the marine spatial conflicts issue is pressing right now is it has been identified as one of the potentially largest CCS reservoir areas we have in the U.S. Particularly in the offshore anywhere from 300 to 500 gigatons of potential capacity. Which though is probably in saline reservoirs not necessarily in depleted fields where it looks like your focus is almost entirely on depleted fields. I may have given you that impression Chris. The reason I have done so is that in early stages proof of concept is simply to go to reservoir seal pairs in defined traps which are well characterized. But the bigger prize of course is saline aquifers in terms of capacity and volume and people are looking that at that as well. But wind farms equally impact those areas and one thing I might add is that we have 8000 wells in total in the North Sea. Many of them were completed 30 or 40 years ago and when they were completed, yes they were done in compliance to the regulations for plugging and banding a dry hole, a water bearing hole for oil and gas. But never with the thought that 40 years later they might be used for a different purpose the areas. And so have they used the right cement or plugged and abandoned accordingly. Some of these things are straws to the seabed. They are largely in the saline aquifers, the failed areas. So one rogue well in the wrong place can be a basic game changer and showstopper for carbon storage. So we're still trying to work through some of those issues for saline aquifers as well. And given the nature of the subsurface geology, some of the saline aquifers come to seabed. So we are also concerned that they're open systems and there's a whole load of issues about pressure management and so on as well. So at the moment we're focusing on, if you like, the known knowns of the closures, the depleted fields, which are really well characterized. Thank you. So that was, but it sounds it sounds like though that the that they're the potential when one looks at co-locating in the same area. CCS and wind, wind, major wind farms, particularly on the shelf where they would be closely spaced turbines, you've got a real challenge there to put them in the same. Yes. Yes. And in fact, to go one stage further Chris, the work that we were doing informs the national regulator that is the North Sea transition authority. They had 41 nominations for the first CCS licensing round for carbon storage. Only 13 appeared in the licensing round itself that was offered. And of course, I was curious what happened to the other 28. So I spoke to the NSDA and their chief executive officer. And he said, it's like this, John, we had to go along the path of least resistance that it had to be a successful licensing round and any conflict at all, any hurdle, we took out those nominations. So in other words, 41 became 13 because 28 were affected by wind farms. Yeah. Thank you very much. No, very, very, we would dearly love to see that paper too, by the way. Okay. Love to see that. Thanks, John. Yes. Yeah, John, that was wonderful. This is probably a bridge too far, but has there been a lot of thinking about how climate change might rearrange the spatial trade-offs? And what to do about it? Yeah. Yeah. So let me take two, that in two parts. First of all, there was a question earlier about trade-off analysis. This is desperately needed in the UK. It doesn't exist at the moment. There are 26 regulators and some of them are effectively championing the technology that they're looking after. And then, of course, you've got people working in silos saying carbon storage is all or I want to do hydrogen or when they're not talking to each other. And that's even within the same company, I have found, having a partnership within the wind farm and the carbon store and not even knowing they're talking about the same geography. There are other trade-offs, of course, as you sort of imply, Les, and one of my colleagues, Beth Scott Aberdeen, has been doing some fantastic work at looking at how some of the wind farms are affecting ecology, productivity in the North Sea, and, of course, also working in forward projection models for climate change and some of the effects on weather patterns and what that will mean in the future as well. And in terms of productivity and the food chain and into fisheries and the communities, we are seeing things changing as a result of wind farms going in and the weight that they produce or local currents around the structures, which are not really being factored in terms of horizon scanning of what the consequences, the unintended consequences of doing this might be. I don't know if that helps you, Les, in terms of answering the question, but there are positive and negative feedback loops to this. No, it helps a lot. I'd be grateful to be connected with Beth Scott. Yeah, just send me your email. I've been delighted to do that. I was involved with a workshop yesterday with an offshore wind operator called Maram Wind, where these discussions came up and Beth presented and it was absolutely stunning what she's doing. Thank you. I'll turn next to Laurie. Hi, John. Thank you very much. I was reading this morning about porthos and it just being approved offshore Rotterdam. And it looks to me and just like a quick look that there are some of the Dutch wind farms that are really close to that as well, but maybe not overlapping. Or do you know what consideration was given by the Dutch regulators? So because of the conflict between Allsteads, Hornsey Wind Farm and the endurance structure in the North Sea, people became very aware of this conflict. And so things like porthos, green sands in Denmark, northern lights in Norway have managed to say effectively there's primacy to carbon storage. That's a driver to capture, transport and safely secure emissions. And having identified that site, they've given that primacy. That's not always the case everywhere, particularly away from depleted fields where saline act was occur and so on. But at least in porthos, there is the overlap is not there. Thanks. Thank you. I have a question going back to, to Michaela's presentation that I wanted to make sure I had an opportunity to ask and that is, I thought it was really interesting the methodology of relying on representatives for the survey process to understand what these marine spatial planning processes are like in each country. And I'm wondering how, how much you think that influences the perception or the, or the impression that your group gets on what those processes actually are, depending on who you're speaking with. And if there's in the update in 2024, if you are relying on the same survey respondents, or if there is a new mix of people and not just individuals but perhaps as importantly or more importantly represent representation within within that group. So that's a great question and I'll invite Andrea to step in as well since she was part of that process for the chapter. But it's a great point obviously the information that we'll get could vary depending on who that representative that filled out the survey. As I mentioned, marine spatial planning is not a focus of the work that we do so we were trying to include the information in the best way possible to us. And this has been a method we've used for several of these ocean energy system tasks, where we use the different countries that are part of ocean energy for our case ocean energy environmental our initiative and ask the country representatives to find the expert in their country who can fill out the survey and provide us with the best available information, and that allowed us to get information from 16 different countries that otherwise we might not have that capacity to get so certainly some tradeoffs there. For the 2024 report, we are not conducting the survey again. Andrea correct me if I'm wrong but we did it for both the 2016 report which was published the year I started at PNNL and then also for the 2020 report. And so we feel at this point that the survey isn't necessarily needed to be completed again we're not really seeing a ton of movement on marine spatial planning specifically for marine renewable energy. So we don't think that it would be quite as useful as maybe it was in the past but our team is going through updates and trying to find additional information. And we will be running that by our current country representatives to help make sure that information is the most up to date. I think I answered all of your questions but if I forgot something let me know. I was just going to add to that that Michaela has it exactly right there hasn't been enough movement to do this over again it was like squeezing blood out of Iraq to get what we got the previous times. However, I do want to point out that the representatives of the 16 countries are tasked as the country's contribution to this because the US pays for the rest of the cost, but there is a required participation by these other members of the group of cash that they are required to consult and get the correct information so they're not sort of random people that we've said oh would you give us your best shot so well we can't guarantee it's absolutely correct. We do a certain amount of checking and Anne Marie O'Hagan who was the primary author of that chapter this is her field so the we felt that we had pretty good. There's no basis for the information we have but she is right it's not going to be our focus for well, maybe by 2028 will have been enough movement but changes haven't been great. And I'll note that the 2020 chapter has all the references for everything that I noted I did pull those out today otherwise those tables would be unbearable to look at. So I'm curious about like what actually the regulations were where we got that information that's all referenced in the chapter. I'm looking around the room, and also online for any raised hands I encourage to if our, if our bone participants have any questions or thoughts or, you know, encourage their participation as well so we'll give Chris has put a note in the chat box about is it fair to say that European regulators are giving primacy to CCS and depleted fields. Actually, I would say the other way around Chris, when farms are us in the sense that the movement towards clean energy. If you think about CCS it's effectively waste disposal and doesn't necessarily have a commercial model or basis in the US the introduction of the 45 q made a huge difference where you suddenly had tax credits given. And I used to come to the states and present on some of this stuff. And to be very frank with you. Maybe it was partly my personality or something but people used to run for the doors. When I stood up to talk about the North Sea and carbon storage, and there was tumbleweeds going through the lecture theater until about 2018 19. I had to be sort of encouraged to come across I thought is it really worth coming across to an empty hall again. And when I presented in 2019 2020 on this stuff. Suddenly the halls were full and it was standing room only and I thought to myself what on earth has happened. And it was the 45 q, the tax credits suddenly anyone and everybody wanted to know as much as possible about carbon storage from this random academic from Scotland. It changed everything and we do not have a 45 q in the UK. But we do have it and because it's waste disposal that means there isn't a commercial model in Norway and in Denmark, they have built what's called green sands and northern lights. And if you've ever watched the film, Field of Dreams, this is sort of Kevin, Kevin Cosner writ large, they have built it on the assumption that people will come. And I'm often asked, do people come? Well, yes, what's happened is the petrochemical works in Belgium, in order to have legitimacy and meet its net zero targets. Basically, it's called INEOS is the chemical company have driven the green sand project in record time so it's overtaken the UK and northern lights in Norway has cement factories, coal mines in Poland and power stations in Germany. Basically saying how much do we need to pay you to take our emissions off our hands, because it allows them to meet their ESG goals and then actually raise money and have a legitimacy to keep their power stations going. We don't actually have that in the UK. So very long answer to you, Chris, but I would actually say in the UK, wind has got primacy and it very nearly knocked out that endurance CCS site until BP threw money at it to come to commercial arrangement so that there wouldn't be overlap. So I have a follow up question for you actually it's kind of maybe it's a comparison in the in the US our friends here at BOEM have the lucky responsibility to not only be responsible for oil and gas in the on the outer continental US but also wind energy and eventually here we're going to hear about CCS I think they're going to have responsibility for that and they've got only 2,500 pages of regulations for us to look at so can't wait for that, but sounds like they have the ability then to make the trade off choices them set within within their own context. You don't have anything like that in the UK it sounds like you don't have that. It's grown organically so effectively the subsurface is managed by the North Sea Transition Authority. So they look after oil and gas and carbon dioxide storage and now hydrogen as of about a month ago, but the sea bed and the shallow subsurface. That's handled by the Crown Estate in England and Wales, but Crown Estate Scotland across the border, whereas the NSTA is national, the sea bed is actually the different parts of the United Kingdom. Then you've got the like the sea column and environmental agencies for the things like Ocred, Marine Scotland, I could just go on and on there are so many regulators, there is no overarching independent if you like UK net zero authority. And if as you're suggesting that does exist in the states in one body, then I think you're in a far better position, because then you've got effectively one single point of entry to make a decision. There are so many different regulators so many different operators and methods that it is a really complex matrix and I really like the idea of this sort of trade off analysis to try and move the dial because we've got to get to solutions and quickly. And as some of you may know that in recent days and months, no but no wind farm operator bid for any licenses in the North Sea in the most recent round. And most people say oh that's terrible. I'm actually thinking thank goodness it buys us a bit of time to get this right. Because the more you put these things out there, then the less space you've got to do other things and they're not necessarily being put in places which are have no other use. Thank you very much for that. I trust our friends from BOM heard that particularly with regard to the second round of decision on second round of leasing and when leasing in the Gulf Mexico. John, thank you so much really appreciate your time I think you gave us a spectacular presentation and obviously there was a lot of interest in it, and to Michaela and her team as well very much appreciated I think Michaela maybe had to hop off already but really grateful for the time today for the contribution star thinking into our meeting and discussion. We're running a few minutes behind, but we are on to the last item of our agenda for today. And I'm going to turn to Brad life Brad thank you for your patience. I know you you gave us a few teasers yesterday about this topic that you're going to be talking about and it has us all. You know on the edge of our seats. It's not it's not everyone that can follow a spectacular presentation as I heard it just referred to with a presentation about bureaucratic minutiae. So, I'm super excited, and it's all downhill from here. Well we appreciate you joining us again today and we will not spend any more time. I'll turn it over to you. So I apologize for not being there in person. I love you all, but in a shameless plug my daughter is the female lead in the show heard in high school later this afternoon and so I need to make sure I am close and ready to get over there and help out with all the pre show stuff and then be proud dad probably not crying in the in the auditorium. So, yeah, so let's on a Friday afternoon talk about bureaucratic minutiae and how bone coordinates studies across different programs within the ESP and outside of the ESP. I'm going to share my screen, hopefully, correctly and appropriately. Can we see that. Yep, it just came up. Cool. Well, go back. Great, settle down, settle down. All right. So, I'm realizing that there's a little bit of nuance to this, this conversation based on the first couple of days we had this week at our retreat in shepherds town. We had a first environmental retreat in a couple of years. And that was really great. And one of the things we talked about was obviously studies coordination. And one of the questions that I know we've talked about we previewed a little bit yesterday like Kerry said was. How do we coordinate studies across the agency specifically studies that may not be conducted through the environmental studies program. To which my response is environmental studies outside of the ESP. No, we don't want that. And there's there's a reason for that. There have been issues in the past where environmental studies and I'm putting that in quotation marks were conducted outside of the ESP without knowledge of folks in headquarters office environmental programs. Yes, the folks who manage the environmental studies program, generally not a huge deal potentially not a big deal. One of the issues that you see when that happens is that a lot of times in those cases studies are managed by a single individual. You have one person who is taking that from idea to inception to final product. And that's really not enough eyes on on something for, especially if we're going to be using that for decision making processes, you know, bone is an applied science organization. We have science informed decisions, right? We want to make sure that we're clear about what that means. And they're formed by science science doesn't always win the day, but it is a piece that goes into all of our decisions sometimes science does when sometimes environmental issues do take primacy. Sometimes economics politics, whatever do as well. And that's fine. We just, you know, we need to make sure we're we're honest about what is driving our decision making process. So we need to talk about two things. First, we need to all be on the same page and we're happy to step in conversation about what is an environmental study. And we need to know what happens if a research need arises outside of the national studies list process right this is our nine month process ish. Where we go from study profile, which is a one to two page outline. So what are the research needs? Basically, you know, what do we think we need? What kind of research do we think we need to get it? And when do we need it? All the way to a couple years later, you know, till sorry, we're just like the NSL process, but nine months later, that final list of things were actually going to fund in the next fiscal year. It's signed by the director of the agency, whoever that may be at the time. So it's a long process. We are well aware that study needs come up outside of that process. Right. So how do we handle that? I know we have a lot of new people. So I'm actually going to pause here and ask the COSA folks, if it would be helpful for me to give sort of the elevator speech version of the national studies list process. I think, yeah, I'm seeing some nods around the room. So maybe an abbreviated version. Yeah, would be great. All right. So, right about this time of year, shortly after the new fiscal year starts, Rodney and our lovely public affairs support send out a notification to the public and to internal folks, all of our scientists across. Boom. I apologize to keep touching my nose. I'm about to sneeze. I'm trying not to. So that call goes out. And from here on out for the next couple of months, apologies. There we go. Folks start developing ideas for studies for the next fiscal year. Those get put into what we call study profiles. And over the next probably two to three months, those study profiles are developed, refined, and then collected into what we call our studies development plan. Right. This is the big wish list of what all of our scientists, and I'm including all our analysts and those because they are scientists as well. What they see is their research needs. We spend another couple of months going through reviewing those tightening them up. Making sure that those profiles was clear as they can be so folks understand what those needs are. Then we go through a process working all the way through the studies coordinators and chiefs. The regional supervisors for environment or their equivalent up to the regional directors and then up to the directorship of the agency refining that list. Based on the needs of each office and program to get to a list roughly. Hopefully by the end of the fiscal year of the things that are that there's consensus around as being. There's needs of the agency. For the next fiscal year, what studies do we need to get started. And then those hopefully get signed by the end of the fiscal year by the director. And we start the process over again, it's been a nine month process, right, but it's pretty it's it's step by step there's lovely Gantt charts that John Lilly can can show folks. That's basically how it how that works. But it is a process you start at the beginning. You don't get it at the beginning. You're sort of not in. And you end up at the end with the national studies list. Now, of course, you can't dictate when a study needs arises. Right. So we have to have some process for how to get things funded and started to identify those information needs outside of that process. Right. So that any questions on that. That's a very brief overview. I don't see any questions or any hands raised. So go right ahead, Brad. All right. So to start with, we all need to be on the same page. What is an environmental study and we actually didn't have this until a couple of years ago. Where we had a team, so a cross bone team that was put together to define what environmental study was. And so what kicked off the need for this was these studies that were being funded outside of the ESP without awareness of the folks who are managing the ESP. Right. That caused a couple of problems. It's not a great place or a great feeling when the director or the deputy director calls Rodney or me or Yoko or Bill and says, hey, what's going on with this study. And we say, well, that's not a bone study. And they send us a link and it is, it's a bone study, but it hasn't gone through the environmental studies program. So it's conducted with operational funds. And we weren't notified of that. Obviously that's a problem. We look silly. So we put a team together cross bone team to define what is an environmental study with the understanding that anything that met that criteria must go through the ESP processes and be tracked just as any other ESP study would be. With those things, these studies originating outside of the process itself, there is a cost sharing involved. Generally when that comes up, the originating office of that need will find operational funds to pay for that. The environmental studies program, efficient environmental sciences and OEP will share roughly $5,000 to give that what we call an NSL number national studies list number that also has it assigned. So, and just instead of just having a lead within the agency, which is our contracting officers representative. It's something called an environmental studies program representative and that gives you another SME to help you through that process to help you with all of sort of the bureaucratic stuff of putting the study package together, getting it through procurement, all that sort of fun stuff. It also helps with the review of review of everything from the procurement package itself, the RFP or RFQ or the IA documents agreement documents, cooperative documents, contract documents, another set of eyes with an SME. And then that gets it into the ESP process writ large. So, what is an environmental study for bone is any research effort, like anything that meets that, like I said, meets that definition has to come through our processes and procedures. And so how do we define that we define that as any oceanographic ecological biological socio economic or socio cultural research that and this is where you know I had a drum roll I would do it, but I don't collect data. This is where I am going to do what you should never do for a presentation, which is do a lot of reading of things on the slide. Basically collecting new data, including baseline information anything that helps you gain an improved understanding of what's going on, and not just of the areas themselves but potentially impacted areas right because the OCS LA says we have to understand impacts to the human coastal and marine environment right so what's happening in that spot where the study is being done, but where the work that that study aims to understand its potential impacts, where those impacts could be felt. Monitoring, obviously monitoring is a big thing that we do environmental monitoring new tools to monitor all those kind of things. I'll leave that up for a second for folks to read and that will share this later. Anything collecting or synthesizing new data to inform NEPA analyses or consultations right so if we are, if we need to do sort of a real small effort, you know, in the, you know, 50 $100,000 effort to just like hey, collect a little bit of information synthesize it put that together for our NEPA analysis or consultations that is new information being gathered that is environmental study. Anything that develops improves models to help us with analysis precision making technology development, things like that, that help us collect better information, work more effectively, cheaply, all that fun kind of stuff. Happy to talk about innovation at some other time as well. The efforts that would take information from environmental studies share those with stakeholders, the public get that information out there. If it is specifically talking about ESP research, and you want to go out and do that. That's something that should be tracked by the ESP technical reports and new data information. The economic efforts used at NEPA or associated compliance should be tracked as well. And that includes some of the analyses for the national program or similar analysis for specific projects. All right, so I'm going to stop there for a second and ask if there are any questions about what is an environmental study for bone. Looking around the room I don't see any 10 cards up and no hands online. That means I'm doing a great job. That's going to tell myself anyway. All right, so now let's talk about things that aren't an environmental study, right? So this group that was put together, didn't just talk about what is, right? But we didn't want there to be a black hole. And we didn't want to have to answer every sort of nuance question. Well, what about this? What about this? What about this? So we said, all right, well, what isn't? What can we definitively categorize as not an ESP study? So internally facing white papers for NEPA support. They're just, you know, hey, we need someone to put together, you know, summarize these 10 papers so that someone can save the summary instead or basically not even save some understand what's in there, right? Just summary documents. Renewable, sorry, resource evaluation studies and modeling for offshore energy and sediment. EMD scenario work, so exploration and development scenarios are things that go into our economic analyses and other analyses for the national program that doesn't count in here. We don't want to, we don't want to get involved in that. Tools or applications designed to collect information from lessee, right? We develop tools, we develop applications for environmental purposes. But if it's just to take in information from the folks that we regulate, we don't, we don't need to be involved in that. General data management. Does the ESP pay for data management? Yes. It's just a data management thing. We don't need to get involved in that. Geologic sample storage, scoping for public meetings, general outreach, kind of stuff. We don't, we don't need to be involved in that. If it's not directly coming out of ESP work, we're directly related to ESP work. And there's a whole bunch of other economic activity that the agency does that is handled through a different office, things like fiscal terms, royalty rates, auction formats, RIAs, other economic products. That's not environmental. We're happy to leave that sort of in the realm of the ECON team. They do a great job. Then there's a very well-formed team across the Bureau. And they keep each other well informed of what's going on. So it's not a concern there. Actually, I'm going to drop back a second. Any questions on what isn't an ESP study? Yes. Let's go. You've got Jeremy and then Scott. Yeah. What about studies that are done by developers? So, you know, they may do an avian study. They may do a right well study. They obviously do geophysical and geotechnical studies. I take it those wouldn't be considered to be environmental studies, but they somehow get into the overall boom mix. And how do you integrate that knowledge into the wider environmental studies program? Okay. So I would say those are environmental studies. Those are not boom environmental studies, right? So if we require them to do a study or if they do it voluntarily. To meet some need that that bone has as a regulator and we're going to take that information in. To help us with with our analysis of those projects. We don't really have a mechanism to dictate how they do that study. Right. They're spending their money to meet that need. We do not impose ourselves into that process. Right. We do. We would want those to be obviously appropriately peer reviewed. And reviewed before we take them in, we would review those and judge whether or not. Those are adequate and appropriate for us to, to use in our decision making processes and that's up to the subject matter experts within the agency. But because we are not. We're not funding that we didn't come up with the idea for that study. We're not tracking that within the environmental studies program in terms of something that bone has conducted and funded. How do you then decide whether if that knowledge already may exist out there? How do you then incorporate that into your decisions on what to fund in the environmental studies program? I mean, if you don't know that it's out there, it seems that you can't incorporate it into your decision making on what the best to fund. Oh, absolutely. Yes. I mean, we have to know that it's that it's out there. And so that I have a whole. I can, I can bust out my scientific integrity slides if we want later. The integrity of our decisions as an agency depends on sort of the integrity of everything from the data and information that we use and the staff that we have. And their professionalism, their. Scientific integrity there. How up to date are they in their field? All those things, right? So that is something that we really push through the department to your scientific integrity policy. That our staff at all levels, especially our analysts really need to be engaged in their field. As subject matter experts, they need to know the research that is out there for the types of things that you are talking about. Generally, those are things that the folks who are writing those analysis, those consultations. They're very aware of that work that is going on. If it's something that and anyone else bill or anyone else can jump in. If it is something that is being done as sort of a condition of a lease or something like that. We're not just going to take that blindly we're going to review that make sure it meets meets our information and quality needs. But, but does the environmental studies program staff have knowledge of those studies that are done in the leasing area. And the idea is that really what we're talking about here Jeremy is just within bone and in the environmental studies programs like the human marine and coastal environment and spending our $30 million. Now anytime an analyst is proposing a new study. Anytime a scientist is doing a section of a NEPA document. A good scientist you consider everything that's out there you talk to everybody you consider all the literature you consider dissertations you consider any kind of information now since you come up with. Well we're talking about here is tracking within bone. And I just see this has nothing to do. I mean, we're not trying to define an environmental study for the world. We're trying to define what an environmental studies is within our process. Yeah, of course we would get those broader broader things. Yeah, and if I could jump in this this ties back to the feedback loop study that the Jake and I see talked about right so. Those analyses those those NEPA analysis environmental analysis site hundreds to thousands of documents right and comparatively a small number of those are ESP documents, right things that we have identified a research gap. Funded it through the ESP gotten that final report and incorporated that in right and the reason for that is that we're not looking to recreate the wheel every time we do an analysis right so our is Rodney was saying. Our folks. The expectation is that that our folks are going to know what is out there what is the state of that science and where those research gaps are. The gap there that no one else is filling that's that's what we're going to fund. Right, we're going to fill those gaps and information needs that our analysts have. We're not just going to do research for research sake. If it's already been done, if it's already out there, the expectation is that that that's going to be to be brought in. And we're going to fill in the gaps to the ESP. And, you know, and Jeremy, thanks for the comment. I would also add that the co session has been very helpful in developing there were seven criteria that are part of our decision making framework and one of them one of the criterion is the, you know, the. The need to know this that information that's not otherwise available so it's right there as a criteria is important point. Right. At the end of the day, the environmental studies program is is a resource and a tool for bone analysts and bone scientists. Right. If you don't have the information you need if it's not out there. If no one else is doing it. This is your tool. We provide that service to help you get that information. Right. There's another question. I have a question. This is a very helpful talk by the way. So, I'm thinking about studies that are modeling specifically for the evaluation resource potential for the OCS energy and sedimentary inventories. I'm wondering how things that come up that might pertain to the potential impacts of geo hazards and or climate event impacts. Let me give you a specific example study BOM report 2020 slash or dash 040 potential earthquake landslide tsunami and geo hazards for the Pacific offshore or US Pacific US offshore Pacific wind farms. I think it's the only study you've done on that it has it's relevant not just for the geo hazards but also for hazards associated more generally and issues related to floating wind. Is that in your inventory. Yeah. So that would be in the inventory. So as long as it's the impact of those events on the work that we're doing. That's interesting. That would be there if it is just solely resource evaluation. Right. What is the potential. What is the energy potential of this area. How much sand is in this area that meets the criteria for whatever thing that. Resource evaluation is not about impacts. You know, lives at risk assets at risk. This was funded I think by ORP or yeah. Renewable energy so that it wouldn't be funded by you wouldn't have been funded by you I think it was funded by even. But it would appear on your you'd be tracking it though right it's fun. I got I can track them on that one specifically but that is something that should be tracked. I'd love it if you do that. That was not funded directly by and whether we're tracking it or not. I don't know. I would like to know the answer to that. But I don't know if we did a cross share on that or not. I would much appreciative. This is a study I've referred to several times. I've I'm frustrated that I don't know more about it. So what is that. What is that number again. 2020 dash zero four zero and I understand there is an update that was supposedly done but it was too secure for me to get access to last time I asked so I'm intrigued about that one. Well, again, this is one reason we're doing this process because we're not because that was funded outside of the studies program. That's why I would have heard thought it was from you guys, we would have gone through the study development plan and you would have seen it. And so that's one of those things right so the reason one of the reasons we were tasked with putting this group together to try to figure that out is that if it's not known unknown. Like if the ESP is not informed that this study is happening. We don't know about it. Right that's not known unknown to us. And that's that's not great. That's not a great look right. Thank you. Thanks, Brad. All right, so what I'm going to go to next is really bureaucratic minutiae, but it's really just there to kick off a conversation. So, again, we have this sort of nine to 10 month process to go from the inception of a study idea to getting national studies list signed, then obviously we go into the procurement process for those things. And then something comes up outside of that process. What happens if say a governor calls and says, Hey, my, you know, office of natural resources has $200,000 to do a study on this is not quite enough to do what we want bone. Can you know, can you partner with us when Noah invariably calls somebody in the third quarter and say, Hey, we got all this money we need to spend. We need a governor on this type of study. How do we handle that is there a process for them there is a process for that. And it's very dry and bureaucratic. And we have, you know, a 300 page procedural desk reference that everybody hates because 300 pages long, but the reality is most of the time when you need something from that it's only, you know, a couple of paragraphs long. And really, it is a pretty simple process to add a study to the national studies list. Right, so if you have a need. And there's funding available either through what we lovingly call our PQ a or program quality assurance. So whenever we have whenever we have our ESP budget, we hold back a certain amount for things like cost overruns. We sort of late, you know, late in the year or unexpected study needs that come up at some point in the year. So we can we can do that or you can use programmatic funds as well and then you have that, you know, that $5,000 cost share, but it's a pretty simple process. We can do this in a couple of days, and then get it moving. And what this does is that assigns an ESP representative right that second person that we talked about that second SME to help you through that process and then it kicks it into all of our processes that track. All of your, you know, process deliverables in term deliverables, final deliverables, data deliverables, all that kind of stuff. So this is the process to do that anything that meets that definition that we talked about earlier of the environmental studies program study environmental study needs to be conducted through the ESP. If you want to fund it with your own money from some other officer program. Here's how we do that. There's a bigger question that I think that you are interested in is not so much, you know, who sends email to who kind of thing like we have on the page right now. I mean, how, as an agency, do we coordinate those needs. And there are a couple of ways that that we do that. Obviously, regular communication between, you know, from Rodney, myself, Yoko, the studies chiefs in headquarter OEP to our colleagues in all our regions of programs. So we know when these needs are rising when they're coming up. So we can, you know, plan for them as well as we can, at least be aware of them. We have monthly meetings with all the studies chiefs and coordinators as well to talk about emerging issues, things like that. Staff staff communications. We have communities of practices within the agency. So we do have all of those things that again, you know, we are a small agency. So I'm going to take this off the screen because it's boring. So that's a big picture. And really just sets the stage for whatever conversations you all want to have about this issue. Coordination of research across the agency. Yeah, thank you so much. I think it's really valuable that we have these discussions periodically. And it certainly, I think helped clarify a lot of things that were buzzing around in the committee conversations. Just to sort of summarize what I think I heard and sort of the big picture while I wait for hands to go up. To me, like, there's a recognition that study needs may arise outside of the regular STP process whereby you do the call, you solicit the profiles. There's an internal review process. It gets on our radar. It gets into the STP and eventually onto the national studies list. And that you all would consider it sort of going through the STP process. Even if sort of an abbreviated fashion, so long as you all are notified and then that the whomever it is that's initiating the study is willing to go through those steps that you have in the desk reference. Yeah, so just to clarify, right. So if you have, so say you are, you know, in the Pacific region. And you have a research need that comes up when you identify that and bring that to us that doesn't kick off a nine month process start to finish. Right. What that does is that says, hey, I have a research need. It needs to be tracked through the environmental studies program. Right. And there are, there are requirements for that. Right. So we need to have a cost sharing. We need to assign an ESP representative and then all of the requisitions and sort of business side of that are then conducted through and tracked by the ESP. Right. So that so you can kick that off. I mean, I've seen it happen. You know, within a couple of weeks, going from our notification to getting it added to the NSL to being done into procurement and awarded. So that that is consistent with what I was trying to articulate. I guess my question that arises is, and you, you're highlighting how quickly that can be done further. It enforces my question, I guess, which is what, what criteria, how, how, or are the seven criteria that are in this, the studies development plan, how are those applied or how are other criteria and metrics applied in terms of determining whether or not even in the cost sharing model. It is a good investment of bones funds to move forward with that study. So, realistically, most of those things, when we're, when we're talking about these types of things, you have had, you know, basically at the regional director level or program director level saying, we've looked at this, we need this. And that can be for a whole host of reasons from, you know, so either, you know, like talked about the state saying like, hey, we have money we want to do this to, hey, you know, something just went sideways, you know, there is now litigation risk unless we fill this data gap. All right, now let's go ahead and do this. There can be a whole host of reasons as to why someone would come to us. But generally, if they're coming to the ESP to say that they needed that legitimate business case has already been made for needing to have that study and we're not going to, we're not going to fight you on that, right? Like, we're not going to say, all right, well, let's go back there and like, no, you've already gone through your process. You've identified the funds. You've said this is necessary for XYZ. You know, we're going to provide that service to you. And eventually Stacy would be the same criteria because you have the need to know and it would go through those criteria if it's an environmental study. Right. Yeah, right. We don't fund fair market value macroeconomic studies for the economics division. Understood. It's not an environmental study. Yeah. Scott, is your, is your attention. Are there any other folks on the line that had questions? All right. We had on the, oh, I'm sorry, Bill, go right ahead. Actually, I had a comment on the previous point, the previous presentation and something Professor Underhill was saying that that I thought might be useful for people to be aware of. Professor Underhill, I said, I believe that there's a binding requirement in the United Kingdom for zero carbon emissions by net by 2050 and, and then we talked about the complexity of the system there and, and the, and the boom situation I think was, was laid out in a way that people might think is much simpler in the sense that, yeah, well, this is the point we, it's indeed we, you know, we do regulate these all these things that were mentioned and so it is it is simpler and the leasing, you know, authority is with bone. But for example, for, for oil and gas. I actually let me step back. Although, although the president of the United States has has set the, the goal of zero net and we've, we've let the Paris agreement parties know that's our objective we're still constrained by the different statutes the government sees and so for oil and gas there's the five year program and there are these eight balancing considerations one of which is environmental and somebody could argue that because of climate the environmental necessity is such that, you know, you have to like set up a system to get to zero net, but no one is really, no one is really advanced that in a significant way for us and what we did and what we ended up doing in the five year program document was just noting what it would take. So there's an analysis in the document about what it would take to get to 050 but then the basic mandate is to make the continental shelf available for development subject to environmental safeguards with those so so so we, I think I think it would be safe to say that that bone or really at the interior department administration is not not comfortable, certainly not the way it's proceeding now to treat zero net by 2050 as the regulatory objective of the oil and gas program. The other thing that complicates it that I think you're aware of is that the current legislation requires a an oil and gas lease sale covering at least 60 million acres, at least, at least that to occur in the year before any offshore sale so there's call it a poison pillar which so so I guess the point I'm trying to make to maybe some of the other the folks that were commenting is, you know, we have, we have a lot of complications too. Thank you. I want to just take a moment to thank Brad for his presentation. I don't see rod is your question for Brad. Okay, well then we'll continue that conversation and I'll turn to you next. Quick question Brad so I think you said that the monies for research needs studies environmental studies sat in something called the PQ is that did I get that right. We have so we have. So, let's just do a little hypothetical here. So say, on a good year, lately, we get $35 million for ESP research, right and just doing that's all for that extra mail research that the agency does. We will hold back somewhere between probably 500 to $750,000 and not assign those to studies. And basically hold that back because we know we're going to have cost overruns we know somebody is going to want to do. And, you know, an optional part of a study. We have these these off cycle needs that we're talking about. So we want to make sure that we have some funding available to cover those unknown needs. Right. So we don't want to spend all, you know, $35 million right at the beginning of the year and not have any money left over for any of those sort of contingencies. Okay. And that money sits centrally or does that. Okay. All right. All the money is central. Yeah, so I was that was really my question. I was trying to get a sense of how many dollars we're talking about and where it was sitting. Okay, it's been 500 and 750 usually and the entire environmental studies program budget is managed centrally by DES right by Rodney's group right so we manage that we control those funds. And Rod, there's not there's not a line item from Congress for the environmental studies program. There's an item which is environmental program so it includes assessment, etc. But there is a mandate in the outer continental shelf lands like that there be an environmental studies program to understand the impacts of energy mineral development on the human coastal marine environment, blah, blah, blah. So if the agency goes away. Well, you know, the ESP will live on in some shape or form. We'll still have a job. I don't know about the rest of the folks. Yeah, Brad, I know I know that there's good reason that up until now everything's been oriented toward permitting. But I know it sounds like a broken record on this but is there a way is there a plan for a pot of funds to just learn everything we can from the installations that are going out there. So that there is an opportunity for learning and adaptation. So, so I would respectfully challenge that a little bit right so we had that conversation yesterday about, you know, not all of bone studies get cited in these environmental documents right these things that go toward toward permitting right and that makes sense to me. The environmental studies program doesn't just support leasing, right, doesn't just support doing ESS EAs it supports consultation processes. It supports, you know, just the agency writ large, you know, trying to protect us against litigation doing certain things like that so there are a whole bunch of things that are not environmental processes that are not directly related to permitting that the ESP funds science to help inform those processes. We don't apportion. So if you look at sort of that that specific issue sort of monitoring installations, we don't say, you know, 25% of our budget is going to go toward that. Do we want to make sure that that's a part of our portfolio. Yes. But at the end of the day, the folks of us sitting and I'm speaking about this in terms of folks sitting in, in OEP. So the folks sort of managing that that central program. We try to be agnostic about what those funds go towards right so we have regions and programs we have the folks are doing the operations we have folks who are doing the consultations we have folks who are working with the states with the tribes, doing all of the, all of the work. Right. So when we reorganized a bunch of years ago, the environmental studies program was pulled out of the operational side of bone. Right. We used to report through the leasing program. We got pulled out and put into our own place. Right. So we don't have to report through that. Yes, we look across Roddy looks across, you know, and that's one of his the things that he does and Bill looks across. We used to make sure that we have sort of that balance portfolio of things. And that those are the conversations that happen at the higher levels of the agency as we're going through trying to get consensus all the way from the study chiefs to the director going through that process. Through the regional directors, regional leadership program leadership up to the director. Yeah, if I can interrupt just quickly, I think, I think bone is doing a great job on the balance. I don't think that's the issue is, I think the issue is that bone doesn't have enough money. Oh, absolutely. I mean, I would agree that right so and so they showed the the graph the other day right so that was the nominal level of funding for the environmental studies program from its inception. First year we were fully funded was I believe 1973. We had roughly $32 million in 2023 we have roughly $32 million. Okay, so just to keep pace with inflation and I've had my economists check me on my math we should have somewhere between like 150 and $120 million just to keep pace for inflation. We don't have that. So is there a way to run this up the flagpole it's probably not the job of this committee I'm not sure but I would say. Yeah, it stays it's going down. We certainly can't do that right so we certainly can't do that right so we can't go boom as an agency or us as the environmental studies program folks we can't go to Congress they give us more money. Could we do a better job of informing. Appropriators, what we're doing the importance of our work. You know how we are being, you know, physically responsible with what we have and the great work that we're getting from absolutely we could do we could do more that we could be better about that. And that I believe that is in talking with some of our congressional folks and public affairs folks that they have plans for that. But again remember, we're a small agency. Guess how many people we have in our congressional affairs shop to. Right. It's better than one, but when you only have to that makes you more sort of responsive. So, thanks. I'd love more money. But yeah, so if you have some less will take it. I'm going to go to Jim and then to Rodney. Okay, this will be really quick just a real world example. I have all the details Ari sitting in the back she can keep me honest, but at one time I sat in the studies chief job in the Gulf. Then I sat in Rodney's chair and a similar chair to Bill kind of similar not exactly the same. Now I'm the regional director for the golf. For example, the end of the year comes up. There's money left. I get approached to buy Ari and the studies folks and say we have a study that's ending. But wait a minute, we could really use one more season of data collection with these cruises are expensive and it's an critical area. And so literally I say that's where we're putting money. I give Ari the thumbs up Ari and her team contacts Rodney and Brad and magically I've got 700,000 K to keep a study going for a year or so to get more information it's an ESP study. But we had leftover operational funds to get another year of incredibly valuable data, because if we had to go out and recompete it and line things up again, we couldn't afford it. So the program has got a lot of flexibility. And it's very nimble. In fact, I was at one meeting the other NAS building. And the chair of the ocean studies board pointed at one of our sister agencies that said you ought to do it like bone does it because they're flexible and nimble. And so it's really a good process and with the regions working with our headquarters office. We make sure the money is spent in the right place and occasionally we do get a few extra dollars of operational funds that we can supplement an environmental study. It really a lot of bang for our bucks. Did I say that right Ari for your study. And that's another pathway and that's even more simpler than adding a study to the NSL right that's just a cost increase request. Hey, we want to put some more money on this. Here's what we want to spend it on. We're getting good results. We started to look at what we've, you know, the SME in charge of it agrees. Yeah, we're getting good results. We need more. We need another season. Great. Let's do it. That can take place in just a couple of days to get that moving. But I mean, that can, yeah, I mean, adding the study can take. You know, hours, and then it's just the procurement piece to extend the extend the completion date of the project. Yeah, there's one more thing I wanted to make the committee aware of and I'm not sure you are. Perhaps you are ESP has contribution authority. That means we can take in funds from the private sector. Like a developer. We've used it in the past and cost shared with companies like shell. For example, in the Arctic to do various types of science. There's usually been in the past a one off study, like would be in our study development plan we conduct the study, we get the final report the data done. The contemplation now and it kind of goes back to what less was saying earlier. And one thing that keeps me up at night is long term monitoring how we're going to monitor over the lifetime of projects and really understand cumulative effects. In the Atlantic in the Gulf in the Pacific in the Arctic in the territories among all the activities that we oversee. So one area we're exploring and the possibility is using our contribution authority. Looking at what's required. You know, for a company in there, for example, for offshore wind and their construction operation plan. Let me give you an example of his past acoustic monitoring companies needed to do that past acoustic monitoring as part of their requirement. The environmental studies program could work with them and use some of our. Our appropriated funding to leverage that the reason we're looking at past acoustic monitoring and why that's a good example is because we did get, I believe it was 6 million. To construct or began the construction of an array in the Atlantic for past acoustic monitoring. So it's enticing. I think for developers to actually add to that broader regional array, which one could build it more on the basis of science, rather than arbitrary lease lines. I think so the contribution authority. I know this is quite a bit to think about, but the contribution authority is a an avenue. You know, to pursue in the future that again could perhaps get us a little bit closer to the longer term monitoring and really create again kind of what I think less said earlier as well. I mean, I see this as, you know, we could really create with each array or even with each turbine or with each activity, even if we see if it's carbon sequestration or various other green hydrogen. I mean, I think we could create laboratories for learning, you know, across the outer kind of shelf. I mean, you know, if again, if those are kind of requirements anyway, that a developer must do and now it's not going to be across the board, right. But, you know, I think where possible the environmental studies program could work with that contribution authority to actually enhance that monitoring. So I think about I haven't really done it yet. Like I said in the past has been kind of a one off but I did want to share that with the committee. Before we talk about it too much public. Thanks. Thank you all, we are a couple minutes past the hour but I want to still take a few moments just to share some closing remarks and give our co chairs and opportunity for any final thoughts as well. Before I turn it over to them, while we still have folks in the room, my primary closing remark in addition to thanking of course all of the contributors to this meeting over the last two days. The primary thing that I really want to communicate is my personal gratitude to our outgoing members. We have five folks that are rotating off of our committee at the end of this calendar year for whom this is their last meeting. And with us, Carrie Scott rod, your contributions to this committee are are, you know, have been remarkable over the last several years and your dedication of time thoughtfulness. It has not gone unnoticed and on top of it all you all serve as volunteers, which is so so greatly appreciated. The two others that will be rotating off that are not on the line currently Susan parks who has really. She has been our point person on all things marine mammals for the on behalf of the committee and Mary Louise Timmermans, we owe her congratulations. In addition to our gratitude she's taken a new position at her university, which requires that she rotate off of the committee. But again, I just want to take a moment to sincerely thank each of you, and to recognize that some of you, Rod, have not only served bone through COSA, but through the FACA committee. And it for as a representative of a pretty narrow field. And I think you have served them well, Scott, you served as a liaison before joining as a member and becoming a chair, and your willingness to still join the committee after having been a liaison, I think is quite remarkable. And, and Carrie you have constantly provided us the the human dimension and social reminders that I think this committee and boom has really benefited from so with that, I will turn it over to Scott and Rod. Okay. So, and I want to thank everybody for their participation this meeting I thought it was we another good day so I thought yesterday was a good day today was a very good day to some a lot of food for thought. I want to thank our invited guests you really made major contributions. And I, and I hope we can continue to to build on on the relationships we started today. This is my son song I'm out of here after this. I've been working in the OCS for 42 years, working with first with MMS folks and then with BOM when I came in. It was a time of huge challenge. We were in the oil crisis, the mandate that charged all of us was go find some more energy for the United States strategic imperative. And I had the pleasure to do that for 32 years with shell. We're working closely with not only the folks of bone but the other predecessors at MMS. Many of those pictures you showed today Jim of installations in the Gulf Mexico, they were projects I was involved in, and my in my teams and I'm very proud of that effort. But now we face another big challenge it's not go find oil let's get ready for the energy transition. And once again, boom you're going to have to dive back in it's a huge challenge not just for for you but for all the folks who work in the various industries. And the and the academic groups that the train our people and support us, making that transition is no small challenge. I think there may be in the course of the day sessions here I think I want to highlight three areas where I thought there might be opportunities for national Academy we're here to help to, you know, through COSA and or other efforts to try to assist Bowman in meeting some of these challenges. The first is in the area. First of all, let me go to the area of CCS. It's a new frontier for you. It's a new frontier for everybody. We are not not in the lead on this so there's lessons to be learned from our friends across the Atlantic. And I particularly for offshore operations. I think we should avail ourselves of that opportunity. I would encourage that there be some efforts to try to have a workshop or a study of some sort, but probably including also our friends in the National Academy of Engineering to to look at the challenges and opportunities around offshore CCS to do it right. It's a big challenge in sorting out the difference between putting CO2 and depleted fields versus putting them in saline aquifers, the resource potential difference between the two is huge. And I think we want to make sure we get that right. I do really believe the US could be the Saudi Arabia for CCS if we if we get our heads around it and tackle it appropriately, but that's an opportunity. Another one is in offshore wind, particularly floating wind. So, we didn't get to hear everything that Jim shared in his or Dr. Anaheel shared in his paper that we looked at but they've done quite a bit of work looking at comparing economics around things like fixed platforms and floating wind in the North Sea where they've got a lot more experience than we do. They've got installations they're putting out there. I think it would be very useful to learn more about what they have learned so far to bring it to bear on our side of the Atlantic. A very significant part of our resource potential in wind is tied up with floating wind essentially everything on the on the Pacific coast and and some of the most prospective areas on the Atlantic coast are going to require floating technology. I think we need to understand not only economics but some of the risks associated with it. And this brings me to another study area that I think would be where I think the Academy could help you I would encourage you to avail yourself of the Academy to help you redo the report that I talked about to to to Brad. I think it needs it needs a third party look from the from the experts to look at the geo hazards associated with floating wind. Particularly that's going to be relevant on the Pacific coast because we have seismic hazards but it's not without some risk in other places like the Caribbean if you want to put it there. So that's that's another one. The last thing I'd like to identify and we talked about this is the subject of much of today's discussion is this whole area of marine spatial planning and trying to come up with some approach to handle the trade offs. You, you know, you, you're the ones who are going to have to deal with the trade offs and we really need to get it right. And I think, you know, I'm not sure necessarily the first one there is should be the one we put everything on I'm not sure that's that is necessarily be the right answer everywhere so I think a systematic approach to how we're going to sort through that going forward, particularly with all your program programs that as as Dr under here I'll talk about compete for the same space of ocean. And many of them you can't put the same thing can't put more one of them in the same place. It's going to be important that we figure out how to tackle that systematically. I think the Academy can help you there I think this group can help you there. And take advantage of that resource. So best wishes and and rest fellow fellow committee members I wish you all the best. We welcome you back anytime. And please have a shot but I think I would echo everything that Scott said. In the last couple of days of being extremely interesting. We covered a huge amount of territory. The they've been very, very productive. I'm grateful to everybody for for contributing to that. Scott and I were keen to promote a model in which we thought about different ways of engaging with different mechanisms that the National Academies and this committee has of engaging with I would encourage everybody to continue to think outside the box and different ways in which that exchange can take place, whether it's individual co some members working with SMEs to provide advice to workshops with future National Academy studies. I think all of those things are good and I think we're seeing some of the fruits of those different kinds of ways of thinking and engagement. I think we're also seeing a model in which it's less a case of bone reporting out to us on things and more of an exchange of information and thinking about ways that COSA can be very can be more useful because that's the objective of the committee. As Stacy pointed out, I've been involved with bone for a long time when I first started, I had different colored hair, Rodney had a different colored beard. And when I first met Bill and Susan, it was at a factor meeting where you came and said we're going to do this in a different way. And I think that decision that you made at that time has been both useful and fruitful for bone. I've had experience of both and there were certainly great things that happened at the FACA, but I think that is clear that this has been a useful partnership and a good decision. And it's been fruitful for bone. I would like to, I guess, thank as I step aside from from this committee, I'd like to thank the leadership of Boa and also all of the SMEs that have come and presented to us and all the knowledge and the hard work that they done and that work is is a lot they take on a lot of work. And and I'm continually impressed with with that work that they do. The National Academies have done a tremendous job. Stacy and Jonathan and Eric and Susan and Deb and there's been others as well. So I'd like to thank all of those folks. Hello COSA members in the room on the line and previous ones. I've learned a tremendous amount from you all Scott you've had an ending amount of energy for for doing work for for COSA and I've enjoyed the conversations we have we kind of fighting our corner sometime so and all the outside experts the capacity for the National Academies to draw people in and draw expertise in is tremendously useful for Boa. And so thank you all for that. And the I think that there have been real improvements. I think the relationships with the tribes are never going to be perfect, but they've been tremendous improvements in the relationship with the tribes, environmental justice communities outreach. And I think all of those things I've seen in the time that I've been involved. So thank you everybody. It is been a pleasure to work with you all. And good luck in the future. But I just would. I'd like to join Stacy and in thanking Scott, Rob, the other Kerry and the other department members. You do this for free. And you don't have to do it. And, and it's, I mean, I think your contributions have been incredibly helpful. And don't, you know, don't forget us. Just, you know, we can, we could, we could still benefit from your advice, but and I, and I, and I think I really think I agree with you. Of course, I'm biased. I like this committee. But, you know, I think, I think in good part because of the contributions of the outgoing members and don't go. Anyone else don't, don't leave the place until you have to. But I'm confident that you've greatly strengthened this small agency. And, you know, a lot of it, I've always thought from the beginning actually that the, there were two reasons for bone to have and the National Academy as an advisor. One of them is sort of the substantive technical advice, which has gotten gotten better and better over time, kind of like what you were saying, Rod. I mean, we're really in the groove now. And I think it's important for the agency to be prepared to expose itself to you openly in a, you know, get on the mics, recorded the world looking in whatever and and that's been very valuable to and it's, I mean, and, and I appreciate all the tough questions that have come our way. And it was definitely home done on a couple of things today and I thought she was right on the point. So, so anyway, but thank you very much for your time. You didn't have to do it and it's very helpful. Thanks, Bill. With that, I will adjourn our open session.