 Thank you for coming back. See that is up. Let me just get it. So my thought for any kind of a background, it's been a dense couple of days. For a lot of presentations, a lot of information, some of it all starts to sound the same after a while. So for my own benefit of keeping things clear and perhaps for you, as I mentioned at the beginning, I had these common questions I wanted each panel to answer. And with the help of my fabulous reporters, I've been able to keep tabs of their answers. So what I thought I'd do, and I know people are, believe me, I'm tired and ready to go home too. So I want to be respectful of time but also give you some value added and give you an opportunity and kind of reflect on some of the information we've heard the last couple of days. So I'm going to go through these questions and just give you very briefly the responses as it may tweak some ideas or thoughts in your head. I'm going to mention just a couple of common things that I heard today. Not just heard today, but thought about today and after getting to the tail end of all the presentations and then just open it up for all of us to just have a little chat. So question one about rewriting Magnuson, one thing that struck me was some of the panels that I thought were going to have more divergent opinions did not. And some of the ones that I thought were going to hold hands were just totally at loggerheads. So that was interesting to me. I don't know if it was to anybody else. So in response to question one, the panel had a few responses. One was it's working pretty well, wouldn't really change it. Another one was undercapitalization of science and management and funding. This is a theme that came up money and economic stuff that came out from the beginning all the way through every panel in some very different ways. But that was one response to this was that if we're going to change Magnuson and we need more data we got to identify a dedicated funding stream to do that. Flexible time frames for rebuilding fisheries that was cited as an area of the law to look to reexamine and make more flexible, have a less rigid standard. The council issue, I actually thought Josh was going to want to blow it up and he didn't. He said no it's not that bad but it needs to have some more representation. Open it up to the public to get different kinds of process. And then we also heard again need for more research more funding. So data and money again were also things that kind of themes that I didn't really expect to come out throughout each panel but they did. Panel two about the different natural resource schemes that are out there and what we can learn from them. One response to this question was an incorporation of accounting principles for business and corporate law money. So we have another money issue. And a tale on that was start charging rents for access to fisheries. Another money piece. Transition of a wild open access sort of system to a much more tightly controlled privatized but where money is taking account of things is really much more important now. Another response to this was import some different enforcement mechanisms from other acts such as civil suits, criminal suits, citizen suit provisions. Make the enforcement piece of Magnuson give it some more ways to work. Another response not surprisingly fisheries management needs to be played into a broader ecosystem context of proactive marine spatial planning. I thought this last panel was going to tell us how that's all going to work. We still don't know yet. But again that's another theme. We need more broader ecosystem based stuff. How we do that I don't really know. Finally another response to this question was give more discretion to policy managers so they can make decisions without having lawsuits at their throats all the time. So that was panel two. Panel three regarding the intersection of the different laws. Funding was one response that we have to have adequate funding to do the right sort of regulatory review and better integration of all these different laws. But pretty much everybody said the same thing on this one which sort of surprised me. They said it in different terms but in reading through the response a little bit more carefully they're talking again about more integration of other species of this larger ecosystem based thing. How we do that when we have this whole array of laws and a NEPA process that works procedurally but not necessarily programmatically as Dana brought out and Kai I thought was very eloquent from a scientific point of view about talking about apex predators and nodal species. So that was interesting. They didn't really help me with needing a single law. Nobody really wanted to touch that a whole lot. But there was a lot of discussion on this panel and a lot of commonality around the need for a more ecosystem based approach, whatever that means, however we implement it. Panel four about the catch share sort of systems. Some really interesting and again very common themes that came out here. Two things that all the panelists seem to agree on. You need to have very clear goals and objectives when you're setting up these systems. They're very data heavy so you need to have goals and objectives that you can actually get the data to assess them properly and be very explicit about trade-offs. That's another theme that came clear through all these panels was we have systems now, we have legal regulatory systems that aren't necessarily clear about how the trade-off is going to be made between a wind farm versus space for the fisherman. Who makes that decision? How does that trade-off calculate both in terms of values, human behavior? I thought Vito was great in talking about some of the unanticipated consequences of implementation of sectors in the ground fish fishery. Also in terms of compensation. We're talking about real dollars and exclusion of certain uses or incorporation and incentivizing other uses like ocean offshore wind that we may really think are important. But we don't have a clear way for making that decision and assessing those trade-offs transparently. And initial allocation and again it was interesting to me that there was such a broad agreement among diversity of perspectives that that initial allocation decision is really really critical and we probably need to think through more carefully how that decision is made who's making it and the type of information that drives it. Finally on panel 5 and I just took probably some not very good notes and I haven't gotten a chance to look at my reporters report on this panel. I was fascinated that this panel which had some really high powered lawyers on it, they all talked about things like trust. It wasn't about law at all. It wasn't about CSMP. It was about trust and values. How do you incorporate what we value about ocean uses into a decision-making system? So I thought that was very interesting. A lot of talk about again trust. The industry is trusting each other. Industry is trusting the government to make the decision. A more explicit discussion, evaluation, gazing at our collective belly button about values and trade-offs and how we're making them. And compensation coming down to dollars. So those were the things that I gleaned from all of the panels. Some themes and I've already touched on this that came through I think in all panels were again, and I'm not a person that's very comfortable with economic stuff, but a lot of attention being paid right now to the economics and dollars and what that means for fisheries management specifically. Do we charge rents or not? How do we consistently fund the kind of data that we need? How do we consider this transfer of some management and monitoring responsibility from government to industry? How do we cost real dollars? How do we try to understand the economic impacts and the business behavior of fishermen when you do something like a catch share system? How do you assess the proper mitigation when you're assessing the trade-off from the offshore wind that's going to kick out pre-existing users? So a lot of conversations about money in different ways. Again this is not 1976. We don't have 70 pages of magazine. It's a much more complicated and busy ocean out there. What I heard was a lot of talk about different aspects of financial and economic pieces of information that we're not necessarily capturing right now. A couple of other themes that I heard again, you know, ecosystem-based stuff. We have to do more holistic stuff. How we do that with the morass of laws that we have right now and the integration of this regional CSMP policy? I don't know, and this is not new. I mean we've been talking about the need for ecosystem more comprehensive stuff for a long time. We're still struggling with that. We didn't get the answer to that today. I didn't expect that we would. But I was sort of struck that there seems to be even more nodding around the table that, yeah, we've got to consider all this stuff. And, yeah, the fishermen want us to consider all that stuff. And the fish-huggers want us to consider all that stuff. And we as citizens who own this public trust want there to be a healthy vibrant ocean ecosystem. How the heck does the management system and the legal system right now actually implement that? I don't know. Interesting. A lot of conversation again about the trade-offs and the type of mechanisms. And again for me a lot of that leads back to sort of a human behavior, human values aspect of all ocean management. But specifically with fisheries management here. How do you figure out how people are going to behave when they're under a sector system and provide the right incentives or disincentives so they behave the way that you want them to as a manager? Or the way that we want to as the public? Because again from Vito I was really struck by how there's some very unanticipated consequences to how this little sector experiment is going forward up here. And finally another few words that kept coming up were words like stewardship and trust and values. Things like that. It was very striking to me that no matter what perspective a lot of the panelists came from, this idea of stewardship and that we want to take care of this resource for immediate uses. We want to have a much better planning system for future uses. But it's much more about human behavior. And one thing I always tell my law students when I'm teaching them about the intersection of law and policies, it's stupid human tricks. Law is what gives us an organized framework and set of rules for how we behave. How we talk about things like ocean and fishing derives directly from our values. It derives from your values if you've been making a living off the water all of your life or if you're terrified to get in it because you saw Jaws when you were little. Now I'm really dating myself. But it tends to be a very value driven sort of exercise and that drives some of the calls that Senator Snow gets in her office or any other elected representative that influences the language that gets put into the law eventually. So those are just my summary thoughts. I don't know if that's helpful or confusing or just too tedious for words at this point in the day. But I'm happy to open it up and let anybody offer any other parting thoughts and we'll end more or less on time in a few minutes. Unless we really get going, we figure it all out. Dennis, you've got to have some thoughts. Well I think it sounds like a great idea. I just started a presentation by Mike Fogarty last week and he's a science director at the Fisher Center and he described the 27 models that they currently use. The new models they would like to use across the data inputs for all these models. I know that we just spent 10 million dollars in the little Rhode Island offshore zone for our Ocean Specialary National Plan of doing their research. That was mostly paying for just raw primary research, sending our ship out, doing multi-need surveys, fiscal oceanography. That's the kind of level of research that should be done to do effective offshore marine spatial planning. I don't know if we can afford it. And then the one potential way to measure the ocean a little more carefully is through the Ocean Observation Initiative and the so-called Pioneer Array, which is scheduled to win off of south of Martha's Bay here. They had not done the exercise that we did in the ocean sand, which was a room, by the way, that built the council a couple of weeks ago, and the fishing industry was not mentioned and spoke in favor of approving it because they were listened to. They were two years of stakeholder meetings. They were very much part of it. They felt like they had been listened to and the plan respected their needs. The National Science Foundation didn't do the same thing. They asked the scientific community, where would you like your buoys to go? And they said, well, obviously in the most biologically productive areas there's a shell break. And by the way, the exclusion zones around our buoys. And when the poor woman from the National Science Foundation came down to give a briefing to any interested citizens at the Coastal Institute at URI a few weeks ago, she was nearly tired of furthering it. She said, you've got to be kidding me. You know, we just went through two years of ocean spatial planning to determine an area where we could maybe put a little bit of the farm without picking everybody off. And you guys just I've come now coming into town saying you've totally missed that whole discussion and you want to locate your array in an area that is currently used by on-liners, last-minute directors. What's going on? Do we just go to meetings our entire lives away? So there is this dynamic tension between the need to make informed decisions and then how much the information costs, and how hard it is to keep it current. Because unfortunately this dynamic oceanographic environment, you can't use last year's data to have here for weeks. So it's enormous challenge between what's possible technically and what realistically we can do on a repeatable basis. I don't think we can ask the state of Toronto next year for $20 million to do this stuff. So this was a one-time effort that we could slowly modify. So this really raises, this whole discussion almost raises more questions and answers in terms of what we would like to do is to look at the floor. The Department of Defense has a lot of money. And they always get a lot of money. And they decided that alternative energy is an issue for all the security, wind farms. And we can get move our country up, oil, coal, whatever, towards renewable energy. Well then, you know, we will have better security. So the funding should come from the Department of Defense to get involved in the ocean spatial planning so that we can put up wind farms all the way down on our coasts. And if you use that great pop on it, they've got and you could make important decisions on the information and you could do this whole process done a lot faster. They've been somewhat reluctant. As Robert pointed out, we were very far down the road with that proposal for something south of Iowa until finally someone from the Navy raised his hand and said, well, you really can't go. I can't tell you why. New London, the world's largest submarine based right here. I didn't think the submarine would get into New London. Oh. So yeah, they're a huge player and they are funding a lot of research and I've just submitted a 7 million dollar proposal to them for microalgae research because they just spent $239 a gallon for biofuels from algae for small total naval vessels. So they are a big player in alternative energy, but in this area of wind turbines they mostly think it's a nuisance because it's going to affect their operational theater. But Pete, you'd love to put radar on all those wind turbines because then you'd never have to be dropped. You'd have big video cameras and you'd have the entire ocean wired for some sight and sound. Perfect. Perfect. Well that's where we come from. I'm sure DOD is not going to remember that. The challenge is you're just getting DOD to the table on any issue. Heck, we had a dredge in the vessel and the ESS pursuit dug up in the old munitions. We just gave them into a minute to lose their munitions quite a bit of time. I'm not here to bet on DOD. They usually come in the last minute and say, well, not now. I would look to them for a proactive solution. Can we go in the back door and lock the door? Thanks. The last question on the special winter is how do you engage multiple stakeholders in discussions about artificial planning? And if you look at the pioneer array situation that is the way that that process has played out, how does that trust? What are the lingering issues with trust with the way that that pioneer array system has played out? The lack of industry involvement, the lack of known-estate industry. And what are the impacts of that place on all future projects we're going to do? It's like the constant eroding of trust and every time you take a step forward with trust. You have something that happens when you take a step back. So how do you even look at a collective, any type of dialogue, seeing what type of trust components you can hold and how your actions may just completely discredit the trust that that belt. But I think the glass is kind of full part of me, says, if we had a national ocean planning council, if we actually put that executive order into action, there would have been a discussion at the White House level that would have said to the FN7, what are you nuts? You're just going to draw a line, you're going to put without including this group, this group, this group. Because other agencies would have been in the room. As it was, NIMS didn't know what NSF was proposing. Because they weren't collectively working together on this. But doesn't that also say something about the fundamental insufficiencies of all of these acts that we spent the last few days talking about that NIMS didn't know? I mean, there literally was nothing. For those of us who are deeply involved in this stuff, I spent a lot of time looking for things like the pioneer array, other reasons to be angry, because they're just not enough of them. I think this last panel is really struck by, I think when you're in a meeting like this, when I found myself wearing a suit jacket, I often find, oh yes, there's just all these interesting things that we can sort of pontificate about. And this last panel, I felt was sort of a stark reminder of reality. And nobody could answer the question of how you actually get a more productive relationship between the industry and all of these other ocean uses. Nobody had an answer to that. What does that say? I mean, all of these people who have spent their entire careers working on these issues haven't figured out even a response in an academic environment. Much less how to actually do it. Much less how to actually do an ecosystem-based management. I think it's just, there's a systematic failure here that we have not even begun to grapple with. That sounds really negative and sad, I think, but... Well, so here's a question. So does executive order in this experiment, is this, I mean, let's protect, let's just guess who thinks that's going to improve things last night? Who thinks it's going to make it worse? We'll stay the same. We'll stay the same. One of the difficulties that I have, and I, somebody made a comment earlier about all the people who work here and the academics and just referenced the industry. The industry is really not very well represented. Most of these, I think, the fishing industry. I mean, really, the fishing industry in New England is still primarily lunar operator small boats. You know, we talk about the fishery management process. It's probably the largest method of fishing effort production by having people come to meet it. I mean, quite honestly, for, unless somebody's a member of the industry group, industry groups have gained a promise that more of these people in the coalition do a great job. You know, they're probably the fastest in attending all meetings, trying to keep their members of the prize. But even major issues in other realms go totally unnoticed because they're not being publicized. People are not bringing stakeholders to the table. And, you know, some comments out of the room really show me that some of the academics either don't appreciate the fishing industry, don't like the fishing industry, or think that the fishing industry should really be pushed off the side and let them come back in to the extent that they don't interfere with other uses. And that's unfortunate. If you don't live in a coastal community, maybe you don't have the full appreciation for the effect of that industry on the culture of this. I certainly don't have the word for the fishing industry because I make a lot of money by this. I'd like to say it's 80% of my time and 20% of my income. If that. But to me, it's something I think it's an important cultural resource. That's my own subjective concept. But my sense is that in the academic community, it's largely disregarding. Unless, you know, academics, you know, people with the B.R.I. or M.S.M.S. they interact on a daily basis with the fishing industry and they appreciate it more. The rest of them are just kind of this kind of concept of whether it's a bad fisherman and all they want to do is make line of land to fish and they don't even think about where to fish. But they get some other plate where it comes from. So I don't know, my concerns, I walk out of here and I go back and I talk to my fisherman clients. They have no idea it's coming down. But the small owner operator, it's a scary thing. Personally, I don't think it would be around the line. And so how, you know, in some respects, I've been doing this and I say, how are we going to reconfigure the fishing industry as an industry that is included and there's some ways to work. But until you make sure that all the stakeholders are in on all of these issues. So maybe this, you know, is a really interesting concept will work. But I think just the existence of the process, the energy, effort, time, and money to participate in the process is going to overwhelm the very fragile fishing industry we have. So coming out of here with a positive feeling about the future of the fishing industry. When you talk about trust, I think I wrote down four words. Respect, consistency, predictability. An entity like the Fisherman encounter, which is to me, it's a challenging thing to sense for you. But everybody gets a set. And you exclude probably one of the first entities that ever participated in any sort of planning effort. Spatially. And that's my personal opinion. So... I don't think they're being excluded. I think it's an opportunity to get more involved in the problem of time and how much time is going to take for Fisherman to be involved in the process of regional research and planning is an issue. And that's something that I think academics aren't aware of. But I also think academics have a more... academics is such a strange burden because there are so many different people in the room. It's just more even... all of these uses are more community-bought. Maritime issues of shipping traffic and fishing issues and recreation. And when you're talking from the Fisherman people, they think that their historic value is higher. But if you had both operators or towing best operators, they would be making the same argument. And they might feel the same way about it, but they all have a state. Because it happens to be talking about fishing. I am talking about fishing as one participant but what we have to understand is the people in the room today talk about how we're planning this out and how it's going to work. As a practical matter, how does it work for greater than 75 years? Because we do have overseas groups that work out other issues. They involve coast guard, defense, fishing industry, marine transportation. There are a number of existing ongoing uses and they have to work with that. And now you're kind of saying, well, we've decided, now we're going to plan it out and people who are not going to involve in these industries are kind of sub-mentating physicians as to how we should best be managed. And quite honestly, for the existing uses it works pretty well. I like this concept that if somebody wants to come in with a different use they come in and they say they identify the stakeholders and they say we're going to help the process to satisfy the stakeholders and maybe find out who they are in the last group on board. I think before you have to decide how things should work you need to find out what is working and I don't know why it works the way as well as it does. Most of it has to do with the coast guard and traffic separation schemes, no applying areas where I guess the DSS pursues less fishing than other areas. But the point is there's a lot that goes on in the oceans not just fishing out there. We're going to be passing these areas out to the south of Florida your areas of Georgia that are designated for exercise of brain-available disaster zones so there's a lot of planning that already goes on maybe more on an apocrysis and the question is do we just ignore that unless we bring plans to what's going on actually the fishery service but no I had not even been brought in that kind of shocked me that they weren't on a list of groups that initially notified the executives the early but I think there's more than special planning to learn a thing I think you have to learn I think these people need to learn some of the people planning this need to understand a little bit more about how this work up to now but biologically we have the whole context of this arose from disasters from biologically but I think that we're not looking at the science I think you're right that we need to think about what's going on for the users the larger backdrop of CMSP is also considering the science of the system it just brings a new more complicated element to the users I think the ecosystem I think we all already the ecosystem management can be none the cost of data collection issues are immense for scientists who are they can answer every question have to learn how to mission water scientific misunderstanding we're short from the science so ecosystem management is one of them I think participation in participation in planning is related to different issues one of the other things that I I think we really hear a whole lot about a whole lot about federal navigation that should be very tangentially done because it's one of the few things that's preserving the constitution which is the federal navigation servitude and I really do hear a whole lot about that and that's that so we can't fix this today I see Dennis is making twitching movements and if Dennis is leaving the building it's probably a good sign for all of us thank you all for your attendance this is a patient the last couple of days thank you