Maybe a minute or two while we're waiting for folks to hop on. I just wanted to take a moment to to bank again. Everybody on on bones and with whom I worked to get yesterday's session pulled together. I was thrilled to see the turnout for that. And hopefully. It was a useful for folks at bone. I know certainly. Both the members had some takeaways and we look forward to thinking about potential implications. For the development plan and for other. Vomkosa engagements in the future, so. Thank you again to the folks that helps pull that together. All right, I'm still not seeing everybody we had on the closed session. I don't think, but maybe it's just that my list has gotten too long here. I do want us to start with just some introductions and again, the way I did it. Yes, I'll do it again. The way that I did it yesterday, which is I'll start with a few housekeeping items and then we'll do our. Committee introductions. Any sort of words to kick us off from our co chairs. And then we'll turn to the presentations on updates regarding our 1st and class study. So, just in terms of housekeeping items. I mentioned this yesterday, but just as a reminder that. The standing committee of the national academies constituted to provide. Ongoing individual input to bone science and assessments programs. So they do not the committee members do not. Develop any consensus advice, but rather provide input on their own behalf and not on behalf of the academies. We will be recording this meeting. I'll ask folks to please stay muted and less called upon to speak. And I will look for the raise hand feature for any. Q and a or comments. And then. We do have a couple of scheduled breaks today, but as always, if you need to take breaks in between. Not a problem at all. Please just be sure to turn off your. Cameras and make sure you're muted so that we don't create any interruption. I think those are all of my short housekeeping items. And we'll get started with some committee instructions and I will start with our co-chairs. Cameron and then Rod Mather. Good afternoon, everyone. Good. Good morning to those of you in the Western time zones. Welcome to day two of our spring course of meeting and really glad to have have you all here. My name is Scott Cameron. I am a geologist. I spent the first 32 years of my career working for Shell Oil, mainly in the offshore. E and P projects and the last 10 years consulting and during that time I have been a member of COSA now in my sixth year so looking looking forward to today's session. Good day everybody I'm Rod Mather. I am a underwater archaeologist and a historian at the University of Rhode Island. I run a graduate program that sits at the intersection of anthropology and history and archaeology, and this got I co chair COSA, and I've been on the committee for a number of years. Thank you. We'll turn to you next. Good morning everyone I'm Jack Barth. I'm a professor of oceanography at Oregon State University. I work in the coastal ocean. Lots of ocean observing projects both fixed and mobile gear. I also lead a program at Oregon State that combines everything marine from natural social sciences and arts and humanities. Thank you, Jack. I'll turn next to James Flynn. I'm a atmospheric scientist at the University of Houston. We look at a lot of air quality issues including relationship with coastal meteorology and offshore missions as it impacts trust field sources. Hi, my name is Catherine Eichen. I'm a professor of marine biology at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. I'm an ecologist and mostly work on seafloor community diversity issues and food webs, and I mostly work in the Arctic and the Gulf of Alaska. Thank you. I'm looking to see is Kelsey on the line. She was in our closed session. I don't see her on here. If Kelsey is able to join us, we'll come back to her. I'll turn next to Susan. Hi, I'm Susan Parks. I'm a professor of biology at Syracuse University. My research is focused on marine mammal acoustic communication and the impacts of noise. Thank you, Carrie. Good morning. Good afternoon, folks. Carrie Pomeroy, research social scientist at the Institute of Marine Sciences at UC Santa Cruz. My background is in applied sociology and anthropology combined with marine policy work on human dimensions of fisheries and coastal and marine space use. Thank you. Thank you. And have I missed any other COSA members? I know we've got several that are either unavailable today or joining later. So if I missed anybody that's on the line currently, please let me know. Okay. Excellent. Scott and Rod, any initial comments from you before we delve into our agenda? No, I think you teed it up very well, Stacey. Thank you very much. I'm just to say I'm looking very much looking forward to today. Yesterday's meeting was very interesting. Lots of food for thought. I'm sure today will be the same. I'm looking forward to hearing about the first in class report. Scott was was part of that effort. So he has a lot more detailed knowledge than I do and some others do. So anyway, I'm looking very much looking forward to that today and also looking forward to hearing about the National Academy's other activities. Thanks, Rod. So I think with that, Brian, if you're ready, we're a little ahead of schedule, but happy to turn it over to you to get started and really looking forward to the update. Yeah, thanks, Stacey, and thanks everyone on the COSA. It's a pleasure to be here with you this morning slash afternoon. So the presentation today is really kind of status update on what Bowen's been working on with respect to the first in class report, or the attributes of a first in class environmental science program. So Bill Brown asked me to lead this effort with a small group of people from the Office of Environmental Programs within Bowen. My background just for reference is I'm the chief of the branch of environmental consultations within the division environmental assessment. And so I lead a team that handles a lot of the really tough programmatic consultations or helps advise or create policy around those for a lot of the NEPA as well as non NEPA statutes. My background is in marine archaeology, but also I have advanced degrees in wood science and natural resource science and management. I've had a lot of experience working on how wooden shipwrecks were preserved in the marine environment. I also serve as the Bureau's Federal Preservation Officer. So with that, we'll get started here. Jess is going to go ahead and she's going to man the slides for me so let's go to the next slide. A bit of the background. First of all, I wanted to really thank the ad hoc committee for their time and effort and preparing this attributes of a first in class report for Bowen's environmental studies program, and that was work was chaired by Craig Johnson and I know several current members of COSA, including Scott and Kevin contributed to that report so it's got a wealth of information. I would encourage people if they haven't read it, read it. I basically, we have been digging into it and becoming intimate. So just a brief overview. The report was released in, released in 2022. It's really related to bones aspiration to achieve first in class status for their use in science, expired science program. And it's guided by bones long term vision for the environmental science program studies programs to be the first in class or the best research program possible in the context of bones mission and constraints. Next slide. So, this is goes into the committee's framework, and it's really follows the systems approach to evaluate progress toward toward achieving first in class. And then, and basically, it has a series of evaluating questions and examples that are grouped around key attributes. There's cross cutting attributes, and then there's core attributes and process outputs and impact with innovation cutting across all of those attributes. Next slide. The work, the committee spent a lot of work, gathering information including holding virtual workshops with other science programs, delving into DOI's office of planning and performance management, around the evidence act, as well as diving into the relevant literature. Next slide. This just gives you an idea about the level of information and chief categories of the various attributes. So the first in class report has identified 18 attributes and five basic groups. You've got the cross cutting attributes that are at the top of the screen, and you'll see that these are going to be color coordinated and there's little symbols associated with it to help orient people through the presentation but it's also allows us to as we're unpacking this and kind of developing, you know, the relationship schematics on our end, we're trying to understand the relationships between these different attributes that helps us to track which attributes are flowing into what other attributes, especially as you look at the cross cutting. But you have, you know, the cross cutting attributes, then you have the actual, you know, looking at it from a systems analysis point of view you have the process attributes which are in dark blue, the output attributes which are in light purple and the impact attributes which are in gold, and then at the bottom are the underlying attributes in dark purple for innovation. So the report also provided 23 distinct examples framing the attributes and develop 72 sample evaluation questions so just have this out here because it was a lot to unpack and so we're still working on that and this is something that's we're going to be continuing to work on and in the coming years. Next slide. The four chief recommendations from the report is Bollum should develop basically how we're going to measure success in each attribute, implement improvement actions, involvement of external advisors, and it's institutionalizing evaluation improvement processes and procedures. Next slide. So where are we now. So this is one of my favorite quote quotes when looking at doing kind of systematic research. This is from Alfred North Whitehead which the only simplicity be trusted is the simplicity to be found on the far side of complexity. So really where we're at right now is really evaluating and understanding and making sense of the complexity and the first in class report is really helpful in providing a framework to do that systematically. So we're probably a far away around away from the simplicity side of things but right now we're, as you'll see in this we're evaluating a lot of our different processes, and we'll hope to show in this presentation some areas that we have made improvements on or, you know, advancing and other ones that we are going to need, you know, continued assistance and continue time to unpack. So, Jessica next slide. Go back one slide Jessica sorry. Yeah so this is really where we are right now. And although things have, things have developed in each of these attributes. But the efforts have mostly been from the ground up, and we still have a lot of work to do for them to be institutionalize. So one of the big steps, you know one of the big steps and reasons that we requested the consensus report. So again we're working to evaluate bones work related to each of the attributes, and that's the first step to moving towards the first in class environmental program. And this presentation is really a high level look at bones environmental programs and other activities within the context of the first in class attributes. And I specifically talk about environmental programs, although the report focused on the environmental studies program and the science aspect that doesn't operate on its own and operates within the context of the environmental programs which then operates within the framework of bone organization within the framework of DOI, and then the other cabinet level, the administration priorities. So the examples in this presentation are representative but no means inclusive of the work that our environmental staff have done, or and are doing each and every day. So if I'm not including something I've had to summarize I've had to summarize a lot of work to make the presentation tenable. And so if I've missed anything or I fail to, you know, give attribution to a region or program office or individual that's a reflection on on me and my choices and and not on the great work of the amazing individuals in this Bureau. So the five cross cutting attributes really these if you look at it, the overall nature of these cross cutting attributes are kind of encompassed in the systems approach, which I think a lot of the report focuses on, but these are things that we need to be aware of and really focus on at a high level, because as I said, the environmental studies program is nested within other organizations within the Bureau. And so we really have to get a handle on this. And the cross cutting attribute one is really important that articulate sphere of influence, and you know to look at the Franklin Covey kind of, you know, understanding of how things work. You know, we need to first understand what is in our sphere of control to be able to understand how we can exert, you know, and influence other parts of the organization or either, and, and either external partners so it's an important element. You know, but this the cross cutting attributes there are elements of this that are not in specifically the environmental studies program or the environmental programs control there, we have to rely on, you know, external processes and priorities and working with others and the cross cutting attributes really kind of frames that kind of connecting what we do on an everyday basis with those externalities that we have to look at. Another way to think about it is I often think about when I'm doing strategic work or systems work, the concepts of zoom in and zoom out. Right. So these cross cutting attributes really focus on the zooming out. You know, where are you going, what is your vision. How are you communicating how are you connecting with with other partners externally internally, and then you have to zoom back in to make sure that you're actually, you know, what you're actually doing and how you're doing it is going to meet those goals. So I look at the cross cutting attributes is kind of that zoom out function that is really important. And then more on, you know, the process outputs impacts and innovation is kind of zooming back in. And so it's a constant tension between those things and the cross cutting attributes provide a framework for looking at that. One of the things I noticed when going through here is, you know, I think one of the things that I thought would have been helpful to be explicitly called out. I think it's embedded in some of these other cross cutting attributes, like fostering diversity equity inclusion and systems thinking and articulate sphere of influence but there's really a need on the workforce side to have a resilient engaged and agile workforce where people are doing meaningful work that is valuable and valued. And that's something that I think that from bones perspective in my work in this field is really, it's an important and critical element is to have that engaged workforce and resilient and be able to pivot and work on different priorities that are outside our immediate control, but we have to respond to. Next slide. So I'm going to lump the first two or discuss the first two of the cross cutting attributes. So the vision on first in class is focused narrowly on the environmental studies program but again as I've said before we need to contextualize this vision, within a broader defined purpose for the environmental programs across bone, as well as research that is occurring outside of the environmental studies program, and even our agency but is potentially relevant. So, to clearly and effectively articulate bones environmental programs sphere of influence we need to agree upon our sphere of control. And to do this we need to discuss a defining purpose or vision for the environmental programs as a whole, in which the environmental studies program operates, and this again will help to focus the research priorities and research strategy that will allow bone to make timely decisions on research funding and partnerships. And bones should also reevaluate how we're articulating and disseminating disseminating organizational priorities to help shape and focus the development of the scientific research agenda. This is challenging with many seemingly competing needs across three regions and three different program areas, as well as responding to shifts in priorities, and legislative mandates as we discussed yesterday with, you know, having, you know, offshore wind energy is a major focus of the administration but now we're also looking at development program for carbon sequestration and storage, as well as having additional responsibility over the territories. So there's a lot of things to have to look at. So, in order to do this we are going we're proposing and having a bone environmental meeting this fall, and these are going to be two of the key attributes that we're going to discuss as part of that meeting. So, stay tuned on that. So, when you look at engaging in systems thinking and analysis the environmental studies program looks at its systems through a strategic framework, an internal 10 year forward looking needs analysis that we affectionately called a decade of vision, and an annual studies development planning process. All three interrelated processes engage leadership and environmental program staff, both assessment and sciences from across Boehm unpacking how the different parts of Boehm interact, especially between the headquarters regional and program office environmental environmental offices will be a focus in the coming year, especially since the strategic framework, and the decade of vision or several years old at this point. I enjoyed the I enjoyed the first in class attributes report their discussion on gathering and learning from relevant data to understand and improve bones interdependencies. So a challenge that Boehm faces is the rapidly changing priorities and expanded responsibilities with limited staff and resources to accomplish the work to be successful bone will need to work as one bureau to develop efficiencies long term partnerships and new methods of working across organizational units. As you will see throughout the presentation Boehm is doing aspects of a lot of the attribute work, some better than others, but not in a holistic or systemic systematic way. Next slide please. Some of the work that we're doing with engaging in systems is really how are we, you know, responding to feedback. And here is a few examples of past efforts and continual efforts that the bureau has engaged in. So, we're really going to be looking at how to focus this process and make it more of a continual process instead of doing it periodically, because I think that's really important, it's really challenging to do. But I think once that Boehm identifies its priorities processes outputs and impacts, we're going to focus on or keep an eye towards how do we systematically receive that continuous feedback and communicate across organizational units and partners to focus the science on key challenges that need to be addressed. Next slide please. So partnerships we do if you look at our studies development, our strategic framework for environmental studies program on our, and our studies development planning process. We definitely encourage, you know, studies to support collaboration with native communities when other whenever appropriate and feasible, and we will talk about this a little bit under the diverse investigators in one of the process attributes What's really important about this is that we finally now have the ability or given approval to use a funding mechanism embedded in the take pride in America act to enter into cooperative agreements directly with tribal nations. And this is really important because previously we Boehm was only able to really enter into third party agreements with Alaska native and tribal communities. It's a large step forward and actually really being able to meet this partners and collaborate effectively with groups that are affected by Boehm's activities. So and again partnering is always encouraged with other federal agencies academic organizations other nonprofits or commercial enterprise to achieve shared mission needs. So as this slide indicates or illustrates we do partner quite extensively on our studies research. Most of it on a study by study basis. We do have some of our regions and program offices. They do have strategic partnerships with federal partners and others. For instance, we work closely with the US GS who has auto continental shelf funds for partnering with us on studies and I know the Marine Minerals Program works closely with the US Army Corps of Engineers, both our Gulf of Mexico regions and Alaska regions work with the Coastal Marine Institutes, and we've engaged with joint industry programs and the National Ocean partnership programs. Having said this, most of our studies propose partnerships on an ad hoc basis and not really in a systematic manner, and I'll highlight this now but I'm going to come back to it at the end of the presentation. I think that Boehm could use the assistance of COSA and looking how to develop long term partnerships more strategically for key research priorities, and to regularly analyze the cost benefits for these type of partnerships. And I will also mention that if the COSA members have any comments or questions, they can just put it in the chat. I know some of our team will be monitoring the zoom chat. During this presentation so they if you have something, an idea that you want to throw in there, go ahead and do that and we'll flag it and bring it back up for discussion later. So, I do want to point out that one of the cross cutting activities that I believe that we have made the most progress in next slide, please Jessica is really the cross cutting attribute five the fosters diversity, equity and inclusion. And this is in large part to the efforts of the working members of the justice equality diversity inclusion charter or Jedi. And the basis, the purpose of this charters action for Native Americans and individuals from black and other groups, historically disadvantaged by injustice inequality or exclusion. And also like to mention specifically Brian Smith. She was instrumental and leading and championing this important initiative along with the other working group members. Next slide. But this also stems from the Department of the Interior efforts and they developed a strategic plan to advance diversity, equity inclusion. And they have three main objectives here that you could see the recruiting and hire recruitment and hiring inclusive and safe workspace and professional growth and advancement. Next slide. So, on June 2022 boom established its first ever bomb DEI a step down implementation plan so it's basically taking the DOI strategic plan and priorities, and then stepping down into how we are going to focus on those priority areas that were identified in that. And I know the next few slides will illustrate some of the work that bone has been doing to both encourage the surface level diversity, as well as the deep diversity as described in the first in class report. So, and I know one of the key evaluation questions. The second one within this cross cutting attribute asked does the organization have a diversity, equity and inclusion officer. And as shown here we are currently in the process of hiring an individual in that role. And we also there are funding resources for positions, and those were allocated to establish the bone diversity and inclusion office. So, we are making process in that we're making progress in that. In the 2020 report cited in the first in class report that report by McKinsey and company kind of cited, you know, five areas and actions to foster diversity so I hope you see in the slide. You know components of those you know ensure representation of diverse talent, strengthen leadership accountability and capabilities through training and learning. Next slide. Just a little bit about the level of equality of opportunity through fairness and transparency, transparency, promote openness and tackle micro aggressions. And the last one they they talk about as foster belonging through unequivocal will support for diversity and attitudes belief and values, and the first in class report describes this as deep diversity. And I see that we are working on for these priority areas that meet a lot of the needs described in the first in class attributes. Next slide to get into a little bit more on the deep diversity is how, how are we actually bringing on. That kind of that diversity of attitudes beliefs and values. So, there are many programs and office in the organization now that are moving towards a career ladder interdisciplinary scientist positions. We have found, especially in the division of environmental assessment that by focusing on inner people that have interdisciplinary science backgrounds working in multiple disciplines that they actually have they've, they're better at responding to a lot of the needs across our programs and different scientific areas that we need to evaluate and we need to, you know, develop science around. And so it's very helpful, as well as in the hiring process to because the hiring process can be very long and lengthy and so by using these types of interdisciplinary scientist positions and broad job, broad job announcements, we really focus in attracting early career individuals with diverse backgrounds. And we also have to keep things fair and transparent and to limit bias in the hiring process. We're developing structured panel interview processes. And we're also looking at additional hiring avenues including the canals fellows and arise which is science fellowships from the Oak Ridge Institute for science and education. And we're hoping that we're once we get the arise vehicles in place to partner with them on that. We're hoping the focus to start using that to potentially bring on students from historically underrepresented communities to help us work and gain experience in the federal workforce. Next slide. So moving on away from the cross cutting attributes and more into the process phase attributes you can see here that there are four identified and we'll go through those one on one. And I'm going to talk about these mainly in the context of our annual studies development process. Next slide. The first attribute attribute clearly identify science needs. So looking at the annual studies development process, it's done within the context of the studies program strategic framework and this, you know, outward looking forward analysis that was done for the decadal vision. Traditionally, a lot of our identification of science needs, we have reached out to stakeholders to provide input, but a lot of our studies ideas have been developed, mainly from the bottom up. In the last few years we have been working with leadership to have additional input at the beginning of the studies price process by clearly articulating administration priorities, and then how those priorities fall into the work that own does. So, you can look here at the examples that we've identified or john lily has identified so the administration priorities there for identified here climate change, fish and fisheries tribal and environmental justice and there's in the next studies development cycle or the one we're currently going through fiscal years 24 and 25 you can see the numbers of studies that are in that. We also reach out to stakeholders, a wide range of stakeholders and partners for input at the beginning of our study development plan cycle. And here are some numbers that look at how that that input that we get from federal partners and external stakeholders. And of course the region and programs prioritize studies according to their need once studies are developed. Next slide. So, the next process phase attribute is appraises and translate translates research needs. So, bones subject matter experts review all the received studies development process stakeholder input. And then we do work across the Bureau to develop draft study profiles based on internal need continuation to prior work or input for partners and stakeholders. And they also have incorporated a structured framework the peacock framework population intervention comparison outcome context for profile development. And then we do go through an internally peer reviewed process through what we call science and technical review teams. So, the funded studies SMEs develop in conjunction with our procurement office request for proposals we evaluate the program proposals using technical evaluation committees, and then often served as contracting officer representatives through study completion. Next slide. Again, we've made some some advances and looking at ways within our own internal processes and using additional vehicles to encourage and best diverse investigators. So, as you can see here again, this kind of gets into the systems work but do I issued final by Indian act implement implementing rule, and this helped eliminate restrictions expanded ability and granted preferences and harmonized regulations within HHS health and human services, but it also provided clarity on how other agencies could use this act to help to provide the ability to contract, you know, to Native American or Indian Native American Indian companies. Next slide. And again as mentioned previously, we now have access to being with a partner directly with tribal nations using to take pride in American Act, and this is through cooperative agreements and the assistance can be used to conduct public awareness related to environmental and cultural research within bones environmental research portfolio. We're also looking at how to advance educational equity excellence and economic opportunity through historically black colleges and universities and this is was articulated in executive order 14041. So we are continuing to look at how to partner with and, you know, contract with both tribal nations as well as historically under representative communities. Next slide. And this slide illustrates that several of the procurement considerations to remove barriers we do include evaluation so we're looking at in proposing to include evaluation criteria criteria within contracts or cooperative agreement announcements that encourage applicants to engage in small disadvantaged businesses and underserved communities. And within our own procurement systems. Our grant solution systems we are looking at when we develop open funding announcements that we are making sure that they are go out to the widest possible audiences. Monitor study process progress. This is another process phase attributes that we have been working on. And a lot of this is not simply just monitoring, you know, the quality of the study product products or the timeliness of them. So that's an aspect of it but this process attribute really gets into kind of the continuous monitoring of the studies themselves and their deliverables and how input is received during those studies and how information is shared among principal investigators for studies. So I'll provide a couple of different examples of that and how we've done that in the past and and how we've kind of reinvigorated that but just to point out that bone held the 28th Information Transfer Meeting in September of last year. Now, these information transfer meetings are really a way that on a regional basis that scientists can better involved in environmental studies program could get together at an annual meeting, foster the sharing of results methodologies and ideas related to environmental studies. So scientists in these meetings present discuss and share their findings and support of the regional program offices. And it's really interesting because the one that the last one we had before this was in 2017. And I know that when I started at, you know, MMS back before it became boom, you know, having these meetings was a pretty regular occurrence. And it was great because you can get the science staff along with the scientists that are conducting the studies to do these presentations, and you can have this cross pollination. But that has been hampered quite honestly by increased oversight and spending on the and the ability to have these types of meetings. And then of course the COVID pandemic, exasperated that by not having those meetings and you can have these in a virtual way, but it is much more meaningful from a networking perspective actually have people physically present. We also do do a lot of work in within studies deliverables themselves and looking at how do we, how do we focus the methodologies and the work that is proposed in the study and a lot of times that's easier to do with the cooperative agreements because they're more flexible than contract vehicles but one of the studies, the image in this is actually from the paleocultural landscape study. And this is at the initial project workshop at the end of that workshop. This is a everybody that was involved in that workshop was participating in a Native American traditional prayer cycle. And this, this study, we intentionally put this as part of the study because we wanted to work with tribal nations, academic partners, state and federal agencies to really help us frame the methodologies and scope of the work of this study. And it was a really, really fantastic process to sit there in a three day kind of meeting workshop to actually have those conversations that helped frame the rest of the work for that study so these are types of examples of how the Bureau works to ensure that funded projects that are aware of relevant research that is ongoing within BOM and externally. And, and really how to, you know, really focus to make sure that the study deliverables and the methodology you're going to meet the specified need of the study. So now I'm going to move on to the output phase attributes and you can see there's three of them here summarized as ensures product quality encourages tailored products and synthesizes scientific findings. Next slide. Ensuring the quality this is tied in also with the studies development product and process. The annual studies development plan process and it ties into ensuring quality is we have a lot of internal science and technical peer review. This this peer review process is based on the Office of Management and Budgets 2002 guidelines for influential and highly influential studies, as well as our own planning process and strategic framework. We do have the ability for highly influential and influential studies and a requirement to look at how we're going to have external review for those processes and I know that BOM has used the National Academy of Sciences in the past to review, particularly one that was deemed highly influential. And there is a bone does publish its guidelines for their bones quality of information peer review on its website. We're also working to develop new guidance for the acceptance of deliverables and this really works with the COR, which is almost exclusively a subject matter expert that is providing that contracting that representation to the contractor contracting officer, but the COR and the environmental studies program representative, ensure that they review all the comments that all the comments during the review process are addressed by the principal investigator, or at least it stated why they are not being addressed. The environmental studies program representative must concur that all the scientific and technical issues have been addressed. The copy of the final report including reviewer comments and responses is kept on file. There is a resolution process of any outstanding disagreements between the COR and the environmental studies program representative. And then we have an additional step that the actual reports and products that are developed through our studies program are not to be published on a bone webpage release the public until they've been accepted by the environmental studies chief. Next slide. Again quality. We also look at the environmental studies program assessment tool. So this is a way to basically assess did the study was the study timely was the quality of the materials developed adequate and an assessment on was, did it meet the needs of the study and those types of elements. So, and did the study have peer review so and the time and budget so you can see the four key elements right there. Next slide tailored products. So this is really encourages or develops an array of outputs and communication strategies for a study tailored to specific uses by broad and varied audiences. This is very important, and most of you that were involved in the Costa meeting yesterday saw some examples of tailored products that are being developed, but many studies have these tailored products a specific deliverables written into the contracts or cooperative agreements, and then products are also created by support contracts at the directions of our scientists and communications team. So the examples are documentaries, story maps, art GIS story maps videos you saw an example of the frequency image here is from the, the animated video that Erica presented yesterday and we also do whiteboard animations explaining our process and programs. And these are really valuable for kind of breaking down the information and often large study reports into accessible media. We also boom has put in place and hired a science communication and outreach liaison. We are involved in our environmental studies program. And so she is instrumental and working with across the bureau and with our office of communications develop help us think about what tailored products and how to get that information out to broader audiences. Next slide. This is kind of a combination of how we synthesize information at the bureau as well as tailored outputs. So, it also, it also pertains to the impact attribute three which we'll talk about in a little bit on influences public understanding. These are examples of our oceans, ocean science, the ocean science magazine now it's been called different things in the past but ocean sciences the science and technology journal the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. And this journal was conceived created and led by the Gulf of Mexico region with input from the office of Office of Environmental Programs the Office of Communication and subject matter experts throughout the bureau. These issues are organized thematically. And so you can see here some representative samples of looking at field work, social science, economic issues and preservation of past culture. And they're done in a really accessible format, but we've looked at with the coming of, I guess the lessening of the utility of publishing print medium and moving more to social media and electronic versions. So the Bureau in 2021 really looked at how we can reimagine how we are getting bones ocean science out to a wider audience. So the management and production activities for ocean science were transferred to the Office of Communications in 2021. And it resulted in an effort to reimagine and rebrand the journal. And what came out of this is that the Bureau launched its own ocean science news in March 2022. So with the, you know, trying to be brief timely online and have summaries of the most pertinent research that's going on at the time. And then transferred the ocean science from a magazine format to an ongoing exclusively online platform in this year. So with longer more in depth articles produced on a monthly or bi-monthly basis. We're hoping that we're hoping that this change will improve our ability to produce timely and relevant stories on bone scientific efforts adjust to the shifting trend from print to digital media and increase our ability to reach broader audiences and coordinate amplification across social media platforms. Next slide. Okay, thank you. Another type of synthesis is driven by our Office of Renewable Energy Programs and they are they have produced the Atlantic Science in Review Year in Review which presents studies completed. This one example is 2021. The studies are in support of our Bones Offshore Renewable Energy Program along the Atlantic Coast. And as you can see here, each featured study has an overview summary of key findings synopsis of how bone will use the information at links to additional information related to the study. Next slide. Another example is an environmental studies program quarterly reports, which includes summaries of the bone environmental studies completed each quarter. Again, they include synopsis of funding information purpose and information use and key findings and results. The information is sent out to a list of science stakeholders. And bone manages that list for distribution of studies materials and for solicitation of study ideas at the beginning of each annual study development planning cycle. These are also found on our website. Next slide. Moving on to the impact phase attributes, there's three of these. Influent informs and influences users advances the state of science and influences public understanding. And throughout these with the in the context are of our about evaluating connections project, and this has been an ongoing project from 2019 to the present. So it's really conducting an evaluation to understand how environmental studies program funded research contributes to bones assessments and vice versa. And really looks at study results, how they're incorporated into assessments. And how studies are identified through the assessment process and how studies and assessments are informing policy decisions. The internal evaluation was executed in spring of 2021. And the final report was completed in December 2021. The external evaluation began in September 2021 with the final report anticipated in spring 2023. So this external element of the report is going to focus on evaluating the external influence of bone science and assessments. And the methodology includes interviews surveys and a social network analysis. So we affectionately call this the feedback loop. So it's really trying to get at, you know, the kind of loop internal loop and then of how assessments informed studies and studies get incorporated into assessments as well as the external influence. And so you'll see that this is relevant to a lot of the about sample evaluating questions pointed to in the first in class report. Next slide. So some of the key elements here you can see the next steps and actions table. And again, this is available on our website. And one of those things is the, you know, hire one of the recommendations was to hire a science communication liaison. And that we have done. And so there is synergy between a lot of the recommendations, both internally and externally on this. And so we are looking at how to implement this. And now we're looking at how that fits in with some of the evaluation questions identified in the first in class report. Next slide. This is one thing, one of the recommendations that we are evaluating currently, we have not got a lot of traction on with some of the other work that we're doing. But I just wanted you to be aware that there is this recommendation to develop across region and program working group to consider establishing a tracking system for information needs. And so I think that that will meet several of the evaluating criteria. So we'll look at how that fits in with that. Those recommendations from the ad hoc committee. Next slide. And it's functionality as this database. This has been a struggle lately. We have now shifted a lot of our studies deliverables to the government publishing office website as a near term solution while we reevaluate how to internally reimagine the environmental studies program information system database and how we're going to manage that internally previously we had worked with Noah to actually house and maintain that database and that is no longer feasible. And so now we're assessing how we're going to work internally. And to do that, we have developed internally some environmental studies theme pages that aggregate and synthesize some of the studies information and point to the relevant studies. We are also in the process, we've got the framework of an internal status of the OCS web portal. We've developed and there are some sample topical area landing pages for environmental justice is one example of those, as well as uploading a lot of our volume assessment documents and white papers, and we are working on ensuring that there is a robust connection between the status of the OCS web portal and the studies of these individuals. And so what we're hoping is that internally, at least immediately and then in the future we're hoping to have an external version of the status of the OCS web portal. It's allows to search across our assessment and studies information and bring those in quickly, as well as having some synthesized information from these reports on the state of knowledge within particular topical addressing complex issues. So that's our vision for the future. We are now working on developing the backbone for that. And then we're also looking at bringing on arise fellows to gain experience and helping with the uploading and synthesizing of that information. Next slide. Innovation phase so there are three key attributes in the innovation phase, basically where seeks opportunities for innovation adapts to new challenges and implements and innovation strategy to give a little bit background on innovation within Bohem. It's something that we have been thinking about we have been doing on kind of an ad hoc study by study basis, but we really dug into this starting in 2020, what the developing a strategy for emerging technology, followed by one, the division environmental sciences within office environmental programs developed the tiger team, looking at, you know, putting together a strategy for successful innovation. As part of that to identify and research new technologies priorities and challenges. And test viability of potential opportunities with pilot projects, focus on dissemining results across bone and implement new technologies and approaches were relevant and adapt and refine as needed. We've also experimented and with some success looking at price challenges. And here's a couple of them so bone partners with NASA Center for excellence and collaborative innovation to implement more of these crowd sourcing or citizen science challenges. You can see that there's a couple here wears whale do if you think about the kids man, the kids book wears Waldo, it's kind of a play on that. But these are types of things that we're looking at. You know, that one is focusing on crowd sourcing challenge that help researchers accurately identify endangered cook inlet beluga whale individuals from photos and result. We wanted to result in an automated solution so that we can integrate an algorithm algorithm into the existing flu book opens open source program and Jake Levison can provide more information on that if he's on the line, what we have time to discuss. Next slide. The exciting part of the innovation attributes one is really that we're the Bureau is moving forward with recruitment of a position to be our lead in innovation with the charge to lay the groundwork for what we're a proposed center for innovative ocean monitoring that we're hoping to stand up in the new year in the next few years. So, the innovation attribute seeks opportunities for innovation the director is going to be responsible for developing a strategic plan, including partners process outreach, and then building out ocean monitoring analysis for decision support integration as well as partners. And adapting to new challenges, you know, commute and communicate innovation needs and challenges throughout the Bureau and to external partners to encourage innovation and institutionalize in the environmental studies program planning process. And what's key to that is implementing an innovation strategy, so develop an execute workforce plan to help accelerate innovation, develop a cost sharing mechanisms and public access to the data. Next slide. That is the bulk of the presentation so thanks for staying with me, I know there's a lot of information here. I have highlighted a couple of key things to help engender further discussion. On some of the evaluating connections. But really, you know, looking at the strategic partnership piece is is going to be key, as I mentioned, really how do we dig in on the cost benefit analysis and then develop, you know, assessment and evaluation metrics for this piece. This is especially true with the small organization like Boa. Again, some other things that are encompassed in these evaluating questions are how to develop a flexible strategic study process that recognizes changing administration needs as well as identified stakeholder and science needs. I have looked at Shell scenario planning process. And I believe Scott and some others on COSA are experiencing utilizing that process but I think that's something that I am interested in exploring because it helps us frame the future challenges and then starting how to build on some of the commonalities that may exist between those challenges. And again, you know, how do we do this evaluation work on the fly while we're still funding managing and utilizing existing and future studies. And so these are some of the things, and I know that there's been some input in the chat, but with that, I will put myself back on screen and open it up. I know it's a lot of information and I thank you for staying with me through that. Stacy, I can't hear you. I don't know if that's just me. I apologize. But no, I just wanted to thank you Brian for that presentation. I know that the COSA members were really eager to get the update. And it was clearly a very thoughtful presentation. As we wait for folks to raise hands and I know, as you mentioned, Les had put a question into the comment, but I just wanted to make two quick points. One is just a quick clarification, particularly for our new COSA members and anybody on the line that isn't familiar with the COSA and our process. You had mentioned the various stages of your studies development process, including on your slide, it said National Academy of Sciences review and I just wanted to draw the distinction between the formal reviews that we have done that the, you know, National Academy has convened consensus bodies committees to do separate reviews of individual projects for bone, which is different than what COSA does in their annual consideration of the studies development plan. And I just wanted to make that point real clear because I know we use the term review in very particular ways. And so what we do in this in the summer months is not considered a review. But we have done consensus reviews of bone projects before. So I wanted to make that point clear. I also really wanted to highlight, especially because it's been some time since COSA has had a meeting or topic focused on that feedback loop that you were discussing. But that is something that COSA in the past has been a fair amount of time thinking about the relationship between the science and the assessments and how those inform each other. And I was thrilled to see that highlighted in your presentation, Brian. So again, just wanting to sort of point that out, particularly for our newer members. And also, Brian, to thank you for highlighting that because I know that that's certainly been of interest of an interest of COSA in the past. So with that, I'll look for some raised hands and maybe, Les, if you're available, we can start with you since you put a question in the comments. I will also ask you just to introduce yourself briefly. We sped through the committee introductions pretty quickly this morning. So we'll start with you and then we'll go to Scott. Thanks, Stacy. I'm Les Kaufman. I'm a professor of marine biology at Boston University. And I've been a COSA member, I think for coming on a year, I don't know. Time goes by so quickly when you're having time. Anyway, I have some familiarity with BOM and working with BOM. And Brian, you've done a really great job describing the process. For best in class, which I think is one of the most exciting things I've heard about going on at BOM. But there hasn't, we haven't had a chance to hear much about the outcomes, the vision, how BOM would look different, how it would be more nimble, how it would be able to do innovative things. My understanding right now is that one of the things hampering innovation and risk at BOM is that we're kind of, BOM showed a short staffed. And a lot of the times the same people are the taskmasker and the slave, I don't mean slave, but you know what I mean. Yes, I know. Multiple hats, multiple hats. Yeah, but those are two hats that like, one's on the head and I won't say where the other one goes. Yeah. So, yeah. I hear your comment. Is there a specific question? The question is, if you look at the structure of BOM right now, it's not like really encouraging that it's set up for innovation. Even though I know from knowing so many people in BOM now that that's really what people are excited about and are ready to take off on. To make BOM work less as a contracting agency and more as an innovator. No, I think that's a great question, Les. And I know Brad's on. I will just say that it's not going to be an easy or quick solution. So, as we know, I mean, a lot of these things are, you know, anytime you talk about change and that order of magnitude, it doesn't happen overnight. You know, a lot of this stuff can take many years, right? So I think one of the things is really important is creating that innovation vision, innovative vision. Where does BOM see itself? What does that look like in the future? And then step back in the kind of the zoom out, zoom in principles and really start focusing on what concrete steps are within our control now. And then develop kind of a strategy for getting there while looking for opportunities, you know, especially for, you know, maybe being disruptive or where other people are being disruptive and how can you partner with those individuals to really move things forward. I think that's key. But without having that vision and knowing where you're going and what that success looks like, you could spend a lot of time, wasted time and effort trying to do things that you don't really have a chance in doing because you're just not set up for it like you pointed out. So it's a big, it's a big ask, it's bold, which I think is what really excites people. But the important thing about the vision and having that strategic framework is it helps you keep centered on getting there and not losing track and going down all the rabbit holes that, you know, you can go down all the stuff. But it also goes into one of the questions I threw out there because I think it's really important is how do we become really strategic and looking at partnerships across the board. And how do you evaluate cost benefit analysis and time and resources in actually developing those partnerships and feeding those partnerships long term. Because we don't have all the answers, most agencies don't have the answers, but there is potential that if we all work together, you know, to a common purpose, not on everything, but on key issues that we have a better success of doing it because different agencies have different statutory funding vehicles. I'll stop there and let Brad jump in. I know he's visible. But thanks for the question. It's really important. Yeah, yeah, thanks less.  And I think the place where, where bone can sort of step more into that, that realm of that, that higher risk, you know, high risk, high reward world is in the studies program. I think we're starting to see that more we've had a lot more focused conversations over the last probably two studies cycles, but how much risk are we willing to add into our portfolio for projects that might not work, or projects, you know, developing new technology that might not, you know, might not come to fruition might not be able to be implemented. We're seeing that that's slowly increase, right? Because at the end of the day, we do have to balance the fact that we are also a regulatory agency and our folks doing our consultations, writing our EISs. You know, they need certain information. They needed updated on the certain frequency. You know, we move into new areas, we need new information, we need baseline information. So, you know, balancing that the core science mission to support the operational needs versus the risk. I mean, that is a discussion we sort of have to have every year. I think that Rodney can talk about this if, you know, if he wants as well, the new center for innovative ocean monitoring that we're trying to set up. We do have, you know, approval for the head of that team or officer that ends up being, and that would be sort of that person whose job it is to think strategically about all right, what does the agency need in terms of innovation? How can I, you know, how can that person go out there, look at what's going on out in the research space out, you know, outside of the agency and see what folks are doing, see what technologies are being developed, what people are thinking about. And taking that back to our folks and also working with our folks and saying, all right, well, what do you guys need? What technology don't you have? You know, like what are our, what are your big bottlenecks? How can we maybe solve that with a new technology with a new process and bring that back out, you know, to industry, to academia. So I think we are trying to do that. That's right with a limited budget and with, you know, a certain large percentage of what we do, like we have to have results, we have to have data, we have to have information. So it is a balancing act, but I think that the studies program and OEP is really the place where we have that freedom to be able to do that because we are somewhat set apart from the operational side of the agency. So that can be everything. But it's going to be a lot more than other offices are able to do. And we're trying to expand that and Rodney let Rodney chime in as well. Well, thanks, Brad. I agree with everything you said. So I guess we're going to build on that a little bit. But I mean, it really started several years ago with our strategy for emerging technology and realizing the need for innovation in the environmental studies program and the need to build something. This center Center for Innovative Ocean Monitoring that that that could set in the environmental program but touch, you know, all of our scientists, no matter what discipline. You know, no matter if you're studying acoustics or you're studying birds or your social scientists know that Center for Innovative Ocean Monitoring can help advise and touch any of those individuals throughout all those disciplines to use the best technologies and techniques, moving forward we we know our responsibilities are huge and they just keep building and building and building. We know we're going to have to do more monitoring out there as activity continues, especially with the offshore wind. You know the territory is our new challenge as well as as as carbon sequestration critical minerals and the continuation of conventional energy so these things are going to just keep going so we're really looking at a way to best these needs the best way we can through innovation. But I have to remind everybody to remember we don't have any ships or satellites or AUVs or anything so any any study we do for looking at we have one glider. We do our partnerships right I mean how do we actually do animal telemetry, you know, without NASA satellites, we can't, you know, we're utilizing the international space station, you know, does that these are innovative innovative techniques that we're trying to use to really do a better job and monitoring the environment. So our partnerships are critical to our success as it is right now. You know, could we be more strategic, probably, but at the same time, you know those different mandates that all the agencies have, we have to really spend time looking for that alignment. And that can be complicated. You know, we just just working with Navy, who do you talk to, and when and when is their budget going to come along. We leveraged almost 20 million with DOE last year. That was huge. But again, it takes a lot of work gaining and getting to that point and it's not something you can do every, every year, but it is, you know, it does have to be strategic, and we really encourage encourage our folks to do that. And I think just on the on the strategic piece going to Brian touched on that and Rodney touched on it as well and then I'll, I'll shut up and let Scott talk. I think we are trying to be more definitely trying to be more strategic and how we're reaching out to folks and how we're doing more long term planning right so last year we got authority for the territories for certain activities. You know, immediately we reached out to Noah and costs to try to start working with them building that partnership understanding what work they've already been doing what partners they've been working with on the ground in those areas. And that's something that that's already bearing fruit right they actually have money this year to do some of that foundational work in Puerto Rico. We've been working with Virgin Islands and, you know, working with them, you know, we're helping them develop sort of what the priorities and those questions are but they're going to go out and they're going to undertake that in partnership with us but with their funding. Right this year so so these things are already starting. We have over the last probably 18 months. We've really reinvigorated our conversations with DOE and PNNL specifically. And that is on sort of the innovation aspect that they have a lot of folks out there. In particular really working on some of these innovative techniques taken the tagging side, looking at innovative ocean monitoring type things that they're doing out there, you know, off the dock and really connecting our staff with their staff, identifying early on potential vehicles ways that we can work directly with with their staff because it's a little complicated with some of these, these folks because they're not all necessarily feds or contractors sometimes. So we are really looking at those things in a more strategic fashion, but we are I mean reality is sometimes we are hamstrung by funding cycles funding types that other agencies. You know, it just sometimes things don't work out and they have to be a little more ad hoc and it is us coming and saying hey we have a million dollars for this. What can you contribute. So it is it is something we are we are thinking about I think Brian's absolutely right we need to continually moving more toward that strategic thing but I don't think we can ignore those ad hoc opportunities, either. So, I'll stop there. Just a little quick before I call on you Scott, just because we do have new members on the line and also we've got 77 participants total, I think it might be helpful. Rodney and Brad if you could just introduce yourself well, since I'm not sure everybody on the line will necessarily know who you are so Brad it maybe I can have you go first and then Rodney, and then we'll turn to Scott. I'll just do that in you. Sorry. So I'm Brad Blythe, I am chief of the branch of biological and social sciences. So working under Rodney help measure the environment studies program I'm also a bomb scientific integrity officer. Sorry Stacy I will introduce myself now thanks. I'm Rodney Clark. I'm chief of the Division of Environmental Sciences under the Office of Environmental Programs and I'm also the chief of Bones Environmental Studies program. Okay, Scott. So, I want to thank Brian for giving us this update this was very, very interesting to see where where you've gone with the first and class class report and I look forward to also see in the slide deck, getting the slide deck to take a closer looking at it. It's like a fairly strong effort to try to move it along here. I think you asked for specific feedback from COSA, at least in one key area for early on and it's one of the cross cutting attributes which is, you know, guides we might have relative strategic partnerships and that's come up again in the discussion in the discussions we've just had about some of the new initiatives I might. That's something we can certainly look look to and try to develop for you. I mean what one quick thought I have is indeed, you know, as as Rodney has said you don't have as much resource you don't have your own fleet. So partnering up with others is absolutely crucial for for you to achieve your mission and I'm, and I'm wondering if one area, or a couple areas to really focus on are some of these new challenges you face new domains that you're entering into so be see offshore carbon capture and storage that might be one. I think you mentioned the the territories that's another, if we get into critical minerals and new arenas that's yet another, but just, you know, get a get after right from the get go as you as you're entering into these areas start to build those partnerships right now so they become integral. And, and I think the, you know, as you set up your, your Center for innovative ocean monitoring, you might have some built in partners already, coming out of that study on priorities for the easy that came out of the across the no Mac or whatever was called but look like a lot of commonality of interest between the agencies. There, and there may be some, some, some opportunities. The other thing that was a besides partnerships and sort of a cross cutting, cross cutting after my mind but also a kind of a big picture thing for sick person class to be first in class. Somebody's got the measure that you're first time. And you kind of you kind of talked a little bit about that. And I think we kept coming back to it in the report. When you talked about the, the output process attributes, you mentioned the looking into the quality of the outputs. You mentioned the ESP PAT tool that you have. I think some kind of, maybe spending a little more time at some point getting an update on how you're measuring that stuff, looking back on how that's, that is being done, it would would be useful. It also came up again. In the impact phase when you talked about kind of going to the, the, the external review phase of the evaluating connection study. Now as I recall evaluating connections was underway when we did first in class is that not right it was kind of a pair they're going on at the same time. And yeah, it's exactly. And so then you got then you got first in class and and I have to of course digest that. I just kind of it looked like it was like you're kind of 18 months into the external review phase of, of evaluating connection that seems a little long. So, I'm hopeful we can hear more on that progress on that before too long because that that's mighty important to being able to measure. Yeah, and we expect to get that report. Shortly, the draft report for that. So I know that it has been, these things have taken time. So, yeah, we're looking forward to getting that also. But yeah, I think you're absolutely right.  So, yeah, at the end, at the end of the day, I mean, you know, Rodney, you look after the environmental studies program. And, and, and, and, and of course we have the assessment program we need to see how they link up together to, you know, achieve bones objectives and that's, and that's really what this, this, this whole that whole bit is all about is really making sure that you're getting that feedback loop that Stacy talked about. And that's been a consistent, you know, theme of inquiry by COSA over the years is trying to probe you a little bit on that one so please keep after it and we look forward to a further update on where you stand on that. That's, but thanks for the update it was it's good to see you're making progress. I look forward to seeing the slide pack. Alright, thanks Scott. Any other questions, thoughts, feedback, looking for some hands. Rod, and then Jack. Alright, so. Thanks Brian. That was very informative. I was going to wait to ask my question but as there was a pause I'm going to ask it now. So, when the first in class report came out I was a politely critical of it. And the reason that I was a little bit critical of it because was because there was very little mention of cultural resources in it so the examples were all from natural resources. There were the National Historic Preservation Act, the legislation was not included and mentioned in it and the comparisons were mostly to do with natural resources the National Park Service as a agency wasn't included. And then of course, once I pause a little bit and thought about it a little bit more. I thought that the systems approach did apply across the agency across the sorry across the Bureau. So that, you know, the cross cutting attributes and the process phase output input phase and innovation attributes all all applied to both natural and cultural resources so my question to you, Brian is and you're probably uniquely positioned perhaps to answer this is, is do you think anything was lost by perhaps not further consideration of cultural resources in the first in class report. Do you think that the systems approach applies broadly across the Bureau and the value of the first in class report is is applicable in both of those contexts. Yeah, thanks, rock. I do think there's a challenge in the first in class, anytime you're looking at developing kind of broad scale attributes and covering, you know, all the different, you know, individual disciplines or, you know, ways of, you know, how we explore and and other other information that is not scientific, you know, or we wouldn't consider using the scientific process so to speak. How do how do you capture that so I think that they, the systems approach is very valuable as a framework for looking at that because as you know, you know, cultural natural or in some ways artificial subdivisions, are very among many groups where they don't see a difference between cultural heritage and, you know, the natural world and that intersection so I do think, you know that the systems framework is applicable across the disciplines and where we work at the bottom, we are constantly looking at how to, you know, integrate and when we develop studies is to get the most value from those studies. You know, one of the examples, if you want to look at from an archaeological perspective as you look at some of the Lofelia studies on deep water wrecks in the Gulf of Mexico. Now that afforded us to use, you know, very expensive ship time to actually develop studies and scientific questions that address multiple disciplines. And it also, you know, allowed people to understand that there's a starting point for coral succession because we have a time stamp on when a ship went down. And so there's a lot of advantages for approaching that way and I think our Bureau has shown that we've been able to do that and a lot of us by necessity because these studies can be extremely expensive. And so you have to maximize, you know, the amount of information that you gather from that. The other thing that I know is because it maybe it gets overlooked especially in the archaeological is because BOM has a competency, a core competency in marine archaeology within its Bureau. It's the only federal agency that I know of that actually has any guidelines for requirements of doing paleocultural landscape reconstruction from survey data across the board. And this is something that we've been building on for 40 years. And as an example of how we use studies information to inform policy. If you're not familiar, there's a notice for proposed rulemaking on our marine archaeology rule for the language within our regulations updating that for the oil and gas program right now. Now that language and the reason why we're going through that update is directly relevant to the amount of information and studies that we've funded over the years, showing that potential archaeological resource resource like a shipwreck could be found anywhere at OCS. And so that's a direct kind of connection, and it falls into those evaluation, you know, evaluation question metrics is how our studies being used to influence policy. And how is that being called out so if you look at that rule, the proposed rulemaking you will actually see many of the studies that we have funded called out specifically as evidence for why that rule needs to be updated. So, you know, it's kind of a double edged sword right because it's like the squeaky wheel gets the sword so it's not really the shipwreck side of things that we're focusing on now. It's more the more challenging thing is how do you actually find, you know, potential Native American sites on the OCS. And that's a whole order of magnitude more challenging than the shipwreck question now I think we have good processes in place and requirements for surveys before activities are allowed to occur for shipwrecks. But now the next step, and we've done some work on this, but there's a lot more going on and a lot more working with our tribal nation partners to actually develop how would you actually, you know, go about locating a site.  It's challenging and that's kind of the next area where I think it's, you know, we're going to have to focus on more but there are a lot of technological limitations to doing that research. So that's another area where maybe innovation can be applied and looking across, you know, different disciplines for how they're identifying things could shed light on that. So but thank you. Thank you that's very useful in the fact. You know the consideration of the new rule and the paleo archeological landscape reconstruction I thought that some of those examples those kinds of examples would be very useful in the first in class report but anyway, I know that the Bureau has has substantial expertise in marine archeology. And many of us are envious of the expertise that you have in that world. Anyway, thank you. That's very helpful. Thank you. Yeah. And Jack, I'm going to hold up just for a moment because I suspect that Hillary's hand is raised also in response to Rob question. So Hillary, if I could just ask you to introduce yourself as well. And go ahead and provide your response. Sure. Hi, my name is Hillary Renek and I'm the tribal liaison officer for the Bureau. And I just wanted to address your question really quick and so for the folks on. And so in my experience that the first in class report has elevated you know tribal knowledge, you know, just to the Bureau level and has helped legitimize tribal science and technology where a lot of folks. You know, just have not historically seen tribal science as a legitimate science. And so at least for me, just having this forum where bringing, you know, folks that are tribal members themselves as scientists taking tribal knowledge and incorporate it into our documents and putting it in a form where it's actually respected and valued has been really important. And for myself to as a tribal member myself. So, and I think it has elevated the relationship that boom has had, has had and is having with tribal nations. So, I don't know if you have any other questions. No, thank you. That's that's very encouraging. Thank you. Thank you, Harry. Jack will turn to you next. All right, great. Thanks, Brian for that overview. I was really encouraged by that. The DI efforts around having open interdisciplinary broad scientific position that you're hiring for because that's, that's a really great way to get some good candidates without making that job description so narrow that you that you just don't get that pool so good. Thank you for you on that. I wanted to turn to that Center for Ocean observing innovation. So it you know as we're well aware there's lots of that happening in other agencies and SF Noah, the Navy, etc. So I, as you described I think this person's going to be very busy staying in touch with all those activities. Yeah, I mean, I tried to do that in my own career and it's, you know, it's two full time jobs. So, yeah, they're going to have to be, they're going to have to be judicious about the kinds of things they're looking into. But just for example yesterday we heard that great Noah presentation on the fixed acoustic monitoring array. There are so many platforms out there already that bone could quite easily put acoustic devices on and really leverage things. So I guess to a specific question is there's the National Ocean Partnership Program is bone part of that or anticipates being part of it because it really is a great way to leverage innovation. Yes, yeah thanks for that Jack yeah we're definitely part of the National Ocean Partnerships Program and Rodney can speak to that but before I hand it over to him. You know I do, you know one of the things in the benefits of having somebody that specifically focusing on innovation and as less pointed out earlier is so many of our scientists are wearing multiple hats. They're trying to do it all. And, you know, as most of us realize if you really want to be good and do good work and something you actually have to do less of all the things and kind of focus on one or two things right. And so I think that in some ways is one of the reasons why you know we identified this position as really critical is to help the Bureau as a whole, you know work on framing this and developing those overarching partnerships and things like that, that and then our staff can work within that context and that framework, because it is having been on that side of it, the COR the scientist side of things. You are, you know, having the word of multiple hats and our scientists and our policy folks do a great job of it. And it is, it is really challenging to do it well, especially with things as complicated as you pointed out with the innovation and the number of people and, and partnerships that are there but Rodney I'll let you hop in and talk about the, we have used this past and continue. I know that they're reevaluating and revamping the partnership program so. Yeah, yeah Jack thanks for the question on the on not yeah I was a co chair for the National Ocean, a graphic partnership program for seven years, so many years, and, and right right now it's going through just for the report hasn't gone out public but it's got to not reboot to 2.0. The people are thinking about a Dr. Yoko Furukawa, who's the chief of our branch of chemical and biochemical and physical oceanography is here on this call and she's, she's our member now, along with a john lily. You know, we're currently involved in several not projects. You know we use it consistently. And again is one of these things that with other federal agencies with their own mandates with their own activities that they really prioritize we have to find that alignment, you know where's that sweet spot. So we may only find, you know, one or so a year, one type of study that really fits well with us. We have worked quite a bit under under not through the no mech process. Exploration and characterization. I'm sorry mapping exploration and characterization. That's something that you know we're working on and working with other federal agencies like office and Naval Research and Noah to do some type of studies with so I guess one thing I think all this not and the no mech that this can get really complicated real quick and I'm happy to talk to you offline, but that falls under the subcommittee on ocean science and technology that's like this umbrella subcommittee that I said on that as a member. So you have the not committee, you have the no mech that's doing the mapping and exploration and you have 10 other interagency working groups everything from ocean education to you know looking at noise and ocean sound and the list goes on and on I don't want to go through all the laundry list but you know all these interagency working groups, you know we'll work together and trying to find that alignment, and what kind of science that the various agencies, you know we can do together, and then that kind of bubbles up through not so it'll get support from the bottom, and then support from for me on the top as to sitting in the sauce, and then that's a lot of times how we really can can find those efforts that really make sense that agencies are really, you know, willing to contribute and put funds and the not process is long. So if, as always people are always in a hurry to do science and get out there, but you know if you're, if you're going through a not just be, we have to attempt to tell people it's going to take a little bit longer. There's going to be different levels of peer review, and you're going to have to work together to make to meet everybody's needs. We're not just going to be bone and rod me sitting there going this is the way it's going to be and this is our need and this is it we have to work together, you know with our partners from Navy or NASA or Noah. So everybody can, you know, meet their need and that kind of negotiation takes time. So with this new not 2.0 or reboot. I think the push is going to be a little more towards more kind of the applied side of science how can we work together to use the science to inform national decisions. I hope that helps I'm going to talk offline if you want to check. Now that's very helpful thanks for the overview. Bill got his hand raised as well so we'll hear from him and then from last. Thanks, Stacy. I'm interested in any feedback that this August group might have on on centers that relate to innovation and so as I mean to some of you know we several years ago we decided that we we ought to consider creating centers and the environmental program. And you know it's not an obvious thing, you know that having a center will be a good thing. Some of the staff that didn't think they would end up being participating within new centers were concerned that they you know not as prominent as as those that joined centers. But but but we decided that you know for starters, a center for marine acoustics would be low hanging fruit and you know there's a real need to bring things together and there are many other players that are into that Noah and the Navy for example. And so we just so we went forward to the center and and and Jill Lewandowski who I think was on earlier I don't see her now. I just went gangbusters and did a brilliant job at advancing it and it's actually fully staff now I'm sure Jill would like more staff but it's we actually achieve the staffing level that we plan for and it's it I think it undeniably is this is leading bone into a stronger and more innovative position when it comes to acoustic issues. I mean I just see that every day. And now and now we have a center for innovative monitoring. Which I think, I think will be very valuable too. And of course there are many players. But, but, but, you know, we already have thoughts about, for example, an array of past the passive acoustic monitoring devices and so forth that I think are generally agreed would be a big advance so so I'm, you know, I'm curious about what the cost of members or anyone else in the call sort of think about centers. So we'll get folks just a minute or two maybe to think about that I'll come to less and then we'll come back to that bill that's all right. Yeah, sure, of course. Actually bill that's where I was headed. One of the one of the fantastic things I've noticed about the acoustic center is that it sets up because because Jill is there, Erica, I mean it sets up the situation where partners from outside can work colleague to colleague and speak the same language, while the person inside bone has kind of a reality check on on on what our bones needs and how can we best work together that that bridge has been critical. So if setting up a center is what's necessary to establish that bridge. I would say yeah, if it's not necessary maybe it's just something to, you know, bone could aspire to more broadly is to have more, more time for people to exercise their disciplinary strength and colleague to colleague relationships. Thanks. Jack and then carry. Yeah, Bill I think this fits perfectly in this conversation about the best in class science strategy. You know at the universities, we use that term center actually pretty carefully to show what the university is interested in focusing on and I think it does the same for you it says this like less just said it said hey we're focused on this. So it may not be that you have a staff of 20, but you're, but you have a focus and people know it, and it allows you to do that so I think it's, it's a good idea. I guess I was just knowing the staffing levels I probably guessed that you couldn't put 20 people on it but it would, but it would allow that focus with the partners as less point about. Harry. Thanks. I'm really appreciating this discussion and of course I come at this thinking about slide social science. And I'm wondering bill and others at bone. I guess I'm thinking about, gee it would be really. And maybe there's something already in place but I wonder about the possibility or the interest in having something like that that would address. cultural resources that would address human dimensions and socioeconomics in connection with bones activities and priorities. I'm appreciating also the comment about capacity limitations and people's time and the wearing of many hats. And to some extent, you know, would that be just too big a lift given everything else that bone wants to do on the other hand. I think that could be a really interesting and fruitful mechanism to consider. So I'm, I'm interested to hear whether there's been any discussion about that or if that's something. And one other thought associated with that is thinking about these centers of excellence or centers of focus for the environmental studies program. And the other is, and maybe this is already in place is thinking about a partnership where somebody else would be doing the heavy lifting, but where that kind of colleague to colleague within and across agency and other entity other areas other groups with expertise would be encouraged and and hopefully help to support the efforts of bone staff. So anyway, tossing that out there. Thank you. And if I can answer carry thank you for bring that point up, you know, it's, it occurs to me when we talk about a center for ocean monitoring. Most people probably think of, you know, pH temperature. And the presence or absence of certain kinds of organisms. And we do and we certainly include, you know, intend to include that but we've had a lot of discussion and I think have presumed that that the center would also address all the human dimensions, which, which does make it more complicated and not only in terms of data because I think you probably know we have a ecosystem based management study underway and what and the ideas to have a model to be part of that and link it to our, our status of the OCS initiative and and the questions is, you know, how do you address tribal issues and something like that and we'd like to cover it but it's, but if you but if you link a decision making model. The task of assigning priority is really difficult. But the basic monitoring and you know so here so that's an interesting quest that we're very interested in we need all the help we can because it's, you know, it's tricky. You know, what should you monitor, you know what are the most important things that are, you know, social economic cultural, you know, which which actually for better or worse bone thinks of the environment that way it's. We could probably blame blame it on OXLA which has marine coastal and human environments and it's in its terms. So, but I think that's the basic concept. I think I thought that you'd put a comment in the chat did you want to say anything in the discussion about centers. I'm just going to say that that in at least an industry, I've been involved with a number of different kinds of centers that were brought together. Technical experts scientific experts focused on a particular challenge usually, and we found it a great way to kind of attract the very top talent and and also retain them. We found that it's form of recognition to be very gratifying and and so, and I was just wondering if you are you starting to see some impact with the, you got any feedback like that from the center for marine acoustics which has been up and running now for a while. Yeah, I mean actually if Jill's on or Erica and, you know, I think for everybody that listened to Erica's presentation yesterday was amazing that, but I will say, not assuming that they're on this call right now. They have I mean they they're there, you know, request interest partnership or are basically pouring in. And, you know, one of my challenges is to make sure people know they're actually part of foam now, which is mostly a good thing. That's mostly a good thing. Kevin, I see your hand is raised. Yeah hi thank you. I think the, you know, the idea centers and the question centers is a really interesting when I've been involved with a few of them I was in the Center of Excellence up in Canada for called open for ocean production and enhancement network and sometimes, you know, I think that in developing the center centers, you need to think about, you know, kind of your, your, your target of how many because I have found in some of these bigger centers you get too many people and it ends up that just a few people either dominate the conversation or carry the ball and so it's I think that in creating them you have to, you have to have a bit of a focus on, on, you know, on the selection and the type of people with the, with the aim of the sum being greater than the parts. And Scott, Scott will appreciate this I always think of it like a rock and roll band or a great band where you know the Beatles, each individual beetle was good but together they were really something else, you know, and so I think I think that it does take a little thought in the structure and also the medium in which you're going to communicate whether you're going to have in person or zoom meetings because those will, those will dictate both the kind of the people and interactions and also the ability to communicate so. But I've always, I've been fascinated with how many, how many people how it's like with teaching like you know, is your optimal size of a class 18 or the 29, you know what is the, was the optimal group and what are the skills, particular skills you need to get to the point you're trying to get at. Anyway, this is just a few thoughts on. Yeah, Kevin that's a that's really a good point and I think that one of the reasons that CMA has been so successful is that DA has worked for a long time on its, its organizational culture and the type of people it hires. And, you know, one of the things we look at is not only, you know, are they good at what they do, but how they do it, and how they work with others is equal as important. And so I think that that's one of the key things that, you know, I know Jill has been really cognizant on in hiring is hiring the people with the right expertise but the right way of doing things and how they work together. You know, in a team environment, and whether they're resilient and, you know, adaptable and flexible and those type of things because the work is challenging. And it's comes at you from all different places and you have to be able to, you know, work together as a unit. And so I think you're seeing a lot of that pays dividends to spend a lot of time focusing on some of the softer skills and evaluating those during the hiring process. Because you're have a long term commitment once you bring somebody on board in the long term relationship. So thanks. Brian Rodney. Yeah, Kevin, I think that's a really good point to and, you know, this is what that's one reason we wanted to start with a new position and director. This this individual that can come in that really has, I think, hopefully will have a really good understanding of new and emerging technologies where they would advise and work on the build out of the new center. You know, I mean, just, you know, we hope to have more people down the road but I don't know what that'll look like it may be just a few or whatever but you know I think to start kind of at the top and then think about that build out. Again touching all the disciplines for that social cultural biological physical chemical oceanography, you know, the whole spectrum of innovation and technology I think it's going to be important, but I don't envision it being huge down the road. I mean at this point, but I think, you know, I think Jack mentioned it earlier but you know none of our people right now really have the bandwidth to do this this is like a separate job in and of themselves to do their studies and also to keep up with all the technology that's emerging right now in their, you know, perspective discipline so to have this new position, an individual come in that's focused on that that can help institutionalize it across bone reach out to other federal agencies. The private sector developers, you know across the board, and then advise and and help our scientists I think, you know can be extremely fruitful down the road. Thanks. It sounds like you need a connector there Rodney. Sounds like it, you know someone with that those particular skills to connect. Other ones selecting a leader boy that's I've been on a couple of Dean searches and I have to say we've kind of had times we failed miserably it's it's very hard to pick a leader. Right. Yeah. Now I hear you. A connector is a good word for it. I think. Yeah. Well, this has been an incredibly simple discussion. I think certainly I know as I mentioned earlier. Coast and members, particularly our returning coast members have been really excited and eager to hear the updates since originally being briefed on the first in class study. Brian, thank you and your colleagues for all the work that you put into that presentation highlighting several specific areas of development and more generally running through how bones approaching. Those recommendations very much appreciated. It's 2 o'clock now and we are scheduled to take a break. And then when we get back, we will have some briefings on the new national academies projects that are underway and that are being sponsored by bone. We'll hear from Caroline Bell and Jim about the new standing committee and then from Kelly regarding our very quick turnaround study on wind turbines, hydrodynamics and potential impacts on prey availability. So I will leave those to them to describe, but that's what we have to look forward to on the other side of the break. And then we will keep the remainder of the afternoon relatively short and codes and members will move into a closed session discussion at 3.30. So with that, I invite folks to take 15 minutes. And we will return promptly at 2.15 Eastern. If folks maybe just another moment or so. And real quick Caroline, I'm just going to ask if you thought we were going to expect Jim today or not. He did say that he should be able to make it just for this portion of the meeting. And good thing you didn't say anything about me because I'm here. Very good to have you on. I was looking in the days, but didn't see you. So you've must have risen to the top of the participant list already. That's perfect. Excellent. Well, let's go ahead and get started. I'm thrilled to have two of my national academies colleagues on the line with us today. Caroline Bell, who will be co presenting first with her new committee chair, Jim, Marco and Kelly off big who will be presenting second on her new upcoming study. And I will let each of them introduce themselves, but I just wanted to take a moment to thank them for coming to talk to the committee and others online about these new and upcoming national academies projects that are getting underway. So Caroline with that I'm happy to turn it over to you and Jim for introductions and you're welcome to take it from there. Okay, great. Thank you. As Stacy mentioned my name is Caroline Bell, I'm fairly new to the national academies I'm an associate program officer in the ocean studies board and the responsible staff officer for the new standing committee on offshore wind energy and fisheries that we just had our first meeting with the committee last week so just starting starting this new standing committee. And I'll turn it over and let Jim introduce himself. Sure. Hi everyone, I'm Jim St. Kiriko. I'm a faculty member at the University of California at Davis, I'm a natural resource economist by training. I am also part of the ocean studies board. Right. Let me share these slides. All right, so I guess I'm going to go Caroline. We're good. Yep. First of all, thank you for inviting us to come to sort of brief you. We just got started we actually have had one closed session meeting. And it's the end of my quarter so I believe it was last week but it's all sort of blurry. And I will sort of comment. The committee of course is public you can go on the website for us and you could find everyone's names. I think I, I mean, I think I know I was very impressed by the diversity that we have and the expertise that we have on the committee. We have a list of sort of what each area of experts or covers each member but in fact it's a very multi dimensional then diagram with a lot of us covering multiple topics. Multiple fisheries multiple areas, large marine ecosystems across the US. But, you know, it's going to be a great group we're excited to get going. And I guess we can move on to the statement of task. So, some of these bullets seem very familiar for you I'm sure because they sound and rate read a lot like some of your statement of task. Unlike you though we are very specific with regards to offshore wind and fisheries where you guys seem to be much more general. We are, you know, set up like you to provide export assessment of developments in sort of natural social science and technology with regards to offshore wind and fishery issues. And when I think one of the key things that we are going to be able to do is this last bullet is really go out and engage the stakeholders based on the committee membership and the expertise they have in different fisheries around the country. I really think that this is where, you know, we will shine and be able to really serve as bone is on the stakeholder understanding and insights and really getting them talking to people out in the field. Next slide. And I think, okay, that's it for me. I'll just say we have the two meetings coming up and why don't you talk about what they are and the goals are. Yep, absolutely. So, our first open meeting will be April 13 time right now is three to 430pm but stay tuned to the website for final details on that. And this will be our first sponsor briefing from bomb to the committee so we'll hear from various leadership positions within bomb and then also the plan I believe is to have some regional representation share sort of what's going on in the communities around the country with offshore wind currently so our committee gets a good understanding of sort of where bomb is coming from in, you know, what the starting point is, and then also be time for our committee members to ask some clarifying questions and understand more of what bomb sees the role of our new standing committee on offshore wind energy and fisheries and then the second meeting is our larger spring hybrid meeting and that'll be April 26 and 27. And then at the same time, this will be posted on our website as we plan that and then also more details about the topics for that meeting will be coming down the line as we discuss with bomb and the committee, kind of what the, the first things that we want to cover as a offshore wind and fisheries committee are going to be so I will stop sharing my screen and say so that's all that we had presented do we want to answer have time for questions now or later. Thanks, Carrie. Yes, we can certainly take a few questions now and maybe share some thoughts I think, you know, primarily this group just wants to ensure that we are communicative with you all and sort of develop a relationship to exchange information and exchange thoughts on priorities and how we can be, you know, just stay in the loop about what each of the respective committees is up to and how that might inform each other's work. So, with that, if there's any immediate questions, I see Scott raised his hand, I'll turn to him first. Yeah, I'm always a troublemaker. Welcome to you both and we're very excited. I will say, I think on behalf of cost and we are very excited to have your committee kick off, and we look forward to working with you. There's plenty of plenty of work to do to help boom achieve their mission, and you're focusing on a very important part of that challenge right now. We're glad to have you engaged. And I guess what I would offer is that, you know, we're, we're, we're available to you to be a resource. And I guess I'd also ask a question to our two National Academy leads here. Is there any, any reason that we cannot communicate via email directly with members of the other other committee if we see there are opportunities for the two standing committees to help each other out. I welcome Caroline thought on this as well, but no, I don't think there's any, any reason to to prohibit that or to say no, the one. The one thing I would suggest is that Caroline and or IDC feet on those communications. Absolutely sure that we're all staying in the loop. But there's nothing to guard us from from having that type of engagement and interaction with one another. Yeah. So I want to sort of follow up on that. With regards to how we're going to implement the communication to make sure that we are actually staying engaged with each other and I guess I don't understand. Not yet to understand to know how much overlap are there people that there are interacting the ones that are sort of our chief sponsors and proponents within. Boom. And is that something that would be nice to have overlap on their side also and then how we do you to plan on making sure that we know what you guys are doing like for example you guys did offshore wind it looked like yesterday. Is that anything relevant for us to know as a committee moving forward from that conversation seems like we are going to overlap a lot, even though they are broader I mean offshore wind is fisheries pretty big issue right now.  Absolutely push that. Let me, I thought Jessica Bravo put herself on camera so let me let her respond from the bone perspective and then I'll try to tackle the, the National Academy perspective as well. Sure, and it's very nice to meet you. My name is Jessica Bravo I work for the bones office of environmental programs as the chief of staff. I actually manage bones relationship with the National Academies, I'm the core on the overall ID IQ. And I am a core on a number of additional tasks under that ID IQ. And so I've been, you know, in close communications with Caroline as the committee formation was discussed making sure that the other bone folks were kind of up to date on the data with, you know, bones relationship with the National Academies any constraints that the National Academies might have insights from my experience working with COSA. And I'm going to stay plugged in with that because I want to make sure that the bomb team is supported in that to make sure that bone is showing up strong and providing you guys what you need and making sure that the link exists between these two committees, at least from the bone perspective. And I imagine Stacy and Caroline will will serve a similar role as well and then of course I always make sure to loop in the other National Academy staff as appropriate. So that's from the bone side nice to meet you. And I'll just note one thing that I think can work well. And maybe something we want to our respective committees might want to consider is having some sort of liaison to the other, you know, at least somebody that would be available to join the open sessions of the respective meetings. Certainly I think that can be a strategy. It may not be that we need to have the same person at every meeting it would double their work. But at least to, you know, be thinking about when their dates are and see if we have members from our committee. One or more that that might want to join the open session and you all would be, of course, welcome to join the open sessions of our meetings as well. And of course, Caroline and I, we meet regularly in our regular staff meetings and can certainly communicate beyond that as well. Caroline, I don't know if you have anything to add to that. Yep, I just wanted to kind of reiterate what Stacy has mentioned that, you know, we've done a pretty good job so far as I was forming this committee. We had a meeting. I'm not sure exactly when your last meeting was Stacy, where there were some offshore wind issues that came up that I will share with our offshore wind energy committee. So I think we are going to have a pretty good working relationship and Stacy and I will definitely communicate and keep, you know, the chairs in the loop and then I like the idea of a liaison as well to at least have one member participate in the committee and make sure to share more details about our committee meeting dates times as that gets finalized with with Stacy and the COSA committee. In fact, let me let me also vote for that liaison role that's actually can be very, very useful. In fact, I got on the COSA started out as the liaison from Beezer, the board on earth science and resources to COSA, I haven't gotten off, but at the end this year I finally will. But it can be very, very helpful for continuity and and you know, somebody who has can be the bridge between I think that would be it's a it's a great opportunity to bring the two committees together because we've got plenty to do and we need we need to work we need to work in lockstep and stuff so unless you go I just want to reiterate I agree I think the liaison will be a really good thing and Caroline we could bring that up at our next meeting, but I don't think Chris will use you as a selling point your history for the liaison, the lifelong commitment but. Yeah, I think it's good. No, no, no, no, no. We'll turn to you next. Yeah, thanks. I can't make my hand go down. There you go. Jim hi. Maybe this is part of the remit for the liaison but there are four areas that would be really useful to hear about. And I think this is kind of the way some of the discussions being structured and Rota also and Rosa and that is working waterfront. So what is going on inside a wea in terms of allowed fishing practices or feasible fishing practices. What is the effect of any exclusion from the wea to the immediate area around it. And then what does distilled displacement look like. Thanks. I've jotted down those notes. These days I'm going to learn how to use them. If it hasn't happened yet though. No, I was just going to say last thank you for those, those suggested input. I think certainly Caroline and you all, even with with what seems like a fairly abbreviated statement of task you, you have your hands very full already. We are eager to stand the loop and, you know, watch and understand how you all are approaching some of these topics. And certainly to stay engaged and also to understand where some of the topics that you're covering might have broader implications for bone science and assessments as well and, and, you know, how we can help with that. Any thoughts or questions while we've got Caroline and Jim on the line regarding the upcoming, the new standing committee won't call it upcoming anymore here. Well, I had one more thought for Jim here. And about the, you know, bone bone was recently, of course, moved into offshore wind in a really big way. I mean it's a huge, it's been a huge move for them. And in fact, it seems to be dominating it's the dominant activity for them right now as the dominant focus. But they are adding new program areas beyond that that are going to come on to their remit where fishing it will probably be an issue as well. So if next next fall we just heard from the director yesterday that they will be coming out with their new regs and strategies around offshore carbon capture and sequestration. And what that look like, it could be huge. The areas that are most of interest for that lie in the Atlantic continental shelf and the Gulf of Mexico continental shelf. And they, I suspect we'll hear something about about that so we may have some that could be some interesting issues there. So your learnings as you kick your community off are going to be very relevant. And what might come down for things that we have to consider later on. In addition to that, we're going to be looking, the bonus looking to expanding their activities into farther flung us territories that they haven't had to look after before, and potentially into critical minerals as well and a little further a field of some of the areas around fishing but there may well be significant critical mineral resources for instance up in Alaska where we still have a lot of fishing going on so I think it's going to be important for for bomb that we all keep in touch because I think what you guys are learning could help inform us considerably as well so thanks again we're looking looking forward to working with you all. Thank you that's great. One last opportunity for any additional questions or comments. And I, you know, invite thoughts, thoughts and questions from the bone staff as well. I know we've got lots of folks on the line. So. Well, with that, Jim and Caroline, thank you. I think this is the beginning of the conversation with you all. And, you know, maybe in our closed session today, we can identify 1 or more folks that's able to join your upcoming meetings and then keep them posted in terms of the timing precise timing those. And then I will next turn to Kelly off big who's on the line and will be leading the very fast track study. Looking at the hydrodynamic impact of wind turbine. So Kelly with that I'm very happy to turn it over to you. Thank you. Thanks everyone for having me. I have, we are even earlier on the stage of this project than Caroline's. So I'm just going to give you a quick overview of this study that just got underway, and we'll like Stacy said will be done at a very quick pace. Don't bring our report this fall later this fall in October. So let's see am I sharing the right screen first. You are. Excellent. Okay. So, so bone has asked us to undertake a consensus study to understand the potential effects of offshore fixed bottom wind turbines on the marine hydrodynamics. Specifically in the Nantucket Shoals region, and this is for the purpose of understanding the impacts that these hydrodynamic changes may have on marine mammals and specifically the North Atlantic right will pray. I'll just give you a quick overview of what we're going to do and where we are. So this project is sponsored by bone. It's a 12 month fast track consensus study, and that that fast track designation for us means that we go to the front of the line. And then we do it during any of the academy's process type thing so it enables the committee, the committee knows to work fast and then the academies is behind us to support us and getting this work done as quickly as possible. The performance period, it just started March 2 of this year and it will end March 1 of 2024. And then to assemble a committee of 10 to 12 experts. The call for nominations closed last Wednesday on the 15. And we've been very busy sorting through the nominations and interviewing candidates to put together a matrix of committee members that cover the expertise and in the diversity that we need to complete the statement of tests. So this committee is planned to have four meetings in total for two day meetings, two of those will be hybrid. Hopefully, many, many people can travel and meet in person and then two of those meetings will be virtual. As I said, the pre publication, which is the final period text of the report will be due in early October. And then it'll be handled development obviously also released to the public at that time. And then our final report is due by February 1 2024. And if anybody has any questions just raise your hand. Let's see. Sorry. There we go. Okay, so here's our statement of tasks. The committee will start by conducting a literature review to summarize the state of science regarding a direct and indirect effects of offshore wind turbine structures on hydrodynamic processes, and then the scale of that change in to natural variability. The committee will then comment on the extent to which we can estimate changes to the hydrodynamics, as well as the resulting changes to ecosystem dynamics, and looking at models currently used in environmental impact statement analysis, the committee will be asking questions like how did the methods assumptions and conclusions from those models translate to the nantucket shows area. How well do existing models meet the needs. Should we be looking at other models. And what should be done in the future to be able to assess the hydrodynamic impacts of wind turbine generators in this area. And here's our project timeline. I kind of circled where we are right now. We are in the process of vetting candidates and putting together that committee slate. I'm trying to finish that by the end of this month so that we can get approvals and outside committee membership and have the first meeting. Ideally that first meeting will be in April. And we will just keep chugging along a meeting a month, basically, and sending our report out for review in the late summertime frame, responding to review in September and releasing this to bone as soon as we're able. And I've met with a lot of potential committee members and though everyone realizes this is a little aggressive everyone's not no one's been frightened off yet. So, you know it's a tight statement of task it's focused and no people seem to be appreciative of the need. I'm excited to join. So, we're very excited to kick this off. And I think I might have understood. Yep. We have a project website like all our projects where we will post the committee membership and that's where if you had a comment on the committee. You could submit it there we'll have upcoming meetings and registration links and everything like that. And then we'll have the committee's work on a project website. And you're always welcome to reach out to me if you have any questions or comments. And yeah. Thanks for having me and I welcome any questions or comments you have now. Thank you Kelly. Thank you for bringing folks up to speed and helping illustrate just how quick of a turnaround. This will be for you all thrilled to hear that your committee membership searches are going well despite the intimidating time frame. Any, any questions from our co some members or guests. Let's go ahead. Thank you Kelly. Um, is, is there a connection between this work and I think it was bone funded but I'm not sure. A new study through the stellar can make national and sanctuary of driving factors for right whale based on oceanography in the southern Gulf of Maine. I want to let bones speak to this more about this topic has come up that there hasn't been a specific coordinated effort with the study but if the folks from bone want anything further to add to that. Yeah, I'm also just wondering, it's interesting because it's such a different system and I forgot who told me yesterday that they were eating gamarids. So, thank you so much. Thank you. I think I thought you'll go did you raise your hand or were you just otherwise reacting. Go ahead. Oh, we can't hear you. No. Could you be double muted by chance. There another. Well, we are definitely interested in your input. So if you'd like to put it in the chat or raise your hand again when you. I can hear you now. Can you hear me now. Yes. Yes. Oh, okay that's weird I didn't do anything I just, maybe it's the time. Yeah, um, thank you for the question less so um, oh, so as far as bone environmental studies program. I was concerned this physical oceanography so that the relationship or the effect of physical oceanography on a lot of the creatures that we are concerned about have come to us very rapidly so we had had. So, every time there is a new coal area or potential wind energy area comes up we did do baseline physical oceanography study but not necessarily in the context of how the prey aggregation might happen so that became a hot topic very recently so this is coming up. So, even though there's not an explicit relationship with the main the Gulf of Maine study and this current study that Kelly just talked about. It is all within the big context of now we are, we have a concerted effort to understand the physical oceanography in the context of the pre aggregation. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, thanks Kelly for that description so quick question limited to fixed bottom turbines. How, why was that decision made because certainly you know we're going to need to deal with floating soon enough. I can I can let you answer that one. Yeah, you can jump in because I know you know a lot more context than I do but I do know that this had to do with timing of the study we needed the information for some of the project areas that are in the New England area which are farther along in their advancement. They do know that we have a longer term view on this question as well and we do have ideas about how we can build upon this work, you go, what would you add. I think that that's it. Thank you. Okay, perfect. And then, you know, to the, to the fizz bio connections you know the models got to have the biology in it so that that's not so clear to me is that in the mandate to go. So the study that Kelly talked about or the further other physical oceanography studies in general. Well in the, in the description it says, you know, will it affect the pre fields and less asked question about pre field that. So I'm wondering, does the consideration of the models include those that go all the way through the biology. Yes, yes, so the, as the Kelly's current study that Kelly's reviewing, as well as the physical oceanography study that we're planning we're designing right now for 23 as well 24 and beyond. Yes, the, the biogeochemical models are going to be part of them. Thank you. Yeah, so. Well, thanks Kelly for giving this overview. Given what we heard yesterday and the discussions we had about the tremendous threat to the right whales, all along the East Coast. So participating, I assume Jessica this is this study is really driven by specific decisions bone has to make pretty shortly relative to the, the next steps in the Nantucket project right. And this is one of your more mature ones further along than many. How to sort of two questions, how. How similar is the art is are the water depths and, and, you know, turban height of Nantucket to other projects in the nearby area how easily we will be able to apply some of the lessons learned from this one to some of the other decisions and projects you have coming up. And, and is there is there any thought about trying to do some sensitivity analysis here, or why you're out there to just sort of see what it would be, I know because I know some places you're looking at bigger, bigger options for bigger turbines and particularly with some of the newer projects that might be in similar water depths and similar spacing is that is that is that part of the scope as well. So that's really for Kelly or, or Jessica, or any of you. Yeah, I'll let bone speak to the, to the other areas. Okay, so, so as far as the biogeochemical, so the physical regimes and as a result of biogeochemical regimes are going to be very different depending on the depth depending on the relationship to the coastline, and how the turbines are going to be built out so obviously the turbine built out can be something that you can model based on your physical and biogeochemical regimes but those need to be established fairly sites, specifically. So you'll probably need to do a similar kind of study and modeling for the other projects as well as that. Correct. This is serial number one then of a kind of an analytical approach you're going to be replicating and in this fiscal year 23 for example we are now designing physical geography and biogeochemical modeling study in the coast of California where recently there are these activities there. So yes we are doing in all areas. Okay, so you're anticipating this gets back to the other, the question we had before about getting looking at some, some floating wind sites as well how that's on the radar spring as a follow up to this one. So, so one of one of the issues I think this came up at maybe two course meetings ago, that there was a lot of discussion about how the wind turbine might interact the air sea interaction due to the wind turbines might affect the coastal upward so that was specific to the California coast. So that's, that's part of that study that I just mentioned. Okay. The spacing here I'm sorry the spacing here is a one mile grid is that right. It's a one mile grid right the turbines for California or in in Nantucket they're one mile apart. That I don't know that'll be a question for Kelly or Jessica perhaps. I'm going to interview the product design envelope for that specific area. I don't know Kelly have you heard gotten that level of detail yet I assume not yet. No, we need to get that. Okay, it looks like Bill. So he might have. Yes, Scott I think, yeah, you know what we're talking about. Actually, I haven't read the details of this one but we're talking about the leases that are around Nantucket Scholl so you know number them and I believe I believe they're all one nautical mile space. That's what I thought. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thanks. Any additional questions for Kelly regarding the study as it's wanted to go forward. Any questions for us as you're, you know, putting your committee together or any, you know, things that we can help with and in that regard or in the early meetings. We'd be happy to do so. So, keep us posted. Yeah, I will. I'll, I'll let you know once the committee is assembled I don't think I can need anything right now but as we're planning for our information gathering session which will be that second meeting, I think that your input would be most welcome. I just want to make sure that you all have the agendas for the first open meeting as well. Excellent. Yeah, so thank you. Yeah, thank you very much. Thanks for joining. I see you're on mute. It's not my day today. I just wanted to thank you Kelly again. And also to thank Caroline and Jim for joining us for this session too. I know both of these projects have been, you know, highly anticipated by our group and certainly things we want to keep on the radar and keep track of as well as they progress and evolve. I think we're scheduled at three o'clock to have some concluding remarks and I just, you know, again, we had a pretty lengthy day yesterday really focused on issues surrounding. Acoustic impacts from when energy development and some of the recent strandings and other incidents with with whales in particular and other stations. And I think it was a really productive discussion. There's still a lot left to chew on in that in that regard. And I think we're all very eager still to see how how bone feels with some of the issues that they're encountering and some of the communications issues in particular. I know that came up yesterday and it's something that we're happy to help folks think through as well. And then today has been a call. What a great session we had this morning hearing the updates from first in class Brian and Jessica and Jonathan and others. Thank you for putting that all together. And then and then hearing from my National Academy colleagues getting to get a flavor of what's to come with each of those projects. So, I just, again, want to thank everybody that the pad of hand and pulling this meeting together and want to be sure to keep folks aware of things that are up and coming for us. We will have our next meeting will be our summer meeting celebrating the 50th anniversary. I believe if I've got that right. Jessica and Rodney and others for the environmental sciences program. So, really looking forward to potentially having that meeting in person in DC and getting to see what new project foam is proposing or considering proposing putting forward for the next national studies list. So, that's what's next on our calendars. I know, Jessica, we had talked following our last meeting about a potential workshop on the cumulative impacts of the human environment. I think we're still maybe waiting to hear to see if that's something bone would like to pursue. Otherwise, I know we'll be in touch further about the fall and spring fall 2023 spring 2024 meetings as well. But that's, that's all I've got Jessica anything you turned your camera on so I want to give you a chance if there's anything you wanted to add. Nothing to add on updates but just a huge gratitude for the COSA members all of the external guests who came in to provide some informal advice and a huge welcome to all of our new COSA members we look forward to getting to further know you it's been really great seeing kind of what questions you have already. And so, well, welcome. I'll turn it to Scott and rod for any additional concluding thoughts or remarks. I just want to extend again. My thanks to to the everybody involved all the folks that at bone who've been participating and making these very helpful presentations yesterday and today they were all excellent. We learned a lot are outside panelists from the other agencies, folks in the other agencies as well as the external panelists great contributions much appreciated and and looking and and also this afternoon learning about what else is going on with the Academy on the on the wind and bone front is very helpful looking forward to working with with both of those, those two new groups. Looking forward to seeing all of all of you at bone in the DC area this summer. So that'll be exciting fingers crossed. Welcome to echo that thank you everyone at bone. I know it's a lot of work putting these things together and also in the national academies for all your hard work. Thanks to our external experts that was their contributions are always terrific. Thanks to Caroline and Jim and Kelly this afternoon. I