All right, we're going to wrap up our couple of days with the answers to everything. Marine Spatial Planning, yay. Seriously, we did design this in discussions with the planning committee to come to this conclusion because you can avoid issues of energy and the trade-offs that we're all talking about in these different venues when you think about fisheries management. And you certainly can't avoid the term marine spatial planning. And the intersection of that process with fisheries management and the other existing management regimes out there in the ocean right now. So we've assembled this panel to kind of bring us from our historical look at the beginning of yesterday, sort of up to the latest headlines today. And we've got a great panel to help us do that. Dennis Nixon is our moderator, he's also a member of my planning committee, member of my advisory board. What else do you do? I don't know. Dennis is around a lot and we're very appreciative for our process. Our partnership with URI and the joint degree program that we're able to offer our students. He's been with URI since 1976, the author of many articles, papers, reports, casebooks, and is also responsible for administering all the operations of the research vessel endeavor which operates out of URI. To his left is Don McGlory, who's an attorney with Motley Rice and he is an extremely experienced litigator, everything from asbestos to tobacco to 9-11. When I first approached Don about speaking on this he said, well, I don't know anything about ocean stuff. I'm like, good, because we got that covered here. We've got the ocean lawyer people here, but we've asked Don to be part of a little reflection here on intersections of what I'm calling old energy, oil and gas. He's active in representing fishermen down in the Gulf of Mexico at this point. It has a tremendous amount of experience to offer. To his left is Dan Collin, and Dan comes to us from New Jersey. He's the principal and president of Fisherman's Energy, which is the new energy piece of the puzzle. It's a fisherman-owned offshore wind company. It's also principal and president of Atlantic Cape Fisheries and East Coast Vertically Integrated Fishing Company. He's really taken an interesting role in the whole offshore wind conversation. So he's going to offer that perspective. We're then going to shift for another perspective on offshore wind, I think. Dave Froula is a partner at Kelly Dry and Warner down in their DC office, and they're very active up here in representing fishing industry in all kinds of management and regulatory matters. And he's employed now, well, his firm is employed in representing some fishermen that are involved in litigation relating to the Cape Wind Offshore Wind Facility. To his left is Grover Fugate. And Grover is the executive director of the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council, recently completed just a little project that kept him a little bit busy for the last couple years. And that's the Rhode Island Ocean Samp. I'm not even going to describe it. I'll let you describe it, but I am going to make you stick to your time limit, Grover. So you can't describe it too much. But I've asked Grover to talk. There aren't many managers who've actually done a marine spatial planning process. And we're pretty unique here in New England that we've had two states, not one but two, that have actually undergone some sort of a comprehensive planning process. And so I've asked Grover to talk about the intersection of fisheries and the thinking about that in a state-run coastal marine spatial planning process. And finally we're going to end up with Eric back again for more. He's not going to talk about the catch share policy, but I've asked him to offer the federal perspective on what this new world means with the executive order, regional planning bodies and the intersection of fisheries. So Don, we'll let you lead it off here. Giving a lawyer 15 minutes is dangerous. I really did have that reaction. I wasn't quite sure what I could contribute, though when I got here and started listening to the presentations, I was absolutely certain I didn't know what I could contribute I'm a lawyer and one of the things I enjoyed most about preparing for this was the cliches that I could throw at you. I got to tell you, when you have a disaster like what happened in the Gulf, it does attract a certain type of fishing and it's a fishing of plenty of lawyers for cases. And unfortunately there are a lot of people out there who have truly gone out to try to figure out how to represent the interests of people in a genuine way who were affected by what happened down in the Gulf. But the temptation for me to say things like sharks trolling in waters and things like that was overwhelming. So if that happens, forgive me, I'm a product of my father and he's got that kind of humor, speaking of which, my father and my four brothers are all doctors. So coming back from lunch, I will start with one. Their favorite joke is what's the difference between a catfish and a lawyer? One's a bottom-dwelling, scum-sucking scavenger, the other one's just a fish. My response to them is always, what's the difference between God and a surgeon? God never thought he was a surgeon. All right, so lunch is digested. So yeah, I got involved with BP not because of any background I have in the fields that everybody here has such impressive backgrounds in the area. I have no background at all. I have a boat that I don't use. But I was lead counsel. I am lead counsel for all the victims of September 11th in the tragedy that happened almost 10 years ago. In that process, I got very involved in compensation issues for victims of terrible disasters. As a result, Ken Feinberg, the current special master, or I forgot what title they've given him now, but the person who's running the BP fund and I have wrestled and argued and agreed for years about what you do to compensate people who are affected. When this BP event happened, Justice Department of course got involved right away and went to BP and said, we've got criminal issues, we've got civil issues, we've got damage issues, we need to sit down and talk. One of the things that came out of that was a commitment by BP to put at least currently $20 billion aside, $5 billion every year for four years to pay the victims of what happened down there. How that money got paid out was a very debated, still is a very much debated issue and I serve on a committee. It's very much involved in trying to define for Ken Feinberg and others what would be a meaningful way to help the fishermen and others on the coast who are affected by the BP oil spill. And those negotiations are very contentious and there is to be no confusion. While President Obama put Ken Feinberg in that position, Ken Feinberg has paid about $100 million a month to buy BP to gather as many claims as possible and hopefully gather as many releases of claims as possible over the next several months so that the liability for what happened in the Gulf is controlled. I can't do a presentation without exploiting my daughter and when I was told I was doing the first presentation after lunch on a Friday, I took advantage of this but my daughter is 18 months old and often I go to her for important advice and this was advice about the off-season and baseball and all of the World Series has ended and I asked her what she thought about our Red Sox and their prospects for next year. Gloria, what do you think of the Yankees? The shark. So there's nobody here from DCYF is there? So this spill happens, people are injured and now we've got to decide what we do or what we do for these folks. Of course the injuries go everywhere from the water to humans and lives lost. BP of course initially came out strong and said that this was something that they could not have foreseen. That is a dream for a person like me to disprove. Of course it goes back, there are millions of examples but going back even to 1979 in the same Gulf, very similar events, 10 months of spill and over 3 million barrels of water entering the Gulf unlike the estimates and I know that we have much more accomplished people who have really studied this and actually the endeavor, actually finding the plumes that can give you better details of facts about what actually happened in the Gulf but the idea of this not happening before being unforeseen is ridiculous. Of course in the Mexican spill in 1979, 162 miles of US beaches were affected and of course those have implications for industries from fishing to the service industries. BP's safety violations are legion. The blowout protectors that were involved in the BP spill this year had not actually fully been inspected and properly inspected since the year 2000. Going back to 2000 BP has been cited for so many different violations from leaks and blowout systems to falsifying inspections to refinery explosions to Alaska pipeline leaks. So we certainly have plenty of information about BP and its approach to its disasters. The role that BP played in trying to put this as a forefront issue for the industry though is something that very much is a focus of the different types of litigation that resulted from what happened in April. The testimony from folks like the president of BP talking about the importance of the blowout preventors is very important. They talk about it as the key failsafe system. There was reports, there were reports just two weeks before the event of leakage going on, nothing having been done and also we of course have a treasure trove of comments from Mr. Hayward. It happened that they should deserve something like this. The whole issue according to him was the ultimate safety device, the blowout preventor failing. If it didn't fail he said it would have been a very serious industrial accident but we wouldn't be dealing with the spill. He said but fortunately 24 days after, it's such a big body of water that the volume of oil and dispersant we're putting into it is tiny so it really won't be that big of an effect. It's only on the surface, there aren't any plumes, of course URI disproved that and there's no evidence that oil was suspended in large masses beneath the surface. Meanwhile we've got a 22 mile long, 6 mile wide and more than a thousand feet deep plume reported by the University of South Florida and other southeastern educational institutions and of course the University of Rhode Island. There were predictions early out by BP that this was going to be a very modest effect on the environment. The Gulf of Mexico response plan they were bragging about was four inches thick, therefore it must have been sufficient. My favorite part about their response plan is that they were absolutely committed in their documents that they were going to protect all the walruses in the Gulf of Mexico. I haven't lived there in three million years. So according to the testimony of at least U.S. Representative Markey, the only technology that he thought the oil company seemed to be relying on were the Xerox machines to put together the response plans. Of course when finally confronted with their history, finally confronted with their conduct or lack of conduct, the president of the company said well this wasn't our fault.  So it was Hallibur and it was TransOcean and the blame game starts. So who is responsible? Of course BP is there and under the Oil Protection Act, BP would be the company that's responsible for paying out any claims that come out of it and then there's a subsequent process under the OPA legislation for them to go after who they think might be contributorily involved or liable and the primary players in that blame game would be BP, TransOcean and Hallibur. And of course we all hope that Mr. Haywood gets his life back. So the fund, the angles, the different ways to deal with the claims of my clients, the fishermen, the hotels, the condo owners, the restaurants, there are three basic options. One is the BP fund itself. The BP fund actually started by BP before Ken Feinberg was involved and it had a very different life than it does right now and I'll describe the differences a little later. The Oil Protection Act is something that basically came out of the Exxon experience and it has plenty of limitations but it's designed to streamline some of the claims processing of those affected by such a disaster. And of course the plaintiff lawyers who convinced their clients that the right redress or these two other no-fault systems, that is the BP fund and the OPA claims process are no-fault systems. You don't have to any burden as a claimant to prove what happened or didn't happen or whose fault it is. You just have to prove your claim at some level for the most part. But with the multi-district litigation there are burdens involved but for those folks who are looking for more than just the compensation component of redress, that is those folks who want to do the investigation of what actually happened, discover what happened, get some accountability, and maybe have some change involved or have some resulting change involved for the preventability of such acts. They file lawsuits throughout the country and there's something called the Multi-District Litigation Panel which assigns all those litigations from the different district courts, federal courts throughout the country to one judge that recently happened and it's before Judge Barbier in New Orleans. And so that litigation, mostly on behalf of bigger commercial interests that wouldn't go through voluntary funds, that litigation is moving forward as we speak. So BP set up a claim process right away and they committed that we'll talk to people, determine which documents they need and we'll be in touch within four days and get them a check on the spot. We'll talk to people, determine what they need and the reality is that the BP process didn't ever really set up and move out claims at all. In fact, many of the claimants that we had represented were telling them, we can't rate you a check, we don't have any checks yet. This is two months after the disaster. These are fishermen who don't necessarily have the savings accounts to live for months without income or without a livelihood and that time was very, very critical. And of course there's some issues about how you prove how much money you've lost. Some folks in the fishing industry aren't necessarily very good at accounting or keeping records for tax purposes. Proving a claim up with a tax record is a very serious issue and it's a claim issue that is involved in any kind of lawsuit but when BP set up its claims facilities, they made sure that they had police officers surrounding the facility constantly and in some people's perspective it was an intimidation tactic. Whether that's true or not, the BP fund as administered by BP itself was not effective. It got very little money out the door and it had to be dealt with directly by this fund created with the imprimata of the approval of the President of the United States and Ken Feinberg was put in place. Since that happened the fund now has moved out. My role in working with the fund was to help negotiate some of the protocol for emergency payments that is what types of proofs were needed, what kinds of claims would be given, what kind of offsets would be taken against the claim and these are some of the details as of a few days ago anyway. The fund's payment and success since Ken Feinberg got involved. Ken Feinberg initially anticipated that there would be a total number of claims of 250,000 that is throughout the entire process. Once he opened his doors to claims processes, over 300,000 claims got filed. Of those, 89,000 had been approved and they break down in various ways and essentially the claims are either made by individuals or businesses for their loss. The emergency payments range in different types of values but essentially there are removal cleanup costs, none of those have been paid, injury to real property or personal property, some of those are being paid far and away. The biggest number of emergency payments made to date are in the form of losses to businesses and individuals and also those you'll see are in the range of $0 to $25,000 if you're an individual or $0 to $100,000 if you're a business but the types of folks who are making those claims, first of all from the states, Louisiana so far has the largest number of claims filed. A little surprisingly, Florida has the next highest and not the spill took the longest to get to Florida but you'll see from there it then goes on Alabama, Mississippi, Texas and others. The individual claims, phishing actually wasn't the largest basis or approved claim amounts paid out, it really was a service industry on an individual basis. Those people worked in restaurants and hotels and things of the like but if you get into the business loss earnings, phishing at that point, then the largest number of claims paid by far on a business level were to the phishing industry they did about $332,000,000,000 and the total payout to date by this fund is about 1.5 billion but if you add up the individual and business you're talking about a half a billion dollars so far just an emergency payments going out to the phishing industry. What does that mean? That means we've got a lot of claims coming. This is just the initial space and emergency payment does not generate a release of your claim. The emergency payment only gets you by theoretically for a month or six months and the net effect of that is that we're going to get lots and lots of more claims and the amounts are going to go higher. The fund is completely voluntary by BP. They can stop payment at any time. In fact they threatened to do so very recently and as a result the Obama administration lifted the moratorium on drilling in the Gulf a month early so that BP and others could start their drilling now. So we anticipate that the fund will require a lot more than $20 billion in the end. So is it any safer? Is there anything we can learn from this? Is there anything we should be doing on a policy side? I'm just a plaintiff's lawyer. I hope you all who are much smarter than me and have studied this help us find an answer but this does affect real human beings, businesses, family businesses and a culture down in the Gulf that hopefully we can do something about. Thank you very much. My name is Dan Cohen. I'm a principal of Fisherman's Energy and also Atlantic Cape Fisheries. I'm going to try to do this relatively quickly. I have a lot of slides but I'm going to try to speak as quickly as I can. Be in my 15 minutes and give me a few minutes of warning because I'm going to drop right to the end where I have slides specifically for this group here. I want to say that the whole purpose of this, I think about this has a lot to do with the nexus between commercial fishing and other uses. It's really a question of the nexus between fish and energy. I would like to quote someone who spoke at a different conference in California where I spoke which really is the reason why we have such big problems with trying to resolve these issues is really how do we want to save a fish and really we should all wear condoms. Be clear is that the problem we have with all of our problems here is that of a growing population putting demands on limited resources and if we could somehow try to get balance in that, that's really the policy issues we're all dealing with. There's how to balance a growing population and growing needs with a limited resource. So I'm going to speak about a paradigm shift led by myself and other people in the fishing industry having to do with offshore wind.  I'm going to give you a history of how I developed where we are today and what we think the implications are for policy and questions for you about policy. To be clear, we're a community based, by community based I'm saying we're owned all the equity and all the money so far and fisherman's energy has come from myself and people like myself, you'll see that in a minute. We initially were opposed to wind. It was first proposed in 2003 in New Jersey. It was first proposed up here in 2001 by Jim Gordon. We can talk about that a little bit. We were initially opposed but over time and you'll see that we basically decided that we could either be victims of change or agents of change because we decided quickly that the decision to build offshore wind would be a societal decision or not and if society wanted it, it would happen whether or not we were opposed or not. And as we began to look at our competitors and what they brought to solving the puzzle, we came to the conclusion that we had lots of things to bring to this picture that they didn't have. We didn't look like real estate developers. We actually had employees, wood front properties, people who are capped in terms of their effort who are looking to take their skill set and change it. We had built successful businesses and you'll see that. Nope, we'll go back one real quickly. Why offshore wind? Why fisherman's energy? It's because where we work. Why offshore wind? It's primarily because society is looking for a renewable energy. If you look at all the federal and state studies for the east coast of the United States, we don't have alternatives. We don't have onshore wind. We don't have untapped rivers. All the studies say that if we need renewable energy, which I think we can probably come to the conclusion that we do, that the only real options for dense energy comes from offshore, energy offshore wind. In terms of our businesses, we actually go to fish to fish. Go to sea to fish, but we're actually fishing for dollars. Who are the people who have proposed this and are involved in the company? There are principles of east coast fishing companies who invested individually with me. Between us, we own over 100 vessels. Between us, we have locations and facilities in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and Virginia. We're basically trying to develop a business that will be built side by side with our existing fishing businesses. Part of this comes to looking at a different paradigm because I would like to be clear that offshore wind and offshore energy development will have significant long-term cumulative impacts, which I'd like to talk about near the end. And one of the things that we've tried to do is put together a paradigm that would say, how could we do it differently? One, trying to use smart setting techniques to try to cite them in a manner that would have minimal impact or at least reduce the impact, enable investment by the industry itself, enable retraining for people within the industry, continue to work with fisheries management and with fishery science, extensively, and also develop a paradigm of saying that we would mitigate and expect other people to mitigate long-term negative impacts, which is something that other developers aren't talking about and we'd like to see adopted.  We can only do this if we can build a world-class team, and we've done that, and I'll explain the competitive environment involved in, but without going through our people who are working with us, and we have many more than this at this point, but we've brought on board an example, which is AMEC, which is our lead engineers, our 12th largest engineering firm in the world. They're from London. They have 6,000 employees in North America. They designed the first offshore wind farm in England. They're doing 200, 500 megawatt wind farms for Centrica, the largest utility in England. Without going through our team players, I can say that example, our COO is the previous COO of Khan Edison Unregulated Development, and the company did 7,000 megawatts of development. What started the process? I'm going to try to go through this quickly. Again, in 2003, the State of New Jersey did a study looking for renewable energy, and came to the conclusion that the only real resource was offshore wind. When it was proposed, New Jersey's fishing industry, along with American Littoral Society, New Jersey Autopond, opposed it. Therefore, the governor put a moratorium on offshore wind in 2004, appointed a blue room panel. The panel reported back to the new governor in 2006, saying that reality, we don't know the impacts on birds, whales, dolphins, or fishermen. We do need renewable energy. Let's build at least one wind farm. It will be a pilot. We'll do environmental monitoring, and we'll know what the impacts are. During this same period of time, I led an effort amongst the fishing industry of New Jersey to say should we continue to be opposed or not. We quietly formed a company. We started adding to our team. We actually do this, and again, most people don't recognize the scale of development, which we'll talk about in a minute. But there's two parts of developing offshore wind and two parts of the environmental community. There's one part of the environmental community that now fairly is clear that global warming is a reality, and that would like to see offshore energy developed as quickly as possible. There's another part of the environmental community that says we have to do it, but in a manner that's consistent with birds, whales, and dolphins to make sure our impacts are mitigated. The blue room panel recommended an environmental baseline similar to the ocean stamp process you'll hear about. The state of New Jersey began studies in 2008, did 23 months of studies for birds, whales, and dolphins in an area 72 miles long and 20 miles wide, and that has now been clear where these initial projections are the impacts would be de minimis, especially for our first project. What have we done? In October of 2007, we solicited a private developer to build or propose to build a pilot wind farm. Those proposals were due on March 3rd, 2008, so now about more than two and a half years ago, we became first publicly known when we submitted a competitive proposal. There were five proposals submitted, and we submitted a unique proposal which has really changed New Jersey's policies and I think will over time change federal policies. Everyone proposed large scale 350 megawatt projects offshore in federal waters. Put this in context, the 350 megawatt wind farm in federal waters will cost about $1.4 billion. We quickly realized that none of this made sense. Number one is in 2007 when it was first solicited, the largest offshore wind farm in the world was Horn's Rev, it was only 160 megawatts, so the idea that you would build a pilot to be twice as big as the largest in the world made no sense. We knew no one would be financing us or anything else. We were the only company that proposed a two phase solution, a project in state waters which would be controlled. Again, part of this has to do with the regulatory environment. I'll go faster. We're doing okay. The regulatory environment in federal waters is controlled by MMS. We proposed a small project in state waters, six turbines, and it will be about $160 million, $180 million project, and we are very far along. We're out right now as we have potential to build. We believe that not only the first offshore wind farm off of New Jersey, but actually the first in the country and we'll talk to you more about that. But to be clear, no one will ever build offshore wind without someone paying for it. You can't do it without societal choices because, quite frankly, it is a societal hedge in terms of, A, the cost of energy and two is the environmental benefits from removing fossil fuels from your generation source of fossil fuels. There are not federal policies. I would tell you now because of what's happened in the most recent election, I don't project there'll be federal policies. It'll be clear for a while. It'll only happen initially with state policies. We pioneered in the state of New Jersey the first legislation. We helped write it. It was passed in June. It was signed by the governor in August. It delineates a pathway for 1,100 megawatts of offshore wind and it's a demonstration project. It was an idea of what we're proposing at Offal Atlantic City, six turbines directly off of Atlantic City. Most people up here are never going to always ask about public support. The reality is that this is very different. I think it's a different time frame now than 2001 when Jim Gordon first proposed and it's also a different environment here off of New Jersey. We commissioned public opinion polling with our local university or college. They used Zogby. We did visualizations. You can't see them very well, but there are turbines they're off of the Dink City Boardwalk. The surveys were done in the month of July. Separating tourists from locals. You'll see that both tourists and locals, both from Margate, Brignantine, Atlantic City all the local communities had overwhelming support. One of the most interesting questions was if you were a tourist, would you come back less often? The vast majority of people were coming for casino gambling and go to the beach. They didn't care, but 4% would come back less often. 19% would come back more often. From the community's point of view, from the business center's point of view, not only would we be producing renewable energy, we'd be creating tourism. Part because of this, we have significant support from the city of Atlantic City where they're hoping to rebrand themselves as the birthplace of offshore wind and we have a lot of work to do. Part of what we need to do is apply for permits. We're in our permitting phase now. We're pretty far along in our permitting phase with both the Army Corps of Engineers and with the State of New Jersey and currently in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and Nimsunoa concerning both birds, whales, dolphins, fish, et cetera. As part of our program, one, we are doing environmental monitoring where we launched our first buoy on April 29th. We've begun pre-construction monitoring with a minimum of one year pre-construction. It looks like it'll be probably closer to two, but one year pre-construction and then two years post-construction studies to look at the impacts on whales, birds, dolphins, fish and fishermen. We began as May 1st doing transect surveys weekly looking for the presence of species. Our acoustic monitoring will begin in December, which then will continue then for at least three years for whales and dolphins. We've put up avian radar that will off the steel pier that's going out over our site. If you read in the press, you'll be seeing about this Atlantic Sea in the background. We just performed all of our geotechnical and geophysical investigations. We are deploying the first in the world commercial application of a floating lidar, vertical lidar for wind assessment. It's the first commercial application in the world of this. We're using Lockheed Martin, the first application of other technology. We'll go quickly here. Just to give you context, that's our state water project, which we hope to build in 2000, be operating in 2012. Our federal water project, this is May in 2000 when I had more here. In 2009, we're receiving the first interim leases from Ken Salazar and the governor for offshore interim leases to give you two minutes. Okay, so we're there almost. So basically this is kind of a context, but what's going to be happening cumulatively and the things that will be interesting that will appear beyond this, what our long-term plans are? So what is the cumulative impact of offshore windforms? First, you have New Jersey's goal of 3,000 megawatts. It'll be at least 150 square miles of turbines, at least 600 to 1,000 turbines by the year 2020. Clearly, foundations will become our official reef, so there'll be an improvement for someone. But there'll be clearly negative impacts in terms of your ability of mobile gear fishermen who are probably 99% of our fisheries in New Jersey to operate around them. But it's bigger than that. What is the cumulative impact of offshore windforms? You might have read that Google is proposing with two other companies to build a transmission backbone. It'll go from actually, it'll go beyond New York, but from New York all the way down to Virginia. They're talking about 6,000 megawatts of transmission capability. Again, you can see them visualizing six windforms there. But let's talk about still the scope. And again, that 6,000 megawatts would be about 1,500 turbines. But if you think about what public goals currently are, one in the United Kingdom, 40% of electricity in England are talking about being produced by offshore wind. There'll be 9,000 turbines. And the recent DOE government report talks about 54 gigawatts of offshore wind off of the east coast of New Jersey of the United States. There'll be 10,000 turbines. So what are the cumulative impacts of such a thing? How will we decide about who builds these backbones and where? And do we have other options or are these the only options for renewable energy? You've been talking about yesterday and today or the Magnusnack MPA, ASA, MPA. So I'm going to give you some comments about in relationship to offshore wind and fishing. I mean, I think all of these are societal choices and values enacted by Congress. Each act of Congress was imbued by a special interest or focus driven by a specific perceived public value, such as fish, fishermen, EFH mammals. But none of them are prioritized. So part of the whole problem we have with this whole process is that there's no prioritization as to which value is needed. And that, in my mind, is one of the biggest problems why fisheries management and the other uses are going to be stymied because we don't really have a slide rule how to make these societal choices. An example of that is you have, an example here in terms of fishery management plans focus. A lot of the focus we talk about today all talks about how communities look and very little discussion about energy. And yet here we have one department that builds 10,000 structures potentially offshore and at the same time we're managing fisheries to be inefficient. And a good example from my point of view is just last week the New England Council voted against the leasing of days at sea and trips and scalp fishery imposing continued inefficiencies where we're going to waste the resource, waste paint, fuel, et cetera. So how do we weigh these computing public values? You have ocean zoning and marine spatial planning that you can do. The next one later on Eric will speak about the presidential order. My own belief is that this presidential order is the end product of three groups many of which are represented here speaking past each other. Those are commercial fishing interests who basically were opposed to ocean zoning because what, why? Because we perceive as if, and again I own fishing guzzles, the fishing industry perceives that ocean zoning will basically only has one choice of compensation and without any real mitigating factor. So in that respect, and two is that commercial fishing at a certain level has opposed ecosystem management. Not because they don't believe that it might not be a good thing but that we perceive that the public is one believing that ecosystem management can work. But in fact the public is not funding science and if you don't fund good science how can you actually make good decisions? So it would be poor to support a structure that doesn't have the tools. So here you have the fishing industry opposed. Then you have offshore wind industry which opposed ocean zoning because, I'm almost done, right? Okay, this is my last slide. I just wanted to say that again the same thing where they saw federal policy driven by MMS Congress saying that they would write rules in 18 months. It took the MMS 44 months to write the rules and still has not implemented a way of permitting offshore windform so they're now talking about a nuclear power plant that doesn't make a lot of sense or coal plant. And then you have the environmental community that I believe had the opportunity to forge some sort of partnership with these other groups and basically saw that they won an election and therefore they could do this through an executive order but in reality are creating something that has no fundamental legislative background, no regulatory background and therefore how it actually operates. In reality I see actually a less and less efficient system without well defined goals that would be working the common purpose. So these are just questions. What will things look like? How will people make decisions? Are there legislative fixes? Is there a way to somehow combine these things more efficiently? I don't know. But I would say as both a user of this both in the fishing industry and from trying to achieve public goals I'd say the public is doing a poor job of expressing itself. Thank you. Thank you.  I can get that at home. But let me tell you where it leads. Because I went to church our kids go to went to preschool in our church and I walked in one day when my son was four and one of our friends walked up to me and said, buddy learn learn something really interesting.  I said, oh great. Who learned it at a Baltimore Orioles Milwaukee Brewers game because the Orioles fans couldn't figure out who the hell they were playing against so they were just saying Yankees suck. So just you wait. Just you wait. I'm sure you do. Yeah, I know. We figured, I was told Peter Shelley told me I better inject some levity into this in a hurry given that it's Friday afternoon. So I tried to. We do, we represent the fishermen of Martha's Vineyard in connection with the Cape Wind project. We filed suit in federal court in Washington DC. It's real simple from our perspective and what it says in the complaint is that our clients don't oppose offshore wind. In fact they support renewable energy. They just don't support a bunch of whole wind farm on their historic fishing grounds. It's, for them it's as simple as that. What I wanted to do was just spend a little bit of time first talking about some laws that have over the years going all the way back to colonial days recognized fishing and its value. Spend just a little bit of time talking about the president's executive order and I will try to be respectful of your time as well. Just a couple of laws. The first is the public trust doctrine which dates from Roman times and it creates a public trust for essentially the tidelands. Back then 3 miles out was a long way so the intertidal zone mean low to mean high and then out as far as the Romans could row I guess. That's since changed. What became interesting here in the U.S. is Massachusetts was a state that actually gave development rights to folks to build warbs and piers on the mean low to mean high zone. So normally that's a public trust land. Massachusetts is a little bit different but there is something called the colonial ordinances which I think is where I'm going to get to with this which recognizes a priority used for fishing, fouling, and navigation in the intertidal zone and out my colleague Drew McAvige, who many of you know the best way to describe the colonial ordinances whenever he went surfing and he wanted to walk across somebody's beach in Massachusetts he'd always bring a surf casting fishing rod so what the hell you can't walk across my land to surf? Yeah, but I got a fishing pole. So the priority rights for fishing the Honor Continental Shelf Lands Act which is where the permitting process occurs for the wind energy projects and again I hope that Dan Cohen's presence here and what he talked about may dispel into his investors preconceived notions about fishermen to the extent that you think that they're living in the 18th century a lot of them are not most of them in fact the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act from the start explained that these kinds of permitting operations on the Outer Continental Shelf is not to affect the right to navigation and fishing the our lawsuit relating to the Cape Wind project there's another provision in the law which talks about leasing and easements not preventing interference with reasonable uses as determined by the secretary question is whether fishing is generally considered a reasonable use again there's this notion of fishing as a reasonable use NEPA will preserve cultural and historic aspects of our heritage and promote wherever possible individual choice the National Marine Sanctuaries Act when you're designating sanctuaries that too looks to commercial and recreational fishing both Magnuson for its part I'm sure you guys have talked Magnuson to death yesterday but again there's the recognition of the value of fishing both in terms of the food production and as an economic engine in coastal communities there's also and this is maybe a larger point here a council process where fisheries management policy set where do you get to with coastal and marine spatial planning and the president's executive order it creates a second process next to the council process which is what Dan alluded to where ocean planning is going to occur there are seven national goals 12 guiding principles in some places they conflict with the Magnuson Act's 10 national standards it adds new players in the debate about how in the deliberation process about how the ocean is being used and a whole boatload of new regulatory agencies again finally another point that we made comments we made in connection with the comments on the president's executive order is that this spatial planning process has the potential if not the actuality of taking regulatory authority away from each of these separate agencies that regulate offshore their authority is statutory the Magnuson statutory out of continental shelf lands act is statutory there's this over layer now done by executive order that all lives together I think remains to be seen you will see that the regulatory processes between official management plan and coastal marine spatial planning process is very similar to sort of step back for a minute what do I think about it I'm really sort of ragingly ambivalent about the marine spatial planning process bluntly on one hand with Dan Cohen that if you're out on the ocean and you're fishing zoning can only be bad because it can only mean you can't go some place you used to go I think somebody mentioned to me somebody talking about putting fishermen in a box and what a great thing that would be so that's one side of it the other side is my last slide is well what if you know Google wants to run a whole long basically lead cord down the ocean east coast and how do fishermen fight Google frankly in many respects how do fishermen deal with the Jim Gordon's of the world at some point maybe you want a referee maybe you want a negotiated process but the thing to think about from the fisherman's perspective is most of them get tapped out just dealing in the council process that's getting so complicated so how do you create a system where fishermen again one of the historic users of the marine resources can compete effectively against all these other we create stakeholders even seaweed farmers become stakeholders not that they don't own seaweed farmers but it just expands dramatically what needs to be dealt with again the process is very similar between the coastal and marine spatial planning and Magnus and I've just laid that out not really a reason to spend a lot of time with that some of the national goals and guiding principles are different and I think are worthy of emphasis I'm sure you've spoken through the Magnus and standards but what's a little different when you look at the coastal marine spatial planning standards I think you do see the influence of the environmental community fairly substantially no matter how many times Magnus has been reauthorized the word's precautionary approach never make it in there but it makes it into the executive order although the way precautionary the precautionary approach is often used and the way it's described are a little different because what the actual terms are the principle from the Rio declaration is when there are threats of serious or irreversible damage lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing effective measures to prevent environmental degradation the notion of cost effectiveness often gets lost but that's part of it if it can be cabined to something that does look at the costs on historic use maybe that's a good thing reducing user conflict again that's a again I understand ecosystem based management I think Dan Cohen again raised a great point ecosystem management done right is an incredibly data hungry exercise to be done as an empirically driven model you need to know for instance how much do whales eat does anybody really know it's that kind of thing how much do Strybasis eat what do we do how many fish are will you collect around a wind turbine there's a lot of places where you're making a lot of guesses sometimes they're well educated sometimes they're quite poorly educated and policy driven again streamlining regulatory process I question whether that's going to happen again the notion of reducing conflict among old and emerging uses is something that I guess frankly it has to happen in some context the question is how does that work in an efficient cost effective final point of these goals and principles is to uphold federal and state laws regulations and executive orders there's one thing I think that's worth noting in the president's executive order that I haven't figured out how to reconcile and again this is something that we focused on when you read agency responsibilities under the executive order it says all executive departments agencies etc etc that are members of the council to the fullest extent consistent with applicable law shall take as necessary to implement the policy set forth and the stewardship principles participate in the process and they shall essentially shall do what these planning processes and I promise I apologize I truncated this so much I made it unintelligible and trying to go fast but the bottom line is it says the agency shall implement the goals of the marine these marine spatial planning regional processes but when you go to section nine and the general provisions and I will read this a little more slowly nothing in this order the establishment of the council and the final recommendations shall be construed to impair authority granted by law to an executive department or agency or the head thereof how does that again where that gets interesting to me is you have a fishery management plan you have an amendment that goes through the council process the secretary of commerce decides that those the council recommendations are consistent with the law regulations are drafted and it's implemented that's what the law tells the secretary of commerce to do to go ahead and implement the council's recommendations if it's consistent with the law I don't know where the overlay comes in if all of a sudden a marine spatial planning process says well you need to close to fishing the area where Google's got its lead cord how does that how's that all going to fit together again on one hand you're supposed the agencies are supposed to do this on the other hand they're not supposed to do something that conflicts with the legal requirements I think one of our concerns is that nobody's really thought this through yet how that's all going to work together again the changes in players just for your consideration again I just remember seaweed farming because it was on the top these are some of the the entities that are stated to have interests in the title zones and out onto the outer continental shelf to the end of the EEZ no question everybody has an interest no question that there's economic and aesthetic interests that all these groups hold but there are a heck of a lot more of them that are going to get pulled into the spatial planning process again it may be for the good because it may be that these processes are the referees but that's for the fishermen that's daunting okay I'm real close changes in regulators all these different agencies plus a partridge in a paratree are now involved in the National Ocean Council that's what's in red is the folks that are generally involved in fishery management how will the fishermen be affected number one Hakuna Matata everybody wins this all works fishermen don't fish where the wind turbines are we know that that doesn't necessarily happen number two and what nobody's told me yet because somebody pictures for me is whether that's the same set of turbines just from a different perspective or whether it's a different set of turbines but again you may have user conflicts again it's pretty much what I've said from here is self-explanatory it's what I've been talking about and again finally can fishermen compete with Google that is a tough road thank you you're the referee man okay I was asked to talk about MSP and the fishery and I think the previous two speakers have highlighted a lot of the issues that we need to look at and deal with but certainly one of the major issues I think facing is particularly here on the east coast is there are this emerging use particularly in the energy field that is coming on very strong and when you look at the issue itself I mean this is out of NREL 78% of the electricity that's consumed in the U.S. is actually consumed by 28 coastal states so there's very much a coastal issue and if we're going to address that it needs to be addressed at the coastline and the other issue is is that as already been pointed out we have a very prolific resource at the coastline for generating electrical energy and if you look at DOE's projections in fact for wind energy you're going to see that obviously we're right here but they're projecting by 2030 that we're going to have about 20% of our energy generated by offshore wind and what that means and these are actual proposed projects here that are along the east coast there's going to be a proliferation of these projects starting up in the offshore environment and as already been alluded to Google is moving into this too which is going to accelerate the whole development of this process if you look at worldwide this is the current inshore off capacity for wind energy and you're going to see the United Kingdom as a major player look at Germany and watch what happens at the projection by 2015 United Kingdom becomes a minor player of wind on stream offshore wind is here to stay and it's going to grow at a very rapid pace because it is utility grade renewable energy and there are very few that can claim that at this point and the technologies are evolving we already have monopile we're now moving into jacketed systems, gravity based systems these tripods and in the development phase is the floating production systems that are further offshore so one of the major problems that we have as a MSP exercise is by definition marine spatial planning is a spatial exercise but the fishery data for instance in trying to understand what the resources itself and the fishermen that use it is that the data is not really in an appropriate scale or form these are the statistical blocks for instance that you see for fishery management purposes to bring it down to our scale this is Rhode Island and so this is the statistical block these are not useful at all in terms of trying to then integrate these new uses these offshore wind energy because you can't tell what the impacts are going to be to the resource from these types of exercise and gathering data this is for instance a habitat map that was produced in the course here this is not useful to us when we're going to look at it these are the types of maps that we generate for habitat when we're looking at trying to get to this information for sighting decisions so this information as is currently gathered is not very useful to us and there are a host of legal issues also associated with getting access to this information in the Ocean Samp we went 30 miles offshore we did that because AC Transmission has a practical limit of about 20 miles and we wanted to provide a 10 mile overlap on the data set we went forward and as already been pointed out this is an expensive process the Ocean Samp by the time we get through will have generated and collected about 10 million dollars worth of data in this area although it is a very large area 30 miles offshore we still had to get very smart about how we were focusing and spending our money in this area we couldn't collect all the data for everything over this area regarding fisheries we wanted to look at the ocean space we wanted to manage the existing resources and provide protection for those existing resources within these areas and we wanted to summarize the best available data trying to understand the resource itself and also the fishing activity as part of this we composed what we called a technical advisory committee or TAC and these are the groups that actually participated at an attack in verifying the information that we generated to make sure that we were technically accurate when we went through to depict the information all these groups were fed the chapter and chapters as we were going through looking at this from a fishery perspective to make sure that our information was correct the chapter objectives themselves were to one obviously provide a baseline of data so that we can understand again what the resources what the uses were we also wanted to highlight that this was a very important industry to the state and that becomes important when we start to move into federal consistency and the use of federal consistency for exercising greater state control in these areas and then we wanted to outline policies or regulations that might be protective of the industry itself the chapter methodology was we were to gather essentially all the data that we could review any reference documents the literature, the data and then analyze that and then review that, send that back out to the TAC to make sure that our analysis was correct some of the data that we actually started to amass is, you can see this is aggregate biomass the size of the circles are relating obviously to the biomass and then there are various sampling entities that have done the collection that are depicted here also what we started to do is we did an exercise that was fairly new we collected these VTRs on one minute squares themselves have these are vessel trip reports for those who aren't into the nomenclature have limitations but they do give some sort of depiction in terms of how the areas are used and this is one of the most difficult things is trying to find some sort of objective measure of the resource itself and where the activity is occurring sorry this is VMS data these are track or data centers that are put on fishing vessels for various federal licenses but it measures traffic it also measures patterns in terms of some of the fishing activity but again, access to this data and being able to interpret this becomes problematic sometimes and hampers our efforts in understanding what the patterns are just to show you this is a very busy area these are some of the maps that we generated for some of the marine spatial uses this is the actual fishing activity itself by gear types and as you can see the entire areas utilize one of the interesting questions that came out as we were starting to depict these uses is why not map the areas that are important to the fishermen and we were given several reasons why the fishermen really didn't want to do that I don't know what I did here we go what they did not want us to do is say that because the entire area was fished and there were temporal and other considerations all the area really is considered important to the fishermen themselves so they don't want to get us into this mindset where we're just looking at the important fishery areas and therefore the other areas which we didn't depict on the maps were really not important to them and we could go into town in those areas the other issue is that obviously fishery populations are dynamic and they are on the move due to climate change so they want a flexibility to deal with the dynamics within the population and those dynamics may dictate that certain areas are important this year but may not be important next year and the markets are dynamic so that the species that they may be prosecuting now may not be something that they want to go on market considerations and whatnot and last but not least the regulations are constantly changing the game on them so that all this comes into play and this is why the fishermen did not want to depict what they considered to be key fishing areas on the maps however other uses we were able to go through and try to depict this these are for instance recreational buoying uses these are distance racing sailing courses these are recreational cruise routes that are used for various places and these are offshore wildlife viewing areas for everything from birds, whales to shark diving the thing that I hope you are gathering from this is that while the ocean looks vast and unoccupied it is a very busy area there are a number of existing users that are out there and that intensity is only going to increase and hence why marine spatial planning could be useful the thing that I should emphasize here is that marine spatial planning sometimes gets confused with zoning zoning is another step you can take in the marine spatial planning exercise but marine spatial planning is really trying to depict what the existing uses are the existing resources and helping decision makers make more rational decisions not necessarily going to that last step although there are many discussions that on go trying to take it to that last step to go to the zoning step the other thing that we wanted to look at was what were the impacts on the fishery resources and their habitats and obviously there are a number of them that are out there and were discussed within the chapter and then we eventually got to the policies and standards and these were looking at the fishery itself, the dynamic nature how could we try to have a more meaningful process using the spatial planning exercise to make a more rational decision in this area the major findings I don't think should be any surprise to anybody we knew that the commercial fishery was important, we now can depict that within the chapter we knew that there are certain species that are very important to us those are also discussed within the chapter and the entire areas utilized by the fishery itself so this concept that you're going to put new uses out there without impacting the fishery is a false one at least for the near shore which in Rhode Island's case is probably at least 40 miles offshore you will be impacting that fishery when you put anything offshore okay so to get to the point and I don't expect you to read all this there will be a test on it however at the end of class what this is the concept of this is what we did put in place was this fisherman's advice report one of the things that was key to the fisherman was having input into some of these decisions early on in the process before things got too settled and there was too much money invested for people to back off of them so we've put in place a pre-application process where there are fishermen that are appointed that have represented the ocean industry that an applicant has to meet with them as part of this process and we can bring the fisherman in contact with those people and discuss citing decisions and that's essentially what that says this has also been modified at the request of Massachusetts this is the one that was pre-adoption the one that was adopted also recognizes that there should be three fishermen from Massachusetts that sit on this fisherman's advisory board so we're capturing both states because there are areas that tend to border and the other policies that are out there is that we shall prohibit any activity or uses that would result in significant long-term impacts to the commercial or recreational fishery and the council shall require that potential adverse impacts be mitigated so there are several policies that are put in place that recognize that the commercial fisheries there we worked with the commercial fishermen to actually identify sites that would pose the minimal impact to them as I said not that there won't be any impact but the minimal impact and then we tried to put policies in place that recognize that existing use and gave it some footing on an equal basis with some of our new uses that might particularly come along or at least try to protect their existence in this realm the other thing that we did is looking at this is we also developed policies that would protect the resource and we did this through two other areas areas of particular concern areas designated for preservation these for instance are rain areas these are very important fishery areas and we will not allow structures within these areas and protect them as a habitat these are some of the navigational uses and other uses that exist that were also protected as areas of particular concern and we seek to keep development out of these areas and these are areas designated for preservation again trying to keep offshore structures out of these areas for their value and these are some of the major recreational areas that are also protected in the plan and our policies that are protecting that particular use so in the end what is the value of MSP? I'm going to show you two slides that I think sort of sum it all up this is our planning area again and this was a project proposed by Graves Harbor it was a offshore wave energy project and for those of you who are familiar with the technology anchor chains all over the place massive structures that would be proposed in this area also major commercial fishing area generated a lot of interest in our fishing industry relative to this proposal got everybody geared up the congressional offices were active the governor's office was active the fishermen were active everybody was going to town on this project and lo and behold out came the sub lanes from Groton this project was going nowhere but where the information wasn't out there for people to know and certainly the developer would have never proposed this particular project had he known that piece of information that's the value of marine spatial planning thank you so just to complete the baseball picture I'm from Baltimore long standing and more recently suffering Orioles fan so we generally know who we're playing we also know recently that the results are not likely to be good wherever they are if the Yankees lose it's still a good day I'll stay away from Boston given the current venue so what a great panel I think wonderful exchange of perspectives and I will try to round that out a little bit given my perspectives and the perspectives of NOAA as we receive and begin implementing national ocean policy and particularly the ocean council and coastal and marine spatial planning elements of that let me say at the outset that I am a strong proponent of the national ocean policy and the national approach to implement regionally based coastal and marine spatial planning as what I think is an important set of avenues to address some longstanding and also emerging issues of the fishing community in particular and I think you saw that illustrated very appropriately in Grover's presentation I'll let me also say by virtue of the fact that you might question my sincerity given my current post that I came by that perspective before arriving on the scene as the assistant administrator for fisheries at NOAA in fact was heavily engaged from the state of Maryland in the development of the mid-Atlantic regional ocean partnership which was a collaboration of the governors in the mid-Atlantic region which preceded really some of the detail of this ocean policy initiative primarily because the governors got together they saw some of these emerging uses they saw the need to address very directly some emerging spatial conflicts out there and saw the need for the creation of a venue to help address some of those concerns so the national ocean policy I already mentioned some of these includes a series of building blocks if you will one of those being the National Ocean Council the other being nine national priority objectives and then finally this focus on a framework for coastal and marine spatial planning at the regional level what I would say also to help you frame this a little bit is it includes in that context both a top down oriented perspective the National Ocean Council being primarily an entity that will be represented by federal agencies in a coordinating fashion but then also a heavy dependence on regionally based bottom up planning as it relates to coastal and marine spatial challenges I'm going to throw this up here not to scare you but just to give you some perspective as to the National Ocean Council element to this and this is called for under the National Ocean Policy and it basically asks the 27 different federal agencies that have some role with respect to coastal and ocean resources to come together on a regular basis work to coordinate activities and attempt to do so in a fashion that delivers a better end result for these coastal and ocean areas and again hearkening back to my perspective at the state level I would just simply say that there were all too often that we found ourselves in venues working on for example Chesapeake Bay restoration initiatives where we would have loved to have had a more consistent and a more coordinated presence of some federal agencies that played potentially very important roles in achieving the kind of outcomes that we sought for Chesapeake Bay and some of our in shore coastal areas in Maryland and I think that the prospect of the National Ocean Council to help deliver that more coordinated more focused work on behalf of these regional areas is a potentially important outcome of this initiative so there are nine priority objectives this slide in particular so if I can get it all up here is a NOAA centric view of the world but on either side of this articulates I think the nine priority objectives in a particularly helpful way you know from within NOAA in the center is our strategic plan that focuses on some of the key areas of importance to us but importantly on either side are again those nine priority objectives how we do business oriented activities like ecosystem-based management coastal and marine spatial planning and the like and then areas of special emphasis going forward that you see articulated here ranging from water quality and sustainable practices on land and you know as you all know there is so much dependence of many of our important coastal and ocean fisheries species on what is happening in shore and upland that if we're not taking care of business in shore and upland we're not taking care of the future of these fishery resources in particular so there is a particular prescribed task in the ocean policy that these priority objectives be addressed through some kind of a strategic initiative within the months of onset of the planning process. This slide I guess is a little bit late to this game but I think it articulates very clearly what we have already heard. There are a significantly significant number and ever growing set of uses that are out there and if we are not attending to them to proceed on their own pathways there are something on the order of 140 different statutes, regulations and policies that regulate human activities in our oceans, coasts and great lakes at the federal level so that stuff is going to be happening, that stuff is going to be dictating outcomes whether we are trying to do it in a coordinated fashion or not. Moving more specifically to the coastal and marine spatial planning framework I just highlighted a couple of key elements one of those is to bring sometimes competing uses into one place for at least some attempt at resolution leveling the playing field specifically again gives we think the opportunity for voices to be heard in places and in processes where they might not have traditionally heard or might frankly not have known even existed until it was too late. They are inherently data driven one of the things I say to and you've seen a little bit of this already but people in our community who are concerned about particularly fishery resources, ecological resources that these regional initiatives are really starved in many places for good data and so to the extent that we can provide the kind of data not only on important habitats on the needs of fish resources and other biological resources that they depend on but also on some of these historic uses to the extent that we can export that knowledge into a place where it is available for decisions that affect these communities that we care most deeply about we can only all be the better for it. And they are of course from a coastal and marine spatial planning perspective locally, geographically driven. Obviously the concerns in the mid-Atlantic are not the same as the concerns in the Gulf or out on the west coast or up in Alaska. Just a quick scan of some of these coastal and marine spatial planning implementation areas that actually line up fairly closely although not exactly with our traditional focus on large marine ecosystems and the particular regional needs associated with those large marine ecosystems. I'm going to skip over this because it's a bit redundant. I'm going to skip over most of this other than to say from NOAA's particular role we see an important both in fisheries as well as through our National Ocean Service and other line offices within NOAA. A particularly important role for us to play in helping to provide the kind of data that I referenced a few moments ago but also to provide the kind of technical support that might help to ensure good positive outcomes for the issues and concerns that we care most about. There is a fiscal year 11 budget request still pending obviously for 20 million dollars in grants to support the development of these regional ocean partnerships essentially allow them help them build the kind of capacity that they need to run the kind of data driven and consensus driven process that we talked about. There is a NOAA specific website cmsp.noaa.gov which provides a lot of very useful information on what cmsp is and what NOAA's role is in supporting that effort. I did want to say a few words about the role specifically of fishery management councils we've heard a lot about that already. Obviously if from a fisheries centric perspective it would have been great to have the fishery management councils identified explicitly as one of the authorities to be included within the regional ocean partnerships. The reality of it is that those regional ocean partnerships the membership in those were defined through the national ocean policy to be specifically the federal agencies the tribes and the states with direct regulatory authority over issues germane to coastal and ocean policy. We were successful and I think importantly so in having the fishery management councils being explicitly recognized in the national ocean policy as an important entity to be consulted with. I'm sure that particularly for some of my fellow panelists that doesn't go far enough but it also from my perspective presents an important opportunity for again from a ground up perspective the members of the fishery management councils to reach out to respective regional entities many of which are already in operation in some capacity independently in at least all of the lower 48 states with coastal areas and so to the extent that the fishery management councils can now forge partnerships can now create pathways to introduce the data that's important to us into that process the fishery community will be ultimately all the better for it so I'll have to delay from in here because I'm almost done that hasn't happened to you yet in addition to the NOAA website there is also a national ocean council website whitehouse.gov.oceans where you can refer for the particular documents associated with ocean policy that have come forth as a result of this effort with that I am finished and would be happy to participate with my other panelists in Q&A thank you what a great panel it was talk about divergence of views and I think that it's a great place to wrap up the conference with the question that we have for this panel some have commented on this but I'm going to start with the fellow who said I'm just a plaintiff's lawyer when you said that I put my hand right in my wallet I got nervous immediately a plaintiff's lawyer screwed up his baseball team we did see pretty much agreement on the Yankee suck issue but the question we have to answer and it's a one simple one sentence question and I would encourage you to think of this as a fairly succinct response as well and I'll start with you Dan what's the best way to facilitate a productive relationship between fisheries and other ocean uses from my perspective and it is very limited because I'm not involved so much in policy but from my perspective what I notice from my clients is that the issue for them and I'm talking about now fishermen, shrimp fishing and right now the Gulf incident is a trust issue it's a trust issue and it's a communication issue and when you see how folks in the Gulf are responding to BP and how it's not only handling the crisis and the immediate needs but how they're dealing with the shared space I think there's a lot of distrust and a lot of sort of expectation that they're not going to ever come together and they're not ever going to work together to solve any of these problems so I don't know how you bring those types of industries together and I'm talking about the old energy sources with the fisheries but I can tell you that from my limited perspective nothing that comes out of the energy side is trusted by my clients as being anything that takes into consideration their needs, their concerns and how they use the waters Okay, thanks. Dan it seems that your answer to this question might have been if you can't beat them, join them would that be a fair assessment? Well again I think I have to answer it on two different levels because first as the individuals who invest in this company we're looking at trying to see if we can develop a business model that will allow us to invest in and prosper from a new industry but to be clear not every fisherman is going to be able to invest economically in projects like ours and therefore the question you asked is more a broad question and I think it's an appropriate question and the fact of the matter is to now, for example, with the offshore wind industry which is the next big user group that's coming down the line, I don't think there's been at all a serious discussion as to what will be the rules of the game in terms of how people can fish over cables and not fish over cables and if people are prohibited both from an economic point of view what will help with that will impact me and so far I don't think there's been fishing industry itself hasn't approached this because I don't believe they understand the scope and when we talk about six turbines off Atlantic City it's a demonstration project but six turbines will not save lots of energy problems and then you saw the same slide Glover quoted the same thing where the DOE is talking about 54 gigawatts of offshore wind and then you're talking about 10,000 turbines no one is really grappled with that so I think we're trying to have that conversation ourselves we're trying to generate that and I believe over time proposing offshore wind will be brought to the table either voluntarily or with pressure to have that same discussion in reality the last part but this is I don't think there's been a big enough discussion as to the public values as to as you weigh one versus the other how do you judge or allow one versus the other as to which is a greater value or how do we balance them thank you David I think there's a philosophical issue in the way the administration structured the process and who represents fishermen in some sense what you're hearing is that NIMS and the fishery management councils will take the fishing industry's interest into account as they participated in a level in the marine spatial planning process I know they'll be public input as well I have a variety of clients around the country who have a variety of relationships with NIMS and the department of commerce and the councils some of them are that would be an anathema to many of them some have better working relationships with NIMS and NOAA again there's going to need to be a way it's the same it's not a whole lot different in fisheries management there's a Don got it right there's a very fundamental distrust there and I hope there's ways that that can be bridged so that we can make good decisions about economic use uses and priority fishing areas it's probably more the cabling and everything else that is going to cause the problem to the location of of any wind turbine the K-1 being an exception thanks Dave Grover you dealt with a couple of years of uncertainty and lack of trust in the ocean sample how does that work out for you well there's the interaction with the fishermen definitely is based on a trust issue we had some baggage that we had to deal with because of some political pronouncements based on the pronouncements and schedules it was a done deal as to where these things were going and that caused some problems and it took a while to build the trust level up to understand that that process wasn't a done deal the other major issue I think out there is an acknowledgement that you have an existing use that's out there it's utilizing the area you're going to find very few areas if any that aren't utilized by the fishery and how do you mitigate, compensate whatever you want to deal with that existing use because there will be a displacement even if you put a wind farm in and let's say the recreational fishery can get back in there let's say the fixed gear can get back in there there's still the potential displacement of areas particularly for mobile gear and the operations nobody really knows at this point to what degree it's going to impede some of the other fisheries like the fixed gear operation and there hasn't been a real serious discussion on compensation and mitigation there's not even an acknowledgement anywhere in the framework that it should occur thank you for that Eric, you've actually got to put all this together as part of the team I think probably I already answered from my perspective but I do believe that these regional planning bodies as a venue to bring together data and expectations of a variety of different user groups are going to be incredibly important I think that there are a lot of decisions that are being made out there on a single use basis right now that aren't fully incorporating the interests of the biological resources and the fisheries and customer operational planning holds some promise to provide a reasonable alternative to the current approach okay, thank you time for questions Susan I know you're running a little late we're a little late but let's take a couple of questions for this panel and then I'm going to offer a couple of options for the use of the rest of our afterwards very well, questions Morgan actually Africa presentation I just want to note that in addition to the individual damage and the fishermen's damage there's significant damage to the public trust resources and as a result under that same well pollution act NOAA and the Department of Interior and to a lesser extent the Department of Defense is the federal trustees and each of the five Gulf States state trustees for those public resources are engaged in a process or eventually a community compensation and restoration and restoration planning that's in addition to the individual damage and that's not that clear and then just a small correction for what you said when you said that people are going against PPE and then BP goes against the other responsible parties actually under the well pollution act all of those parties are responsible parties it may be as a matter of convenience that then people are going against BP that goes after the other street BP went broke tomorrow the other companies are responsible for all of them and that's just a process it's not the culpability issue they primary one little observation one of the things that's most interesting about this voluntary fund of BP is that among the different claimants they actually claim against itself its own disaster costs so BP is putting magnetically this money into a pot that they can then go and collect back their own cleanup that's very creative so I'm going to work on respecial planning for a while the one thing that we've done is to bring together a whole lot of ocean users in the kind of our own table discussion group and we've had I think five meetings now and it's everyone aquaculture, renewable energy fishermen all over the gas any kind of ocean user you can pretty much imagine people to talk about respecial planning what are their concerns and pretty consistently the fishermen have been the most nervous, the most negative what's it going to do to us and I think there's probably good historical reasons for that which is at the point of view they're out there already for really just psychological reasons a lot of other users have not been able to use that space so they're already worried about losing space whereas most of the other users are looking for a space so from my perspective it seems pretty clear that that space belongs to me and all of us it's public space that we need to make a perspective they want to say value and justice about what we want to do with that space and in these roundtable discussions one of the things that we are always concerned about is okay we all use energy every city care all these users we all use energy we all use fish we all want all these uses and we need as a society to make these choices so my question to you David and to anyone else who wants to weigh in is what is it going to take to bring the fisherman on board this discussion about this is all of our space these are all legitimate uses that we have decided on as a society get on board help us make these choices instead of my perception now is that if the fisherman are more standing on the side we can say no bad if you are stealing our space we don't like it just to rephrase that for the record very quickly what what can they how can the fishing industry get involved how can they be brought into this discussion in a meaningful way so that we can move forward as a nation for a common goal I want to answer the question first the way I was going to answer it how many fishery management council meetings have you ever sat through? several they're torturous and difficult and the result isn't always at the end of the day allowing fishermen to maintain a way of life in many instances especially as you're seeing groundish that's as I said why I'm ragingly ambivalent I suspect that where there'll be processes and organized fishing groups with the resources to participate they'll participate well they'll participate aggressively I still don't think they're going to again it's ultimately a defensive exercise for the fishermen I think the major element is not necessarily so much that somebody's going to put a cake wind in the issue I'm sitting right on the shoals excluded for a sec I don't know that fishermen are saying we don't want to see a wind turbine out there where they are concerned and where I'm frankly concerned is when a whole fisherman are beset by a whole bunch of different conservation groups and issues it's hard to say that they're not and to have that sort of imported into this process not as fisheries conservation related issues but dressing it up is something else dressing it up you know we want to do ecosystem management through the fisheries we're having a hard time so we'll start to do it we'll create ecosystems around the wind farms and it's what the fishery industry is going to have to participate one or the other what I'm trying to do is identify why it's going to be difficult to get them to fully buy in and I know that's an unsatisfactory answer I don't think that I can do any better because there's really there isn't an answer so first I should tell a little story about one reason why I became active in terms of trying to be an agent for change rather than a victim of change about 10-11 years ago at the height of the internet boom fiber optic cable companies many of whom now are bankrupt and gone WorldCom global crossing all opposing new fiber optic cables from the east coast of New Jersey to Europe and the Caribbean because they needed more bandwidth and for about three years I was the chairman of the garden state seafood cable committee where we ended up spending I spent a lot of my personal time and money and the industry's money with lawyers, with the army corps with the state trying to resolve a relationship in terms of how these would be installed but our rights were one of the interesting things about this process was that and it was a certain level very successful because up until then the fishing industry was for years plagued by AT&T saying you have to stay a half a mile away on either side of cables and they were putting out cable charts they don't give out those charts anymore because actually they were coercively forcing the fishing industry away from cables when they had a legal right in the 1800s it was actually you had to stay half a mile away when there was a cable lane ship in a buoy out it wasn't that you had to stay away when you were built because there was a presumption that you was building something that was doing it safely after it was built but basically all I could imagine these built structures which now I'm a proposer of would be there for generations and if we were to just fight for the status quo that action for the rest of our lives and our children's lives and therefore rather than since this is a societal issue and quite frankly none of them will be built including our project with society pays for it and we repair in this room and we repair on the east coast and end up paying as a decision because you're going to pay for your electric plates it'll be a societal hedge it'll be a bet maybe 20 years from now it'll be cheaper than we're paying today and it'll be a good bet but we won't know that bet until it's done the question is that now where my other hand the fishing industry has every right not to be scared because it doesn't know the outcome and quite frankly it hasn't been brought to them in a real realistic discussion as to how will they be designed will you be able to fish over them how will you be able to fish over them and again part of this is just not only even if you're allowed to fish because in our paradigm we're saying yes we can fish over them can you actually physically tow between things that are that close together and when they're that many of them so I mean people are scared of change especially when it's your only livelihood and again you're looking so I don't think there's any question that people should be scared because they don't know what the future looks like so it's going to be a dialogue and people will build confidence as they see the result of that dialogue and if people are treated fairly as a dialogue goes if not they'll just be more you know greater feeling so it's just a question of how dialogue goes I want to ask a question about it so okay so if we're all if we decide the best way to do this is through new ocean zoning panels and they're going to be and now they're going to be not combined with fisheries management but they're going to be somehow parallel when will it be implemented and then look up well so first I would make the same clarification I think which is these aren't ocean zoning panels they're basically planning it so actually the ocean council is meeting for the first time next week they're planning a suit from that some process whereby they will you know invite these regional planning bodies to come forward as I indicated there are already in the lower 48 coastal areas some there's some semblance of an intergovernmental cooperative already in you know NROC and Marco a different one for the South Atlantic the Gulf of Maine alliance so there will be some period during which those groups will decide whether they essentially want to be recognized formally as the regional partnership and then in addition to that they want to take on this spatial planning leadership responsibility so it's going to be an iterative process that's going to play out over I think sometime to come as I sit here I remember exactly what this way the mile is going to take We have a lot more work to do for this panel thanks to this great panel for such an interesting afternoon Susan we are running a little bit late and I know a few people need to start leaving to catch planes and things like that and I also know at this point in a Friday when you take a break not everybody always comes back but so I wanted you two things just to remind you all you all have a bright yellow evaluation form so if you don't fill it out and leave it with us before you go today please take it with you and send us back in terms of resources down the road we will be putting the presentations up on our website I'm also going to be compiling the great reports thank you to all my repertoires Jackie Nick Christina Libby and Meredith thank you all saved my brain and my hand tremendously so I'll be putting up some summary type of proceedings document up as well there's also a really good background article sort of Magnuson 101 on the website that you can access and whichever the presenters we can coerce beg or otherwise convince to submit an article for the law review that will be out probably in about a year ish time I think it's going to be the late 2011 early 2012 one so we will continue to try to be a good resource for all of you before we go the break I know Josh Eagle lowest shipper and Mike Conathon will all not be joining us because they've got to go get back to their places so and Eric as well if you all have any parting thoughts is wrap up I'll give you this opportunity before we all bolt so Eric any any other words of wisdom we thought you were going to sort it all out I mean it was a tourist perspective where people don't just the congressional perspective I think maybe if you get a sense of Congress has this reputation for not being a model it's very quick to act in any circumstances but I think you can understand that why it took 7 years to get the last reauthorization done I think more discussions like this will move us in the direction of hopefully not needing another 7 years to get the next reauthorization done but echoing those comments this was a tremendous opportunity to get some really good issue minds and try to sort out some of these issues that are going to be so easier to popularize in the next you know if we had another day we could just give you the act as we all would like it to be done and we could give you the answer to the holy I'll be right on and as soon as I compile all the repertoire's reports Josh the question of an action to maybe answer Morgan's question about zoning and what the fishing industry might get out of it I just tell a little story about the Great Bear Rainforest which was a big piece of public land in western Canada where essentially they had equivalent of what we had here in northwest a large dispute between Timber and the forestry and environmental groups over a day or a species so basically endless litigation contested for sales boat parties frustrated for the decade and at the end of the day the resolution was essentially a division of the land into a priority timber harvest area and a priority environmental conservation area where essentially the environmental restrictions were the ability to challenge for example in citizens who the restrictions were reduced in the area so that essentially what the industry gets is less regulation greater freedom to kind of choose their own regulation and the environmental community gets their area as well so one way to look at zoning is the question of if there are going to be disputes it's already going to resolve them ahead of time through this kind of planning zoning process where you're going to do it case by case every project or issue comes up that's one of the ways to think about it and you know the big thing the additional allocation is bad and I have used the additional allocation in zoning is another thing altogether so that's my comment make one comment when we started out this process there was a consultant part of the state to go out and look at marine areas and propose wind farm locations in addition each of the developers were offered the opportunity to propose wind farm locations as part of the RFP process ultimately when we came out of the planning process we didn't choose any of those sites and it was primarily because official conflicts involved with all of them okay and what did everybody gain out of this at the end I'm just saying a good question you would ask this how are you going to make them trust it it's a different issue one last commercial plug the results of the legal legacy of the deep water horizon disaster we're doing another symposium because I just can't get enough of planning big events April 13th and 14th actually the tort lawyer is going to be helping us design that we're going to be looking both at the mass tort implications as well as the natural resource damage implications of this around the one year anniversary so stay tuned we are going to break I'm coming back and if anybody wants to talk with me more we will and if you don't thank you for coming