1
 1                      TRANSCRIPT OF
 2            MARINE FISHERIES ADVISORY COUNCIL
 3                 HILTON HAWAIIAN VILLAGE
 4                       (Day Four)
 5                     2005 Kalia Road
 6                    Honolulu Suite #3
 7                 Held in Honolulu, Hawaii
 8                           On
 9  
10               Friday, January 14th, 2005
11  
12  
13  
14  
15  
16  
17  
18  
19  
20  
21  
22  
23  
24  
25                            
                                                       2
 1                        I N D E X
 2      Ecosystem Working Group Report                 3
 3      Coral Working Group Report                    23
 4      MSA Working Group Report                      44
 5  
 6  
 7  
 8  
 9  
10  
11  
12  
13  
14  
15  
16  
17  
18  
19  
20  
21  
22  
23  
24                        
25  
                                                       3
 1                                         (11:05 a.m.)
 2            (Friday, January 14th, 2005)  
 3            MR. OSTERBACK:  While the other two get 
 4  their electronic thing ready to go, we'll have Vince 
 5  go ahead and do their group.  
 6            Did everybody have enough time?  
 7            Vince is going to start.  
 8            (Ecosystem Working Group Report)
 9            MR. O'SHEA:  Okay.  Thanks, Mr. Chairman.  
10            The Ecosystem group met.  We had the 
11  benefit of Dr. Sissenwine, who listened in and 
12  answered some of our questions.  He shared his 
13  perspective, which we found very helpful.  
14            Our group operated as we spent the first 
15  hour just sort of going around the committee getting 
16  sort of initial reactions or major feelings or 
17  points that the members had about the issue of 
18  ecosystem-based approach to management.  
19            We spent the second hour focusing on the 
20  five critical questions that were in our briefing 
21  book that preceded Jack Dunnigan's talk the other 
22  day on ecosystems.  So that will be the context in 
23  which I give this report.  
24            I won't give you all of the bullets that 
25  the group identified, but I will give you a sense of 
                                                       4
 1  the flavor.  I would invite other folks on the 
 2  committee, if they have corrections or additional 
 3  perspectives, to please chime in.  
 4            One point was that an implementation 
 5  should be an incremental approach.  It should be 
 6  reasonable and to urge caution about the sort of 
 7  interconnectivity of once you start looking at 
 8  ecosystem-based approach issues, that they're going 
 9  to have a tendency to go in directions and impact 
10  other policy-makers, other programs, and that has a 
11  real potential to derail the whole program.  
12            The metaphor was sort of like pulling a 
13  string on a sweater, you're likely go to places that 
14  you hadn't anticipated.  
15            There was also consistent concerns about 
16  data, the availability for data, and the need for 
17  that.  
18            Second, I think, strong observation was 
19  that there are certain interest groups -- and I 
20  wouldn't limit it strictly to NGOs -- that might not 
21  be satisfied with simply repackaging current 
22  activities and labeling them as ecosystem-based 
23  approach to management.  That the reality is these 
24  groups are going to demand to see a real difference, 
25  and that should guide us in giving advice, and 
                                                       5
 1  should guide the Agency in what they do.  
 2            We think that -- another observation was 
 3  that the ecosystem-based approach would require 
 4  engagement with other regulatory agencies.  We need 
 5  to accept that up front.  These would be groups such 
 6  as Minimal Management, EPA, Habitat.  
 7            We had sort of the typical discussion 
 8  about the definition is very important and to stay 
 9  focused on ecosystem approach to management by 
10  ecosystem management, that's a constant theme.  
11            We talked about -- and Dr. Sissenwine 
12  helped with this, key documents that are really 
13  important for the group to sort of review.  One 
14  suggestion was that the MAFAC document be pulled out 
15  and that we take another look at it just from a 
16  critical aspect, say.  It evolved over a couple of 
17  years, a lot has changed on the landscape, and 
18  rather than try to re-initiate some sort of new 
19  study or do a whole lot of additional work, the 
20  first step would be sort of validate Dr. Brown's 
21  document.  
22            The second source document that was 
23  suggested was Dr. Dave Fluharty's.  He shared the 
24  effort and report to Congress on Ecosystem-based 
25  Approach to Management.  That was a 1998 document.  
                                                       6
 1            The suggestion was to Laurel to get that 
 2  put up on the MAFAC website.  
 3            There's also FAO Technical Guidelines for 
 4  Ecosystem-Based Approach.  Dr. Sissenwine 
 5  recommended those be put up on the website, as well, 
 6  for the MAFAC members to use as a reference.  
 7            Looking at some other issues.  I think we 
 8  had a continuing discussion about that the 
 9  ecosystem-based approach has much to do with 
10  process.  That you are going to look at the process 
11  on how you're viewing fishery management, for 
12  example, and then at the end of the day you still 
13  might end up with the same product but you would 
14  have gone through a different process that looked 
15  more comprehensively at a lot of other different 
16  factors.  
17            It's important to remain focused on the 
18  issue of looking at saying you're going to change 
19  the process and how you look at problems.  
20            The obvious common sense advice is to 
21  build on existing data, build on existing 
22  activities, doing the best job you can with what you 
23  know.  
24            The other observation was that this 
25  approach and process would have the value of -- I 
                                                       7
 1  think the metaphor was sort of a mosaic where you 
 2  look at the picture and you see pieces missing, that 
 3  this ecosystem-based approach could have a benefit 
 4  of identifying where data deficiencies, research 
 5  deficiencies were, for example, and then help focus 
 6  the public policy debate on how critical it is to 
 7  get answers to those questions.  Prioritize that 
 8  type of research in a way that would have a positive 
 9  outcome.  
10            We have some other points that came up 
11  here.  But again, I don't think I'm going to hit 
12  them all.  
13            One example, going back to the importance 
14  of interconnectivity, was the example that Dr. Wynne 
15  had pointed out, was that $125 million was going to 
16  stellar sea lion research and at the end of this 
17  there is still a lot of things we don't know on the 
18  relationship between stellar sea lions and fish 
19  populations and abundance of fish, and sort of 
20  almost a frustration -- would that be a good word, 
21  Kate?  
22            MS. WYNNE:  (Shrugs shoulders).  
23            MR. O'SHEA:  And that we really need to -- 
24  I mean, that could be a glaring example that we need 
25  to do a better job.  Just throwing money at things 
                                                       8
 1  isn't necessarily going to give you the right 
 2  answer.  
 3            So to keep you moving on, Mr. Chairman, we 
 4  then focused on the -- having had that discussion, 
 5  people got stuff off their chest and I think with 
 6  Dr. Sissenwine chiming in it helped calibrate us to 
 7  bring our -- frankly, elevated our intellectual 
 8  discussion of the group in a helpful way.  
 9            So then we sort of directed our attention 
10  to the five questions.  
11            First of all, how do we embrace the 
12  ecosystem approach?  The idea here of we giving 
13  advice to the Agency.  The answer there was that it 
14  would be really critical -- definition is really 
15  going to be critical, and to keep putting out the 
16  definition and the consistency of the definition.  
17            It would be important to identify existing 
18  activities and processes that the Fishery Management 
19  Councils are already doing.  
20            There would be value in emphasizing that 
21  this process adjustment could be used and would 
22  begin to be productive using existing resources.  
23  That -- and, fortunately, we were blessed by having 
24  Dr. Roberts onboard who pointed out from the 
25  economist's view that obviously money dumped into 
                                                       9
 1  this will be seen by -- will attract activity.  
 2            The other part that the group thought 
 3  would be helpful was the inclusion and illustration 
 4  of examples of success of where processes either in 
 5  other Fishery Management Councils, or even 
 6  international examples, be putting those out to be 
 7  making the case of this idea of embracing, which in 
 8  a way will take on the issue of promotion, get 
 9  people onboard with it.  
10            Number two, we agree that it's an 
11  evolutionary, incremental process and not 
12  revolutionary with a prescribed outcome.  
13            Briefly, the answer there was yes, with 
14  the observation that there is benefit for pilot 
15  programs.  Again, with well-publicized sharing of 
16  the results of those programs.  
17            What should the Administration recommend 
18  that Congress do?  
19            I think probably the first point there was 
20  that it's not realistic to think that Magnuson is 
21  going to get reauthorized and be totally silent on 
22  ecosystem-based approach.  So given that reality, 
23  the real issue of that is you take an active role in 
24  determining the outcome, proactive role in 
25  determining the outcome, and there would be merit in 
                                                      10
 1  doing that.  
 2            So it would be important for the 
 3  Administration to show Congress that they're moving 
 4  forward, that the process should remain focused on 
 5  the Fishery Management Councils for the fisheries 
 6  issues and that we think it would be helpful that 
 7  Congress basically tell NOAA to develop a set of 
 8  standards for ecosystem-based approaches to 
 9  management.  
10            So I think the macroview is the 
11  Administration should work to get a signal out to 
12  Congress, that this is the way to go, and then get 
13  direction from Congress that the Agency would 
14  develop a set of standards that would then kick back 
15  and apply to the councils.  
16            We're leery obviously of the set of 
17  outcomes, mandated outcomes, coming out of Congress, 
18  which would then lead to a number of difficulties.  
19  Lawsuits, for example, would be one.  
20            The other is an incredible amount of 
21  restriction.  
22            Again, my notes keep saying, keep this a 
23  council-driven process.  There was a suggestion from 
24  the group that councils need to show more 
25  inclusiveness in how they approach this, in what 
                                                      11
 1  groups they bring in.  
 2            I think the other part of it is that the 
 3  councils are going to need to look at their current 
 4  committee structure of their advisory panels, their  
 5  SSC, those types of groups, with an eye toward 
 6  saying, can we again bring in a broader look to 
 7  reflect the ecosystem acknowledgement.  
 8            So that sort of finishes up, touches on 
 9  what should the Agency be doing to move forward with 
10  ecosystem fishery management plans and what should 
11  the councils be doing.  
12            So for the Agency, it would be to develop 
13  a set of broad standards that would apply to 
14  councils.  
15            I think that, Mr. Chairman, just gives you 
16  a flavor of our discussion.  Our plan is to put 
17  together a written report through correspondence and 
18  we'll submit it to Laurel.  
19            Are there are other members of the 
20  committee that have other things that they would 
21  like to add?  
22            MS. WYNNE:  That's my --  
23            MR. O'SHEA:  The initial draft of the -- 
24  terrific, Kate.  Thanks very much.  
25            Other members of the committee want to 
                                                      12
 1  join -- to chime in?  I know, Dr. Roberts, you had a 
 2  number of notes that you thought --  
 3            MR. ROBERTS:  That was very comprehensive.  
 4  Thank you.  
 5            MR. O'SHEA:  Thank you.  
 6            MR. OSTERBACK:  Okay.  Thank you for the 
 7  report.  
 8            From the rest of the committee, questions?  
 9            MR. FLETCHER:  Did the issue of existing 
10  law come into your discussion, and how it could 
11  limit the development?  
12            Or what -- does your comment about 
13  incremental approach reflect the fact that there is 
14  going to be inconsistent mandates as a result of 
15  other existing law?  
16            MR. O'SHEA:  Yeah, that's a good point, 
17  Bob.  
18            We did have that discussion, particularly 
19  bringing in other agencies that we would hope would 
20  see the fishery perspective, but then realize that 
21  in trying to accommodate the fishery perspective 
22  they might butt right up against mandates within 
23  their own agency.  I don't think we had an answer to 
24  that.  
25            I think the classic example was of water 
                                                      13
 1  use on the West Coast, and irrigation versus power 
 2  production versus fish habitat.  
 3            I think the sense was -- correct me if I'm 
 4  wrong, other members of the committee -- the idea 
 5  would be that the process would bubble these up and 
 6  then you would say, okay, you're going to have to 
 7  put them in an appropriate forum.  If you can do it 
 8  within the council process, fine.  But it may have 
 9  to go into another government forum.  
10            We fell short of sort of saying there has 
11  to be an Ecosystem Council or Ocean Council.  We 
12  weren't that specific.  
13            But I guess the discussion was that would 
14  be a limitation, what is going to happen.  That will 
15  be another problem that will have to be dealt with.  
16  We didn't have a recommendation on how to address 
17  that.  
18            Is that what that discussion was?  
19            MR. LEIPZIG:  I think we were talking 
20  about Ecosystem-based Approach to Management.  We 
21  weren't -- we made a distinction not to talk about 
22  ecosystem management.  
23            I think reading into what your concern is, 
24  I think you probably are thinking more about 
25  ecosystem management as opposed to the process that 
                                                      14
 1  we were trying to describe as -- that we associated 
 2  with this ecosystem-based approach.  
 3            We didn't specifically get into the issue 
 4  of conflicts between the Marine Mammal Protection 
 5  Act, for example, and how that would interact in 
 6  this process.  But we certainly weren't thinking 
 7  about trying to have a system that was going to now 
 8  try to manage the ecosystem and address the issue of 
 9  California sea lions, for example.  
10            MR. RAYBURN:  That brings up a question 
11  I've been wanting to ask for most of this meeting.  
12  Is there any difference -- and probably Mike or 
13  somebody -- is there any difference between 
14  ecosystem-based management and ecosystems approach 
15  to management?  Or are those basically just the same 
16  term?  
17            It started out I thought early on we were 
18  talking ecosystem-based management.  This meeting 
19  it's been ecosystem approach to management, I think.  
20  Is there any substantive difference in the meaning 
21  of those two terms?  
22            MS. BRYANT:  My only answer is that I 
23  remember Jack going through it, and I think they are 
24  interchangeable at this point.  But my understanding 
25  is that there's been a focused effort now instead of 
                                                      15
 1  having marine refugia and marine protected areas, 
 2  and kind of that whole mess that went on with that, 
 3  that we started adopting this as the term of art.  
 4            MR. RAYBURN:  Which one?  
 5            MS. BRYANT:  Ecosystem approach to 
 6  management, EAM, and that's what you're seeing in at 
 7  least a lot of the literature that's coming out from 
 8  Jack's shop and Mike's shop.  
 9            MR. RAYBURN:  Thank you.  
10            MS. BRYANT:  Am I right on that?  
11            MR. OSTERBACK:  Chris.
12            MR. DORSETT:  Thank you.  
13            I wanted to add what I think is a key 
14  document to your list.  There was, I believe it was 
15  in Science, a two-page article by (indiscernible) 
16  Allen and it identified a number of management tools 
17  that can be utilized in getting to ecosystems-based 
18  fisheries management. 
19            Also, the list of material looked at the 
20  California Marine Life Management Act.  So there are 
21  things out there.  Compiling those things I think is 
22  a great idea as you move forward.  
23            I want to thank the Committee for its 
24  comments on the Regional Fishery Management Councils 
25  and more inclusiveness in bringing the skill sets 
                                                      16
 1  that are needed into that process is going to be a 
 2  move in the right direction.  So thank you.  
 3            MR. O'SHEA:  To respond to that, Mr. 
 4  Chairman.  Chris, could I ask you to maybe send that 
 5  to Laurel so that maybe -- for her to get it up on 
 6  the website?  
 7            MR. DORSETT:  Sure.
 8            MS. BRYANT:  That would be nice.  
 9            MR. O'SHEA:  Great.  Thank you.  
10            MR. OSTERBACK:  Tom.  
11            MR. BILLY:  A suggestion in terms of next 
12  steps.  One of the thoughts I had the other day when 
13  we talked about this was the possibility of Bill 
14  asking the Fishery Management Councils to build on 
15  what he has already asked for, which is the 
16  cooperative planning among the Councils, the Centers 
17  and the Regions, and have the Fishery Management 
18  Councils take a shot at drafting a Fisheries 
19  Ecosystem Strategic Plan.  
20            The strategic plan would include things 
21  like, who needs to be part of the process, what the 
22  holes are, and so forth.  
23            My understanding is that several of the 
24  management councils are already doing something 
25  along this line.  But if NOAA Fisheries were to 
                                                      17
 1  receive eight draft strategic plans, they could be 
 2  looked at and turned into something that I think 
 3  could be very useful in furthering this whole area.  
 4            If it takes some resources to do that, 
 5  then that's something that Bill would have to look 
 6  at.  But I think that would be an incremental step 
 7  forward that would really cause a lot of incremental 
 8  analysis and then an opportunity for some 
 9  harmonization.  
10            MR. O'SHEA:  Mr. Chairman, question to 
11  that recommendation.  
12            Tom, where would you see that fit with the 
13  notion of the Agency coming up with some standards 
14  for the process?  Would the strategic plan follow 
15  that?  Or would it lead it?  
16            MR. BILLY:  It could work either way.  
17            The Agency could go forward with some 
18  draft guidelines or standards that may be helpful to 
19  the councils.  The councils could do it without 
20  that, and then what they submit could be helpful to 
21  the Agency in terms of developing those National 
22  Standards.  
23            MR. O'SHEA:  So it's almost a 
24  chicken-and-egg thing.  You could then argue that 
25  both sides would be communicating via drafts.  
                                                      18
 1            I think that makes sense, Mr. Chair.
 2            MR. HOGARTH:  I'll just point out, the 
 3  councils have given me the four names for the 
 4  working group on ecosystems.  Steve Murawski is in 
 5  the process of setting that up.  So I'll just tell 
 6  Steve to get this working group, to put this as one 
 7  of the agenda items, and add that information 
 8  together.  But that working group has already 
 9  started -- or  is getting started.  
10            MR. O'SHEA:  Mr. Chairman, I think that 
11  suggestion would be consistent with what our 
12  committee talked about in terms of keeping this 
13  focused on the councils.  
14            The other committee members -- that would 
15  be my interpretation of it.  
16            MR. LEIPZIG:  Yeah.  I think we were 
17  thinking that it would be -- for the sake of having 
18  things be uniform, having NMFS come up with some 
19  definition of what ecosystem-based management is, 
20  what it looks like, the guidelines, give that to 
21  councils then to react by saying, okay, these are 
22  the kinds of things that we are currently doing that 
23  would fit into that and here are the things that we 
24  aren't currently doing that we could possibly could 
25  do or here are the things that we aren't doing or 
                                                      19
 1  believe there's no way we ever could do, and what 
 2  the reasons are.  
 3            I think that is probably what you're 
 4  thinking in terms of --  
 5            MR. BILLY:  That's fine.  
 6            MR. OSTERBACK:  Okay.  Any other 
 7  questions?  
 8            I have one, maybe for clarification.  When 
 9  you first started, you talked about putting the 
10  ecosystem-based approach for fishery management, 
11  that was basically put together on the web to look 
12  at.  So were you asking for changes to it and how 
13  were you suggesting to do that?  
14            MR. O'SHEA:  Mr. Chairman, I think the 
15  sense was that it would be valuable for MAFAC 
16  members to review that document.  So it calibrates 
17  -- if we have new members here, can calibrate it.  
18            I guess we didn't really talk about 
19  process, whether or not it would be -- how would we 
20  actually change it.  But I think it would be 
21  self-evident.  
22            In other words, I think if we read through 
23  it, we'd see some things that were either missing or 
24  things that now need to be updated.  Then we could 
25  have probably a discussion on correspondence.  
                                                      20
 1            Or if you want, direct it to me and this 
 2  committee, and we could come back to the group with 
 3  those comments.  I'll offer myself --  
 4            MR. OSTERBACK:  Well, I think we need a 
 5  set avenue to get there.  So if we're going to put 
 6  this up, people are going to look at it, full 
 7  committee, understanding that if you have changes 
 8  they would have to go back through the committee or 
 9  through you?  
10            MS. BRYANT:  Are we talking about changing 
11  this report, the recommendation?  Or that whole 
12  guideline?  
13            MR. O'SHEA:  On Bonnie's thing.  
14            MS. BRYANT:  Yeah, that's what I'm --  
15            MR. O'SHEA:  Yeah.  
16            MS. BRYANT:  Just the committee report, 
17  not the document called, the Summary --  
18            MR. O'SHEA:  No, I think our position 
19  would be it's either an addendum or here is --  
20            MS. BRYANT:  An update.  
21            MR. O'SHEA:  -- Bonnie's document 
22  revisited two years later --  
23            MS. BRYANT: Exactly.  
24            MR. O'SHEA:  What are the key things.  
25            MS. BRYANT:  That's fine.  
                                                      21
 1            MR. O'SHEA:  It may be that we say we 
 2  can't do any better than this.  It's okay.  It's a 
 3  good reference.  We should use it.  
 4            MS. BRYANT:  Yes.  We need a full 
 5  committee thing, but we're talking about doing that 
 6  with some of the others.  So this could be added to 
 7  it.  If there are changes --  
 8            MR. O'SHEA:  No, I wouldn't change the 
 9  report.  I would just say an addendum or comment to 
10  the --  
11            MS. BRYANT:  Kind of a revised update to 
12  the Committee Recommendation Report.  
13            MR. OSTERBACK:  So I guess as we go 
14  through these, then if that's needed, there will be 
15  a full committee.  
16            MR. MOON:  I think there is a sense that 
17  people should read the materials and become familiar 
18  with it.  But changing it, it just didn't seem like 
19  it would be very helpful at this point in time.  
20            Perhaps the Dave Fluharty document was a 
21  lot more substantive to the kind of talks that we're 
22  having in this recommendation in developing it as we 
23  go forward.  So we didn't really think that we'd 
24  need to pick it back up again.  
25            MR. OSTERBACK:  Okay.  Because I was 
                                                      22
 1  having a little bit of a heartburn with having MAFAC 
 2  do something and then three meetings later we go 
 3  back and change it all around.  
 4            MR. O'SHEA:  No, no, I don't think the 
 5  idea was to -- and if I characterized it that way, 
 6  then I apologize for that.  
 7            MR. OSTERBACK:  Okay.  Laurel.
 8            MS. BRYANT:  I'm just kind of looking at 
 9  even this report almost kind of being MAFAC, 
10  Ecosystems 2.  So if there is anything that you need 
11  to change, we can.  
12            MR. OSTERBACK:  Okay.  All right.  If 
13  there are no other comments on the report, I need a 
14  motion to accept the report by the full body.  
15            MR. FLETCHER:  Motion to approve -- to  
16  accept.  
17            MR. O'SHEA:  I suggest you accept it, then 
18  you don't have to worry about approving it.  
19            MR. OSTERBACK:  Okay.  We have a motion to 
20  accept the report as presented.  
21            MR. LEIPZIG:  Second.  
22            MR. OSTERBACK:  Second by Pete.  
23            Any discussion on the motion?  Further 
24  discussion?  
25            Hearing none, all those in favor signify 
                                                      23
 1  by saying aye.  
 2            COMMITTEE MEMBERS:  Aye.  
 3            MR. OSTERBACK:  All those opposed, same 
 4  sign.  Hearing none, motion carried.  
 5            Thank you very much for your time and the 
 6  report.  
 7            The second one we'll go to is Coral.  Are 
 8  we ready?  
 9            (Coral Working Group Recommendations)
10            MR. RAYBURN:  I basically just took the 
11  notes of the talk.  We didn't have time to go 
12  through this report.  So I leave it to the committee 
13  to correct what errors there are.  And I haven't 
14  wordsmithed it or anything.  
15            This was the group that was participating 
16  in the working group.  We didn't really elect a 
17  moderator, or anything.  Tom Billy was very active 
18  in kind of promoting discussions.  So he pretty well 
19  assumed that role.  
20            We did have Dr. Grigg involved, as well as 
21  Tom, so that we had some good resources there.  
22            Mike, I'll add to this.  Mike came in at 
23  the latter part.  
24            We followed basically the slides from Mike 
25  Sissenwine's presentation, starting at Slide 24, I 
                                                      24
 1  believe, and went through some of the -- that slide 
 2  deals with issues for MAFAC consideration, research 
 3  priorities.  
 4            You can see our discussion there.  We 
 5  looked over priorities, the issue of mapping, both 
 6  known and suspected habitat was given high priority 
 7  and related to -- as Chris pointed out -- to the 
 8  Ocean Commission's Report on Chapter 21, as well as 
 9  the Oceana Petition of recognizing that need.  
10            Also, in that, for the future, suggested 
11  as far as listing those research priorities, to take 
12  commercially-exploited out, and just have "exploited 
13  species" as the term used there.  
14            Also, there was a suggestion made that 
15  another addition to these research bullets, if you 
16  will, consideration of keystone and exploited target 
17  species within the deep-water coral assembly, I 
18  think is the point there, as well as deep-water 
19  corals and their contribution to the species 
20  diversity, and just how much of the ecosystem is 
21  based on that resource.  
22            There was a little discussion about the 
23  interaction of mobile and sessile species, but it 
24  was felt that that was included in the research 
25  priorities that were given to us.  
                                                      25
 1            Also, a suggestion made that there be a 
 2  comprehensive review of previous research, say, over 
 3  the last 200 years, and that the findings in the 
 4  papers from that review would be included into the 
 5  current documents with reference information as 
 6  appropriate.  
 7            Finally, after that discussion it was 
 8  agreed that with those comments, that the list of 
 9  research targets and the priorities given there were 
10  appropriate.  
11            The next item is the policy and management 
12  slide, the following one.  We had a general 
13  discussion on the use of the term protection versus 
14  conservation and what the implications of that might 
15  be.  Of course, the concern was that protection 
16  would imply an absolute abstention from any 
17  activities in the area for purposes of protection.  
18  Conservation may be less intrusive than that.  
19            In the discussion of why we should protect 
20  these resources, on what basis, and pretty much the 
21  first two there were recognized, both the habitat 
22  for the exploited species and also the biodiversity.  
23            I had it a little out of order, but in 
24  that list the third bullet as to why we should 
25  protect, it was a charismatic species and it was 
                                                      26
 1  suggested that perhaps the intrinsic value of the 
 2  species replace its charismatic value.  
 3            When we got to, what could be done to 
 4  protect the cold-water corals, we talked about -- as 
 5  you can see there -- the idea of inclusive or an 
 6  exclusive protection initiative.  The thought trying 
 7  to be conveyed there was whether you exclude all 
 8  areas that are not currently being trawled from the 
 9  opportunity to trawl.  So you have absolute I guess 
10  valid information that would indicate if you did 
11  trawl in those areas, you wouldn't impact corals, 
12  would be one way.  
13            First, you exclude all those areas until 
14  you know that you can go into those areas.  
15            The other is inclusive, unless you can 
16  specifically identify that there are corals in that 
17  area, and then at such time then you exclude the 
18  activity from that area.  
19            I think I explained that the way I was 
20  trying to think of it.  
21            The suggestion we made here was that kind 
22  of in between those two exclusive and inclusive 
23  areas.  There may be consideration given to 
24  experimental fishing permits so that if a fisherman, 
25  a bottom trawler, does want to move or feels it's 
                                                      27
 1  important to move into an area where there is not 
 2  trawling activity now, that this could be done under 
 3  an experimental fishing permit, and a condition 
 4  placed on that permit such that there would be  
 5  either an ROV or observer or side scan, or all of 
 6  the above.  Some methodology to ensure that if that 
 7  activity did go into that area that it wouldn't have 
 8  a significant impact on the fisheries -- or the 
 9  cold-water corals.  
10            Basically, there was a general consensus 
11  among our group that there should be conditions 
12  instituted that would protect assemblages of 
13  cold-water coral.  
14            We talked a little about the need for 
15  additional legislation.  The idea there being there 
16  was a bill put forward by Congress, and what we 
17  think would be needed in that.  
18            I think the general discussion was that it 
19  would be good to find either a stand-alone piece of 
20  legislation or another appropriate vehicle that 
21  might be up for Reauthorization.  Or there could be 
22  some sense of Congress, given the focused attention 
23  on the research and national policy on cold-water 
24  corals, to recognize the importance of cold-water 
25  corals in the ecosystems, and the ecosystem approach 
                                                      28
 1  to management, I guess.  
 2            The recognition that the management of 
 3  cold-water coral should be done under a fishery 
 4  management regime and the authority for NOAA 
 5  Fisheries to exercise -- that should be N instead of 
 6  M -- an international leadership role in cold-water 
 7  corals.  
 8            That would be the substance of a 
 9  legislative.  We would avoid, I think, suggesting 
10  that any legislation on cold-water corals include 
11  some kind of regulatory regime.  We felt that should 
12  be done within the Magnuson-Stevens Conservation 
13  Management Act, just to ensure there is adequate 
14  statute there to protect the cold-water corals.  
15            Our time expired before we got into 
16  dealing with specific management tools.  There had 
17  been a suggestion made that if additional 
18  information is desired by NOAA Fisheries or others, 
19  that we could look at it in a future meeting of the 
20  Task Working Group to expose issues that are still 
21  out there.  
22            These are suggestions that I talked about 
23  before.  
24            That's the report.  I will leave it to the 
25  committee to fill in the gaps on that, anything that 
                                                      29
 1  I missed that I didn't put in here.  
 2            MR. FLETCHER:  We had a fair amount of 
 3  discussion about the issue of funding.  While we 
 4  didn't come to any conclusion, we wanted to make 
 5  sure that we didn't want to get stuck in another 
 6  unfunded mandate situation where Congress tells us 
 7  to do something but then makes no appropriation.  We 
 8  didn't really come to an agreement on it.  
 9            But it's an ongoing problem.  And I don't 
10  know, Bill, whether or not a sense in this committee 
11  would be important.  Or just a sense of the 
12  importance of adequate funding to step into the 
13  realm of a new area that is obviously of importance 
14  to everyone and is gaining much higher priority 
15  internationally.  
16            MR. HOGARTH:  I think the sense of that 
17  will be useful as it goes through the public process 
18  is good.  If that's you're feeling --  
19            MR. FLETCHER:  Show me the money, Dave.  
20            MR. WHALEY:  I'm an authorizer, not an 
21  appropriator.  
22            MR. HOGARTH:  We can use it, too, in our 
23  budget process, that MAFAC views this as being 
24  important.  
25            MR. LEIPZIG:  Question.  I guess a 
                                                      30
 1  suggestion to the committee, that perhaps where the 
 2  term "bottom trawl" is used, to substitute 
 3  bottom-tending fishing gear.  There's other gears 
 4  besides trawls.  
 5            MR. OSTERBACK:  Right.  Actually, I 
 6  thought we took that out and went to -- we had quite 
 7  a bit of discussion about that.  It was -- Chris, we 
 8  used a different word.  
 9            MR. DORSETT:  Yes.  We discussed it.  
10  There was a definition for mobile-tending bottom 
11  gear, and we talked about definitions.  
12            MR. LEIPZIG:  I wouldn't even limit it to 
13  mobile.  
14            MR. DORSETT:  That's fine.  
15            MS. BRYANT:  Bottom-tending gear.  
16            MR. OSTERBACK:  Well, we had something in 
17  there, like we were talking about things that impact 
18  coral. 
19            MR. LEIPZIG:  Bottom tending, that's what 
20  I would use.  
21            MS. RAYMOND:  Well, that was a question I 
22  had.  Actually, I had that question about the 
23  presentation when it was given by the Service, was 
24  that just mobile fishing gear was listed as 
25  something -- restricting that would be a form of 
                                                      31
 1  protection for coral, and there are all kinds of 
 2  other things that impact coral besides -- first of 
 3  all, there's all different kinds of fishing gear 
 4  that would have an impact, but also all kinds of 
 5  activities other than fishing that could potentially 
 6  impact coral.  So, you know, I certainly would want 
 7  to see that done -- any further presentations that 
 8  NMFS did to include recommendations for different 
 9  kinds of protections other than just that one thing, 
10  and hope that this report will do the same thing.  
11            MR. DORSETT:  We discussed that issue.  We 
12  were told it was reported in the available 
13  literature that deeper cold-water corals, the main 
14  threat is fishing as opposed to, for example, coral 
15  reefs, et cetera, that are facing a number of stress 
16  impacts.  So that is why we used that.  
17            MS. RAYMOND:  Okay.  But at the least, it 
18  should be expanded to all different kinds of fishing 
19  gear.  
20            MR. OSTERBACK:  Actually, when we talked 
21  about it, we talked about not only fishing but 
22  exploitation as far as commercial harvest of corals 
23  that takes place in some of the areas.  
24            I didn't even know it until we had the 
25  discussion that it actually takes place in Alaska 
                                                      32
 1  too, in the southeast, for gold coral.  So I mean, 
 2  those things have to be in it.  
 3            So we had moved away from that.  So I 
 4  think we just need to I think correct that part of 
 5  it.  
 6            When we talked about how to get that for 
 7  the protection of the coral, actually that took up 
 8  -- we had quite a bit of discussion on that, as far 
 9  as -- I think what Ralph went into on a couple of 
10  his bullets that he has in there, is do we approach 
11  it as, do we close an area down because we're not 
12  sure what's in there.  
13            Or do we say by special permit, or 
14  whatever each individual council uses to do 
15  exploratory fisheries into other areas with 
16  observers, that type of thing, and keep expanding it 
17  was kind of the way I think we went.  
18            Because if you just close everything with 
19  nothing in there, we don't know what's there.  
20            Also, we also learned that there are no 
21  corals that are endangered, extinct -- extinct, 
22  endangered -- out of all of the corals that are out 
23  there.  So each individual council through the 
24  process they have with their scientific committees 
25  and advisory panels that they have, and the councils 
                                                      33
 1  themselves, they are going to have to decide if 
 2  there is -- what they're comfortable with as far as 
 3  coral being exploited for whatever reason, however 
 4  it gets there.  
 5            So I don't think we came out funneling 
 6  into pinpointing one particular fishery or reason 
 7  why the corals go on, but by saying here is all the 
 8  things that we wanted to see inside this toolbox 
 9  basically that the councils were going to have.  
10            MR. LEIPZIG:  Picking up the comment, I 
11  wonder if the committee had any discussion about the 
12  impacts of other type of activities, such as 
13  trenching for fiber optic cables?  
14            Other people are out there and they're 
15  doing things to the bottom.  But the problem is, in 
16  some cases, probably more severely than any fishing  
17  gear is.  Was that discussed?  
18            MR. FLETCHER:  It came up, yeah.  Dr. 
19  Grigg pointed out that that could be a significant 
20  impact.  
21            MR. LEIPZIG:  I've lost track now.  The 
22  West Coast has got an incredible array of fiber 
23  optic now running offshore.  
24            MR. OSTERBACK:  Tom.
25            MR. HOURIGAN:  Just as a clarification.  
                                                      34
 1            We at NOAA have been looking at that, and 
 2  some councils have actually been looking at some of 
 3  the cable issues as well.  
 4            It is a concern, as well as particularly 
 5  gas and oil discovery and development.  
 6            However, the footprint of those activities 
 7  is tremendously smaller than those of bottom-tending 
 8  fishing.  There is absolutely no question that as 
 9  far as the severity of impact in every region, with 
10  the exception of Western Pacific and Hawaii, 
11  trawling is the largest impact.  
12            There are, however, concerns that have 
13  been expressed by the councils for bottom longlines, 
14  bottom set gillnets, some of those are being 
15  identified as concerns as well.  
16            But as far as just the overall -- all of 
17  the information we have on the severity of impacts 
18  and the footprint of those impacts, nothing else 
19  really comes close to fishing.  
20            MR. LEIPZIG:  Just a response.  
21            From my perspective, fishing occurs and 
22  has been occurring in the same locations for many, 
23  many years.  The degree of the expansion of fish is 
24  very, very slight.  So to what degree fishing is 
25  impacting those, the impact has already occurred to 
                                                      35
 1  those corals.  
 2            But these other activities are moving into 
 3  areas where people haven't fished.  We're seeing the 
 4  laying of fiber optic cables that now run parallel 
 5  to the Coast.  These aren't just running off to 
 6  Japan anymore.  They're running -- rather than 
 7  stringing cable along the telephone poles, they're 
 8  laying them offshore and then coming in and then 
 9  running back offshore to the south.  
10            Again, I think that type of activity is --  
11            MR. HOURIGAN:  As I noted, we are also 
12  including that and looking at that and encouraging 
13  the councils to look at that, as well.  
14            MR. OSTERBACK:  Steve.  
15            MR. ATRAN:  I wanted to talk about your 
16  terminology, first of all, on what you've just been 
17  discussing.  
18            In the Gulf of Mexico, as I recall, the 
19  last thing that we really had any comments on was 
20  building of some natural gas pipelines.  
21            The pipelines themselves aren't that big, 
22  but the anchoring mechanism where they are above the 
23  surface and take up a fairly wide swath.  In that 
24  case, the pipeline companies work cooperatively with 
25  us and then reroute them around areas that we were 
                                                      36
 1  concerned with.  But that is a concern.  
 2            I wanted to mention, if you went ahead and 
 3  changed that terminology from bottom trawling to 
 4  bottom-tending gear, I just wanted you to be aware  
 5  you may be prohibiting virtually all types of 
 6  fishing that catch fish on the bottom, including 
 7  vertical hook-and-line gear.  
 8            Because that vertical hook-and-line gear 
 9  is going to have a heavy weight on it.  When it 
10  drops down, it's going to hit the bottom and it's 
11  going to hit that coral.  So it will impact coral.  
12            So if you use the term bottom-tending 
13  gear, you're taking a very broad stroke.  
14            MR. OSTERBACK:  Well, I think when we went 
15  through this we were looking at, okay, if you're 
16  going to take an area, you're not going to allow any 
17  destruction of coral of any kind, then you have to 
18  take into consideration like some areas in Florida 
19  where they -- you can't even anchor.  Like people go 
20  in to scuba dive, drop an anchor, that's not 
21  allowed, to my understanding.  
22            So I mean, if you're going to do this, I 
23  don't think it should be the direction of MAFAC to 
24  select a gear type and recommend that.
25            I think the recommendation should be, if 
                                                      37
 1  this is what we're looking at, then we have to look 
 2  at everything that impacts it.  Because if you go 
 3  off in one direction, and focus everything on that, 
 4  everything else drops off the side.  So if we're 
 5  going to look at it, let's look at all of it.  
 6            MR. ATRAN:  All right.  If that's your 
 7  intent, that's fine.  I just didn't want you to be 
 8  caught by surprise when somebody looks at this and 
 9  says -- their interpretation is you can't even 
10  hook-and-line because of the heavy weights.  
11            MR. OSTERBACK:  Yeah.  What's good for the 
12  goose is good for the gander.  
13            How about any other committee members on 
14  this one?  Do you have any other comments or 
15  correction to it?  
16            I know there was a lot of things during 
17  this that -- and Ralph was writing as fast as he 
18  could, and we kept changing our mind.  
19            MR. O'SHEA:  I'm not a committee member so 
20  I wanted to make sure that they got a chance for 
21  response.  I just wanted to make sure that I get in, 
22  that's all.  
23            MR. OSTERBACK:  Any other comments?  
24  Hearing none -- everybody is happy.  How come your 
25  finger is up?  
                                                      38
 1            MS. RAYMOND:  He wants to talk.  
 2            MR. OSTERBACK:  Oh.
 3            MR. O'SHEA:  Hard work, Mr. Chairman?
 4            In your discussion -- well, let me go 
 5  back.  
 6            When I heard the presentation the other 
 7  day on kind of this limited resource guy, there's 
 8  limited resources within an agency, within an 
 9  organization, resources meaning science, meaning 
10  dollars, meaning political will, meaning focus, 
11  meaning staff.  So when -- I got the intrinsic part, 
12  thanks a lot to Dr. Grigg, about the value of the 
13  deep-water coral.  
14            But I got a fuzzier picture about what  
15  the actual documented contribution is to fish 
16  productivity and actual habitat and how it makes a 
17  difference.  
18            Certainly, compared to marsh and estuarine 
19  areas, we have a lot of information about how 
20  important those areas are.  
21            So my question to you all, is there -- I 
22  asked Ralph this, I apologize, I was out of the room 
23  -- to sort of the public policy section.  I didn't 
24  see it in there.  
25            Did you all have a discussion about the 
                                                      39
 1  potential danger for this to sort of shift focus 
 2  away from some of the proven critical habitat 
 3  problems that we have right now, and we end up with 
 4  this language -- we're getting into this thing where 
 5  we think we're protecting deep-water corals, we 
 6  think we're doing something, meanwhile we're 
 7  bulkheading marsh areas, not doing a good job on the 
 8  nearshore area, which I know in the states I 
 9  represent is really critical to fish productivity.  
10            So is this going to cost -- I guess my 
11  thing is, is this going to cost us anything in the 
12  shore-side battle to save critical habitat?  Did you 
13  have discussion about that?
14            MR. OSTERBACK:  Actually, we had 
15  discussion about how much monies were available, how 
16  much money was being spent on corals.  
17            In my understanding from Dr. Grigg and Tom 
18  both was that $26 million roughly is being spent on 
19  shallow-water corals and three to five million or 
20  something on deep water.  
21            MR. HOURIGAN:  I don't have the exact --  
22            MR. OSTERBACK:  But anyway, very low.  
23            MR. HOURIGAN:  -- almost all of it is in 
24  ocean exploration.  Because there was nothing 
25  directed towards deep-water coral work, and because 
                                                      40
 1  of the increasing interest and scientific concerns 
 2  about this, the number of projects which have been 
 3  funded, between 2001 and 2004, increased from about 
 4  five to seventeen projects funded by Ocean 
 5  Exploration, primarily, and also National Undersea 
 6  Research Program.  
 7            So there has been an increase in funding 
 8  of projects within existing funding levels, a 
 9  greater degree of those for the Ocean Exploration, 
10  and they're all deep-water projects to begin with. 
11  They might ask them to go on to do research in 
12  deep-water corals and coral issues.
13            We have not -- unlike the shallow-water 
14  coral area, we haven't had any real increase in 
15  funding for management type issues on that.  
16  However, we have had a little bit of work with the 
17  councils basically under EFH and ultimately their 
18  Draft EIS for EFH or even marine resources.  
19            MR. HOGARTH:  One reason, too, it is 
20  becoming an issue from an international standpoint, 
21  there are discussions going on there, to prohibit 
22  all bottom -- I think they say dragging in most 
23  areas.  So that has been a big discussion.  So we've 
24  got to take a better look at it, and try to play in 
25  that arena.  
                                                      41
 1            But most scientists say it's good habitat, 
 2  but we don't spend a lot of money on it.  
 3            MR. DiLERNIA:  I think the answer to your 
 4  question is no.  
 5            MR. BILLY:  We didn't have that specific 
 6  discussion.  We did talk about being sensitive to 
 7  unfunded mandates, but we didn't get into the 
 8  business of suggesting the amount of money or 
 9  creating some -- but we did spend a lot of time 
10  talking about the importance of research, getting a 
11  better understanding of some of those questions.
12            MR. O'SHEA:  Well, if I could, Mr. 
13  Chairman.  I mean the idea, how do you know it has 
14  an impact?  How do you know what it contributes?  
15  You need to get that information, and that makes 
16  sense to me.  
17            Bill, your point is saying if we don't pay 
18  attention to this, we have a lot of other big things 
19  that are going to be addressed.  So those things 
20  make sense to me.  
21            But I just -- we've got a huge giant 
22  problem, that it is well documented, that is sitting 
23  right in front of us, and I think it would be a 
24  mistake to lose the bubble on protecting nearshore 
25  habitats.  I think if it can be done simultaneously, 
                                                      42
 1  that's our answer.  
 2            MR. OSTERBACK:  Well, in the discussions 
 3  that we had, as we went along this, I mean everybody 
 4  agreed that corals are important.  We also agreed 
 5  that existing fisheries and possible fisheries are 
 6  also important to the nation.  So at some point 
 7  you're going to have to decide which plays into what 
 8  part of the whole formula.  
 9            So we wound up actually going back to 
10  ecosystem-based management, that this has to play 
11  into that; but also with the idea that socioeconomic 
12  values are going to be part of the formula also.  
13            So knowing that it's all in there -- I 
14  mean, this is probably going to be a real decisive 
15  issue for a lot of people as to where this thing 
16  goes.  It's going to accelerate as times goes on.  
17            At some point there's going to have to be 
18  decisions made, but we looked at it like we didn't 
19  want the wrong decision made either, like taking an 
20  area and close it down and then ten years later find 
21  out there wasn't a coral there but nobody had the 
22  opportunity to go look.  
23            Then in the meantime, you wreck the whole 
24  part of a fishing industry.  So those kind of 
25  discussions we had and said, so this is going to 
                                                      43
 1  take a lot longer than the two hours we spent in the 
 2  committee meeting on it, but here is what we came up 
 3  with so far.  
 4            MR. GRIGG:  Just to emphasize the Hawaii 
 5  example of taking only three percent bears upon the 
 6  question of Essential Fish Habitat, because you're 
 7  taking three percent of the Essential Fish Habitat, 
 8  which is sustainable by regrowth and recruitment, 
 9  and that has been a workable policy for 40-plus 
10  years.  
11            Now, Bill Hogarth's point about 
12  international precious coral fisheries is probably 
13  where the real problem lies.  The dredging, the 
14  coral mops that have been used in Taiwan, off Japan, 
15  and the Emperor Seamounts have just devastated the 
16  resource.  It's clear-cutting.  That's where a 
17  multilateral agreement is in need.  
18            If Dave can have some influence there, it 
19  will be greatly beneficial to the resource.  
20            MR. OSTERBACK:  We told him that we 
21  wouldn't have a lot of quotes in our little paper 
22  because spell-check couldn't decipher --  
23            MS. BRYANT:  Lots of big words going on 
24  there, guys.  
25            MR. GRIGG:  Really?  (Laughter)  
                                                      44
 1            MR. OSTERBACK:  So anyway, is there 
 2  anything else from the committee that anybody feels 
 3  needs to be filled in or we lost or misrepresented 
 4  or anything else?  We're all happy?  
 5            Any other questions from the full 
 6  committee?  
 7            So we'll look for a motion to accept the 
 8  report as it stands.  
 9            MR. ROBERTS:  So moved.  
10            MR. OSTERBACK:  Motion by Ken.  
11            MR. KENT:  Second.  
12            MR. OSTERBACK:  Second by Don.  
13            If there are no other comments, all those 
14  in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.  
15            COMMITTEE MEMBERS:  Aye.  
16            MR. OSTERBACK:  Those opposed, same sign.  
17  Motion carries.  
18            We have Magnuson.  Who is the Magnuson 
19  person?  
20            MS. BRYANT:  New guy.
21            MR. OSTERBACK:  That's why we saved this 
22  one for last.  It's roasting time.  
23            (MSA Working Group)
24            MR. SCHWABB:  Our group included -- 
25  because it's not written up here, Tony DiLernia, Jim 
                                                      45
 1  Gilmore, Jim Cook, Maggie.  We also had the benefit 
 2  of Laurel, Bill Hogarth and Dave Whaley throughout 
 3  most of our deliberations.  
 4            Essentially, what he we did, first of all, 
 5  was talked about process, what it is we thought we 
 6  could contribute using as the template the 
 7  presentation that Jack Dunnigan provided for us the 
 8  other day.  
 9            Essentially, what we thought we could do 
10  that would be of greatest value would be to look at 
11  his list of issues and options.  For those issues 
12  that he had already identified, identify additional 
13  options or identify needs for development or for  
14  clarification of options that had already been 
15  articulated by Jack.  
16            We also then talked about procedurally 
17  identifying issues that had not yet been identified 
18  by Jack, if any existed, by adding options to those.  
19            Ultimately, we think that there is going 
20  to be a need for a MAFAC recommendation with respect 
21  to specific options to the extent that we can reach 
22  that kind of a consensus.  
23            But there was some discussion that we did 
24  not necessarily -- and all of this at this point is 
25  sort of pointed toward the presentations and 
                                                      46
 1  discussions at the March meeting.  
 2            But the idea is that first we thought, 
 3  well, we need to identify our preferred options 
 4  before that.  But we also I think reached the 
 5  conclusion that we expressly should not identify a 
 6  preferred option before that meeting, but ought to 
 7  after that meeting be looking toward some process 
 8  whereby this committee can identify preferred 
 9  options to inform not only the Agency, but also 
10  facilitate deliberations in Congress.  
11            I just made a note up here, if anyone in 
12  the subgroup, in particular, feel free to interrupt 
13  me at any time, because I tried to capture the gist 
14  of our conversation effectively.  I'm not sure 
15  whether I did that or not.  
16            But Dave Whaley pointed out -- and he had 
17  a useful document that talked about some of the 
18  substantial progress that has been realized since 
19  SFA, and perhaps one of the things that we need to 
20  interject into the discussion, because there might 
21  be a lack of awareness in some quarters of some of 
22  the significant progress that has been achieved, 
23  because we need to do that.  
24            You know, is there a report card type of a 
25  document that can be put forth that will say, here 
                                                      47
 1  is what has taken place to this point, as kind of a 
 2  backdrop of where we need to go next.  
 3            So issues.  We talked about obviously 
 4  ecosystem-based management -- or should I say now 
 5  the ecosystem approach to management?    
 6            MS. BRYANT:  Yes.  
 7            MR. SCHWAAB:  Is that the new terminology?  
 8            In true federal fashion, we have an 
 9  acronym already.  
10            But anyway, I think some of the 
11  conversation that we had really complements what 
12  Vince reported.  We obviously see this as an 
13  incremental process.  We had a lot of discussion on 
14  that.  
15            We talked about the way that Magnuson 
16  could be -- could be reauthorized and what language 
17  could be input that would facilitate that kind of 
18  incremental improvement in ecosystem approaches -- I 
19  might get that wrong.  So what might that look like.  
20  How might we recognize the desires to have an 
21  ecosystem approach to management incorporated into 
22  Reauthorization, but do that in the right way that 
23  facilitates meaningful progress forward.  
24            But also, we were very sensitive to 
25  essentially setting the Agency up for another round 
                                                      48
 1  of lawsuits.  We're not sure we quite have that yet.  
 2            But achieving some kind of guidance within 
 3  the new Magnuson Bill that moves us down that road 
 4  is obviously the goal.  
 5            One of the things we did have some 
 6  discussion about are other existing approaches, like 
 7  what Bob Mahood had mentioned the other day down at 
 8  the South Atlantic Council, that could further 
 9  illustrate maybe in a little more detail some of the 
10  options that were articulated by Jack.  
11            I think one of the things we see as 
12  perhaps beneficial, and we'll hear this again on 
13  this respect to another issue, is move from kind of 
14  these broad statements to some specific examples, 
15  this is what we're talking about here and then 
16  thereby, to some degree, demystify and eliminate 
17  some of the concerns as to what exactly does this 
18  mean for the various stakeholders and interest 
19  groups.  
20            I should stop there on that issue, and 
21  maybe offer if the committee subgroup members have 
22  anything to add?  
23            National Standard 1.  There was first 
24  recognition that this is a potentially politically 
25  sensitive issue.  We went back to Jack's comment 
                                                      49
 1  about focusing more on fishing mortality, what 
 2  exactly does this mean.  I think that that relates 
 3  back to my bottom comment, which one of the options 
 4  we talked about was perhaps incorporating National 
 5  Standard language that better reflected again this 
 6  ecosystem-based management thought and/or processes 
 7  and establish performance requirements that reflect 
 8  health and size of stocks, the health and, if you 
 9  will, the carrying capacity of habitats which might 
10  change over time, as well as the relationship to 
11  other stocks.  
12            I think when you start talking about 
13  moving from single-species-based management to 
14  multi-species or even to management that 
15  incorporates some of these habitat constraints as 
16  they change over time that you need language that 
17  reflects that.  
18            Then, again, from an ecosystem 
19  perspective, add more clarity where we're addressing 
20  multiple targets for mixed-stock management plans.  
21  I think Maggie made the point that we have a mixed 
22  stock plan where fluctuation in performance in one 
23  stock sort of affects the status of the whole plan, 
24  which isn't necessarily -- I'm not saying that the 
25  right way -- which isn't necessarily the best 
                                                      50
 1  approach.  
 2            So again, I'll stop and ask if the 
 3  subcommittee subgroup members have anything to add 
 4  there.  
 5            Okay.  Science and allocation.  We think 
 6  there might be an opportunity to better articulate 
 7  the role of the committees in the process.  Again, 
 8  to kind of inform the discussion, we thought it 
 9  might be of value -- because there are so many 
10  different approaches regionally around the country, 
11  that there might be some value in asking the Agency 
12  to go out and look at the different ways that the 
13  different councils use their committees and use that 
14  to not only look at the range of options that might 
15  be out there, but the best question, not necessarily 
16  predisposed toward national standardization, but to 
17  ask the question, is there some value in national 
18  standardizations of some of those processes.  
19            Then we got into a couple of the problems 
20  that you run into if the council were to be sort of 
21  bound by taking the express advice of the science 
22  committees.  There are obviously some specific 
23  examples, one of them that Jim Cook talked about -- 
24  he stepped out again, but were some problems they've 
25  run into out here with respect to highly migratory 
                                                      51
 1  species or straddling stocks, particularly from an 
 2  international perspective, and how we position the 
 3  councils to do good work locally in that context.  
 4            Again, you don't want to -- I think you 
 5  don't want to tie the hands of the councils, 
 6  particularly again if the move toward an ecosystem 
 7  approach to management where we're talking about 
 8  making policy decisions that weigh the relative 
 9  positions of various individual species, and 
10  ultimately that is going to take -- it's going to be 
11  -- we're going to make decisions based on good 
12  science information.  But it's policy decisions that 
13  will ultimately say which species do we want to 
14  emphasize and to what degrees.  
15            We also talked about whether the councils 
16  need from NOAA better ranges in describing sort of 
17  the probabilities of success for various rebuilding 
18  scenarios.  I think there was recognition that some 
19  of the sort of presumptively exact advice that comes 
20  forth now is not necessarily as exact as it might 
21  appear on paper.  
22            Subcommittee members, on that issue?  
23            Council appointments.  There was a pretty 
24  strong interest initially in status quo.  We talked 
25  through a couple of options.  I think ultimately we 
                                                      52
 1  wanted -- maybe to jump ahead to a place where there 
 2  might have been a little more consensus was that 
 3  there might be some value in requiring governors to 
 4  submit a larger slate of candidates and specifically 
 5  ask that that slate of candidates -- and it's the 
 6  fourth bullet down, that that slate of candidates 
 7  include representation from the various interest 
 8  areas or stakeholder groups.  
 9            But we started with kind of a two-two-two 
10  deal, and then moved to, let's ask for five and ask 
11  that they at least provide representation from each 
12  of those groups, and that would at least give the 
13  Agency a little more -- a little better place from 
14  which to create well-rounded groups.  
15            There was also some discussion about the 
16  need to get back to -- I think there have been 
17  discussion to varying degrees about training 
18  programs for new members and to get back to some 
19  emphasis on that again.  
20            MSA/NEPA.  One option would be to 
21  obviously provide language that allows MSA standards 
22  to fulfill NEPA requirements.  
23            We also talked, and I said earlier, one of 
24  the things we need to kind of demystify these 
25  discussions is some more factual information.  There 
                                                      53
 1  was some sense that we need to ask NOAA to 
 2  specifically sort of lay the two sets of 
 3  requirements side by side, identify specific areas 
 4  of conflicts; is it just time frames, is it number 
 5  of options?  Where are there specific places where 
 6  there are some problems so that when the 
 7  conversation unfolds about how to fix that, 
 8  everybody is kind of starting from the same point of 
 9  departure for the conversation.  
10            We also talked a little bit, not a lot, 
11  about the opportunities or the prospects of looking 
12  at other fishery-related statutes as they relate to 
13  Magnuson, and the example obviously there is marine 
14  mammals.  
15            EFH.  We talked about the need essentially 
16  to try to find ways to tighten that up so it can 
17  become a little more meaningful.  Specifically, more 
18  detailed information on specific habitats to 
19  facilitate some prioritization so we're not just 
20  saying this is all essential fish habitat, 
21  therefore, nothing is -- that was the conversation 
22  obviously we had in this committee earlier in the 
23  week.  
24            IFQs.  We had the discussion as to -- the 
25  only note I have down here is this issue of whether 
                                                      54
 1  a private group could purchase but not use a quota 
 2  share.  I don't remember what else -- I know we had 
 3  some discussion, but I didn't --  
 4            MR. GILMORE:  General panic prevailed.  
 5            MR. SCHWABB:  That might be the end.  That 
 6  might be the end.  That might be where we lost 
 7  steam.  
 8            So that is kind of how our conversation 
 9  unfolded.  Obviously it's about sort of using the 
10  expertise that this committee brings to help sort of 
11  develop and better describe the range of options for 
12  that management meeting in March.  
13            Then, ultimately, get us to a place where 
14  we can -- with using that same information, as well 
15  as on the discussion that takes place in March, make 
16  some recommendations on behalf of this committee as 
17  to which preferred option we might wish to see in 
18  the Magnuson Reauthorization process.  
19            With that, I will turn it back to you, Mr. 
20  Chair.  
21            MR. OSTERBACK:  Kate.  
22            MS. WYNNE:  I was just wondering if you 
23  could elaborate on the discussion about how you 
24  would integrate MMPA kind of considerations?  Did 
25  that get discussed?  
                                                      55
 1            MR. SCHWAAB:  We didn't really talk a lot 
 2  about that.  It was just kind of an idea that was 
 3  kind of tossed out, and we moved on.  
 4            MR. OSTERBACK:  Pete.
 5            MR. LEIPZIG:  In your discussion about 
 6  National Standard 1, Jack's presentation on 
 7  mortality rates, did the discussion you have bring 
 8  up how to include greater flexibility for rebuilding 
 9  schemes to that area?  Or did you even talk about 
10  it?  
11            MR. SCHWABB:  Well, I will yield basically 
12  to the other members.  
13            MS. BRYANT:  We talked about mixed stocks.  
14            (Brief time of people speaking at the same 
15  time)  
16            MR. SCHWAAB:  Yeah.  I mean, not only 
17  flexibility for rebuilding schedules, but also 
18  recognition that -- again, it goes back to this sort 
19  of ecosystem-based management discussion, the fact 
20  that some historical level isn't necessarily, by 
21  virtue of interaction with other species or by 
22  virtue of habitat constraints, or changing habitat 
23  conditions over time, that might not be -- you know, 
24  from a stock size perspective, that may not be 
25  appropriate anymore.  
                                                      56
 1            MR. OSTERBACK:  Rob.
 2            MR. KRAMER:  I guess my first question 
 3  would be back to Dave because all my notes are 
 4  already in my box and it's closed.  
 5            What were the three areas that your 
 6  committee was interested in?  One was MPAs? 
 7   One was --  
 8            MR. WHALEY:  Ecosystem approaches to 
 9  management.  The third was -- it's kind of a broad 
10  category, but council reforms.  The issue of science 
11  versus allocation issue, appointments, nominations.   
12  The issue of conflict of interest, and those things.  
13            MR. KRAMER:  Did you get enough 
14  information or constructive information necessary to 
15  go forward?  I didn't know if any of the other 
16  committees had spoke on this one.  
17            MR. WHALEY:  Well, I think part of the 
18  idea of this was to throw out ideas and then before 
19  March, if people had more specific ideas to add in; 
20  or if MAFAC wants to make recommendations, this 
21  would give you the basis for that.  So I don't want 
22  to close the door on other options or other 
23  suggestions, but this is just kind of the first shot 
24  across the bow.  
25            MR. SCHWABB:  Yeah.  I think the 
                                                      57
 1  expectation is that this would be circulated to 
 2  further the climate.  
 3            MR. OSTERBACK:  Tony and then Jim.  
 4            Everybody pass.  Pete.
 5            MR. LEIPZIG:  Just an observation on one 
 6  issue about council appointments.  
 7            One of the options discussed was this 
 8  notion of having governors to nominate two 
 9  recreational fishermen, two commercial fishermen and 
10  two -- or other groups -- represented by other 
11  groups.  In the Pacific Region, Idaho is included in 
12  the region, and it's a noncoastal state.  It doesn't   
13  have a commercial fishery.  Therefore, wiring in 
14  something like that becomes problematic.  
15            MR. SCHWABB:  Well, we quickly moved from 
16  that two-two-two to that five with an emphasis on 
17  the three areas.  But obviously even that would be 
18  problematic for Idaho.  
19            MS. BRYANT:  Randy actually brought that 
20  very point up.  
21            MR. HOGARTH:  Couple things on the list.  
22            National Standard 1 Guidelines, we will 
23  have them out before the March meeting.  I think 
24  they're pretty good.  I think it's going to finally 
25  address a lot of concerns that people have 
                                                      58
 1  expressed.    
 2            I don't know why it has taken us so long.  
 3  The attorneys have given us a real pick on this one.  
 4  But it will come and in fact it address the concerns 
 5  that Congress expressed, too.  So I hope that will 
 6  address the concerns.  
 7            EFH.  We are in the process now of 
 8  developing new guidelines for EFH, which we hope 
 9  will again -- if you go back and look at the report 
10  of when EFH was passed, and all, it will address EFH 
11  concerns of the broad-brush approach and all.  So, 
12  hopefully, maybe a couple of those we can address 
13  before it gets to the Magnuson Act.  
14            If not, then we do need Magnuson to take a 
15  look at it.  
16            MR. OSTERBACK:  You know, like Idaho, 
17  that's like Alaska.  We always wondered why the 
18  North Pacific, how come we have to have Washington.  
19  But you know -- Ken.
20            MR. ROBERTS:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  
21            Just an observation.  I like to see the 
22  word "training" -- I don't know how that came about.  
23  But I remember "orientation" for new council 
24  members, very heavily on the flavor and the 
25  structure of the policy process within governments 
                                                      59
 1  to do things.  I think it might be better if you 
 2  broaden that from orientation to training, my advice 
 3  would be you consider things like consensus 
 4  building, leadership, conflict resolution, the role 
 5  of the public.  Things that we probably assume 
 6  people have -- qualities they have when they get 
 7  nominated to be a council member.  But I think if 
 8  you're going to do some training, you might focus on 
 9  some things like that in addition to orientation.  
10            MR. OSTERBACK:  Tony.
11            MR. DILERNIA:  Can we get back to Idaho?  
12            I remember -- a member of the Mid Atlantic 
13  Council, Pennsylvania is not a coastal state either.  
14  But because the governors have to nominate people, I 
15  remember the State of Pennsylvania Governor 
16  nominating folks not residents of Pennsylvania.  
17  That's allowed.  That's allowed.  
18            MR. OSTERBACK:  Okay.  Any other questions 
19  on the report?  Hearing none.  Thank you for your 
20  report.  
21            We need a motion to accept the report.  
22            MR. DiLERNIA:  So moved.  
23            MR. LEIPZIG:  Second.  
24            MR. OSTERBACK:  Motion by Tony.  Second by 
25  by Peter.  
                                                      60
 1            If there is no other discussion, all those 
 2  in favor of accepting the report, signify by saying 
 3  aye.  
 4            COMMITTEE MEMBERS:  Aye.  
 5            MR. OSTERBACK:  All opposed, same sign. 
 6            Hearing none, report is accepted.  
 7            That's the three reports we were charged 
 8  with, and done.  I'm always amazed we get so much 
 9  out of the reports in so little time, but we do.  
10            Anyway, I thank all the subcommittees.  
11            MS. BRYANT:  Was it accepted?  
12            MR. OSTERBACK:  It was accepted.  Where 
13  were you?  
14            MS. BRYANT:  I was dealing with catering 
15  people.  
16            MR. OSTERBACK:  Anyway, is there any other 
17  bid -- we do have, the next piece of business is 
18  setting the time and place for the next MAFAC 
19  meeting.  
20            From the words of Dr. Hogarth, it will be 
21  somewhere on the East Coast.  
22            MS. RAYMOND:  I have a recommendation.  
23            I would like to recommend that we meet in 
24  Providence, Rhode Island.  
25            MR. OSTERBACK:  How does that sound?  
                                                      61
 1            (Brief time of people speaking at the same 
 2  time)
 3            MR. HOGARTH:  Just for discussion a little 
 4  bit, if Magnuson starts moving quickly -- we don't 
 5  know how quickly it will move, but if it starts 
 6  moving quickly, we really need to have this group 
 7  meet before it gets to the final stages.  
 8            There is a possibility that August may be 
 9  too late.  It may need to be like in June or July.  
10  I just want people to think about that, if we need 
11  to do that.  
12            We haven't talked to groups in Congress 
13  yet, and Senator Stevens wants me to meet with his 
14  staff next week.  
15            But I would think it would be good for 
16  this group to meet before all the final decisions 
17  and input are made there.  
18            MR. OSTERBACK:  So, Bill, if Magnuson 
19  doesn't get fast-tracked, what would you suggest as 
20  a time frame to meet that we could choose between, 
21  June and what?  
22            MR. HOGARTH:  Well, I think if it doesn't 
23  get fast-tracked, July and August is fine.  
24            But if we really get deep in this, I think 
25  we need to put it up to, say, June.  
                                                      62
 1            I think we'll find out in the next couple 
 2  of weeks -- next several weeks.  
 3            MR. LEIPZIG:  If things got going on 
 4  Magnuson in Congress real quick, is there a problem 
 5  with meeting any quicker than June?  
 6            (Brief period of people speaking at the 
 7  same time) 
 8            MR. HOGARTH:  Alvin wants to stay here and 
 9  wait.  
10            We want your input, to have a meeting -- 
11  maybe even we would just try to find money, we 
12  probably could find it to have a special meeting to 
13  address those issues.  So just think about that, we 
14  might need a little bit of flexibility.  
15            MR. LEIPZIG:  I would rather meet earlier.  
16            MR. KENT:  I was going to suggest earlier 
17  on, if we were to meet in June, to try to coordinate 
18  around the NOAA Fish Fry.  That might be a neat 
19  opportunity, and also you might prefer to do it in 
20  Washington, D.C., that might lend an opportunity for 
21  other representatives of the Hill to attend and have 
22  input and feedback from MAFAC as well.  
23            So the recommendation to do it the week of 
24  NOAA Fish Fry, Congress is in session.  
25            Just from what Bob said, it sounds like 
                                                      63
 1  there was a conflict with council meetings?  
 2            MR. OSTERBACK:  In June there are council 
 3  meetings.  And we have fresher fish.  I don't have 
 4  to go all the way to D.C. to fry a fish.
 5            MR. KENT:  You have catfish?  I don't 
 6  think you have catfish.  
 7            MR. OSTERBACK:  Okay.  Here is where we 
 8  are then.  We may need to meet as early as June.  If 
 9  it doesn't get fast-tracked, we're looking at July 
10  or August.  
11            The recommendation that was presented was 
12  to go to Providence.  Okay.  So if we don't meet in 
13  June, what is the preferred meeting time?  
14            MR. DiLERNIA:  August for me.  
15            MR. OSTERBACK:  Okay.  Let's do it this 
16  way.  How many would prefer in July?  Show a sign of 
17  hands.  Okay.  There's three -- four.  
18            How many in August?  So four and four.  
19  Nobody else cares.  
20            How about if we do it this way, since it 
21  seems to be equal all the way across, if we know 
22  where we want to meet, if staff wants to work on 
23  meeting times, hotels, and that, to see when we 
24  could, and get back to us.  
25            MS. BRYANT:  I'm sorry.  We're talking 
                                                      64
 1  July or August, or June?  
 2            MR. OSTERBACK:  Or June if Bill rings the 
 3  bell.  Or we just stay here and wait.  That was my 
 4  option. 
 5            Okay.  Is that fine with everybody?  We'll 
 6  do it that way.  
 7            MS. BRYANT:  And Bill wants to go back and 
 8  look at his schedule and kind of better intel on the 
 9  meeting schedule and council meetings, and then 
10  we'll get back.  Just know, I'm not going to be 
11  around for the next week.  
12            MR. OSTERBACK:  Anything else for MAFAC 
13  for now?  
14            Bill?
15            MR. HOGARTH:  I just want to thank 
16  everybody.  An,d again, for the new members, I think 
17  we've got great members.  This group is really 
18  working and doing what we intended for it to do.  
19  That's good.  We really appreciate it.  
20            We appreciate your patience as we try to 
21  work through the Council Chair and Executive 
22  Director's meeting with the Admiral being here, 
23  because there was an opportunity to do that.  
24            Again, Jim Cook is not here, but I would 
25  like again to express our appreciation to Jim Cook 
                                                      65
 1  and everyone for last night.  It was wonderful.  
 2  Thanks a lot.  
 3            And always, Wendee and the Region, for 
 4  putting up with us.  
 5            MS. BRYANT:  Yes.
 6            MR. OSTERBACK:  All right, everyone.  For 
 7  all of us, the old MAFAC members, to the new ones 
 8  that are onboard, welcome onboard.  You've got lots 
 9  of work to do, along with the rest of us.  Thank  
10  everybody for paying attention.  Thank the staff 
11  here and D.C. for all the help.  
12            We are adjourned.  
13            (Adjourned at 11:43 a.m.)
14    
15    
16    
17    
18  
19  
20  
21  
22
23
24
25