Pages: 1-229

GREETINGS AND INTRODUCTIONS

MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Good afternoon, everyone. Hope you all had pleasant travels to get here in Silver Spring. It's always a risk of having a meeting this early in the season to risk the weather, but obviously we want to get a good deal of discussion under our belt, so to speak, before we head off into our rulemaking season and get set up for the summertime fisheries.

We had a lot of comments that last year's meeting in April didn't really leave us enough time to get the rulemaking underway and get the proposed rules out before the season started, so we wanted to move it up -- and again, you run the risk of the weather, but we're glad -- it looks to me like we've got a pretty nearly full house. If there's any AP members who are not at the table and want to do so, please look for a spot. And if necessary, we can get the setup reconfigured, perhaps, to include a few more spaces tomorrow.

RUSSELL NELSON (No microphone): Willie and Glen will be here in a couple hours.

MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Okay. Willie and Glen are coming up from Carolina. You all received an agenda in the mail, I think either in conjunction with or shortly after your copy of the SAFE Report. So, we're only a few minutes behind time.

We wanted to have some opening remarks from -- we're going to introductions. I know many people are familiar to me, but maybe not all familiar to everybody else. So, why don't we go around this way, counterclockwise. Chris Rogers, Chief of the Highly Migratory Species Management Division.

JOHN DUNNIGAN: Jack Dunnigan, Sustainable Fisheries at NOAA Fisheries.

WILLIAM HOGARTH: Bill Hogarth, NOAA Fisheries.

MARK SAMPSON: Mark Sampson, Ocean City Charter Boat Captain's Association.

MAUMUS CLAVERIE: Mau Claverie from New Orleans with the Gulf Council up here for the Billfish AP.

ROBERT MCAULIFFE: Bob McAuliffe, St. Croix, Virgin Islands.

RUSSELL HUDSON: Russell Hudson, Directed Shark Fisheries Incorporated.

WAYNE LEE: Wayne Lee from South Atlantic Council.

ROM WHITAKER: Rom Whitaker, Hatteras charter boat captain.

JOHN GRAVES: John Graves, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, here representing the U.S. ICCAT Advisory Committee.

RICK WEBER: Rick Weber, South Jersey Marina.

RANDY BLANKENSHIP: Randy Blankenship, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Coastal Fisheries Division.

FRANCIS BLOUNT: Frank Blount, New England Fisheries Council.

IRBY BASCO: Irby Basco, Gulf of Mexico HSM.

PAMELA BASCO: Pam Basco, International Game Fish Association.

MICHAEL LEECH: Mike Leech, also with the IGFA in Fort Lauderdale.

ROBERT ZALES, II: Bob Zales II, President of Panama City Boatmen Association.

RUSSELL NELSON: Russell Nelson, Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

MARK FARBER: Mark Farber, University of Miami, academic appointment to the AP for billfish.

RAMON BONFIL: Ramon Bonfil, Wildlife Conservation Society.

SHANA BEEMER: Shana Beemer, Audubon.

TIM HOBBS: Tim Hobbs, National Coalition for Marine Conservation.

WILLIAM GERENCER: Bill Gerencer, Portland, Maine.

VIRDIN BROWN: Virdin Brown, Chair, Caribbean Fishery Management Council.

ELLEN PEEL: Ellen Peel, Billfish Foundation.

PHIL GOODYEAR: Phil Goodyear, Fishery Consultant.

RAYMOND KANE: Ray Cane, General Category Tuna Association.

RICHARD RUAIS: Rich Ruais with East Coast Tuna Association.

CHARLOTTE GRAY: Charlotte Gray with Oceana. I'm sitting in for David Wilmot.

HENRY ANSLEY: Henry Ansley, Georgia's Department of Natural Resources.

DAVID CUPKA: David Cupka, Chairman, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. I'm here this week actually representing the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.

GLENN ULRICH: Glenn Ulrich, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources.

GAIL JOHNSON: Gail Johnson, Fishing Vessel Seneca.

NELSON BEIDEMAN: Nelson Beideman, Bluewater Fishermen's Association.

JACK DEVNEW: Jack Devnew, commercial rep, Virginia.

ROBERT PRIDE: Bob Pride, Virginia, also representing the Mid-Atlantic Council.

JILL STEVENSON: Jill Stevenson from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Service.

MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: That's Paul Wallace over there with the headphones on. He's going to do our transcription for us. Thank you, Paul.

KARYL BREWSTER-GEISZ: Karyl Brewster-Geisz, National Marine Fisheries Service.

MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Looks like we had the arrival of Sonja. You want to introduce yourself, Sonja.

SONJA FORDHAM: Sonja Fordham, The Ocean Conservancy.

MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Thank you, all. It is a joint session of the Billfish and HMS Advisory Panels. So, you're pretty much interspersed at the table here. I guess if space does become limiting, at some point we could invoke a unique session of the Billfish Panel and the HMS's can step aside, or vice versa. But as long as there's enough room, we can continue as we are in joint session.

We have a whole bunch of new faces with the HMS Division, and I'd like everybody to introduce, both young and old -- or new and old, so to speak. We're all young at heart. Why don't we start over there, and I see a few of us over there.

(Staff introductions without microphone)

MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Okay. Thank you, all. That about covers everybody in the room, but a few members of the public, some enforcement agents and not the least of which is our government ICCAT Commissioner over there, Glenn Delaney, a familiar face. I won't disclose the persons who are enforcement agents, because they're traveling incognito.

Bill Hogarth, you want to give us a welcome or --

WILLIAM HOGARTH: I'll let Jack --

MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: He's going to defer to Jack. Delegation of authority.

_____________________

WELCOME/INTRODUCTIONS

JOHN DUNNIGAN: Actually, I think he's going to defer till tomorrow, but thank you for coming, Bill. I know you weren't planning on being here this afternoon.

Let me also pass along the best wishes of Rebecca Lent, who is not going to be able to be with us this week. Rebecca is in Seattle at an international scientific meeting on sea turtles, which I think if this meeting hadn't occurred during these days, many of the folks around the table would have liked to have had the opportunity to participate in as well, so -- but she sends her best and looks forward to meeting with everybody again in the near future.

I just have a couple of things that I'd like to say to help bring you all up-to-date as to what's been happening in the HMS world since the last time we got together and what it looks like our plans are for this year. We're at a point now where our fishery management plans are four years old. They're getting increasingly close to that point where nominally at least routine reviews trigger in the EFH guidelines for example require that EFH provisions be revisited every five years.

So, we're coming to a point in our management program for Atlantic Highly Migratory Species where it's almost time to step back and take some broader looks at a number of issues, as well as dealing with a lot of ongoing specific things, and I'll talk a little bit about what some of those things are in just a minute.

Over the past couple of years we have made a number of changes to the plans to address issues such as bycatch, and the new SAFE Report that I believe you've all received does have some specific information in it relative to the effectiveness of these measures.

So what we're doing now as we go through this is to begin to take a little bit broader look at HMS management and we're looking for your advice as to which of these issues are most important, need attention, and where we ought to be best in your opinion be putting the resources that we have.

We have a couple of things underway that you're aware of. There's a Shark FMP amendment that we have started, and we will be working on that very hard over the next year, and it would be really great if we can see that activity accomplished this year.

We're going to have a scoping meeting for the Shark FMP amendment this afternoon. We're also looking at changes potentially to the HMS FMP and the billfish amendment for bluefin tuna and for marlins. We have new quotas for bluefin tuna and swordfish from ICCAT, and the marlin rebuilding plan at ICCAT was extended this year.

So, all of these measures need to be evaluated and we have to decide whether we need to make adjustments under our framework regulatory procedures, or in fact whether we need to go ahead with amendments to the FMP's. So, these two are items that we will be bringing forward to you over the next couple of days and looking for your guidance.

We made a lot of progress, I think, in moving ahead on HMS issues this year. Just now Chris introduced the HMS Division staff to you, and it's my privilege to be able to tell you that we are now fully staffed.

Chris was able to finish all of those many recruitment actions. You'll recall when we got together last year, the staff was down by about a third, and we're pretty pleased with the folks that we were able to get to come to work in HMS. I've known a couple of them personally, and worked with them in prior lifetimes. They're outstanding people. I've gotten to meet the other new folks that are working with us.

I think that we have a really terrific staff foundation to move ahead on, and hopefully this is going to mean that we're going to be able to be a lot more responsive in addressing priority issues than we have been over the last couple of years. So, I think that's one of the really good things that we had. We're now at critical mass and we ought to be able to respond and address the many and difficult issues that HMS is facing.

And I guess I'd like to just give you some sense as to what we see that those things are. We've got a number of rulemakings that are underway. One that the man to my right started when he was the Division Chief is the incidental catch rule for bluefin tuna. We're working on a shark emergency rule and as a result of activities at ICCAT this year, the trade documentation requirements for HMS species have become more complicated. And as a result, we're going to be specifically discussing those provisions with you during your meeting this week.

Coming out of ICCAT, the meeting in Spain last October, for bluefin tuna the TAC's have been increased. We are continuing to look at the petition from the State of North Carolina relative to allocations of bluefin tuna. We are trying to decide how to deal with the ICCAT provision that gave our fishermen an additional 25 metric tons in the central Atlantic. And we're just continuing to proceed with our basic specifications, including the possibility for effort controls.

For swordfish, we've got new quotas for swordfish that we have to put into place. The dead discard allowance that we had in 2002 is being phased out. There's a rule that allows 200 tons from -- caught by northern countries to be applied to the northern quota, even if they're caught between five degrees north and five degrees south. And we made a commitment to Canada as a part of our discussions relative to allowing them 25 metric tons of our harvest of swordfish. So, all of those things are going to require us to move forward with administrative actions.

There are trade restrictive measures that I referenced a second ago. A number of countries are now under sanction for ICCAT, and we have to do rulemakings that put all of those sanctions into effect for imports from those countries to the United States.

We've got ongoing questions to deal with in connection with white marlin as a result of the resolution of the petition for listing that was dealt with last year. And as I said, we have two amendments that we have underway to the plans, one having to do with sharks and the other having to do with bluefin tuna permitting requirements.

So, it's good that we have the staff, because we already have a very major set of administrative issues that we're going to have to be dealing with during 2003. You know, we all knew going into the ICCAT meeting last year that it was going to be a difficult, long, contentious meeting, with lots of issues. And it was.

And what that means for the staff this year is that we now have a lot of follow-up to do on a lot of difficult and contentious issues. So, they will be keeping themselves very busy and as always, look forward to working with our constituencies, and specifically with the Advisory Panel as we move forward.

So, thank you for coming. It's nice to see you all here. And if there's anything that we at the staff level can do for you over the next couple of days, please let us know to make your stay more comfortable, and we look forward to some provocative and interesting discussions. So, thank you very much.

MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Thank you, Jack. I didn't know that we authorized the appointment of any provocateurs on the panel, but if you're here amongst us, feel free to provoke.

_________________________

OBJECTIVES OF THE MEETING

MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Objectives of the meeting, as all the old-timers, or veterans I should say -- I've got to stop making these references to age -- know that the panels were formed under the SFA amendments of 1996 to Magnuson Act with the intent of providing the Secretary a venue or a means, a mechanism for advice from the public -- much as the councils do in terms of their deliberations for fishery management plans -- for those plans under the purview of the Secretary of Commerce for the direct management authority.

We usually convene the meeting once or more frequently as necessary to provide that opportunity for the panel to channel their advice through us to the Secretary in terms of continuing management or the development of plans -- the plans are in place now, but at this point will be plan amendments as Jack just referred to.

There are certain provisions under the plans for framework measures that can be done without amending the plans that would be regulatory in nature, notice and comment rulemaking. So, it's a pretty busy agenda -- a rulemaking agenda for us in this coming year, and we certainly wanted to meet with the panel, as I said, as early as possible, risking the weather as it may be, but to get that input as early in the process as possible.

________________________

INFORMATIONAL REFERENCES

MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: I just wanted to go over some what we're calling informational references on the agenda. We did publish a -- the agency did publish a process for Highly Migratory Species management way back in '92, I believe. It came out in final form maybe if not at the end of '92 in early '93 that had been proposed previously. The intent was to be a little bit more transparent as to how the Secretary of Commerce would undertake the management responsibilities for Atlantic Highly Migratory Species and involve the public in the process.

That process that was proposed and then finalized back in the early '90s needed to be amended with the SFA amendments, because the process hadn't envisioned the existence of these panels, the HMS and Billfish Panels. We actually proposed a revised process, taking the panels into account, I believe in '97. I think I have a note here. Yeah, September 18th of '97.

We haven't gotten around to issue a final process, so to speak. We had put that out for comment. We have reviewed the comments received, and due to other priorities just hadn't come to closure on that. So, we have copies available of the process. Again, it was looked at anew in reference to the use and involvement of the Advisory Panels in the process. There are copies available. We will issue shortly a Federal Register Notice, announcing the coming to closure, so to speak, of identifying what the process is. So, any -- we hope that we're not at a point where we -- even though it's a little bit stale, having been proposed in '97, are revisiting it in its entirety, but again out of interest of getting the views of the panel, if there's any comments, I don't believe we'll have enough time really at this meeting to discuss it in any great detail, but you can certainly contact the office while you're back at your home offices, so to speak, and let us know if there's any major concerns you have before we finalize it.

But just very briefly, the process in Phase 1 is the planning and scoping process. Phase 2 is the preparation and review of pre-draft materials, where we will be working with the panels themselves in a pre-release, so to speak, of the materials that -- before they will go out to the general public.

Upon getting the advice of the consulting parties, as we call them, the Advisory Panel and certain other key players, councils and state representatives, we would prepare the Draft FMP or amendment in conjunction with the proposed rule and undertake a public review process.

Phase 4, then, we would prepare the final documents and the final rule with Phase 5 being approval and implementation. In the council process, that's where the calendar kicks in with the materials submitted through the Regional Administrator by the council and then the Secretary taking action on them.

Again, this process was designed to mimic that as much as possible, although we're not strictly bound by that same time line as is identified for council plans.

Phase 6 then is the continuing fishery management monitoring the regulations in effect, the plan, trying to identify and scope out emerging issues. You know, certainly we are in a Phase 6 at this point, but depending on the deliberations we have over the next day and a half, two days, we will be starting -- we expect Phase 1 again in planning and scoping for future actions to deal with the current issues.

So, again, there will be copies available either at the table or will be handed out to you, and if you'd just take a look at that process and get back to us with any concerns before we actually issue the Federal Register Notice on that.

You had a quick question, Mau? Mau Claverie.

MAUMUS CLAVERIE: Yeah, Chris, did you pass this through the eight council executive directors? Because I would think they are the real experts with experience on this.

MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Okay. We'll make sure that we mail it out to the executive directors. Certainly those who are representatives of a council here could make sure that the council folks actually get it, but we'll drop that in the mail to them.

MAUMUS CLAVERIE: Thank you.

MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Rich Ruais.

RICHARD RUAIS: Yeah, Chris, thank you. There's no time frame on any of this. From Phase 1 to Phase 5 for relatively minor issues, if there is such a thing with highly migratory, what would you say is a minimum amount of time that we could expect to go from having an issue -- having a plan amendment to having it finalized?

MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: I would say in terms of a plan amendment, a year and a half would be optimistic. Two years would probably be a good rule of thumb, just because of the time line requirements of doing your NEPA analyses, your Environmental Impact Statement, getting the comment period on that and -- as well as issuing the draft materials, consulting with the panels and undertaking the public comment process at the proposed rule stage, finalizing the documents. Again, there is a NEPA cooling-off period that is invoked of 30 days.

So, just given the minimum time lines, I think you're probably at eight months or so, but allowing more time for preparation, assuming that each issue is not the only issue on our plate and that we do need some lead time to prepare and address comments, things like that. A year would not be uncommon. A year and a half would certainly be -- I would think the rule of thumb. A year and a half to two years -- again, it depends on the complexity of the issues and the level of analyses -- supporting analyses that are required.

RICHARD RUAIS: And how does that compare with the council process today? A little faster?

MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Well, it really depends on the respective councils and how they are packaging the issues. I see a lot of information sort of tangentially with amendments that are numbered and sometimes it seems difficult to keep track of whether Amendment 37 is proceeding ahead of Amendment 7 and things like that.

Good things take time, so to speak, and the councils have their own processes with respect to what is required before they actually get submitted to the Secretary.

JOHN DUNNIGAN: Yeah, and if I can comment. You're probably aware that one of the things that Bill got going within the Service is this whole concept of a regulatory streamlining approach. And we're moving forward with that with respect to our regions and the eight regional fishery management councils. But we're also looking at the application of the principals of regulatory streamlining within HMS, as well.

There are standards that are involved, procedures for making sure you're doing the right documentation, and procedures for quality control and quality assurance. And one of the things that we've asked Chris to do is to look at those and basically act as if he was another region putting together an implementation plan for these standards. So, we're going to be applying that same approach to our own FMP activities, as well as to those that occur within the councils and the Regional Office.

MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Bill Hogarth.

WILLIAM HOGARTH: Let me just add to that. We've sought to have a group that's going through Magnuson to see if they can find anything from a legislative standpoint that we can do to make the process work more smoothly and quicker. It just -- because we've got one in the southeast that's been going on for eight years. And we've got another one that's I think seven years. It's just not working the way I think anybody intended. So, we will have a group that's going to look at how we can make things work better.

It came to my attention last year, I think it was on monkfish, when we were suppose to close the fishery down, found out that with research and didn't need to, but we had no way through the Magnuson process to open the fishery. You can shut them down by emergency, but you have no way to open up a fishery.

So, we need to look. And if any of you have any comments along that line, I wish you would please send them to me, because this is something we will be looking at over the next few months to try to see if we can find ways to make the process work.

MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Any further quick observations on the HMS process? Again, we've tried to provide for as much public input, but addressing what I believe was Rich's concern is sometimes we need to be expedient in addressing some emerging issues. Jack Devnew.

JACK DEVNEW: Yeah, thanks, Chris. That was a very interesting point you brought up, Bill, about really kind of an exit strategy, so when the law was formulated in terms of emergency action to take care of crises, when the crises are over, if something's rebuilt, there's not the equivalent mechanism then to either reopen a fishery or reopen a closed area. Does that apply to closed areas, as well?

WILLIAM HOGARTH: It applies to emergencies. We have an emergency basically that shuts down a fishery, but there's not an emergency provision to open up. So, it would be the same thing.

JACK DEVNEW: Thank you.

JOHN DUNNIGAN: And it's even a little broader than that. I mean, one of the things that we're looking into is this whole question of how much flexibility do we need in a system to be able to respond to changes in scientific information? Because what we're finding is that we're getting new information from our scientists more quickly than we're able to translate it into effective rulemaking and policy. So, we're just trying to figure out ways of making those things work better.

WILLIAM HOGARTH: It works both ways.

JOHN DUNNIGAN: That's right, it works both ways.

MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Mau Claverie.

MAUMUS CLAVERIE: When Rich brought up his question, the first thing that came to my mind, well, who's overseeing big NMFS? In the council system, we have to pass our plans through NMFS up the chain of command, and I can't figure out in this that we have what you all do. Who is the review authority or whatever you want to call it for big NMFS's HMS stuff? Or do you have one?

MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Well, in one sense, it's a one-stop shopping in that the Division employees are the originators of the documents and we prepare them for review by General Counsel. There's the national NEPA coordinator, John Hansell. I believe he may attend the meeting tomorrow, if he can. But he will be assessing it for NEPA compliance. General Counsel, of course, we have several headquarters individuals in other divisions who will take a look for particular purposes, whether it's Social Impact Assessment or Regulatory Impact Reviews.

So, we do have eyes other than our own that review the documents, much as a council document would be reviewed once it passed through the region and got to headquarters.

Now, what Jack just mentioned is that the level of review is going to be enhanced at the regional level for council-generated documents as opposed to headquarters, as they call it, frontloading. The process will be frontloaded. One could argue that the HMS has always been frontloaded, so to speak, insofar as we've had ready access to the ultimate authorities within the Department of Commerce and NOAA, and have gotten input very early on in the process.

It's the same standard of review as would be for a Council generated rulemaking activity. Ultimately, Bill's going to sign off on it, being delegated from the Secretary for the signature authority on plans and amendments.

MAUMUS CLAVERIE: And you all have the same anchors to forward progress that the councils have pretty much, which is NOAA General Counsel and those little things and NEPA and all, but we're working with NMFS all the way through. In other words, we're working with -- and if Bill's the one who's going to make -- if he's -- I don't know, the regional -- would you be the same thing as the Regional Administrator to the council, in dealing with these plans coming out of this group?

MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: I think it would be more appropriate to think of Jack in that position.

MAUMUS CLAVERIE: Jack in that position, okay, and then Bill's the -- of course I know he reads all the plans every night before he goes to sleep, but -- okay. But that -- at first blush, it sounds like you all would be faster than the councils because you're big NMFS, but the truth of the matter is you've got all the same loophole -- hoops you have to jump through that we do.

MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: And I'm sure that reference to General Counsel anchors meant that in a stormy weather you want to have safe harborage and a good anchor; right?

MAUMUS CLAVERIE: -- forward process -- progress, I said.

_______________________________________________

STATEMENT OF OPERATING PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES

MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Okay. Next very quickly I wanted to discuss the SOPP's, the Statement of Operating Practices and Procedures. We were reviewing the SOPP's -- we have some copies to hand out here. We were reviewing the SOPP's for consistency and we noticed that there were some differences between the HMS Panel and the Billfish Panel. As you recall, under the Magnuson Act, with the authority to form these panels, it was the intent of Congress that a panel be formed for each FMP, and maintaining the billfish as a separate FMP given its unique status as game fish only we were required to set up the two panels.

What we wanted to do is harmonize the two Statements of Operating Practices and Procedures to the extent that they could be, and distribute those for your review here. We don't feel that we need a discussion of them per se at this point. But again, if you would take it to heart as you have some leisure time here, take a look at them.

Often we do meet in joint session, as we are today, and any inconsistencies or differences between the operating procedures might be problematic if we were trying to meet in joint session as to which statement of practice would take precedent. So, again it was our intent to harmonize them, given the intent of being true to the use of the panels in terms of providing advice to the agency, and monitoring and amending the plans and any continuing fishery management -- dealing with issues.

The only real difference in terms of operation of the panels is that the Billfish Panel is on a two-year cycle, so to speak, with half the members expiring each year for allowing some overlap and continuity; and the HMS Panel being a little bit larger, we elected to go with a three-year appointment for HMS Panel members, and with one third expiring each year.

It looks like we got a few more panel members arriving. Hopefully we can squeeze you in at the table here. Some room up here, if you need it. But again, we didn't want to have a belabored discussion of the SOPP's. We think we were true to form with what was on the books, but we're just trying to achieve some consistency between the Billfish and the HMS FMP or the HMS Advisory Panel.

UNIDENTIFIED: (No microphone - Inaudible.)

MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Well, why don't we give people a chance -- not to read it right now, but again at your leisure in the evening, during the breaks, take a quick look at it and before we adjourn over this three days, you can offer some comments if there are any inconsistencies that folks felt very strongly about and need to be maintained. But we felt that consistency was better in the case of often meeting in joint session as we envision -- as we move forward with HMS management.

MAUMUS CLAVERIE: But you're still going to have two panels?

MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Yeah, there's still two panels, yes. Russ Nelson.

RUSSELL NELSON: Thank you. Given that we don't have the old SOPP's before us with which to compare, could you maybe aid our reading of this by just tell us quickly what you changed?

MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Well, there were some references to voting procedures under the billfish and the election of a chair and they weren't the same -- I guess you could say emphasis on those matters in the HMS panel. And we decided to leave it optional. We've had several discussions in the past as to whether the panel themselves wanted to elect a chair to moderate the meeting or not, or whether you wanted to adopt voting procedures.

So, we kind of went the least common denominator approach of making references in the SOPP's so that anything is possible, given the input from the panel, as conditions warrant. If there's a desire for a voting procedure to be invoked, you know, one could be invoked. But generally both panels would tend to operate by having a broad-based discussion on all sides of the issues and seeing what consensus can be achieved in terms of providing advice to the agency.

A little bit of timing, I guess, in terms of how the -- that's more the process, so to speak, as opposed to the SOPP's. I can't recall if there was anything else that was a major issue. Where's Margo? Is there anything that comes to mind again in terms of harmonizing the two panels? I was talking about voting -- the voting procedures and the election of chair.

MARGO SCHULZE-HAUGEN (No microphone): Whether the panel speaks first or -- speaks first?

MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Oh, yeah. We had discussed that. The panel meetings are open to the public and often we do have members of the public attending, and to the extent possible we like to provide some periods during the course of the panel meeting for public input. I believe Billfish said the public will speak first and HMS said the panel will speak first. We decided to standardize on the panel speaking first, but again, if you -- as you notice on the agenda, providing some periods for general public comment so that the panel members can hear as well as the agency, members of the public express their views on whatever issues.

Recognizing that it is difficult to get you all together, particularly with the conflicts in council schedules and certainly the expense of bringing everybody together, we thought that preference to the panel speaking first would be more appropriate. Again, not with the intent of excluding the public, but that we really needed to make sure that we got the panel discussion well established during the course of the meeting. Russ.

RUSSELL NELSON: I see in here that the minutes are going to be taken of each meeting. Is that a new part of the SOPP's?

MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: No, we've always taken minutes. We have the sound system that has recorded the complete meeting, and we have paid to get the tapes transcribed. We do what we call put out a summary of the meeting that is not a verbatim transcript, although verbatim transcripts can be provided and have been provided on the Internet. It usually takes a little bit, a month or so after the meeting, to get those out. But we try to put out a meeting summary with the issues discussed and the sense or consensus to the extent it was achieved.

We have contracted with Mr. Paul Wallace, who is quite familiar with the terminology and acronyms. We think there's been a marked improvement in the verbatim transcripts. Jack Devnew.

JACK DEVNEW: Yeah, Chris, I always get a little disappointed that we don't include -- there's a couple of references here in the first two paragraphs to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, but the -- you know, any reference to the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act is omitted, and I think -- you know, sometimes we fall into -- there's a pitfall in thinking that what goes on relative to Highly Migratory Species exists in a vacuum like most of the rest of the species managed by the Fisheries Service, without consequence or reference to ICCAT, which is the -- you know, one of -- I would argue that it is probably the primary driving force, you know, here.

So, in the future or -- you know, in some manner, I would like to see a reference to the Atlantic Tuna Conventions Act, as implementing -- you know, legislation for ICCAT and -- or the enabling legislation and that -- you know, what we do here has -- I mean, there is consequences to ICCAT, directives flow from ICCAT, and there is a back and forth there that exists and we don't operate in a vacuum.

MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Thank you, Jack. Well, the panels were authorized under Magnuson. ATCA has its own committee authorized to deal with the international issues and providing for advisory and public input into that process. Certainly we all recognize there is a nexus of the issues that we don't operate in a vacuum. But for the most part, these panels are dealing with the process from the Magnuson Act perspective, and we'll defer to the ICCAT Advisory Committee for the international perspective.

Obviously we're mindful of the intersession and often some of the rulemaking that we will be discussing or dealing with will be -- I guess you could say of an international origin in terms of an ICCAT recommendation. So that's certainly something that we can't lose sight of. But with respect to the SOPP's, at least again the authority is under Magnuson for the establishment of these panels. Mau.

MAUMUS CLAVERIE: I did what you told me not to do. I skimmed it quickly and I probably missed this, but what is your concept about council representation? I'm reading here about terms of members and every so many years, either -- but isn't it whatever council member the council sends, that's -- I mean, there's no real term there.

MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Right.

MAUMUS CLAVERIE: Okay.

MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: There are appointed members to the panel, which we have enumerated how many there are, and the Magnuson Act does require that the panel be assembled with balance in terms of interest group representation, so we've striven in the past to include -- obviously commercial, recreational, academic and environmental groups.

The panels also include ex officio members of the commissions, the councils, and representatives of the various states, the ICCAT Committee Chair, and it's always at the purview of the state or the council or the commission to nominate their person. So, there's no expiration to that term. It's an ex officio position.

UNIDENTIFIED: (No microphone - inaudible.)

MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Okay. Well, as I said, if you are not as good a speed reader as Mau, to take a look at those during the breaks and let us know -- let us know if you have any ongoing concerns about the Statement of Operating Practices and Procedures.

On the agenda there was a note here about scientific research. We were working on updating the ongoing list of scientific research activities, hadn't quite completed that, so it's not available. As soon as that is available, we'll get it posted on the Web site. I had a comment from Bill Hogarth.

WILLIAM HOGARTH: While we had that point, most of you have probably seen this, but we have gotten reprogramming from Congress and we have separated the science from the management side of the agency. Mike Sissenwine will be in charge of the science. The Science Center directors will report directly to Mike. Mike will report directly to me. And then the glimpse of the Northeast Center job will be advertised pretty quickly. And so -- but that is one we were making.

One of the first things I've asked him to do is to get with Nancy Thompson and John Borman and Chris and Jack and try to work out the HMS science. I think sometimes it's left to the hindsight of what money is left or this type thing, and we've really got to bring it up to priority to get it involved.

So, Mike and Chris and Nancy Thompson and John Borman, who is now acting in the Northeast Center, will be working to look at what we can do from HMS standpoint, where the science should be, should it all -- most of it's been in the Southeast. Should it be there? Should we divide up, put some in the Northeast or put it all in the Northeast or put it in the University of New Hampshire or -- you know, just whatever options there are, take a look at it. So, that will be done pretty quickly.

But a lot of the reason for this is that early in the Ocean Commission process that was one thing that they kept hearing, that there was perception that the management was driving science, and that there ought to be some dividing -- some point at which they were divided. So, this is what we're doing and what we've already done. And like I said, Mike will be there and John Borman is acting -- we'll advertise that position immediately.

Also while I'm at it, Roy Crabtree, as some of you may know, is back with us in the Southeast Region as the Southeast Regional Administrator. So, we're slowly getting all our positions filled. I think we've got the head of Protected Resources that's now open. Laurie Allen is acting, but it's open and that will be filled shortly. So, thanks.

MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Thank you, Bill. We have Virdin Brown and Rusty. Where is Rusty at? Oh, over there. How about we'll go with Virdin and then Rusty, if you don't mind. Sorry.

VIRDIN BROWN: Quick question. Under the conduct of meetings, it says Roberts Rules may be used in the conduct of the meetings. Is that may be invoked -- Roberts Rules may be invoked at the time members see fit, or is it a mandatory -- or do we intend to use that as mandatory?

MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Well, we put may in there because there may not be occasion where we need to be that formal. But if we do end up with a concern about voting procedures and things like that, or precedents in terms of discussion, public -- where we need to more firmly establish rules of order, it would be Roberts Rules of Order that would be invoked.

I'm certainly not an expert in Roberts Rules of Order, so if somebody deems fit that they need to be invoked, please give me at least 15-minute head start and I'll go consult them.

VIRDIN BROWN: Very well. Just wanted to get an explanation on it. Thank you.

MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Rusty.

RUSSELL HUDSON: Thanks, Chris. I guess my question for Bill about Mike Sissenwine. Is he taking over Bill Fox's job or is that a different role?

WILLIAM HOGARTH: That's different -- they're different roles.

MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Okay. Nelson Beideman. I'll try to state your name as I call you so to make sure we get it on the transcript. But if I fail to do so, please identify yourselves.

NELSON BEIDEMAN: Yeah, Chris, just wanted a little bit of clarification. On the combined panels, when there's five council representatives from each panel and there's 22 from each state, does that add up to ten and 44 or is that up to -- you know, five and 22? How does that work?

MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Well, again, to the extent that we're having -- as Rebecca would say, an engaging debate and the agency is learning from the debate, it's not much of a consequence. But if we did get in a situation where a vote was going to be called on a particular issue at the request of any panel member, that's when we would have to in a sense decide well, is this a billfish issue and only the Billfish Panel will be voting, or is this an HMS issue? I tend to think that we could avoid a situation of confusion where we're not sure whether it's a Billfish or an HMS FMP issue. You know, certainly we'll have a degree of overlap. But what we'd need to do is segment in a situation like that and then the members present would be a one-party, one-vote situation.

NELSON BEIDEMAN: So, it can actually be 86 valid members on the combined panels?

MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Well, again, if it came to a voting procedure, I think it would behoove us to decide exactly what plan we were voting on and try to segment it that way. But I would hope that we can avoid those situations. I think those who have been following the ICCAT situation over the last two meeting cycles sort of feel that consensus is much better than getting into voting blocks and things like that. Russ Nelson.

RUSSELL NELSON: At the risk of appearing venal, Chris, I just notice that the last line of the SOPP's say that the members of the AP's, their travel-related expenses will not be paid. Is that just to give you the option or is that what you wanted us to read tonight?

MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Well, there were no specific appropriations to cover the expenses of the Advisory Panel, and in past years it's always been an attempt to cobble together funds from various sources. I don't believe we've ever convened a meeting where travel expenses were not paid, and there have been verbal assurances from those in higher places than me in the agency that every effort will always be made. But that's just a formality of being able to state that it's not a guarantee, but certainly the intent is to find the resources to cover the panel.

Okay. Just again to touch on the scientific research, recognizing that a lot of research for the Atlantic Highly Migratory Species is undertaken both internally and external to the agency, we tried to bring it all together to the extent we know about ongoing research activities, and have a list that we were trying to update. As I said, we didn't quite finish it. We'll get that posted to the Internet. I know it's of great utility, too, to the ICCAT Committee. We'll certainly have it available by the -- what's it, March meeting for the ICCAT Committee? April?

But certainly when you see the list, if you're aware of any ongoing research that is not posted, please let us know and we'll get it posted there. Again, it's intended to be sort of a clearinghouse of what's going on in HMS research, so that we're all at least aware of what's ongoing, what has been completed, when we can expect reports that have direct bearing on our deliberations.

We have the regulatory update there. I think Jack did a great job of reviewing where we are. We got a bunch of rules out at the end of last year dealing with the monitoring -- recreational catch monitoring for swordfish and billfish, a new permitting rule for the HMS angling category, some clarifications on the conduct of charter/head boats, as to when they fall in the recreational versus commercial fishing categories.

We have recently issued a shark emergency rule, many of you were at the hearings on that, as well as a proposed rule for incidental catch of bluefin tuna by pelagic longline fleet. Again, I've seen many of you at the hearings that I attended.

On the rulemaking docket, obviously over the next day and a half, two days, we'll be speaking at great length about the issues and how to address them through rulemaking for billfish, for swordfish, for bluefin tuna and for sharks, as well as the BAYS tunas.

So, I think we have a very ambitious agenda. We're looking forward to discussion on all these issues and hopefully can come to some conclusions as to where the agency needs to go, how we're going to proceed with rulemaking on several of these important issues. Some of them are not new, some of them are sort of emerging. As Jack said, the plans are several years old now and we all know the species are highly migratory and they do move around, conditions do change, and situations arise that need to be addressed.

SAFE Report, that was mailed to all panel members. Hopefully you all received your copies via FedEx. We will have some additional copies available, if they're not here now, at least by tomorrow morning on the table out there. If somebody wants a larger -- actually, you probably don't want to have to carry them back with you on the plane, given the security at airports nowadays, but we can keep a list. If you want 10 or 15 copies mailed to some location, just let us know and we'll work on that.

It is posted to the Web site at this point, as well, for those who want to download particular sections or the entire document, if you've got enough toner and enough paper.

MAUMUS CLAVERIE (No microphone): Chris, are we going to discuss that (inaudible).

MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: We can discuss it. We didn't really envision a laborious discussion at this point in time, but if there are any particular comments on omissions or inclusions that you want to highlight, we can take a few questions on it.

MAUMUS CLAVERIE (No microphone): (Inaudible.) I'm sorry.

MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: This is Mau Claverie, for the record.

MAUMUS CLAVERIE: I would be afraid to open up that box, but how do you want to take comments, by e-mail or something, just informally to you or Jack? Would that be the way to do it?

MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Yeah, that would be a great way to do it. Give us a call or send us an e-mail. Again, if there's any concerns about the factual material or concerns about how to include something that you don't feel has been addressed, or comments on how to present it, that kind of stuff.

I am concerned that it seems to be growing in size from year to year, and we'll be having some internal discussions as to how to avoid just adding a new 50 pages each year and it becomes too onerous a document to be able to absorb and focus on the current issues.

We also will have available -- if it's not out there, but will be -- a review of state regulations, as they affect the conduct of fisheries for Atlantic Highly Migratory Species. Heather Stirratt from the Commission was instrumental in that regard, having a great deal of familiarity with the state representatives and knowing who to talk to.

The idea here is that under Atlantic Tunas Convention Act, it does require that the Secretary undertake a continuing review is the language of state regulations as they apply to Atlantic Highly Migratory Species, and to make some determinations as to whether federal regulations need to be applicable in waters under state jurisdiction.

There are some instances or have been, and I suspect will continue to be, instances where states may want to be more restrictive than the federal rules, and there are situations where that is appropriate. There may be other situations where it could be in direct conflict. But primarily, the way Atlantic Tunas Convention Act reads is that as long as the Secretary concludes that the state regulations are at least as restrictive and effectively enforced as the federal rules, that the state rules can apply and there's no need for pre-emption, so to speak.

So, what we are trying to do with this list is update our understanding of what is currently applicable within the respective states, as it would affect Highly Migratory Species, and to undertake a formal continuing review, making determinations as to what federal rules would need to apply in state waters.

What we'd want at this point -- particularly those state representatives who are here to take a copy home with them and review the material presented for their states and get in touch with us, and give us updates, if we don't have the most current information. And maybe we can set up a mechanism for having an ongoing dialogue with the respective states, particularly at any juncture where a state is contemplating rulemaking that would affect Atlantic Highly Migratory Species.

The Act, Atlantic Tunas Convention Act, does afford a state the opportunity for a hearing if at any point the Secretary determines that the federal rules need to apply within the waters under the jurisdiction of that state. So, it is a very formal procedure.

There is no specific timing reference in the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act. It just uses the word continuing review. So, this is one of our ideas of fostering this review by putting this out.

Please everybody take it with you. It's only a few pages. I've seen the one that was done for the Pacific Highly Migratory Species Plan that was addressing the regulations of California, Oregon and Washington, and I believe they had 40 pages. So, I guess they're light years ahead of us on the west coast in terms of regulating Highly Migratory Species. But please do take a look at it and get back to us if there are any concerns, omissions or clarifications that might be necessary. Rusty Hudson.

RUSSELL HUDSON: Yes, Chris, with regards to the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act, that doesn't cover shark, and so I guess my question is there's several states that aren't as strict as the federal rules. What's the plans there? It's been almost a decade.

MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: We are always seeking to have a constructive dialogue, constructive engagement with the states with respect to shark management. There are different procedures for pre-emption under Magnuson. Basically, the fishery has to be predominantly in federal waters and the action or inaction of the state has to be frustrating to the federal management plans. So, we'd have to make that determination.

So, I would tend to say it's probably a higher standard for pre-emption, a lot more deference to state jurisdiction under Magnuson, and that probably stems from the understanding under ATCA of treaty obligations that the United States is bound by the treaty to act in a certain way, and therefore we have to have a more unified management approach. Whereas under Magnuson, there could be provisions for latitude by the individual states, as long as it's consistent with the management and conservation goals under the federal plan.

So, it's intended to be a cooperative, collaborative approach, and we'll continue to work with the states. We did get some recent comment on the shark emergency rules about ways to work better with some of the states for particular protections of nursery areas or timing of seasons and things like that. So, we will be looking into it.

RUSSELL HUDSON: I assume that the state landings issue will still be a problem for us then for the next short while, at least, because there are some states that when we're closed they're still having people fish that aren't federally permitted, I assume.

MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Yes, we will be working with the states. I know several states do close when the federal season closes, but others do not, and again, you know the rules as well as anybody. The federal permit attaches a condition that the federal rules apply to that party on that vessel. Mau Claverie.

MAUMUS CLAVERIE: Specifically as to sharks, are you all considering that any intrusion into state jurisdiction by the federal system for sharks would be under Magnuson-Stevens, which means only to the shoreline, the baseline, as opposed to the tuna act, which can go all the way up the Mississippi River to Cairo or wherever. So, in other words, you would only be looking to the shoreline anyway, if you were going to take any action.

The only authority currently would be under Magnuson Act with respect to sharks. If ICCAT were to take up sharks, I tend to think they would be more concentrated on the pelagic sharks as opposed to the coastal sharks.

MAUMUS CLAVERIE: What do you mean by take up?

MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Take up meaning --

MAUMUS CLAVERIE: Look for scientific data or actually get into the regulatory --

MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Get into the management. I know there are some concerns about whether the ICCAT convention itself would need to be modified in order to take up sharks. We've had several discussions at the meetings dealing with resolutions on sea birds and turtles as to how far afield the commission is getting in terms of these matters, but there is an interest in at least collecting information on sharks. It would be up to the commission to decide whether management recommendations could be issued, absent amendment of the charter or with the required amendments. But at such time, if it did occur, then perhaps there would be a nexus for Atlantic Tunas Convention Act. But at this time it's purely Magnuson.

MAUMUS CLAVERIE (No microphone): Thank you. (Inaudible) to do with ICCAT (inaudible) NOAA lawyers tell you.

MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Okay. Well, with that, we wanted to just briefly give folks an opportunity to -- I guess I have a note here to make some comments. We had some recent situations with comments on rulemakings where there's been some publicity campaigns.

Obviously everybody's got a right to comment. We certainly want to hear from everybody on an issue. But in the age of e-mail and information, we can get inundated very quickly in terms of our fax and e-mail boxes can get filled and that does limit our ability to respond when things get clogged, when the communication lines get clogged.

So, I just wanted to make a brief note that if constituent groups are planning a campaign to get comments into the agency on a rulemaking or any other issue, just give us a heads-up. Call us and we'll set something up to electronic reception in a particular mailbox or divert it to a dedicated fax machine or something like that, so that we can continue to go about our business and not risk losing the comments that might be sent in. Joe McBride and then Bob Pride.

JOSEPH MCBRIDE: Yes, Chris, on that issue, generally speaking you would prefer individual comments signed and so forth, so on, in the past anyhow. Now with the advent of e-mail, would you be willing to accept petition-type scenarios where a statement would come in and X amount of people in that category or involved in that geographic area would sign it, and it would save you 50 or 60 e-mails, that type of thing? But it would lose its validity by being a petition form is what I'm really asking.

MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Well, with respect to petitions, comments on rulemaking are not generally subject to a vote, per se. When we receive comments, we are looking at the substantive nature of the comments, what are the concerns expressed, what alternatives are being espoused by the commenters as better, what information we may have overlooked in terms of impacts, and particularly adverse impacts on the user groups or interested parties. So, it's not so much that it would lose its validity, because it's submitted electronically as opposed to written signatures by people.

You know, it's certainly helpful to know what portion or segment of the constituency feels a certain way about the issues in terms of numbers of individuals, but again, the greatest concern is on the substantive nature of the comments and what backup is being provided. Bob Pride.

ROBERT PRIDE: Yeah, to your point on the e-mail submissions and the volume and that sort of thing. It seems to me like it would be fairly inexpensive and easy to set up a comment mail server that just received comments, and for each action that's being proposed that you're receiving comments on, just have a separate mailbox. And that way you wouldn't clog up your regular administrative mail server with, you know, someone decided to send a couple thousand one day, you'd still be able to find your administrative mail that you need to handle and you could defer looking at the comments until later.

MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Right. We do have several folks within the agency working on what we call our e-rulemaking or electronic rulemaking project, and we will be probably moving a lot more into that arena in the near future. We had a pilot project with respect to one of the HMS rules. I think we got -- we got some feedback that it was a little bit cumbersome the way you had to deal with getting into the system, sort of tailoring your comments on certain aspects of the rule as opposed to making a general comment. And we're looking at the feedback we got and looking at other agencies electronic rulemaking activities to try to certainly expedite, facilitate comment from the public in that regard without losing efficiency, so to speak.

ROBERT PRIDE: Look to the stock market. They really know how to do it.

JOHN DUNNIGAN: The White House has designated the Environmental Protection Agency as the source for the administration's initiative on e-government and e-rulemaking. EPA is now putting together a new site which is going to go live next month where every federal rule that's proposed will be listed on that site, and anybody will in some way be facilitated in getting a comment to the agency.

Some agencies will allow for you to just enter your comment at that site and it will go right into the record. Other agencies at the other end of the spectrum, you could at least get a form there that you could print out with your comment and then mail it in.

We're actively looking at this, not just within NOAA, but on a Commerce-wide basis. There is a group that's responsible for it and we have the lead on that within National Marine Fisheries. So, it is a changing world. But that will actually go live next month.

MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Mau Claverie, you had a comment, and then Sonja.