NEW ENGLAND FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
HERRING OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE MEETING
Portsmouth, New Hampshire
September 1, 2010 (Day 1 of 2)
Introductions and Review of Agenda 2
Update on PDT work 5
Herring Advisory Panel Report 11
Measures to Confirm Accuracy of Self-Reporting 39
Presentation by Matt Cieri 99
Portside Sampling Program 147
Electronic Monitoring 171
Catch Monitoring - Outstanding Issues 208
Please note: This transcript was prepared from audio provided
by Project FishTalk. The transcript was neither requested nor
reviewed for publication by the New England Fishery Management
Council, and should not be considered an official record of the
This document contains copyrighted material. However, everyone
is welcome and encouraged to link, copy, or otherwise share the
information in this transcript. All that is asked is that you
attribute the source (www.fishtalk.org) properly.
For questions, please contact Michael Flaherty by phone at
(617) 729-3232 or by email at email@example.com.
Transcript prepared by
New England Transcription Service
1 INTRODUCTIONS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, REVIEW OF AGENDA
2 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Good morning. We have
3 a meeting here of the Herring Oversight Committee. I'd like to
4 welcome you all here to Portsmouth. I enjoy these meetings in
5 Portsmouth, and I hope you'll enjoy all the great restaurants
7 We're here today and tomorrow to finish development of
8 alternatives for Amendment 5 to the Herring Plan, for potential
9 Council approval at our -- of a -- for analysis of the Draft
10 Environmental Impact Statement at their September meeting.
11 We have a lot to do, but before we start, I'd like to
12 provide a little reminder to everybody here about some of the
13 Council's policies, and guidelines on public comment.
14 In our policy, at least for Committee meetings, the extent
15 of public comment is at the discretion of the Chair, at this
16 point, but I like to follow some of the guidelines here in our
18 In general, we will provide opportunity for public comment
19 after the Committee has discussed action items, and once motions
20 have been made and are in consideration.
21 We will also have another opportunity at the end of the day
22 today for public comment on -- just general public comment --
23 not necessarily stuff on Amendment 5.
24 I also, just as a matter of procedure, I will keep an eye
25 on people that would like to provide public comment, just by
1 raising your hand. I'll take down names, and I'd like you to
2 wait for the Chairman to recognize you before making the
3 comments, come up to the table here, and give your name and
5 There's a microphone here, and that's the only place that
6 we will take public comment is at that microphone, at the front
7 table. And again, remember your name and affiliation.
8 I'd like you to limit your comments, except during the open
9 comment period of 5:30 today, to comments on the motion and the
10 item being discussed at that time.
11 And finally, I want to caution people, following our last
12 meeting, that comments directed toward the Council members, or
13 members of the public -- personal comments -- directed towards
14 the Council members or members of the public will not be
15 tolerated. We need to have a decorum here. The comments should
16 be on the items on the agenda or the motion. And I'd like all
17 of you to keep that in mind when making your public comments.
18 Thank you very much.
19 Okay. The first item on the agenda, our introductions,
20 announcements, and review of the agenda. You all have copies of
21 the agenda. Is there any comments on it, or any changes that
22 the Committee would like to make? Yes, Mary Beth.
23 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Yeah, I would like to just add one
24 item -- and I don't know if maybe tomorrow would be the
25 appropriate time -- for just a discussion of the haddock bycatch
1 cap --
2 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Okay.
3 MARY BETH TOOLEY: -- and the status of that. Perhaps
4 you could get a report from the agency. It's online, so I think
5 most people are aware of it. But it is a limiting factor in the
6 fishery, and I think that with the reduced haddock, overall
7 (indiscernible) it's become of concern to the herring fishery.
8 So, if we could have a discussion of that at some point.
9 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Yeah, we'll include
10 that. We'll take a look and see how our timing is today. We
11 might even try and include it at the end of the day, but
12 definitely at the end of the day on Thursday. I have it
13 penciled in there, and if we can get something in then, we'll
14 try to do that.
15 Yes, Terry.
16 TERRY STOCKWELL: Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. I just
17 have a process question. You had mentioned that one of the
18 goals in the next two days is to get this document ready for the
19 Council, with the intent of having it ready to go out for public
20 comment at our September meeting. And then I note on tomorrow's
21 agenda item is to discuss measures to protect spawning fish.
22 We haven't even begin that discussion. I don't believe the
23 PDT's begun deliberations. So, I'm just kind of concerned that
24 we -- we don't try to overachieve, and I think that's an
25 important issue to address. And I don't want to send it forward
1 if the intent is to move the document ahead tomorrow.
2 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Okay. We will have a
3 discussion on that tomorrow, to see where we're at. I don't
4 think the Committee can make a decision as to what direction to
5 go with that, to see if there's enough information, or whether
6 we want to include it in the document at all.
7 So, we'll decide that, discuss that before we leave today
8 -- tomorrow.
9 Any other comments?
10 (No audible response.)
11 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Okay. Lori, would you
12 like to give us an update on the PDT work?
13 UPDATE ON HERRING PDT WORK
14 LORI STEELE: Sure. Thank you. I'll be relatively
15 brief. One of the things that I wanted to do is just quickly go
16 over some of the materials that you have in front of you, so
17 that you're aware of what there is there.
18 First you'll see an additional document that I put around
19 the table and out on the -- on the audience pile, which is a
20 really nice, pretty-colored flow chart and table. This is just
21 a discussion document for later this afternoon. The 3:00 agenda
22 item this afternoon is to address outstanding issues. And those
23 would be, as you go through those tables, the ones that are sort
24 of shaded in what should have been gray and came out purple, the
25 things that aren't quite finished in the document. So, we need
1 to just have some discussion to see how to resolve some of those
2 outstanding issues.
3 And then the last thing on the agenda today is to talk
4 about the structure of the catch monitoring alternatives, which
5 relates to the tables, as well as this flow chart that we put
6 together. And we can talk about that later this afternoon.
7 It's just really to aid in that discussion.
8 You'll also see in your packet the two Advisory Panel
9 reports related to the elements of this amendment. The Advisors
10 met in May of last year, and they met last week, to address the
11 elements of this amendment. And both of the reports and the
12 Advisors' recommendations are in that packet.
13 There's a correspondence packet with any updated
14 correspondence. There is also -- there are obviously some
15 presentation slides.
16 I have the river herring documents, which I haven't put out
17 on the table yet. Those are for tomorrow, but if anybody wants
18 those before they leave at the end of the day today, just ask
19 me, and I can hand those out.
20 There's also a memo from me, dated August 23rd, which is a
21 summary of the motions that the Committee has made. This is
22 really just a -- for your reference. And it's just to give you
23 some perspective on where we've been during the development of
24 this amendment, and all of the different issues that have been
25 discussed and considered.
1 So, it's a relatively lengthy memo that just kind of lays
2 out most of the motions that the Committee has passed regarding
3 the alternatives that are under consideration in the amendment.
4 Late in the day yesterday, I realized that I left off one
5 motion that you should be aware of, and it's really just -- it
6 was at July 27, 28 meeting, and it really should just be tacked
7 onto the last page of that memo, which was the motion to include
8 an alternative to prohibit directed fishing for herring in the
9 river herring hotspots. Somehow that was an oversight, and I
10 apologize for that.
11 There may be other motions missing, too. That's the only
12 one that I found at this point. It was a challenge to sort
13 through all the meeting summaries, and find all the motions that
14 actually passed, and are still reflected in the document. So,
15 that's there for reference.
16 And then there is also, of course, a packet of PDT reports
17 from the PDT meetings that we've had to work on the development
18 of the alternatives for this amendment, dating back to last
19 year, and going through the series of PDT meetings that we've
20 had this year.
21 Just really briefly, since the last Committee meeting, the
22 PDT did meet, and we met on August 19th. The report is in that
23 packet. The last Committee meeting was just a month ago, and it
24 was a two-day meeting. So, in that month, the PDT really has
25 focused on really just two elements of the analysis for this
2 And we're going to go through both of those elements during
3 the course of these two days, in greater detail. So, I'm not
4 going to spend a whole lot of time talking about it right now.
5 But what the PDT worked on over the last few weeks was first
6 updating the SBRM analysis of observer coverage levels. And if
7 you recall, in the document -- and I think it's still in the
8 document -- the original analysis that was done was based on
9 2004 and 2005 observer information.
10 And what the analysis does in the document is it just lays
11 out an example of what observer coverage levels might look like
12 in the fishery if you're going to use an SBRM-type approach to
13 determine coverage levels, and try to achieve the target CV's
14 that the Committee and the Council have identified, which is the
15 30 percent CV for haddock and herring, and the 20 percent CV for
16 river herring.
17 The analysis that we've updated is based on the 2009
18 observer data. The SBRM methodology uses the most recent year
19 of data to essentially predict what coverage levels for the
20 following year would be.
21 So, we've updated that through using 2009 data, to give you
22 an idea of what coverage levels may be required under the
23 alternative to achieve a 20 percent CV for river herring.
24 Matt's going to go over that later this morning, and make that
25 presentation. So, I will leave the details up to him.
1 And one of the things that the PDT talked about in great
2 detail, that I think we'll probably get into a little bit in
3 Matt's presentation, is the difference between precision and
4 accuracy, and the fact that the CV's coefficients of variation,
5 and the whole SBRM methodology, and the whole SBRM approach is
6 designed to achieve certain levels of precision in estimates of
7 catch and bycatch.
8 And there's a difference between precision and an accurate
9 estimate of bycatch. And so the Committee might want to think
10 about potentially adding another alternative to look at
11 distributing observer coverage in a way that would possibly
12 generate a more accurate estimate of river herring bycatch.
13 That's something I think we can talk about after Matt's
15 And then, of course, a great deal of work was done by the
16 PDT to revise the river herring hotspot analysis, based on the
17 suggestions and requests made at the last Committee meeting.
18 This was a really significant undertaking, and we will be having
19 a presentation tomorrow morning with the updated analysis that
20 the PDT has done, which, if you recall, the original analysis
21 looked at percent occurrence for river herring in the bottom
22 trawl survey by statistical area.
23 The Committee was interested in breaking the data down into
24 a finer scale and looking at smaller time frames. So, we have
25 rerun the analysis based on quarter degree squares, and have
1 presented the results in bimonthly blocks. So, we'll get into
2 that in the -- tomorrow morning will be -- we have a whole
3 morning to talk about the updated analysis.
4 And now, with the new approach that we've developed -- oh,
5 we also took a look at -- we also incorporated the Committee's
6 request to look at percent occurrence different, rather than
7 just presence/absence. You know, if one fish was picked up in
8 the survey, that was marked as an occurrence. So, we went ahead
9 and looked at ways to evaluate percent occurrence based on some
10 thresholds, and that's been incorporated into the analysis, too.
11 So now the analysis is significantly more complicated. And
12 now you have a whole host of options in front of you for how to
13 pick the alternatives for the river herring hotspots. There's
14 some considerations to be made with respect to picking one
15 approach over another, and we will lay those out in the
16 presentation tomorrow, and have that discussion tomorrow
18 So, that's what the PDT's been up to. It was a really busy
19 month, and those were really the two issues that we tackled
20 since the last Committee meeting.
21 We do plan, if things move forward at the September Council
22 meeting, and we get to a point after the September Council
23 meeting where we can start working on a Draft EIS, the PDT will
24 be meeting in early October to start laying out a game plan for
25 getting all the work done for the Draft EIS, which is going to
1 be a fairly significant undertaking, as well.
2 And with that, I will leave it for later in the discussion.
3 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Keeping in mind
4 there's going to be some presentations that are going to come
5 from the PDT later in this meeting, are there any initial
6 questions for Lori at this point in time?
7 (No audible response.)
8 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Okay. We also have
9 the Advisory Committee that met on August 25th. Chairman Dave
10 Ellenton is here to provide a summary of the report. We do have
11 a copy of the report in the packet for you to read in detail,
12 but Dave, could you please provide a summary for us?
13 HERRING ADVISORY PANEL REPORT
14 DAVID ELLENTON: Yes. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. We did
15 meet at this location last week in the pouring rain, and it's a
16 much nicer atmosphere around us today.
17 The Herring Advisory Panel did meet on August the 25th, as
18 you said, and as I normally do, I will -- because -- and also
19 because we didn't -- we haven't met since May of the previous
20 year -- I'll just go through who are the Advisors, and their
21 affiliations, to just show that the Herring Advisory Panel is
22 consisting of folks from all angles in this fishery.
23 They consisted of Bob Westcott, who is a commercial
24 fisherman in Rhode Island; Peter Baker, who is the Director of
25 the Herring Alliance; Jennie Bichrest, who is a herring dealer,
1 one of the largest herring dealers in the State of Maine; Jeff
2 Reichle, who is the owner of Lund's Fisheries and some fishing
3 vessels in Cape May, New Jersey, who is heavily involved in
4 herring fishing and mackerel fishing; and Donald Swanson, who is
5 a recreational fisherman; Vito Calomo, who is Vito Calomo.
7 DAVID ELLENTON: He's not here, is he?
8 Peter Mullen, who is the owner of midwater trawlers and
9 purse seiners; Chris Weiner, who is also involved with CHOIR
10 and, I think, the Herring Alliance, and is a tuna fisherman;
11 Spencer Fuller from Cozy Harbor in Portland, Maine, has been
12 very much involved in herring fishing for a number of years; and
13 I chaired that meeting.
14 And so there were 11 Advisory Panel members present, and
15 the four that were absent all had good reason to be absent. And
16 that's important, because if folks are absent for unnecessary
17 reasons, then we look at whether they should continue to be on
18 the Panel.
19 But the four folks who were not there were Al West who, as
20 you know, is involved -- was involved with the cannery in Maine,
21 and is now desperately trying to position himself with new folks
22 who are taking over the facility up there. Gib Brogan, who was
23 attending an S&S Committee meeting, I think, is in the audience
24 today; Dave Turner, who is -- I'm not quite sure what Dave's
25 current position is. He has four vessels, none of which have
1 herring permits, he tells me, but he's very keen to continue to
2 be on the AP. And Peter Moore, who represents Norpel in New
3 Bedford, and he was not available due to personal circumstances,
4 which I won't go into.
5 A number of those advisors are in the audience today, and I
6 would -- even whether you were at the meeting or not -- I would
7 let you know that you're more than willing to -- more than
8 welcome to put your hand up if you have any comments, if I make
9 any mistake, or say something that you don't think was correct.
10 Or if you wanted to add to anything that I had said, just please
11 recognize -- I'll recognize you if you raise your hand, if
12 that's okay with you, Mr. Chairman.
13 As usual, we have the documents. As we said, the meeting
14 was early last week, and Lori has been extremely busy, and she's
15 managed to produce an 11-page document, which I will go through,
16 but not word-for-word on every page. I hope you've had the
17 opportunity to read it. If not, I hope you will do during the
18 next couple of days, because obviously, as the Chairman of the
19 AP, I feel that it's very important to consider the views that
20 are expressed at the Advisory Panel.
21 And we do make motions and vote on motions on the various
22 topics that we discuss.
23 So, as we go forward through this presentation, that
24 11-page document is on the table, and available to you. Also,
25 the summary of the May 2009 meeting is also available, although
1 I don't intend to go through that document in any great detail.
2 If there are any questions, we're obviously willing to address
4 And one of the documents that you have in front of you, as
5 well, is the draft discussion document, the Amendment 5 Draft
6 Discussion Document, which is this multi-page document. It
7 changes every time we meet, and this is the one dated September
8 the 1st and 2nd. And as I go through the report, I will refer
9 to either pages or sections in that document, so that you can
10 also refer to where we are.
11 The reason that I'm going to do that is that for the last
12 year or so, we haven't had the Herring Advisory Panel comments
13 noted on this document. But now Lori has been extremely good,
14 and inserted in the margins what the Herring AP recommendations
15 were, the May 2009 and the August 2010 recommendations. So,
16 they're in that document, and I'll just give you the location of
17 where those -- where those recommendations are, and you can take
18 it from there.
19 The first item that we discussed was the Council staff
20 description paper, the potential applicability of flow scales,
21 truck scales, and volumetric measurements in the Atlantic
22 herring fishery. And Ms. Bigelow presented a Council staff
23 white paper that explores the potential for using flow scales,
24 hopper scales, and truck scales in the herring fishery to
25 generate more accurate estimates of catch weight, and to move
1 away from reporting catch through volume-based estimation.
2 And Talia made that presentation in an abbreviated form,
3 but most all of you have seen the full presentation. It's an
4 excellent presentation, and it gives the various options for
5 determining weights of fish being landed in different ways,
6 using different equipment.
7 She summarized the presentation by noting that some of the
8 issues to be addressed, if scales are going to be required in
9 any aspect of the fisheries, include accounting for water
10 weight, weighing speed, scale installation, calibration,
11 certification and maintenance requirements, and selection and
12 approval of scale vendors.
13 And a few questions were asked by the AP following the
14 presentation, and one of the points was I asked if the AP would
15 be in favor of using an alternative unit of measure to the
16 hogshead. I was trying -- and eliminate some confusions between
17 bushels and hogsheads, and different weights, and different
18 poundage that -- I don't know what's in a hogshead, I've got to
19 tell you, and maybe that's, you know, poor judgment on my behalf
20 -- but we deal with pounds, we deal with metric tons, we don't
21 seem to deal with hogsheads or bushels down our way. But I know
22 that the folks up in Maine deal with them, and I think even to
23 the extent that some of their vessels have been calibrated using
24 those as measures.
25 And Ms. Bigelow did note that there may be a cost saving to
1 using hogshead units as the boats in Maine apparently were
2 already required to be measured by hogshead. And one of the AP
3 members, Jennie Bichrest, did clarify that there are
4 approximately 1,200 pounds in a hogshead. Again, I would hope
5 that we get away from having different references to weights in
6 different areas, and trying to all be talking within the same
8 Measures to Confirm the Accuracy of Self-Reporting. That's
9 Section 2.5, and it's Page 26 on the draft discussion document.
10 And again, Ms. Bigelow explained the measures to confirm the
11 accuracy of self-reporting, and the corresponding comments as
12 they were in the Draft Amendment 5 document.
13 Some of the issues included water weight in all scale
14 measures, certification and documentation issues, and where
15 clarification and specification was needed in each option. As
16 each measure was explained, there were several responses, and
17 there was quite a broad description by the AP on those
19 For instance, Bob Westcott, the AP member who is a
20 fisherman in Rhode Island, described the process that he
21 recently undertook to certify his two holds for the menhaden
22 fishery, including the conversion to cubic meters. There we go
23 again, another weight description. But that was carried out by
24 a marine surveyor. And you know, the members of the AP were all
25 quite aware of who these marine surveyors are, and what their
1 abilities are, and what the difficulties are.
2 Bob Westcott is not here today, so I was hoping that maybe
3 he could describe what happened to his vessel, but there is
4 (indiscernible) in the summary, in the meeting summary.
5 There were discussions about weigh scales and locations of
6 weigh scales, and who could certify them, trucks who could
7 certify vessels. And Ms. Bigelow noted that some of the states
8 that she had spoken with may not be willing to certify other
9 people's work. So, it would -- you know, there's a question
10 about where vessels or trucks would be certified, whether they
11 would be certified by a state, would the National Marine
12 Fisheries Service certify them. There's still more questions
13 than answers.
14 There was as much audience participation as there could
15 possibly be. We had a small audience, and one of the attendees,
16 a Mr. Johnson, who is a shore-based engineer for one of the
17 vessel owners in Gloucester, indicated that in his work, the
18 fish holds, and the trucks are already measured, and the
19 measurements are adjusted based on dealer feedback.
20 And he noted that there was a substantial interest in
21 knowing how much fish was in either container. And he noted
22 that there were people on all of the vessels involved that were
23 supposed to be monitoring how much catch was taken. Of course,
24 he's referring to the skipper and crew.
25 Ms. Bigelow noted that the communities in Stonington,
1 Vinalhaven, Lubec, Eastport and Prospect Harbor do not have
2 scales in and around the ports used by the herring industry.
3 And Mr. Reichle recommended that the truck-weighing section
4 be removed from the documents, as it was impractical; the
5 industry is functioning 24 hours a day, and the scales would
6 need to do the same.
7 He also pointed out that in some locations, ice is added to
8 the fish; for instance, fish coming up from New Jersey needs to
9 have ice, fish coming up into Maine. Whereas, fish in
10 Gloucester is in refrigerated seawater, and no ice is added.
11 So there's that to take into consideration when thinking about
12 calibrating, volumetrically, trucks.
13 Mr. Kaelin recalled the discussion from the previous
14 Committee meeting, where one of the objectives was that -- that
15 was mentioned is to better align dealer data with VTR data. And
16 he interpreted this objective to be focusing on how many fish
17 are being landed at the point of landing, but noted that he
18 industry was likely to want some information in order to be paid
20 You know, there's nobody who is landing fish who doesn't
21 want the quantity that landed -- that was landed, to be
22 determined accurately. And this amendment, I think, is heading
23 in that direction.
24 There was some discussion about calibrating truck holds,
25 but I think the general opinion was that the most preferred
1 method would be to have the vessels calibrated, have the
2 vessels' tanks calibrated volumetrically, so that the quantity
3 of fish onboard the vessels could be determined on landing, at
4 the point of landing.
5 I'll skip through some of this other discussion that took
6 place on that particular subject. And we eventually got to a
7 point where there was our first motion, and the motion was to
8 recommend, as a preferred option, to have the vessels measured
9 and certified, to better determine the estimated weight of fish
11 I mean, we approached this as a way of comparing the
12 weights from the volumetric calculation of weights to those that
13 are described the VTR and the IVR, not to take place of those
15 And there was a discussion about that motion, and it
16 eventually carried unanimously. And it's so noted on Pages 28
17 and 29 of the discussion document.
18 The second motion that was made, made by Jeff Reichle and
19 seconded by Jennie Bichrest, was to recommend eliminating the
20 options for weighing trucks from Section 2.5.3, which was
21 actually the first three options under Section 2.5.3. And as I
22 said, that's on Pages 28 and 29 of the document.
23 If I'm correct, I think there are only four options, and we
24 indicated how we would eliminate three of them.
25 There was some discussion about that motion, which finally
1 carried -- Lori just left the room -- I have the motion carried
2 as six -- six in favor, and none against, and three abstained,
3 but Lori actually shows it differently; that three people were
4 against it, six in favor, and no abstentions. It passed either
5 way. And that motion is referred to on Page 28 of the
6 discussion document.
7 On Page 29 of the discussion documents, there was a motion.
8 The motion is -- that Jeff Kaelin -- Jeff Kaelin made the
9 motion, and Jennie Bichrest seconded the motion, and that was to
10 recommend eliminating Section 2.5.4 from the document, which is
11 the requirement for flow scales on herring vessels.
12 You know, we had some earlier discussion, which you can see
13 in the document, with regard to flow scales. And there certainly
14 see to be more -- more concerns about, not only on the cost of
15 those flow scales, but the location on the vessels, and their
16 ability to be used accurately. And the motion carried with
17 eight votes in favor and one person abstaining.
18 We were asked to discuss the CMCP section of the document,
19 but we actually left that till later in the day, and never did
20 get around to it.
21 The next item we spoke about were funding options. Lori
22 described the various options in the Draft Amendment 5 document,
23 to address funding. She highlighted the problems associated
24 with some of the funding options currently in the document.
25 Out of the discussions came a motion from Jeff Kaelin,
1 seconded by Vito Calomo, to recommend that the AP only support
2 Section 2.11.2, to fund catch monitoring from federal funds.
3 And that was based on the options currently listed in Section
4 2.11 of the document. That's on Page 71 of the document.
5 There was additional discussion on this document, and --
6 I'm sorry, on this motion, and it finally passed, eight in
7 favor, and one abstention.
8 On page -- and this was going back to the beginning of the
9 discussion document on Page 6. There was a motion by Peter
10 Baker, seconded by Chris Weiner, to support a monitoring program
11 that will have the capacity to extrapolate catch, bycatch, and
12 incidental catch across the fishery.
13 There was some interesting discussion about this motion.
14 There were motions to perfect the original motion. There was a
15 motion to amend. Eventually, the motion to amend was carried
16 unanimously, and motion -- and the main motion was carried
17 unanimously. And so -- and that was nine in favor. Like I
18 said, it was unanimous, and that's on Page 6 of the document.
19 That was passed with the goals of this amendment.
20 Measures to Require Electronic Monitoring. We discussed
21 those at length. There are comments in the reports on the
22 meeting. Various comments from all the Advisory Panel members,
23 and resulted in a -- in a motion made by Jeff Reichle, seconded
24 by Bob Westcott, to recommend eliminating Sections 2.9.2 and
25 2.9.4, from consideration at this time. And those sections are
1 on Pages 58 and -- Pages 58 and 61, in the discussion document.
2 There was additional discussion on the motion, which
3 eventually carried seven in favor, one against, and one
5 We discussed Measures to Address River Herring Bycatch.
6 Lori described the various options in the Draft Amendment 5
7 document, to address river herring bycatch. She explained the
8 updates that would be presented at the upcoming Herring
9 Committee today, and the change of hotspot focus areas from
10 statistical areas to quarter degree squares, which Lori's
11 already referred to.
12 Mr. Kaelin thought the language should reflect the
13 involvement of several gear types, and he noted interest from
14 the bottom trawl fleet outside of the herring fishery.
15 There was a motion made by Jeff Kaelin and seconded by
16 Jennie Bichrest, to recommend that measures to address river
17 herring bycatch in Amendment 5 would apply to Category A, B, C
18 and D herring vessels.
19 Just correct me if I'm wrong, Lori. Was that -- did we not
20 have the D vessels included in that in the past, or --
21 LORI STEELE: The Committee hasn't made a decision on
22 that. For the catch monitoring program, it's A, B and C.
23 DAVID ELLENTON: Okay. There was a motion to amend by
24 Peter Baker and seconded by Chris Weiner, to remove the Category
25 D vessels, and that motion failed. There was a perfection to
1 the main motion, to recommend that measures to address river
2 herring bycatch in Amendment 5 would apply to A, B, C and D
3 herring vessels, and that resulted in the main motion being
4 carried, six to one to one. And the reference again is on Page
5 80 of the description document.
6 We then had -- that was the coverage of the various agenda
7 items that we had in front of us, and then we did have some
8 other business. And all of the items under other business was
9 something that was being discussed earlier, where Lori gave a
10 brief description of the issues associated with the measures to
11 establish criteria for midwater trawl vessels access to
12 groundfish closed areas.
13 And she explained that the issue could be addressed through
14 multiple mechanisms, but the Committee and Council will need to
15 make the decision. There was just general concern about what's
16 happening with the haddock bycatch cap.
17 And as I understand it, there will be further discussion,
18 hopefully on that subject, during the next two days. And
19 without going into more detail on that, that concludes my
20 report, Mr. Chairman.
21 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Thank you, David. Are
22 there any questions from the Committee?
23 (Microphone feedback noise.)
24 LORI STEELE: Sorry.
25 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: How about this? Are
1 there any questions from the Committee? Yes, Terry, and then
3 TERRY STOCKWELL: Yeah, thank you, David, for a great
4 report, and for the good work the AP's done. It's very helpful.
5 And a couple of questions. One is to Lori, and that's a
6 clarification. You stepped away from the table. On Motion
7 Number 2, David's reflection was that it was carried, six-zero-
8 three, and you have written in here six-three-zero. I'm just --
9 DAVID ELLENTON: Yes.
10 TERRY STOCKWELL: -- curious.
11 DAVID ELLENTON: I'm sorry, Lori. Through you, Mr.
13 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Go ahead.
14 DAVID ELLENTON: Thank you for bringing that back to
15 the table, Terry.
16 I just made a point, Lori, the main Motion Number 2, in my
17 personal notes -- making notes of that, I could have been going
18 along fairly quickly -- I had that motion, the vote as six in
19 favor, zero against, and three abstentions. But in the summary,
20 -- and you're always very good at making these summaries -- you
21 did mention -- you did advise us that it was six in favor, three
22 against, and zero abstentions.
23 LORI STEELE: I'm sure it was a mistake in the
24 summary. So -- it's still draft. We whipped it out really
25 fast. I'll change that for the final report that will go for
1 the September Council meeting, and I'll check my notes. But I
2 think you're right.
3 TALIA BIGELOW: It's -- you said six-zero-three?
4 LORI STEELE: Yeah.
5 TALIA BIGELOW: Yeah, that's what it has in the notes.
6 I probably mistyped it; sorry.
7 LORI STEELE: That's fine.
8 DAVID ELLENTON: Thank you, Terry.
9 TERRY STOCKWELL: Okay. And a question for you, Dave.
10 Did the AP have any discussion or suggestion on a -- on a common
11 unit of measure for volumetric, either holds or trucks? I mean,
12 I can understand the concern. We've been using hogsheads for a
13 long time, but your business is something else -- something
14 else. But it would be helpful to, you know, if you had a
16 DAVID ELLENTON: Yeah. Terry, I wish I could tell you
17 that we did come to a final discussion on which unit of weight
18 we would use, but we didn't come to any kind of answer on that.
19 You know, we do understand that there are folks in Maine --
20 not -- I don't know of any in Massachusetts. And actually, when
21 we're shipping herring into Maine, we don't use anything other
22 pounds -- other than pounds. But we also use metric conversions
23 in our business, also, with frozen products.
24 So, not wanting to force anything down anybody's throat, we
25 kind of just left that out there because frankly, I don't know,
1 and some of the other AP members didn't know the extent of the
2 use of those bushels and hogsheads, and everybody has a
3 different size bucket.
4 TERRY STOCKWELL: Thanks.
5 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Mike.
6 MIKE LEARY: Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a
7 comment on -- or a question on Vito Calomo's other business
8 question. He said that the fishery just emerged in the last 10
9 years. I've been around awhile, and I thought they came in the
10 early '90s. And when did the -- Peter Mullen's here -- when did
11 the Western Venture, the first boat to start, what year was
12 that? Was that '91, '92?
13 DAVID ELLENTON: Well, Peter's in the audience --
14 PETER MULLEN: '92.
15 MIKE LEARY: '92. So, it's -- I mean, I don't know
16 how his math is, but that's 18 years. But Vito will also tell
17 you he's 46 years old.
18 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Dave.
19 DAVID PIERCE: Yeah, David. Motion Number 7 on Page
20 10 of the summary, I've been reading -- I'm assuming there must
21 be a typo here, or I'm missing a subtlety. The first motion was
22 made by Jeff and Jennie regarding measures to address the
23 herring bycatch, bycatch of A, B, C and D. And then there was
24 an effort to remove D that failed. So, the main motion was
25 protected to -- hold on a second here, let me just -- all right;
1 never mind. I've reread it; it's clear. Thank you.
2 DAVID ELLENTON: Thank you, David. That's tremendous.
4 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Any other questions
5 from the Committee of the AP?
6 (No audible response.)
7 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Any questions from the
8 audience, public? Yes, sir.
9 RAY KANE: Yes. Good morning, Chairman. Thank you.
10 Thank you to the Committee. It was two years ago, down at a --
11 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Can you give your name
12 and affiliation, please?
13 RAY KANE: Yeah. Ray Kane, CHOIR, commercial
14 fisherman. It was two years ago, down in Providence, where they
15 had a fish expo, the National Fish Expo, and Mary Beth Tooley,
16 Peter Mullen, and God rest his soul, Phil Ruhle, convened with a
17 half hour or hour seminar. Do you recall this, Mary Beth?
18 It's about weights and measurements. There were two
19 captains, herring captains, in the audience, who were very
20 concerned about getting proper weights, because they wanted to
21 get paid for the product.
22 And here we are, two years later, and we really haven't
23 come up with a system. I don't understand why we're dragging
24 our feet on this. I mean, when captains of a vessel say they'd
25 like to see honest weights or they aren't getting paid for their
1 product, apparently there's a discrepancy in their thoughts, and
2 what the dealers are handing up for slips.
3 And two years later, we still haven't come up with a
4 solution for this. Thank you.
5 DAVID ELLENTON: Yeah. Maybe -- you know, those
6 captains probably also filed IVR reports and trip reports, and
7 it's the captain's responsibility to -- and the best of managers
8 -- to submit those reports. So, presumably, they were
9 submitting what they thought they had as weight on their vessel.
10 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Jeff.
11 JEFF KAELIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Jeff Kaelin,
12 here for Lund's Fisheries, Winterport, Maine. Just on Ray's
13 point and this issue. When Dave described our discussion of
14 this, there was a motion to eliminate the scales on the vessels,
15 but I think in the end, we allowed -- we didn't veto the idea of
16 weighing trucks, if there was a way to do it.
17 I mean, that -- the issue Ray raised was one issue, people
18 getting paid for the fish that they're selling, and that's --
19 that can be a problem. So, the thinking is if you weigh the
20 trucks, maybe you get some compliance that follows from that.
21 But the real issue in Amendment 5, I think, is how many
22 fish are being killed, and how many are being reported as
23 killed, basically. I mean, that's a totally different issue
24 than whether the guys are getting paid for their fish or not. I
25 don't know how the amendment reaches the second issue.
1 We thought we'd leave the truck measuring in there, as an
2 option for now, for the Committee to consider, and you might get
3 to that point in time. If your measures are standardized after
4 they've been landed, then maybe that problem can be resolved
5 over time.
6 But our first issue was to ensure the public that the
7 amount of herring that's being captured is actually being
8 reported, and I think the data shows that we're doing a pretty
9 good job of that.
10 So, I just wanted to differentiate those two issues, and
11 also highlight the fact I think we've left the truck-weighing
12 option in there, as a possible approach the Committee might want
13 to address. Right? Okay.
14 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Go ahead, Dave.
15 DAVID ELLENTON: Yeah, if I may, Mr. Chairman. The
16 motion that we actually passed, Jeff, was in the motion that was
17 in -- a motion that was made by Jeff Reichle and seconded by
18 Jennie Bichrest. It was to recommend eliminating the options
19 for weighing trucks --
20 JEFF KAELIN: I think --
21 DAVID ELLENTON: -- from Section 2.5.3.
22 JEFF KAELIN: Is that where we ended up, because at
23 lunch, we were going to try to salvage -- excuse me, I'm sorry.
24 At lunch, we were going to try to salvage the truck weighing as
25 something that might worth doing if we can figure out a way to
1 do it.
2 But as we talked about it, I mean, the agency doesn't
3 permit trucks, so I don't know how we get there. Maybe I was
4 confused about the outcome.
5 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Go ahead, Dave.
6 DAVID ELLENTON: Yeah, I think that -- well, there is
7 definitely some confusion about -- about calibrating trucks
8 anyway, and who would certify the calibration of those trucks,
9 and could all trucks be calibrated; should, in fact, all trucks
10 be calibrated; and whether the National Marine Fisheries Service
11 were able to certify them, or whether it was something that had
12 to be certified by the states.
13 And there was definitely a lot of discussion about it and
14 some confusion, and my recollection was certain that we -- as we
15 showed it in the summary comment, Jeff.
16 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Gary.
17 GARY LIBBY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gary Libby from
18 Port Clyde. I'm a groundfisherman and lobster fisherman, member
19 of the Mid-Coast Fishermen's Association.
20 I was here for the AP, and we -- I did make the suggestion,
21 I felt it's all right, that you guys might want to consider, was
22 the volume measuring is probably a good way to do it, because of
23 the high volume fishery, but randomly weighing the truck. And
24 it was just to prove the volume, how well it does work, and the
25 cost involved with that was mentioned, that you could use a
1 truck-weighing scale, like a state scale, or an independent
2 owner's scale, roughly around $10 a weigh.
3 So, if you wanted to throw in that as an option, to weigh a
4 truck every so often, leave that up to you to decide how often.
5 I don't see where that would -- that would probably gain public
6 trust, and everybody at the table would probably be satisfied
7 with volume, but you could really prove that it works as well as
8 everyone says it does, which I believe it probably does. Thank
10 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Okay. Questions for
11 the AP Chairman? Because we are going to be going on to the
12 next agenda item here soon. That will be addressing some of the
13 recommendations of the Committee -- of the Advisory Panel. But
14 if you have some questions for Dave, I'll take those. I'll go
15 to Terry.
16 TERRY STOCKWELL: Yeah, thanks, Doug. I just wanted
17 to untangle this last conversation, because Motion 2 reads
18 eliminating the options for weighing trucks, the first three
19 options under that section. And then at the very end, it talks
20 about supporting further consideration of an option to require
21 trucks to be measured and certified.
22 I'm just trying to point out, you know, get a
23 clarification. So, is the AP's recommendation that trucks, the
24 option for trucks to be measured and certified, above or below
25 the line?
1 DAVID ELLENTON: Yeah. Thank you, Terry. There was a
2 lot of discussion about this, and the motion was the motion, and
3 the motion was passed unanimously. And -- no, the motion was
5 But there was further discussion, as Jeff had just pointed
6 out, about consideration to require trucks, but we had enough
7 thought either way. It was just a general description about
8 whether it should be industry going forward, and talk about
9 weighing trucks. But the motion was the motion.
10 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Lori.
11 LORI STEELE: Yeah. I mean, I -- and we'll get into
12 this in the next agenda item -- but if you look at the options
13 that are listed on Page 28, under requiring certification of
14 dealer trucks and transport vehicles, this is the section of the
15 document that that motion refers to.
16 And what the Advisors recommended is eliminating the first
17 three of those four options that are listed there, that all
18 relate to requiring the trucks to be weighed.
19 The fourth option that's there is an option that would sort
20 of mirror the option for the vessel fish holds, in that the
21 trucks would somehow get some measurements taken and have some
22 markings on them, and be certified in some way, recognizing that
23 that option needs more work, and probably the details of the
24 option are going to change a little bit as we get into it a
25 little bit more.
1 But the Advisors, I think, supported the idea of at least
2 further considering that, and it would be something similar to
3 what's being proposed for the fish holds. But the motion was to
4 not further consider the options that would actually require a
5 truck to drive somewhere with the fish in it, and get weighed,
6 and then, you know, some sort of before and after weight kind of
8 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Glenn.
9 GLENN ROBBINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Glenn
10 Robbins, Fishing Vessel Western Sea. I've been in the herring
11 business for a long time, as most of you know, and we usually
12 mark the holds. They've been marked in my boat, by hogs
13 (indiscernible) bells, whatever. You can get a pretty accurate
14 reading that way, depending how much water you have in it, with
15 an RSW boat.
16 The trucks, when you come in, should be weighed, if
17 possible, then weigh them again after you fill them. Large
18 herring, small herring, go in the truck a little different.
19 Pogies, they pile up, they don't weigh as much.
20 So, if you want an accurate -- but at sea is really not
21 that important, it really isn't. I think what you were
22 discussing, and what brought this up, this whole discussion, is
23 probably because people weren't thinking we were reporting our
24 herring, the boats.
25 In other words, I got fined $500,000 one year because I
1 think they thought we were not reporting them when, in effect,
2 we were tardy, and we had everything done. (Indiscernible) the
3 reports now show that boats report more herring than dealers.
4 So, we could discuss it -- really, in the scheme of the whole
5 thing of the fishery, doesn't amount to piss on a snowbank,
6 really. I'm sorry.
7 But we have more concerns -- I have great concerns over
8 this. Forty-seven years I've been in this fishery, 39 have been
9 behind the wheel, catching herring. I've been out there. It's
10 a desert now; it is actually a desert out there.
11 I've always counted herring. You go into a bunch -- 30
12 years ago, we didn't have that much market. You put half your
13 seine in there, and you had all you wanted. Now, you've got to
14 try to get as much as you possibly can. Our seines are bigger,
15 our sonars are much better. I clip two miles rather than a
16 quarter of a mile or an eighth of a mile. We have a real good
18 The problem is I guess we're too good. We've developed
19 different fisheries that have come into this fishery, where the
20 herring are not safe at all. I'm talking about -- and I hate to
21 describe this, but it's pair trawling. It came from Ireland,
22 Scotland, and some of you people probably don't remember the
23 '70s. They closed the North Sea because it was overfished.
24 Doug, I really have to say this, you guys all need to hear
25 this, because we're going down the tube big time, and I don't
1 want to see us close this fishery off, like the North Sea was
2 supposed to be closed for five years, but it came back enough in
3 three years, so they reopened it.
4 I've been to Ireland and Scotland. I've talked to those
5 people over there, to find out what happened. And what has --
6 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Glenn?
7 GLENN ROBBINS: Yes, Doug.
8 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Glenn, I'll be glad to
9 take this comment later in the day, but what we're trying to
10 do --
11 GLENN ROBBINS: I know what you're trying --
12 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: -- is comments on what
13 the Advisory Report --
14 GLENN ROBBINS: I know, I went to that meeting and --
15 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: -- and it's going
16 beyond that.
17 GLENN ROBBINS: I know. I'm sorry, Doug.
18 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: I appreciate --
19 GLENN ROBBINS: I've just got to have a few more
20 minutes, and I'll leave, and you won't --
21 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Can you save this?
22 GLENN ROBBINS: -- hear me any more.
23 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Can you save this to
24 the end of the day?
25 GLENN ROBBINS: No.
1 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Because --
2 GLENN ROBBINS: I really don't think so. I think
3 you've got to start thinking about this, Doug.
4 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: We have been.
5 GLENN ROBBINS: This fishery is in hard shape. Now we
6 -- you -- we've had meetings before -- we've had days out
7 meetings, and they didn't amount to anything, because time and
8 time again, you thought we was going -- excuse me -- you thought
9 we were -- the fishery would come back, but it hasn't. There is
10 no fish out there now. There's maybe eight to ten million
12 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Glenn?
13 GLENN ROBBINS: Yes.
14 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Will you respect the
15 Chairman's --
16 GLENN ROBBINS: Yes, I'll respect you, Doug. I
17 (indiscernible) --
18 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: And I'll be glad to
19 give you a chance to talk. Now, if you're not going to respect
20 my request here, I'm not going to give you a chance to talk
21 again. I don't want to do that.
22 GLENN ROBBINS: Tell me what you want me to do.
23 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: What I want you to do
24 is to save this kind of a comment for the general public -- the
25 general comment that is at the end of the day, and we'll be glad
1 to listen to you then.
2 But we're trying to get this -- trying to do some work on
3 this document here, and it's -- we're going to take that comment
4 in the middle of the meeting, at the end of the day, but what
5 we're dealing with right now is the Advisory Panel's report
6 here, and we're going to be moving on to one of the sections of
7 the document.
8 So, if you'll respect us --
9 GLENN ROBBINS: I do.
10 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: -- on this, I will
11 give you another chance to say your piece, but not right now.
12 GLENN ROBBINS: What time, approximately?
13 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Five-thirty.
14 GLENN ROBBINS: Okay, five-thirty.
15 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Okay.
16 GLENN ROBBINS: But we have problems, and I want you
17 to be aware of it. Thank you.
18 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Thank you.
19 Is this to the Advisory Panel's -- directly to the Advisory
20 Panel's report? Okay. Go ahead, Pete.
21 PETER MULLEN: Peter Mullen, Western Venture. I kind
22 of keep going back to the fact that I don't have any control
23 over the fish when it comes off my boat. There's no way that I
24 can say that's what's on that truck because there's nothing to
25 -- there's no measurement, each truck is different.
1 I put it on the truck and I send it to a weigh scale place.
2 The buyer (indiscernible) come back and said well, there was 10
3 percent water, or 15 percent water. How do I argue that point,
4 because those are fishes that somebody's buying somewhere.
5 Because if you measure all herring trucks, either by the gallons
6 -- like most of the small tankers are 6500 gallon. The bigger
7 tankers, there's no marks at all on them. Big dump trucks,
8 there's no marks on them.
9 I don't know how much fish -- we have an idea -- but to
10 find that the captain is overhailing the fish, then when you see
11 dealer's approach, it's totally different. We need to get those
12 two numbers together.
13 And the only way we're going to do it is by measuring the
14 trucks, not going over a scale, because it's open-ended. They
15 can say well, it was full of water, which sometimes it can be.
16 But at least if we're going to measure on the truck, I can climb
17 up on the truck and say, well, drain your water out, and they'll
18 say, all right, that's exactly what you got, or close to it.
19 And if you guys can do that for us, your accurate
20 measurement would be as close as you're ever going to get
21 (indiscernible) measure the tanks on the boat (indiscernible).
22 Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
23 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Ray, you want one more
24 shot? Again, this is to the Advisory Committee report, please.
25 RAY KANE: Yeah, Ray Kane, CHOIR. Dave, a little
1 earlier, when I did my little thing up here, you mentioned
2 VTR's. I don't know how it is in the herring industry, but in
3 the groundfish industry, they don't -- National Marine Fisheries
4 doesn't look at VTR's, they look at dealer landings.
5 So, once again, I'm going to come back to the discrepancy
6 you've just heard from Peter Mullen. We need to know what's
7 coming off those vessels, to match up with the dealer reports,
8 because the National Marine Fisheries is only going to look at
9 dealer reports. We don't know what's truly coming off those
10 vessels. Thank you.
11 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Okay. Thank you very
12 much, Dave. I appreciate it, the report here. Easy, easy; you
13 want to get out of here real quick, obviously.
14 All right. With some of the -- with some information from
15 the Advisory Panel, we have on the agenda here to discuss
16 Section 2.5. And I'd like to turn that over to Lori, to give us
17 an introduction here.
18 MEASURES TO CONFIRM THE ACCURACY OF SELF-REPORTING (SECTION 2.5)
19 LORI STEELE: Okay. Section 2.5 starts on Page 26,
20 and this is one of the sections that the Committee did agree we
21 should revisit at this meeting, to make some decisions about
22 what should move forward in the Draft EIS.
23 I just want to note for the Committee members that this
24 section has been rewritten since the last Committee meeting.
25 So, we tried to -- Talia tried to incorporate a lot of the
1 information that she learned through -- or that she picked up
2 through writing that white paper.
3 So, we've kind of rewritten this, to be a little bit more
4 reflective of what the actual management measures would look
5 like, while noting some places in here where I think we need to
6 do a little bit more work. I think some of this work can occur
7 during the development of the EIS. If we can at least get the
8 concepts fleshed out and the general provisions.
9 Some of the details really need to be discussed with the
10 National Marine Fisheries Service, which would be things like
11 how fish holds, or trucks, or whatever, would be certified. You
12 know, what kind of procedures would have to be gone through for
13 certifications, and when, and things like that.
14 So, all of those details sort of remain to be developed.
15 I think we can do most of that in the Draft EIS in conjunction
16 with the Service.
17 So, moving through the options, the first option here is
18 2.5.2, which would require the certification and sealing and
19 independent certification for weights coming out of the fish
21 This option would require that all the fish holds be sealed
22 and certified for volume, based on some standard measurement,
23 unit of measure, which is something that needs to be determined.
24 This may be something again that we can work out during the
25 development of the Draft EIS.
1 There's a table on Page 27 that gives you some of the units
2 of measure that are used around the world, including the
3 hogshead, and things like that. So, at some point, there would
4 have to be some agreement on what unit of measure we're going to
5 use for this option, keeping in mind that all of the Maine
6 vessels are already certified based on hogsheads. So, that's
7 definitely something to consider.
8 The idea behind this option is that all of the boats would
9 be certified and marked, and then a third party verification
10 could occur at the point of landing. That third party
11 verification could be a portside sampler, it could be an
12 observer, if there is an observer onboard, it could be a law
13 enforcement official.
14 The idea here is that whenever a third party is available
15 to verify the landings, that verification would happen, and then
16 the information would be transmitted to NMFS. And at some
17 point, we could -- once enough information is collected, there
18 would could be a cross-check of -- with the dealer, and VTR
19 data, to see how the accuracy of the self-reported catch is
20 looking. So that's the first option there on 2.5.2.
21 Then 2.5.3 is the section that I made reference to earlier,
22 which would be the options for addressing dealer trucks and
23 transport vehicles.
24 The first three options relate to weighing the trucks.
25 Some of these are -- these are the three options that the
1 Advisors recommend not be considered further. The first option
2 would require dealers to install and use truck scales. If you
3 recall from Talia's presentation, there's some significant costs
4 and some potential logistical issues to deal with there.
5 The second option would be to require that at specific
6 ports, which we would need to identify.
7 The third option would be to require that trucks use
8 existing scales to weigh. It would have to be sort of a
9 before-and-after type weigh. And if you recall, Talia went
10 through and showed you some maps of where some of the existing
11 scales already are located.
12 So, those are those three options that -- additional work
13 would need to be done on any of these options, but those are the
14 concepts behind those options.
15 And then the fourth option here, as I mentioned earlier,
16 would be to require federally-permitted dealers to somehow
17 certify the volumetric capacity of the trucks, which would be a
18 similar process to the option for fish holds. There would have
19 to be some sort of measurements taken with lines drawn in the
21 There are some issues to deal with here. It's not really
22 clear how NMFS would go about actually certifying the trucks.
23 It would be linked to the renewal of the dealer permits. So,
24 there's some -- there's some technical issues and administrative
25 issues to work out there.
1 Also, there are trucks and transport vehicles that aren't
2 -- I mean, aren't going to have the ability, or aren't set up
3 for some sort of like a volumetric marking on them. For
4 example, flatbed trucks that, you know, carry totes or Xactics.
5 Some trucks, you know -- there are just a variety of trucks that
6 are used in the fisheries.
7 So, you know, when we talked about it with the Advisors, it
8 was recognized that maybe if this option moves forward, we need
9 to talk about it a little bit more. It may only be that certain
10 kinds of trucks can be marked. But the Advisors felt that even
11 if it was just the bigger tanker trucks, you know, it's still a
12 step in the right direction. And at least if those trucks were
13 marked, it would provide a cross-check for some of the fish that
14 are being transported or trucked somewhere.
15 So, I think, you know, if this does move forward, obviously
16 there are a few of those kind of issues that need to be worked
17 out, but my assumption is that would happen as part of the
18 development of the Draft EIS.
19 The last option on Page 29 is the option to require flow
20 scales on the vessels. The Advisors did recommend eliminating
21 this option. If this option does move forward, there are some
22 details that need to be worked out about how the scales would be
23 -- what companies would be certified to provide the scales, and
24 how the scales would be implemented on the boats, certified by
25 NMFS, calibrated, and maintained. So, there's some details
1 there, as well as, obviously, the costs that were described in
2 the white paper by Talia.
3 Then the final option on Page 30 is the CMCP option. I
4 don't really know what to say about this option at this point.
5 But it's in there. I think the Committee needs to think about
6 the whole CMCP concept, with respect to some of the comments
7 that the National Marine Fisheries Service has made, and some of
8 the concerns that have been expressed.
9 So, those are the options, and the Advisors'
10 recommendations have been incorporated into there. The
11 Committee had expressed interest in coming back and revisiting
12 this section to decide which option you should move forward,
13 after some discussion by the Advisors. So, there you have it.
14 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Lori, I have a
15 question. It's a question for you, and also a question for the
16 Committee. We've made a motion over a year ago that all the
17 catch monitoring measures would apply to the limited access
18 vessels. And I think that was a -- something that I thought was
19 a good thing that was going into this document, so you'd get
20 better estimates, more accurate estimates of what's being caught
21 and landed.
22 One of the things that I'm seeing as this document has
23 unfolded, and all the various options, is specifically, there
24 are some provisions here in 2.5.2 that assumed that all the C
25 vessels, the C permitted vessels, pump and put their fish in
1 their fish hold. And there are clearly vessels that have C
2 permits, that are small mesh bottom trawls, that never put the
3 fish in the fish hold. They put the fish in totes or in
5 And then also the requirement, 2.5.4, assumes that the C
6 vessel would -- permitted vessel would be pumping fish, would
7 require flow scales. So, I'm concerned that we may be requiring
8 -- you have it in your option here -- that if we selected it,
9 would require these vessels to do something, have some equipment
10 onboard, or have their holds measured. But it's not going to do
11 anything to improve their -- our catch estimates, because they
12 don't put fish in the fish holds like the purse seiners and some
13 of the midwater trawls.
14 So, while I think there is good merit in having C vessels
15 in a lot of the catch monitoring alternatives, I think those two
16 areas we really have to think clearly about that before we start
17 requiring C vessels on those particular things. Mary Beth.
18 MARY BETH TOOLEY: I understand those concerns because
19 I think there's a lot of variability in some of the other areas,
20 too, like when we talk about trucks. I mean, I think, you know,
21 measuring trucks in some fashion is fine, but there are places
22 where herring is delivered and there are no trucks. So, I mean,
23 there's a variety of things we should think about.
24 The one thing about the C vessels, though, is that they
25 also have a trip limit. So having some way to determine or
1 verify the -- what they're catching, would be ideal.
2 But I agree with you that these measures might not be the
3 best ones. And unfortunately, I don't know if we have any
4 Category C people on the AP. I'm thinking we don't.
5 So, that might be a question you might want to do a little
6 investigation into, you know, to ask them. You know, you have a
7 trip limit, you want to verify the catch, what would work for
9 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Glenn.
10 GLENN LIBBY: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. If you've got a
11 boat that's small enough so they got the separate totes, it's
12 pretty easy to weigh it at the dock, just like we do with the
13 fish or shrimp or anything else.
14 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: That was my thought.
15 You just weigh it at the dock, which is what they usually do.
17 DAVID PIERCE: Yeah, Mr. Chairman. As we go through
18 these different parts of the amendment, and being considerate of
19 the recommendations made by the Advisory Panel, it would be
20 useful for being -- perhaps the entire Committee -- to be given
21 some guidance from the National Marine Fisheries Service,
22 specific to the letters that in are our handouts, the
23 correspondence section.
24 I note that an August 25th letter from Pat Kurkul, signed
25 by Harry Mears for her, there, very simply it is said, to the
1 Chair, John Pappalardo, that, “Because of the importance of
2 these issues” -- and of course, all the issues that we're
3 dealing with aren't mentioned here -- “Because of the importance
4 of these issues to future Atlantic herring management, and the
5 wide range of opinions on how to address them, I urge the
6 Council to include a broad range of alternatives to address
7 these issues in the Amendment 5 draft documents,” et cetera, et
9 So, I'm a bit confused now as to how we deal with that
10 legitimate concern expressed by Pat Kurkul, and our need to
11 respond -- this Committee's need to respond to the Advisory
12 Panel's recommendations which, if we went with them, we would
13 drop off a lot of options.
14 I'd like some direction from the Chair, or perhaps,
15 specifically, from the National Marine Fisheries Service, to
16 clarify, perhaps, the intent of that letter that came from Pat
17 Kurkul. But when do we get ourselves into a position where
18 whatever we recommend to the Council, from us, the Committee,
19 whatever we recommend, will it be met with some resistance by
20 the Service because not enough options will be there?
21 So, I'm struggling with how far -- to what extent we should
22 embrace the Advisors' recommendations versus the need to deal
23 with Pat Kurkul's concerns.
24 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Hannah, would you like
25 to give us some clarity on what the intent of that memo was?
1 HANNAH GOODALE: Yes. Hannah Goodale from NMFS.
2 Well, it's a judgment call. I mean, what Pat's letter is
3 encouraging the Council to do is to keep in mind that you're at
4 the stage where you're about to go to public hearing, and you
5 should take a range of alternatives out to public hearing.
6 It doesn't mean that you have to move forward alternatives
7 that you've identified a problem with.
8 It does mean that you should be cautious about eliminating
9 alternatives that seem to be viable, to analyze them, and get
10 the public comment.
11 If I could specifically use the truck certification as an
12 example, I think the way the discussions have been going at the
13 last few meetings, we've all been focusing so much on details,
14 that maybe the Committee needs to think a little bit about the
15 bigger objective -- I think Jeff Kaelin sort of touched on that
16 -- is what do you gain if you have trucks certified? What you
17 gain is very specific information about what an individual truck
18 is carrying.
19 But it's occurred to us at the RO that if you can't tie
20 that back to the vessel trip, I'm not positive what you gain
21 from fishery monitoring overall. The catch is harvested by
22 vessels; it's landed by vessels. And then it's dispersed on the
23 trucks. So now we've got a universe of trucks that we will try
24 to capture, apparently, somehow, and somehow integrate that data
25 back to trip level to somehow be some confirmatory piece of
2 And that sounds very difficult to me. You know, it assumes
3 there's some linkage between the trip, and the truck, and the
4 certification number, and the third-party verifier. So, I think
5 you need to step back and see how much you gain for the amount
6 of effort you're going to put into a measure like that.
7 There are other measures that Lori indicated, have some
8 details that need to be worked out, but just the fact that there
9 are details that need to be worked out wouldn't mean you should
10 eliminate them all. I hope that helps.
11 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Does that help, Dave?
12 DAVID PIERCE: Yes, thank you very much, Hannah.
13 That's helpful.
14 I've got a related question, and that is attached to that
15 particular letter that I just referenced, there is another
16 letter from Pat to John Pappalardo. That was the March 22nd
17 letter. We have -- she, and you and your staff, of course,
18 contributed to this in a major way, I'm sure -- but she
19 highlights, in tabular form, catch reporting recommendations for
20 the amendment.
21 So, I read these two letters from her and thought that
22 there might be some linkage between them, and that perhaps the
23 Service was saying to us that we haven't yet addressed in a
24 satisfactory way the Regional Office recommended measures that
25 relate specifically to catch reporting.
1 So, did I read more into that than I should have?
2 HANNAH GOODALE: Yeah, you did. That first letter was
3 an attempt to -- for us to make suggestions about how you could
4 refine the existing monitoring program to function better.
5 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Mary Beth.
6 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Yeah. I also -- just kind of
7 curious about the letter, and in the letter the term broad range
8 of alternatives, wide range of alternatives. The legal test is
9 a reasonable range of alternatives. It's not broad and it's not
10 wide, but reasonable. And I think that's what we should be
11 focusing on, is do we think it's a reasonable alternative that
12 could actually be implemented in the fishery.
13 And if it's not, then in my opinion, it's rather misleading
14 to take to public hearings, and have people comment on stuff, on
15 items that it can't be -- that I wouldn't think are reasonable.
16 I'm sure everybody has their own opinion on what reasonable is,
17 but it's not wide and broad, I don't think.
18 HANNAH GOODALE: I think the word broad was
19 intentional. You know, it's clear that there's not a consensus
20 on what's a reasonable alternative for this fishery. There's a
21 wide range -- the spectrum's pretty wide, for people who've been
22 commenting at meetings, on what they think is reasonable.
23 So, you know, the Council needs to recognize this stage
24 that you're at, where you're putting out draft measures for
25 public comment, we would recommend they be broad.
1 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Terry.
2 TERRY STOCKWELL: Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. Hannah,
3 while you're here, could you summarize the agency's comments on
4 the CMCP's, please?
5 HANNAH GOODALE: Well, those aren't the agency, those
6 primarily have been staff here who were -- who are trying to
7 work our way through these alternatives. Right now, what it
8 appears to me is the CMCP, as I understand it in the current
9 document, is a vessel would be obligated to give us a plan
10 annually, for a monitoring program.
11 But the components aren't really clearly specified. The
12 mechanisms for any particular program providing information to
13 the agency aren't clearly specified. I think at a previous
14 meeting I suggested I could envision it potentially working if
15 there were four ways a vessel could verify their catch, and the
16 owner got to select one of the four. And if the agency had
17 agreed, we could implement all of the four.
18 But right now, it sort of seems like you've got a good
19 idea, bring it on in, submit it to the agency, and the onus will
20 be on the agency to say yes, we can make it work, or no, we
22 And you know how data collections work. I mean, you need
23 the information coming from various sources into some sort of
24 centralized framework, where you can accommodate the data
25 attributes, and the reporting frequency, and things.
1 I'm just -- I don't see how it's going to come together
2 without a lot of additional work.
3 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Mary Beth.
4 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Yeah, just one quick follow-up to
5 that. The way you just described that, Hannah, is that we could
6 say in the document that these are the four ways in which one
7 could, in fact, certify their hold. We had a discussion about,
8 you know, the smaller boats might need something different. And
9 then people could just comply with one of the four.
10 But we could accomplish that without the CMCP's, couldn't
11 we? I mean, you could write the regulations, that this is
12 generally, we want holds certified, here are some exceptions,
13 and then you wouldn't have vessels coming forward, on an annual
14 basis, submitting the CMCP's.
15 HANNAH GOODALE: Perhaps, although perhaps the
16 proponents of CMCP's mean it to mean something broader, and
17 that's where I start to lose the concept about the -- I had
18 another thought -- I'm sorry, I forget the other thought I had.
19 I think for that specific regulation you're speaking to,
20 yes. Oh, there is -- there is a question in our mind, if you're
21 talking about every vessel submitting a plan every year. That's
22 a procedural thing that we will have to get and describe more
23 clearly in the document, so that we can even think of
25 If the Council wants to propose that a vessel submits a
1 quality control plan of some sort, prior to its permit being
2 issued each year, that's a whole new process for us, and I don't
3 know what's involved.
4 And since I'm here, you know, a number of these decisions
5 the Committee is going to make sort of need to be mindful of the
6 very first letter Pat wrote about this amendment, which was you
7 need a range of funding alternatives also, because we can adapt
8 our existing programs to new requirements to a certain extent.
9 But we don't have resources to start totally new programs.
10 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Mary Beth?
11 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Yeah. I guess why I questioned the
12 need for the CMCP's, as they kind of moved along, and one of the
13 reasons is I think in most instances, most vessel owners and
14 captains, they want to know that the guy fishing next to him is
15 following the same rules that they are.
16 So, they actually -- I mean, the intent of them I thought
17 was good, in that it was going -- you know, some flexibility.
18 But in general, when you talk to fishermen, they prefer
19 everybody doing it the same way. A different class of vessels,
20 like Doug was describing, in that instance, you may need an
21 exception to what may be the general rule.
22 But I think in most instances, everybody wants to go, and
23 to be clear what they're supposed to be doing, and everybody
24 doing the same thing, so ...
25 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Thank you. Tom.
1 TOM RUDOLPH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Tom Rudolph,
2 Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's Association. I was
3 multi-tasking back there, and I missed a lot, but I did hear
4 Hannah suggest that maybe one of the proponents of CMCP's might
5 weigh in. So, here I am. I'm a big proponent. I'm strongly
6 supportive of the Catch Monitoring and Control Plans, and I
7 think the discussion today actually points to the need for it.
8 I've heard a lot of discussion about, as Hannah put it,
9 very detailed potential measures, you know, portable truck
10 scales, yes or no; fixed truck scales, yes or no. And I heard
11 some people talk about there's different herring vessels, and
12 different processing operations, and that, you know, a tool that
13 seems like it's not feasible for some, might be necessary for
14 others. And I heard some folks say that they do want robust
15 catch weighing, so -- and I think the CMCP offers that option.
16 Let the herring fishermen choose the technique that works best
17 for them.
18 And I think we -- I also agree with Hannah that -- and I've
19 said this before at another meeting, the idea is not that you
20 can pull some technique that hasn't been discussed out of left
21 field, and propose it in a CMCP, you know. You have a fairly
22 well-defined list of potential options that you can choose from
23 to develop a catch weighing plan that works for your operation.
24 And I think that you've got a pretty good list so far. I
25 would hesitate to -- I would strongly suggest you don't throw
1 out any particular thing, like a truck scale, or a flow scale,
2 or anything at this point. Keep it in the document as a
3 potential list of tools that a herring operator could choose
4 from, get a CMCP to be submitted to the agency, if a CMCP
5 alternative was also maintained going forward.
6 So, I hope that makes sense. I think you do have -- you're
7 closer than you think to the sort of specifics on what a CMCP
8 process might look like that Hannah says the agency needs. I
9 think you would -- what I would suggest is you specify that a
10 list of scheduling techniques you currently have in the document
11 as stand-alone measures, largely constitutes the list of tools
12 that a herring fisherman could choose from in designing their
14 So, if there's questions, I can try to answer them, but
15 that's -- that's where I stand. I think that all these
16 techniques need to stay in at this point, and so does the CMCP,
17 and I think that's a fairly broad range of alternatives.
18 I think catch weighing is one of the few things that we've
19 got a lot of broad agreement on as necessary for sure. So,
20 thanks for your time.
21 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Terry, I had you
22 written down. Did I already get you?
23 All right, Committee members, what would you like to do
24 with this section? Want to make any additions, deletions? You
25 got recommendations from the Advisory Panel.
1 I'll put my two cents in. I think we do need to have some
2 kind of an option here for C permit vessels, that don't pump
3 here into their holds, because you're not going to gain anything
4 by measuring their holds at all.
5 If I wasn't the Chair, I might make a motion, but we also
6 have recommendations from the Committee on some of these
7 options. What would you like to do? Mary Beth?
8 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Well, I'd be happy to make a motion
9 for the Chair, that C vessels -- I'm not sure exactly how to
10 word that -- but would not necessarily be required to have their
11 holds certified, but would need to be holding fish in
12 premeasured totes or barrels that can be verified in some
14 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Is there a second to
15 that motion? Mike. Discussion on the motion? Do you want to
16 get it up first?
17 Terry, while she's getting it up, would you like to discuss
19 TERRY STOCKWELL: Yes. It's a good motion, but I
20 think that we're going to need a little wordsmithing, just in
21 terms of C vessels that don't have fish holds must, you know,
22 provide a standard unit of measurement, something along that
23 line. I mean, the intent here is to count fish.
24 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Right.
25 TERRY STOCKWELL: And accommodate, you know, the
1 particular vessel. So, likewise, if we're looking at it, on the
2 other end, we're trying to count fish, that fish that get pumped
3 are brailled into -- if -- not the truck, if they go into a --
4 off a dockside, they go into barrels, they go into Xactics, they
5 go into huge -- up on the islands, some fairly large holding
7 It's that concept that we're going to count the fish, and
8 whatever unit of measurement makes sense. So, I think it's
9 across-the-board issue.
10 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Mike.
11 MIKE LEARY: Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think
12 the better way to say this, if the holds aren't certified, then
13 the fish have to be -- predetermined. I mean, a barrel, or -- a
14 lot of these guys deckload them in barrels, and they put the
15 barrels down below, but everything's -- because you can't pump
16 them. They're easy to offload.
17 So, if the holds -- Category C vessel holds that aren't
18 certified, the fish have to be in a premeasured volumetric
20 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Maker of the motion,
21 accept that?
22 LORI STEELE: I don't know what that means, what
24 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Well, it means that -- I said totes
25 and something else.
1 LORI STEELE: Okay.
2 MARY BETH TOOLEY: This is just a little bit more
4 LORI STEELE: Container?
5 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Container.
6 LORI STEELE: So, is that okay?
7 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Yeah.
8 TALIA BIGELOW: He also mentioned not certified.
9 LORI STEELE: Well, it says they would not be required
10 to have the fish hold certified, but would need -- would be --
11 MARY BETH TOOLEY: I guess we could do either, if we
12 word it slightly different. Then have the option
13 (indiscernible), you know.
14 So, for a vessel that does not -- a Category C vessel that
15 does not have a certified hold, would need to hold fish in a
16 pre-measure container.
18 LORI STEELE: How's that?
19 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Is the Committee
20 comfortable with this motion at this point? At least the
21 wording of it, I should say. Frank.
22 FRANK BLOUNT: Thank you. I'm not quite sure how to
23 wordsmith it, but if you had a certified hold, and you didn't
24 use it, kept your stuff on-deck, I don't think you'd to have
25 measure it the way this is worded.
1 UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You don't have to measure the
3 FRANK BLOUNT: If you had a certified hold, and you
4 chose not to, you kept them on deck, according to this, you
5 wouldn't have to weigh them, or you wouldn't have to have them
6 in containers that are ...
7 I mean, I'm not sure it's a problem, but I mean, that is a
8 loophole on this one. So, I mean, it's something -- I'm not
9 quite sure how to wordsmith around that, but ...
10 (Comments away from microphone.)
11 TALIA BIGELOW: I think I've got a different one. All
12 fish --
13 MIKE LEARY: Very simple, too.
14 TALIA BIGELOW: I think what you're trying to get at
15 is that all fish, no matter how they're moved, need to be placed
16 either into a certified hold, or a measured -- you know, an
17 already measured container, an Xactic, or whatever, where you
18 know, no matter where the fish are going, they're going into a
19 completely measured container. So, you know just how many fish
20 are in there.
21 (Comments away from microphone.)
22 TALIA BIGELOW: Would it be Category C, or -- now
23 you're talking about any --
24 FRANK BLOUNT: All vessels.
25 TALIA BIGELOW: -- any herring vessel.
1 MARY BETH TOOLEY: So, we can include Category D.
2 TALIA BIGELOW: A, B, C and D?
3 MIKE LEARY: And E.
4 LORI STEELE: We're talking about limited access
5 vessels, right? So, it's all limited access herring vessels.
6 Now it's all limited access herring vessels, right? No, we're
7 not -- because the -- the catch monitoring program is specific
8 to the limited access herring vessels.
9 So now we're talking about an element in the catch
10 monitoring program, so you're saying all limited access herring
11 vessels will be required to either place the fish in a certified
12 hold or a premeasured container.
13 So, if they don't certify their hold, they have to have
14 premeasured containers that they place the fish in; correct?
15 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Yes, correct.
16 LORI STEELE: Thank you.
17 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Okay. Comments from
18 the public? Dave.
19 DAVID ELLENTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dave
20 Ellenton of Cape Seafoods and Western Sea Fishing Company. I
21 was just -- well, I've got two questions, really. How is it
22 enforced, and how do we identify a premeasured container? Is
23 that a tote, is it a tote that's marked, that says it's a
24 premeasured container? Is it certified by somebody? Is it an
25 Xactic, where there are thousands of Xactics out there at the
1 moment, taking fish every day, that's not marked in any way,
3 I'm just thinking of the practicality, and the enforcement
4 of it, Mr. Chairman. Is there a definition that we need for it?
5 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Well, we went from
6 specifics, fish tote, which we have a very standard volume
7 there, usually holds a certain amount of weight, to -- and we'd
8 have to have some measure here, if we were going to broaden it,
9 to include all -- any containers. There'd have to be some way
10 of certifying those containers, volume or weight of those
11 containers. We were going to give them the flexibility.
12 DAVID ELLENTON: If I may, some of those containers
13 may be totes or vats that are being loaded through a pump at a
14 rapid rate. There's going to be differences in weight between a
15 tote that carries 150 pounds and a tote that carries 178 pounds,
16 just because it was under the pump for a minute longer. I just
17 wonder how it will work.
18 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Well here, we're
19 trying to address one specific problem and apply it to
20 everything. Lori, do you have --
21 LORI STEELE: Hmm. Yeah, this is a little bit
22 frustrating because this is the first time this issue has been
23 raised, and we're trying to kind of finalize this stuff and move
24 it forward.
25 And this, I think, is really complicating things now. I'm
1 not sure if you want this motion to be all limited access
2 herring vessels, or be specific to the Category C vessels that
3 you're trying to address by this motion.
4 You know, I think everybody kind of -- I thought everybody
5 was kind of in agreement that the A and B vessels are pumping
6 fish, and should have the fish holds measured. So, I don't --
7 I'm not sure you want to like offer this up as an option to all
8 of the vessels in the fishery. I think you want the A and B
9 vessels to be marked.
10 If this is to address the C vessels that aren't pumping
11 fish, then I think the motion should be specific that for the C
12 vessels that don't pump fish, they would be required to place
13 the fish in either a certified hold or -- I mean, I'm sorry --
14 in a premeasured container. And we're going to have to write
15 this option up. And it's basically going to be for these boats,
16 then they're going to have to take the containers, and get them
17 certified by NMFS.
18 There's, you know, when -- just like when the boats that
19 are going to have to measure their holds, and have their holds
20 certified as a condition of renewing their permit, now the C
21 boats that aren't going to be able to have their holds measured
22 and certified as a condition of renewing their permits, are
23 going to have to somehow produce a set of containers that
24 they're going to use to hold the fish, and have those somehow
25 measured and certified. And this isn't an issue that we've
1 really talked about yet.
2 So, I mean, I really don't -- I'm not sure you want to open
3 it up as an option to every boat, A, B and C, which is what this
4 motion now does. I mean, I thought maybe we wanted the fish
5 holds to be marked.
6 So, my suggestion would be, at the very least, to wordsmith
7 again this motion to reflect that it would be for boats -- for C
8 vessels that don't pump fish into the holds.
9 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Glenn.
10 GLENN LIBBY: Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman. I tend to
11 agree with those comments. I think you need to keep it focused
12 on the boats that aren't pumping as a standard practice.
13 As far as the containers, if you use a standard container,
14 it should be easy to say all right, I'm using a standard fish
15 tote, totes have been certified, this is what they're supposed
16 to hold, depending on species, possibly. Some species weigh
17 different than others.
18 If you're going to use something that's not a standard
19 container, then you may have to go the extra mile, like you do
20 with the -- if you have a business, and you have a set of
21 scales, you'd have to get those tagged.
22 So, I don't know who would do that, but it would seem to be
23 an advantage to these folks to use a standard container that's
24 been approved. This is a certain size container, this is the
25 number -- this is (indiscernible), this is an Xactic, this is
1 what it holds, use this, and this is what we're going to call
2 it. Thank you.
3 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Terry, and then Dave.
4 TERRY STOCKWELL: Yeah, Lori's comments make good
5 sense. I would --
6 LORI STEELE: You want to just perfect it?
7 TERRY STOCKWELL: And I ask that Mary Beth, if we
8 could perfect it by replacing the limited access for Category C.
9 LORI STEELE: How about Category C vessels that do not
10 pump fish?
11 MARY BETH TOOLEY: (Indiscernible.)
12 LORI STEELE: Just Category C? Okay.
13 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Dave?
14 DAVID PIERCE: I was going to make a motion to amend.
15 This might -- the motion is (indiscernible.)
16 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Mary Beth.
17 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Yeah, I just can't envision the
18 National Marine Fisheries Service measuring boxes, and stuff
19 like that.
20 I wonder if we can just leave the language here for now,
21 and perhaps, Doug, if you have some people in mind, you could
22 talk to them and maybe -- you know, I don't think we're going to
23 resolve it today, but maybe they would have some creative idea
24 on -- I mean, I'm not sure.
25 Like a tote -- and somebody pointed out the weight of that
1 tote is going to depend on what species is in the tote. You
2 know, when you buy an Xactic, the company's telling you how much
3 volume the Xactic could hold, but it's not specific to herring.
4 There's some details that we're just going to go around in
5 circles on.
6 But I think maybe Lori could just make a notation of it,
7 instead of spending a great amount of time trying to figure it
8 out. But perhaps go to the industry and come back.
9 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Well, as I see this,
10 if we held off with this option, we'll be taking, and if it
11 stays in the document, and the EIS -- and the Draft
12 Environmental Impact Statement is developed, this would
13 eventually go out to public hearing, and we'd get comments on
15 Also, with the full Committee meeting, we do have some C
16 permit holders that might be able to help out with the exact
17 thing. I was just thinking fish totes, but I know it's more
18 than that. Maybe that's just --
19 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Maybe that would work.
20 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Even though they use
21 other things, you could require them to say okay, from now on,
22 you've got to use fish totes, because that's a standard volume,
23 and we're talking about herring, that's what we're measuring.
24 LORI STEELE: Right.
25 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: One species. Okay,
1 comments from the public on this? I'll let Hannah comment
2 first, and then I'll go to ...
3 HANNAH GOODALE: Just two brief comments. We figure,
4 you know, if this was a provision specifically for the Category
5 C vessels, the entity that certifies holds, I imagine, could
6 certify other volumetric containers.
7 But there is an example in any other management plan that
8 might give you some ideas. The surfclam/quahog, primarily
9 quahog IFQ fishery actually is authorized. Vessels in Maine can
10 purchase IFQ, and fish in that fishery. But there was an issue
11 because those vessels and their docks generally weren't set up.
12 IFQ fishery is managed volumetrically.
13 The big boats down in the Mid-Atlantic are cages that are
14 spec'd out in the regulations on their deck, and they are given
15 their harvest allocation in number of cages. And then they use
16 a crane to get those cages off their vessels and onto the dock.
17 And the cages are tagged, and that's the way the catch in that
18 fishery is trapped.
19 When that fishery was expanded up into the Gulf of Maine,
20 the vessels up there expressed concern because they aren't big
21 enough to carry these cages. They're like a six-by-six-by-four,
22 or something like that. So, the regulation was modified for
23 them to require that they actually can harvest their catch, and
24 have it on-deck in whatever container works for them. But then
25 they offload into a cage that's accessible from the boat,
1 somehow on the shore. And so they basically dump their small
2 containers into a big container, and that was a cage.
3 I don't know if that would provide an instructive example
4 for you, but I wanted to provide it.
5 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Patrick. Dave.
6 DAVID ELLENTON: Dave Ellenton, Cape Seafoods, Western
7 Sea Fishing Company. Maybe in the time it took me to walk from
8 there to here, it's probably better off if it's something that
9 goes out to public hearing, and you can hear all the comments on
10 how that's going to work, because just based on that motion, I
11 don't know how it's going to work.
12 When they're put in a premeasured container, is it going to
13 be some person on every one of those landings, or a large number
14 of those landings, to determine what the quantity actually was
15 in those premeasured containers, which are presumably not
16 measured just for their total quantity that they can hold? But
17 what if it's only half-filled, or a third-filled, who's going to
18 determine what the weight is?
19 And, you know, considering that this is -- this is a
20 measure to confirm the accuracy of self-reporting,
21 (indiscernible) have a measure to confirm the accuracy of this,
22 and we'll continue all the way down the line. It just seems --
23 it just seems as though it's a measure that's not going to work.
24 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Gary, and then
1 GARY LIBBY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gary Libby,
2 Port Clyde. I thought the intent when this motion originally
3 came out was these boats didn't have a fish hold, and they were
4 using the alternate containers, and the catch of herring would
5 be more as an incidental catch, some were retained, but not
6 really targeted.
7 Maybe I'm confusing it with the D category, but they would
8 be weighed if they were using these containers, like an
9 incidental catch. I think we're just losing a little bit of
10 sight of where you're going with the motion originally. That's
11 just what I thought. So, I thought if you use these containers,
12 it would probably be weighed, as an incidental catch. Thanks.
13 Thanks a lot.
14 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Patrick.
15 PATRICK PAQUETTE: Patrick Paquette. I'm a
16 recreational fishing advocate from Massachusetts. I just wanted
17 to offer a different way to maybe take a look at it.
18 I believe the discussion and my understanding of how
19 offloading works -- back when I did do a little bit of
20 commercial fishing -- if you get away from the premeasured
21 container idea, and I would suggest that an alternative way
22 would be either in a certified hold, or the fish must be
23 weighed, at point of landing, because I thought if there is
24 these smaller volumes where they're not pumping, the fish are
25 going to be weighed in some way, shape or form, I'm pretty sure,
1 coming off the dock, because somebody's getting paid.
2 And if this is to confirm self-reporting, I would just say
3 that it may be another way to look at it, instead of getting all
4 hung up on the container, to like have whatever that third party
5 is to actually be observing or, you know, taking the weight.
6 Just may be another way to look at it, to get you out of like
7 the bind.
8 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Yes.
9 FRANK BLOUNT: Sorry if I jumped the gun. I suppose
10 that could be added to this, if they're not in a premeasured
11 container, you leave the option of having them weighed.
12 LORI STEELE: I'm sorry, what was that?
13 FRANK BLOUNT: I was going to say the option here be
14 if they're not in a premeasured container, somebody had the
15 option of weighing the fish. I don't think that's a
17 MARY BETH TOOLEY: That's fine.
18 FRANK BLOUNT: Oh, that's fine. So, I mean --
19 MARY BETH TOOLEY: (Indiscernible.)
20 FRANK BLOUNT: If somebody wants to weigh them,
21 that's --
22 MARY BETH TOOLEY: That's up to them.
23 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Mike.
24 MIKE LEARY: Yeah, I mean, the percentages of A and B
25 landings, compared to a C permit, I mean it's ridiculous even to
1 talk about this, so I think we should move this along, put the
2 document (indiscernible.)
3 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Any other discussion
4 on this motion?
5 (No audible response.)
6 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: All right. All those
7 in favor, raise your hand. Nine in favor. Opposed?
8 Abstentions? Passes. Thank you.
9 All right. Other -- is there any other things you'd like
10 to do with this section, or are you fine with it? Mary Beth.
11 MARY BETH TOOLEY: There are some things I was
12 thinking of, but I had just a couple of questions. On the top
13 of Page 27, there's reference and some notes from Lori and Talia
14 about certifying the vessels to National Marine Fisheries
16 And I'm assuming that because of the way the language from
17 the State of Maine says you're certified to the Commissioner,
18 you're thinking (indiscernible) certified to the National Marine
19 Fisheries Service.
20 And I would think a much simpler way to do that would be
21 just to require a vessel, when they submit their permit, to
22 submit that they have been certified by a marine surveyor, or I
23 mean, there would be a list of people that would be eligible or,
24 you know, professions that would be eligible to certify a
1 And you wouldn't have to be certified to NMFS. You would
2 just simply need to show proof of certification, the way you
3 show proof of, you know, car insurance, to register your car, to
4 get your permit. It would seem a simpler approach. And also,
5 it seems like it would be easier for the agency to deal with, as
7 So, some of this language I think is just -- it doesn't
8 know where it came from, originally, and you need to really
9 think in terms of whether we need to keep it the same in -- in
11 And then the third paragraph -- let's see if I'm in the
12 right place here -- I guess it was under 2.5.3, on the third
13 paragraph. It seems like those first two sentences were more
14 applicable to vessels than they would be for this section, and
15 it's probably just from cutting and pasting.
16 So, it seems like they would need -- could just come out.
17 It references the vessels at the first point of landing, and
18 this section is actually on trucks, not vessels.
19 TALIA BIGELOW: Where are you?
20 MARY BETH TOOLEY: I'm on Page 28 --
21 TALIA BIGELOW: Fourth option?
22 MARY BETH TOOLEY: No, at the bottom of the page, “As
23 required or necessary, vessels would contact the independent
24 third party in order to allow enough time for the party to meet
25 the vessels” -- I think it's just from moving stuff around.
1 So, it seems like those first two sentences aren't
2 applicable to this section.
3 TALIA BIGELOW: It may be prudent to specify when the
4 truck gets inspected or, you know, measured, at some point. So
5 when would the third party be coming and measuring what's in the
6 truck is the question.
7 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Lori.
8 LORI STEELE: Yeah. I mean, I think those are all
9 valid points, and I just -- I want everybody to recognize and
10 understand that this language is going to keep changing and
11 evolving as we work out the details of this stuff, if it moves
13 You know, if the option for somehow certifying some trucks
14 is going to move forward, I think this whole section will end up
15 being rewritten as we figure out sort of what's feasible and
16 what's not feasible.
17 Same with the first point about certifying to NMFS. It may
18 be something like Mary Beth suggested, and we had heard actually
19 at the Advisors' meeting from Bob Westcott, he went and
20 contacted a marine surveyor. The marine surveyor came, measured
21 the fish holds, marked the holds, and then he just provided that
22 information to the State of Rhode Island, sort of like providing
23 proof of, you know, insurance or something like that.
24 So, again, if we move this forward in the Draft EIS, and we
25 sit down and work through this with the National Marine
1 Fisheries Service, that might be, you know, some of the
2 modifications that we make, to try to make this a more -- you
3 know, a more reasonable approach.
4 And when it gets to the Draft EIS, it will probably read a
5 little bit differently.
6 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Mary Beth.
7 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Well, I would like to make a motion
8 in this section to eliminate the first two options in Section
9 2.5.3. Originally, I was thinking of the first three options as
10 the Advisors had suggested, but there does seem to be some
11 concern that we have a reasonable range of alternatives.
12 So, this would leave in one option that would include
13 weighing the truck, but the first two options here don't seem
14 feasible to me, to require dealers to do these things, to get
15 their -- to get their annual permits.
16 So, I could supply some more rationale, but I'll see if I
17 get a second first.
18 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Do we have a second?
19 Dave. Discussion on the motion. Mary Beth.
20 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Well, the way those both read, it
21 says as a condition of obtaining a federal dealer permit for
22 Atlantic herring, the dealers would be required to install and
23 use fixed or portable truck scales in all ports where Atlantic
24 herring are landed. That's Option Number 1.
25 Well, I mean, you can go online in the state of
1 Massachusetts, and look at who has dealer permits for herring,
2 and the list is in the hundreds. And these people cannot all
3 be, you know, getting truck scales. I mean, that would just be
4 absolutely crazy.
5 Some people who applied for dealer permits don't have
6 trucks. You know, the fish are delivered by the boat. So, to
7 tie a dealer permit to getting something certified, or having
8 truck scales, is just -- that's a crazy idea.
9 So, the motion -- I mean, I was thinking of doing way with
10 1, 2, 3, but that would leave in one option for trucks to be
11 weighed, but it wouldn't tie it to the dealer permit.
12 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: On the discussion,
13 from the Committee, Dave?
14 DAVID PIERCE: In the summary of the Advisors'
15 meeting, there's some good give and take between Talia and
16 industry representatives, and of course they themselves had some
17 good exchange regarding the merits of these particular options.
18 And although the AP did vote to go with just the last
19 option, to delete the three, I do agree with Mary Beth that we
20 do need to have one option in there that's specific to the
21 trucks being weighed in some way.
22 In this particular option that she's left in, the third
23 one, for the certified truck-weighing facility, that seemed to
24 do that which might be necessary, subject to, of course, what
25 comes out of the public hearing.
1 So, I would support the motion because it does include that
2 option that Mary Beth specified. The first two I agree with her
3 that they don't seem to be reasonable, or feasible. The third
4 one seems to be. It does provide us with another option, but I
5 would not agree with the Advisory Panel recommendation.
6 Plus, I'm also swayed by the fact that there was a six to
7 three vote by the Advisory Panel, so it was not unanimous.
8 One-third of the panel did not agree with just that last option.
9 So, for that, and because of the exchange, Mary Beth's
10 argument's justification, I think that motion makes sense.
12 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: We were trying to
13 coordinate the (indiscernible.)
14 DAVID PIERCE: The only thing we don't have, and I
15 assume this will be worked out with the Service -- it's not the
16 easiest thing in the world to do. Nevertheless, it does say
17 here in the comments section that the next issue, the list,
18 would have to be created, and the details of who would certify
19 the truck scales would need to be clarified.
20 So, that's an important consideration, and I don't know how
21 to address it now. But we do need to have one other option
22 besides the one that the Advisory Panel has recommended to us,
23 and that one seems to be the best of the three additional ones.
24 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Any other comments
25 from the Committee?
1 (No audible response.)
2 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Comments from the
3 public? Dave.
4 DAVID ELLENTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dave
5 Ellenton, Cape Seafoods and Western Sea Fishing Company. I
6 would agree with the motion to eliminate the first two options,
7 but I would also ask if the third option could be eliminated, as
9 Selfishly thinking about our own operation, where there
10 could be 15, 20 or more trucks being loaded during the course of
11 an offload, and each truck would have to be weighed before the
12 fish was put on the vessel -- on the truck?
13 And after the fish is put on the truck -- and all the time,
14 the fish is deteriorating in quality as it's landing -- to get
15 on the scale that's closest, which I don't know where that is,
16 in Gloucester. And I would just ask that that be included the
17 elimination because it's not practicable. Thank you.
18 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Any other comments
19 from the public? Oh, Dave, to what --
20 DAVID PIERCE: Yeah, to what David said, he mentioned
21 that the language right now reads that the truck would have to
22 -- the trucks would have to be weighed before and after the fish
23 are put on.
24 My assumption was that these trucks were identifiable.
25 Therefore, you weigh them once when they're unloading, okay.
1 Now you've got your base; therefore, the only other time the
2 fish would have to be -- the truck would have to be weighed is
3 once it's carrying fish. And then you'd know what the weight of
4 the fish is, relative to the total, as opposed to the truck goes
5 back and forth to a scale before and after it's being weighed.
6 That doesn't seem to make much sense.
7 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Lori.
8 LORI STEELE: Yeah, and again, I mean these are the
9 kinds of details that I think will work themselves out, as we
10 get through the Draft EIS, and sort of figure out, you know,
11 based on the concept, what we can actually do. I mean, I was
12 thinking about that, too.
13 And it may be that we require the trucks to be weighed at
14 the beginning of the fishing year, as a condition of their
15 permit. There's a standard weight, you know, assigned to that
16 truck, and then the truck has to be weighed when it's full and
17 carrying fish.
18 The other thing we're going to have to think about is how
19 to account for water weight and ice and differences, and things
20 like that. It's not a simple option. It's not a simple
21 measure, but it's something that some of the details, you know,
22 we can hopefully try to work out if the Committee really wants
23 to continue to explore the option.
24 The other thing is that the truck scales that Talia
25 identified, she took the first step in going through and finding
1 where they are, but we have to go back and contact each of those
2 scales and the companies that own those scales, individually, to
3 see if they're even amenable to allowing us to use them.
4 And that would be something that will have to be done if
5 that measure moves forward as part of the Draft EIS.
6 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Dave.
7 DAVID PIERCE: Regarding water weight, ice, clearly,
8 the fisherman who is being paid for the fish wants to get an
9 accurate weight, and doesn't want to pay for ice or for water.
10 He wants to be paid for the fish.
11 It would seem to me that because we're working with high
12 quotas for these fisheries, and certainly in Area 1A, relatively
13 low quota, it would make no sense for the industry and all those
14 operations to load up their trucks with water and ice, because
15 that counts against the quota.
16 So, I know it's a balancing act between counting against
17 the quota, and getting paid for the fish, as opposed to
18 (indiscernible) see that as being a major problem with the ice
19 and the water.
20 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Frank, you had a
22 FRANK BLOUNT: Yeah, I'm just reading the way this is
23 worded here, and I have a funny feeling it needs to be changed a
24 little -- maybe Hannah can comment -- because as a condition of
25 obtaining the federal dealer permit, I think it's as a condition
1 of having a federal dealer permit. Because otherwise, you're
2 going to have to do all this before you get your permit.
3 So, I think that would be getting fish and weighing them
4 prior to having a permit, and so it's a condition of having a
5 permit, not obtaining it, I think.
6 HANNAH GOODALE: Do you want me to comment?
7 FRANK BLOUNT: Yeah, I mean if --
8 HANNAH GOODALE: Yeah, Hannah Goodale. Yeah, that's
9 certainly the more feasible way to write that language.
10 I am a little concerned that, you know, we do envision
11 going -- sitting down with Council staff, and doing a lot of
12 kind of implementation discussions, to try to line up how these
13 alternatives might possibly work.
14 But I am hesitant that it seems like a lot of onus is being
15 put on the agency to somehow make them work. And I don't want
16 to mislead the Committee that we're necessarily going to come up
17 with all the details that could make something like this work.
18 I find it as a somewhat confusing alternative, myself. And
19 again, I'll say what I said this morning. I'm not positive what
20 it adds to the catch monitoring. I can understand it from the
21 payment to the industry participants, but ...
22 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Jeff.
23 JEFF KAELIN: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Jeff Kaelin,
24 Lund's Fisheries. We're completely opposed to this motion. And
25 I think it's -- it's an unreasonable option.
1 For example, what happens if you load a truck, and then the
2 truck drives away with fish on it, which hasn't been accounted
3 for yet, because you theoretically don't know how much weight is
4 on it? And it drives across town, and weighs itself, and then
5 has to come back and tell you how much it weighed. And then you
6 say okay, well, we just sent that guy that much fish. This is a
7 crazy option.
8 And one of the points Jennie made -- she's running trucks
9 all the time -- is the limited amount of time that your drivers
10 can actually, physically be on the road. And now you've got
11 them running around New England, trying to find a place to weigh
12 the fish. Then they got to come back, I guess, and tell you how
13 much is onboard. Meanwhile, you've let fish leave your
14 facility, you don't even have a weight for it yet.
15 So, this is a ridiculous option, and that's why we opposed
16 inclusion of it last week, right here. It's just --
17 (Comments away from microphone.)
18 JEFF KAELIN: Yeah, because it leaves the third one
19 in, the third option, which requires the trucks to be weighed
20 before and after they -- they travel down the road. That's
21 Option 3.
22 So, why is -- you know, if it was all three, yes, I'd be
23 supporting the motion, but I'm opposed to it because it doesn't
24 include the third option, which requires a truck be weighed
25 before and after it receives fish.
1 So, you put fish on a truck, you own it still, the guy
2 drives down the road with this -- with your fish, and you don't
3 even know how much you've given him yet, because he's got to go
4 across town and weigh it, and then come back and tell you how
5 much is on it? I mean, that's just -- it's ridiculous. It's --
6 it'll bring the industry to a stop, and I think it's an
7 unreasonable option. Thanks.
8 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Dave. Jeff.
9 (Comments away from microphone.)
10 JEFF KAELIN: Through the Chair?
11 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Yeah.
12 JEFF KAELIN: If I can, I'm going to listen to what
13 you direct me to do, Mr. Chairman, because I don't want to be
14 shut off.
15 FRANK BLOUNT: Dave, if I can, I'm just a little
16 curious you saying you're letting the fish leave without knowing
17 how much they weigh until they go to the scale. How do you do
18 it now, when they leave?
19 JEFF KAELIN: You estimate what's on the truck.
20 FRANK BLOUNT: Well, why would that be --
21 JEFF KAELIN: By the volume, which is the option we
22 left in. You're not weighing the fish on the truck. And now
23 you're letting the guy -- you're putting your fish on a truck,
24 you're letting the guy drive down the road without a
25 determination and agreement about how much fish he's taking down
1 the road.
2 FRANK BLOUNT: Well, you're still going to have that.
3 I mean, this is what NMFS wants. I mean, you're still going to
4 have an agreement with the truck. You're not going to give
5 somebody what you think is 10,000 pounds of fish, and he's going
6 to come back and say, oh, I weighed five on the scale, you know.
7 JEFF KAELIN: He's across town weighing his fish
8 someplace else. It's just ridiculous. Thank you.
9 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Dave.
10 DAVID ELLENTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dave
11 Ellenton. One of the reasons that the Advisory Panel didn't
12 include all three options is -- that's to be excluded -- was
13 because of the complicated little bits and pieces that need to
14 go into this before -- before it's even workable, let alone
16 And in the third option it says as a condition of obtaining
17 a federal dealer permit, dealers would be required to weigh the
18 trucks used to transport the herring. Well, somebody mentioned
19 the timing of that, what comes first, the chicken or the egg.
20 But in our position, for instance, Cape Seafoods is the
21 federal dealer. We don't have a truck. We're the federal
22 dealer; we accept the product from the vessel, and we sell it to
23 a customer. The customer has to have the truck calibrated, or
24 registered, or whatever it needs to be under this Option 3.
25 But the way that's written, we could not get the federal
1 dealer permit because we (indiscernible) to the rest of the --
2 of the option. And then that's not just us; I think -- I think,
3 without speaking out of turn, but I think Lund's Fisheries in
4 Cape May are in the same position, and possibly there are
6 But, you know, for us to get a federal dealer permit, we do
7 what we have to do as far as completing the documentation that
8 applies for it. But we never, and do not have the ability, to
9 weigh the trucks used to transport the herring. Weigh what
10 truck? Weigh the truck that's going to get transported in
11 December, when we got our federal permit in January?
12 There's too much -- there are too many details that need to
13 be ironed out before any one of those three options is
14 acceptable. Thank you.
15 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Patrick, and then ...
16 PATRICK PAQUETTE: Patrick Paquette, recreational
17 fisherman from Massachusetts. This is getting painful to watch
18 this discussion. I'm opposed to the motion, really simply. I
19 don't understand why it's needed.
20 At this point, I really want to tell the Committee, it's --
21 -- please -- or remind the Committee to remember what we're
22 doing here. We trying to find out how we certify or -- excuse
23 me -- how we confirm what's being landed by the fishery.
24 And at some point in time, we're going to figure out --
25 someone is going to come up with an idea that's going to figure
1 out exactly how many fish are getting killed and brought to
3 And I don't understand why this Committee doesn't boil this
4 down to three -- a very wide range of options that can be done
5 simply. It's either weigh every fish or certify the hold, and
6 status quo. And I don't see how you get away from it. Because
7 I'm not hearing indust -- I'm hearing every idea that's being
8 brought to the table. Some that I'm participating in, developed
9 it, just getting shot (indiscernible) and I'm not hearing viable
10 alternatives being brought to the Committee.
11 Someone needs to bring a viable alternative or stop saying
12 no. You can't just say no every minute. People are getting put
13 out of business because these fish, and what's happening by this
14 industry, is wiping out an area.
15 My phone won't stop ringing because I'm waiting at 5:30 to
16 inform you guys about what's happened in the last week, down
17 south of the Cape. But this is getting a little bit surreal,
18 sitting in the audience, hearing no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,
19 no. When is somebody going to bring a new idea.
20 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Steve.
21 STEVE WEINER: Steve Weiner, CHOIR. I just wanted say
22 -- I said it at the Advisory Panel the other day -- that I
23 worked in an industry that lived and died by weighing its
24 product. And much more complicated, much more (indiscernible)
25 than this. And weighing trucks is a viable option. I'm not
1 saying it's the only option, because as Dave says, a lot of this
2 fish comes in and goes right to the plant. There's no truck
3 involved right away.
4 But there are a lot of fish that come in, that are pumped
5 right into trucks, and weighing fish is easy. You weigh the
6 truck light, you weigh the truck heavy. It's generally as
7 certified scales, and you have certified weigh slips, and if
8 anybody needed to verify their weights, those copies of those
9 slips are viable, and they're used in the chemical industry,
10 they're used throughout industry in this country. And it's
11 simple, and there's lots of public weigh scales. Thank you.
12 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Peter.
13 PETER MULLEN: Peter Mullen, Western Venture. I don't
14 have a problem with anybody weighing the truck. It's a great
15 idea. But what about if I come in with one truck at two o'clock
16 in the morning, and he has to go and wake the scales guy up? I
17 then give him ten bucks for getting up at two o'clock in the
18 morning, to weigh a truck. I don't know how that plays out.
19 I think weigh the trucks if you want to, that's fine. The
20 more checks and balances we have, the better. But, it just
21 doesn't seem to come right for me. I want the trucks measured.
22 Thank you.
23 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Don?
24 DON SWANSON: Don Swanson, recreation fisherman.
25 After sitting at the AP meeting the other day, what's just going
1 on here today, no one port is the same.
2 What it looks like to me is we need a combination of
3 different options that are going to meet the requirements for
4 each port, because not each port can do all these things.
5 So, I think that -- it looks like, like Pat says, you can't
6 keep saying no; but this probably makes it even more difficult,
7 let each port decide on how they going to do it, more or less,
8 basically. What is the best way for each port to do it.
9 Because I know some ports don't have scales anywhere near, so
10 you can't -- you can't weigh it at some ports.
11 Some people don't use containers. I mean, it sounds like
12 you need a combination of all three or four -- of four options
13 here. Some way, get these fish so you can certify them. Thank
15 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Dave, quickly.
16 DAVID ELLENTON: Dave Ellenton. Very quickly,
17 Mr. Chairman. Thanks. The previous comment was that all we're
18 doing is saying no, no, no. What we're actually saying, loud
19 and clear, is yes to volumetric calibration of the fish tanks,
20 of the holds in the vessels. That's the easiest thing to do,
21 it's the most straightforward thing to do, it's something that
22 is the easiest thing to monitor, easiest way to verify what's in
23 the hold of the vessel, and have a quantity that then helps
24 verify the self-reporting.
25 Just weigh -- just measure the holds. Yes or no? Yes.
1 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: I'm going to make --
2 I'm going to take a comment -- no, I'm going to take the
3 comment. I'm just going to make it clear here that we are going
4 to go through this entire agenda today, one way or the other,
5 whether we're --
6 LORI STEELE: That's right.
7 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: -- here till 6:30 or
8 7:00, or whatever. And after we finish this, the comment and
9 the decisions on this section, we're going to take a lunch
10 break, and we're going to come back, and we'll start off with
11 Matt's presentation.
12 So, keep -- if you have comments, keep them straightforward
13 and to the point, and try not to duplicate each other, okay?
14 Thank you. Okay, Chris.
15 CHRIS WEINER: Hi. Chris Weiner, CHOIR, AP. I was
16 going to say -- I mean, after that, I didn't come up -- but
17 we're having a debate on how like, this is like picking the
18 final options. This is just something to go forward. I mean, I
19 don't -- if we go through everything all day like this, it's
20 going to take us three weeks.
21 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Tom, very quickly.
22 TOM RUDOLPH: Yeah, I'll be really quick, too. I just
23 want to say that I agree with that. I'm opposed to the motion.
24 Again, I think that these options should stay in for analysis.
25 And furthermore, I would suggest that at some point,
1 specify that all of the options for weighing, including these
2 that are on the table now, should still be available to
3 fishermen to select as potential solutions in a CMCP, even if
4 they are removed as stand-alone options. Thank you.
5 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Lori.
6 LORI STEELE: Yeah. Two quick points. Regarding
7 Tom's last point about the CMCP, that would be my understanding,
8 is if any of these options are eliminated for across-the-board
9 type application, they could still be listed as options in a
10 CMCP option.
11 The second point I want to make is just keep in mind while
12 we all think it's great to take everything out for public
13 comment, anything that moves forward in this document has to go
14 through a full analysis in the Draft EIS.
15 So, you know, sending ideas out that might be good to get
16 public comment on, also means a complete economic and social
17 impact analysis in the EIS, and some of these measures are
18 extremely complicated.
19 So, if we're going to go that route, you just have to think
20 about the limitations of the scope of the analysis, and what
21 we're going to be able to complete in the time frame for a Draft
22 EIS. I mean, as I mentioned, the truck-weighing option, if you
23 want to keep it in there, that's great, but it's going to
24 require us to go and contact each of those individual scale
25 places, and get some assessment of whether or not, you know,
1 we're going to be able to use the scales; and all kinds of
2 analysis of the costs of driving to and from the scales, and
3 everything else, that's fine.
4 But you know, at some point, we need to think about the
5 scope of the analysis that's going to be required in the EIS,
6 when you're talking about, you know, just putting things in
7 there for public comment. It's a little bit more than just
8 sticking it in for public comment. So just keep that in mind.
9 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Mary Beth.
10 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Yeah, I mean, the discussion we've
11 had so far is about the first three options, and the motion
12 really only speaks to the first two options in the document.
13 And I did say, as a rationale when I made the motion, that
14 I thought we should keep Option 3. But I think at this point,
15 maybe we should just vote on this motion, for Option 1 and
16 Option 2. And then maybe have a short discussion about Option 3
17 and see if we need a motion or not, instead of mixing them all
19 I mean, the first two clearly cannot be done. I mean, the
20 reports don't have trucks. There are a large number of dealers,
21 some are large dealers, most are very small dealers. And to
22 even consider requiring those people to, you know, show NMFS
23 that they've installed or affixed a portable truck scale, is
24 just not in any way practical.
25 So, I think that that's pretty easy to say those two just
1 have to go. And then if people want to talk about whether or
2 not Option 3 should go, as well, we can do it separately.
3 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Further discussion
4 from the Committee?
5 (No audible response.)
6 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Okay. Let's take a
7 vote on this motion. All those in favor, raise your hand.
8 Opposed? Abstentions? Seven, one, one; motion carries.
9 Are there other things than this section? Mary Beth.
10 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Well, I mean, we've heard concerns
11 from Lori about Option 3. We've also heard some concerns from
12 the agency about Option 3, about whether it's necessary, or
13 needed to, you know, to do this. And maybe Hannah could just
14 maybe speak to that again, briefly, about what just weighing
15 trucks, and whether you thought that it was something we should
16 be doing?
17 I mean, we talked this very first thing this morning about
18 a wide range of alternatives, but then at the same time, you
19 said that this one might not be something that meets the goals
20 of this amendment.
21 HANNAH GOODALE: Well, it's just we've been talking a
22 little bit in-house, and in order for this to enhance catch
23 monitoring, I think you've got to be able to tie these trucks to
24 the vessel that may be offloaded.
25 Now, maybe -- you know, there's so little detail right now
1 about how this would really work in different ports. Maybe
2 that's the intention, where you have a vessel that pulls into a
3 port, and they're pumping all the catch into trucks, and so, you
4 know clearly.
5 But, I mean we're looking at it as the people who would
6 have to implement this in the end, if it was approved. How
7 would you have a data flow where you somehow know that you can
8 identify the truck somehow in a database, and tie it to a
9 particular offload? You know, we're currently challenged by
10 tying dealer reports to vessel reports, through that vessel trip
11 ID. You know, that's the nexus in the connection between a
12 vessel and a dealer.
13 And by including these trucks, multiple trucks at each
14 point of offload, into the mix, I'm not sure I see the benefit
15 compared to all the activity that's necessary to set up that
16 program. That's what I've been saying.
17 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Frank.
18 FRANK BLOUNT: Okay. And Mary Beth, I thought she was
19 going to do something with Option 3, but I'm a little concerned
20 now with Option 3, with the way it's left in there. It says
21 that they have to use an existing facility. So, you've taken
22 out the option here for somebody who said if they want to use a
23 portable scale, or if install one on their own.
24 So, if this option went forward, you'd be requiring them
25 not to do one of -- option -- the first two options. And I
1 think if we do go forward, saying that trucks are going to be
2 weighed, then somebody should the option of saying I'm going to
3 use my own portable scale and certify it, as opposed to making
4 me go to an existing facility.
5 I'd be more comfortable if we cut out the word existing.
6 LORI STEELE: I mean, just -- if you recall from
7 Talia's paper and presentation, portable truck scales are used
8 for law enforcement purposes only, and can't even be used to
9 certify weights for commerce.
10 So, portable scales really weren't a viable option. At
11 least that's what her research indicated. And I mean, if a
12 dealer wants to install a truck scale, if they own a dock and
13 have the amount of land that would be required to do that, if
14 you want to, you know, put that in as an option, that's fine. I
15 think the cost was around $100,000.
16 So, I mean, if there's a dealer out there that would want
17 to do that, I suppose you could. Well, I'll defer to Talia on
19 TALIA BIGELOW: I guess I should -- let me just
20 clarify. There's two different kinds of portable scales. The
21 first is the axle and wheel scales, which is like where you
22 weigh each wheel, or individual axles by themselves, and then
23 add it up. There's a lot of inaccuracy there. And like Lori
24 said, you can't use that for commerce.
25 The portable truck scales, I think you're all thinking
1 about those portable truck scales that are like the big segments
2 that you can use to weigh a truck as a whole. Those require all
3 the same land modifications that a big scale does, and a
4 permanent scale, and that kind of a thing.
5 And you can only leave them in place -- I'm just reminding
6 you -- you can only leave them in place for six months, and then
7 they have to be moved. So, they're not like you could just kind
8 of leave them there for a couple of years. Sorry.
9 FRANK BLOUNT: My question is not so much of endorsing
10 a portable scale. It's just -- the word existing, I think,
11 should be removed, and also, as I said earlier, I think the word
12 obtaining should be removed. And it should say as a condition
13 of having a federal permit. So ...
14 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Done? Mary Beth.
15 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Yeah. I'm going to make a motion
16 to eliminate Option 3, as well. And, if I don't get a second,
17 maybe we'll just move on from there.
18 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Is there a second?
19 ERLING BERG: Second.
20 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Erling. Discussion on
21 the motion? Terry, and then Mary Beth. Oh, Mary Beth, you made
22 the motion. You get the first crack, and then Terry.
23 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Thank you. I think that, you know,
24 staff has really identified some significant concerns with
25 trying to weigh trucks, and the AP has recommended that it not
1 be done. I mean, people having the discussion at the AP --
2 Jennie was there -- I mean, those are the people with experience
3 moving trucks around. And she identified a number of problems
4 with trying to weigh every truck.
5 I think it has, in my mind, it had some merit. I think I
6 might have even been one of the people who recommended it
7 initially. But at this point, with the input that we have, I
8 think that we should do away with that option.
9 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Terry.
10 TERRY STOCKWELL: Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm
11 opposed to this motion at this time. In the end, we're going to
12 be marrying together a number of different options to produce
13 what I hope is going to be a viable and a really comprehensive
14 monitoring program.
15 And not leaving this in the document at this time would
16 preclude this as an option. So, I'm going to vote against it.
17 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Dave.
18 DAVID PIERCE: I'm also going to oppose this motion.
19 I already stated earlier on why I thought it was a good idea to
20 at least have one of those options in there, notwithstanding
21 they needed analysis done by staff.
22 But we've heard at our previous meeting a great deal of
23 debate, a great deal of opinion regarding the merits of our
24 having ability, through this plan, to weigh the trucks.
25 So, to strike it out now, not bring it to public hearing,
1 seems to me to be contrary -- it would be contrary to the large
2 segment of the public that wishes to have this strategy in there
3 for further debate, analyses, et cetera.
4 So, again, I would oppose the motion.
5 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Mike.
6 MIKE LEARY: Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I oppose
7 the motion, also. Across the street here is Granite State
8 Minerals. They bring in salt for the roads. A truck comes in,
9 they weigh it; truck comes out, they weigh it. That's how they
10 do it.
11 I mean, at some point, I would think that the herring
12 dealers would be curious as to actually how much a truck of
13 herring weighs.
14 So, now that every fish has got to be accounted for, they
15 want to get paid for every pound. Let's put it rest. Thanks.
16 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Any comments on this
17 motion from the public, just keeping in mind that some of you
18 may have already made comments on your preference for having
19 this option in or out in the previous motion.
20 So, keep that in mind, and let's make the comments
21 efficient. Thank you. Dave.
22 DAVID ELLENTON: Yeah, Dave Ellenton, Mr. Chairman.
23 Thank you. I would support the motion. There is some different
24 wording in that third option compared to the other two. Can I
25 get a copy of the NMFS-issued list? Who's going to produce a
1 NMFS-issued list of truck-weighing facilities? How long are we
2 going to have to wait for that? When will that go in place?
3 Are those facilities capable of weighing trucks in the middle of
5 You know, somebody commented well, wouldn't we be
6 interested in knowing what's in the truck. Yeah, we would be
7 interested in knowing the weight that's in the truck, but that's
8 not the purpose.
9 The purpose of volumetric measuring of the tanks of the
10 vessels is to help verify the self-reporting. That has to be
11 done. That has to be done to verify what's being landed.
12 All our good friends could stand there and watch that fish
13 being weighed, being measured, and determine what the weight is.
14 And we're just opening up a whole target to be shot at if we
15 have to weigh every truck, and fish will go rotten.
16 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Jeff.
17 JEFF KAELIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support the
19 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Thank you, Dave --
21 Okay. Back to the Committee. Are you ready to vote?
22 All those in favor of this motion, raise your hand. All
23 those opposed? Abstentions? Motion fails, two to seven.
24 Any other items in this section? Mary Beth.
25 MARY BETH TOOLEY: I just -- one last item. I'd like
1 to make a motion to eliminate Option 2.5.4, which would require
2 flow scales on herring vessels, or require that you offload at a
3 facility that has them.
4 I think Lori said earlier that if we remove some of these
5 items, it doesn't mean that in a CMCP, that someone couldn't use
6 flow scales to verify their catch, but requiring flow scales is
7 extremely problematic -- it's in Talia's paper -- they're
8 cost-prohibitive. I don't think, even if you had the choice,
9 that anybody is going to choose it. It's just not practical.
10 I mean, the way some people's decks are set up, they don't
11 have space for flow scales or hopper scales, and it costs too
12 much money.
13 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Is there a second to
14 that motion? Seeing none -- oh, Erling. So, we have a second.
15 Discussion on the motion.
16 (No audible response.)
17 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Is there any comments
18 from the public?
19 (No audible response.)
20 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Okay. Back to the
21 Committee. Are you ready to vote? Okay.
22 All those in favor of this motion, raise your hand. All
23 those opposed? Motion fails, two to seven.
24 One of the comments that I would like to make on this, for
25 the Committee, is again, we have some C vessels that aren't
1 going to be pumping. And that we might want to consider, as it
2 gets fleshed out for a DEIS, the impacts that would have on a
3 boat, that flow -- requiring flow scales -- would have on a
4 vessel that does not pump fish.
5 LORI STEELE: I'm at a loss. I'm not even really sure
6 what to say.
7 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Are there any other
8 things on this section? Okay. It's about 10 after 12. We're
9 about an hour behind in our schedule here. But let's take
10 advantage of this time. I know we haven't a break this time.
11 We'll combine our midmorning biological break with a lunch break
12 right now, and why don't we be back here by, let's say quarter
13 after one, right now. We'll take up Matt's presentation at that
15 * * * LUNCH RECESS * * *
16 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Good afternoon. We're
17 back on the 11:15 agenda item, only a couple of hours behind
18 schedule, but we'll make up time here, I'm sure.
19 Matt's going to tell you all about accuracy and precision.
20 So, yes, Matt has a presentation here that he's going to give us
21 concerning the potential coverage rates for the directed herring
22 fishery with respect to river herring. And I would like to turn
23 the show over to Matt.
24 PRESENTATION: AN EXAMPLE OF POTENTIAL COVERAGE RATES
25 FOR THE DIRECTED HERRING FISHERY
1 WITH RESPECT TO RIVER HERRING, USING SBRM
2 MATT CIERI: All right. Let's see, what do we got
3 here. All right. So, this is an example of some of the
4 potential coverage rates, depending on strata, using SBRM
6 For those of you who aren't familiar with SBRM, it's
7 standard bycatch reporting methodology. There's a whole omnibus
8 amendment that looks at this type of stuff, in reference to a
9 lot of the Northeast fisheries, and there's been a lot of -- a
10 lot of work done by Paul Rago and Susan Wigley on this
11 particular issue.
12 All right. To estimate observer coverage that will yield a
13 20 percent CV across gear types for river herring, okay. So, as
14 you remember, I'd sort of done an analysis that looked at river
15 herring removals in the directed Atlantic herring fishery, where
16 I defined directed Atlantic herring fishery to be 2,000 pounds
17 of Atlantic herring landed, or more.
18 So, in the past, the Committee has toyed around with
19 different CV levels, and this included 10 percent, 20 percent or
20 a 30 percent CV. Remember, as you go down, the more exact that
21 number becomes. So -- and as you go up in CV, the more variable
22 it is, the less precise your estimate is.
23 In the past I've done this by combining both portside and
24 observer. And because of the stuff that I had given to you guys
25 last time, this was just on the observer database.
1 And here is one of the main, sort of equations that deal
2 with this. This looks at what sort of observer coverage, by
3 strata, you would need to achieve a certain precision estimate,
4 or in this case, what the Committee has recommended is a -- so
5 far, is a 20 percent CV.
6 However, strata definition is extremely important, and here
7 is where the managers get an idea of -- they need to sort of
8 highlight where and what strata you guys think are important,
9 what types of factors that go into defining that strata,
10 quarters, gear type, area, those types of things.
11 Because, the truth is, is that you can break out your
12 strata in any way you want. And if you guys make management
13 choices, you can get at those questions a lot easier than say a
14 scientist who is just going to try to do this for a precision
15 estimate. It's a lot easier if you guys are interested in
16 seasonality, or in gear types, or in those types of things, in
17 allowing us to define those strata fairly clearly for you.
18 What I've done pretty much is just an example. It's an
19 analysis that's based on Bill Overholtz' stuff that was in the
20 initial document, I believe. Here, what I did, was I added an
21 area. Bill's analysis just looked at gear type in different
22 years. And I just sort of added in area, just because I thought
23 you guys thought it was important.
24 However, we have to understand there's a balance. As you
25 get tighter and tighter strata, what you do is you -- you start
1 running into empty cells, you start running into places, and
2 areas, and times in which you don't have observer coverage, you
3 know. So, you might want to know everything on a weekly basis
4 by, you know, individual mesh size, or vessel size. You're not
5 going to get that. Because what ends up happening is if you --
6 if you do that type of thing, you're not going to get -- a lot
7 of your cells are going to end up having no observations in
8 them. And we'll see that in a second.
9 So, I did a modification of the strata, I collapsed quarter
10 to full year in that full analysis that I gave you guys on river
11 herring estimated discards, or removals by the fishery. I've
12 broken down things by quarter. I had to collapse that quarter
13 into full year.
14 I also had to collapse single and paired midwater trawls,
15 so we're basically treating them exactly the same.
16 So, within our strata, we're looking at gear and area only.
17 And these are -- we're looking at purse seine, bottom trawl, and
18 then midwater trawl, and then for areas, we're looking at the
19 Gulf of Maine, the backside of Cape Cod all the way out to
20 Georges Bank, and Southern New England, on a yearly basis. And
21 this will be based on 2009.
22 If you look at the number of observed trips by strata over
23 the years, you can tell that there hasn't been a whole lot of
24 observer coverage in some years. For example, in 2006, you're
25 looking at only 46 trips total. So, in -- for example, on
1 Georges Bank, there was about four midwater trawl observed
2 trips, and so on and so forth. So, the gray shading here are
3 basically empty cells.
4 There are also a total of trips taken. From the VTR, we
5 can count up the number of trips that we know of that have
6 occurred, and again, that these are trips that landed more 2,000
7 pounds of Atlantic herring. And as you can tell, on average,
8 we're looking at something around a 1,000. 2008 was a fairly
9 low year, but it's been around 1,000, 800 trips per year.
10 Now, if you take a look at back here, you can tell that 46
11 trips and 33 trips isn't going to be a whole lot of trips, or a
12 whole lot of a percentage coverage.
13 If we do look at previous percent coverage, you can see
14 that in some years, it's been fairly high, and in some years
15 it's been fairly low. For example, you know, if we look at
16 these individual cells, you can see that 28 percent of the trips
17 were observed on Georges Bank by midwater trawls in 2005, but
18 only three percent in that same place for the following year.
19 And then in last year, it was about 38 percent of those trips.
20 So nearly 40 percent of those trips were observed.
21 Here, the gray cells are trips that -- for example, these
22 are cells that do not have trips or coverage, you know. For
23 example, you don't get a whole lot of purse seining on Georges
25 The red cells are places -- are cells in which there are
1 trips that occurred, but you have absolutely no coverage. And
2 so in some cases, this can be fairly -- you know, this can occur
3 historically throughout. And, for example, what you'll see is
4 in Gulf of Maine purse seining, 2006 and 2007, there were no
5 observed trips.
6 Okay. So, basically what I did -- is that the right one?
7 -- I went through and I updated Bill Overholtz' analysis, like I
8 said, partitioning out particular area. So, we have gear type
9 and area. And here are the CV's, the coefficient of variation.
10 As you remember, that the Council had chosen 20 percent CV for
11 river herring. Now, again, this is just for river herring,
13 If you look at the coverage needed at various CV levels by
14 area and gear, based on 2009 numbers, these are the number --
15 these are the number of trips, okay? And so, for example, you
16 would need 120 trips to get at a 10 percent CV, if you were
17 looking at midwater trawlers.
18 So, you'd need 113 trips for that same time area cell -- I
19 mean -- I'm sorry -- for that same space and gear cell, and 105
20 if you were looking for a 30 percent CV. Remember, as you get
21 lower and lower CV's, the more precise your estimate is. We'll
22 go through precision and accuracy a little bit later.
23 One of the things to notice, however, is -- again, these
24 are the number of trips based on various CV levels -- is that
25 you need 122 trips on purse seines to get a 20 percent CV, okay.
1 And for midwater trawls, to get the same -- to get that same 20
2 percent precision estimate, you only need 87 trips in Southern
3 New England.
4 So what this says is you actually need better coverage on
5 your purse seine fleet, in the Gulf of Maine, than you need in
6 Southern New England on your midwater trawl fleet.
7 Likewise, when you look at percentage coverage needed as a
8 function of the number of trips, you're looking at percentage
9 coverage for these different CV levels, and for these gear type
10 and area groupings. As you can see again, the red cell
11 indicates that this is the place in 2009 where we had trips, but
12 no coverage. So, what you'll probably end up doing under SBRM
13 methods is look at pilot coverage rates.
14 But for now, as you can see, for Georges Bank for midwater
15 trawls, you need nearly 100 percent observer coverage in order
16 to get at river herring in midwater trawls, to a 10 percent CV
17 level; 93 percent, for example, for a 20 percent, and 86 for a
18 30 percent CV.
19 And, in fact, when you take a look at it for a 20 percent
20 CV, you need about 65 percent coverage rates, 55; your lowest,
21 right here, is about a 40 percent coverage rate.
22 But again, for a 20 percent CV, you need a higher level of
23 coverage on your purse seine than you do for midwater trawls in
24 Southern New England, and that's a function of the variability.
25 And here is where we talk about accuracy and precision.
1 Steve actually put together something that's in that PDT report
2 for you guys to look at. And a lot of times, people are trying
3 to grasp the idea of why you need better coverage on your purse
4 seines in the Gulf of Maine than you do in Southern New England
5 on your midwater trawlers. And part of that is because of where
6 the variability is locked up.
7 As we'll go over with some of Jamie's stuff tomorrow,
8 there's a fairly good idea of general levels of coverage in the
9 Southern New England areas. We know pretty much where the river
10 herring are occurring. However, when you get into the Gulf of
11 Maine for purse seines, there's a lot of variability, and the
12 more variable the data are, and the more precise you want that
13 estimate, the more coverage you need to put on those -- in those
14 times and areas in which there is a high degree of variability.
15 And some of you guys know this from designing trawl
16 surveys. You know, if you've got an area that you're not sure
17 about, because there's a high degree of variability, that's
18 where you end up putting in most of your samples; not in the
19 places that you know have fish, or in the places you know don't
20 have fish. It's the in-between places that sometimes has fish
21 that you put in your -- put in most of your sampling.
22 Now, the difficulty here is that SBRM methods get at
23 precision, and precision is not the same as accuracy. For
24 example, in this particular example, with the bulls-eye, you can
25 see that this one is very, very accurate. In other words, all
1 of your bullet shots are around the bulls-eye. However, it's
2 not very precise; they're not clustered together.
3 In this case, you have precision. You're almost hitting
4 the same exact place every single time, but it's not very
5 accurate because you're not anywhere even close to the
6 bulls-eye. And for some of you guys, you've heard Paul Rago
7 talk about this ad infinitum, and he's very -- he does a much
8 better job of explaining this type of stuff than I do.
9 But there is a sort of idea of this difference between
10 precision and accuracy. The difficulty is that when you start
11 coming -- looking at accuracy, you're not really quite sure --
12 unless you know what your population that you're sampling from
13 is, you never really get a very good handle on what is accurate
14 and what is not. If you don't know what the answer is, how can
15 you tell how close you are to it, is usually the way we look at
17 Also, what we want to do is -- what I did was I reran the
18 analysis, not using 2009, but using 2005 through 2009. And here
19 we have previous percent coverage here, and needed coverage to
20 achieve that desired CV level. And so what this does is you go
21 back in time, and you say okay, you know, in 2005, using these
22 same methods, the same stratification, how much coverage did I
23 need in 2005 to achieve the CV target of 20 or 30 or 10 percent?
24 And what this does is you go back through it. As you can
25 see in 2005, what we actually needed to achieve a 20 percent
1 CV was something around a 70 percent level of coverage,
2 fishery-wide, on average.
3 And you could see by 2006, however -- remember, 2006 have
4 the lowest coverage -- you can see that if we reran the analysis
5 then, we'd only need a 45 percent level of coverage. And so
6 what it appears to be is that as your actual coverage rates in
7 the fishery get lower and lower, the less sampling it tells you
8 that it needs, and vice versa.
9 And this is the way to actually look at it. This is
10 predicted in an actual observer -- actual coverage rates, to
11 achieve a 20 percent CV. So, for example, say you're -- say you
12 look at a particular strata, or you look at a particular year,
13 and you've got about four percent coverage, and it tells you
14 that in order to achieve those CV -- a 20 percent CV, you really
15 needed something closer to 20 to 30 to 40 percent.
16 And so what this is gives us is a measure of, you know, if
17 you do achieve a 30 percent coverage rate, does it then tell you
18 need a 70 percent coverage rate? If you reach a 70 percent
19 coverage rate, will it tell you need a 100 percent observer the
20 next time around? Because each time you do this, you know, you
21 get a better handle on what your error structure is on the data,
22 and as a result, you get a better understanding of what kind of
23 coverage levels you need.
24 Down here at four and six percent, you don't have enough
25 observer coverage to tell you what the heck the data are. You
1 have no idea whether or not you're actually going to be able to
2 achieve your goals.
3 Generally, if you look at the fishery as a whole, just as a
4 quick and dirty, it looks like for each one of your strata that
5 you're looking at, something at least a 15 percent observer
6 coverage rate, in order to be able, the next time around, to
7 extrapolate up and figure out how much observer coverage you
8 actually need in order to achieve a 20 percent CV. So, again,
9 more thoughts on accuracy and precision.
10 There are some unexpected coverage rates for some strata,
11 or at least unexpected to people that haven't taken a lot of
12 statistics. There's a lot of variability in certain of these
13 strata, you know. As you can tell for Southern New England, you
14 have a pretty good idea, because you're thinking about using a
15 hotspot analysis. So you have fairly good coverage there. You
16 also have fairly good information there. Where most of your
17 information is lacking is in the Gulf of Maine in purse seines
18 and in bottom trawls, where there can be high degrees of
19 interaction, but there's very little coverage, and it's highly
21 SBRM generally looks at precisions of the estimate, and not
22 really accuracy. By redefining some of the strata, and even the
23 question that you're looking for, can help you with what's
24 accurate. For example, if you're really only concerned with a
25 particular gear type in a particular area, then that's one
2 If you're looking at entire fishery-wide, that's something
3 else, you know. So, different questions are -- have different
4 levels of accuracy that might be a -- and precision associated
5 to them. One example might be to look at quarter or
6 seasonality. We might be able to cut the pie a little bit
7 closer, and see what we can come up with.
8 However, understanding that as you keep cutting these down,
9 what you're going to end up is with is, in many cases, empty
10 cells, and then you're trying to achieve CV rates on each one of
11 these individual cells, and that can be quite high.
12 The other thing is you have a risk of these -- that some of
13 these empty cells in any given year will rely on some of the
14 pilot coverage associated with it, and that placing coverage
15 exclusively in the cells of most interest, above and beyond what
16 the SBRM method suggests.
17 And so, for example, you know, you might find that in
18 Southern New England, in a particular area, it only calls for a
19 40 percent level of coverage. You might be able to put in more
20 observer coverage in that area, in order to get at some of these
21 issues of accuracy. But it's very difficult. Okay.
22 These are just an example of possible coverage rates. You
23 know, we can choose more defined strata. One of the things to
24 keep in mind is that this does not account for the variability
25 associated with subsampling and extrapolating up. Okay. This
1 is just the variability associated with the observer trips
2 within those individual strata. Okay.
3 It also doesn't account for the differences between
4 portside and at-sea observer. That doesn't even enter that, but
5 it does enter into -- each one of those enter into the accuracy.
7 It also assumes that everything is fairly linear, and
8 fairly normal, and normality is a statistical term, as you guys
9 know. And that things -- things are based in a linear fashion,
10 and as we can tell, they're not linear, you know. What that
11 suggests is that you need a certain threshold level of coverage
12 before you can even determine what kind of coverage level you
13 need to get to your CV level. That's not linear, you know. So,
14 we violated some of these -- some of these assumptions already.
15 And the normalcy problem is also very acute in this case
16 because you have so many zeros. This might tie in well with
17 some of your hotspot analysis, as you'll see tomorrow, and it
18 shows the coverage rates at about ten or -- 15 to 20 percent,
19 may help you clarify what your coverage level in that particular
20 area should be.
21 And again, this analysis was based on landing of herring,
22 not on permit category. So, I didn't filter anything by permit
24 And there is one other thing I wanted to show you. Just
25 bear with me for a second. Here we go. Just bear with me for a
1 second. I just wanted to show you this, because I think I
2 actually forgot to put it in. Okay.
3 For each of the strata, assuming days -- number of days per
4 trip, you know. For example, if you assume that an observer
5 needs three days on a midwater trawl trip. And assuming, in
6 this particular area, for Georges Bank. And assuming that it's
7 only two days that the observer needs for that same trip that
8 occurs in the Gulf of Maine, and so on and so forth.
9 Using this -- and I forget what figure it is in the PDT
10 document. What you can do is actually figure out the number of
11 sea days that you're looking for, based on each one of those CV
13 And what you come out with is that for a 10 percent CV,
14 fishery-wide, when you start adding all this stuff up, you need
15 about 1500 sea days. If you're looking for a 20 percent CV,
16 you're looking at around a thousand sea days. And if you're
17 looking at a 30 percent CV, you're looking at roughly 700,
18 nearly 800 sea days.
19 So that gives you an idea of what type of number of sea
20 days that you're talking about, and these are actually based on
21 average trip length. And for the observers, because of the way
22 they worked -- and maybe somebody from the Observer Program can,
23 you know, chime in more about that -- these might be actually
24 fairly low, given travel time and other types of things that go
25 on, and going over different calendar days. So, this is about
1 what you're looking at for each one of these levels of coverage.
2 And again, for example, purse seines, you're looking at 276
3 sea days, for a 10 percent -- let's take a 20 percent. You're
4 looking at nearly 200 sea days for purse seines.
5 In Southern New England, for midwater trawls, you're
6 looking at about 350. But in -- for midwater trawls, in the
7 Gulf of Maine, you're looking at, you know, maybe another 40
8 days less.
9 So, that gives you a rough idea of what you're looking at,
10 as far as number of sea days. And that brings it all up to
11 Bill's analysis, so, I'm done.
12 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: I have a question for
13 you, and I know the Committee has, so why don't you grab your
14 coffee. So, the thing I noticed in your tables, it broke things
15 out by Georges Bank, by area, by gear type.
16 But in some cases, you didn't need much increase in sample
17 size to go from a 30, to a 20, to a 10 percent. And in other
18 cases, just to go from 20 to 30, you had to increase by 50
19 percent for sample size. And that is because the ones that are
20 -- where you don't increase the sample size, you have a high
21 amount of variability --
22 MATT CIERI: Correct.
23 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: And the other ones you
24 have a low amount of variability?
25 MATT CIERI: Right. So, if you have a low amount of
1 variability with any given strata, you have -- you know, you can
2 pop in a couple of more trips, and everything's gold. You're at
3 -- you're at whatever level you're looking at.
4 But the ones with a high degree of variability, you really
5 need to pump in the trips there.
6 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Mary Beth.
7 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Just to follow up on that for a
8 minute. When you have a high degree of variability, does that
9 -- does that equate to a higher encounter rate?
10 MATT CIERI: No.
11 MARY BETH TOOLEY: No. Okay. And one thing I
12 noticed, on the coverage needed at various CV levels, on this
13 particular slide, it shows nothing for bottom trawls in the Gulf
14 of Maine, and we know we have a --
15 MATT CIERI: Which --
16 MARY BETH TOOLEY: -- bottom trawl fishery in the Gulf
17 of Maine.
18 MATT CIERI: Which one?
19 MARY BETH TOOLEY: I think it's fairly consistent as
20 you go through these slides that you show, either gray or red,
21 for bottom trawls in the Gulf of Maine.
22 MATT CIERI: Oh, yeah. Unfortunately, I probably just
23 did not -- I didn't drag the red part over the gray. So all
24 those for bottom trawls should be red in the Gulf of Maine. I
25 just simply --
1 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Okay. So --
2 MATT CIERI: Yeah, yeah.
3 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Oh, okay, trips, but no coverage.
4 MATT CIERI: Trips, but no coverage.
5 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Okay. And then the other thing I
6 noticed was for Georges Bank, coverage needed, it says a -- per
7 20 percent, 113. Is that a number of trips, coverage needed?
8 MATT CIERI: Yup, that's number of trips on that
9 particular one.
10 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Yeah. And so if that's the number
11 of trips, but I think, looking at Jamie's information, there's
12 almost like no bycatch of river herring on Georges Bank.
13 MATT CIERI: Aaah --
14 MARY BETH TOOLEY: I may be wrong.
15 MATT CIERI: That's the difference. The difference is
16 is that this is a combined backside of Cape Cod, and Georges
17 Bank. So, Cape Cod and Georges Bank. So, it goes from the
18 backside of Cape Cod -- remember that strip? You'll see it in
19 Jamie's stuff, with the observer hauls.
20 Whereas, for Jamie's stuff, her strata actually starts on
21 Georges Bank. For this, the strata is Cape Cod, basically the
22 back end of Cape Cod. Everything from the beaches of Chatham,
23 all the way out past Cultivator. And you know that there's
24 bycatch events that happen right along there.
25 MARY BETH TOOLEY: So, I wonder, if you used different
1 areas, breaking it down --
2 MATT CIERI: Right.
3 MARY BETH TOOLEY: -- if you come out with very
4 different results.
5 MATT CIERI: And you might. I mean, you could take
6 this down to, you know, quarter degree squares, if you'd like.
7 What ends up happening, however, is when you start slicing and
8 dicing those things, you'd basically end up with empty cells,
9 because you don't have any coverage.
10 So, I'm combining -- so yeah, I mean, I'm combining a place
11 that's, you know, fairly close to Cape Cod with a place that's
12 further offshore. However, you know, if you go back in time, if
13 you don't combine them, then you basically have no estimate of
14 your variability at all because you might only have one or two
15 trips per year that are observed in that area.
16 Yeah, I mean, we can hack these things -- I mean, we can
17 keep cutting this as fine as you'd like. All's it's going to
18 end up with is just a big whole splash of red, for both places
19 that don't have a lot of coverage.
20 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Well, I don't think getting down to
21 like quarter squares is what I had in mind. But it just kind
22 of, you know, stood out to me, that knowing that the river
23 herring on Georges is like, if we calculate that, we really
24 don't --
25 MATT CIERI: Well ...
1 MARY BETH TOOLEY: But, it's low. I mean, compared to
2 other places, and yet you come out with these numbers. So, I
3 was just curious.
4 MATT CIERI: Yeah, and just -- and also remember, this
5 doesn't -- this doesn't include haddock. This is just river
7 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Yeah, thank you.
8 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: So, a follow-up
9 question on that. So, could the high degree of variability that
10 we see on Georges Bank, midwater trawls, be a result of the fact
11 of this -- you have high catches of river herring on the
12 backside of the Cape, but no catches out on Georges Bank?
13 MATT CIERI: Oh, yeah, absolutely. I mean, you can --
14 that can totally contribute things. Of course, again, the
15 difference is that if you try to isolate only those places that
16 have variability -- the only places that do have river herring,
17 it's kind of like doing a survey only where there's fish.
18 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Right. Dave, and then
19 Terry, I saw, further questions for Matt?
20 DAVID PIERCE: Yeah, Matt, I think you said in your
21 last -- I think it was the table that you showed -- that you
22 would need about 300 sea days for the midwater trawl vessels in
23 the Gulf of Maine, to get a 20 percent CV for river herring? Is
24 that what you said?
25 MATT CIERI: What did I say?
1 DAVID PIERCE: The missing table, the last one --
2 MATT CIERI: Oh, the last one. That one.
3 DAVID PIERCE: Yeah.
4 MATT CIERI: Let's see.
5 DAVID PIERCE: 300 sea days --
6 MATT CIERI: For midwater trawls in the Gulf of Maine,
7 you would -- for Georges Bank?
8 DAVID PIERCE: Gulf of Maine.
9 MATT CIERI: Gulf of Maine. You'd need about 140, 140
10 sea days, based on the fact that it's usually two sea days per
12 DAVID PIERCE: Okay. So -- right. So, I need 140 sea
13 days for midwater trawlers in the Gulf of Maine?
14 MATT CIERI: Mm-hm.
15 DAVID PIERCE: Okay, to get that 20 percent CV, to
16 establish for ourselves. For river herring, I think you
17 indicated there were -- I may have gotten Georges Bank mixed up
18 again. How many observed trips were there in the Gulf of Maine
19 in 2009, midwater trawl fleets?
20 MATT CIERI: Let's see. There were, midwater trawl,
21 2009, there was -- number of observed trips was 40 trips.
22 DAVID PIERCE: Okay, 40 trips, with two days being the
23 general length of the trip, so that's 80 days. So, we got 80
24 days -- in actuality, in 2009, with that gear type in that area,
25 but we needed 140, okay.
1 So I think what you're saying is the analyses indicates
2 that we have adopted a CV for river herring that is unachievable
3 unless the observer coverage goes up at a significant rate in
4 that component of the fishery, midwater trawl fishery in the
5 Gulf of Maine.
6 MATT CIERI: Right; right. For example, you know, I
7 mean, you guys -- you guys set the CV level, and I'm telling you
8 pretty much what kind of coverage you need to get that CV level.
9 If you guys want to change the CV level, of course, it's
10 entirely up to you.
11 SBRM usually recommends between 20 and 30 percent CV's.
12 And again, that just getting at your -- that just gets at your
13 precision estimates.
14 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Terry?
15 TERRY STOCKWELL: Yeah, a couple of questions, and
16 one's kind of building off of David's there. With the greatly
17 diminished quota we have in Area 1A, we may not even get that
18 many sea days in altogether. So what does that mean? Is it
19 based on the number of days, a percentage? Will you project a
20 change if we have -- gone from the (indiscernible) keeps
21 decreasing? So, that's -- I'm assuming that's based on the 2009
23 MATT CIERI: Yeah. Yeah. And that's exactly -- that,
24 you know, you always base what you set for your next year, based
25 on the last year that you have information for. So, if you have
1 a sharp drop-off in your number of days, simply because the
2 quota's gone down, there's fewer trips, then that will -- that
3 will realign itself within, you know, within the SBRM coverage
5 Same thing, if the quota goes up, and in a particular area
6 if the quota goes up, you know, you're going to be looking at --
7 you're going to be looking at more trips, higher level of
8 coverage. You know, 40 percent is 40 percent, whether there's
9 10 trips or 1,000 trips in that strata.
10 TERRY STOCKWELL: Okay, and jump into your slide for
11 percent coverage needed in various CV levels. On the Gulf of
12 Maine bottom trawl, you have red all the way, and it's -- you
13 know, projection for the coverage that's needed?
14 MATT CIERI: That's -- that falls into the SBRM and
15 it's something called the pilot coverage rate. And my
16 suggestion, based on this particular graph here, was that you
17 need probably at least a 15 percent coverage rate in order for
18 the next year to specify what kind of -- what kind of coverage
19 rate you would need to get to a 20 percent CV.
20 Anything below here, more than likely, is not going to give
21 you an accurate idea of what sort of break you need, because
22 you're just not characterizing the variability very well.
23 Does that make any sense, or am I talking like Greek?
24 TERRY STOCKWELL: You talk a lot. It does make sense.
25 MATT CIERI: Sorry.
1 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Other questions of
2 Matt from the Committee?
3 (No audible response.)
4 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Questions from the
5 audience? Tom.
6 TOM RUDOLPH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Tom Rudolph,
7 Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's Association. It's good
8 timing because my question was about that slide.
9 If your actual coverage rates continue to go up, do you
10 think that trend would continue, and the spread between
11 predicted and actual would begin to narrow?
12 MATT CIERI: I don't -- that's a good question. I
13 don't know. You know, I mean if we -- if we started getting out
14 here, you know, back, I mean -- because this only goes up to 22.
15 If we started having 70 percent coverage rates on some of our
16 strata, you know, would it tell us that we need a 90 percent?
17 I mean, this relationship is based on five points of data,
18 and I'm -- you'd hope so. You won't know until you get there.
19 So, you won't know -- you won't know for sure whether or not,
20 you know, a 60 percent coverage rate will get you a certain CV
21 level, till you get to 60 percent a couple of times, and see how
22 it goes.
23 You know, all this is going to be a work in progress, as
24 you go along. So don't be surprised, is -- what I'm saying is
25 don't be surprised if you get to a 60 percent level of coverage
1 fishery-wide, and it might tell you, you need 80.
2 And that's just for the precision. We won't even go into
4 TOM RUDOLPH: Right, but that result would presume
5 that that curve would continue its upward trajectory instead of
6 continuing the downward trajectory that we might see there.
7 MATT CIERI: Right. I wouldn't take a whole lot of
8 stock in that downward trajectory, considering it's based on --
9 you know, this part's based on, you know, that point, you know?
10 So, of course, if you get, you know, something like a 40,
11 50 or a 60 percent coverage rate, and it tells that you need
12 something up here closer to a 100, this line would only -- you
13 add in two more points, this line could be linear, like that.
14 TOM RUDOLPH: Right. Okay, thanks.
15 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: On that point, haven't
16 I seen in the past typically that you get to some point where
17 there is an asymptote, that you're not gaining any more
18 precision as you add sample size?
19 MATT CIERI: Yeah.
20 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: I've seen that before.
21 MATT CIERI: Yeah, you can. We just don't know where
22 that is. I mean, again, you know, the highest -- our highest
23 years have been 20 percent.
24 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Terry.
25 TERRY STOCKWELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a
1 question on that slide before, Matt, when you had all those -- I
2 think it was two or three before -- it was the amount of trips
3 you need to reach the CV's.
4 MATT CIERI: This one?
5 TERRY STOCKWELL: Yeah, that one. Do -- in some of
6 these rates, is there enough trips to actually make it to the
7 CV; is there that many trips? I don't know, maybe it's a stupid
8 question. How many trips are there a year? Can we achieve the
9 these rates by the amount of trips there are?
10 MATT CIERI: Depends -- it depends on how much money,
11 and how much resources are available.
12 LORI STEELE: No, he's talking about whether or not
13 the fishery actually takes them.
14 MATT CIERI: Oh, whether or not the fishery actually
15 takes these number of trips?
16 TERRY STOCKWELL: Yes.
17 MATT CIERI: Yes, absolutely. Yeah, the fishery
18 totally takes these number of days. On average -- on average,
19 they take about a thousand trips --
20 TERRY STOCKWELL: Okay. So the --
21 MATT CIERI: -- fishery-wide, through the entire year.
22 TERRY STOCKWELL: So the numbers are achievable,
23 that's kind of my question.
24 MATT CIERI: Absolutely.
25 TERRY STOCKWELL: All right, thanks.
1 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Lori.
2 LORI STEELE: Well, I guess now is a good time to just
3 sort of follow-up on Matt's presentation with a little bit of
4 what's reflected in the PDT report, and what the PDT wanted the
5 Committee to consider at this point relative to the options for
6 observer coverage levels that are in the document right now.
7 If you've had a chance to take a look at the August 19th
8 PDT report, which is in your packet, you'll see that this --
9 this analysis was a big topic of discussion, as was the issue
10 versus precision -- I mean, as was the issue of precision versus
12 The options for observer coverage levels that are in the
13 document right now are on Page 55 of the document. And I just
14 wanted the Committee to take a few minutes to reflect on those
15 options, and think about the information that Matt presented, as
16 well as the advice in the PDT report.
17 I mean, the options on Page 55 include a hundred percent
18 observer coverage. Another option would require the SBRM
19 coverage levels, which means under that option, when we go
20 through the SBRM process of looking at coverage levels across
21 all of the fisheries, and then it comes to the Council, and
22 there's always sort of a back and forth with the Council, and
23 the Center, and there's some prioritization given because we
24 can't reach those coverage levels across all of our fisheries.
25 This option would require those levels to be reached in the
1 herring fishery. So, it would sort of take the herring fishery,
2 and put it at the top of the priority list for distributing sea
3 days to achieve the SBRM levels.
4 Then the next option in the document is to do -- to
5 allocate observer coverage based on the Council targets, which
6 is what Matt's presentation focuses on, which utilizes the SBRM
7 approach, and includes a target for river herring of 20 percent.
8 So, Matt's analysis here uses 2009. The way the SBRM
9 works, as Matt explained, is you use the most recent year of
10 information to predict the coverage levels you need for the next
11 year. So, Matt has now sort of updated that analysis, and given
12 you an idea of what the coverage levels may look like under that
13 option. So, that sort of is -- that sort of goes hand-in-hand
14 with this option that's in the document.
15 But in talking about it with the PDT, and this is reflected
16 in the PDT report -- and Matt mentioned it also, I mean these
17 are SBRM approaches. And SBRM is precision-based, and there are
18 some assumptions that go into the SBRM methodology that may not
19 apply when you're looking at river herring observer data, or
20 observer data, including river herring bycatch events.
21 The assumptions relate to the normalcy of the data, and the
22 linearity of the data. In other words, the data aren't normally
23 distributed when you're looking at river herring bycatch.
24 70Seventy percent of the observed trips in the fishery have zero
25 encounters of river herring. So, you don't have a normal
1 distribution of data.
2 So, you run into some potential problems utilizing the SBRM
3 approach, and you end up with these results that basically tell
4 you in order to get a more precise estimate of river herring
5 bycatch, you need to increase sampling in areas where you don't
6 -- may not expect there to be encounters with river herring.
7 And, you know, you have to put more coverage into the areas with
8 higher variability, which are places where you're not expecting
9 to have a lot of interaction.
10 So, it's almost kind of counterintuitive, and difficult to
11 understand. And this is kind of what we went round and round
12 about at the PDT meeting. Because, I mean, I had a really hard
13 time with this, like why, you know, why are we increasing
14 coverage on Gulf of Maine purse -- offshore Gulf of Maine purse
15 seines or whatever, if we know that river herring encounters are
16 in Southern New England, during a certain time.
17 So, we got into -- or somewhere else, but -- so we got into
18 precision versus accuracy, and what is it that we really want
19 here? Do we want -- does everybody understand the difference,
20 and is what -- does the Council want an estimate of bycatch with
21 a 20 percent CV, or does the Council want an accurate estimate
22 of river herring bycatch in the fishery?
23 And what we started talking about, at the PDT, was that,
24 you know, there may be different approaches to looking at how to
25 allocate observer coverage if -- depending on the question
1 you're asking. And, you know, this is a specific question.
2 What is the level of coverage needed to get a 20 percent CV for
3 river herring bycatch? The answer is, it's going to change
4 every year, and we have to go through this kind of analysis
5 every year to sort of determine, you know, what we need to do to
6 do that.
7 There's another question, which is, you know, what are the
8 levels of coverage we need to get an accurate estimate of river
9 herring bycatch. And that's a different question. We haven't
10 explored that question, at least not from a technical
12 And the PDT talked about maybe looking at breaking down
13 this data and stratifying it a little bit differently, and
14 looking at seasonality, which is a really important aspect to
15 the fishery, as well as to river herring encounters. It's a
16 seasonal thing.
17 So, we don't know exactly how it would all fall out yet,
18 but the PDT's recommending, at this point, that the Committee
19 consider adding another option to the document for an observer
20 coverage level. And that option would be -- I mean, and the
21 Committee can certainly, you know, pose whatever question that
22 it would want to answer in a new option.
23 But the option would be to really take a look at a more
24 seasonal stratification of the data, and try to come up with a
25 methodology or an approach that would allocate observer days in
1 a way to improve the accuracy of river herring bycatch
3 And at this point, I mean, we can't tell you what that's
4 going to mean in terms of coverage levels. This approach gives
5 you, you know, you're looking at 60 percent coverage, and
6 potentially higher in some areas. We don't know what a
7 different approach may yield, but we think it's worth exploring
8 in the Draft EIS.
9 And we'd like the Committee to put a placeholder in there
10 for another option that would try to evaluate distributing
11 observer coverage in a way to improve the accuracy of river
12 herring bycatch. It would be something we'd have to sort of
13 work through in the Draft EIS, and do some sort of analysis like
14 this. And it's going to be time-consuming, which is why we
15 can't produce it right here today.
16 But in order to go down that road, and at least explore it
17 and see what the options are, we think we should probably put a
18 placeholder for it in the document.
19 MATT CIERI: Actually --
20 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Matt.
21 MATT CIERI: With the understanding that, you know,
22 the more strata that you put in, the higher you're going -- the
23 more trips you're going to have to do to fill those strata. So
24 that's -- and that's the balance, in order to get it, you know.
25 You know, we could probably do some stuff with getting at
1 some little bit more accuracy by redefining our strata a little
2 bit better, a little bit tighter, with the acknowledgment that
3 you may be -- you may be looking at higher levels of observer
4 coverage, in those strata, and overall more sea days.
5 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: But an option where
6 you had sort of like a base level of coverage throughout all
7 areas, and then on top of that, focus additional effort on
8 these seasonal --
9 MATT CIERI: Right, well -- or what --
10 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: (Indiscernible) expect
11 higher interaction.
12 MATT CIERI: Or what I could do is go back through,
13 and redo this analysis, base it on quarter, see what you get.
14 And then in some of those time area quarters, as we discuss some
15 of Jamie's hotspot options, there could be a more push towards
16 some of those -- some of those areas that you might want to have
17 more coverage, to increase your accuracy, to get at your
19 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Dave, and then Mary
20 Beth, and Terry.
21 DAVID PIERCE: Okay. Regarding consideration of a
22 seasonal stratification, if it's a seasonal stratification, then
23 is it an automatic geographic stratification, as well?
24 MATT CIERI: Not really, because as you -- because as
25 you know, for example, the fishery can go on for multiple gear
1 types and multiple areas at the same time.
2 DAVID PIERCE: Okay. Then I would like to see a
3 bulls-eye in the lower left-hand corner. You know, the Robin
4 Hood approach, okay. All of the bulls-eye, accurate and
5 precise, as opposed to accurate and imprecise, which is good to
6 some extent, but not as good as accurate and precise.
7 So, my question, I guess, would be that if indeed we do go
8 with another option, for an observer coverage level based upon
9 seasonal and geographical distribution of river herring, would
10 it enable us to improve the accuracy, as well as the precision
11 of the estimates that we get?
12 MATT CIERI: We hope it would improve the accuracy.
13 Unfortunately, as almost any statistician will tell you, you're
14 never going to know. You're never going to know whether or not
15 your data are more and more accurate, because you need to know
16 the answer to know how close you are to it, you know. You need
17 to have -- you need to know where the bulls-eye is, you know.
18 On this particular one, if there was no bulls-eye, you
19 wouldn't -- you know, you wouldn't know whether or not you were
20 accurate on any of these.
21 DAVID PIERCE: In that case, are you saying that the
22 suggestion made by Lori is not necessarily a good one, because
23 she indicated that it would be useful for us to offer up an
24 option that would provide observer coverage levels, based on
25 seasonal stratification of river herring data, for the purpose
1 of improving the accuracy of it, as you said. That is --
2 because I would make that motion if, indeed, that is the right
3 term to use, at-sea versus ...
4 MATT CIERI: Obviously, you're going to get -- you
5 know, anything that you can do that will bump up your accuracy
6 is going to help, and if that includes seasonal stratification,
8 But what I'm telling you is that, you now, you're never
9 going to -- if you set a goal of being more accurate, you can
10 try to get there as best you can, but understand, that it's not
11 -- that it's going to be non-measurable. You're never going to
12 be able to measure your bias.
13 And Steve Correia actually has a really good figure of that
14 with the housefly wings in the PDT report, you know, where you
15 go through, and you can bring those CV levels down as much as
16 you want, but what you'll notice on one of those figures -- and
17 I can't remember what it is off the top of my head -- it's
18 always biased off, you know. And there's -- and you have no
19 way, unless that red line was there, you would have no way of
21 So, you can certainly -- you can do things to help increase
22 your accuracy. What I'm telling you is you may not be able to
23 measure whether or not it's being effective.
24 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Mary Beth.
25 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Thank you. I was thinking it's
1 sort of spatial versus seasonally. I mean, I have some concern
2 about -- which I already expressed -- about the fact that the
3 backside of Cape and Georges Bank are, you know, together, and
4 what that does to the numbers.
5 And I don't -- I wouldn't want to break it down into
6 statistical areas and to go to that extent. But it does raise
7 the question if, you know, based on some information we have
8 about bycatch, is that you do want to use smaller geographic
9 areas than those. So, were you considering that, to some
11 MATT CIERI: I think, actually, you're considering
12 that, actually, through Jamie's hotspot analysis.
13 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Well, through the observed bycatch
14 of river herring.
15 MATT CIERI: Correct. Right. And, you know, I mean
16 this is just giving you - this is sort of just giving you levels
17 of -- this is giving you levels of coverage. If you want to
18 become more accurate about that area -- and that is one
19 statistical area -- if you want to become more accurate about
20 that, you would load a lot, and you'd think that that's an area
21 that you have some concerns in, the backside of Cape Cod, then
22 you would certainly want to load in more observer coverage, for
23 example, you know.
24 But trying to define that as a strata within the analysis
25 is going to be extremely -- is going to be extremely difficult.
1 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Well --
2 MATT CIERI: Because it is -- it is a very, very tight
3 area. I mean, as you'll see in Jamie's analysis, it's a very
4 narrow -- it's a fairly narrow band.
5 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Right. And so I think -- my point,
6 I think, was that I think that would be way too complicated an
7 analysis to get to that level. However, I still have the
8 question of whether the current geographic areas that you're
9 identifying are too large.
10 MATT CIERI: And I think it's probably, in general,
11 it's based more around, out of the management areas than it is
12 out of anything else. And --
13 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Right.
14 MATT CIERI: -- you know, like I said, you can
15 certainly cut -- you can certainly cut that down with the
16 understanding that, you know, by and large, what you're going to
17 end up with is more empty cells. And you're also going to end
18 up with a lot of these unequal cells, too.
19 So, you know, that puts a crimp in the analysis, you know,
20 and that will take some time to develop. I mean, we could --
21 like I said, we can -- you know, I'm certain that somebody else
22 might take a look at some of Jamie's stuff tomorrow and say,
23 well, you know, that area right around Block Island is very,
24 very, very different from the area, you know from, you know,
25 Long Island south, for example.
1 Or that the Gulf of Maine, Downeast part of, you know, the
2 Gulf of Maine, is very different than the area off Cape Ann.
3 And once you start that ball rolling, then you're starting to
4 cut each one of those things, and you're starting to look at
5 pilot coverage, and high degrees of variability, because not so
6 much because there's no -- not because, you know, there isn't
7 bycatch events, but because there's no coverage there.
8 Is that making any sense, or am I talking really technical?
9 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Some of both.
10 MATT CIERI: Sorry.
11 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Glad you're honest.
12 MATT CIERI: I've been on the phone with Steve Correia
13 too much.
14 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Lori, and then Terry.
15 LORI STEELE: Yeah. I mean, regarding this approach
16 that the PDT is suggesting we explore a little more, I mean, we
17 don't know how it's going to turn out. We don't even really
18 know if it's entirely feasible, but we'd like to explore it.
19 And right now, if you look in the document, there's, you
20 know, we have the 100 percent observer coverage option. You
21 know, I think we all have, you know, ideas of whether or not
22 that's particularly feasible.
23 We have the SBRM option, and then we have the SBRM 20
24 percent CV option. This would just give us an alternative
25 approach to look at, versus just saying we're going to use an
1 SBRM approach that uses target levels based on precision.
2 It gives us an opportunity to do this kind of analysis in a
3 different context. And then we can come back and compare the
4 results, and see if there actually is, for this issue, river
5 herring, whether or not there is maybe something that we should
6 overlay on top of some sort of a baseline level of coverage
7 across the fishery that would result from an SBRM type of an
9 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Terry.
10 TERRY STOCKWELL: Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. I
11 really appreciate the PDT's effort, and I think I'm supportive
12 of adding yet again another option to the amendment.
13 But it raises a huge issue to me, is that this amendment is
14 full of undeveloped options. And the thought of sending that to
15 public with one more is really very confusing to me. I mean, we
16 can't wrap our heads around it, the PDT is still working on it,
17 Council is going to look at us like what are you guys doing.
18 Then we're going to take it to the public, and ask them to
19 comment on something that's not developed.
20 I'll reserve the rest of my comments until tomorrow when we
21 start looking at timelines.
22 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Lori.
23 LORI STEELE: Yeah. Well, I'm not necessarily
24 suggesting taking it out to the public undeveloped. It would be
25 developed in the Draft EIS. I mean, right now, the option
1 that's in there to determine coverage levels based on a 20
2 percent CV of river herring is going to essentially include this
3 as an example. You know, based on 2009, using the SBRM
4 approach, these are the levels of coverage that this option
5 would result in.
6 And then you go through -- under that option, you do that
7 every year, and the coverage levels change, but this is the
8 analysis you do, this is the result you get right now, and that
9 gives the public a general idea of how it would work, and what
10 the levels of coverage may look like.
11 So, if a new option were included, we would do this
12 analysis as part of the Draft EIS. So when it comes back to the
13 Council as a Draft EIS, there would be an analysis in there
14 saying under this option, this is how it would work, this is the
15 analysis that would be done, and these are sort of the examples
16 of levels of coverage that you would get from it.
17 So, I mean, I think with all of these options, other than
18 the 100 percent option, it's not going to be X percent every
19 year. You know, we're not going -- we can't do that, because of
20 the way, you know, the data that we're dealing with, and the
21 issues with precision and things like that.
22 So, the idea would be to develop an analysis to illustrate,
23 you know, under some sort of alternative approach, what the
24 levels of coverage would be.
25 I think with a lot of this stuff that maybe needs work for
1 the Draft EIS, or needs further development or analysis, my hope
2 is that that would occur during the development of the Draft
3 EIS. So that when we get to the point of approving the Draft
4 EIS with the Council, and going out to public hearings,
5 hopefully a lot of that information is in the document. And
6 then, at that point, what's not in the document, we'd have to
7 make some decisions about.
8 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Remember we have
9 another cut at this in January or April, to decide whether it's
10 ready to go out to public hearing and not deciding in September
11 whether it's ready. Dave.
12 DAVID PIERCE: Yeah, I'm very supportive of the option
13 suggested by the Plan Development Team, as represented by Lori.
14 I would feel very uncomfortable going to public hearing, saying
15 that you know, these are the analyses, these are our approaches,
16 but oh, by the way, we're only concerned about precision, and
17 not accuracy.
18 The only comment I think was made by Lori -- maybe it was
19 by Matt -- about the SBRM, and this is something I've always
20 been concerned about, and we've moved it forward, and it was
21 implemented. It's all about precision, not about accuracy --
22 MATT CIERI: Correct.
23 DAVID PIERCE: -- and that the many people in the
24 audience, and one individual in particular, from Oceana, subject
25 of a lawsuit, I think -- well, anyways, he made many, many good
1 points. What are we doing? If it's precise, so what? It
2 could be the bulls-eye that's got all the dots way up on the
3 right-hand side, nothing in the middle.
4 So, what is that? It's very basically an approach that
5 makes me very uncomfortable. So, if the Plan Development Team,
6 after further reflection, further work, thoughtful pursuit of
7 this option can bear some improvement, I'd love to see it.
8 And then be able to say at the public hearings that -- oh,
9 to the Council first, of course -- yes, we have an option, and
10 that is concerned about accuracy, at least that we can achieve
11 it. Recognizing this (indiscernible) but anyways, accuracy is
12 what we should be shooting for, as opposed to precision.
13 Precise and accurate's wonderful, but I know there's a problem
15 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Howard.
16 HOWARD KING: Yes. Lori, if accuracy is not
17 ultimately measurable, would you at least be able to tell
18 whether or not this alternate method might be more efficient? I
19 mean, if you look at seasonal stratification, there is a
20 possibility, I guess, that that's more efficient than what we're
21 doing now.
22 MATT CIERI: Let me.
23 LORI STEELE: Go ahead.
24 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Go ahead.
25 MATT CIERI: Depends on -- it depends on how you
1 define efficiency. If you're, you know, if you're talking about
2 reducing your overall number of days at sea, probably not.
3 Again, every time you put in more and more strata, you need a
4 certain threshold level of coverage, just to sample it
6 So, if you're looking at -- you know, you need to -- you
7 need to hit this particular precision goals. You know, whether
8 or not you're accurate or not, you still need to hit those
9 precision goals, because that's what the Council voted for.
10 So, you know, more than likely, as you make more and more
11 strata, there's a good possibility that you'll actually increase
12 the number of days. So, if you're measuring efficiency, in that
13 way, you know, reducing the number of coverage -- number of days
14 needed to cover the fishery, I would say the exact opposite is
15 more likely to be true.
16 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Okay, Committee.
17 What's your pleasure here? Do we want to add another option
18 here or not? Dave.
19 DAVID PIERCE: Yes, I do. How could we not? The
20 impassioned plea made by the Chair of the Plan Development Team.
21 My goodness. Are you seeking consensus, or do you want an
22 actual motion to the effect?
23 I would move there be an additional option for observer
24 coverage levels, based on seasonal stratification of river
25 herring data, intended to improve the accuracy of estimates of
1 river herring bycatch. That's the intent.
2 MATT CIERI: Precision and accuracy.
3 DAVID PIERCE: Precision and accuracy -- accuracy and
5 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Very good. Both ways.
6 LORI STEELE: Okay.
7 MATT CIERI: Whatever.
8 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Is there a second to
9 that? Howard.
10 While we're trying to get the motion up, is there any
11 discussion on the motion from the Committee?
12 (No audible response.)
13 LORI STEELE: Do you want me to read the motions or
14 keep working at it?
15 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Sure. Why don't you
16 read the motion?
17 LORI STEELE: The motion is to add an option for
18 observer coverage levels based on seasonal stratification of
19 river herring data intended to improve the accuracy and
20 precision of river herring bycatch estimates.
21 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Is there any comment
22 from any member of the public that would like to make a comment
23 on that? Even though we don't have the exact wording up there,
24 at least we've discussed this concept quite a bit. Tom?
25 TOM RUDOLPH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Tom Rudolph,
1 Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's Association. I guess it's
2 more of a question.
3 First of all, I think -- I'm supportive. I think accuracy
4 is more important than precision, too. I think the goals of the
5 monitoring program mentioned that what we're really shooting for
6 is accurate catch estimates, twice.
7 But I wonder why this discussion and this approach would be
8 confined specifically to river herring, when we have a -- well,
9 for one thing, we have at least one other species that I think
10 has a highly variable occurrence dynamic going, and that you
11 specified a CV approach for, which is haddock.
12 And then I think we need accurate estimates of catch for
13 everything that ends up in the nets in the fishery. So, I guess
14 that's my question. I'm not sure how the agenda is set up,
15 whether this general discussion here gives observer coverage
16 options in the document, or whether this is just specific to
17 just the river herring situation.
18 But I think the approach is worth looking into for
19 everything. I mean, that's what we really want, accurate catch
20 estimates. Thank you.
21 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Dave, do you want to
22 respond to that?
23 DAVID PIERCE: Yeah, I hear Tom, but (indiscernible)
24 us to look at (indiscernible) pretty much know where they had
25 gone, and (indiscernible) pretty much know where the interaction
1 is with river -- with haddock and (indiscernible.)
2 So, to me, it would suggest that the variability would be
3 even less than what we see with river herring which, of course,
4 is dispersed all the way up and down the coast, with all these
5 hotspots that will be examined tomorrow in greater detail.
6 So, I hear where he's coming from. I might be receptive to
7 a similar approach for haddock, but at this point in time, the
8 only data we've looked at is river herring and the
9 recommendations given to us by the Plan Development Team,
10 specific to river herring.
11 So, I'm comfortable with it for now. Again,
12 (indiscernible) interaction between (indiscernible) haddock.
13 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Back to the public.
14 Jeff, do you have a comment you'd like to make?
15 JEFF KAELIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Jeff Kaelin,
16 Lund's Fisheries. I don't have a problem with the motion, I
17 guess, but I just wonder if we're setting us up -- ourselves up
18 for failure here. We're going down a road that's different than
19 the way SBRM is processed, being applied to other fisheries in
20 the region.
21 I mean, if you look at these, the balance of observer
22 coverage days that will be needed, you know, 93 percent of them
23 -- I don't know how many, a dozen, or well over a thousand --
24 trips. I don't think we're ever going to get there. Where's
25 the money going to come from?
1 Yeah, but even if -- even, you know -- just don't see it
2 happening. I think this is -- this level of precision and
3 accuracy discussion is a great academic exercise. I like the
4 little bulls-eyes and so forth. That's really cool, but I just
5 think we're setting ourselves up for failure here.
6 I think the expectations are ridiculously high, given these
7 projections, and it's a standard that's not being used in any of
8 the other fisheries that are being managed in the region. And I
9 just predict that the whole thing is going to collapse, and we
10 won't get there, we'll disappoint the public. And that's my
11 biggest concern, that we're setting ourselves up for failure.
12 Thank you.
13 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Okay. Back to the
14 Committee. Further discussion on the motion, even though you
15 can't read it?
16 (No audible response.)
17 LORI STEELE: I can't get this thing to work now.
18 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Well, I'll tell you
19 what. After we dispense with this section, we'll take a five
20 minute break and maybe we can get it fixed.
21 Are you comfortable voting on the motion without seeing it?
22 Do you want it read again? Anybody want it read again?
23 (No audible response.)
24 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Okay. All those in
25 favor, raise your hand. Nine in favor. Any opposed? Any
1 abstentions? Motion carries unanimously. And we'll take a
2 quick five minute break to deal with the technical difficulties.
3 * * * RECESS * * *
4 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: All right. Our
5 technical difficulties have been addressed.
7 Okay, welcome back. We're going to take -- we're going to
8 take more than one break this afternoon. We've got a lot to do,
9 and I want to try and keep people fresh, so -- we're a long way
10 from Happy Hour, folks.
11 So now we've made it to the 1:30 agenda item. We made up a
12 little time here, about 15 minutes. We have -- we're scheduled
13 to look at measures to establish criteria for midwater vessels
14 access to the groundfish closed areas -- oh, I'm sorry, I'm on
15 the wrong day.
16 (Comments away from microphone.)
17 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Wait a minute, this is
18 the wrong thing. Now, we'll discuss options related to portside
19 sampling, and to develop some recommendations. And Lori, would
20 you like to key this up?
21 LORI STEELE: Okay.
22 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Hannah.
23 HANNAH GOODALE: Can I make a comment on observer
24 coverage before you do that?
25 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Sure.
1 HANNAH GOODALE: I have the same confusion as Tom
2 Rudolph. I didn't know if that topic was going to be done or
3 not, whether it was clear from your discussion.
4 At previous meetings, we've expressed concern about the
5 option that would require the agency to establish observer
6 coverage consistent with the SBRM. And Lori did a good job of
7 capturing how that process currently works.
8 I think you could easily convert that alternative that's
9 currently in the document into a viable alternative, which would
10 be just to require observer coverage consistent with the SBRM
11 process, and eliminate the portion that says "NMFS will
13 I think we've gone on record enough about the problems we
14 have with the amendment, trying to establish NMFS programs for
15 which there may or may not be funding.
16 But if you wanted to keep that parallel with the other
17 alternatives, which are a hundred percent coverage, or the
18 coverage with per your CV targets, or coverage consistent with
19 the SBRM process, I think you could do that.
20 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Okay. Committee
21 members? Based on that comment, is there any potential
22 modification to that option that you'd like to address? Dave?
23 DAVID PIERCE: (Indiscernible) confused, the
24 suggestion that Hannah made, does it not counter to the motions
25 and decisions we made there at our last two-day meeting,
1 relative to the observer coverage, and the problems of getting
2 the necessary funds for that coverage? I thought there was an
3 option in there that we approved that does relate to the Service
4 (indiscernible) if somebody could clarify that, Lori, perhaps?
5 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Lori?
6 LORI STEELE: Well, I don't think it necessarily runs
7 counter. I mean the suggestion that she's making is just to
8 change the language and the options so that NMFS would not be
9 required to provide the coverage. Just to make the option say
10 that the coverage would be required.
11 I don't think that necessarily runs counter to the
12 discussions we had at the previous meeting. I mean, at some
13 point, there's going to have to be a decision made about how
14 whatever option is selected is going to be funded.
15 So, I mean, you know, we have an -- you know, we have an
16 option in the document that says it's all going to come from
17 federal funds. I think that the suggestion is just to change
18 the language in that particular option so that the funds could
19 potentially come from various sources.
20 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Dave.
21 DAVID PIERCE: Yeah. I would reject to that
22 suggestion that the funds come from fed -- from the -- that
23 funds come from federal funds. That was -- and I find at our
24 last meeting, we did have a motion that carried seven to three,
25 and it was to include an alternative that funds catch monitoring
1 from federal funds.
2 The other one was from federal-permitted dealers. So,
3 yeah, I would have no problem making that suggested change, as
4 offered up by Hannah, and I'll make it as a motion, if everyone
5 agrees. It would seem to be a logical way to go.
6 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Does anybody have any
7 objection to that modification of essentially, on Page 55, as I
8 understand it, we would -- Option 184.108.40.206.3, would be changed to
9 -- this measure would require observer coverage, instead of
10 require NMFS to increase. It would just be require observer
11 coverage in the herring fishery to levels required by the SBRM?
12 MARY BETH TOOLEY: What page is that on, Doug?
13 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: It's on Page 55.
14 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Thank you.
15 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: So, you'd strike in
16 the first sentence, under the option to require SBRM observer
17 coverage, you'd strike "NMFS to increase."
18 JEFF KAELIN: You'd have to modify the last sentence,
20 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Yeah, that's correct.
21 And then on the third to last line, we'd be striking the words
22 "by NMFS." It would just be herring fishery would be
23 prioritized in such a way that the necessary levels of coverage
24 would achieve. Dave.
25 DAVID PIERCE: But doesn't NMFS do that, setting of
1 the priority? And don't they make that determination every
2 year, and then submit it to the Councils that -- so, they do
3 that already. They set the priorities. So I think the last
4 part of that, that paragraph, still is appropriate.
5 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: So, is everybody
6 comfortable with us striking just in that first line, "NMFS to
7 increase"? Without objection, we do that.
8 Anything further on this section?
9 (No audible response.)
10 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Okay, now, we'll move
11 on to our 1:30 agenda item, portside sea sampling.
12 DEVELOPMENT OF MEASURES TO ESTABLISH A PORTSIDE SAMPLING PROGRAM
13 LORI STEELE: Okay. I just wanted -- I talked to Doug
14 about just putting a brief discussion of portside sampling on
15 the agenda for today. It's something that I think we've talked
16 about in a good amount of detail. And we've fleshed out some
17 sampling protocols that are in the document, recognizing that
18 those may be modified over the course of the development of the
19 Draft EIS, as the PDT sort of does some more analysis of the
20 sampling methodologies, and things like that.
21 We've got some options in the document -- I'm sorry --we've
22 got some standards in the document for service providers, if we
23 use service providers for portside sampling, and then on Page
24 56, there's some options for coverage levels.
25 I wanted to just raise a couple of issues relative to the
1 options for coverage levels. I don't know if it's something we
2 really need to follow up on. Well, maybe we do.
3 I mean, the first option is a hundred percent. The second
4 option is something less than a hundred percent, with
5 extrapolation. Little concerned about requiring the
6 extrapolation in there because, you know, the work that the
7 PDT's been doing, and the analysis of the sampling programs, you
8 know, we're not quite at the point yet where we're confident
9 that one program's data from either portside sampling or at-sea
10 sampling could necessarily provide for the appropriate kind of
11 extrapolations. But we may get there, so I'm not too worried
12 about that.
13 But, this other option in here, portside sampling coverage
14 at a level to meet the Council priorities. This was sort of the
15 mirror option for the 20 percent CV for at-sea sampling. I had
16 some concerns about this option, and I think the PDT does, too.
17 I'm not sure this is really a viable option for determining
18 levels of coverage for portside sampling. So, we can come back
19 to that.
20 But what I really wanted to bring up here, and I just want
21 to throw it out there, and see what the Committee thinks about
22 it. I think it's worth talking about. The portside sampling
23 element of this amendment, and the portside sampling program
24 that we've had for the herring fishery, has been administered by
25 the States of Maine and Massachusetts. They're the ones that
1 developed the sampling protocols, and they're the ones that run
2 the sampling program right now.
3 I think the Committee may want to talk about including an
4 alternative or something in the document that would delegate, or
5 that would acknowledge that the ASMFC would develop a portside
6 sampling program through the states.
7 And I'm just thinking, because the ASMFC presumably is
8 going to do an amendment at some point in the next year or so,
9 to be consistent with whatever we're going to do in this
10 amendment, or to maybe help out with some of the catch
11 monitoring. And I think that the portside sampling element of
12 the catch monitoring program is one place where we could really
13 benefit from working with the states, since they already
14 developed this program.
15 And certainly in terms of costs, and cost-sharing with this
16 amendment, and the catch monitoring program to, you know, be
17 able to maybe have the ASMFC and the states develop the portside
18 sampling program. I don't know if they are interested in doing
19 that but, you know, I just thought maybe the Committee wanted to
20 talk about maybe communicating something to the ASMFC, and
21 encouraging them to consider an amendment to their plan to
22 address the portside sampling element of this catch monitoring
24 My take from the discussions I've heard with the National
25 Marine Fisheries Service is that the Service is not in a
1 position to administer a portside sampling program, run it,
2 collect the data, or do any of it, or any of the sampling. So,
3 if we're going to do it in the federal plan, it's going to have
4 to come through another place. It's going to have come through
5 another entity.
6 And there's going to be costs associated with that.
7 Somebody is going to have to run the program, collect the data,
8 everything else. And, I mean, it just seems to me like there's
9 an opportunity here to work with the states through the ASMFC
10 plan. They do have a management plan for herring, and if we're
11 going to manage the herring fishery, and implement all kinds of
12 requirements for monitoring the fishery, it seems like maybe
13 there could be some cost-sharing, or some responsibility-sharing
14 in terms of managing and monitoring the fishery.
15 So, I just wanted to throw that out there. There's so many
16 state directors on the Committee, so it's almost like a little
17 ASMFC. So, we can -- I just figured we could at least get it
18 out there and talk about it. I think it's worth exploring,
19 because if it's going to be something that we're going to
20 establish in the federal amendment, we're going to have to
21 figure out how to pay for it, and who's going to pay for it, and
22 what entity is going to run it and administer it, and collect
23 the information.
24 (Comments away from microphone.)
25 TERRY STOCKWELL: I hear where you're going, Lori, but
1 I'm really uncomfortable about this group remanding a shoreside
2 monitoring program out of the ASMFC. It's no more easy for the
3 states to come up with the money than it is going to be for us
4 to figure out how to pay for it out of this program.
5 I like the idea of a collaborative approach on a common set
6 of goals and principles. But this point (indiscernible) the
7 language in the document, remanding the Commission to do a
8 specific action, I could not sign onboard with.
9 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: You want to take it
10 on, Dave; and then I'll get to you, Mary Beth.
11 DAVID PIERCE: Terry's the current Chair and I'm the
12 next Chair of ASMFC Section?
13 TERRY STOCKWELL: Yes.
14 DAVID PIERCE: (Indiscernible.) But I do agree with
15 Terry. There's a lot of work that's gone into the establishment
16 of a portside sampling program. And the states do a real good
17 job with it. I certainly know that my staff are breaking their
18 backs to provide information regarding the nature of the
19 landings. Very, very thorough sampling, over-the-top sampling.
20 But it's necessary, at this time, certainly.
21 Funding sources, true. So, if indeed, the Council was to
22 expect putting in the document an option that would -- for the
23 states to do it, well, we can't guarantee that is going to be
24 something we could do in the long term. We hear, you know,
25 we're struggling to find the necessary funds to do the work
1 we're doing, and we've been successful so far, but that could
2 fall through at any moment.
3 I know my agency has already been cut $400,000. I suspect
4 it will be cut until we're almost nonexistent. So, promising
5 that -- or committing to taking on the costs for that program
6 would be something unlikely for us to do, maybe the State of
7 Maine, but certainly not for us to do, as we begin to suffer
8 cutbacks, and potentially even lose our sampling abilities
9 because of what's going on within our state.
10 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Lori.
11 LORI STEELE: Yeah, I mean, just to clarify. I wasn't
12 suggesting that we just force the states to do it, or to put an
13 option in there that says you guys have to do it. I was more
14 suggesting that maybe the Committee would want to recommend that
15 the ASMFC consider developing a portside sampling program in the
16 amendment, that will presumably be trying to, you know, be
17 consistent with the actions that we're taking in this amendment.
18 I think it's a consideration that the ASMFC should at least
19 discuss, as part of their herring amendment. But, you know, if
20 the Committee doesn't want to make that kind of recommendation,
21 that's fine.
22 And just again, I mean, totally fine, but keep in mind that
23 we've heard clearly from NMFS that they're not going to do it,
24 in terms of putting forward the funds to establish and
25 administer the portside sampling program.
1 So, if they're not going to do it, and we're not going to
2 ask the states to do it, then the next question that we need to
3 talk about now is who is going to do it, and if we're going to
4 go forward with one in the federal amendment, who's going to pay
5 for it?
6 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Dave.
7 DAVID PIERCE: Well, I certainly don't mind having in
8 this document an option that we would be -- the adoption of a
9 portside program following the procedures and protocols that
10 have been established by the states, with the possibility that,
11 you know, the states might be able to undertake the task, if the
12 funds are there. In other words, this could be described in
13 that way, I suppose, because obviously, someone is going to ask
14 the obvious question, which is why don't they do it?
15 So, yeah, I mean, the Sea Herring Section can have these
16 sort of discussions, and after we have the discussions, that
17 would enable the Council to understand the problems we had, as
18 states, continuing the sampling program. But regardless,
19 whether the individual states do it, if the protocols are
20 established, someone else takes them on, and that wouldn't work.
21 It's really got to be the states that take this on. So,
22 again, you shape the discussions, see whether or not ASMFC --
23 I'm kind of stopping in mid-sentence here, because I keep coming
24 up against the funds, and the -- I don't have a motion to make,
25 but -- I can work on one.
1 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Well, here's from New
2 Hampshire's state director's standpoint. We have the same
3 concerns that Maine and Massachusetts have, because I'm being
4 asked to put together a budget for the next two years that's
5 going to be 95 percent of what I'm doing right now, which was
6 already 95 percent of what I did before. So, we're coming down.
7 But on the positive side, this could be something that we
8 could use to lobby again for full funding of the Atlantic
9 Coastal Act, which has not been fully funded ever since it was
10 originally authored.
11 So, we could say that, or for an increase in the ACCSP
12 funding, because that's what's funding right now the state port
13 sampling program.
14 If we want to do this, if we really want to help improve --
15 be a partner here in helping improving the catch monitoring
16 program, this is what we need, we need to get those funds. And
17 it has to be something that we can direct, you know, continue to
18 use in lobbying for -- at the congressional level, that this is
19 important, so -- Terry.
20 TERRY STOCKWELL: Yeah, I agree, Mr. Chair, it's
21 hugely important, but the concept of another unfunded mandate is
22 really not acceptable. I mean, every state, every organization,
23 the agency, are all struggling right now. But -- have been, and
24 will continue to be supportive of shoreside sampling, but our
25 ACCSP funding has dwindled down every year.
1 We've cobbled it together through several different
2 sources, and I think -- I wish Matt was here -- but we only get
3 about, somewhere around a third of the trips observed with what
4 we've been able to do through the good years.
5 And, you know, coming up with a portside sampling program,
6 reaching a hundred percent, for a state that has perhaps the
7 lion's share of -- or the two states that have the lion's share
8 of interests here, we can't afford it. There are multiple other
9 states, including New York and New Jersey on the Herring
10 Section. No state can afford it itself.
11 I think probably since this is an amendment in development
12 here, I think that we should probably work with Commission
13 staff, and start thinking about some collaborative sampling
14 approaches. And if and when the Commission does initiate
15 another amendment, then we can use that as a vehicle and move
17 But the expectation then is it's going to contain all the
18 measures that we need to -- what we want to address in this
19 amendment, I think, are unreasonable.
20 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Mary Beth.
21 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Well, I didn't think this
22 discussion was necessarily around that thought process, that the
23 states would somehow be required to implement a program based on
24 everything that's in this section, by any means.
25 I mean, you know, this group and the Council can't mandate
1 anything to the states. But, however, when you look at the
2 states' programs, they're the most cost-efficient way of getting
3 portside sampling out of any of these alternatives. The State
4 of Maine has a long history, and the information that's from the
5 sampling program supports spawning closures and stock
7 So, I mean, to lose that program would be a significant hit
8 to the industry on a number of levels. I mean, not having the
9 information from the stock assessment would really not be a good
11 So, the industry supports the state programs. We think
12 that they are viable, and I -- I mean, I don't know, Lori, under
13 status quo, a description of, you know, what the states do, and
14 perhaps some communication to the Commission and, you know, that
15 we should be working cooperatively together. I think the states
16 have already worked cooperatively with each of the program on
17 protocols, and some of those things, so your data sources can
18 match up. I mean, some of the things you could do outside of
19 the amendment process.
20 And we have to recognize that the budgets are going to go
21 up and down. So, mandating that the states supply some kind of
22 percentage, I didn't queue it in that way at all.
23 LORI STEELE: Me neither.
24 MARY BETH TOOLEY: So, I would encourage the
25 Commission to perhaps, you know, if we were to send a letter and
1 just have a discussion of some kind; but, I don't know if it's
2 sufficient in this amendment to just describe under status quo,
3 or I'm not really too sure what to do with that.
4 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Terry.
5 TERRY STOCKWELL: Lori, are you not scheduled to come
6 to the fall meeting to discuss this amendment, to the Herring
8 LORI STEELE: I am. That's why I wanted to bring this
9 issue up with the Committee first, so that I could -- if there
10 was anything to communicate to the section. But yeah, I'm mean
11 I'm scheduled to go down there at the fall meeting and brief
12 them on everything that we're developing in this amendment, to
13 discuss the possibilities of cooperative work.
14 TERRY STOCKWELL: That being said, I mean, the goals
15 of accurate and timely monitoring are shared by both the
16 Commission and the Council, and I think a discussion with the
17 Herring Section would be a good way to start.
18 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Dave.
19 DAVID PIERCE: I'll send a message to myself. So,
20 I'll make a motion, okay, that will then enable Lori to go down
21 and tell us what we did today.
22 LORI STEELE: Don't you already know?
23 DAVID PIERCE: Well, (indiscernible.) I would move
24 that we include an option that states continue their portside
25 sampling program, provided funds are found for the program, in
1 support of the Council's priority for portside sampling
2 coverage. It may be a little wordy, but that's the best I can
4 (Comments away from microphone.)
5 DAVID PIERCE: Because I'm all for it. And so, let's
6 send that message to ASMFC.
7 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: We'll send our message
8 to ourselves. Mary Beth.
9 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Thank you. I guess the question I
10 would ask is there anything in this amendment that could be done
11 to facilitate the states' programs. I mean, I know the one
12 thing is that, you know, no vessels required to allow the -- you
13 know, to have their fish sampled. I mean, I don't know of any
14 instance in which James, for instance, has been denied access to
15 fish. I don't think it happens.
16 But, I mean, that's an example, perhaps of, you know, why
17 are you asking the question. You know, people could think about
18 it before we get to that next meeting. But is there anything in
19 this document that we can do to facilitate the current and any
20 future states' monitoring (indiscernible)?
21 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Good question, but I
22 was looking for a second. Is there a second to the motion?
23 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Oh, I'll second it.
24 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: You can't.
25 TERRY STOCKWELL: I'll second. (Indiscernible) try to
1 translate it.
2 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Why don't you put it
3 up there, and maybe we can translate it? Discussion on the
5 (No audible response.)
6 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Comments from the
7 public? Okay, I got Dave, and then Swanny, and oh, I got a
8 whole bunch of people.
9 DAVID ELLENTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dave
10 Ellenton. We strongly support this motion. We've found that we
11 got good, continuous, robust checking of our landings by the
12 guys from the state of Massachusetts. So, it appears to me
13 whether they've actually got a protocol that is exactly as the
14 same as the one in Maine. It's common, that both states have
15 the same. So, in brief, we strongly support the motion.
16 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Don.
17 DON SWANSON: Don Swanson, CCA, New Hampshire. Again,
18 I'm going to bring this up, too. Federal government ain't going
19 to want to pay for this. State's not going to pay for this.
20 To me, the only way to handle this here is let the end
21 users pay for this. Whoever's buying the herring, or who's
22 using the herring, mackerel and stuff like that, charge a fee of
23 a penny a pound, a quarter of a penny a pound, or whatever. And
24 you can -- you'll get all the money you want to fund this, and
25 to cover these programs.
1 To me, that seems very simple. Whether you can do it or
2 not, I have no idea.
3 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Steve.
4 STEVE WEINER: Steve Weiner, CHOIR. You know, I've
5 heard about these states monitoring portside sampling programs
6 for years. But I've never seen anything -- maybe it's just me;
7 I'm not privy to the information -- but what data has come out
8 of it has been collected, and has been used by the Council, this
9 Committee, or anybody managing herring.
10 I hear that there's a lot of data collected, but whenever I
11 ask for information -- for instance, on, you know, what did the
12 fish look like that came in last year from Area 3, from a
13 spawning perspective, how far along were they, and how many of
14 them were full of spawn, I never get the data.
15 I'm not saying this isn't a great program, but it seems to
16 me that we're perpetuating a program that a lot of us don't
17 understand. And so, if I was around this table, I would ask the
18 question, some of the questions that I -- you know, what it is
19 that you're doing, what are you doing with the data, are you
20 collecting it, using it for a good purpose. Thank you.
21 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Matt, do you want to
22 respond to that?
23 MATT CIERI: I'm not sure spawn is actually the right
24 word. As most of you guys, who sit around the table for days, I
25 see you guys are fairly familiar, the catch at age matrix is
1 derived by the portside -- is derived by portside sampling. I
2 mean, that is the reason why you have an age-structured model.
3 Without it, you wouldn't have an age-structured model.
4 And as you guys also know, that when we went through that
5 spawning, the inshore spawning area analysis, that also used the
6 portside sampling, as well.
7 I think if you're talking about portside bycatch sampling,
8 there certainly is a huge need to go through, and take a look at
9 the discrepancies between your observer and your portside
10 samplers. You guys remember, there was almost an 80 percent
11 difference in the overall magnitude assessed when you looked at
12 portside versus at-sea observer. And there was an increase in
14 So, there are many more trips that are actually discovered
15 to have river herring bycatch in them on the portside versus the
16 observer. There's a lot of questions that surround both
17 programs, and why they don't line up. Until some of those
18 issues are resolved, you're basing many of your management
19 stuff, and many of your analysis around, you know, one
20 particular of the at-sea observing, which is great, because
21 that's your best information, and provides the best level of
23 However, there's an entire different data set out there
24 that gives you somewhat -- somewhat similar results, but not
25 exactly the same.
1 Furthermore, you can increase your sampling quite a bit by
2 adding in portside sampling, depending upon what you're doing.
3 You know, in that analysis that you guys got as ASMFC folks,
4 dealing with river herring bycatch and the expanded numbers, by
5 and large, that incorporated a lot more portside sampling. We
6 combined the databases. And as a result, your CV's were a whole
7 lot better because you had more coverage in some of those empty
9 So, beyond that, there is a lot of utility with the
10 portsides, and at-sea observing, when you put them together.
11 And I think there's some issues that you guys might want to
12 resolve, maybe focus on, given that this is the only fishery in
13 the Northeast where you have both. Thanks.
14 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Dave.
15 DAVID PIERCE: I have a couple of points relative to
16 the use of the information, using the assessments, as a good
17 example of that. Steve had a very legitimate question that he
18 raised, (indiscernible) spawning condition and fish coming from
19 Area 3, and we're focused on Area 1A. It's not that we couldn't
20 do that in time, and hopefully the observers that are used now
21 in the Observer Program, Closed Area 1 and elsewhere, can be
22 used to help us with that identification spawning condition.
23 Relative to the program itself and the data that are
24 collected, certainly in Massachusetts, we've had great
25 cooperation from the processors. And that's enabled us to do a
1 number of things, and that is improve the nature of the way we
2 sample the landings, the offload of the catch, and actually, in
3 some instances, to compare our estimates of haddock that we
4 obtain from a complete sampling of the entire catch, relative to
5 the smaller sample taken by the observer.
6 And in a recent trip, we were able to, working with the
7 observer, indicate that the observer's estimate of catch of
8 haddock was too high. So, that's very useful information. I
9 suspect that there'll be further discussion between the observer
10 program and our port sampling program, that it will help them
11 better sample the catches of herring, to look at, what the
12 bycatch is of haddock.
13 Obviously, we're getting estimates of bycatch of other
14 species. I've got a number of trips here, August trip, last
15 week of August, one trip in particular, of course, the amount of
16 herring that was landed, the amount of haddock, dogfish, silver
17 hake, red hake, illex squid, alewife. There were 138 pounds.
18 So, it's going to be very useful information to help us get
19 a better feel for what's going on with, you know, with catches
20 at sea. It's not the complete picture, but at least it will
21 help I think the Observer Program improve its ability to sample
22 what's actually caught in these nets.
23 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Matt?
24 MATT CIERI: Yeah, just to follow up. Yeah, I mean,
25 we collect GSI information on every sample that we get, whether
1 it be from Georges Bank, or whether it be from, you know,
2 Southern New England, or whether it be from Area 1A. You know,
3 we collect all of that information. But most of that
4 information, of course, is confidential. That will -- those
5 things will be done, you know, and will be analyzed, you know,
6 as ASMFC and as the Council directs, you know. That's where
7 that information goes.
8 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Dave?
9 DAVID PIERCE: What's confidential, Matt?
10 MATT CIERI: Much of the data on individual samples
11 from individual areas, particularly when there is less than a
12 certain number of boats fishing in a particular area at a
13 particular time, is confidential.
14 DAVID PIERCE: We can't even -- we can't even learn
15 the GSI?
16 MATT CIERI: You may be able to learn the GSI. That
17 will have to be something that will be done in a further
18 analysis, as time permits, you know. Obviously, as we've gone
19 through and done a lot of the, you know, cross-matching for the
20 observer stuff, as well as some other stuff in the catch-at-age
22 We obviously use a lot of that information. You know,
23 however, it's a function of priorities, you know, and what you
24 guys want to get accomplished. When you guys, you know, direct
25 that you want to know something, that we will pull on our
1 resources that we have available, and give you the information.
2 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Okay. Gary, you were
3 next on the list, and Hannah, Jeff.
4 GARY LIBBY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gary Libby,
5 Port Clyde. I think this amendment goes in kind of the right
6 direction. I think more what this Committee can do is give us
7 -- give ASMFC and the states recommendations of what you believe
8 the coverage levels need to be, to do an accurate coverage.
9 Some of the state programs, I think, are good. I do think
10 there's room for improvement with some of them, maybe more
11 people out there, more sampling events, things like that. But I
12 understand the money is the big problem. But if you just make a
13 recommendation, and say this is what we think it -- the fishery
14 needs, then work out from there for the funding. Thanks.
15 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Jeff.
16 JEFF KAELIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Jeff Kaelin.
17 I support the motion. I wanted to, also, just take a minute to
18 thank the states, and Terry, and Dave, and -- I don't think you
19 guys are involved, so I'm not going to thank you, Mr. Chairman
20 -- but everybody else, I will, though. I know that you support
21 the program, and I appreciate that. But -- it's been a good
22 program and we have been able to work to get federal -- some
23 federal funding for this program.
24 And I wanted to make a similar point to what I made
25 earlier. I mean, we've heard Matt's presentation that the
1 higher the coverage level gets, you know, the more coverage we
2 need. And when we go to the Hill, and ask for the $350,000, the
3 add-on, so that this program can continue each of the last two
4 years, and we were successful, I think, both times, we've said
5 to the Congress, we need more information.
6 Now, you're never going to have all the information that
7 some of our detractors want to see, and -- but you need some.
8 So, if we go in the direction of this accuracy and precision
9 problem, identifying the fact that we're never going to have
10 enough information unless we have a hundred percent coverage,
11 which is probably not attainable, financially, I think we're
12 going to make it more difficult to go to the Hill, and ask for
13 money for a sampling program that's less than a hundred percent.
14 At some point, they're going to say, why should we spend
15 the money? Because, you know, nobody is going to be happy with
16 anything less than a hundred percent and, you know, forget it.
17 So, I hope that doesn't happen. I hope that our sights --
18 we set our sights realistically, and getting better information
19 -- maybe not as much information as some people in this room
20 might want to see, but something that's attainable.
21 And from our perspective, we're very happy with as much
22 coverage as somebody could find the money to pay for. We don't
23 think we need any more. That's why we don't want to pay for it,
24 because we think the data consistently says that the, you know,
25 bycatch in the fishery is low. So, that's why we've opened the
1 door and to let people come in.
2 So, we do support the program. Obviously, river herring,
3 we don't know what the mortality effects of all the river
4 herring we're seeing out there are. We don't know how that
5 compares to the problems of habitat degradation, so forth.
6 There's never been any analysis or comparison of that.
7 So, I just am afraid that with these standards being so
8 high, that the good work that's being done to the extent that we
9 can find the funds, will be -- will vanish, because we're not --
10 you know, Congress will never be able to come up with the money
11 to do a hundred percent.
12 So -- but I -- we do support the program, and as far as
13 getting more involved with ASMFC, I think that's a good idea. A
14 lot of plants in New Jersey, there are shoreside monitors down
15 there, or New Jersey DEP personnel, who are in the area, who
16 help Jim -- James Becker out down there. Right now, he doesn't
17 have a protocol established with New Jersey. So, he is not --
18 he's not responding to our request that he work more closely
19 with the New Jersey people so that our guys don't have to wait
20 around for James Becker to come to Cape May from Maine. Lori
21 and I have talked about this before.
22 So, I think highlighting this for ASMFC is a good idea,
23 because I think we can coordinate the program even better than
24 we are. But -- so, anyway, that's all I'll say. Thank you.
25 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Hannah.
1 HANNAH GOODALE: I mean, it's clear it's an important
2 program. I'm not quite clear how the motion -- how the support
3 for the program functions as an alternative in the amendment.
4 TERRY STOCKWELL: Yeah, I've got some wordsmithing
5 when you're ready, Mr. Chair.
6 HANNAH GOODALE: It just -- it's expressing support
7 for a state program, but you know, pending, you know, contingent
8 on funding availability. So, I guess there's nothing wrong with
9 having it in an amendment; I just don't know what it means if
10 the Secretary of Commerce approves it. I mean, I just don't --
11 I don't think it's anything that would need to be in the
12 amendment. I think it could simply be a letter from the Council
13 to the Commission.
14 So, if there's something we're missing, I think we'd be
15 interested in knowing.
16 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Terry, can you fill in
17 the gaps?
18 TERRY STOCKWELL: Yeah, actually, I was going -- much
19 to Hannah's point -- if I think that if Dr. Pierce agrees, a
20 little wordsmithing, is that we request, instead of include an
21 option. Just delete and include an option and put request that
22 the states continue and expand their sampling programs.
23 And at the very end, I'd add and that the Herring PDT and
24 Technical Committee jointly meet to review the states' shoreside
25 monitoring programs in order to address the goals and objectives
1 of Amendment 5.
2 And if this is agreeable with David, I mean, my -- is
3 because I think it will make for an easier visit for you to our
4 fall meeting, it will engage the Section and start a discussion
5 that could be productive for the management of herring --
6 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: David, is it
8 DAVID PIERCE: That's real wordsmithing, and it made
9 my fork into a sword. It's okay. Use the anvil.
10 LORI STEELE: Are you okay with that?
11 DAVID PIERCE: I guess I'm okay with it because we
12 will have time to put something into the amendment, better
13 worded if, indeed, I suppose when you come to the Section and
14 you give your presentation, make your requests, explanations of
15 that, if it's a positive feedback from the entire Section
16 because, obviously, we're just not these three states, and not
17 just the Section, it's more states than us.
18 So, if you get positive -- well, if we get positive
19 reaction to this particular request, then I suppose we could,
20 you know, make something more formal as a specific option in the
21 amendment. But -- but that's fine. That's good changes.
22 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Seconder okay with
23 this suggestion?
24 TERRY STOCKWELL: Yes.
25 LORI STEELE: I think he was the seconder --
1 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Oh, you were the
2 seconder, I'm sorry. I thought it was Mary -- on another
3 motion. Okay, okay. Yeah, Lori.
4 LORI STEELE: The only thing I wanted to add, just for
5 consideration, is really to the point that Don Swanson made, in
6 terms of, you know, the potential for somebody to be -- some
7 entity or group to be paying for this portside sampling program,
8 whether it be the end user, as he suggested, or someone else, or
10 I've been involved with a working group that's trying to
11 explore options for funding of monitoring programs that are
12 outside of the scope of federal funds. And, I mean, the options
13 are pretty limited. But one of the things that's become pretty
14 clear through the discussions with this working group is that
15 the federal government has some very specific legal restrictions
16 on collecting funds from user groups, or participants in the
18 There's this thing called the Miscellaneous Receipts Act
19 which, believe it or not, is what precludes NMFS from being able
20 to collect money, for example, from the industry or something
21 like that.
22 The states don't have those same restrictions and
23 limitations, and so -- you know, not to say that there would be,
24 you know, a certain group or groups of people or participants
25 paying for the portside sampling program but, you know, there
1 just may be more opportunity for those kinds of things to be
2 explored through the states than we're going to have through the
3 federal plan right now.
4 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Further discussion on
5 the -- further discussion on the motion? Yes, Mary Beth.
6 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Yeah, I think as far as an
7 alternative in the document, I mean, perhaps between now and
8 then we could think a little bit more about it. But I think the
9 -- just the description of status quo and I would -- you know,
10 when you go to that meeting, as I said before, to ask is there
11 anything the states, you know, need, for us to have this in the
12 amendment or not.
13 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Okay. All those in
14 favor of this motion, raise your hand. Eight in favor. No
15 oppositions, no abstentions. Carried unanimously.
16 LORI STEELE: Thank you.
17 MEASURES TO REQUIRE ELECTRONIC MONITORING (SECTION 2.9)
18 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Okay. We'll move on
19 to electronic monitoring here, Section 2.9, Page 58. Lori, do
20 you want to give a discussion of some of the issues we have to
21 develop here, or address?
22 LORI STEELE: Sure. This is a section of the document
23 that we really never seem to get to, when we have these
24 meetings. So, I just wanted to put some time on the agenda for
25 the Committee to discuss these options. And I'm just going to
1 run through the options really quickly in Section 2.9 on Page
3 Some of these options aren't really fully developed. Some
4 of them are more research-oriented than regulation-oriented,
5 which is fine, but I just want the Committee to kind of have an
6 understanding of what's in this section of the document, and
7 what we need to do in order to try to move it forward or not.
8 Based on the discussion at the last Committee meeting, you
9 may recall that Peter Moore had made a comment asking if the
10 proposal for looking at net sensors through a study fleet was in
11 the document, and I had said that I would work with Peter on
12 making sure that the language was reflective of what the
13 industry had originally proposed.
14 And I did that, and that is now -- that's Section 2.9.2,
15 which would be the first option, which would be to explore and
16 potentially implement net sensor technology through a study
18 The option would establish, as a top priority for the
19 research set-aside, the -- you know, research into using study
20 fleet technology, and net sensors, to attain better information
21 about monitoring the fishery, particularly monitoring things
22 like slippage events and bottom contact.
23 So, this option would essentially just create that as a top
24 research priority, and establish a mechanism to implement
25 requirements for net sensors through a framework adjustment to
1 the plan, in the future, after the research is done, when we get
2 some information that suggests that maybe the net sensors would
3 be a good idea.
4 We actually would have to establish the mechanism to do
5 that in a framework through the amendment. So, that's
6 essentially what this option does.
7 The second, or the next option here, on Page 59, is for
8 video monitoring. This option is not well-developed at all.
9 It's conceptual, and you see it says details TBD, and we really
10 haven't developed the details.
11 My suggestion here, and it's reflected in the comment in
12 the margin, that is if this option remains in the document, that
13 it be rewritten to be -- to mirror the previous option for net
14 sensors, which would mean, you know, establish video monitoring
15 as a top priority for research, and implement in this amendment
16 a mechanism to require some video monitoring through a framework
17 adjustment to the plan.
18 So, I would suggest if we're going to keep 2.9.3, that it
19 be rewritten to reflect 2.9.2. And then, on Page 61, the next
20 option is just to require the net sensors. I have a lot of
21 concerns about this option, because -- we haven't -- this is
22 technology that really hasn't been tested across the fishery, in
23 terms of its applicability and its usefulness for monitoring the
25 The option here sort of just says we're going to require
1 net sensors, and we're going to figure out in this amendment how
2 many net sensors are going to be required, you know, where
3 they're going to be required to be installed on the nets, how
4 the data are going to be collected, what the data are going to
5 be used for. And we just -- we haven't -- we're not there. And
6 I don't think that a lot of that work's been done.
7 The Herring Advisors recommended eliminating this one, as
8 well as the first one, but we heard from one of the Herring
9 Advisors who has net sensors on his gear. He said he has the
10 SIMRAD catch sensors on his net, and he said last year they
11 didn't work about 70 percent of the time. And so, he's been
12 having problems just using the technology to go fishing.
13 So, I'm not sure we're quite ready to implement a measure
14 that would require this technology across the fishery, and if we
15 are, we need to decide how it's going to be used, you know, what
16 it's going to be used for, how the data are going to be
18 Then the last option in this section is on Page 63, 2.9.5,
19 which is to require video-based electronic monitoring for
20 maximized retention. There isn't really too much to say about
21 this option. I mean, this relates to establishment of maximized
22 retention in the fishery. And this option, if the Council does
23 choose to do a maximized retention program in the fishery, this
24 option is something that we could incorporate into that
25 maximized retention program. It needs a lot more work.
1 Just like net sensors, video cameras have not been tested
2 in this fishery. I'm reluctant to recommend, you know, that we
3 consider measures to require the technology in the fishery when
4 we don't know yet how it's going to work, or what it's going to
5 be used for.
6 So, I think there's some cleaning up in this section that
7 the Committee needs to do, and certainly, I think some of the
8 options are still viable with sort of the research focus. But I
9 just -- I think the Committee needs to spend a little bit of
10 time going through these options. We haven't had a lot of
11 discussion about them, and see what shakes out of here, that we
12 want to continue to move forward.
13 The Advisors did recommend eliminating both 2.9.2, which
14 was the original industry option, and 2.9.4. And I think that
15 in general, the sentiment from the Advisors was that there's a
16 lot more potential with video monitoring than with net sensors,
17 and that if anything's going to sort of be the focus of further
18 research and priorities for research, the Advisors were more
19 supportive of looking more closely at video monitoring than the
20 net sensor technology.
21 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Discussion. Any
22 thoughts from the Committee on recommendations here? Dave.
23 DAVID PIERCE: Well, it seems that Lori has got some
24 good ideas. She's given this a great deal of thought. I've
25 given this some thought, but not as much as she has.
1 I think what you're saying -- I think what you're saying,
2 Lori, is that Option 2.9.2 explore and implement net sensor
3 technology through the study fleet, could be modified so it
4 would read something like electronic monitoring hyphen net
6 And under that option -- that would be the text you have
7 there now -- describing the use of the research set-aside, to
8 further explore that technology. And then, again consistent
9 with the suggestion you made, once it is determined that we have
10 net sensor technology that works, that can be applied to the
11 fisheries, the nets specifically, then through a framework
12 action we would implement that technology as part of what our
13 electronic monitoring.
14 That way, we can modify, not 2.9.2 the way I just
15 suggested, consistent with your recommendation, and blend that
16 with 2.9 -- 2.9.4. I'm not sure if it's a good suggestion. I
17 haven't read all the text again, to see if it gels. But it
18 seems to me that 2.9.4 is about requiring net sensors. Yet
19 2.9.2 is about exploring the technology of that sensor, so why
20 not combine the both of them, and then say, through a framework
21 action, future framework action, once it is ready to go, once
22 it's effective, then we would apply it to the fishery.
23 That's my -- that's my, you know, off-the-cuff suggestion
24 as to how we might want to deal with 2.9.2 and 2.9.4. In
25 addition, if indeed that suggestion sounds good to the
1 Committee, then once again, consistent with your good
2 suggestion, the option on the video monitoring pilot program
3 would follow along the same lines. Then, indeed, that program
4 would be for the research of video monitoring. And then we
5 would implement that approach, video monitoring, to a future
6 framework action.
7 All of this is subject to research and our determining that
8 there is gear -- it is electronics, it is a monitoring approach,
9 that actually is effective, reliable, and can be applied to the
11 That's my suggestion, Mr. Chairman, as to how we should
12 proceed. It's not in the form of a motion because
13 (indiscernible) on the pencil and the paper. But that's the
14 suggestion and approach I offer up, and I'm curious for Lori's
15 reaction, and if I've gone beyond the bounds, so to speak, of
16 what she thinks we -- how we can construct this.
17 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Lori, correct me if I
18 am wrong, but 2.9.2 also -- already has a statement in here,
19 after it goes through the study fleet, and use of research
20 herring set-aside, it said requirements for using the systems
21 will be added to the list of items that can be implemented
22 through a framework adjustment to the Herring FMP, so that new
23 technologies can be incorporated into the fishery's management
25 So, hasn't that aspect of testing it, seeing if it works,
1 and including it in this amendment, as frameworkable management
2 action, to require it, already in there without combining it
3 with 2.9.4?
4 LORI STEELE: Yeah, it is. I was trying to follow
5 David's train of thought, and I think, really, what my -- what I
6 think he was suggesting was that 2.9.4 would go away, but that
7 the information, the details about the net sensors, and the net
8 sensors that would be explored, would be added to 2.9.2? And
9 then 2.9.3 would be rewritten to -- in such a way, as I've
10 suggested, to make it more like 2.9.2?
11 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Dave?
12 DAVID PIERCE: Well, the language that's in 2.9.4
13 would still be applicable because that language would be offered
14 up through this amendment, but continent on research being
15 successful, and actually having net sensors that are effective,
16 that we can apply.
17 Once that happens, then the next step to the framework
18 would be to embellish that -- well, to take these options that
19 are before us now, on page 61, 62, and incorporate those into
20 the framework, and any other ideas that might come up at that
22 So, through this amendment, we telegraph to those who read
23 the document that these are the suboptions, are the kinds of
24 options that would be considered, at a minimum, in the
25 framework, but we can't go into now.
1 LORI STEELE: Okay. I understand that. I'm clear on
2 what you're saying. I'm just -- I'm not sure that the
3 suboptions that are identified in 2.9.4 are going to end up
4 being the correct suboptions to consider, once we actually go
5 through the process of getting the information.
6 We can put them in there, I suppose, as examples. It's
7 just, you know, strain-sensitive net sensors placed at X
8 locations, to report weight in increments of X percent of net
9 capacity. I mean, I don't even really know what that means.
10 (Comments away from microphone.)
11 LORI STEELE: So, yeah, I mean I'm just -- you know,
12 I'm not sure we want to necessarily hardwire in that that's
13 specifically something that we're going to consider. I would
14 think that -- I would hope that the research would sort of lead
15 us in the direction of the particular options that we should
17 But I think there's a lot of descriptive text in here about
18 the types of sensors that should be explored, and the types of
19 information that they generate, that we should definitely
20 incorporate into the option for researching it, and implementing
21 it in the future.
22 I'm willing to put these options in here, if you want, but
23 we might want to just put them in the context of examples or
25 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Terry and Mary Beth.
1 TERRY STOCKWELL: Yeah, thanks. I think I'm following
2 you, David. And I'm supportive of your thoughts and comments,
3 Lori. Thank you.
4 But I think I agree with you, Lori, that we don't need to
5 include 2.9.4. It would be, to me it's implicit -- the
6 implementation of it would be implicit in 2.9.2.
7 And reconfiguring and rewriting 2.9.3, exploring video
8 monitoring technology through a study fleet would do the same
9 thing for video monitoring, and these -- both of these, they
10 need a lot of work, but I think they have a whole lot of
12 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Mary Beth.
13 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Yeah. I agree with those comments,
14 by Terry. The issue I would have with including all of the
15 language in 2.9.4 is that it might end up being too restrictive
16 for a research priority. You know, like some of the things in
17 here, using net sensors on purse seines, I think it was measure
18 -- measuring some of the things we want to measure is whether
19 they have slipped tows, and things like that, and I can't quite
20 picture how you'd ever get that information.
21 I mean, so if that's detailed, we just don't want to be so
22 restrictive it would mean the research is going to be based on
23 how much -- you know, what kind of funds we have, and might need
24 to be very focused.
25 And as far as the video monitoring pilot program, I think
1 Terry's recommendations were good, because I had in my notes
2 some concern that this particular option would establish a pilot
3 program. It uses an example from the Science Center for
4 groundfish, and I'm not sure that we could require the Science
5 Center to establish a pilot program. So, I mean, I think what
6 Terry recommends is a good way to go.
7 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Other comments from
8 the Committee?
9 (No audible response.)
10 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Discussions on this
11 concept from the public. Patrick?
12 PATRICK PAQUETTE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think this
13 is on the concept. If I'd asked the Committee to maybe go a
14 little farther, I think it -- I would suggest there's time to
15 let Section 2.9., as a whole, go away.
16 It was a long time ago that I thought that this was like
17 some great ideas, and that there was some stuff, but I think
18 that by presentations, by some of the stuff that Lori just
19 mentioned, by the study's lead presentation -- God knows how
20 many months ago, or was it over a year? -- that it's just not
21 feasible, that staff time could be in this -- in the DEIS, could
22 be better used developing other sections of the document.
23 And then, just the Committee might want to -- I mean, it
24 might just be time to say considered but rejected, and it's just
25 not time for this right now. And that I think that the market
1 in technology development, as a whole -- outside of the
2 Committee or the Council -- may drive something like this way in
3 the future. But right now, there's -- just doesn't seem like
4 there's anything that's applicable, and foreseeable.
5 And so, like -- I don't know -- I'm just thinking a better
6 time for resources if we just get rid of 2.9 complete.
7 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Any other comments
8 from the public? Chris.
9 CHRIS WEINER: Chris Weiner; CHOIR, EBTA. I'd
10 slightly disagree with that, because I think that, you know,
11 personally, I think -- like when we had the video-based
12 monitoring in the proposal that was for maximized catch, and I
13 think, you know, people thought it, but I think, you know, it
14 has good merit because all it was there to do was say dump or
15 not, simple as that.
16 And, you know, that means you bring stuff to shore, and if
17 you dump, it's on camera. You don't have to see what's on the
18 camera. I mean, I'm not saying that you force it on entry. I
19 mean, maybe you at least keep it alive, because I personally
20 would think that would be a lot better than, you know, us trying
21 to find millions of dollars for observers, you put a camera on
22 the boat, bring it in, you know.
23 So, I think -- and I don't want this to replace anything,
24 because all you're going to be saying is here, is we maybe
25 should study it. So, I don't want -- you know, the worry I
1 think some people have is if you leave this in, it could be used
2 as an excuse not to do something else.
3 But, I mean, I think if you remove it, I think -- I don't
4 own a herring boat, but if I did, I would think this would be at
5 least something considering, because if -- you never know where
6 the money's going to come from, and it's going to come from
7 somewhere. So, this may be a cheap way to do it. But I would
8 just -- if you leave it in, don't use this as an excuse not to
9 do something, because all you're saying here is let's maybe
10 study this. So, thank you.
11 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Tom.
12 TOM RUDOLPH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Tom Rudolph,
13 Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's Association. I'm opposed
14 to taking these technology solutions out of the document. I'll
15 address each one in turn.
16 For one thing, with catch sensors you've potentially got a
17 tool that will tell you what's -- some sort of independent
18 estimate of the weight of a net that's going to be dumped, and
19 it's not really good enough, because we want to know what's in
20 there, too. But certainly knowing the weight is helpful.
21 With respect to bottom sensors, we've got -- with midwater
22 trawl gear, we've got a gear that's not supposed to be in
23 contact with the bottom, and we've got a sensor that will tell
24 us if and when it's in contact with the bottom. Why would we
25 not want to catch that information as part of a monitoring
1 program? It's cutting edge and it's critical.
2 And granted, obviously, this is information from the
3 manufacturer here, but when I read this about the height sensor
4 from SIMRAD, it seems like they've got it pretty well figured
5 out. Thank you for your time.
7 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: The question we're
8 trying to -- I think we've had some discussion here about
9 developing 2.9.2 and 2.9.3 in a manner that's been discussed by
10 this Committee. The question here is if we develop 2.9.2 and
11 2.9.3., do we need a motion to eliminate 2.9.4 at this
12 particular point in time, which would require net sensors at
13 this time. Dave.
14 DAVID PIERCE: At first I was tempted to say yes, get
15 rid of 2.9.4, but Tom did provide a very important point, and
16 I'd like some elaboration regarding the bottom contact sensors.
17 Have we achieved the state of the technology with these bottom
18 sensors so they should be required? Put it in as an option.
19 It's not sensing -- it's a different type of net sensor, but it
20 does have a specific purpose that is different from assessing
21 how much fish is in the net. It's how far off the bottom is the
23 So, we've discussed this concern -- this issue before, so
24 I'm hesitant now to take out all of 2.9.4. I'm more inclined to
25 say that as another option, relative to electronic monitoring,
1 instead of saying required net sensors, it would be to require
2 the bottom contact sensor.
3 So that would be a separate -- a separate option, a
4 component of net sensing, but one that we might be ready to
5 consider right now, as a legitimate type of net sensor for
6 implementation for this amendment.
7 So I'm asking the question. Have we gotten there yet with
8 a net sensor? I think we have, haven't we? Because the
9 commercial industry now uses bottom sensors, no? All right, I
10 seek to be educated.
11 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Educate him.
12 MARY BETH TOOLEY: No. The industry is not using the
13 bottom net sensors that are described in this section. We do
14 have sensors on headrope, which indicate the bottom, and you can
15 tell from the headrope how far off the bottom you are. And the
16 preference for the industry would be to continue to use those
17 types of sensors.
18 If you put a sensor on the footrope, you're going to be
19 losing that gear on a regular basis. And, you know, the way the
20 gear comes up now, I mean, you're removing the sensors before --
21 as your net comes aboard, because they're expensive to replace,
22 and then you reattach, you know, as you go.
23 But, you know, you'd have to be dragging that bottom
24 (indiscernible) up. And I don't probably speak to it as well as
25 somebody who works with the gear all the time. So, if I'm
1 describing that incorrectly, I'm looking to Peter in the back of
2 the room. Maybe he could correct me.
3 But I do know that we do not use sensors on the footrope.
4 We do use sensors to indicate the bottom of the headrope.
5 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: I guess the other
6 question that I would have would be for -- if we are going in
7 that direction, potentially including that as an option would be
8 the Northeast Regional Office's comments, who's going to collect
9 and analyze that data.
10 So, if we were going to include that option, as an option,
11 we'd have to -- I think it would be something that would be
12 important to consider, or at least ask the PDT. It would be
13 important for us to come up with that piece of information.
14 Mary Beth.
15 MARY BETH TOOLEY: One thing to keep in mind is that
16 the observers have access to the wheelhouse while the vessels
17 are underway. And I think the Observer Program has said in the
18 past that they don't want observers looking at screens and
19 interpreting data from the screens, so that they don't have a
20 field in which they tell, you know -- I mean, the observer could
21 look at what the sensor is telling the captain. The captain is
22 using it during his fishing activity, too. He needs to know
23 where the bottom is.
24 So, it's something that, you know, anyone could watch. It
25 doesn't collect data. I don't know if Sara wants to speak to
1 that. I know in the past, Amy has said that she didn't think
2 the observers had the expertise to interpret what they're seeing
3 on the screen, and I don't know if there's a way of -- to change
4 that, or -- I don't know. She's shaking her head, so ...
5 So, just to follow up a little bit. I mean, if the
6 (indiscernible) that was collecting data, you know, who is going
7 to look at it. It has to be somebody who has expertise in that
8 field. We can't just have -- can't just send it to the Observer
9 Program, for instance. I mean, what are they going to do with
11 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Dave.
12 DAVID PIERCE: I appreciate a little bit more
13 elaboration, Mary Beth, if you can, as to -- I'm sorry.
14 I would appreciate a little bit more elaboration, Mary
15 Beth, as to the concern about loss of the sensor. In other
16 words, if this particular sensor, bottom contact sensor, was put
17 on the footrope, and each sensor costs about $4,000, $5,000 each
18 -- unless that's for everything combined; I'm not sure now. But
19 what's the odds, the probability of losing that sensor? Is it
20 almost a done deal, a high probability that you'd lose it and be
21 out that money every tow that you make? We're talking about
22 tow-by-tow information, not trip by trip.
23 What's -- is it really a viable option in light of the
24 chances of losing it, the expense of the --
25 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Well, I'd really probably prefer --
1 Peter has his hand up, if he would speak to that. But the one
2 thing -- and I would ask Peter to correct me, too, if I'm wrong.
3 I mean, we have sensors on the net that fishermen call eggs.
4 And when your eggs go off, you know, from the strain of the net,
5 you know, you're watching fish go into the bag, and it's a
6 really good indication of weight.
7 A bottom net sensor, I'm thinking, is something totally
8 different than that, but I'll let -- maybe if Peter could speak
9 to this.
10 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Peter, you want to
11 speak to this?
12 PETER MULLEN: Peter Mullen, the Western Venture. I
13 got a transducer. That's one thing. That costs about $50,000,
14 the one that goes on the net, at the top of the net.
15 To put one on the footrope is suicide because -- say you're
16 towing up on Jeffreys Bank, or around Jeffreys Bank, and tipped
17 the bottom, that whole footrope would bang. Cost $10,000 to fix
18 it. You don't want to add a sensor to that cost already.
19 Because, you know, you're towing along, you don't see
20 what's in front of you most of the time. You see what's under
21 you, but you make a turn, one way or the other, and the bank
22 comes up, bang, right into it. Those sensors cost about
23 $10,000. I bought one for my purse seine, and last year, the
24 system cost somewhere around $20,000. It would be the same
25 idea, you know.
1 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Dave.
2 DAVID PIERCE: Okay. Well, this is getting to the
3 heart of the matter, which is a midwater trawler isn't fishing
4 on the bottom. And clearly, if a midwater trawl, the bottom of
5 the trawl, the footrope is hitting the bottom, it's fishing on
6 the bottom, unless it's a once-in-a-while kind of thing.
7 So, you know, if it's likely that a midwater trawl, being
8 fished in the midwater, in quotes, if it's occasionally going to
9 accidentally strike the bottom, then yeah, you could lose the
10 gear, as opposed to is the midwater trawl actually being fished
11 on the bottom. Therefore, yeah, you're going to lose that
12 expensive gear because it's on the bottom.
13 So, it gets to the issue, that so many people have raised,
14 how is the midwater trawl fished, and is it really on the
16 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Yeah, just to follow up on that.
17 You know, I think that the way that it's fished -- I mean, in
18 the Gulf of Maine, there's just a lot of rocks there. And, you
19 know, it's not a precise thing. And you're going to tear up
20 sometimes; that is just the nature of fishing.
21 So, you would have to assume -- and I guess it did get to
22 your question about, you know, is -- are you going to be in
23 danger every time you haul back of losing it well, perhaps, you
24 know, that's not the case. But are you going to lose it on a
25 regular basis throughout the year? I mean, how many times do
1 you, you know, have something occur that you didn't anticipate?
2 So, you -- I think the cost would add up. I mean, there's
3 a lot of rocks in the Gulf of Maine, so ...
4 DAVID PIERCE: So -- I think what -- getting back to
5 an earlier point that you made, if we need to learn more about
6 whether or not a midwater trawl has been fishing consistently on
7 the bottom, that information can be obtained through observer
8 monitoring, looking at what the captain is seeing, through his
9 electronics, or is that something the observer onboard really
10 can't find out for all the tows?
11 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Well, what we've heard from the
12 observer program before is they are not comfortable having the
13 observers interpret what the captains are interpreting on the
14 screens in the wheelhouse.
15 But if we wanted to get to that issue, I think a better way
16 than putting something on a footrope that, you know, could be
17 costly, would be to investigate what can be gleaned from that
18 information from the sensor that's on the headrope, that's
19 informing the captain of how far off the bottom they are. They
20 know that the spread opening up of the net -- I mean, they're
21 watching all of these items. So, they have information that
22 tells them all that.
23 What our ability to gather that information, based on the
24 current technology, that part I don't know, and the part of who
25 would be interpreting it, and that's the part that I just don't
2 But I would prefer to see us move in a direction that, you
3 know, not at extra cost, there is existing technology, what
4 could we learn from that existing technology, because the
5 fishermen -- I mean, they know the opening of the net, they know
6 how far off the bottom they are, you know.
7 But as Peter indicated, you know they're looking -- you
8 now, they're looking down, and not looking forward, and
9 sometimes, you know, something can come up, and you make a
10 mistake, because they think they know where they're fishing, but
11 they might be a bit off or -- you know, that stuff can happen.
12 But I think the existing technology would be better.
13 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Okay. I know I got a
14 couple of people in the audience. Terry, you had your hand --
15 is this to this point?
16 TERRY STOCKWELL: It's a quick question of Lori. I
17 mean, I like this option, but I'm somewhat hesitant to rely on
18 a vendor's web page. In your opinion, Lori, can the PDT
19 ground-truth this, or does this question really need to be
20 researched by a study fleet?
21 LORI STEELE: Well, I mean, I don't really think that
22 the PDT can ground-truth much about the applicability of certain
23 technologies in the fishery without having the research done
25 I mean, you know, I wouldn't turn to the PDT members. I
1 would turn to the industry before I would turn to the PDT
2 members to ask about how this technology works in the field.
3 But I think the two need to collaborate together in order to do
4 the research, to figure out really what the best applications
6 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Terry.
7 TERRY STOCKWELL: And that goes hand in hand with your
8 earlier thought that on both, perhaps net sensors and a video
9 monitoring program would be best addressed for a study fleet.
10 LORI STEELE: Yes.
11 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: And getting back to
12 the question, before I go back to the public, that we're trying
13 to address here, is do we want to either eliminate or modify
14 2.9.4, given the direction that I've heard a lot of discussion
15 here. We're going to be looking at the applicability of both
16 net sensors in 2.9.2, and video monitoring in 2.9.3, per the
17 study fleet, and also include the option of a framework
18 adjustment management.
19 Do we need to maintain 2.9.4 in some form, limited form, or
20 a complete form, or are we going to eliminate it? So, I'm
21 looking for any input from the Committee. If I hear nothing,
22 I'm going to assume the whole thing is going to stay in. Terry.
23 TERRY STOCKWELL: My opinion is that we leave, at this
24 point, 2.9.4 in the document, and modify 2.9.2 and 2.9.3 to
25 reflect the comments that Lori made earlier.
1 I'm not yet satisfied that the net sensors are going to do
2 the job that we think they are, but I don't think
3 (indiscernible) rest of the afternoon trying to perfect that
4 section this afternoon.
5 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Dave.
6 DAVID PIERCE: Yeah, I'm of the same mind. I
7 recognize the staff work, but nevertheless, this is one of those
8 hot button items that we'd need to remove from the document, so
9 I would prefer that we leave it in.
10 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Okay. With that --
11 Mary Beth.
12 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Just to sort of clarify where that
13 leaves us. We would have Option 2.9.2, as written, and 2.9.4,
14 as written; is that what Terry is suggesting?
15 LORI STEELE: And 2.9.3, rewritten.
16 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Rewritten.
17 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Okay. I guess that was my
18 question. So, 2.9.3 would not read this option would establish
19 a pilot program. It would --
20 LORI STEELE: Rewritten to --
21 MARY BETH TOOLEY: -- establish a top priority for a
22 pilot program. And then, I guess, the only -- I'm fine with
23 that part.
24 The only thing, on 2.9.4, is Lori was indicating that they
25 had no way to ground-truth whether this will work or not. I'm
1 not sure where to go with that. I don't know if Lori has any
2 comment on the analysis of that section, or what she thinks.
3 LORI STEELE: Yeah, I mean, I -- I mean, the question
4 was, you know, can the PDT ground-truth the information, or the
5 claims that are being made about the information that could be
6 collected through net sensors.
7 And, I mean, the answer is no, at this time, we can't. If
8 2.9.4 moves forward, what we -- I guess the part that I'm still
9 struggling with -- I mean, the analysis of this will basically
10 just be, you know, this is going to be cost of the sensors, per
11 vessel, and you know, some economic information, and some
12 economic impacts, and things like that.
13 But the element that's missing here in 2.9.4 is really how
14 the data are going to be utilized in the monitoring program,
15 where they fit in, if we're going to require net sensors across
16 the limited access fishery, I mean that information goes into a
17 hard drive on the boat. I mean, is somebody going to come by at
18 the end of the trip, and pick up that hard drive, and go in
19 analyze it somewhere to see how far off the bottom of the -- how
20 far off the bottom the net was?
21 I mean, we can't have the observers sitting in the
22 wheelhouse, looking at the screen. That's not what we want.
23 The observers are out sampling.
24 So, the part that's missing, if we're going to require net
25 sensors, I mean, what's the objective, what are we trying to do
1 with the information, how's the information going to be
2 collected, whose information is it? Is that -- I mean, is that
3 information the property of the vessels? The vessels own the
4 net sensors. Is that their data? Is that our data, or the
5 government's data?
6 Those -- I mean, there kind of are a lot of issues that
7 just -- I think if we're going to include that option, some of
8 those questions, I think, have to be answered. A lot of those
9 questions were -- are the same for video cameras, and we've kind
10 of, through some of the video monitoring discussions that we've
11 had, some of these issues have come up about confidentiality and
12 ownership of the data, and things like that.
13 It might be a little less complicated with net sensors, but
14 what are we doing to do -- I mean, if we're going to require the
15 net sensors, where's that information going to go, and how's it
16 going to be utilized in the monitoring program. I think that's
17 kind of an important issue that we need to clearly spell out in
18 the document so people understand why we're requiring it.
19 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Mary Beth.
20 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Yeah, and I think that, you know,
21 you'd also need to clarify if you had an AP member saying that
22 70 percent of the time, whatever -- I mean, I think most people,
23 their equipment works better than 70 percent of the time, or
24 they wouldn't be buying it. But, this particular person,
25 obviously bought some new technology, and wasn't functioning
1 well. So, what are the implications to the vessel, if the
2 sensors don't work on a trip, if you're required to have them?
3 And also, I think it's in this section -- I'm not finding
4 it right off the bat -- but NMFS will certify placement of
5 sensors and implement periodic inspections to ensure compliance
6 with this part of the catch monitoring program.
7 I mean, I'm not sure that NMFS has any expertise to say
8 where, on a net, catch sensors should go. And, you know, the
9 industry does it based on -- I'm trying to get the best
10 information for, you know, for the dollar, to estimate their
11 catch, and I'm not sure that NMFS really wants to tell them
12 where to put them.
13 I mean, you could, perhaps say how many, and say in general
14 that they be placed, you know, at even intervals or something
15 like that. I'm not even sure that's right. But I don't think
16 that NMFS probably wants to tell people where to put the catch
17 sensors on the net.
18 And the other concern I have is that I'm not sure that any
19 of this stuff is applicable to a purse seine at all. I mean,
20 they don't use it, and I don't know that it will do any of what
21 these suboptions are trying to get at.
22 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Okay. Dave.
23 DAVID PIERCE: (Indiscernible) earlier comment
24 regarding the 2.9.4, requiring net sensors, and go back to the
25 point I made earlier, which I think is the better way to go, and
1 that is the net sensors that pertains specific to the total
2 catch of each tow, that is something that eventually would be
3 incorporated into how we manage this fishery, monitor this
4 fishery, after the work is done, the research is done. It gets
5 put into a framework, potentially.
6 What I would -- what I still favor is having again 2.9.4
7 modified so that it be, you know, essentially net monitoring
8 specific to the bottom contact, and ideally, there would be two
9 options. One would be -- for general public comment -- the
10 sonar bottom contact sensor, okay, which is described in the
11 document, and some other strategy that would enable us to take
12 advantage of existing technology, how the monitoring is done
13 now, so we would be able to somehow determine from looking at
14 the tow information that the fishermen have, it wasn't on the
15 bottom, to what extent was it on the bottom.
16 But I haven't -- unfortunately, I haven't got anything to
17 offer up regarding strategy that would enable us to do that
18 because -- how would it be done? The observer's not going to be
19 there in the pilothouse, always looking at the screen, and
20 wouldn't know how to interpret it anyway. So, you know, the
21 steps in that process, to get us to the point where that
22 information actually would be useful to us, at this point in
23 time, escape me.
24 So, I'm left with just the one that's in the document right
25 now, these sonar, bottom contact sonar, and wait for somebody
1 else to come up with the other alternative that would be how
2 it's now being monitored by the fishermen themselves.
3 So, that's my suggestion, Mr. Chairman, not to strike out
4 all of -- not to include all of the text regarding net sensor,
5 but just to focus on the bottom contact sensors.
6 I wish I was more constructive in the form of a motion, but
7 I can't be at this moment.
8 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Mary Beth.
9 MARY BETH TOOLEY: So, I think just to see if I can be
10 clear on what you're suggesting, Dave, that you would like to
11 see, under 2.9.4, suboption -- well, they're not numbered -- so,
12 it's the second bullet at the top of Page 62, stay in, and these
13 other parts and pieces, not?
14 DAVID PIERCE: That's right, if I may, Mr. Chairman.
15 That would be the suboption to provide a record of the height of
16 the footrope above the bottom, and provides that a sample of the
17 SIMRAD systems, and perhaps that suboption -- I don't know how
18 to go to the next option, but yes, that's the bullet I'm looking
19 at. Everything else would drop away, and would be the net
20 sensors specific to the amount of fish in the net, that would be
21 subject to research and future incorporation of that monitoring
22 approach into the framework.
23 MARY BETH TOOLEY: I'm sorry. I just sort of spaced
24 out for a second. What pieces get incorporated into the
25 research, the other --
1 DAVID PIERCE: It would involve the text, some of it,
2 all of it, that relates specific to sensors determining the
3 amount of fish in the net, okay. That is the net sensor
4 research that would be part of the earlier section -- I forget
5 which one it is.
6 So, once that research is done, and we feel that we have
7 it, that through a framework mechanism, it could be simply
8 implemented if, indeed, the Council decides to do that when it's
9 time to make that call, to initiate a framework or not.
10 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Lori.
11 LORI STEELE: I mean, I guess my question then would
12 be why the SIMRAD height sensor on Page 62, and not the E-Sonar
13 bottom contact sensor on Page 63.
14 DAVID PIERCE: Both.
15 LORI STEELE: Okay.
16 DAVID PIERCE: I don't pretend to have read this word
17 for word, and understand everything that's in it. I mistakenly
18 thought that the SIMRAD system was just another way to refer to
19 the E-Sonar bottom contact sensor --
20 LORI STEELE: Okay.
21 DAVID PIERCE: -- (indiscernible) it's a separate -- a
22 separate -- it's a different technology.
23 (Comments away from microphone.)
24 DAVID PIERCE: Yeah, that's right, it is both.
25 LORI STEELE: Okay, all right. Okay.
1 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: There really is going
2 to need to be a motion to make that kind of a change, because
3 that's making a significant change to an option that's in here.
4 Do we need to have a break for you to do that?
5 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Yeah, we need to take a break.
6 TERRY STOCKWELL: Does that need to be coupled with a
7 motion to amend the other two, or -- the 2.9.3?
8 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Okay. Let's do that.
9 Originally, I was hoping just to be able to do 1 and 2 by
10 consensus -- I mean, 2.9.2 and 2.9.3 by consensus, but maybe
11 that would be best for us to take a ten minute break right now
12 to try and craft this motion that would address all three
13 sections here.
14 So, we'll get back in, and then once we get that motion up
15 on the screen, then we'll take comment from the public.
16 * * * RECESS * * *
17 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Okay. I believe --
18 let's get back together again, and I believe we have a motion
19 that's been crafted.
20 Okay, Dave, do you have a motion now that you'd like to put
21 before the Committee?
22 DAVID PIERCE: Yes. 2.9.2 would be left alone. I
23 would incorporate much of that language -- well, some of that
24 language into 2.9.3. So, my motion would be to modify 2.9.3 so
25 that it would read this option would establish a top priority
1 for use of the RSA to establish a video monitoring pilot
2 program. Requirements for using a video monitoring system would
3 be added to the list of items that can be implemented through a
5 And then, as part of the same motion, modify 2.9.4 to read
6 Option, colon, Electronic Monitoring - Require a height or
7 bottom contact sensor for determining the amount of bottom
8 contact of trawls during each tow.
9 So, that is my motion, Mr. Chairman, which incorporates the
10 second bullet on Page 62, but without reference to brands, but
11 it gets to the issue of the height or bottom contact sensor.
12 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Is there a second to
13 this motion? Terry. Discussion on the motion?
14 I have a question for the maker of the motion. What's the
15 -- what are we going to do with the information that's
16 collected? Who's going to collect it and do with whatever you
17 were going to do? Is it enforcement, is it information, is it
18 NMFS, is it the states, is it the dock -- is it the monitoring,
19 private monitoring program?
20 DAVID PIERCE: Okay. It's not in the motion; however,
21 my intent is that the National Marine Fisheries Service would
22 collect this information. And the information would then be
23 used by different Plan Development Teams, through the Service's
24 participation on this Plan Development Team; specifically, the
25 Plan Development Team that comes to mind is the Habitat Plan
1 Development Team.
2 Since the question is bottom contact impact of trawls on
3 the bottom, you know, in light of the work we're doing with
4 SASI, it would be a of great use, I'm sure, to the Habitat Plan
5 Development Team to -- certainly from them to the Committee and
6 the Council, as to the amount of bottom contact.
7 So that if it is determined, for example, that midwater
8 trawling in areas where there are habitat protection measures,
9 such as closed areas, it is determined that there is substantial
10 bottom contact, then that would enable the Council to consider
11 action, that would involve such things as changing the amount of
12 access to those areas for midwater trawlers.
13 Clearly, this strategy provides midwater trawlers with
14 great incentive to keep the net off the bottom, and I understand
15 that there will be times when the net has to touch the bottom
16 because of the way the net is fished, and there are rocks and
17 what have you.
18 Nevertheless, evaluation of these data, data collected by
19 NMFS, provides that Habitat Plan Development Team, or other Plan
20 Development Teams -- would really be instructive, and enable,
21 again, some Council reaction, specifically habitat protection,
22 and there may be other uses of that information, as well. But
23 first and foremost in my mind, and for all of our initiatives
24 regarding habitat protection, and reducing bottom contact.
25 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Further discussion?
1 (No audible response.)
2 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Comments from the
3 public on this? Hannah.
4 HANNAH GOODALE: Well, I do think at some point, if
5 that's the intention of the motion, you would have to explain a
6 little bit more about how the data gets to NMFS. Apparently,
7 you're just talking about this as a data collection, a new
8 collection data, for the herring fleet, or actually just for
9 midwater trawl gear, right?
10 DAVID PIERCE: It would be for the midwater trawl,
11 again, because I'm talking about tows. I understand the purse
12 seines also have bottom sensors, but it's a different issue for
13 them. Certainly, a different degree of attention paid to that
14 gear type versus midwater trawlers.
15 I understand your concern here, and this is the best I can
16 offer up right now regarding who's going to collect the
17 information, since -- look at this way. The Service has habitat
18 protection as a top priority, as well. Therefore, why not
19 explore with the National Marine Fisheries Service the process
20 by which the Service could acquire that information. We turn to
21 the Service for some other ideas, some guidance, as to how we
22 might proceed. But that's all I've got for now.
23 HANNAH GOODALE: Just to follow up the question, then,
24 it would be just the mechanics of in what form is the data
25 recorded, in what form is it submitted. I mean, I think you're
1 envisioning some sort of submission to NMFS from a thousand
2 trips, and we just would have to figure out what it is before we
3 even think it through for the -- I don't know if it comes -- I
4 don't know if the document currently just does this on a secured
5 hard drive. I don't know what that means.
6 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Mary Beth.
7 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Yeah, secured hard drive. I don't
8 know what that means, either. And the other thing is not all of
9 the vessels have the same equipment onboard. So, each vessel
10 would need to go to the company that issued that sensor, and see
11 what's available for data gathering for the machine in the
12 wheelhouse that's looking at it.
13 So, there's going to be some variability, that we'll have
14 to figure out. I mean, I would think, you know, in some
15 instances, maybe it would be a thumb drive, and you could
16 perhaps require vessels to supply it to the agency when they
17 submit their VTR's, or something like that.
18 I don't know that we really have the details today to say
19 how that is. I think it's going to take a little bit of
21 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Howard.
22 HOWARD KING: Yeah. I just wonder why in this first
23 part, the video monitoring pilot program has to hinge on the RSA
24 program, and how many top priorities can RSA have?
25 DAVID PIERCE: I was simply following the language, as
1 suggested by Lori, representing the Plan Development Team, I
2 assume, to focus on the research set-aside as the way in which
3 it would be carried out; but if there's another suggested
4 approach, I'm open to that.
5 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Lori.
6 LORI STEELE: Well, it wasn't a PDT suggestion. The
7 way this came about this way is that Section 2.9.2, regarding
8 the net sensor technology, that came from the industry proposal,
9 and the alternative that was submitted by the industry folks
10 back when we solicited for alternatives.
11 And in that alternative, it was written that the sensor
12 technology would be a top priority for the research set-aside.
13 So that's why that was reflected in 2.9.2.
14 My suggestion was to modify 2.9.3, to be similar to 2.9.2.
15 It doesn't necessarily have to be limited to top priority for
16 RSA. It can be top priority for cooperative research, or
17 something like that. I mean, the Council, we always go through
18 an annual process of identifying priorities for cooperative
19 research, and we do that for each fishery.
20 And then we also go through an RSA priority process, where
21 when we have RSA, every year we identify a list of priorities
22 for the RSA. There can be however many priorities for the RSA
23 we want. Usually there's three, or four, or five that we list.
24 So you know, video monitoring and net sensors could be two
25 of the priorities for RSA. That could very easily be changed to
1 reflect -- the language could just say for cooperative research,
2 which would mean for the RSA, or any other opportunities for
3 cooperative research. I don't necessarily see that as a major
5 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Dave?
6 DAVID PIERCE: Yeah. With that said, perhaps it is
7 better to word it as cooperative research, as opposed to the
8 RSA. And also change -- change the reference in 2.9.2 to
9 cooperative research, as well. I think that should take care of
10 that. Okay.
11 LORI STEELE: Let me just -- is that okay with you,
13 TERRY STOCKWELL: Absolutely.
15 LORI STEELE: So, if I may --
16 DAVID PIERCE: You may.
17 LORI STEELE: Thank you. If we perfect this to say
18 top priority for cooperative research, and then maybe just, in
19 here, can we just say language in 2.9.2 will reflect top
20 priority for cooperative research? Just so that I -- so we're
21 clear on the record how this has all come about. Is that okay?
23 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Further discussion on
24 the motion?
25 (No audible response.)
1 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Comments from the
2 public on this? Yes, Gary.
3 GARY LIBBY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a comment
4 on this motion. I think the motion's good. I think it's a good
5 thing to look to the future, and once you get your pilot program
6 worked through, and get your video monitoring, so it's useful,
7 maybe it goes into another part of the amendment, like the
8 habitat closure issue in order to access, and maybe the bottom
9 sensors required; something like that. But that's future talk.
10 So, I think it's a good amendment. Thanks.
11 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Okay. Back to the
12 Committee. Ready to vote?
13 All those in favor, raise your hand. Eight. It's
14 unanimous. Mary Beth.
15 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, under
16 this section, the one thing that we really haven't discussed is
17 Option 2.9.5, which would require video-based electronic
18 monitoring for maximized retention. And I wonder, from Lori's
19 perspective, if it would be better to move that item to the
20 maximized retention section, at this point, since it's directly
21 tied to that.
22 LORI STEELE: I think so.
23 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Yeah.
24 LORI STEELE: Yeah. I can do that.
25 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: That doesn't need a
2 LORI STEELE: No. That I can do.
3 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Anything else on this
5 CATCH MONITORING - OUTSTANDING ISSUES/
6 DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES
7 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Address outstanding
8 issues. This is something that Lori and Talia put a lot of
9 work on, so -- did you have something on electronic monitoring,
10 or ...
11 MARY BETH TOOLEY: No, it was outstanding issues, but
12 let me just put my hand down for a moment.
13 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Okay. Lori.
14 LORI STEELE: Okay. Well, Doug and I had talked about
15 maybe, you know, at this point, combining the 3:00 and the 4:15
16 agenda items, and sort of going through and addressing some of
17 the outstanding issues, while thinking, and then maybe at the
18 end, talking about the structure of the alternatives for the
19 Draft EIS.
20 For this discussion, we've put together this colored
21 document, so I think everybody should probably grab a copy of
22 this. There were copies out on the table. I think they all got
23 swiped up. But everybody should have a copy around the table,
24 and at one point this morning, there were enough copies for
25 everybody. So, I'll assume that everybody's got it.
1 And I'll just go ahead and walk you through this, and I
2 think the first thing we should do is probably go back and
3 address the outstanding issues in the tables before we talk
4 about the alternatives.
5 But just to talk you through the document, the first page
6 here includes a flow chart. And this is really -- this is
7 something that Talia and I worked on to try to get at how the
8 catch monitoring alternatives will be structured in the Draft
9 EIS. And, you know, we've talked about this whole idea of
10 packaging the alternatives and, you know, kind of going through
11 and forming these packages to put into the Draft EIS and the
12 public hearing document, to make it clear what the catch
13 monitoring alternatives are going to look at.
14 But when you start going through the document, I mean I
15 think it's probably pretty obvious that it's not going to be
16 that easy to package the alternatives. I mean, some of these
17 things have lots of different options, and some of these options
18 are going to apply across the board, and some of these things
19 don't necessarily need to be packaged.
20 So, we tried to just create a way to sort of visualize what
21 the catch monitoring alternatives might look like. And what
22 we've done here is we've identified sort of seven things that I
23 think are going to be common throughout all of the catch
24 monitoring alternatives.
25 No matter what your catch monitoring alternative looks
1 like, you're going to have measure to improve quota monitoring
2 and reporting; you're going to have measures to confirm the
3 accuracy of self-reporting; you're going to have measures to
4 address maximized retention. Now, one of those may be a
5 no-action measure, but there's going to be some addressing of
6 maximized retention.
7 You're going to have measures to maximize sampling, and
8 address net slippage; you're going to have the observer
9 coverage, portside sampling, and some measures to require
10 electronic monitoring.
11 Now, after today's meeting, and some of the discussion,
12 maybe you're not going to have all of these things, but this was
13 sort of initially the way we envisioned it. And what we saw
14 were some breakpoints here, which are where you kind of go off
15 on the flow chart, where you may have some significant
16 differences, and these may form the basis of different
18 For example, with measures to improve quota monitoring and
19 reporting, you could go off and there might be one alternative
20 that still relies on IVR reporting, and some modifications to
21 the IVR system. And then you can go off, and there'd be another
22 alternative that would get rid of IVR reporting, but would rely
23 on VMS reporting. So, that's sort of one place where we saw
24 that there may be sort of two alternatives that could branch
1 Same with maximized retention. You know, you could -- one
2 alternative, or one way to go is to apply it across the fishery.
3 Another way to go is to do maximized retention through an
4 experimental fishery, like we talked about at the last meeting.
5 Another way to go would be to take no action, and not do
6 maximized retention, where you just would move on to the next
8 And initially, I thought with portside sampling, that might
9 be another way to break it off. One alternative would be
10 implementing a federal portside sampling program. And another
11 alternative would be implementing a state-sponsored portside
12 sampling program. I don't know if that's still, you know, a
13 viable breakpoint, or a viable alternative, after the discussion
14 that we had today. I might have -- that's why there's some
15 question marks there.
16 But -- and then you have sort of out to the side, the
17 no-action option, which applies sort of universally throughout,
18 and this whole CMCP concept, which sort of applies universally
20 So, that's just -- I mean, there's nothing really here, set
21 in stone, on this flow chart. This is just sort of first stab
22 at looking at how these alternatives may fall out, in terms of
23 packaging, because there's so many things that apply across the
24 board here. And there's so many things that I think you'd want
25 in each of alternatives, that rather than try to package
1 alternatives, I think it might be more useful to just identify
2 places where something would be different. And that would sort
3 of form the alternatives.
4 So, I don't know what any of that really means for the
5 Draft EIS, but this is just sort of our first sort of attempt at
6 looking at illustrating how, to the public and to everybody,
7 what these alternatives may look like.
8 And there may be different breakpoints; there may be
9 different places where you go off, and have sort of a different
10 alternative. These might not be the right ones. But this is
11 just sort of an example of how we could potentially illustrate
12 the alternatives without having to go through the process of
13 picking certain options from each category to form packages,
14 because we'll just never -- it will never happen.
15 So, I think we need to sort of have some way to illustrate
16 what the catch monitoring alternatives look like, and that was
17 sort of a first crack at that. I think once we go through the
18 tables, we might want to come back to this flow chart, and talk
19 about these breakpoints, and whether or not these are the
20 appropriate places where you might veer off and have a separate
21 alternative. They might not be.
22 So, having said that, that's sort of a general explanation
23 of what that flow chart was supposed to represent.
24 Everything's color-coded, so if you turn the page, and
25 start going through the tables, you know, we've got, you know,
1 Category Number 1 are the measures to improve quota monitoring
2 and reporting.
3 What we've done here is we've gone through each option,
4 listed the options here, identified the section in the document
5 where it falls right now, and identified whether or not it's
6 ready to go for the purposes of the Draft EIS. And then,
7 certainly, there's some comments here that we can talk about.
8 So, I think what we need to do now is go through had hit
9 the sections that don't have a yes in the column for ready for
10 the Draft EIS. If you turn the page, there's a couple of
11 somewhat small issues on the measures for carrier vessels, and
12 LOA's that we can come back to. This is something that we just
13 need to come back to with the Committee.
14 Originally, we talked about having a suboption for a
15 length-based threshold for requiring VMS on carrier vessels. I
16 don't -- we don't necessarily think that that's necessary
17 anymore, and we've added -- we, being me, working with Regional
18 Office staff -- we've added an option here that's ready, if the
19 Committee wants to approve it, which is a dual option, which
20 would allow carrier vessels to either get the VMS, or stay with
21 the status quo requirements for the LOA. Hopefully, everyone
22 around the table understands what I'm talking about, because I'm
23 trying to be brief.
24 Moving on, I mean, the whole red section is almost done.
25 Those are the quota monitoring and reporting options. I mean,
1 everything's pretty well fleshed out.
2 The next section, Number 2, is the measures to confirm the
3 accuracy of self-reporting. I think we addressed this already
4 today, although the CMCP question, I think, still remains out
5 there. I'm not sure we're going to answer that.
6 The next section is the measures to address maximized
7 retention. On the front page here are the options that would be
8 -- that need to be considered if maximized retention -- if
9 there's going to be an alternative in the document, that is
10 going to require maximized retention across the fishery.
11 If there's going to be an option in the document to require
12 maximized retention across the fishery, there's work to be done
13 here, and you can see the sections here that still need to be
14 discussed and addressed by the Committee.
15 Maximized retention across the fishery is not ready to go
16 for the Draft EIS. So, if we're going to move it forward, we
17 need to come back to these gray, or purple, or pink, or whatever
18 they are, sections here, and talk about how to resolve some of
19 these issues.
20 Turning the page, on the backside of that page is the
21 alternative that would implement maximized retention through an
22 experimental fishery. I think, conceptually, that's ready,
23 recognizing that more details need to be fleshed out in the
24 Draft EIS. I might be wrong about that; people might feel
25 otherwise. But in looking at the option or the alternative, I
1 think we could move it forward at this point, and work out some
2 of those details in the Draft EIS.
3 Next section, measures to maximize sampling and address net
4 slippage. I really feel like the Committee's discussed this a
5 lot. I feel like these options are ready to move forward,
6 recognizing that the CMCP option is still weird, and unclear.
7 The next section is the measures to address observer
8 coverage. I think we're pretty much ready to go there,
9 recognizing that some of the work will still be done in the
10 Draft EIS, and we did that other option today. Conceptually, I
11 think it's ready to move forward, just work in the Draft EIS.
12 Next section is the portside sampling, and I mean, I
13 guess this is ready. I'm still really unclear on the whole
14 federally-administered portside sampling program, how it's going
15 to work, because the Service has, you know, expressed a lot of
16 concerns about having to administer a portside sampling program.
17 There's one -- as I mentioned earlier, there's this one
18 option in here about setting the coverage levels consistent with
19 the priorities for 20 percent CV and things like that. That's
20 -- that option is a little unclear, and problematic.
21 And then we already talked about the ASMFC options. So,
22 you know, that is what it is.
23 Turning the page, measures to require electronic
24 monitoring. I think we just addressed most of those.
25 So, this was, you know, where we were going into this
1 Committee meeting. My plan is to update this for the Council
2 meeting, based on the Committee discussion and decisions today.
3 I do still think there are a few outstanding issues that the
4 Committee needs to address. And then we will also modify the
5 flow chart, based on the Committee discussion.
6 And I think what we need to think about is whether or not
7 these would be -- what's proposed here, or what's drafted here,
8 whether or not these are the appropriate places where there may
9 be separate alternatives, or there may be differences between
10 alternatives, and whether or not there may be others that aren't
11 identified in this flow chart.
12 So, with that very long-winded explanation, I can take any
13 questions, or comments, and then maybe the Committee can hit
14 some of these gray areas.
15 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Any questions for Lori
16 before we hit the gray areas? Mary Beth.
17 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Yeah, just to see if I have this
18 right, I think after what we've done today, and Lori's
19 explanation, we need to -- we could address the carrier issue.
20 Quite frankly, I don't think it's controversial. And then we
21 would need to spend some time on maximized retention, and
22 that's, I think, all we really need to do today.
23 I mean, are we going to get into CMCP's or ...
24 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: It seems there's been
25 a lot of questions about CMCP's, and we just keep brushing it
1 aside. So, maybe after we go through all the other gray areas,
2 then we should address the whole overall subject of CMCP's, as
3 to whether they are ready to go into this document, as an
4 option, right now. Howard.
5 HOWARD KING: Yeah. Before we get started, I just
6 wanted to compliment Lori and the staff on setting this up for
7 us this way. I mean, I've never seen this, in this fashion,
8 before. It's really helpful.
9 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Yeah, I agree with
11 TALIA BIGELOW: Just so you know, those are all the
12 colors of the rainbow, because they're all the basic colors.
13 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Mary Beth.
14 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Well, to try to dispense quickly of
15 one of the issues. Under measures to address carrier vessels
16 and letters of authorization, there's two shaded areas. One was
17 based on a suboption that I recommended, and the PDT was able to
18 come up with a little bit of information on that, that indicates
19 that it wouldn't achieve what I thought I thought it might. So,
20 I don't think it really has any value any longer.
21 And the PDT and staff with the National Fisheries Service
22 came up with a different option that I think actually works.
23 So, I would make a motion that we delete Section 220.127.116.11
24 suboption, which is related to the length of carrier vessels and
25 VMS, and add Section 18.104.22.168.2, which is the recommendation from
1 the Regional Office.
2 LORI STEELE: Is that 2.4 -- add 2.4.3. --
3 MARY BETH TOOLEY: .5.2.
4 TALIA BIGELOW: 22.214.171.124.2.
5 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Is there a second?
7 MARY BETH TOOLEY: So, the issue was that I thought
8 that requiring VMS on some smaller carrier vessels could be
9 problematic, and but then when you look at the size, you know,
10 ranges the PDT was able to come up with, I don't think you can
11 really get to it that way.
12 So, the agency came up with a couple of options that would
13 allow some of those vessels to continue as they do now, but if
14 you wanted the increased flexibility, you would need to use the
15 VMS. So, that makes sense, and I think it's a cleaner way to
16 get there.
17 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Is there other
18 discussion on the motion?
19 (No audible response.)
20 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Is there any
21 discussion from the public, any comments from the public?
22 (No audible response.)
23 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Okay. Back to the
24 Committee. Are you ready to vote?
25 All in favor, raise your right hand. Eight. Any opposed?
1 Abstentions? Eight, zero, one, the motion passes.
2 I miscounted. Seven, zero, one. I keep forgetting Mike's
4 All right. Section -- measures to maximize retention, and
5 this, we're talking about maximized retention across the whole
6 fishery. Provide an overview of some of the things we need to
7 go through here, Section 2.6.2 and 3 and 4 and 5.
8 LORI STEELE: Okay. Yeah, the maximized retention
9 section is still a little bit problematic. Now, I'm trying --
10 trying to figure out how to make this work, if the Committee
11 wants to consider an alternative that would include maximized
12 retention across the fishery.
13 Now, keep in mind, this on the flow chart is one of the
14 places where I had a little branching off, which means that in
15 the catch monitoring, we could have one alternative that
16 includes, you know, elements of Items 1 through 7, plus, you
17 know, maximized retention program across the fishery, as one
19 There are several sections in this larger section of the
20 document, 2.6, that needs some work. The species to which
21 maximized retention would apply, that's somewhat easy. We can
22 work that out, you know. We've already got a list, can work out
23 the issues in the Draft EIS.
24 Then the next section is how to deal with the species that
25 vessels aren't permitted to land. Now, we've already talked
1 about one alternative, potentially, including maximized
2 retention as an experimental fishery, and you get an
3 experimental fishery permit, and that permit would authorize you
4 to land species that you're permitted to land. That's another
5 alternative that only uses maximized in an experimental fishery,
6 not applies it across the whole fishery.
7 So, if you still want to have an alternative that applies
8 maximized retention across the whole fishery, we still need to
9 figure out how to deal with species that the vessel is not
10 permitted to land. And right now, the only option that's in the
11 document is to amendment other FMP's to allow those landings.
12 I mean, I have in this table, is it ready for the Draft
13 EIS? Yes, question mark. I mean, conceptually, it's ready for
14 the Draft EIS. You just say that you're going to do it. But is
15 it actually going to be done? Is it actually feasible to do
16 that? I'm not sure, and implementing maximized retention across
17 the entire fishery sort of hinges on doing that, because there's
18 no other way to allow for landings of species that vessels
19 aren't permitted to possess or land.
20 So, that's sort of the million dollar question. You know,
21 conceptually, we can put it in the Draft EIS, as part of this
22 alternative, but is it something that we can actually do? I'm
23 not sure.
24 Then, you know, if you assume that somehow we can do that,
25 then, you know, you have to decide on -- you have to flesh out
1 the options for what to do with these fish once they're landed,
2 and we have an option in there that would require the fish to be
3 treated like haddock is treated under the haddock catch cap.
4 I went ahead because -- let me see what I did, because I
5 can't even remember. I've put in another option here on Page 35
6 that would just require that the catch be disposed of, and --
7 once it's landed and documented. So, that's a new option for
8 the Committee to consider.
9 It still doesn't deal with the issues of having the catch
10 that you're not permitted to have, or having fish that may be in
11 excess of a trip limit, or a quota, or something like that. So,
12 that's still sort of that bigger issue that we haven't figured
13 out how to deal with.
14 But I've added an option in here that would at least relate
15 to -- or at least addresses how the fish would be disposed of
16 after they're landed.
17 Then, you know, you get into the next section, which is how
18 you're going to verify compliance with maximized retention, if
19 you implement it across the fishery. There's some options in
20 the document, but they're not fully fleshed out yet, and one of
21 them being video-based electronic monitoring.
22 Again, you know, we're going into a new realm here with
23 this technology, and I don't think we have a full understanding
24 of who we would use video-based electronic monitoring to verify
25 compliance with maximized retention. We could do it. It's just
1 that it needs more work.
2 And then there's a hybrid option that says it would be done
3 through video-based monitoring, or observer coverage, or some
4 combination. So, again, it's just something that's there, that
5 needs a little more work, I think, before we get to the Draft
6 EIS stage.
7 And then we have some phase-in options, which would be,
8 you know, rather than just apply it across the fishery
9 immediately, we could have sort of a time-wise phase-in, or a
10 spatial phase-in, or a phase-in of the video technology. These
11 are in the document conceptually.
12 But what we've been told by the Regional Office is if
13 you're going to phase in a program in this amendment, you need
14 to clearly describe how the phase-in is going to work, and
15 hard-wire the time issues, and the spatial issues, and things
16 like that into the amendment. So, you can just go out and say
17 we're going to phase it in over time. We -- it has to be clear
18 in the option that this would happen at the end of a certain;
19 this would happen at the end of the next time, or whatever.
20 So, there's a lot more work to be done on those particular
21 options, as well.
22 So, I don't know where to go with this. I mean, I think,
23 you know, there's still some potential to move this forward as
24 one alternative. Certainly, I think, if the Committee wants the
25 alternative, to do it through an experimental fishery can move
1 forward. This would be another alternative, to apply it across
2 the board, and if the Committee wants that as an option or --
3 I'm sorry, as an alternative in the document, we need to at
4 least talk about these gray areas and how they might be
6 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Mary Beth.
7 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Well, we did talk about this
8 section some at our last meeting, and my opinion on it, in
9 general, and which agrees with the AP, is that we don't need
10 maximized retention, we need maximized sampling. But it seemed
11 at the time that the Committee didn't necessarily agree with
13 So, if we're going to keep it in, as Lori indicated, we do
14 really need to do some work on this section. And in my mind,
15 the first place to go is the species list, and look at this
16 list, and think about what we currently have, you know, what we
17 can possess is primarily driven -- I mean, the first place is in
18 the letter of authorization, which is under the Groundfish Plan.
19 I mean, that tells you what you can have aboard the boat,
21 So, currently, you know, Atlantic herring, Atlantic
22 mackerel, haddock, 100 pounds of regulated groundfish, squid,
23 south of the 42-30 line -- I don't know if that's exactly right,
24 but generally speaking, and blueback herring. So -- and not the
1 So, if you look at the list, think of -- think it in terms
2 like that, I mean what kind of adjustments would you need to
3 have, and can the agency do that simply through the letter of
4 authorization for some of these species, like we did originally,
5 I mean, squid is not in the Groundfish Plan, but our ability to
6 possess or not possess it is in the Groundfish Plan. So, I'm a
7 little confused by that.
8 As Lori noted, striped bass, the harvest of striped bass is
9 prohibited. Easy, so we could not do that. River herring is,
10 in general, problematic, in that some states do not allow the
11 landing of river herring. So, I don't think, in this plan, we
12 could really do that. We would have to take that off the list.
13 Highly migratory species. The only one on the list that
14 I've ever heard of anybody encountering is occasionally a tuna,
15 and they used to be able to keep them and sell them. Somehow
16 that went away when we weren't looking. And maybe there's a
17 shark listed somewhere. I really don't know.
18 But anyway, the thing about the highly migratory species
19 that are important is that we don't have the ability to bring
20 all these species aboard. I mean, if they were going through
21 the pump, you can bring it aboard. But if all go through the
22 pump, there's no way to -- you can ensure that the captain and
23 crew can bring it aboard.
24 So, I mean, those are some of my general thoughts. If I
25 were to make a motion, and I think I would suggest that we would
1 eliminate highly migratory species, striped bass, river herring,
2 and -- the menhaden, I don't know. I mean, I've been pogie
3 fish, and I've been herring fishing, and I've never seen a
4 bycatch in either one or the other. Maybe it happens somewhere
5 that I, you know, sometime, but I don't know.
6 So, that was kind of what I was thinking on the list. And
7 if you pare the list down, then as you start to go down through
8 the other sections, it becomes simpler because, you know, if
9 you're going to -- if you only have to amend the Groundfish FMP,
10 well, with a pared down list, that might be so. You would have
11 to probably talk to the Mid-Atlantic Council about mackerel
12 because they are in the process of moving along a limited access
13 amendment on mackerel.
14 But, anyway, those were just my initial thoughts on the
15 list. I don't know what other people think.
16 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Other thoughts on the
17 list or other parts of this section that need to be worked on
18 before we move it forward? Dave.
19 DAVID PIERCE: Just a clarification. Mary Beth, would
20 you -- just a clarification, Mary Beth, if you would. What was
21 your rationale for excluding river herring, blueback herring,
22 and alewives?
23 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Well, primarily, for example, in
24 the State of Rhode Island, you cannot land any of these species.
25 So, if we were to require the federal FMP, vessels to retain
1 them, that would mean for the State of Rhode Island, they could
2 no longer have people landing herring, Atlantic herring. I
3 mean, particularly, those boats out of Port Judith, they would
4 -- they'd have to go to another state. So, that doesn't seem
5 very practical to me.
7 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Nobody's jumping on
9 LORI STEELE: Well, I mean, just regarding the list.
10 I mean, one option would be require maximized retention of all
11 species which, I think we would run into a lot of problems with
12 species that are prohibited, or vessels are not permitted to
13 land, and things like that.
14 In terms of the list option, ultimately, the idea was that
15 if we pick this as the final alternative, that the Council would
16 take that list and pick from the list, which species it would
17 apply to. So, if it moves forward in the Draft EIS, I mean, one
18 of the things we would have to do is go through species by
19 species, and identify what the problems may be, and what the
20 regulatory limitations may be.
21 And then, you know, when the Council -- if the Council were
22 to ultimately select that alternative, it would have to do so,
23 recognizing the regulatory limitations, and if we picked that
24 alternative, we would then, you know, pick the species, identify
25 the plans or regulations that need to be amended, and I guess
1 we'd have to go forward from that point with making the changes
2 to those plans.
3 So, I don't know. I mean, it was -- the idea was to pick
4 from that list, not necessarily to include everything on that
5 list, ultimately, if this actually were to be the final
6 preferred alternative. I don't know if that helps to clarify.
7 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Mary Beth.
8 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Well, I hadn't looked at it that
9 way, and that is a different way to look at it. But wouldn't it
10 be simpler to pare the list down now, and then what flows after
11 that, as far as amending FMP's and describing this and
12 describing that, wouldn't that whole process just be a lot
14 I mean, if people really want to keep everything on the
15 list, I guess that's fine, but -- seemed a simpler approach.
16 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: It did, and I also see
17 real double jeopardy with striped bass, because not only would
18 you have to amend a federal rule, you would have to amend a
19 Presidential rule, and a number of state rules that prohibit the
20 landing of striped bass commercially, Maine, New Hampshire,
21 being one -- or two.
22 And so, it's -- even -- and I'm assuming that based on some
23 of the other catch monitoring programs that we're going to have
24 as options in here, we'd be able to get at the information of
25 what is the bycatch of striped bass, based on some of the at-sea
1 monitoring. So, that information we would have.
2 But to mandate these things be landed by maximized
3 retention, you go too many things to go through here, that
4 aren't under the control of us or the federal government. So --
5 Mary Beth.
6 MARY BETH TOOLEY: So, I would make a motion that
7 under Section 126.96.36.199, that we would remove from the species
8 list highly migratory species, striped bass, river herring and
10 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Is there a second to
11 that motion? I didn't see. Is there a second to that motion?
12 Jim Fair. Discussion on the motion? Terry.
13 TERRY STOCKWELL: Yeah, I understand your logic, Mary
14 Beth, but I have a hard time removing river herring and shad. I
15 realize Rhode Island has a landing prohibition but, I mean,
16 there's -- huge species of concern to me, and to many other
18 I would, however, add monkfish to the list so we didn't
19 have to amend the Monkfish Plan. I can't imagine there's a
20 whole lot of monkfish taken in the midwater trawls, but I may be
21 wrong. And I agree with highly migratory and striped bass.
22 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Mary Beth.
23 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Well, the reason I added the river
24 herring was because of that Rhode Island issue. We can leave it
25 in, and then Lori can just describe it. Right now, in the
1 amendment, Lori has included tables of what the regulations are
2 by state, but they don't really say what the regulations are for
3 herring fishery by state, if we were to land fish that's a
4 bycatch, which they aren't always the same. I mean, in Maine we
5 can land them, it's not a problem. Massachusetts has a
6 percentage. Rhode Island, it's prohibited.
7 And so, I don't have a problem putting those back in and
8 accepting Terry's recommendation, but that's fine.
9 LORI STEELE: Do you want to do that?
10 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Yes.
12 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Glenn, and then ...
13 GLENN LIBBY: I'll withdraw the question. Thank you.
14 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Frank.
15 FRANK BLOUNT: One of the hottest spots for river
16 herring is probably off of Rhode Island, and it's illegal to
17 land them now. So -- they're being landed. I mean, we can say
18 what we want, Rhode Island is landing river herring, even though
19 it's illegal.
20 So, I mean, to say that it's against the law in Rhode
21 Island, so we shouldn't be doing this, I don't see that being
22 logic. That means -- I can tell you right now, enforcement's
23 like, yeah, well, they didn't mean to catch them, and you'd
24 better not have one because you're out there by yourself. But
25 boats coming in, it's got 100,000 pounds onboard, and there's a
1 couple of river herring in here there, they're not enforcing it.
2 So, I'm going to oppose this.
3 (Comments away from microphone.)
4 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Further discussion on
5 the motion?
6 (No audible response.)
7 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Any comments form the
8 public? Gary?
9 GARY LIBBY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just think
10 the whole maximized retention was for boat composition of catch.
11 So, you either increase -- know what you get and then report it,
12 or bring it in. I think that was the whole concept behind it.
13 So, I just think you ought to leave the list alone, let it
14 go to the Council, and let it be picked over there. Thanks.
15 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Dave.
16 DAVID ELLENTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dave
17 Ellenton. It's a bit of a naive question, really, but what's
18 the situation with dogfish? Is that just not on the list?
19 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Well, that needs to be added to
20 the list.
21 LORI STEELE: What's that? What was the issue?
22 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Dogfish.
23 LORI STEELE: It wasn't -- we didn't want it on the
25 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Right. I don't
1 believe we wanted it on the list because of the concern that
3 DAVID ELLENTON: No. So, they'd have to be discarded.
4 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Mary Beth.
5 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Well, I think I understand why Dave
6 brings this up, and particularly the way I described the letter
7 of authorization for the vessels, and what they can have aboard
8 the boat.
9 And currently, the vessels are not allowed to retain
10 dogfish. Well, similar to this discussion about Rhode Island,
11 and river herring, the reality is that that's impossible. That's
12 impossible for any fishery operating, you know, in the Gulf of
13 Maine or the Mid-Atlantic, to not encounter dogfish.
14 And the vessels do, to the best of their ability, discard
15 dogfish because it's bad for the catch, it could ruin the catch.
16 At the same time, they cannot be sure that they are discarding
17 any dogfish, that's not possible.
18 So, I think that the question would be is if the right way
19 to get to this list is through the letter of authorization, that
20 perhaps we should be also allowing vessels to retain some
22 I mean, to just make -- it cleans it up. I mean you're
23 operating and you're legal, instead of saying every time a boat
24 comes in, of course it knows there are going to be dogfish
25 there. And they just don't enforce it because it's ridiculous;
1 you can't. They know we can't. They want to see that we're
2 doing whatever we can to discard it, as much as possible, but
3 they know it's not -- we're not able to do it 100 percent.
4 Is that what you're trying to get at, Dave?
5 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Further public
7 (No audible response.)
8 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Back to the Committee.
10 DAVID PIERCE: Regarding dogfish -- I can't recall the
11 ruling -- but the federal government, didn't it just shut down
12 the dogfish fishery, correct, May 1 through the end of October?
13 So, what are the rules that would apply to sea herring fishermen
14 who land their catch and they had dogfish within the catch?
15 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Mary Beth.
16 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Well, the rules don't flow from
17 when the fishery -- the dogfish fishery is open or closed. The
18 species you can have aboard the vessel you can find in the
19 letter of authorization from the Groundfish Plan, and dogfish is
20 not on the list. So, 12 months out of the year, 365 days a
21 year, you're not supposed to have dogfish aboard the vessel.
22 If we were to change that somehow, which I think we should,
23 we'd have to, you know, consider what the dogfish rules are for
24 everybody else, and what does it mean for a herring vessel.
25 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Committee, any further
1 discussion on this motion?
2 (No audible response.)
3 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Okay. Let's vote on
4 it. All those in favor, raise your hand. Opposed?
5 Abstentions? It carries unanimously.
6 So, that's one.
7 LORI STEELE: That wasn't one of the highlighted --
8 TALIA BIGELOW: But it needs work.
9 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: So, we've worked on
10 it. Cross that one off. Can we get rid of the question mark?
11 Amending other FMP's, do you want to -- do you think that's
12 -- pass it off and just -- go ahead.
13 LORI STEELE: I mean, at this point, I think that the
14 Committee -- what the Committee needs to think about is if we're
15 going to move forward an alternative that requires maximized
16 retention across the fishery, the issues that really need to be
17 dealt with, that are contained within these highlighted cells
18 here, are if and how video-based electronic monitoring is going
19 to be used in a maximized retention program right now, and
20 whether or not there's going to be these options for phasing it
21 in. And if it's going to be phased in, how is the phase-in
22 going to work.
23 That's -- I mean, if it's going to move forward as an
24 alternative, to apply it across the fishery, that's what these
25 -- really, the fundamental questions are is how are you going to
1 use video monitoring as part of it, and if and how you're going
2 to phase it in.
3 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Okay. Are we going to
4 use video monitoring, and how are we going to do it? Of course,
5 Dave walks out of the room at this point. And are we going to
6 have a phase-in? And there's also a new option here for
7 disposal of the catch, that we'd have to include if we wanted
8 to ...
9 TERRY STOCKWELL: Do you need a motion to include
11 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Yes, we would need a
12 motion to include that. (Indiscernible.)
13 TERRY STOCKWELL: I'd make a motion that we include a
14 new option developed by staff, 188.8.131.52, the option for disposal
15 of nonpermitted catch into the document.
16 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Is there a second?
17 Erling seconds it.
18 TERRY STOCKWELL: It's the bottom of Page 35, 184.108.40.206.
19 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Is there a discussion
20 on this motion? Mary Beth.
21 MARY BETH TOOLEY: I think there's value in having
22 this discussion about disposal of nonpermitted catch. So, I
23 think it's good that we have it in here.
24 I'm not sure whether it really speaks directly to disposal,
25 though. It says what the people -- you know, what plants should
1 do with some of these species, when you have the possibility to
2 cull it, you know retain it, for 12 hours and that sort of
4 But it doesn't -- I mean, disposal to me means after the 12
5 hours, what are you going to do with it. And it's unclear,
6 under the current haddock, you know, rules, what you do do with
7 it. I mean, it tells you what you can't do with it, but it
8 doesn't tell you what to do with. And so this kind of has the
9 same issue there.
10 What people do do with it is put it back on the boat most
11 of the time, and when they leave on the next trip, they dispose
12 of it. And it would be, you know, nice, if it was clear to the
13 vessels and the plants what they are -- how they are to dispose
14 of whatever they bring in.
15 You know, I think sometimes maybe some of it gets eaten, I
16 mean, because it doesn't tell you you can't do that. A lot of
17 times, though, I don't think haddock and herring is, you know,
18 (indiscernible) herring is very good. So, I think a lot -- most
19 of the time, it's going back on the boats, and they dispose of
21 The other thing on this particular section that is somewhat
22 problematic, is -- and we -- I didn't talk about it before --
23 but herring, if you have herring, and you have a maximized
24 retention program, so you bring all the herring aboard,
25 regardless of whether you have a home for the herring,
1 regardless of whether you have a market for the herring.
2 So, that's a problem in that it has market effects, and
3 generally, today, it's frowned upon, is the industry doing that
4 type of thing. Overfishing your market is not something that
5 other people like to see happen.
6 So you'd have this herring come in, that doesn't have a
7 market, which may cause the price in general to drop -- they'll
8 sell it for anything to get it off the boat. Or, you would
9 bring it in and the value of bringing it in is so that it could
10 get sampled.
11 So, if you were to try and envision how, if you had, let's
12 say, a 100,000 pounds of nonmarketable herring on your boat, for
13 whatever reason, either the fish just weren't any good, nobody
14 wants them, or you have no market.
15 If you wanted to sample those fish, you'd have to pump the
16 fish off the boat into something. Well, Dave is saying you can
17 do it with Xactics. Then you'd have to figure out how to get it
18 back aboard the boat, to take it out and dump it, or you'd have
19 to send it to Canada to a dehyde plant. And those are the only
20 two things you could do. We have no way to pump fish back
21 aboard a boat. I mean, I don't see how that can happen.
22 So, I think under this section, there should be some
23 consideration of, I mean, how do we really dispose of stuff that
24 is not marketed?
25 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Further discussion
1 from the Committee? Glenn.
2 GLENN LIBBY: I just have a question, I guess for Mary
3 Beth. With all the talk about earlier about low quotas in 1A,
4 and the lack of bait and everything, is it really that much
5 stuff that's unmarketable now?
6 MARY BETH TOOLEY: No. That's true, in light of the
7 current circumstances, every single fish is very valuable, and
8 people are probably not dumping a thing. But this, you know,
9 option could be in place for some time, and if things in the
10 fishery were to return to normal, or even what they were two
11 years ago, I mean, it's really -- people are discouraged from
12 overfishing their market, and they'd have to think about that
13 volume, and how you would deal with it if you don't have a
14 market for it.
15 Today? There's a market for every fish, unless it's in
16 really bad shape, and no one wants to pay for it. But, I mean,
17 you know ...
18 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Glenn.
19 GLENN LIBBY: Yeah, I guess I would just think that we
20 really need to deal with the present situation, where there does
21 seem to be a lack of fish, and if we get into a situation where
22 a lot of stuff is headed to the dump, or back offshore, that
23 maybe we do something about it then. But given the way things
24 are right now, I think there's value in bringing it in.
25 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Howard.
1 HOWARD KING: This is minor, but it's due to my own
2 ignorance. How does the 12 hour requirement affect spoilage of
3 those fish, or even interfering with operation of the vessel
4 following offloading?
5 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Well, Dave Ellenton's here, and
6 he's certainly dealt with it personally, way more than I have,
7 because he's in a plant, sorting by species, and if they have
8 anything that's not a herring, it goes into a tote, and it stays
9 there for 12 hours, and I doubt he's refrigerating that. And it
10 just gets disposed of.
11 I mean, at that point, you're putting it back aboard the
12 vessel, and it's going to go back out and be, you know,
13 discarded. Did that answer your question?
14 HOWARD KING: Well, and then operation of the vessel
15 (indiscernible) other things the vessel needs to do?
16 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Mike.
17 HOWARD KING: And then does the 12 hour requirement
18 interfere with other operations the vessel might want to
19 undertake. I mean, do they have to just sit there with these
20 fish for 12 hours, and not do anything else?
21 MARY BETH TOOLEY: It doesn't interrupt the vessel's
22 activity. I mean, the vessel that might be taking it out, might
23 not be the vessel that brought it in. I mean, you know, if the
24 plant in Gloucester, for example -- I mean, they have several
25 vessels that might be coming and going. So, whichever -- if 12
1 hours has gone by, there's somebody on his way out, I assume
2 that it's probably going on that boat.
3 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Comments from the
4 public? Tom, you had your hand up before?
5 TOM RUDOLPH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Tom Rudolph,
6 Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's Association. I guess I'm
7 confused -- I have a question. I don't understand how a
8 requirement to land the fish would cause widespread overfishing
9 of the market. If the concern is that there's no market for the
10 catch, why would it be caught in the first place?
11 So, I guess my question is how would a requirement to land
12 herring cause more fish to be caught than they would have in the
13 first place, if they're already on the boat?
14 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Mary Beth.
15 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Well, I mean, the way the fishery
16 operates now, I mean, there's a couple of different things, if
17 we -- you know, it's different inshore versus offshore. So,
18 I'll use an offshore example, in that, you know, a vessel may
19 have a certain amount of market. They load the vessel based on
20 stability and tanks, and they may have an extra 10,000 pounds
21 that you would need to put down in a tank, under a maximized
22 retention, that you normally wouldn't do that, because by the
23 time you get to shore, those fish are not going to be any good,
24 because it's just -- they're going to slosh around in the tank.
25 It's not enough fish.
1 So, for small amounts of fish, or -- so 10 might be high --
2 but, I mean, the would -- captain normally would choose not to
3 put them down in a tank, because he knows by the time he steams
4 to shore, 12 hours, those fish are not going to be any good.
5 You know, and -- but under this scenario, they would be
6 keeping them. I didn't mean to infer that there would be
7 widespread overfishing out of markets. I don't think that any
8 of that is occurring today, as Glenn pointed out. I mean, we
9 have small quotas, and a market that's hungry for fish. So,
10 people are trying to bring in every fish they could possibly
11 bring in, to the best of their ability.
12 And one other thing that I did want to mention is somebody
13 made a reference to taking fish to the dump. I don't think the
14 dump wants them. I think that's a problem, too.
15 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Peter.
16 PETER MULLEN: Peter Mullen, Western Venture. I've
17 had a few problems where we're fishing offshore, and all of a
18 sudden, all the purse seiners got inshore. We've already got
19 the fish onboard, and all of a sudden, there's they're saying,
20 the buyers say, sorry, we don't want your fish. It doesn't
21 happen very often, but it does happen.
22 If you have the whole purse seine fleet catches all in the
23 one night, all of a sudden, there's a glut on the market. I
24 mean, there's a lot of different scenarios. I mean, is there a
25 perfect answer? I don't think so.
1 Nobody wants to dump fish (indiscernible) and I've taken
2 the fish out a few times and dumped it -- not lately, because
3 the market is good and the purse seiners aren't catching, but
4 that can change just like that. Thank you.
5 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: To that?
6 FRANK BLOUNT: Sort of.
7 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Sort of.
8 FRANK BLOUNT: One, you just said that the fish were
9 already onboard. So, once they're onboard, how do you get them
10 back off-board?
11 PETER MULLEN: Right off the deck.
12 FRANK BLOUNT: So, you just pump them back out of the
13 hold? All right.
14 But I just -- just a general comment. I mean, I
15 understand, you know, the 10,000 pounds and you know, saying
16 it's a small amount of fish. But as we go through here, this
17 morning we were talking about the difference between totes and
18 trying to figure out our Category C vessels. And so -- I mean,
19 we've heard comments from the, you know, the industry or
20 different groups that we're going to make sure we go, you now,
21 A, B, C and D vessels, and everybody's going to be treated the
23 But then we'll say, in one instance 10,000 pounds is not a
24 lot of fish, and the other instance we'll say all these boats
25 catching your couple of hundred pounds is a lot, and adds up.
1 So, I'm just hoping -- and I would have asked a couple of
2 questions here, but every time I ask a question, I'm almost
3 afraid because I don't want to incite somebody in the room, and
4 I don't want to come across the wrong way.
5 So, we've got to be very careful here as we're going along,
6 because every -- I mean, it's very hard to hear a statement
7 that, you know 100,000 pounds may have to ultimately be dumped,
8 and then say, does it make a difference, and we're trying to
9 count every fish. To me, they just don't mesh together.
10 But I guess -- I don't want to put the document that, you
11 know, considered and rejected, because 100,000 pounds is not a
12 lot of fish. Somehow, that just doesn't mesh.
13 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Jeff.
14 JEFF KAELIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Jeff Kaelin.
15 I just wanted to make two points. Number one, if the fish is
16 released, it's supposed to be hailed, so it's not like, you
17 know, it just disappeared. The guys were supposed to report
18 what's discarded.
19 And the other thing is feedy fish, you don't want to pump
20 feedy fish into -- you know, if you come into feedy fish, you
21 don't want to put it in good fish. I mean, it deteriorates the
22 whole catch. So that's another issue that I think the Committee
23 has to consider. There's times when you do not want to put
24 feedy fish down in good fish that you've got, because the whole
25 tank will be bad in a short period of time.
1 And I think Peter or Glenn could speak to that. That's my
2 experience throughout the sardine business anyway. So, that's
3 another issue. If you're going to require people to pump feedy
4 fish, and you've got bad fish onboard -- or good fish onboard, I
5 don't think that's a good idea. You're going to end up wasting
6 more fish that way.
7 Now -- you know, so if you're going to have feedy fish, and
8 you let go, you should estimate what -- how much it was, and
9 report what was discarded as the law currently requires, I
10 believe. So ...
11 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Glenn, remember we're
12 talking about a motion that would allow for the disposal of
13 nonpermitted fish. Anybody else? Mary Beth.
14 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Yeah. I would just -- you know, I
15 just bring this issue up. I didn't, you know, in my -- the
16 previous motion, and our discussion about the species, I didn't
17 suggest we take herring off that list, because I think that it's
18 an important component, that the people who propose maximized
19 retention, if it weren't on the list, then I'm not sure the
20 program has what they were looking for.
21 So, I'm not saying or suggest that you take it off the
22 list. All I'm saying is that as the PDT looks at it, that these
23 issues need to be examined, because they -- if you were to
24 implement this type of program, it would come up.
25 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Okay. Any more
1 discussion from the Committee?
2 JEFF KAELIN: Can I just --
3 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Sure, very quickly, if
4 it's to -- directly to the motion, please.
5 JEFF KAELIN: To the motion. Why can't you give the
6 haddock, if it's still in good condition, to one of the guys
7 that's working in the plant, let him take it home and eat it? I
8 mean, that's always driven me crazy. You know, are you going to
9 throw it away? It's not for sale or anything. So, I mean, that
10 would be an issue that I think should be clarified, that
11 somebody in the plant ought to be able to bring it home and feed
12 their kids with it.
13 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Okay. Further
14 discussion from the Committee?
15 (No audible response.)
16 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Okay. We'll -- time
17 to vote here. All those in favor, raise your hand. Six.
18 Opposed? Abstentions? We're voting on the motion. Are you in
19 favor, or opposed, or abstain?
20 (Comments away from microphone.)
21 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Then it's unanimous.
22 Terry, that was a low-hanging fruit. That's the easy one.
23 TERRY STOCKWELL: That was my (indiscernible)
25 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Well, at least we've
1 got that behind us.
2 The other, probably harder, higher-hanging fruit, is the
3 option for video-based electronic monitoring. Yes. I'll give
4 -- Terry, since you did such a great job on hitting that
5 low-hanging fruit, I'll give you first shot at it, and then Mary
7 TERRY STOCKWELL: Thanks, Mr. Chair. I'm not prepared
8 to make a motion, particularly after the discussion that we had
9 about electronic monitoring earlier today, probably for a need
10 to be a -- part of (indiscernible) to move forward.
11 I'm supportive of the concept; I just don't know -- you
12 know, it needs more discussion and development, and I'm not
13 prepared to provide that because -- other than support for
14 development, or like the CMCP's. I mean, interesting concept,
15 but there's no meat on the bones, and it's very tough to make it
16 -- to make a motion to incorporate it into something that you
17 really don't understand.
18 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Mary Beth.
19 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Yeah, I just have a couple of
20 questions. It seemed like in the document that we have this
21 maximized retention of all species, maximized retention of some
22 species, and that it could be done through an EF -- four year
23 EFP, or amending other plans.
24 So, it seems that if you were to have it done through an
25 EFP, that you really don't need any of this stuff, because the
1 way the EFP is laid out in the document, it would be for when an
2 observer is aboard the boat.
3 LORI STEELE: Right.
4 MARY BETH TOOLEY: So, I wonder if it could be -- this
5 stuff could be simplified. It wasn't clear to me till I read
6 through the section that this here really is maximized retention
7 of all species. You don't really need video-based monitoring,
8 and I could be slightly off here but, at all, I don't think,
9 unless you do the maximized retention of all species. Is that
10 right, Lori?
11 LORI STEELE: Not really, because here -- and I'll put
12 the flow chart up here. I mean, this is -- this is where it
13 gets a little bit complicated. And I was hoping that the flow
14 chart might -- actually this -- see, what you have here in your
15 alternative structure, is you've got these elements that are
16 going to be part of your catch monitoring alternative.
17 And so you kind of go through and, you know, once you get
18 to Number 3, the part about maximized retention, I think there
19 needs to be another box right here in the middle, which is no
20 maximized retention. So that there would be an alternative, a
21 catch monitoring alternative, that doesn't have maximized
23 But if you go over here, to this box on the left, this
24 would be an alternative that applies maximized retention across
25 the fishery. And that's what we're talking about now, the
1 details, if you actually -- if you didn't use -- well, either
2 all species or a list of species, but the whole fishery, versus
3 just during times when there's an observer onboard.
4 So, this alternative over here to the right, that's labeled
5 Section 220.127.116.11, is to use the EFP approach, which is don't
6 apply across the whole fishery, set it up as an experimental
7 fishery for four years, and apply it when observers are onboard.
8 I see that as a separate alternative, because that's kind
9 of -- at least, I can wrap my mind around that. We've kind of
10 talked about it, and it's all sort of there, and it would apply
11 only to a subset of the fishery.
12 These other options that we're talking about over here are
13 what I see as a separate alternative, which is apply it across
14 the whole fishery in this amendment.
15 So, that's what we're talking about, are all of the options
16 that relate to that. I mean, right now, in -- the way it's
17 proposed in the document, is it could apply to the whole
18 fishery. Then you have to go through and make these choices,
19 what species, how are you going to enforce it, or verify
20 compliance with it, and are you going to phase it in, or not.
21 So, that's what we're talking about here. All of these
22 sections here, 2.6.2, .3, .4, .5, .6, other than the EFP option,
23 which is separate, all of these other options relate to applying
24 it across the whole fishery. And right now, that hasn't been
25 taken off the table. The Committee is still considering an
1 alternative that would apply maximized retention to the herring
3 So, if the Committee wants to consider that alternative,
4 these are the issues that need to be sort of fleshed out in the
5 document; is that -- does that make a little more -- and then,
6 of course, in the middle here, would be a box that says no
7 maximized retention and, you know, and then that would be
8 another alternative.
9 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Mary Beth.
10 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Yeah. That actually clarified it
11 quite a bit. I think that the way you have it in the flow
12 chart, that you would probably -- you'd package it up this way,
13 which is not the way it's in the document, which is confusing,
14 because you keep -- have to -- flipping back and forth.
15 And if you took all of these sections here, and just, you
16 know, have EFP go one way, and what applies to an EFP, and then
17 all this other stuff goes the other way, right?
18 LORI STEELE: Yeah. And I mean, I think -- I think
19 the document right now is very confusing. I mean, the document
20 -- there's stuff in some of these sections that apply to all of
21 you know, the catch monitoring alternatives. I mean, I think
22 the whole document for the EIS needs to be restructured, to make
23 it clear what the alternatives look like.
24 And that was really the attempt with this flow chart, is
25 if you look at this flow chart, you can see where you could take
1 this and form five alternatives, you know, one that has --
2 relies on IVR reporting, one that relies on VMS reporting, one
3 that includes maximized retention across the fishery, one that
4 includes maximized retention through an experimental fishery,
5 and one that doesn't include maximized retention.
6 So, I mean, I think the idea here was once we figured out
7 what's in, what's out, from the larger document, and the big
8 menu of things, then you -- essentially you create alternatives.
9 You'd have maybe five little flow diagrams that show you what
10 your different alternatives look like. Or did I just confuse
11 you more?
12 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Well, you went in a different
13 direction I wouldn't have gone, but --
14 LORI STEELE: Okay.
15 MARY BETH TOOLEY: I think -- I thought the flow chart
16 sort of clarified at sort of a decision-making process. And
17 what I'd hoped that we didn't do was create five alternates. I
18 mean, because once we get locked into that, then it gets -- I
19 think it gets more confusing.
20 LORI STEELE: Well, I don't know if we necessarily
21 need to create specific alternatives, but what I meant was when
22 you look at this flow chart, the way it's structured now, I can
23 see sort of five different packages, four or five different --
24 (Comment away from microphone.)
25 LORI STEELE: Yeah. I mean, this is just where things
1 kind of go off in a different direction, and you can sort of
2 envision that being sort of a stand-alone package. So, that was
3 the thinking behind it.
4 But relative to the maximized retention, I mean, you really
5 have sort of three alternatives. One is to not do it, one is to
6 do it through the experimental fishery, only when observers are
7 onboard, and then one is to apply it across the entire fishery.
8 And those are the decisions that we're talking about now is what
9 are the options if you want to apply it across the entire
11 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: And the options we
12 have right now are to require video-based electronic monitoring,
13 require a video -- VBEM, and monitoring by at-sea observers.
14 And then we have a variety of options for phasing it in.
15 And what I believe Lori is, and the PDT is looking for here is
16 if we're going to require -- allow video-based electronic
17 monitoring to be one of those options, as opposed to say 100
18 percent observer coverage, then we need to tell like what
19 vessels are these going to apply to. Is that the kind of
20 information you're looking for in the video-based electronic
21 monitoring? Things that this -- is this some of the things that
22 we need to flesh out, which vessel types.
23 LORI STEELE: Well, I mean, presumably, this is going
24 to apply to A, B and C vessels.
25 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Okay.
1 LORI STEELE: So, I guess the question is, if you're
2 going to have video-based electronic monitoring, as an option to
3 ensure compliance with maximized retention across the fishery,
4 what does that mean? If video cameras are required -- again,
5 you know, it comes back to the fundamental question that we've
6 been asking a lot, is who's going to collect that information,
7 who's going to analyze that information, who's -- you know, how
8 is the program for enforcing these regulations through video
9 monitoring going to work.
10 And if it's species-based maximized retention, and it's not
11 going to be maximized retention of all species, we need to keep
12 in mind that video technology does not exist right now to
13 differentiate some of these species.
14 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Mary Beth.
15 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Well, I've read regulations that
16 require some things like this -- not real recently, but not that
17 long ago. I mean, some of the things you need to figure out.
18 I mean, you can't just say video-based monitoring. I mean,
19 you have to say that you want a camera mounted in such a way
20 that's it going to view all pumping operations. Or, you want a
21 camera that's going to take continuous coverage of the
22 dewatering box. You have to be really specific.
23 And I'm not sure that I could make a recommendation on that
24 today. So, I'm not sure where to go with that. I mean -- so, I
25 mean, that's -- you have to first define what is the video-based
1 program about, and then as Lori says, we still need to define
2 who's going to, you know, what are we going to do with it, who's
3 going to analyze it, and all that.
4 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Terry.
5 TERRY STOCKWELL: Yeah. I guess it's kind of a
6 question for you, Mr. Chair. In the development of the
7 monitoring program that we'll hopefully achieve, I can really
8 see the value of maximized retention. But as it stands right
9 now, it's not worth the time trying. How -- I mean, how much do
10 you want us to beat it to death today, and still come up with --
11 with probably half -- half a thought process that we need to
12 move it ahead.
13 And I don't want to throw it out of the document, the
14 concept out, but as it stands, it's not a concept worth being in
15 the document. If we're going to move forward, then, you know,
16 and any, you know, with all efforts to get this just out the
17 door this fall.
18 So, I mean we talked about the electronic monitoring
19 program, that we need to develop, you know, further develop
20 that. I mean, Mary Beth's just made several suggestions. I'm
21 still wrapped around the axle of the CMCP's. I like the thought
22 of them, but I don't know what they mean, and I don't know they
23 can help us in bettering the monitoring program.
24 So, I'm a little bit at a loss how to -- I mean I've love
25 to make a motion, but I don't know how to help things out.
1 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Well, there's a couple
2 of ways we could tackle this. We could either take out the
3 option, we could keep it in and -- I think that remanding it to
4 the Plan Development Team, at this point, would clearly mean a
5 delay in the amendment, but I'm not sure what they're going to
6 bring back to us. That's the thing.
7 I think it's something that we, as a Committee, have to
8 make the decision on these things. If we're not willing to make
9 it, then I think we have two options: delay the whole document,
10 for this one section, potentially some others, because I know
11 we've had some concern, or we can take it out of the document,
12 at this point.
13 But we just can't, as it is, move forward with the document
14 because clearly the PDT is telling us it's not ready. Terry.
15 TERRY STOCKWELL: I'm not going to make a motion, but
16 my suggestion would be that we would postpone further
17 deliberation on this until we see where we're at tomorrow, until
18 some other components of the plan. Because if we're going to
19 delay this submission or progress on the document for further
20 development or other measures, I would like to see this further
22 But if we're going to move ahead, I'm going to support
23 removing it from the document.
24 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Lori.
25 LORI STEELE: Okay. Do you want to go to Frank first?
1 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Frank, you want to go
3 FRANK BLOUNT: Yeah, if I can. I'm a little concerned
4 because I know we say we're not ready for prime time here, but
5 we were talking about video monitoring, I think since we started
6 with the document, which is I think we're going on three years,
7 and we kind of use that as an excuse all the time, because we're
8 not ready to go forward with it, so we don't.
9 As a vessel owner, I can tell you the last thing I want is
10 an observer onboard all the time. The only thing I don't want
11 more than that is to have to pay for that observer. But I can
12 tell, if I was told that I had to carry an observer 24/7, and I
13 had to pay for it, I'd figure out a way to have video monitoring
14 real quickly on my boat.
15 And if it was an option, I don't know where we're going to
16 go with, you know, observer coverage here, who's going to be
17 paying for it, or what, you know, how it's going to be required.
18 But I can tell you if there was an option there, if I was a boat
19 owner, that said I had to pay for an observer, which is not out
20 of the document yet, that I would want an option in here that
21 said I could go with video monitoring, and not have to have the
22 observer onboard, 24/7, that I'm paying for.
23 And as far as who's going to review the data, I mean,
24 whether it goes to the Observer Program, and we say, you know,
25 who's going to sit down and review these tapes, the tapes are
1 not as long as you think, because you could set it up where
2 you're only recording, you know, one out of every three seconds.
3 So, if you're going to, you know, a night owl operation,
4 it's really going to be three hours. And you're going to set it
5 up where you only have to review a few. I don't think you need
6 to identify every species. I mean, one of the things you're
7 trying to see here, that things are being thrown back.
8 I mean, if it's a maximized retention, and somebody's
9 sitting there throwing fish overboard, does it make a difference
10 what they are? You know that they're not saving every fish. I
11 mean, you could be able to see what a striped bass is, you'll
12 see what a monkfish is, and hopefully most of the highly
14 But, I mean, the fact that you can't tell, you know, the
15 smaller fish, and though I understand, but those are the fish,
16 if they get thrown back, or you can't do an identification, then
17 they shouldn't be going back, and that's why you would have the
18 maximized retention, to say those are the fish that we can't
19 tell through the monitoring.
20 So, I don't think it's quite ready to go back, but I don't
21 think we can use the excuse, you know, day after day, that we're
22 not ready. I mean, you know, Terry might be right, we'll get
23 through it tomorrow, but I think Mary Beth's correct, too. She
24 definitely is.
25 I don't know where to put the camera. I don't know if it's
1 more important on the dewatering box; I don't know if it's more
2 important to be watching, you know, the pumping, or the cod-end,
3 but -- and I know those are questions that Lori wants answered.
4 I think that it's unfortunate that we don't have that
5 information from the Advisors. I don't think they were tasked
6 to do that, but I think that's where it could come from, to tell
7 us where it's best to put the camera. Because I can tell you if
8 it were my operation, where to do it, but as far as a herring
9 boat goes, I don't know.
10 But I don't think we can use the excuse that we're not
11 ready, and continually use it.
12 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Lori.
13 LORI STEELE: Okay. In terms of moving this forward
14 -- okay, give me a minute. Frank just said a whole bunch of
15 things that I'm thinking about, and just -- hold on. I think I
16 need a minute.
17 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: All right. Mary Beth.
18 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Well, one of the things that you
19 need to think about is what question you're trying to answer
20 with the video-based monitoring. So, in -- and that might
21 depend on whether you chose maximized retention of all species,
22 maximized retention of some species, and did you want to learn
23 -- were you more interested in that they slipped any catch?
24 You know, because if you -- I mean we don't want maximized
25 retention of all species in the fishery. I mean, if we have to
1 keep dogfish, that's a problem. So -- which might make the
2 Council choose for maximized retention, you know, if they
3 thought that was a good idea, of the list.
4 So, if you have (indiscernible) of the list, what's the
5 point of putting a camera on the dewatering box so you can watch
6 the crew discard dogfish? Maybe you'd want, in that instance,
7 you would prioritize having a camera at, you know, so that it
8 can see pumping operations, or something else.
9 So, my point is, depending on which you might choose, might
10 depend on how you would set it up. If you -- you know, it's
11 pretty, if you maximize all species, then you'd be putting the
12 cameras in different places, which then might not get, you know,
13 much pumping operations.
14 Maybe you'd have, like, lots of cameras. I don't know
15 exactly. But, I mean, some of it -- what, you know, the design
16 really could be different for some of these options in the
17 document. You have to decide what it is you want to see.
18 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Okay, Lori.
19 LORI STEELE: Okay. Okay. Regarding the development
20 of these alternatives, and moving it forward, which I'm very
21 eager to do. I really would like to see this get through the
22 Council, and start the process of putting together the Draft
23 EIS, after the September Council meeting, because it's a very
24 daunting task, the EIS is really -- it's almost overwhelming to
25 think about.
1 So, I kind of want to get started on it. And I guess my
2 point is that right now, I mean, those questions, you know, the
3 questions that Frank said I want answers to, I mean, it's not
4 just me. I think we all want answers to them. The industry
5 wants answers, the public want answers.
6 If this is going to move forward in this amendment, and
7 it's going to be implemented as a -- I mean, if we're going to
8 go out, and this is an alternative that we all consider to be a
9 reasonable alternative, that we're actually considering doing,
10 we need to answer those questions up front.
11 If we're not there yet, then it can't move forward, and we
12 need to take it out. I mean, I'm not advocating to take it out,
13 but I'm advocating that it's time to do something. The
14 questions have to be answered. This isn't a research paper.
15 It's not something that we're just going out and talking about
16 all of these concepts that would be really great to do do.
17 We're going out and proposing that these are the regulatory
18 actions that we're going to take in this amendment.
19 So, if we're not at the point of being able to do that, if
20 it's a technology issue, if it's something that needs more work,
21 needs more research, then we just need to recognize that, and
22 move on. I mean, we're not going to be able to do everything in
23 one amendment, and just, you know, address every concept that we
24 think would be really great to do.
25 Recognizing that, the other thing I'll say is that moving
1 it into the Draft EIS stage, it's -- we're not at the final
2 decision-making point. So, I think there is opportunity to move
3 some things forward that aren't fully developed, and work on
4 developing them during the Draft EIS.
5 And, you know, maybe some of these questions -- I mean if
6 the Committee wants this alternative in here over -- on this
7 side -- to consider applying maximized retention across the
8 fishery, maybe we move it forward in September, and hope that
9 some of these questions get answered between September and the
10 time that we have a Draft EIS put together.
11 And if they don't, then when the Council approves the Draft
12 EIS, to go out to public hearings, we're going to have to take
13 that alternative out.
14 There will be another crack at this when we have some sort
15 of a Draft EIS put together, and at that point, the Council has
16 to approve it, pick preferred alternatives. So, at that point,
17 certainly, if something's not finished or not ready, it has to
18 come out.
19 Again, whatever goes forward, needs to have analysis. So,
20 we don't want to just throw everything in there, and analyze
21 everything, because it just gets unwieldy. But if we seriously
22 want to consider maximized retention across the fishery, you
23 know, I mean, I guess we can move forward with one alternative
24 that considers it, recognizing that some of these details have
25 to come out during the development of the Draft EIS.
1 And to do that, we may need a Committee meeting, you know,
2 once we have a chance to take a first crack at some of this
3 analysis. And we can come back and say here's what we're able
4 to do, here's what we're not able to do, and we go to decide,
5 you know, before we go too far down the road of the analysis
6 whether it's worth it, to keep this in the document.
7 I mean, I don't want to advocate one way or the other, but
8 I do want everybody to be clear that, you know, it's time. It's
9 -- this isn't a everything-in-the-kitchen sink, you know let's
10 all think about all of these great things.
11 This is -- here's what we're proposing to do in the
12 regulations, in this amendment. So, if it's not something we
13 can do right now, we really shouldn't be spending too much more
14 time on it.
15 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Okay.
16 LORI STEELE: So ...
17 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Glenn.
18 GLENN ROBBINS: Glenn Robbins, Fishing Vessel Western
19 Sea. I want to just speak towards this, because I did have
20 cameras, four cameras, put on my boat, three years ago. We did
21 it in the fall of the year, and then I was going to leave them
22 on for the summer, so we could see how it worked for seining.
23 We were pair trawling at the time.
24 So, we put them in different places, where we hooked the
25 pump on, where the fish would come out of the chute, towards the
1 back, we had somebody put something out that wasn't supposed to
2 be there, and they could see everything.
3 And I video'd it, I looked through what we took, and you
4 could see the groundfish, and there wasn't a lot of groundfish.
5 I told the Advisors this, last week, right here. You could see
6 the groundfish, if you went through a chute. Now one hold goes
7 correctly, comes out, goes right out, and couldn't see what's
8 going in that hold. But the other three holds, you could see
9 what was coming out.
10 So, they do work. And I did it because -- first I went --
11 I've asked Don Hill to get observers, because I can see that we
12 had some problems. But I don't want to pay these observers.
13 They're going to get expensive eventually.
14 So, I paid for cameras. They use it on the west coast, why
15 not try it here, and it does work. We couldn't use them very
16 long because we went (indiscernible) fish in New Bedford, and
17 either we were to stay there and take our cameras off, or we had
18 to leave. That was told to us.
19 So, there's something that cameras will probably show that
20 somebody doesn't want to see, but should be shown. So, they
21 will work, but you got to use them in different spots. I know
22 they've had some problems just this last week on the backside of
23 the Cape. They would have showed some whales being cut out and
24 dumped. Now, whales are all right. There's no -- it's not
25 illegal, so long as it's not a right whale.
1 However, eventually, people get pissed off about this, and
2 we're going to have more problems. But they will show, okay? I
3 just wanted to tell you about that, they will work.
4 There's another gentleman from down south, and he uses them
5 in the groundfishery. And the fluke and some other things. And
6 he thought his cameras were working all right, too. He had
7 four, and he was different -- on a different kind of a program.
8 But from what I saw, as long as it goes through a chute --
9 if they come off and go right into a hold, you can't see what's
10 going in the hold. You can see if there's some stuff that maybe
11 shouldn't be brought in, you know. You could see all that,
12 cameras won't lie. And you can have them fired up on the
13 hydraulic (indiscernible.) Or you could do some other
14 arrangements, but they do work. And I thought they had some
15 pretty good showing. All right.
16 But I'd like to speak later on. I don't --
17 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Sure.
18 GLENN ROBBINS: -- know if 5:30's come and gone, but
19 I'll be here -- I'll be here until I --
20 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: I'll be here, too.
21 GLENN ROBBINS: -- get my say, okay? Thank you.
22 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: I'll be here. Go
23 ahead, Peter.
24 PETER MULLEN: Peter Mullen, Western Venture. My
25 boat's fished east of the Cape last week and this week. Dave's
1 boat fished east of the Cape last week and this week. For some
2 asshole to get up and say that we kill whales, I do have a
3 problem with it. Thank you.
4 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Lori.
5 LORI STEELE: The other point I wanted to make,
6 relative to this issue, is again, going back to that flow chart.
7 I mean, if the Committee is not inclined, at this time, to
8 eliminate an alternative to apply maximized retention across the
9 fishery, that's fine.
10 But we'll just take -- when we take this to the Council,
11 we're just going to need to reflect to the Council that this
12 alternative's just not fully developed, and have the discussion
13 at the Council, do we want to keep it in, and try to develop it
14 during the rest of the Draft EIS, or do we want to take it out.
15 Taking it out does not take out the alternative to apply
16 maximized retention through an experimental fishery, at least
17 not in my mind. But that would be a decision that would have to
18 be made.
19 So, again, you know, I mean, if we can't turn all of these
20 cells white, I don't think that's a reason to delay or to not
21 bring this forward to the Council. I think it just needs to go
22 forward to the Council, with recognition that this particular
23 alternative is not done, and if it's not done for the Draft EIS,
24 then there's going to have to be a decision made.
25 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Dave.
1 DAVID PIERCE: Well, I feel it needs to be in. I
2 think Lori has characterized the situation very well, and the
3 path that we should take. I feel very uncomfortable taking it
4 on right now because I do realize there is some specifics that
5 need to be worked on. I wish we could have them all identified
6 today and ready to go, but we don't.
7 So, you have to bring it forward to the Council, indicate
8 that it is there in an option, and we're giving it our best
9 shot, and what work has to be done on it. And when push comes
10 to shove, when it's time to make the final decisions, and we
11 still haven't got the details worked out, then I guess it's
12 going to have come out. But to take it out now, I think would
13 not be wise.
14 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Okay. I'm going to
15 try one quick thing, and if I don't get a quick response, jump
16 on this from the Committee, then we'll just continue to leave it
17 as is for now.
18 One of the things that I was looking at, as reading through
19 this document -- and I may be expanding things beyond the way
20 other people look at it -- is I looked at the option to have an
21 experimental fishery as a way that -- you know, try and develop
22 this option, experimentally, you know.
23 I look at the option to put it in place, completely right
24 now, as an all or nothing, and I was looking at these various
25 options for phase-ins, as ways to make it easier, but I kind of
1 look at that as something that we -- akin to an experimental
2 fishery. Well, we're going to phrase it in here; we're going to
3 phase it in there. We'd almost need the experimental fishery
4 option to go forward first before we could decide where best to
5 phase these things in.
6 So, my question is, is there any impetus in this Council --
7 or this Committee -- to potentially take out the phase-in
8 options here, at this point in time. Mary Beth.
9 MARY BETH TOOLEY: It's getting late, and --
10 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Yep.
11 MARY BETH TOOLEY: -- I'm not sure I get all that
12 exactly. There's the experimental fishery option, and there's
13 the phase-in. Does the phase-in option only apply to the EFP
14 part, or they --
15 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: No.
16 MARY BETH TOOLEY: -- don't apply to the EFP part at
18 LORI STEELE: Right.
19 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Right. And that's
20 what I looked at, from my perspective, was that if we came out
21 with an option that says okay, we're going to put in maximized
22 retention option that's going to apply across the fishery.
23 That's one option, and you can either have video-based
24 monitoring or -- and/or, you can have observer coverage to
25 verify that, okay? And just leave it as is.
1 And then you're going to have the experimental fishery,
2 which would only apply to certain parts of the fishery,
3 initially, you know, which I saw as a temporal phase-in, a
4 spatial phase-in. I wasn't quite sure that we really need it as
5 an option, these different phase-ins for the part of the option
6 that we're talking about, which would mandate it across all the
8 MARY BETH TOOLEY: I guess because I don't even know
9 what the phase-in means, so that --
10 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Right, that's my
11 point. Terry.
12 TERRY STOCKWELL: That was my point, too, but I agree
13 with David pierce and I want this, you know, maximized retention
14 in the document. And I think bringing it to the Council, saying
15 work is not developed at this point, is the only fair way to go,
16 because I don't think we're going to make any further progress
17 at this meeting.
18 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Okay. From the looks
19 of this chart here, the only other things that had the pink or
20 gray areas was the -- yeah, that one, was a -- see if this might
21 be a -- something, a low-hanging fruit. This goes to Page 6, or
22 Section 6 here. When we get to the portside sampling coverage,
23 portside sampling coverage at the level to meet Council
24 priorities. I think there was concerns about this option that
25 were expressed by the PDT. Go ahead, Lori.
1 LORI STEELE: Yeah. I mean, this is just one of those
2 options that, you know, I mean, we can't -- we're having a hard
3 time figuring out what levels of observer coverage are going to
4 be required to meet certain CV's. And as you saw this morning,
5 you know, to hit a 20 percent CV on river herring with, you
6 know, using an SBRM-type approach, and looking at observer
7 coverage, the level of coverage is going to change every year.
8 So, it's just very unclear what -- how to apply that to
9 determining levels of coverage for portside sampling. I mean,
10 right now, the other two options in the document are a hundred
11 percent and something less than a hundred percent.
12 So, this other option is just sort of out there, and it's
13 not clear, and I don't think that the PDT can do an analysis to
14 provide you an example of what that might mean.
15 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Mary Beth.
16 MARY BETH TOOLEY: I'd make a motion to -- excuse me
17 -- eliminate Section 18.104.22.168.4.
18 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Is there a second?
19 Terry. Is there discussion on the motion?
20 (No audible response.)
21 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Comments from the
23 (No audible response.)
24 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Back to the Committee.
25 LORI STEELE: Sorry. Let me get it up there.
1 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: While we get it up
2 there, Mary Beth.
3 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Just for a little rationale here.
4 I think what we've learned from the PDT, and the analysis that's
5 come forward, is that the information you get from portside does
6 not agree with the at-sea.
7 This originally was a thought concept that, you know, we
8 could somehow combine the two programs to meet the Council's
9 priorities at CV for river herring, haddock, and herring -- and
10 Atlantic herring, and that's how we kind of got here.
11 But the before the PDT got into the analysis, they realized
12 that no, there isn't really a statistical way to do that because
13 each problem is coming up with different numbers. So, I think
14 what the value, and what we would need to do as we move forward,
15 is to try to line up some of these matching events, of portside
16 sampling with at-sea sampling, and continue to study is that --
17 was it just a fluke that the information you have now is so
18 different, or would it continue into the future. I mean there's
19 a lot of things you could learn.
20 But to try to meet the CV levels, I think that's become
21 very problematic, and that's why I made the motion. And I can
22 see Lori nodding her head, so she'll tell me if I'm right or
24 LORI STEELE: You're right, it came from this whole
25 idea of having a combined portside and at-sea program, which we
1 have pretty much determined isn't going to be possible, at least
2 for the purposes of meeting certain targets.
3 Again, taking this option out leaves two options in the
4 document, a hundred percent or something less than a hundred
5 percent. So, you know, I have a feeling we'll end up at one of
6 those options.
7 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Dave.
8 DAVID PIERCE: I understand the concern about getting
9 the necessary number of trips to deal with these particular
10 Council target CV's, the 30 percent, and the 20 percent.
11 Nevertheless, they're target decision levels that targets, which
12 we would like to try to get. So, why not leave it in, as is, at
13 30 percent and 20 percent. (Indiscernible) the Council, the
14 problem we're going to have getting to those particular points.
15 But they're a percent CV's to which we should -- try to
16 achieve those percent CV's, they're targets. They're not
17 mandated; they're targets. If we take them out, there's just no
18 (indiscernible) right?
19 MARY BETH TOOLEY: Are they targets?
20 DAVID PIERCE: It says in the document they're
22 LORI STEELE: They're targets.
23 MARY BETH TOOLEY: It does?
24 DAVID PIERCE: Not mandated, but they're targets, and
25 I'd like to try to achieve them, along with making sure, as best
1 we can, that we have accurate estimates.
2 But to keep them in, they're targets, we shoot for them,
3 and that also gives us more ammunition for the push to have
4 increased funds made available for at-sea observer coverage.
5 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Further comments from
6 the Committee?
7 (No audible response.)
8 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Any discussion, any
9 comments from the public again?
10 (No audible response.)
11 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Okay. Back to the
12 Committee. Mary Beth.
13 MARY BETH TOOLEY: I guess Dave's comments on it being
14 targets, I'm just trying to decide if I can come up with my own
15 motion or not. But --
16 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: You can try.
17 MARY BETH TOOLEY: -- in terms of analysis, how much
18 of an extra burden is -- I mean, you guys have spent a lot of
19 time on the CV stuff, for the at-sea, and if it really isn't
20 going to even get to there, we have other options, do we really
21 want to have the PDT spending a huge amount of time on this, as
23 If they can't be combined, and they have to do it
24 separately, I'm just somewhat concerned by that.
25 LORI STEELE: I mean, it's going to require a
1 significant amount of analysis. We've have to basically try to
2 construct an analysis that mirrors the one that we did for the
3 observer coverage, and relate it to portside sampling.
4 And, I mean, it was -- it was easier to do for observer
5 coverage because we already had an SBRM methodology sort of laid
6 out, that we could follow. We've never even tried this with
7 portside sampling. And so it's -- I don't even know -- I mean,
8 we'd have to think about how to stratify the data, how to
9 distribute the sampling program through the times and areas.
10 It's a pretty significant undertaking, but so is everything
11 else in this document.
12 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Dave.
13 DAVID PIERCE: Well, it says in the document, under
14 that particular option, NMFS will determine the levels of
15 coverage. If NMFS can't do that, then I suppose we can't have
16 it in the document.
17 LORI STEELE: Well, yeah. I mean, NMFS really means
18 the PDT.
19 DAVID PIERCE: Oh.
20 LORI STEELE: In this particular -- or the Science
21 Center. But the whole methodology for doing that, for portside
22 sampling, would have to be obviously kind of laid out by the PDT
23 through the analysis in this document.
24 DAVID PIERCE: So perhaps we should just leave it in
25 for now until the PDT tells us that it is not an analysis that
1 can be done, there aren't enough data available now for the
2 required analysis to determine if we can actually get the
3 coverage that -- what coverage would correspond -- what level of
4 sampling corresponds with 30 percent or 20 percent.
5 If the PDT has already discussed this, and has said forget
6 it, can't do it now, okay, but if they haven't yet done it,
7 because the Council has already set this as a priority, correct?
8 They are Council priorities. Since as they are Council
9 priorities ...
10 LORI STEELE: Well, the Council set it is a priority
11 for observer coverage. This option essentially utilizes those
12 priorities for distributing observer coverage, to develop a
13 methodology for distributing portside sampling coverage.
14 I mean, the priorities relate to, you know, the precision
15 of our bycatch estimates that come from the observer data.
16 I don't think the PDT will tell you it can't be done. It's
17 just it's going to be a pretty significant undertaking, and I'm
18 not sure it's going to yield results that are going to clearly
19 explain what the coverage levels for a portside sampling program
20 would be.
21 DAVID PIERCE: Okay. With all that said, in light of
22 the fact that it's not a Council priority -- I had forgotten
23 that (indiscernible) the observer program, and now the port
24 sampling, as well, in light of the fact that the states are
25 doing the sampling, and likely will continue to do the sampling,
1 and we don't know if funds will be available, I think so this
2 will fall into the lap of the states, relying, of course, on
3 collaboration with the National Fisheries Service.
4 So, I'll change my view on this, and I will support the
6 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Further discussion
7 form the Committee?
8 (No audible response.)
9 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Okay. You all ready
10 to vote?
11 All those in favor of the motion, raise your hand. Eight
12 in favor. The motion passes unanimously. Okay.
13 LORI STEELE: Okay. I mean, we're -- I'm sorry. I
14 just want to go over this flow chart a little bit because this
15 is just a -- it was a strawman that we put out there. And I
16 want to be able to modify it to bring to the Council, to reflect
17 what the Committee wants. This isn't -- wasn't -- it wasn't
18 intended to predetermine anything, or you know, require anything
19 in terms of the alternatives. It was really just sort of a
20 thought process, and a brainstorming activity, to figure out how
21 we can illustrate what the catch monitoring alternatives would
22 look like.
23 Based on the discussion that we had today, I guess my
24 suggestions for this kind of an approach would be in here, where
25 my cursor is going around, would be to add a box coming straight
1 down, that says no maximized retention, as, you know, so you
2 basically flow through here for one alternative.
3 And then, you know, another alternative could, you know, be
4 based on the IVR, and the VMS over here, and you have sort of
5 three alternatives here, which is the not finished maximized
6 retention across the fishery, you'd have the no maximized
7 retention alternative. In here, you'd have the EFP maximized
8 retention alternative.
9 And my other suggestion based on the discussions we've had
10 today, maybe it's a little too premature to have the portside
11 sampling alternatives, one being in the federal amendment, and
12 one being through ASMFC.
13 So, I'd recommend just taking these boxes and eliminating
14 them at this point. I was just -- that was just a thinking
15 process on how we could have some differences between the
17 So, I would suggest a no maximized retention box here, and
18 getting rid of these two boxes down here for the time being,
19 until we have some more discussion about portside sampling with
20 ASMFC, and bringing it to the Committee like that, to sort of
21 show how the alternatives might be constructed.
22 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Terry, and then Dave.
23 TERRY STOCKWELL: Yeah. Thanks, Lori. I might
24 suggest that I'd leave the two boxes in, but rather than have
25 ASMFC administration, have ASMFC collaboration.
1 LORI STEELE: Okay.
2 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Dave.
3 DAVID PIERCE: Terry pretty much said what I was going
4 to say.
5 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Good, we're all in
7 LORI STEELE: Does the Committee want to entertain a
8 motion to forward the catch monitoring alternatives to the
9 Council for further Development in the Draft EIS, since, I mean,
10 tomorrow's agenda doesn't cover catch monitoring. It covers
11 everything else in the amendment.
12 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Mary Beth.
13 MARY BETH TOOLEY: I'm not necessarily against that.
14 I did have some minor issues on reporting that I was going to
15 talk to the Regional Office about, instead of using Committee
16 time. I just needed some clarification, to see if I understood
17 what, you know, what this says, and what it means. I don't want
18 to belabor it here at the table, but I could talk to -- with
19 them, hopefully before tomorrow.
20 So, I don't know how much of a -- I mean, if we -- unless
21 you want to pass this motion, if it makes much difference to
22 that or not. Because then, if I had any motions that I had to
23 make tomorrow, or discussion, would that change that? It might.
24 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: There's -- I guess the
25 question I'd have, Lori, is whether we could take up that motion
1 under outstanding issues tomorrow, if there is -- how does the
2 rest of the Committee feel, that when we make that motion, to
3 move it forward to the Council for consideration, we could do it
4 now, or we could do it at 4:30 tomorrow, along with some of the
5 other issues? Dave.
6 DAVID PIERCE: Regarding when the motion should be
7 made, I'd appreciate it, Mr. Chairman if you would tell me --
8 remind me -- where we left off with -- where we left off with
9 2.6.5. Again, we pondered it, we thought about it, there were
10 long moments of silence. I don't think we really made progress
11 on that.
12 I've been thinking about it, trying to think about the best
13 way to proceed, and the video-based electronic monitoring, to
14 ensure compliance with the maximized retention provision. If we
15 could made that motion today or tomorrow, how would that motion
16 reflect that particular section? Would we be saying to the
17 Council that all of those were in the mix, 22.214.171.124, 126.96.36.199,
18 et cetera, et cetera, as well as the maximized retention phase-
19 in options?
20 So, how did we end up with that particular part of it?
21 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Lori.
22 LORI STEELE: My understanding is that we ended up
23 acknowledging that that's an incomplete alternative. And I
24 guess if a motion to move these forward into a Draft EIS is
25 approved, it's recognizing that that still has work to be done
1 in the Draft EIS, and may come back as part of Draft EIS, not
2 completed, at which point, other decisions about what to do with
3 it would have to be made.
4 That was my understanding of where we left it.
5 TERRY STOCKWELL: Yeah, David, we moved that from the
6 electronic monitoring section to the maximized retention
8 LORI STEELE: Yeah, in the -- on the back end, yeah.
9 I got that. Right.
10 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: What's your pleasure?
11 You want to hold off till tomorrow? Okay. We'll hold off for
12 tomorrow in making such a motion.
13 All right, folks. We have had a person that has waited a
14 long time to make public comment here, on a general issue, and
15 so I'm opening up the door to public comment. Glenn. Thank you
16 for your patience.
17 GLENN ROBBINS: Glenn Robbins, Fishing Vessel Western
18 Sea. I'm also speaking on behalf of the seiners. I was elected
19 President in the '90s of the New England Seiners Association,
20 and I still get mailings from there. This is not all the
21 seiners, all but one, because there's a conflict with one, but
22 he probably would go along with this.
23 But we -- also (indiscernible) quite a few guys have been
24 around for awhile, and have been fishing off our coast. It's
25 the worst that I've ever seen it, worst that I've ever seen it,
1 and I started 47 years ago with my dad, and I've behind the
2 wheel for 39 years. I had a little time off. I went to
3 college, graduated summa cum laude, 3.7. I'm not stupid. I
4 know what I'm doing.
5 Been to Vietnam, and I'm a deacon of a Baptist Church in
6 Kittery, and they don't treat me like I've been treated here
7 today. But I didn't say that to you, Doug, somebody else.
8 Well-respected by the fishing community, up and down the
9 coast. I wasn't in the trawlers because I have never liked the
10 trawlers since -- I don't mind the people, I told Peter Mullen,
11 I liked him, right on. I just didn't like the way he fished,
12 because I've heard about it.
13 I know when the North Sea went down what happened there.
14 And I don't want to see our fishery closed because of lack of
15 fish. It's coming faster than I'd ever thought it would. I
16 thought we had more time. I thought probably the trawlers would
17 leave after there was not enough around, especially the
18 mackerel. Because that's what they were after, mostly, and
19 that's where they make their money.
20 Some of you know what's been going on, and some of you
21 don't know what's been going on in this fishery for the last 15
22 years. I want to talk to the winter fishery right now. What's
23 been happening, and this is why I believe we're in the position
24 that we're in right now. We caught less than 3,000 metric ton.
25 At first, they limited us to two days' landing, then two or
1 three or four.
2 And there was a lot of discussion, and I -- but now we can
3 fish all the time. There's no fish. Last night, they closed
4 another. So -- it wasn't a spawning closure. They just closed,
5 because there's no spawn fish that we can find in that area. So
6 that's another area that's closed. There's only one left that's
7 open, and there were two seiners in that area, and they came up
8 with zero last night. So, I don't think anybody's going to
9 catch too much in 1A for the next 11 days, until it opens down
11 Let me go back to the fall fishery. 15, 20 years ago, when
12 the trawlers came in, and they built the plants in Gloucester,
13 in New Bedford, they wanted mackerel, and I know what happened
14 on those boats when they'd go out and not find mackerel. They'd
15 go out for a week, and they'd bring their net back, and it
16 wouldn't be mackerel, and they would dump those fish, herring.
17 And at the last day, they would be allowed to bring in 200 ton
18 of herring to pay for the expense, to give the crew a little bit
19 of money. I know this, because people that have worked with me,
20 seining, were on those boats.
21 And this past spring, I got together with Pew, and we had a
22 video camera in my business up in Rockland warehouse, where
23 (indiscernible) and it's volunteer people that were on these
24 boats, told what had happened, and surprised me -- it wasn't my
25 words, it was their words. Five guys came forward. One guy
1 wanted to, but he's in a suit right now, it's a lawsuit, of the
2 damage that trawlers had done to this fishery by dumping herring
3 and haddock.
4 When we first started this, it was (indiscernible) haddock.
5 Now, it's 180, 190,000. I don't know how much higher it will
6 go. If it needs to go higher (indiscernible.) That's not the
7 way to solve the problem. There is a problem. It's done by a
8 fishery that cannot release their fish.
9 Peter Mullen just told you that he's dumped some fish,
10 because they were feeding. If he had a seine, he could release
11 those fish. I sold fish to the cannery -- Jeff here knows this.
12 We'd go out, night after night, with a carrier, and we sample
13 the fish, usually after 1:00, in the evening, or early morning.
14 Those fish would be cleaned, and we'd them on the carriers, and
15 they'd go to the cannery. If you took him early, they were
17 If you had a trawl net, you'd just going to have feedy
18 fish, they're (indiscernible.) That's why seine is better.
19 Peter Mullen could make as much money with a seine as he could
20 with a trawl if we let this fishery come back.
21 Last year was the first year that I've been back on my boat
22 for 14 years. I had another guy running boats, and I was a lot
23 freer to stay home with my kids, till they got through high
24 school. But last year, when I -- it was an awakening to me, to
25 look around and see small amounts of fish, not millions and
1 millions, and we had to set the whole seine to get anything.
2 Before that, you just run 20 or 30 (indiscernible) to get
3 all you wanted. The problem was you didn't have much market.
4 There were still canneries around.
5 Now, we've done away with all the canneries, and it
6 probably isn't all because of lack of fish. People don't eat
7 the sardines that they used to. I think -- I don't think the
8 market's there. So, they can kind of let that fall back. But
9 there was some market there. There's a lot of sardines this
10 year. They said they catch them with my small seine, 18 pound
11 seine, because I can't find anything with the large seine.
12 I've been around here Jeffreys, around Platts, and these
13 other places where fish normally hang out, large fish, and
14 they're not there. Jeffreys got depleted back in the '70s
15 (indiscernible.) We had a midwater, we had a IWP, in Rockland,
16 and I believe there was like seven, 700,000, no, 7,000 metric
17 tons, taking off (indiscernible) off Jeffreys, which was always
18 a good spot. If you couldn't find fish anywhere, you always
19 went to Jeffreys or you went to *Mount Desert Rock.
20 You go out there in the summertime, and there'd be 30, 40,
21 50 boats, anchored up, waiting, tuna boats, mostly, and you'd
22 wait, and the fish would come up, and make a set, and you'd go
23 to market. Place is a ghost up there now. I've been over it
24 twice this summer, Danny's been over it several times.
25 I mean, it's just -- it's terrible to drive around and see
1 no fish where there used to be millions and millions of fish.
2 Tens of millions of pounds a week, not a month, were destroyed,
3 not last year, the year before, because now herring are becoming
4 worth something. The place where I buy my bait for my lobsters.
5 We're paying the Canadians 27 cents. Now it's down to 15 again,
6 because we caught a few small ones, so the competition, they had
7 dropped their price. They have weir fish, small fish, feedy
9 But the lobster fishermen are going to take the hammering
10 on this. If we shut this fishery down, or this price is up so
11 high now -- ten cents is plenty for a herring; it's too high.
12 It's killing -- it's killing the lobster fishermen. I've talked
13 to a lot of them, I've talked to any crew that works on the
14 coast, Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, they don't have a
15 good word for the trawlers. I'm sorry, they don't. They all
16 hate the trawlers, they want to see them gone.
17 Well, I think you need trawlers. So, I don't really want
18 to see them gone; I want to see them, either 1A and 1B. On
19 Georges, they have a place, but I don't want to see pair
20 trawlers up there. Some guys got a pair trawl and went
21 groundfishing with it, and man, they caught a lot of fish. I
22 don't know if you guys know -- you guys probably know who it is
23 -- up there, off of Boothbay. And it was -- it was great. They
24 caught, you know, finally, they got restricted. They had no
25 more pair trawling for groundfish because it was -- it was a
1 killer, very efficient, and that's what pair trawlers are.
2 They're very, very efficient.
3 They're fishing on the backside of the Cape. Some of those
4 fish are hard to find, but once you put the net down, on the
5 bottom, you'll see them trickling over the footrope, and they'll
6 tow all day, and they'll catch quite a few fish. Seiners can't
7 do that. And that's all right, I mean, because I don't think we
8 should take every fish. I don't think we should be that
9 efficient, because I've seen it before.
10 When we took spawn fish, back in the later '70s, we hit
11 Ipswich Bay. When they got into 20, 30 fathom, we could catch
12 them, and they're so fat with spawn, they wouldn't swim very
13 good. They'd die if you had over 200,000 in your net, and
14 they'd bust it open.
15 We decided there -- the seiners decided, that we'd better
16 have a spawning closure, or we won't have a fishery. And it
17 comes back fast, it does come back fast. But it won't come back
18 if you kill the moms and the dads, the adults. The small ones,
19 I would sell them sardines in the '60s, '70s, '80s, '90s, and we
20 never hurt our fishery, a hundred thousand a year. But when you
21 kill the moms and the dads -- I talked to Matt the other day. I
22 called him up. I'm sorry he's not here now, because he could
23 tell you I had a lot of questions for him. And some of the
24 questions he couldn't answer, but I suppose somebody's got to
25 have an answer for this.
1 I asked him, I said what happens, Matt, once the fish spawn
2 -- and I know how they do it -- they swim into the tide, and
3 they squirt that out, the male goes over and fertilizes -- and
4 it gets several inches deep, almost up to a foot. And it sticks
5 to rocks, sand and gravel. It won't work in the mud.
6 So, they come to Ipswich Bay, in the shoaler water. I
7 know, I've been fishing there for a long time. But then after
8 they're spent, those fish stay there for awhile. Then you take
9 the trawlers, and they go in -- and these are not small boats, a
10 million pounds or better, with half-inch (indiscernible) chain
11 on the bottom of the net, towing through spawn.
12 Well, what happens then, Matt? I says, does that hurt the
13 spawn? Is that good for the spawn? He couldn't answer me. He
14 didn't say yes; he didn't say no. I said, well, I can't -- I
15 can't imagine it's going to help it any. He said no, it
16 probably doesn't. I says, well, does anybody know? He didn't
18 But if somebody does know, I'd like to know, because why do
19 we let the trawlers go in there, and go over this, this bottom
20 that we've laid eggs in, for our future, and then
21 (indiscernible) going in and rotating them back up. I don't
22 know if they rotates it up, and I don't know what happens. It
23 just doesn't sound good to me.
24 I've talked to some of the guys that fish the bottom, the
25 spawn fish that came off Georges, I know you don't have a
1 spawning closure on Georges, but like 80 percent of those fish
2 that came off last fall, off Georges -- and there was a lot of
3 fish that came off Jeffreys -- was spawn fish.
4 And if you look at the back of the net on the boat, it
5 wasn't white, it was yellow. Have you ever seen spawn? It's
6 yellow. You could see the nets were all yellow. That's our
8 But the trawlers have been having a hard time this year.
9 They're going out to Georges quite a bit, because they can't
10 find too much. And they've already talked amongst themselves.
11 Once they get around 80 percent, they'll shut down, because they
12 don't want to shut the fishery down. They won't catch any more
13 haddock, 80 percent of the haddock quota. And that's good.
14 But my word, you got to do a few things. Tell me this,
15 Doug. I had a question. When the Council makes decisions,
16 don't a lot of their decisions come from this group? Don't you
17 guys hash this over, and then the Council more or less rubber
18 stamps it? Is that -- I've been coming to these -- that's what
19 it looks like to me. Is that right? Does that -- somewhat
21 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Not necessarily.
22 GLENN ROBBINS: Okay. What -- all right, so beside
23 talking to the Council, I figured I should be talking to this
25 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: This is a start.
1 GLENN ROBBINS: Okay. So, what I would like to
2 recommend for you people to think very wisely about -- think
3 really hard, because it's -- I don't know how much longer it's
4 going to last. The last one out, they really didn't have really
5 many herring, and they tried. Because they can sell the herring
6 now. Well, the cannery is gone (indiscernible) it still
7 wouldn't be hard to sell the herring in the wintertime, plus
8 they've got a foreign market, because there's not much bait use.
9 So, I don't know what's going to happen. If they don't
10 have much spawn, they'll probably leave anyways. But you got to
11 -- if they do leave, if the trawlers leave, fold up, you got to
12 push rules to keep them out next time. I don't want to see this
13 go down again. I don't want to see the lobster fishermen have
14 to pay for this, the tuna fishermen, all the other groups that
15 would like to say what I'm saying right now.
16 Trawling is bad business. Canada knows that. I've talked
17 to those people, over and over again. They won't have it up
18 there. It is too effective; it will kill our industry. It is
19 killing our industry. I don't think the waste -- they're not
20 going to waste the herring anymore, but there's no herring to
21 waste anymore. And if you let them continue to get the spawn
22 herring, out on Georges, this stock's going the tubes faster
23 than we can imagine.
24 A spawning closure should be -- if you want to take notes,
25 take notes. This is what you need to do. Not just a closure on
1 herring. Anybody with spawn herring, Stage 4, 5, one time
2 warning. Next time, $50,000. Third time, you're out of the
3 fishery for one year from that date. That will shut them down.
4 Because we don't know when the fish spawn. We've missed
5 the mark before. You don't want to take the spawn fish here.
6 It's going to kill us. It'll kill our industry. Those fishes
7 on Georges, we don't know now -- but we used to have a lot of
8 tagging going on, 20, 24 percent interacting between the Gulf of
9 Maine and Georges.
10 So, if we don't allow it in the Gulf of Maine, or in 1A,
11 why should we allow it up there? Those are the fish that would
12 have come in here. Now they're not going to come in here.
13 There's areas that have been hit, that haven't come back;
14 Jeffreys, beautiful spot. I've gone down across that, and seen
15 -- never run out of herring. Probably 40, 50 million pounds.
16 this is 20 years ago. I haven't been out there for a long time.
17 As I said, I just started again last year. It's a ghost town
18 out there. It's terrible. Peter Mullen (indiscernible) that
19 there was a lot of herring out there. (Indiscernible) I'd like
20 to see it again. We're being hurt, real bad.
21 And discuss that with your people. And if you don't do it,
22 I'm going to go to the public, I'm going to start hitting the
23 newspapers, I'll take a half a million dollars -- I don't care,
24 a half a million -- I'm all set with that. I still got a few
25 bucks left.
1 And I'll speak to all the Congress people, whoever I got to
2 speak to. I've already talked to some people in New York, and
3 who go to press. The film we've made, I've already told them to
4 release it. It'll show you, and it'll tell you -- and these
5 guys are speaking from their hearts, because they don't like to
6 see what's happened.
7 I didn't think it would come this fast, but it has. And I
8 have to speak to you about it. I could sit back, because I'm
9 all right, but what are the lobster fishermen going to use?
10 When I went into Ireland, they (indiscernible) mackerel. They
11 used to use herring. I talked to several people there. I went
12 around. I went to the waterfront and talked to those people. I
13 wanted to see what they were doing.
14 This was three years ago. I don't know what they're doing
15 now, but three years ago, that's what they were using. I don't
16 want us to use mackerel, because I don't know if we have any
18 If you have any questions, I got a lot of knowledge. I've
19 been here; I've seen it. Geez, you're struggling through some
20 of these things, and I say geez, that's simple. But, you know,
21 I see you struggling, and it's terrible, you know, they're using
22 a lot of time, but not getting anywhere. And maybe it's for no
23 good anyways. Maybe we won't have a fishery. I hope not. I
24 hope it comes back.
25 But what I've been seeing this year (indiscernible) it's
2 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Thank you. Does
3 anybody else have comments they'd like to provide?
4 (No audible response.)
5 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT: Okay. Thank you,
6 Committee members, for your work today. I know it was a long
7 one. We'll start again tomorrow at nine o'clock, dealing with
8 river herring hotspots.
9 ** Meeting adjourned, to be resumed on September 2, 2010 **
I, Michelle Costantino, an Approved Court Transcriber by
and for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, do hereby certify
that the foregoing (pages 1 through 289) represents a true and
accurate transcript, to the best of my knowledge, skill and
ability, of the audio recordings provided to me by Project
FishTalk of the proceedings in the above-entitled matters.
I, Michelle Costantino, further certify that I am not
financially nor otherwise interested in the outcome of the
d/b/a New England Transcription Service
31 Home Depot Drive #182
Plymouth, MA 02360