Document Sample
                         Sheraton Harborside
                     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 ( properly.

For questions, please contact Michael Flaherty by phone at
(617) 729-3232 or by email at

                         Transcript prepared by
                    New England Transcription Service
                             (508) 759-6092


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

6    here.

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

17   policy.

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

4    affiliation.

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


1    amendment.

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

14   presentation.

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

17   morning.

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?


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.

6                                   (Laughter.)

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

3    them.

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

7    language.

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

18   responses.

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

19   correctly.

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

10   onboard.

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

14   documents.

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

4    abstention.

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

2    Mike.

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.

12   Chair.

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

15   suggestion.

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.

3                                     (Laughter.)

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

9    you.

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

4    passed.

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

7    thing.

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

17   clips.

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

11   pounds.

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.


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

20   holds.

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

20   trucks.

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

4    barrels.

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

8    you?

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.

16   David.

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

8    cetera.

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


1    information.

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

21   can't.

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

24   feasibility.

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

13   CMCP.

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

13   fashion.

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

18   it?

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

6    tanks.

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

19   container.

20                COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT:       Maker of the motion,

21   accept that?

22                LORI STEELE:    I don't know what that means, what

23   changes?

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

3    general.

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.

17                                    (Pause.)

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

2    hold.

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,

2    yet?

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

14   that.

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

25   Patrick.


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

16   (indiscernible.)

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

15   Service.

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

25   vessel.


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

6    well.

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

10   here.

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

12   forward.

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.

11                                   (Pause.)

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

8    well.

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

21   comment?

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

15   acceptable.

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

5    others.

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

2    shore.

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

14   you.

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

18   together.

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

18   that.

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

4    winter?

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

18   motion.

19                   COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT:          Thank you, Dave --

20   Jeff.

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

14   time.

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.


25                      FOR THE DIRECTED HERRING FISHERY



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

5    methods.

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

24   Bank.

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,

12   okay?

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

16   things.

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

20   variable.

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


1    thing.

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.

6    Okay.

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

23   category.

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

12   levels.

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

6    herring.

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

11   trip.

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

22   quota?

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

4    methodology.

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

3    accuracy.

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

11   accuracy.

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

11   perspective.

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

2    estimates.

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

18   magnitude.

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,

7    absolutely.

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

20   knowing.

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

10   degree?

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

8    approach.

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

14   there.

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

5    accurately.

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

4    precision.

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.

6                                     (Pause.)

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

12   provide."

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, 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,

19   too.

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.


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

23   program.

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

16   forward.

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

6    assessments.

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

10   thing.

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

7    Section?

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

3    do.

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

4    motion?

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

13   frequency.

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

22   coverage.

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

8    cells.

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

21   matrix.

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

7    amendable?

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

9    whatever.

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

17   fishery.

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.


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

2    58.

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

17   fleet.

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

24   fishery.

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

17   collected.

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

5    sensors.

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

10   fishery.

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

24   program.

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

21   time.

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

16   consider.

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

24   something.

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

11   potential.

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.

6                                       (Pause.)

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

22   net.

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

10   it?

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

15   bottom.

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


1    know.

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

24   first.

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

5    are.

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

4    framework.

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

20   investigation.

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

4    change.

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,

12   Terry?

13               TERRY STOCKWELL:      Absolutely.

14                                     (Pause.)

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?

22   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


1    motion.

2                 LORI STEELE:   No.    That I can do.

3                 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT:      Anything else on this

4    section?


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

17   alternatives.

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

25   off.


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

7    section.

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

19   throughout.

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

10   that.

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

24   suboption, which is related to the length of carrier vessels and

25   VMS, and add Section, 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:

5                 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT:     Is there a second?

6    Erling.

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

3    left.

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

18   alternative.

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

5    addressed.

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

12   that.

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,

20   legally.

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

25   others.


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.

6                                      (Pause.)

7                 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT:      Nobody's jumping on

8    this.

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

13   simpler?

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, that we would remove from the species

8    list highly migratory species, striped bass, river herring and

9    shad.

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

17   folks.

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.

11                                    (Pause.)

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

24   list.

25                COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT:        Right.    I don't


1    believe we wanted it on the list because of the concern that

2    (indiscernible.)

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

21   dogfish.

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

6    comment?

7                           (No audible response.)

8                 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DOUG GROUT:        Back to the Committee.

9    Dave.

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

10   that?

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,, 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,

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

3    thing.

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

20   it.

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

22   same.

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)

24   question.

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

6    Beth.

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

22   retention.

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, 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

2    fishery.

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

10   fishery.

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

21   developed.

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

2    first?

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

13   migratories.

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

17   all.

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

7    fisheries.

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               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

22   public.

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

23   wrong.

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

21   targets.

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

22   well?

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

5    motion.

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

16   alternatives.

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

6    agreement.

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,,,

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

7    section.

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

10   east.

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

16   feeding.

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

8    fish.

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

17   know.

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

7    future.

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

20   near?

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

24   group.

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

17   mackerel.

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


1   dead.

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

above-entitled matters.

Michelle Costantino

d/b/a New England Transcription Service

31 Home Depot Drive    #182

Plymouth, MA   02360

(508) 759-6092


Shared By: