1
 1                      TRANSCRIPT OF
 2           MARINE FISHERIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
 3                 HILTON HAWAIIAN VILLAGE
 4                        (Day Two)
 5               South Pacific Ballroom # 1
 6                 Held in Honolulu, Hawaii
 7                          On
 8  
 9               Wednesday, January 12, 2005
10  
11  
12  
13  
14  
15  
16  
17  
18  
19  
20  
21  
22  
23  
24  
25  
                                                       2
 1                        I N D E X
 2      State of the Fisheries Overview -  
 3      Dr. Bill Hogarth                               3
 4  
 5      Cold-Water Corals
 6      Status of the Science - Dr. Tom Hourigan      60
 7      Management in Action - Dr. Ricky Grigg        81
 8      What are the Policy Issues - Dr. Michael
 9      Sissenwine                                    97
10  
11      Budget FY05 & FY05 - Gary Reisner            128
12      Office of Constituent Services - Gordon Helm 164
13      Recreational Fisheries Program -  
14      Forbes Darby                                 208
15      MAFAC - Mission and Planning - Laurel Bryant 245
16  
17  
18  
19  
20  
21  
22  
23  
24  
25  
                                                       3
 1                                           (8:45 a.m.)
 2            (Wednesday, January 12, 2005)  
 3            MR. OSTERBACK:  Okay.  Good morning, 
 4  everyone.  It's 8:45.  
 5            First off, I guess for everybody that was 
 6  involved in putting together the festivities last 
 7  night, that was something.  (Applause)  
 8            On our agenda, at 8:45 on the State of the 
 9  Fisheries Overview from Dr. Hogarth, we'll start 
10  there because yesterday by the time we wrapped up I 
11  think we'd covered the ecosystem report as far as we 
12  want to at this time.  So I'll turn it over to Dr. 
13  Hogarth.  
14            (State of the Fisheries Overview)
15            MR. HOGARTH:  Thank you.  I want to take 
16  the opportunity while we're together, and we have 
17  some new members, to go over where we were and where 
18  we are, and things we did accomplish.  
19            After a lot of discussion yesterday, the 
20  presentations, I took some out and some we'll run 
21  through very quickly.  But part of this, too, will 
22  be -- at the end of it, there will be some things 
23  when I was sitting on the plane one day -- and 
24  that's dangerous for me to do that -- and I made 
25  this list of things I thought we ought to do in 
                                                       4
 1  2005.  Some of them are pretty comprehensive.  So 
 2  I'd like to discuss those with MAFAC.  
 3            I think some of them we would need MAFAC's 
 4  involvement as the advisory body that you are, and 
 5  you've been very helpful to us.  
 6            You've seen all this about our mission, of 
 7  course.  Our mission is the stewardship of marine 
 8  living resources through science-based conservation 
 9  and management and the promotion of healthy 
10  ecosystems.  
11            We are the oldest conservation agency in 
12  the nation.  I think it's something to be proud of.  
13  We celebrated our 130th anniversary in 2001.  I 
14  think we probably have as many challenges right now 
15  as we've ever had.  I think particularly over the 
16  next couple of years we have tremendous challenges 
17  and tremendous opportunities.  I think we have the 
18  opportunity now as the stocks are rebuilding to 
19  really come up with a plan for fisheries for the 
20  future for sustainability, for operating this as a 
21  business, to get out of somewhat micromanaging 
22  fisheries, by assigning fishermen catches or quotas 
23  and bycatch quotas, and letting them be more 
24  responsible for when they fish, make good use of the 
25  market to fish.  
                                                       5
 1            I just think we have tremendous 
 2  opportunities to look at new ways of managing, and 
 3  new technology.  I hope that's the way we go.  
 4            I know this Administration is very much 
 5  interested in that program.  
 6            Just for a little brief summary, you've 
 7  heard me say it before, and I'll say it again, this 
 8  is over a 60 billion dollar industry.  Gross 
 9  national product, over 60 billion.  
10            We have a tremendous recreational fishery, 
11  with over 17 million participants, who make about 65 
12  million fishing trips and have an economic benefit 
13  of more than 30 million, 349,000 jobs and over 12 
14  billion in related personal incomes.  It's a large 
15  business.  
16            It's also an industry that's growing.  If 
17  you look at saltwater fishermen, it's the number one 
18  outdoor recreation in this country.  So far, it's 
19  continued to grow, which in itself brings us some 
20  problems that we have to address, like 
21  catch-and-release mortality of the fish that I think 
22  we'll have to get more involved in in the future as 
23  we look at the recreational fisheries.  
24            When you look at our commercial fishery, 
25  we still have -- in 2003 New Bedford, Massachusetts 
                                                       6
 1  is still our number one port.  A lot of that is 
 2  based on scallops.  
 3            Then you have Dutch Harbor, of course, in 
 4  Alaska.  Then Louisiana.  We have a tremendous 
 5  fishery in Alaska.  
 6            If you look at the top commercial species, 
 7  it's still shrimp, followed by crab, lobster, 
 8  pollock and scallops.  
 9            As far as volume, of course, no one 
10  touches Dutch Harbor in Alaska.  
11            The top commercial species in volume is, 
12  of course, pollock.  That's been a very stable 
13  fishery.  Then menhaden, salmon, cod and then 
14  flounder.  These stay pretty constant.  
15            The only thing that's happened in 
16  commercial fisheries lately is the consumption in 
17  the U.S. used to be tuna.  The consumption in the 
18  U.S. now is shrimp, the number one species.  
19            Things we're getting more and more 
20  concerned about is our exports and imports.  You can 
21  see by the green line, the light line, we are 
22  importing more.  The trade deficit is approaching 11 
23  billion dollars.  We're importing now somewhere 
24  between 75 and 80 percent of all the seafood.  
25            This is a reason we think aquaculture has 
                                                       7
 1  a vital role in the future as we manage wild stocks 
 2  and stabilize those while we use a combination of 
 3  aquaculture and wild to become more self-sufficient 
 4  in seafood in this country.  We think it's extremely 
 5  important for all of the industry.  
 6            NOAA's mission, I think I won't go through 
 7  this, we'll just skip this because you heard about 
 8  it yesterday.  
 9            You heard how we fit our budgeting in the 
10  ecosystem, we have many of the programs there.  We 
11  won't spend any time on that this morning because 
12  you've heard it.  
13            But I do want to talk a little bit about 
14  rebuilding fisheries.  I think we're starting to see 
15  some progress here.  I think it's something we all 
16  want to see.  
17            We have the responsibility for managing 
18  over 900 stocks of fish.  We still have a number of 
19  unknown status.  I think about 25 percent or more of 
20  all of the stocks we have variable information.  
21            But 17 major stocks over the last four 
22  years have been removed from the list of overfished.  
23  We've dropped from 56 to 39.  Over 93 percent of 
24  them that remain in overfished stocks have 
25  rebuilding plans in place.  The number of species 
                                                       8
 1  subject to overfishing has decreased by about 48 
 2  percent.  
 3            Last year I think we removed ten stocks 
 4  from the overfishing list, which is the most we've 
 5  done in one year, in 2004.  
 6            It's critical here I think to make sure 
 7  that we get rebuilding plans in place.  We have some 
 8  49 FMPs now in place.  I think the second part of 
 9  this is to make sure that the public realizes that 
10  if the seafood is on the market, there is a 
11  rebuilding plan in place in this country.  So 
12  they're being managed for sustainability and they 
13  should be able to feel safe in consuming seafood.  
14            We are in the process now -- I think we're 
15  making a lot of progress in targets in the process.  
16  I think four years ago when I took this job we had 
17  70 lawsuits per year.  We were winning less than 45 
18  percent.  We are now winning about 78 percent.  
19            If you look at last year, we were up 
20  around 90 percent.  
21            A lot of this is because Congress has 
22  given us money to invest in the National 
23  Environmental Policy Act and we've been able to 
24  train people, and all.  I think that's why some of 
25  the discussion yesterday about the Magnuson versus 
                                                       9
 1  NEPA, I don't think any of us are trying to get out 
 2  of that process, we're just trying to make it more 
 3  streamlined.  Because it does take over two years to 
 4  get a fishery management plan in place.  That's just 
 5  really too long.  
 6            I mean, by the time we get it in place the 
 7  data is outdated.  So by the time you get something 
 8  in place, you really -- you almost need to start 
 9  over again because the information has changed so 
10  much.  So we need to be able to move quickly.  
11            Also, we are the group that has pioneered 
12  the use of electronic technology for rule-making and 
13  receiving comments.  We think that has worked very 
14  well.  
15            Partnerships.  We've been trying to make 
16  sure that we move to ensure national and 
17  international stewardship goals.  We have led a 53 
18  nation effort to conduct the International Census of 
19  Marine Life.  We've awarded over 70 million dollars 
20  for projects to be done outside, and we've funded 
21  some additional resource surveys for over 2,000 
22  charter days at sea.  
23            Even though we're building new vessels, we 
24  will always be dependent upon the use of charter 
25  days at sea.  We think it's extremely important.  
                                                      10
 1            At the community level, as far as habitat 
 2  and restoration projects, this is an extremely 
 3  popular program.  We've provided around 25 million 
 4  dollars since 2001 to over 650 grass-root projects.  
 5            I think if you look at the number of 
 6  manhours that we've had, we've had over 50,000 
 7  volunteers that have contributed about 250,000 
 8  community service hours to help us increase the 
 9  essential habitat and just really involved in 
10  stewardship.  
11            Sea turtle conservation.  Sea turtles 
12  continue to be one of the issues that we have to 
13  deal with on both coasts.  We've been working to try 
14  to lower the risk of extinction of sea turtles to 
15  allow the shrimp and longline fisheries that are 
16  worth some 450 million dollars a year to take place.  
17            We have worked with the fishermen in the 
18  Gulf and the South Atlantic to develop a new turtle 
19  excluder device, which is a fishing device.  When I 
20  talk with the fishermen, they say, well, it does 
21  work but we can't keep putting these big holes in 
22  our nets.  So it's probably the largest hole we've 
23  ever put in a net.  
24            But it is a good net.  Those that were 
25  fighting us tooth and nail over this device now like 
                                                      11
 1  it.  We had to make some modifications to the size 
 2  of the flap, and all, but it's working extremely 
 3  well now to exclude the turtles.  
 4            We've also been working with the industry, 
 5  both in Hawaii and in the Atlantic, for new 
 6  techniques with circle hooks and other longline 
 7  practices to reduce the take of loggerheads and 
 8  leatherbacks.  
 9            We've also taken this internationally.  We 
10  presented this at ICCAT.  We've gone to countries 
11  like Ecuador and had workshops, and we're continuing 
12  to work on sea turtle conservation.  
13            I'm hoping before Scott Burns leaves here 
14  this week that we'll have an MOU with World Wildlife 
15  to be looking at nesting beaches and how we can 
16  restore nesting beaches on an international basis.  
17  I think that's an extremely important program.  
18            We cannot win this war on turtles by 
19  ourselves in this country since we're about five 
20  percent.  But we can use our expertise and avenues 
21  we have internationally to rebuild at nesting sites.  
22  I think that's a key.  
23            This Council out here in Hawaii has done a 
24  tremendous amount of work internationally.  We have 
25  to continue this work.  
                                                      12
 1            We're also trying to work, too, with our 
 2  gear people with new technology for the fishing 
 3  industry, to work with them.  We have a slight 
 4  problem now with the scallop fishery, and we're 
 5  working with that fishery and the turtles.  
 6            Improving science.  In the Agency we've 
 7  sort of looked ahead to -- I think Mike said this.  
 8            We've looked ahead to what we saw in the 
 9  Ocean Commission on it.  We have separated our 
10  science from our management.  Mike is in charge of 
11  all the scientific programs.  We do have a few 
12  glitches within the Agency, there are some programs 
13  that are still within the office, and all, that 
14  you're looking at.  But we have I think really 
15  improved the quality of our science.  
16            Our stock assessments, we feel that we are 
17  really getting people involved through the process 
18  we use now; SEDAR and the other types of programs 
19  where we get the public involved in states, and 
20  other scientists.  
21            We now have more observers than we've had 
22  ever.  I think we placed onboard observers I think  
23  from 45,000 days in 17 fisheries in 2000, to we now 
24  cover 32 fisheries, with over 60,000 fishing days.  
25  So we feel like that is extremely important.  
                                                      13
 1            We have used over 2,000 days at sea for 
 2  charter vessels.  We were able to charter on the 
 3  West Coast, for example, where we were doing surveys 
 4  for the groundfish once every three years; we've 
 5  been able to charter and do those on an annual 
 6  basis.  
 7            We've spent over four million dollars in 
 8  new economic and social science data collections to 
 9  help us in our assessments.  We have developed more 
10  sophisticated and really up-to-date fishery 
11  assessment models.  We're even looking now at models 
12  on the West Coast to take into account environmental 
13  changes, which I think will be very important for 
14  the future.  
15            We have implemented our Science Quality 
16  Assurance Program within the Agency to make sure 
17  that within our scientists and laboratories, that we 
18  are accredited and that all of our scientists get 
19  peer reviewed.  We feel like the science should be 
20  peer reviewed and all science programs be peer 
21  reviewed. 
22            In 2005, I think it's going to be a really 
23  big year in fisheries, as far as the Hill is 
24  involved in Magnuson-Stevens.  They'll be pushing 
25  for ecosystem-based management. 
                                                      14
 1            But there are several things that I think 
 2  we have to do internally.  
 3            Highly migratory species on the East Coast 
 4  is managed by the Secretary through the office 
 5  internally.  Bluefin tuna and the data collection 
 6  for bluefin and marlin, and overall in highly 
 7  migratory species, we need a better coordination and 
 8  a better program in place.  
 9            We made some assignments.  This one, by 
10  February 28th we're looking at how we can improve 
11  the overall management of the highly migratory 
12  species and how we can get a better control on the 
13  East Coast than what we do there.  
14            The other thing I'm extremely concerned 
15  about is succession plans for international 
16  commissioners.  We have a lot of commissioners that 
17  the Agency is the commissioner.  For example, I'm 
18  the commissioner for ICCAT and I'm the commissioner 
19  for IATTC.  We need to look at succession plans to 
20  start training people.  
21            Rollie Schmitten, for example, is the 
22  Commissioner for IWC, International Whaling 
23  Commission.  Rollie is already smiling as to when a 
24  certain date this year will occur so he can retire 
25  from us.  We need to look at who's sitting in the 
                                                      15
 1  wings to take over IWC.  We don't have these type of 
 2  positions with real good succession plans.  I think 
 3  internally we have a little bit, but overall we 
 4  don't have the succession plans that I think we 
 5  need.  
 6            So Rebecca is coordinating all of the 
 7  international activities internally, coordinating 
 8  with the State Department and Bill Brennan 
 9  (phonetic). 
10            We just hired an Office Director for 
11  International to try to bring international 
12  activities back together.  
13            If I can find an SES position, that will 
14  be elevated up to I think where it should be.  
15  Because internationally is where these games are 
16  played.  Fisheries is global, and we have to be 
17  prepared to play in that global arena and be real 
18  prepared.  
19            We need to look at our observer program.  
20  Not only the observer program, but cooperative 
21  research, statistics and some of our science and 
22  social science.  This doesn't really affect ya'll or 
23  anybody in the public.  But we don't have -- within 
24  the Agency we're not consistent on how we do these 
25  programs.  I think we need to be consistent.  If 
                                                      16
 1  it's in the Science Center at one place, why is it 
 2  in the Region in another place, and how we 
 3  coordinate these programs.  
 4            The observer program is growing.  It's an 
 5  extremely important program and we need to make sure 
 6  the training and all of the observer program is 
 7  top-notch and we need to make sure that we 
 8  coordinate these and have them in the proper place.  
 9            We have some Science Centers that are 
10  doing Statistics.  Some Regions are doing 
11  Statistics.  Cooperative Research in one region is 
12  in the Regional Office, and most others is in the 
13  Science Centers.  So these are just internal things, 
14  but we need to get it straight so everyone knows how 
15  we operate and some policies.  
16            We don't have a lot of policies 
17  internally.  We're trying to get those in line so 
18  that everybody knows how we operate.  
19            The Office of Constituent Services, we 
20  want to upgrade that office and really get it back 
21  to the level.  We've sort of let people leave and we 
22  have not really revamped Constituent Services to 
23  meet the objectives.  So Gordon is working with John 
24  Oliver, and we hope to have that done, a plan for 
25  that office, by the end of February.  
                                                      17
 1            Some of the other things that we need to 
 2  look at are recovery plans and targets.  There's 
 3  been some concern that we really -- the public is 
 4  not aware of the recovery plans and the targets for 
 5  several of the species, particularly some of the 
 6  turtles.  
 7            There are plans, the targets need to be 
 8  updated.  So we will be looking at this quickly and 
 9  see how we can do this.  
10            I don't know why I can't talk this 
11  morning.  I guess the councils gave me a hard time 
12  at 7 o'clock.  (Laughter)
13            One of the other things, we developed 
14  about a couple years ago an intergovernmental 
15  office.  It appears there was so much overlap 
16  between us and the Department of Interior and us 
17  sometimes, on the West Coast particularly with the 
18  timber industry and Bureau of Reclamations and all, 
19  just a lot of overlap.  So we put a person in an 
20  intergovernmental office to try to work out some of 
21  this overlap to quit having to do some joint 
22  management of some of the species, particularly Fish 
23  and Wildlife Service.  Jim Mackie (phonetic) is 
24  doing that, just took the job.  He's just moving 
25  from the West Coast.  There will be some overlap 
                                                      18
 1  between Laurie Allen and the Office of Protected 
 2  Resources.  
 3            We want them to develop an operating plan 
 4  so we won't have us -- needing to come in and tell 
 5  us how to coordinate.  I think this will be 
 6  extremely important as we work through some of these 
 7  overlapping issues with the other agencies.  
 8            The next is we needed to develop some 
 9  criteria guideline on IFQs for discussion with the 
10  Fishery Management Councils and others.  We had a 
11  workshop several years ago to talk about IFQs.  At 
12  that time there was a moratorium and we couldn't 
13  move forward.  
14            It seems like the moratorium is gone.  I 
15  think the IFQs, any type of market-based type 
16  process will be allowed, but we're going to have to 
17  have some guidelines.  So we would like to see these 
18  developed.  
19            I can tell you this Administration is 
20  extremely high on looking at this type of 
21  management.  We've been told by the White House.  
22  We've been told by the CEQ to get the work done.  In 
23  fact, we've been pushed to try to get an IFQ plan 
24  developed and in place in two months, which you 
25  can't do with any process that we have.  But we are 
                                                      19
 1  working on this.  
 2            Also, what came out of the Ocean 
 3  Commission -- many of these came out of the Ocean 
 4  Commission, too.  But one thing the Ocean Commission 
 5  really wanted was a Council Training Program.  They 
 6  wanted that Council Training Program developed by 
 7  someone outside.  They felt like we should get 
 8  outside help.  
 9            We are in the process of assigning the 
10  contract to look at council training.  We'll have a 
11  program put together hopefully for this next round 
12  of council orientation.  
13            I also feel very strongly about a national 
14  permit system.  Our fishermen have to go too many 
15  places to get permits, and they're not consistent.  
16  Some regions charge.  Other regions don't.  There's 
17  just a lot of inconsistencies.  
18            We have put together a policy sort of 
19  internally.  We put together a permit team to look 
20  at a national permit system so that fishermen -- 
21  it's almost a one-stop permitting, and also we're 
22  looking at even bar-coding these permits so the 
23  enforcement can just scan them and know which 
24  permits the person has.  
25            It just needs to be more efficient.  We 
                                                      20
 1  have the technology today to do more than a piece of 
 2  paper you put in your pocket and have to worry about 
 3  it getting wet and falling apart, and things like 
 4  that.  So this is something that can be done and can 
 5  be done pretty easily I think.  
 6            The other is I really am pushing Rebecca 
 7  and Mike and our Regional Administrators and Science 
 8  Center Directors to sit down with the councils and 
 9  develop a five-year plan.  What do the councils 
10  expect to be doing over the next five years, and 
11  then update that on an annual basis so that we are 
12  all on the same page, we can go forward in the 
13  budget process out years for what's necessary to get 
14  the job done, that we are providing them with the 
15  science and the administrative help that they need 
16  to get things done.  
17            Some of them are further ahead than others 
18  in getting these developed, but we will have a 
19  schedule by the end of March to have these plans 
20  done, and then they'll be updated on an annual 
21  basis.  
22            The other is sort of more of an internal 
23  type thing.  We do still have some problems with the 
24  Hill on the way they feel we do our budget 
25  internally, on how we allocate the money, but also 
                                                      21
 1  how we account for the money we're spending with 
 2  base budget.  So we will have a much more rigorous 
 3  budget process internally.  
 4            I have met with each of the offices on 
 5  their budget.  We will bring each one of the Regions 
 6  in shortly to go over what they think their spending 
 7  plans are, what they plan them to do and then what 
 8  we expect them to do and then how we will account 
 9  for it at the end of the year.  
10            The next one is -- this will be more than 
11  just a series of policy discussion papers.  Distinct 
12  Population Segments have been used for a long time.  
13  On the West Coast it was salmon.  We divide these 
14  salmon up into what we say are Distinct Population 
15  Segments.  
16            It's coming over now to the marine 
17  mammals.  Some of the concern I have is that as you 
18  get more technology and are able to through DNA and 
19  other genetics now to separate these animals into 
20  smaller and smaller groups, what are we going to 
21  have soon, but spread out Distinct Population 
22  Segments.  It's going to be so widely spread that I 
23  don't know how we're going to manage.  
24            We need to go back and look at this way of 
25  managing, this way of dividing up populations.  Is 
                                                      22
 1  it the best way to do it?  What does it mean in the 
 2  future?  
 3            This one to me is extremely important for 
 4  us to get done.  I think it's something that's 
 5  coming to light when you talk about resident 
 6  populations of killer whales or transient 
 7  populations of killer whales, and all this.  
 8            Then when you try to manage those as 
 9  Distinct Population Segments, I think it's going to 
10  present tremendous problems in the future.  So we 
11  need to really get together.  I would like to 
12  develop a policy on how we're going to handle these 
13  across the Agency.  
14            The other one that -- I don't want Bob 
15  Fletcher to see this because -- the next one, but we 
16  will have a workshop on managing recovering 
17  populations.  We are I think as we rebuild this --  
18            MR. FLETCHER:  Did you say that the sea 
19  lion is a recovering population with a straight 
20  face?  
21            MR. HOGARTH:  Well, wait a minute.  
22            MR. FLETCHER:  How about exploding?  
23            MR. HOGARTH:  We have to look at -- a lot 
24  of the fishery stocks are also recovering and 
25  reaching some levels that we haven't seen in a long 
                                                      23
 1  time.  
 2            I think we're beginning, I believe, to do 
 3  a much better job of rebuilding these stocks than we 
 4  are doing in managing the stocks once they are 
 5  recovered.  
 6            I think there's a number of fish, and then 
 7  how you get past this as they recover, to not try to 
 8  -- you'd like to catch more, but we haven't gotten 
 9  to the final stage of where you should be.  I think 
10  we just need to look at management of recovering 
11  populations.  
12            Also, the allocations of populations as we 
13  get larger populations, we need to look at the 
14  allocation issues.  
15            But mainly, we need to look at how we 
16  manage recovering populations.  
17            That, Bob, I think it does include marine 
18  mammals.  It includes fish.  It includes all of 
19  them.  Particularly, when you go to ecosystem-based 
20  management, then you know that people need to know 
21  how you're going to manage each recovering stock.  
22  It's going to be extremely controversial in some 
23  instances, but I think we can't continue not to 
24  address it.  So we're going to take it on.  
25            The other things, activities for 2005, 
                                                      24
 1  there is a Council National Meeting.  This is Chris 
 2  Oliver and the councils.  We're helping with it in 
 3  March, a lot of it on Magnuson Reauthorization.  
 4            We do have a State Directors Meeting in 
 5  April.  We meet with all the State Directors every 
 6  two years.  This will be in April in St. Pete.  Fish 
 7  and Wildlife Service has agreed to come.  So we're 
 8  trying to get those so all of us can work together.  
 9            Of course, we're meeting with Council 
10  Chairs and Executive Directors in April.  We have a 
11  lot of issues on the table there to talk about.  We 
12  want to talk about operating more business-like and  
13  we want to talk about IFQs and lots of things that I 
14  think we could do a little better at.  
15            We're going to have a National Data 
16  Workshop.  Steve Murawski from our shop in Preston 
17  Pate, North Carolina, the State Director.  
18            I think there are ways to be more 
19  consistent in data across the country, both 
20  commercial and recreational.  
21            I think you heard Louis Daniel talk 
22  yesterday about a state trip ticket that North 
23  Carolina has and the amount of information you can 
24  get from it and how you can see what you're doing.  
25  I think this is a possibility across the country, 
                                                      25
 1  both for that and for recreational.  
 2            We feel like that something has got to be 
 3  done in recreational for us to get better data.  
 4  Licensing, we support.  This Administration supports 
 5  it.  But we think the first goal of that should be a 
 6  state license, not a federal license.  
 7            I say that -- as a matter of fact, the 
 8  last time I was here Kitty orchestrated about a 
 9  1,000 people in opposition.  Come to find out, I 
10  wondered how she got so many people here, she had a 
11  local station give away a free trip to Las Vegas.  I 
12  didn't know that until the end of the night.  
13  (Laughter)  
14            But we do think if you're going to manage 
15  the recreational you really need to have a way of 
16  accounting for the fishermen that fish.  In the 
17  survey that we used, it's a random call and it's 
18  phone based, and it's not a very good way.  We need 
19  to improve our recreational data.  
20            This next one, Capacity Workshop.  Several 
21  of the industry people, particularly on the East 
22  Coast, came to us through Mary Hope and said they 
23  would like to have a workshop that was run by the 
24  industry to talk about capacity issues.  I think 
25  this is just an East Coast thing because on the West 
                                                      26
 1  Coast Pete has already gone through that process.  
 2            But on the East Coast we haven't gotten 
 3  very far.  I think it's an important issue and I'm 
 4  willing to try to fund that issue to get this 
 5  discussion going.  So if they want to do it, we're 
 6  planning to do it.  
 7            You heard about Magnuson-Stevens 
 8  Reauthorization.  That's continuing.  We need input 
 9  there.  
10            Aquaculture, we do have legislation.  I'll 
11  talk a little bit about that tomorrow, that we plan 
12  to get into it this year, offshore.  We've hired an 
13  Aquaculture Coordinator, Michael Rabino.  This is 
14  again extremely a controversial issue.  It seems 
15  like wherever you talk about it, it's both ends.  
16            But I don't think this country can afford 
17  not to have a good open discussion on aquaculture.  
18  I just don't think -- if you want to be 
19  self-sufficient in seafood, then I think we've got 
20  to make sure this is something that we can do 
21  without impacting our wild harvest and those that 
22  are involved in the wild harvest.  I think there's a 
23  place for both.  
24            We want to get some pilot projects going.  
25  We've been working very hard with Don Kent.  He gets 
                                                      27
 1  disgusted with us I think about every three months 
 2  because it's not moving fast enough.  But we do want 
 3  to look at these offshore rigs for cage culture.  
 4  There's lots of possibilities.  We just need to 
 5  really push for aquaculture and make sure it's done 
 6  environmentally sound, and I think we can.  
 7            But that's where we are.  You'll see a lot 
 8  more about aquaculture tomorrow at Oceanic Institute 
 9  and things that have been done.  
10            This is an extremely important issue to 
11  us.  I'm having to find money to put into it.  So 
12  far, even though the Administration is pushing it, 
13  we haven't been able to get much money at all.  So 
14  we're carrying this ourself.  
15            The last thing is Steve Murawski is going 
16  to have some workshops shortly on fishing 
17  mortality-based management rather than biomass.  I 
18  think you talked about National Standard 1 
19  yesterday, on how we manage biomass.  I think it's 
20  much simpler if we look at fishing mortality rates 
21  for management.  I think we should have this 
22  discussion in workshops.  If we can't do it 
23  internally, then it's something we need Magnuson 
24  Reauthorization to look at.  
25            But I think managing by fishing mortality 
                                                      28
 1  is much better understood by the public, and I think 
 2  we can have good results.  
 3            Everybody shows this vessel.  
 4            Right now we do have money basically for 
 5  all four vessels.  We need to give a lot of credit 
 6  to Secretary Evans for fighting for the budget for 
 7  all four of the new vessels.  This is the first one, 
 8  which will go to Alaska.  The second one goes to New 
 9  England.  The third one is somewhat in question.  It 
10  may go to the Gulf, except the Gulf really wants a 
11  shallow draft, and we feel like the West Coast needs 
12  the third one.  So it depends on if we get money for 
13  the fifth vessel, which would be a shallow draft, 
14  and then it would go to the Gulf.  
15            These are all state-of-the-art vessels, 
16  about 59 million dollars.  But they're the latest in 
17  technology, super quiet, and everything.  
18            So I present this, and we will be talking 
19  to MAFAC.  We think that some of these issues would 
20  be good for MAFAC to be involved in.  
21            The other thing we're doing is we have 
22  signed two contracts with National Academy of 
23  Science.  One of them is for recreational data.  
24            The other one is we've signed a contract 
25  with them -- Tom, you may know the group's name 
                                                      29
 1  better than I do, but it's with the medical side of 
 2  the National Academy of Science to look at 
 3  contaminants in fish, primarily mercury.  I think we 
 4  have to look at this issue and get the proper 
 5  information in front of the American public.  
 6            There's so many restaurants and things now 
 7  saying, don't eat this and don't eat that.  I think 
 8  the information on which this is based is not really 
 9  good and we're doing a disservice I think to the 
10  American citizens because we know seafood is very 
11  healthy.  So we need to get the right message.  
12            So, hopefully, that's something that maybe 
13  this group would like to look at overall on how you 
14  present that -- you know, as we get that 
15  information, how do we present it.  
16            I know Tom is doing some work with the FDA 
17  along the same lines.  We've had a meeting and tried 
18  to coordinate that, but that's something else that 
19  we're doing.  That's probably about another 12, 14, 
20  months away before they have any results.  
21            But there's a lot of things in fisheries.  
22  The only thing I'll say in closing is I hope we're 
23  making progress.  I feel like we are.  I think we've 
24  had some rocky road.  We've tried to open up the 
25  Agency.  
                                                      30
 1            You heard about the war yesterday in 
 2  Alaska.  It definitely was, because I was there and 
 3  I watched and heard it.  There was somewhat a little 
 4  bit of that out here earlier when we tried to do 
 5  Section 7.  So I think those days are behind us.  I 
 6  think we're trying to be more open and work with the 
 7  industry in a more open and transparent manner, both 
 8  recreational and commercial.  
 9            That's where we are.  If you have any 
10  suggestions to me, or things you feel like we have 
11  not addressed or that we should address, I would 
12  love to hear them.  
13            The next couple years I think will be very 
14  exciting.  
15            MR. FLETCHER:  A comment and a question, 
16  Bill.  
17            First of all, I want to tell you that Bill 
18  Fox has been tremendous in the Southwest Center 
19  working with us on cooperative research.  
20            You mentioned how these new vessels, new 
21  research vessels, are not going to replace 
22  cooperative research.  We saw a perfect example of 
23  that in the Southwest Region where the DAVID STARR 
24  JORDAN got involved in acoustic research, acoustic 
25  technology for stock assessments, and Glen Franke 
                                                      31
 1  worked with the DAVID STARR JORDAN, where as the 
 2  DAIVD STARR JORDAN would run transects with the new 
 3  acoustic technology.  Then Glen Franke would come 
 4  right behind with the ROV, kind of documenting the 
 5  makeup of the schools that the DAVID STARR JORDAN 
 6  was identifying through the acoustic technology.  
 7            I think it's really a smooth relationship.  
 8            MR. HOGARTH:  That's been really good 
 9  work.  
10            MR. FLETCHER:  It's excellent, it really 
11  is.  
12            Well, Bill Fox has said, in three years I 
13  believe we will have gotten enough information where 
14  we can complete this experimental work and have a 
15  new tool for stock assessments.  So that's really 
16  going well.  
17            My question is, the old bugaboo, the 
18  California sea lion.  Now that we're looking at 
19  Reauthorization of the MMPA, isn't there some 
20  responsibility on the federal government's part to 
21  begin to get involved again in trying to develop 
22  some nonlethal deterrents?  
23            Because these stocks don't go away.  
24  They're continuing to get worse.  The interactions 
25  are worse at all levels.  
                                                      32
 1            It seems -- and Don Kent's people have 
 2  done some great work on documenting the population 
 3  at the outer islands.  But we're just totally unable 
 4  to deal with the problems.  It's gotten worse and 
 5  worse.  
 6            We're going to be pushing on the Congress 
 7  to look at some way, perhaps creating a pot of money 
 8  if that is at all possible, so that the private 
 9  sector can work on nonlethal deterrents.  
10            But right now it's a horrific problem.  
11            MR. HOGARTH:  Well, I think that is one of 
12  the responsibilities.  I think we have to look at 
13  nonlethal deterrents and ways to -- because if we're 
14  going to look at ecosystems, again, we might have to 
15  look at the total ecosystem.  
16            I think it is, nonlethal is the only way 
17  this country will go, in my opinion.  So I think 
18  that's acceptable.  
19            Now, a lot of times they laugh at me 
20  internally, I think sterilization is still something 
21  -- it's difficult, but I think it's something you 
22  could probably use.  If you know the population well 
23  enough, I think there's probably something you could 
24  do with sterilization.  
25            MR. ROBERTS:  Bill, putting two things 
                                                      33
 1  together, your comments about IFQs and also managing 
 2  recovering fisheries.  
 3            Is it left up to the councils or is it a 
 4  NOAA Fisheries policy that that's going to be 
 5  developed?  
 6            Let me give you an example.  If an IFQ 
 7  program is established and the population is 
 8  overfished, or whatever, and it's going to be 
 9  recovering over time, as that stock recovers and 
10  puts twice as much total allowable catch on the -- 
11  over a period of five years or ten years, is it 
12  assumed that the IFQ shares are going to relate to 
13  the recovered population?  Or is the recovered 
14  population, a share of that, going to be maintained 
15  for some sort of diversity goal or some other sort 
16  of economic goal?  
17            I think that question will be pretty 
18  fundamental when you have an IFQ program or a buyout 
19  and also a recovering stock, what's going to happen.  
20            MR. HOGARTH:  I think there's a couple 
21  ways that could go.  
22            I think in most of these fisheries now we 
23  have limited entry.  People have come out with that 
24  sort of thing.  They are there.  
25            It's up to the council, primarily.  But we 
                                                      34
 1  need to gather some data.  Do they allow some of 
 2  these people back into the fishery?  
 3            But I think, also, do it at an arbitrarily 
 4  low level on a lot of these quotas that they will 
 5  get.  So I think there will be a certain percentage 
 6  that the -- I think will be sort of -- like Alaska's 
 7  done, if you get to a certain point, you're going to 
 8  have some say to a certain percentage you wouldn't 
 9  allowed to be harvested, I think.  
10            But I think it's a combination of what we 
11  allow and what Congress may allow, and say, look at 
12  IFQs.  But I think this is why we need to have this 
13  discussion and an open discussion.  Most of the IFQs 
14  we've had designed so far is with the fishermen's 
15  input.  The red snapper in the Gulf is really with 
16  the fishermen's involvement, with referendum both at 
17  the front and the end.  
18            I think there's a lot of possibilities. 
19  That's why we have this discussion.  
20            MR. ROBERTS:  I would think the guidelines 
21  when you developed them would need to address that 
22  specifically.  
23            MR. HOGARTH:  One of the big things that 
24  I'm hearing more and more is the concern -- and this 
25  can easily be taken care of.  The concern is that 
                                                      35
 1  there will be no more small fishing vessels in the 
 2  fishery.  I think definitely that is one that could 
 3  be very easily taken care of through this process.  
 4            MR. OSTERBACK:  Bill, could I add to your 
 5  -- because I'm familiar with -- you know, we do a 
 6  lot of IFQS in Alaska.  
 7            A couple things that happened probably 
 8  that you're asking about is, before they started, 
 9  say, on halibut, they went and started looking at 
10  what other countries have done.  Some of the things 
11  that had happened in IFQs in different places was, 
12  one of them that they looked at is they actually put 
13  it out in poundage, and then the resource dropped 
14  and then the fishermen sued the government because 
15  they didn't have the poundage.  
16            So the way it turned out is halibut went 
17  with units.  So your units fluctuate as your stock 
18  fluctuates.  
19            Or if somebody gets in, like when they did 
20  halibut, they also did a community development 
21  program called CDQs.  That portion was taken out.  
22  So then your units was divided into what was left.  
23  So there's always room for it to change.  
24            So you only get issued so many units, and 
25  that's divided into what's there.  That keeps it 
                                                      36
 1  from people saying, no, I actually -- you gave me 
 2  20,000 pounds and I want my 20,000 pounds.  
 3            MR. HOGARTH:  Other comments?  Do you 
 4  think we're going the right direction?  
 5            MR. RAYBURN:  Bill, how much is really the 
 6  fisheries deficit on the radar screen at the 
 7  Departmental level?  Is there a theme -- and in 
 8  Commerce?  
 9            Is there a theme in that that the 
10  objective of fisheries is really to provide to the 
11  overall commerce of the country; and if so, then 
12  doesn't that fit with the development of 
13  aquaculture, the development of products that will 
14  offset that deficit?  
15            I guess my point, is there a vision within 
16  the Department, within the Agency, that at some 
17  point in time this program of management is just a 
18  process?  
19            The real objective I suspect is to get to 
20  the point where you have sustained populations over 
21  time, and then what is the input to the commerce 
22  based on those sustained populations and how much 
23  more has to be made up to offset the current deficit 
24  or the projected deficit.  
25            Is that the theme?  Or is it still so 
                                                      37
 1  wrapped up in management that --  
 2            MR. HOGARTH:  Some of that is right now -- 
 3  because we hear it from several places.  
 4            One is that the Admiral has given me a 
 5  goal, for example -- I'm sure he's talked with the 
 6  New Secretary, and all, but a goal of reducing the 
 7  deficit over time through aquaculture and wild 
 8  harvest together.  
 9            This Administration has looked very hard 
10  at sustainability.  They feel like you have to get 
11  sustainability here and get more self-sufficient in 
12  seafood.  There is a lot of concern about the 
13  imports of seafood for security reasons right now.  
14  There are lots and lots of concern.  
15            So the Administration has put a lot on 
16  capacity, the stabilization.  Or you need a buyout 
17  or don't need a buyout.  We've got another buyout 
18  there in the longline fishery in Florida, to try to 
19  stabilize that.  
20            And IFQs, they feel like if you went to a 
21  market-based type of a system, that the fishermen 
22  have more control, that they will make a better 
23  living, the markets will be supplied more evenly.  
24  There won't be this up and down in the markets and 
25  relying so much on imports.  
                                                      38
 1            So I think there's a push to be more 
 2  business-like I think, both in decisions that we 
 3  make, but also in decisions that the fishermen make.  
 4  They don't want to go fishing today because the 
 5  price of fish is 50 cents.  Tomorrow it may be a 
 6  dollar.  So more decisions they make, rather than us 
 7  micromanaging.  
 8            We have really gotten to a point for 
 9  micromanaging, to let everybody have a little bit of 
10  the fishery and the maximum that they can get out of 
11  it.  
12            And there's a push for opportunities for 
13  recreational.  This President is an avid 
14  recreational fisherman and he's told us that he 
15  wants to make sure the recreational fishermen are 
16  getting a fair share in the management process.  
17            So I think it's a business.  I think this 
18  Administration looks at it as a business totally.  
19  So that includes trade and the whole thing.  
20            MR. RAYBURN:  And recreation fits into the 
21  commerce well.  
22            MR. HOGARTH:  Jim Cook.
23            MR. COOK:  I hope my voice lasts through 
24  this.  
25            I'm not sure this is the right place to 
                                                      39
 1  raise this issue, Bill, but I will do that anyway.  
 2            You're aware that bigeye -- overfishing is 
 3  occurring on bigeye in the Pacific, and you're also 
 4  aware that that is the major catch in Hawaii and 
 5  other Pacific Island areas that are under the 
 6  control of our region.  
 7            Under SFA we have certain criteria that we 
 8  have to deal with.  
 9            You know as well as I do what the status 
10  of the new Convention is.  
11            My concern is that the fishermen who fish 
12  for tuna under the U.S. jurisdiction are going to 
13  run up against some sort of SFA-motivated action 
14  exposing them to litigation, as well as exposing 
15  them to a loss of the catch.  
16            I would like the Agency to be thinking 
17  very carefully about what they're going to do about 
18  that, because as a group I don't think we mind at 
19  all being part of the solution to make sure that we 
20  have healthy stocks here.  But we know all too well 
21  about the two percent solution, and our fishery here 
22  has lost 100 million dollars in the last five years 
23  doing basically nothing for turtles.  So we don't 
24  want the same thing to happen, and we're very, very 
25  conscious of it.  
                                                      40
 1            I just want to lay that on the table, 
 2  because this is coming down the track.  We have 
 3  worked very hard out here to make the market.  It is 
 4  the largest fishery we have.  We don't want to go 
 5  down the same path that you and I have been going 
 6  down for the last five years.  
 7            MR. HOGARTH:  That's a good point, on the  
 8  international side, is that we know where a lot of 
 9  the small bigeye are being caught in the Atlantic, 
10  and probably the Pacific, too.  We've been trying to 
11  push for capacity controls, and also we're trying to 
12  get rid of some gear in the Atlantic in the bigeye 
13  tuna fishery.  They were catching small fish, 
14  particularly in the Mediterranean.  Get rid of drift 
15  gillnets in Morocco, for example.  
16            So, yeah, I think we have to -- we do have 
17  a tendency to subject our fishermen to more 
18  stringent regulations than is done internationally.  
19  But we have to keep pushing capacity issues 
20  internationally.  
21            We are taking that up with ICCAT this 
22  coming November.  The IATTC has already addressed 
23  it.  
24            But I think there could be international 
25  conferences where we have to get together.  
                                                      41
 1            MR. COOK:  Are we going to get ratified 
 2  this year?  
 3            MS. LENT:  Actually, we just heard this 
 4  morning that our Secretary of State has signed the 
 5  package and it's gone to the President, who will 
 6  pass it on to the Hill.  So, hopefully, that will be 
 7  soon.  
 8            I should also note that there were a lot 
 9  of people worried about this bigeye tuna thing now 
10  that we've sent the letter.  
11            One of the initial steps that is happening 
12  this week is just some conversations between the 
13  folks at HMS in the Atlantic who have had bigeye 
14  tuna overfishing and overfished for some time.  
15            In this case, we have overfishing only in 
16  the Pacific.  
17            But I think the idea is to take the 
18  approach that was taken in the Atlantic, which has 
19  not been subject to litigation, which is to say, 
20  United States knows what kind of reaction fishing 
21  mortality could take to remove overfishing, and take 
22  that to ICCAT year after year after year and say, 
23  let's get a bigeye tuna rebuilding plans.  We 
24  haven't gotten it.  
25            But in the meantime, the measures that we 
                                                      42
 1  have in place, such as limited entry, which you 
 2  already have here in Hawaii, and other, minimum 
 3  size, that type of thing.  Those types of measures 
 4  that are already in place in the Atlantic are 
 5  sufficient for the United States to say, hey, we've 
 6  done the best we can, but we will continue to fight 
 7  for an international rebuilding plan, and we haven't 
 8  been challenged on that.  
 9            Also, when the National Standard 1 
10  Guideline Proposal for changes come out, hopefully 
11  next month, there is a particular clause on 
12  international fisheries.  So everybody should be 
13  watching for that, and give your input in it; how 
14  best to handle our requirements to stop overfishing 
15  and rebuild stocks when we are just one of the 
16  fisheries, and sometimes five percent, or whatever.  
17            I believe that the situation for fish 
18  under Magnuson-Stevens is different from the 
19  obligations that we have under ESA, which led to -- 
20  as pointed out -- shutting down our fishery, even 
21  though the majority -- more than the majority is 
22  someplace else.  
23            So watch for those notes, and I will 
24  remind the regions that this needs to be discussed 
25  at council meetings, as well as the preparation for 
                                                      43
 1  international meetings.  
 2            Thank you, Mr. Chair.
 3            MR. OSTERBACK:  Tom.  Then Bob.  Then Mel. 
 4            MR. BILLY:  This month the Department of 
 5  Health and Human Services and the Ag Department are 
 6  reissuing the National Dietary Guidelines.  
 7            Included in that is a recommendation that 
 8  consumers eat two meals a week of seafood.  In round 
 9  numbers, with 90 percent of the population that eat 
10  fish and shellfish, on average they consume about 
11  one meal a week.  So from a national policy 
12  perspective, essentially it's being recommended that 
13  consumers double their consumption.  
14            Now, that's the current situation.  
15            Bill referred to a project that I'm 
16  working on with FDA, and also National Academy of 
17  Sciences.  
18            For the first time we're doing a very 
19  thorough review of the health benefits of seafood.  
20  I'm already amazed at the information that is out 
21  there from the medical community regarding research 
22  that has been done in this area.  
23            When this project is finished, I can 
24  easily foresee a situation where five years from now 
25  when the government is reconsidering the National 
                                                      44
 1  Dietary Guidelines it would be reasonable to expect 
 2  that that number of two meals a week be increased to 
 3  three or four meals a week some five years from now.  
 4  So the comments that Bill made about imports and 
 5  satisfying domestic demand, if in fact these things 
 6  are to occur there's going to be an enormous demand 
 7  for increased seafood consumption, whether it from 
 8  wild stocks or aquaculture or imports, or wherever.  
 9            So I've got a hunch that NOAA and perhaps 
10  with some advice from this committee, we need to be 
11  looking at how that demand is going to be met over 
12  the next five years or more.  
13            MR. FLETCHER:  Bill, I know that, at least 
14  on the Pacific Council, there has been a real 
15  concern because with going to a biannual groundfish 
16  cycle, it is set in stone in some peoples' minds the 
17  regulations would not be able to be changed unless 
18  information came out that stocks were not as healthy 
19  as they thought, and then the regulations would 
20  become more restrictive.  
21            But if information and data came out that 
22  the stocks were recovering, in some peoples' minds 
23  that wouldn't allow for the relaxation of the 
24  regulations.  That for a while was a real conflict.  
25            Now I'm wondering whether or not there 
                                                      45
 1  will be any resolution of that.  Because in the 
 2  minds of fishermen, if the information showed stock 
 3  recovering, even though you're in a biannual cycle 
 4  there should be an ability to provide more 
 5  opportunity.  And yet, in the minds of some of your 
 6  staff, that wasn't an option, but you could reduce 
 7  if stocks were shown to be in trouble versus what 
 8  they had shown earlier.  
 9            MR. HOGARTH:  That's one of the problems I 
10  think they have in Magnuson right now.  
11            We are looking at framework actions.  
12  We've had some problems with the attorneys on 
13  framework actions.  That's something we've tried -- 
14  Rebecca has been working quite a bit on, to see how 
15  we can do that.  I don't know if she's got answers 
16  yet or not, but it's something we want to make sure 
17  that the Magnuson Reauthorization is clear on, 
18  because we do get mixed signals.  
19            I think there is a way to do it through 
20  Notice of Action.  You can do some things that the 
21  council sets it up that way.  That's the way I think 
22  to do it.   
23            MR. FLETCHER:  It only seems logical to 
24  me, Bill, that if the data indicates that the best 
25  available science says the stock are in better 
                                                      46
 1  shape, there should be an opportunity -- especially 
 2  with all the cutbacks over the last few years in the 
 3  industry.  
 4            You heard Jim, we're not immune from those 
 5  kind of cuts and the economic hits that have 
 6  resulted.  
 7            MR. HOGARTH:  Well, I know the New England 
 8  Council has given the RA some ability to do some 
 9  things through Notice of Action.  It can be done.  
10  Yes.  
11            MR. MOON:  Thank you, Bill.  
12            I thought we had some excellent 
13  discussions yesterday about the ecosystem-based 
14  approach ideals and perhaps the Agency taking a very 
15  aggressive role at implementing parts of that.  I 
16  think that is an excellent step.  
17            But as far as the add-to activities list 
18  for 2005, I was concerned about the inclusion of 
19  tribal involvement, in particular those in the 
20  Northwest and Great Lakes, and even adding the 
21  Alaskan components to the plan for having 
22  consultation with the tribes.  
23            I know often we find that the council 
24  process primarily focuses on non-Indian allocation 
25  and non-Indian distribution of catch, those types of 
                                                      47
 1  activities are good.  But often we find ourselves 
 2  talking directly with NMFS or NOAA Fisheries on how 
 3  to deal with our fishery allocations.  
 4            Because of that, we find ourselves being a 
 5  sort of a super-minority in a lot of these council 
 6  processes.  I say that in a positive way, because I 
 7  believe we can bring a lot of good information to 
 8  these processes.  We just need to be provided an 
 9  avenue to have those exchanges.  
10            Most often, they do not take place at the 
11  council process.  
12            So I would strongly suggest that perhaps 
13  -- and in planning for needing information, that a 
14  formal consultation take place outside of the 
15  council process through the Science Director, pretty 
16  much the way we do them now, and that we try to get 
17  a perception from those Regions about where they see 
18  their goal in the ecosystem approaches and how they 
19  would be able to contribute to that, and also what 
20  other participation is.  
21            Often we get sort of a second to a 
22  stakeholder type of involvement, and they need to 
23  take the approach that way.  So I just suggest we 
24  try to  --  
25            MR. HOGARTH:  That's a good idea.  
                                                      48
 1            Randy.  
 2            MR. FISHER:  Thanks, Bill.  
 3            I guess I saw up there that you're going 
 4  to meet with the Regions bringing in - is that on 
 5  the 2007 budget?  
 6            MR. HOGARTH:  No, it's going to be 
 7  probably in 2005, too, we'll have them account for 
 8  the budget, and how we get feedback.  
 9            MR. FISHER:  The essence of the question, 
10  when I look back I know that you hate it when we go 
11  in and try to lobby for line items or more, because 
12  it seems like we go around you.  
13            But the situation now is becoming a little 
14  more critical because I'm convinced on the West 
15  Coast that we're not going to make statistically 
16  sound data programs if we don't get more money.  
17            So the question is, when you bring in the 
18  Regions, I'm sure they have a laundry list 7,000 
19  miles long to burn up all your money.  So how do we 
20  get involved in that so that we at some point go to 
21  OMB and say, listen, we need to fix some of this 
22  stuff.  
23            MR. HOGARTH:  We're trying to resolve that 
24  now.  Some people think it's by invitation only, but 
25  on March 2nd there will be a Stakeholders Meeting in 
                                                      49
 1  D.C. as the beginning of the 2008 budget process.  
 2            People are able to come and say, we need 
 3  -- here is what we think NOAA needs to be doing,  
 4  this is the management that we think NOAA needs, and 
 5  all.  The Admiral is a part of this process.  
 6            He talked to the councils this morning, 
 7  but he's involved.  
 8            That's one way to get in early in the 
 9  process we're going through.  
10            Now, let me say this.  I don't have a 
11  problem with people going to Congress and getting 
12  what they get.  The only problem is when I get 
13  somebody comes up and says, aha, when they get it.  
14  That bothers me.
15            MR. FISHER:  Right.  
16            MR. HOGARTH:  But if it's an add-on, so 
17  you can get something done, I think it's great that 
18  you can get it done.  It's only because of the aha.  
19            I'm hoping -- Jack is working very hard to 
20  try to find ways to open up the ecosystem part of 
21  the budget, to get input.  So you'll probably hear 
22  more from him in this process.  
23            MR. FISHER:  Well, if you look at the 
24  future and if you look at some of the things we 
25  need, I mean the information we get on VMS will be 
                                                      50
 1  very helpful.  I mean, I can see this stuff coming.  
 2            And the states just don't have any money 
 3  to put in to make these things happen.  So it's got 
 4  to come from somewhere.   So it's a priority-listing 
 5  process within the Agency I believe, to some extent, 
 6  and we don't get to play that game.  
 7            MR. HOGARTH:  Well, the program should be 
 8  taking that, too.  I mean, Sustainable Fisheries and 
 9  all, if you look at the programs we have, they 
10  should be carrying that message forward.  You give 
11  it to them.  They should be carrying this message 
12  forward, too, to the Goal Team.  We depend on the 
13  programs to carry it also.  
14            Eric.
15            MR. SCHWAAB:  Bill, you mentioned a couple 
16  things about recreational data.  You mentioned the 
17  NAS study and then you also mentioned the prospect 
18  of uniform or standardized coastal -- a question and 
19  a comment.  
20            I just wondered on the NAS study, if you 
21  could say another word or two about what the focus 
22  of that is, and what the time frame is.  I heard you 
23  say 12 to 14 months, but I didn't understand if that 
24  was for that study or the MRFSS study.
25            MR. HOGARTH:  The recreational has about a 
                                                      51
 1  year left.  
 2            We went to them because we honestly are 
 3  trying to find the best way to do recreational data.  
 4  For ten years I've heard nothing but complaints, 
 5  particularly with the information on marlins, but 
 6  it's turned over now to summer flounder and others, 
 7  that the information is just wrong.  
 8            So we really went to them with a series of 
 9  questions and things.  They are in the process right  
10  now of getting their team together.   We have 
11  nothing to do with who they choose to be on that 
12  team.  
13            They will be talking to fishing groups, 
14  and all, and come back to us with recommendations on 
15  how they think we can do a better job to collect 
16  recreational data.  We've made lots of changes and 
17  spent lots of money.  
18            Recently we've given most of it to the 
19  commissions, and all.  So it's there.  
20            The National Data Workshop is to sort of 
21  go hand-in-hand with this to see what we can do both 
22  on commercial and recreational.  Because we know the 
23  states have a lot of good commercial process.  But 
24  then they don't all have the same.  So we know on 
25  the East Coast, the CSP is doing a lot in the 13 
                                                      52
 1  eastern states.  We'd just like to see if we can 
 2  coordinate with all this, and is there a system in 
 3  this country that could be put together to make sure 
 4  that we're getting the most reliable data.  
 5            It could be compared with each other, so 
 6  to speak, did you say the East Coast caught this or 
 7  this state caught this.  With that comparison, you 
 8  can say the other state did the data comparison -- 
 9  you can make a data comparison.  
10            MR. SCHWAAB:  My comment, and it's really 
11  a concern, as you referred first to the Ocean 
12  Commission Report, I think I heard it a little bit 
13  in your comment today that I think there's a lot of 
14  good reasons for coastal licensing, for recreational 
15  fishermen.  
16            But one of the concerns I have, and I 
17  think a lot of people see it as sort of a panacea 
18  that, in and of itself, it's going to solve this 
19  recreational data collection issue, and that came 
20  across very clearly in the Ocean Commission Report.  
21  They thought, well, this is the way that problem is 
22  going to be solved.  
23            In fact, the way the traditional 
24  recreational survey work is done, and that will only 
25  solve sort of the front end of the problem, and it's 
                                                      53
 1  not the most expensive aspect of the problem.  But I 
 2  think that we ought to be careful to -- we ought to 
 3  be careful about allowing that idea to exist out 
 4  there, that the recreational license is going to 
 5  solve our recreational data problem.  It's not.  
 6            It's going to take a lot of money and a 
 7  lot more hard work in figuring how to standardize 
 8  and improve that --  
 9            MR. HOGARTH:  Particularly, I think in 
10  rare event species, it definitely is.  I think the 
11  license -- a common database slowly will be much 
12  more accurate as far as most of the species.  
13            But rare event, we do have a problem.  
14  We're still trying to figure out how to account for 
15  -- and marlin is mostly catch and release on the 
16  East Coast and the Gulf.  So it becomes more 
17  difficult.
18            MR. RAYBURN:  First, she just stepped in, 
19  my colleague, Malia Rivera, is here from the Sea 
20  Grant Program, the Extension Leader in Hawaii.  I 
21  want to introduce her to the Committee. 
22            There's been a couple things from your 
23  presentation.  I seem to recall that November a year 
24  ago or so when you met with the Sea Grant Directors 
25  you indicated you may invite them to the State 
                                                      54
 1  Directors meeting, and I didn't know if that was 
 2  still on the possibility or not.  
 3            MR. HOGARTH:  I have talked to Ron, but I 
 4  don't know if you --  
 5            MR. RAYBURN:  Okay.  I wouldn't 
 6  necessarily be looped into that.  I just wanted to 
 7  remind you.  
 8            Then, the Capacity Reduction Workshop that 
 9  you mentioned on the West Coast, there is some 
10  interest, I mean because of the shrimp business plan 
11  that you developed, and all.  There is a little bit 
12  of activity on capacity reduction in the Gulf, a 
13  possibility for the shrimp industry.  My colleague, 
14  Gary Graham, was attempting to set up a workshop in 
15  Brownsville/Port Isabel on capacity reduction.  So 
16  if there is something developed on the East Coast, 
17  maybe if you could keep us in the loop.  We'd really 
18  like to have some observer there to kind of see how 
19  it goes.  So if you kind of keep that in mind.  
20            As I said, this is a plan that you 
21  developed, Bill.  You know how it is when you throw 
22  things out like that, it takes a while for it to 
23  gel. But it seems like the shrimp business plan that 
24  came out, maybe there is some opportunity there in 
25  getting a capacity reduction program, at least 
                                                      55
 1  people thinking about it, how it might develop, so 
 2  all is not lost there either.  
 3            MR. HOGARTH:  I agree.  
 4            By the way, some of the shrimpers, during 
 5  this tsunami thing, in the Gulf called and wanted to 
 6  know about transferring boats or giving boats to 
 7  Indonesia.  
 8            MR. RAYBURN:  Is that right?  
 9            MR. HOGARTH:  That there's so many idle 
10  boats that they thought that it would be best to do 
11  that.  
12            Under Tab 15, just so ya'll know this, we 
13  work very well with Sea Grant on the Fishery 
14  Extension Enhancement.  Just for your information, 
15  there's projects here that have been funded through 
16  Sea Grant's Extension Program.  It would be 
17  interesting, if you want to look at that.  
18            There's going to be one right now on 
19  seabird bycatch in the Pacific Ocean from Sea Grant.  
20            MR. RAYBURN:  What tab is that?  15.  
21            These are the projects in that Fisheries 
22  Extension Enhancement that Jim Murray mentioned at 
23  the last meeting.  About two million dollars that 
24  were taken out of the overall budget, it was 
25  somewhat of an unfunded mandate.  So these are 
                                                      56
 1  projects that have been funded to date.  This just 
 2  came out the other day, I believe.  
 3            MR. BRYANT:  Right.  From Jim.  
 4            MR. RAYBURN:  He had to wait until all the 
 5  processing was done.  
 6            But, I mean, there was a discussion at the 
 7  last meeting about Sea Grant and the MAFAC being 
 8  more engaged in selection of these types of efforts 
 9  to make sure that they apply well to the regions, 
10  and stuff like that.  
11            So I think Laurel and Jim are still 
12  working on coming up with a relationship, but there 
13  are other types of initiatives like this that would 
14  be appropriate for MAFAC to be engaged in in a 
15  review type status.  
16            MR. HOGARTH:  I'm going to have to run.  
17  After a couple more questions I have to go do a 
18  conference call on LNG, said the ecosystem is not 
19  working in the Gulf of Mexico.  
20            MR. KRAMER:  Just a quick question, and it 
21  may be better for Rebecca, Bill.  
22            Our international membership often looks 
23  to the U.S. fisheries managers for guidance, 
24  assistance and leadership on issues.  One of the 
25  areas that I've heard of the biggest concern are 
                                                      57
 1  these tuna grow-out operations.  
 2            I mentioned to you, Laurel, that I've been 
 3  spending some time in the Mediterranean area, and 
 4  there's a huge concern over there.  
 5            I was wondering if there are any plans in 
 6  2005 within the Agency to either find out more about 
 7  this, and what specifically you might be doing to 
 8  address some of these issues.  
 9            MR. HOGARTH:  There will be a meeting in 
10  April, an ICCAT meeting.  Part of that meeting will 
11  focus -- it will be a bluefin meeting to look at 
12  management, but it will focus on the farming issue 
13  also.  That will be in Japan.  I think it's the week 
14  of April the --  
15            MS. LENT:  Bill, you're also going to 
16  Morraco.  
17            MR. HOGARTH:  Yes.  We're also planning a 
18  trip to Morocco to look at some of the operations, 
19  and a couple other places, for the same things.  
20            MR. KRAMER:  I'm receiving some 
21  information from them, photographs and things like 
22  that.  
23            MS. LENT:  Their concerns have to do with?  
24            MR. KRAMER:  Just the lack of fish in the 
25  Mediterranean, and seeing these operations on some 
                                                      58
 1  of these commercial vessels that have typically been 
 2  in port at certain times of the year and gone down 
 3  and circling some giant schools of juvenile fish.  
 4            MR. HOGARTH:  They're towing some of these 
 5  fish 600 miles, and the mortality associated with it 
 6  is really a big question.  ICCAT will be looking at 
 7  this issue further.  
 8            We discussed it extensively at the last 
 9  meeting, and it will take a lot more action.  I want 
10  to go look at some of the operations.  But we are 
11  very much involved and very much concerned about 
12  these operations.  
13            Part of the March forum, we wanted to see 
14  if we could get a couple of hours on there to talk 
15  about bluefin tuna, and what's happening in New 
16  England.   
17            MR. SISSENWINE:  You're talking about the 
18  Maine Fishermen's Forum?  
19            MR. HOGARTH:  Yes.  
20            MR. SISSENWINE:  That's scheduled.  
21            MR. HOGARTH:  Okay.  Good.  
22            Before I leave, because I won't be here 
23  for the next presentation on Deep-water Corals, I 
24  want to tell you this is really a priority of NOAA, 
25  itself, and NOAA Fisheries and the Administration.  
                                                      59
 1            I think the councils have really stepped 
 2  up to the plate and are doing a great job in looking 
 3  at this issue.  I think New England has already 
 4  taken some action.  South Atlantic is.  Hawaii is. 
 5  Alaska is.  So this is an important issue.  
 6            Our point in this is, do we think there 
 7  are a lot of areas -- potentially a lot of areas 
 8  that haven't had fishing, never have had fishing  
 9  and haven't been impacted by fishing that we can 
10  protect.  We think these are Essential Fish Habitat 
11  and unique in a lot of ways and they need to be 
12  protected.  
13            So we're very happy to actually see that 
14  at the councils, and I want to thank them for what 
15  they've done, that they're addressing this issue.  
16            It's one that we would like to see a lot 
17  of attention given to, both from the U.S. and 
18  internationally.  
19            Internationally, we did not agree to the 
20  proposal to ban all corals.  We did say that we 
21  would be very receptive to looking at areas that 
22  haven't been impacted, and to look at those areas.  
23  But we think -- so sorry I'm not going to be here 
24  for the discussion, but I've been summoned.  So 
25  thanks a lot, and I'll be back probably in about an 
                                                      60
 1  hour.  
 2            MR. OSTERBACK:  Okay.  Now that Bill's 
 3  gone we can have a break.  No.  
 4            I'm going to change the schedule a little 
 5  bit.  I think Laurel has got a few announcements, 
 6  things she needs to do.  Then I think we'll go ahead 
 7  and take our break and then come back and do corals 
 8  right up until lunch so we don't break right in the 
 9  middle of that.  
10            (Brief logistical announcements by Laurel 
11  Bryant)  
12            (Brief break taken)  
13            MR. OSTERBACK:  Okay.  We're going to go 
14  into cold-water corals.  We'll go up to lunch with 
15  this.  
16            If you look at your agenda, the way we'll 
17  do it is Dr. Tom Hourigan will lead off with it.  
18  Then Dr. Ricky Grigg will go second.  Then Dr. 
19  Sissenwine will finish third.  
20            So the floor is yours, Tom. 
21                   (Cold-water Corals)  
22            (Status of the Science, What Do We Know)
23            MR. HOURIGAN:  Thank you very much.  I 
24  appreciate this opportunity.  
25            As Dr. Hogarth mentioned, cold-water 
                                                      61
 1  corals, also known as deep-water corals or deep-sea 
 2  corals, are increasingly important and during the 
 3  last several years have increased in the minds -- or 
 4  increased in the importance in the minds of many 
 5  people.  
 6            Today I'm going to give a little 
 7  introduction to cold-water corals, a little bit 
 8  about cold-water coral ecosystems in the United 
 9  States.  I'm not going to be speaking too much about 
10  cold-water corals here in Hawaii and the Pacific.  
11  Dr. Grigg has done a lot of the basic research over 
12  a lifetime on that, and we're really very privileged 
13  to have him come and speak with us.  
14            I'm also going to speak a little bit about 
15  some of the research that's going on and some of the 
16  management challenges we're facing and some of the 
17  recommendations that have come out in recent reports 
18  and commissions on this.  A few things on recent 
19  international issues, this is not just an issue that 
20  is affecting our work here domestically, but it's 
21  really taking the center stage internationally as 
22  well.  
23            Then after Dr. Grigg's talk, Mike will be 
24  leading us through some of the issues for MAFAC's 
25  consideration.  
                                                      62
 1            As I mentioned, cold-water corals, also 
 2  known as deep-sea corals, have actually been known 
 3  by fishermen who have been hauling these up in their 
 4  fishing gear for a long period of time.  There's 
 5  some work going back to the 1800s on this 
 6  scientifically.  But it's really only in the last 
 7  decade that work on this has accelerated and become 
 8  better known.  
 9            There are hundreds of species of corals 
10  which exist in colder waters.  Many of these, 
11  however, are branching corals.  Some of these occur 
12  individually, but some of them occur in thickets 
13  that actually form habitats, coral-reef like 
14  structures.  They provide habitats in some cases for 
15  thousands of other species.  
16            In most cases these grow much more slowly 
17  than the more well-known tropical corals.  Because 
18  of this, damaged corals or reefs may take decades to 
19  centuries to recover.  
20            They're found in all oceans and between 
21  depths of 40 meters to over 2,000 meters.  
22            Some of the groups which are included in 
23  this -- and it is a variety of different groups, the 
24  stony corals, the Scleratinians, which are the 
25  corals we usually think about as creating the 
                                                      63
 1  tropical coral reefs.  There are a number of genera 
 2  which are particularly important.  Some of these 
 3  form, as I mentioned, reef-like structures.  
 4            Some Lophelia reefs off of Norway, the 
 5  largest one which has been measured is 35 kilometers 
 6  long and 2.8 kilometers in width and 30 to 40 meters 
 7  in height.  
 8            In addition to stony corals, however, 
 9  there are octocorals, which include precious corals 
10  which are harvested here and elsewhere for jewelry.  
11  There are sea fans and bamboo corals.  This group is 
12  probably the most abundant of the cold-water corals.  
13  There are also octocorals that occur in shallow 
14  waters.  
15            In some cases, they occur individually.  
16  In other cases, they do form thickets and may be 
17  associated with sponges and a lot of other 
18  organisms.  Also some of these corals can be very 
19  old.  Some of the Parigorgia species, individual 
20  colonies have been aged at 300 to 500 years old.  
21            Other groups are lace corals, which are 
22  hydrocorals and black corals, which often occur sort 
23  of in the shallower end of the deep-water corals.  
24            Why should we care about these?  
25            In essence, although they're fascinating 
                                                      64
 1  from their own viewpoint, really what has captured 
 2  peoples' attention has been the habitat that these 
 3  create for other species.  More and more we're 
 4  seeing comparisons to the biological diversity on 
 5  shallow-water coral reefs.  Many of these we're just 
 6  starting to learn about all the species that are 
 7  associated with them.  
 8            But in many cases, thousands of different 
 9  species of invertebrates, fish and others.  This 
10  biological diversity suggests that many of the 
11  associated species may be important for new 
12  pharmaceuticals or other natural products.  
13            In other cases, also we've identified 
14  these structures, these habitats, as important for 
15  commercially-exploited species.  
16            I'll mention, however, that in many cases 
17  this link has not yet been made.  Whether this is 
18  because commercially-exploited species are not 
19  really using these extensively or it's because we 
20  just haven't done the research because of the 
21  expense that is involved in looking at some of these 
22  deeper water habitats.  There's still a lot we don't 
23  know.  
24            Finally, the coral themselves are being 
25  looked at as indicators of past climate change.  
                                                      65
 1  Because they set down calcareous skeletons they 
 2  contain information about water temperatures and 
 3  water conditions at depths below where we've been 
 4  looking as far as records of surface temperatures 
 5  and conditions.  
 6            This just shows North America.  I put this 
 7  slide up here primarily just to show that these 
 8  resources occur off all of the coasts in the areas 
 9  of all of the councils.  I put it not on this slide, 
10  but including Hawaii and the Western Pacific.  
11            Some of the recent work -- and I'll go 
12  through this very quickly.  Over the last five 
13  years, four years, exploration for the NUR Program, 
14  the National Undersea Research Program, through the 
15  Ocean Exploration Program, and others by NMFS has 
16  increased tremendously.  
17            In the New England area there's been a lot 
18  of work recently over of the last four years on the 
19  New England seamounts, which are revealing important 
20  coral resources and really fascinating associated 
21  biota.  
22            This is one of the maps which is over 
23  here.  These were prepared a couple months ago at 
24  the request of some congressional staffers.  
25            What this shows is -- and I don't expect 
                                                      66
 1  you to see this here, but later during the break you 
 2  can take a look at these.  It shows some of the 
 3  areas where there are known coral aggregations along 
 4  the Coast of New England.  You can see that many of 
 5  these are at the shelf break or in canyons or on the 
 6  seamounts.  
 7            This shows areas where there are existing 
 8  trawling or scallop threshing occurring.  
 9            There have also been recent discoveries in 
10  the South Atlantic and in the Gulf.  NURP and NOAA 
11  Fisheries have been leading expeditions recently to 
12  the Oculina reefs off Florida.  These are unique 
13  habitats that have been shown to be very important 
14  for a number of species, fish and shrimp.  This is 
15  also the first deeper water coral habitat which was 
16  protected as an HAPC by a council.  
17            It's sort of the shallowest of the 
18  deep-water coral communities.  
19            In addition to the Oculina reefs, however, 
20  off the shelf are important Lophelia reefs.  These 
21  are the same species as these large reef structures 
22  which occur off of Norway and the Northeastern 
23  Atlantic.  We're just starting to look at these.  
24  Over the last two years there have been some recent 
25  expeditions, these off of North Carolina.  
                                                      67
 1            There's also mounds of Lophelia which are 
 2  being researched by the USGS in the Gulf.  
 3            Perhaps the most exciting research and 
 4  resources that have been looked at with regards to 
 5  deep-water corals are on the Alaskan Seamounts and 
 6  the Aleutian Islands.  Tremendous amount of corals.  
 7  Some of the trawl survey data indicate that Aleutian 
 8  Islands may harbor the highest abundance and 
 9  diversity of cold-water corals in the world.  
10            These are mostly octocorals.  There are 
11  some 70 corals there as well.  NOAA Fisheries and 
12  the North Pacific Council are looking at these as 
13  areas for new HAPCs.  
14            This map here, which is also up on the 
15  wall over there, shows all of these green dots are 
16  areas of corals and bryozoans, which have been 
17  identified through observers on trawls.  This shows 
18  some of the distribution of that.  
19            Also in Hawaii, deep-water corals, 
20  especially the precious corals, the black corals 
21  have been known here for a long time.  Dr. Grigg 
22  will be speaking more about this.  
23            The Western Pacific Fishery Management 
24  Council is the only council which actually has an 
25  FMP and an active sustainable management program for 
                                                      68
 1  the collection of precious corals.  However, new 
 2  research which has been accomplished just in the 
 3  last couple of years in the Northwestern Hawaiian 
 4  Islands and some of the seamounts are discovering 
 5  new coral resources in deeper areas that were not 
 6  known, new species and new associated communities.  
 7            There are also some interesting places 
 8  that have been discovered by putting critter cams, 
 9  little video cameras, on endangered monk seals, 
10  which revealed the last couple of years that they 
11  actually go down to these deep gold coral areas and 
12  forage around these areas.  
13            As I mentioned, there's a sustainable 
14  harvest of precious corals, black corals, here in 
15  Hawaii.  One of the things of concern is recently 
16  there has been an invasive snowflake coral from the 
17  Caribbean which is attacking Hawaiian black corals, 
18  and it really is endangering what has previously 
19  been a sustainable harvest for these species.  
20            Some of the areas that have been 
21  identified as important areas for research are 
22  listed here.  This is actually here from a summary 
23  in a Deep-sea Coral Workshop which was held in 
24  Galway, Ireland a couple years ago in 2003.  
25            One of the top priorities identified is 
                                                      69
 1  mapping these areas.  Because they are deep in a lot 
 2  of cases we don't know what's down there.  We don't 
 3  know where these areas are.  So there's a need for 
 4  synoptic, low-resolution mapping of areas where we 
 5  suspect some of these corals may be.  
 6            There's also a need for finer-scale 
 7  mapping and characterization of the areas where we 
 8  know that there are corals.  
 9            If you look at the map for North New 
10  England, which are based not on trawl bycatch but 
11  just the scientific studies, you'll see that there 
12  are some canyons where we have identified that 
13  there's corals because there have been research 
14  submersible work done there.  There are others which 
15  may be very similar, but because we haven't looked 
16  at them we don't know what's there.  
17            We also need to understand linkages of 
18  fishery species with these deep-sea coral habitats. 
19  As I mentioned, in the case of Oculina, in part 
20  because it's shallower, in the 80 to 100 meter 
21  range, it's been identified as very important to 
22  snappers and groupers.  
23            For many of these deeper areas, we haven't 
24  made that connection yet.  This is one of the things 
25  that councils have identified for us as a priority 
                                                      70
 1  for their action.  
 2            We also don't know a lot about the basic 
 3  biology and ecology of both corals and the 
 4  associated species; what is the biodiversity in 
 5  these habitats and what are the growth and 
 6  reproduction strategies of the corals that create 
 7  these habitats.  
 8            We also need to assess the vulnerability 
 9  and resilience of these communities to disturbance.  
10  I mentioned already, deep-sea corals are indicators 
11  of past climate change.  
12            So what are the conservation concerns?  
13            First of all, the biggest threat by far 
14  and the biggest impact currently is from fishing 
15  gear, especially trawl.  Bottom-set gillnets and 
16  longlines are also known to entangle these corals.  
17  In some cases there are also concerns about pots and 
18  traps.  But certainly, trawling is known to be the 
19  biggest impact to these resources.  
20            There are also other threats, such as oil 
21  and gas exploration and development, cables.  A 
22  number of the councils are starting to look at these 
23  as well.  
24            I mentioned the slow growth rates, which 
25  in many cases mean extremely long recovery times, 
                                                      71
 1  much longer than you or I or our children or our 
 2  grandchildren may be around.  
 3            The good news is that a lot of these 
 4  deeper areas haven't been trawled.  So there's an 
 5  opportunity here to understand these resources 
 6  before they're destroyed.  
 7            Flip side of that is that trawling is 
 8  expanding into some of these areas, and this is a 
 9  big concern for a number of the councils.  
10            So we have an opportunity both to look at 
11  these resources and to conserve these habitats 
12  before they're destroyed.  
13            I mentioned that there's been a lot of 
14  growing concern recently.  In your packets, there's 
15  a cold-water coral timeline which shows some of the 
16  activities -- selected activities in the U.S., as 
17  well as internationally.  This has really 
18  accelerated within the last year or two.  
19            The front page of that timeline is from 
20  1800s to 2003, and the second page is all 2004.  
21            Over the last three years the United 
22  Nations General Assembly has called for urgent 
23  action to improve the management of seamounts and 
24  undersea features, and has specifically cited 
25  deep-sea corals.  
                                                      72
 1            In September of 2003 there was the Second 
 2  International Deep-Sea Coral Symposium, which 
 3  brought together a lot of the science that we have.  
 4            In November of 2003 the Deep-Sea Coral 
 5  Protection Act was introduced in the Senate in the 
 6  last session.  The following year a similar bill was 
 7  introduced in the House.  
 8            In February of 2004 over 1,000 scientists 
 9  released a consensus statement at an American 
10  Association for the Advancement of Science Meeting 
11  urging increased protection of deep-sea corals.  
12            In March of 2004 Oceana petitioned the 
13  Secretary of Commerce to protect deep-sea corals and 
14  some habitats from trawling.  
15            In September of 2004 the Ocean Commission 
16  released a report that identified conservation of 
17  deep-sea coral communities as a priority.  
18            No one is really the principal federal 
19  agency entrusted with conserving and managing these 
20  resources.  I mentioned Department of Interior, NMS 
21  do have responsibilities as far as oil and gas 
22  exploration and mineral exploration.  
23            But when it comes to fisheries impacts, 
24  the buck really stops here.  
25            Really, there are only the two major 
                                                      73
 1  mandates that we have for this, are in the 
 2  Magnuson-Stevens Act, fisheries management in 
 3  federal waters, and most of these deeper water coral 
 4  resources, unlike the shallow coral reefs, occur 
 5  within federal waters.  
 6            The second mandate we have is under the 
 7  National Marine Sanctuaries Program.  Some of these 
 8  important resources are being discovered in existing 
 9  sanctuaries.  Many of them, however, lie outside of 
10  the existing sanctuaries.  
11            I mentioned that the Fishery Management 
12  Councils are increasingly active in this area.  I 
13  think every single one of the councils have 
14  activities going on on this.  
15            West Pac was really one of the leaders in 
16  conservation of these resources, going back to 
17  banning of fish bottom-trawl gear in the Western and 
18  Central Pacific back in 1983 based on some of the 
19  experiences from foreign trawlers on seamounts and 
20  other.  
21            They also banned the use of nonselective 
22  gear in precious coral harvest.  Regulations on that 
23  were finalized I think in 2002.  
24            I also mentioned the South Atlantic 
25  Fishery Management Council established the Oculina 
                                                      74
 1  HAPC in 1984.  This was really the first -- 
 2  globally, the first protected area for deep-sea 
 3  corals that was established.  This was expanded in 
 4  2000, and is currently doing a lot of work working 
 5  with NMFS and NOAA Undersea Research Program getting 
 6  information and considering the establishment of 
 7  additional HAPCs in areas to protect deep-water 
 8  corals.  
 9            North Pacific Fishery Management Council 
10  has been responding to new information which has 
11  been coming in from research on these coral areas.  
12  They already put aside huge areas, not necessarily 
13  specifically for protection of deep-water corals, 
14  however this information went into their 
15  deliberations.  
16            The Sitka Pinnacles Marine Reserve was 
17  specifically identified as one of these areas where 
18  there were important resources, and is now reviewing 
19  information on new HAPCs.  Many of these are focused 
20  on area seamounts and undisturbed coral beds.  
21            New England Fisheries Management Council 
22  just last year recommended the closure of canyons 
23  which were known to be particularly important areas 
24  with corals, closures to monkfish trawling.  
25            As I mentioned, each of the other councils 
                                                      75
 1  is at some stage or another looking at these issues.  
 2            This was a recommendation of the Ocean 
 3  Commission, Chapter 21.  I think coral reef 
 4  ecosystems and deep coral ecosystems were the only 
 5  ecosystem type which got its own chapter in the 
 6  Ocean Commission Report.  
 7            In that report they highlighted not just 
 8  shallow-water coral reefs, but also deep-water coral 
 9  communities, and called on NOAA to be the lead 
10  agency in looking at these and especially 
11  emphasizing the need for additional research.  
12            Couple of other recent reports which also 
13  highlighted deep-water corals:  
14            The Pew Commission Report recommended 
15  prohibiting the use of mobile bottomfishing in 
16  habitat areas known to be especially sensitive to 
17  disturbance for such gear, including but not limited 
18  to coral reef and deep-water coral habitats.  
19            Also to prevent the expansion of mobile 
20  bottom gear into geographical areas where it's not 
21  presently employed.  
22            The National Research Council and their 
23  Report of the Effects of Trawling and Dredging 
24  Seafloor Habitat identified many of these biogenic 
25  habitats, such as corals, are the ones which will 
                                                      76
 1  most likely to be disturbed by trawling and also the 
 2  ones which would likely be the slowest to recover 
 3  from such a disturbance.  
 4            They recommended a balanced combination of 
 5  management tools, including fishing effort 
 6  reduction, modifications to gear design, 
 7  restrictions in gear type and, specifically, 
 8  establishment of areas closed to fishing.  Closed 
 9  areas effectively protect biogenic habitats, for 
10  example, corals, bryozoans, hydroids, sponges and 
11  seagrass beds that are damaged by even minimal 
12  fishing.  
13            One thing that I would like to emphasize 
14  here.  I've been talking most of the time about 
15  deep-water corals.  Increasingly also people are 
16  talking about the importance of deep-water sponge 
17  communities which also form these three-dimensional 
18  structures, which appear to be very important for 
19  associated species.  
20            We know even less about many of these 
21  sponge communities.  Some of them have recently been 
22  protected in Canada and Australia.  But as far as 
23  their recovery times, we really don't know that 
24  much.  But it's something that we'd appreciate your 
25  input on as well.  
                                                      77
 1            I mentioned the Oceana Petition.  I won't 
 2  read through all this.  It is in the package of 
 3  information.  They show the cover sheets and letter 
 4  which came to the Secretary.  
 5            I will note, however, three pieces here 
 6  which are in bold really incapsulate a lot of the 
 7  recommendations that are coming to the Agency.  
 8            Designating the known areas as Essential 
 9  Fish Habitat, Habitat Areas of Particular Concern, 
10  and closing these to bottom trawling.  
11            Number three, identify areas that haven't 
12  been fished in a period of time and close these 
13  areas to bottom trawling.  
14            And then also, monitor bycatch to identify 
15  areas that are currently being trawled that maybe 
16  should be protected.  I'm paraphrasing here, but you 
17  can read this yourself.  
18            Some of the coral reef activities that are 
19  upcoming in 2005.  Our office is preparing the first 
20  report on the state of U.S. cold-water coral 
21  ecosystems.  We're working with a number of 
22  researchers in different regions, and we're hoping 
23  to have this done by November of this year.  This 
24  will be the first opportunity to bring together in 
25  one place all of the information that we have on the 
                                                      78
 1  distribution and state of these deeper coral 
 2  ecosystems.  
 3            This summer, NOAA and the Canadians and 
 4  Europeans are beginning an international 
 5  collaboration in the North Atlantic to look at some 
 6  of these deep coral communities along the Gulf 
 7  Stream area.  From South Atlantic, some of them are 
 8  being discovered in Canada and then in the Northeast 
 9  Atlantic, with the work of the Europeans.  
10            There are a number of other Ocean 
11  Exploration research cruises planned for 2005 
12  looking at deep-water corals.  
13            Finally, NOAA will help sponsor the Third 
14  International Deep-Sea Coral Symposium, which will 
15  be held in Miami in November of this year.  This is 
16  really an opportunity for United States researchers 
17  to come together with their international colleagues 
18  and look at where we are.  
19            NOAA has been increasingly trying to 
20  respond to these issues which have been raised.  Our 
21  research on cold-water coral ecosystems has greatly 
22  intensified over the last five years.  Between 2001 
23  and 2004 the number of projects funded by the 
24  National Undersea Research Program and Ocean 
25  Exploration on deep-water coral systems have 
                                                      79
 1  tripled.  
 2            We also help organized a major workshop 
 3  and funded a major workshop in Galway, which I 
 4  mentioned.  
 5            In 2004 NOAA established a formal Deep-sea 
 6  Coral Team, which I'm the co-chair of, along with 
 7  John McDonald from Ocean Exploration.  It's a 
 8  NOAA-wide team to coordinate NOAA's efforts, and 
 9  it's under the NOAA's Coral Reef Conservation 
10  Program.  It's one of the nine programs under Jack 
11  Dunnigan's Ecosystem Goal Team.  
12            So that's sort of a summary of a little 
13  bit of what we know and what we're doing right now.  
14            I mentioned that this is really an area of 
15  international concern as well.  
16            There is increasing scientific interest as 
17  well as conservation interest on what's going on on 
18  the high seas.  One of the leaders on this has been 
19  ICES, and Mike Sissenwine has been one of the main 
20  U.S. representatives to ICES.  ICES produced a major 
21  report in 2002 for the Europeans and the European 
22  Union on activities to conserve these resources.  
23            There's growing concern about human, 
24  especially fishery, impacts on vulnerable marine 
25  ecosystems, including cold-water coral ecosystems.  
                                                      80
 1            I mentioned the calls in the U.N. General 
 2  Assembly, and many of these calls have been to adopt 
 3  an interim moratorium on high seas bottom trawling.  
 4  The U.S. has not supported this, but we have 
 5  supported -- we do realize that there are real 
 6  issues involved there, and we're working with our 
 7  partners and others to deal with that.  
 8            Part of what is constraining us to some 
 9  extent in the international negotiations is we want 
10  to make sure that what we're doing domestically is 
11  congruent to what we're trying to do on the 
12  international arena.  
13            Issues being raised at numerous 
14  international fora, including the FAO Committee on 
15  Fisheries, also the Convention on Biological 
16  Diversity, which the United States is a signatory, 
17  but is not a party.  
18            As I mentioned, many of these concerns are 
19  valid concerns about unregulated fishing, trawling 
20  on some of these deep-water ecosystem seamounts and 
21  such.  Although these must be addressed, the U.S. 
22  does not currently support an all-out moratorium.  
23  We are looking at working with the regional 
24  fisheries organizations on trying to address these.  
25            We are looking for input from MAFAC also 
                                                      81
 1  on where we can move forward on this.  
 2            So that's the presentation I was going to 
 3  be giving.  Now I'll turn it over to Dr. Rick Grigg.
 4            (Management in Action)
 5            MR. GRIGG:  Well, good morning, everybody.  
 6            This is certainly a pleasant opportunity 
 7  to be able to recount some of the history we have 
 8  been involved with over the past 45 years, actually.  
 9            But what I'd like to do this morning is 
10  not just talk about that, but go back, if you will 
11  indulge me just a minute, maybe 25,000 years.  
12            Precious corals.  Red coral commerce 
13  (phonetic) in the Mediterranean is the oldest 
14  fishery known to man outside of incidental fishery 
15  itself, but an organized fishery, as far as we know.  
16            On a larger scale, the first evidence of 
17  this really comes from around the 10th Century A.D. 
18  with the Arab fishery in the Mediterranean.  
19            In the Pacific this fishery started in the 
20  early 1800s.  In 1803 it was discovered off Japan.  
21  For 200 years it's been an active fishery in the 
22  Pacific.  In Hawaii, which I'll talk mostly about 
23  this morning, it was discovered in 1958.  So it's a 
24  45-year history here.  
25            Interestingly, the first part of that 
                                                      82
 1  history is one of dredging, devastation, 
 2  destruction, unregulated.  It's not a very good 
 3  story.  I can answer questions about that if you're 
 4  interested.
 5            It so turns out, though, that the flip 
 6  side of that problem, at least in the Mediterranean, 
 7  is the tremendous fecundity of Corallium rubrum, the 
 8  red coral commerce.  That species has been harvested 
 9  for over 10,000 years.  And it's still a fishery, 
10  which is amazing.  And it's been harvested 
11  destructively with dredges.  
12            Now they have divers that dive with mixed 
13  gas to 300 feet, which is amazing.  I once tried to 
14  go down with them, but didn't quite make it.  But 
15  they're still harvesting that species of coral in a 
16  much more responsible way.  
17            They rotate grounds now.  The FAO has 
18  control of that fishery and it's no longer an 
19  unregulated fishery, as it was for thousands of 
20  years.  
21            So I'll be talking, given that brief 
22  background and history, so as to give you an idea 
23  that this is not new.  
24            Now, why it has burst upon our 
25  consciousness as it has in the three to five years I 
                                                      83
 1  think has something to do with the history of coral 
 2  reef science, which in this case -- and this subject 
 3  area goes back to 1997, at least, to the Year of the 
 4  Reef.  
 5            In that year, as you probably all 
 6  remember, the United States initiated or formulated 
 7  an International Coral Reef Task Force.  For about 
 8  the first five years of that body, what was done was 
 9  mapping, monitoring and assessment of coral reefs, 
10  mostly in the United States but also around the 
11  world.  It was a very successful and continues to be 
12  a very successful program.  
13            Then around 2001 or 2002, the attention 
14  was -- let's say, there was added attention to coral 
15  reefs in shallow water to what was going on suddenly 
16  on the deep reef, in the twilight zone, on 
17  cold-water corals.  This came about as a result of 
18  media coverage having to do with the destruction of 
19  bottom trawling, laying of pipeline, mostly off 
20  Norway, some I believe off Georges Bank.  
21            Some of our work here which emphasized the 
22  devastating effect of the Taiwanese and Japanese 
23  dredgers off the Emperor Seamounts, which were wiped 
24  out in 1970 through '80.  
25            So I think it burst upon our consciousness 
                                                      84
 1  three to five years ago, and I'm absolutely 
 2  delighted to see this upswelling of interest now 
 3  that's taking place as far as observing and 
 4  conserving these valuable resources.  
 5            Most of them need absolute preservation.  
 6            There's a few species that can be 
 7  harvested sustainably.  
 8            Now, the take-home message here is that we 
 9  can harvest, in general -- and this is pretty --  
10  for black, gold, pink and red coral here in Hawaii, 
11  about three percent of the biomass on a sustainable 
12  basis.  
13            Now, that value, three percent, I would 
14  suggest might be used as a proxy to cap bycatch in 
15  some of these other areas.  I mean, it's going to 
16  happen.  There's going to be bycatch, unless it's 
17  totally banned.  All bottomfishing, totally banned.  
18            If that happens, then there won't be any 
19  bycatch, of course.  
20            But if there is, as an interim measure, 
21  that might not be a bad guideline.  
22            So given that little background, that 
23  little preamble, let me begin my presentation by 
24  pointing out, first of all, the center of the 
25  fishery for 4,000 years was the Mediterranean Sea.  
                                                      85
 1  This is Corallium rubrum, the red coral commerce.  
 2  That is a valuable species, maybe four to six 
 3  hundred dollars a kilo, something like that.  
 4            This is a small colony.  Thin branched.  
 5  But still, that's pretty valuable.  
 6            The red coral in Japan, I've seen colonies 
 7  this high at 300 meters all along this.  It can sell 
 8  for as high as $10,000 a kilo, $10,000 a kilo.  
 9            So the worldwide industry today is worth 
10  about 300 million dollars.  Here in Hawaii, it's 
11  worth about 50 million dollars.  It doesn't employ 
12  that many people, unless you count the salespeople.  
13  Then there's about 1,000 people who are involved in 
14  the entire industry.  
15            But as far as the lack of area and divers, 
16  in fact, the black coral divers, there's only four 
17  left out of 30.  Well, I don't want to tell you what 
18  happened to the other 26. (Laughter)  
19            In Hawaii, you can see the resource 
20  stretches all the way up to the end of the 
21  archipelago.  In truth, it goes all the way up to 
22  Kamchatka on the surfaces of the Emperor Seamounts, 
23  but most of that has been plundered by the Japanese 
24  and the Taiwanese in the '70s.  
25            This points to the need for a bilateral or 
                                                      86
 1  trilateral or multilateral agreement to ban dredging 
 2  of precious coral, absolutely imperative.  
 3            So that includes black, red and pink and 
 4  gold coral.  
 5            I think the next slide is a little closer 
 6  view of some of these species.  
 7            This is black coral, a shot taken at about 
 8  200 feet looking straight up at the sun.  It gives 
 9  you an idea of how large these colonies can get, 
10  maybe four or five meters.  
11            This is red coral.  It grows about half a 
12  meter, much more valuable than black.  Black sells 
13  for about 35 dollars a pound.  This is 500 dollars a 
14  pound.  
15            Gold coral.  Again, fast-growing, about a 
16  centimeter a year, compared to other deep-water 
17  species.  It gets up to about two meters.  I've  
18  seen them as wide as three meters.  Absolutely 
19  beautiful.  The living tissue is chartreuse, but 
20  once it's been cleaned it looks more like this next 
21  slide will show.  That sells for about 500 dollars a 
22  pound, something like that.  
23            So in Hawaii we're talking about, as far 
24  as black coral, beds around Kauai and then in 
25  between Molokai, Lanai and Maui.  This is the 
                                                      87
 1  largest concentration of black coral.  The MSY is 
 2  about 10,000 pounds, 5,000 kilos.  
 3            They've never exceeded that, by the way.  
 4  In 47 years, never exceeded that.  That's why I 
 5  think it's sustainable.  Although, there are some 
 6  problems that are occurring, one has to do with an 
 7  invasive species.  Very interesting.  I'll show some 
 8  pictures of that.  
 9            Then there's a pink coral bed right here 
10  between Oahu and Molokai with gold coral as well.  
11            Another bed off Keahole, mostly gold and 
12  red.  
13            Then there's a seamount down here called 
14  Cross.  That's very prolific with gold and a little 
15  bit of pink.  But mostly gold.  
16            This just repeats, a little bit in closer 
17  detail.  The Kauai black coral bed, the Maui black 
18  coral bed.  These are depths around 200 to 250.  
19  Actually grows to about 320 feet, but the divers 
20  don't go below around 225 or 250, that's why there 
21  are only four left.  I mean sorry, that's not funny.  
22  (Laughter)
23            There's another bed off South Point 
24  recently discovered.  
25            Now, this is below the shallow-water reef.  
                                                      88
 1  It's the twilight zone.  We're talking about way 
 2  down here where the light is about one to two 
 3  percent.  
 4            Here is the Au'Au Channel between the 
 5  Islands of Maui and Molokai.  That's the largest 
 6  bed.  That's where most of the activity has taken 
 7  place for the last ten years.  There used to be a 
 8  fishery on Kauai, but that has ceased to exist 
 9  because the divers all got the bends.  
10            Now, the two divers that discovered black 
11  coral in 1958, as I already mentioned, this is a 
12  Jack Ackerman, formed Maui Divers of Hawaii.  Larry 
13  Windley.  Larry Windley got bent.  He was totally 
14  paralyzed from the hips down.  
15            He was so demoralized that two years after 
16  that -- I'll tell you the story.  
17            Two years after that he got on a catamaran 
18  in Lahaina and he sailed right out between Kahoolawe 
19  and Lanai on a bearing of 180, and never stopped.  
20            This is the bed.  It's a fantastically 
21  interesting area.  It varies between around 300 and 
22  100 feet.  Here you see -- I think in the next slide 
23  there was a depth -- here it is.  
24            We're talking about 30, 40, to about 70, 
25  80, somewhere in here.  In other words, all of these 
                                                      89
 1  ridges and drop-offs associated with those ridges.  
 2  Along these drop-offs there are undercuts that were 
 3  created by the sea level when it was lower.  As most 
 4  of you probably know, we'd just come out of an ice 
 5  age 20,000 years ago.  
 6            So at these depths, about 10 to 12,000 
 7  years ago, the sea was down here and these were 
 8  shallow basins.  You could actually walk from Maui 
 9  to Lanai had people been here.  Because the reefs 
10  were unable to keep pace with the rapid rise of sea 
11  level, so the coral reefs drowned leaving a 
12  carbonate foundation that is an ideal habitat for 
13  black coral.  
14            Through this channel the currents rage up 
15  to three, four, maybe even a little higher, knots.  
16  Of course, they go to zero at the tide change where 
17  it reverses and goes the other way.  So that's when 
18  the divers try to make their dives, when there is no 
19  current.  
20            (Brief technical interruption)
21            MR. GRIGG:   You can see these undercuts 
22  here.  These are notches cut by sea level.  These 
23  are 55, this is 58 meters.  And we've dated that, 
24  that's about 9.5 thousand years ago.  So we're 
25  looking at a fabulous history, geologically at 
                                                      90
 1  least, and now biologically.  
 2            This gives you an idea of what sea level 
 3  has done over the last 120,000 years.  It reached 
 4  this low point -- actually, this graph is a little 
 5  off -- it's about 21,000 years ago.  You can see how 
 6  fast the sea level rose.  
 7            This is, of course, the basis I think of 
 8  the Great Flood in the Bible.  Look at this, 120 
 9  meters.  That's what, almost 400 feet.  Just think 
10  in the Mediterranean how many cities were flooded.  
11  Noah's Ark.  I don't know.  (Laughter).  
12            Anyway, the coral is down here in what we 
13  call notches.  I thought that would be interesting.  
14            You know, we've not just done biology.  
15  We've looked at the science of this whole question 
16  of deep-water corals.  
17            Now, we started out with black coral 
18  because it was the shallowest.  Here are a couple of 
19  students of mine measuring some colonies that were 
20  tagged.  You can see this little float here with the 
21  number.  We return every year.  
22            It turns out about two inches a year.  
23  We've discovered that they had growth rings that are 
24  annual.  In fact, all of these precious corals have 
25  annual growth rings.  How convenient.  All that 
                                                      91
 1  we've studied; red, pink, gold and black.  
 2            From this, we can calculate from size 
 3  their growth rate, not just having measured, but 
 4  calculated. 
 5            Here we are looking at size structure.  In 
 6  order to get mortality, which you need to plug into 
 7  a model to calculate MSY using the standard models,  
 8  you need mortality, you need growth, you need 
 9  biomass.  So this just shows what is involved to 
10  produce a graph like this.  
11            This is mortality.  So if you know 
12  mortality and you know growth and you know 
13  recruitment, you can measure that.  Then you can 
14  calculate MSY.  
15            This is what it looks like.  This is with 
16  95 percent confidence limits.  
17            What the middle curve tells you is you get 
18  about 1,000 grams per recruit.  So if you know what 
19  your recruitment is, you have to know that, you 
20  calculate, MSY.  That's exactly what we've done.  
21  We've done it for black and for pink.  
22            Now, for gold, we don't have the mortality 
23  data.  So I've used Bellan's (phonetic) formula, and 
24  that gives you a rougher estimate of MSY.  
25            So this is how it's harvested.  Kind of 
                                                      92
 1  crudely, but it works.  
 2            There are perils down there.  I put this 
 3  in as kind of a joke.  (Laughter).  But 
 4  interestingly enough, this picture was taken along 
 5  the Coast of Maui.  
 6            (Laughter).  I couldn't resist.  
 7  (Laughter)
 8            You know, I came face-to-face with one of 
 9  these guys 13 feet long once.  It was about like 
10  that, and I had a tree that I'd cut off because I 
11  was measuring growth rings, and whatnot, and I held 
12  it up like this, blew my float bag with my other 
13  hand and I went to the surface, 200 feet, like that.  
14            It worked, obviously.  (Laughter) 
15  Interesting story.  
16            Here's the problem that's come to our 
17  attention in the last three years.  In 2002, we 
18  discovered an octocoral, which is Carijoa riisei, 
19  that was introduced to Hawaii in 1976 -- no, no, it 
20  was '72, on the hull of a ship from the Caribbean.  
21  Since that time it's spread throughout the high 
22  Hawaiian Islands.  
23            Look how abundant this is.  It's growing 
24  all over the bottom.  Not just on black coral 
25  colonies, but it's just devastating.  
                                                      93
 1            But fortunately it's only in very deep 
 2  water.  This is a very light-sensitive species.  It 
 3  only occurs in the shaded habitat.  So you find it 
 4  only around 70 to 110 meters, something like that, 
 5  and that's the bottom of the distribution of black 
 6  coral.  
 7            I think the next slide has a couple -- 
 8  here's a black coral colony totally covered.  You 
 9  can see what the impact is.  
10            This stuff grows -- you don't believe this 
11  -- a centimeter every month.  Yeah, 12 centimeters a 
12  year.  So a bed like this can -- this is just on the 
13  bare bottom in one year.  
14            And it's something -- I have a PhD student 
15  working on this, and we've taken dives year after 
16  year.  We're following very closely the effect of 
17  this on black coral, and we think it's already 
18  diminished recruitment.  Therefore, we've 
19  recommended an increase of the size limit from three 
20  to four feet.  
21            The Council has adopted that officially in 
22  an amendment, but the State is saying, well, we want 
23  to conduct our own survey and be sure.  So they're 
24  doing that this summer.  They're changing the size 
25  limit.  
                                                      94
 1            This just shows from 75 to about 100 
 2  meters.  That really is where Carijoa -- it's not a 
 3  problem where the divers dive, which is less than 70 
 4  meters, fortunately.  So we'll see what happens 
 5  there.  
 6            We survey the beds with submersibles.  
 7  Over the past two years we've spent about 35, 40 
 8  hours in bottom time.  We really got a good handle 
 9  on what's there.  
10            This shows you the size structure of black 
11  coral in '75.  Notice all these big colonies.  In 
12  '98, well, it's been trimmed down.  But recruitment 
13  is still pretty good here.  This drop-off in Year 1 
14  is because you can't see those tiny little colonies.  
15            They're down in the cracks, you know.  
16            However, notice in 2001 this gap here is 
17  getting bigger.  I think that that's an indication 
18  of recruitment starting to fall after.  
19            And -- wait, wait.  Look how far we've 
20  gone.  We've gone to down to Age 14.  
21            Well, this stuff reproduces at Age 12.  
22  That's ridiculous.  We've got to push that size 
23  limit back up to at least around 20.  I've been very 
24  strongly advising the State to do that.  
25            I hope they will.  I really do.  Because 
                                                      95
 1  this is an important fishery.  The black coral 
 2  fishery alone is 33 million.  It's the State gem.  
 3  Well, you know, there's a culture here.  It's 
 4  important to a lot of people.  So we need to 
 5  conserve it wisely.  
 6            So to move on, I'll try to move a little 
 7  faster here.  
 8            This is pink coral.  You've all seen this 
 9  in the marketplace.  This is what it looks like on 
10  the bottom.  It grows in isolated colonies.  There 
11  are beds -- this is the Makapuu Bed at about 400 
12  meters.  Now we're down in deep water, cold-water 
13  corals.  There's 93 species of Gorgonians alone in 
14  this bed, 93 Gorgonians alone.  
15            I can't say how many other invertebrates.  
16  But obviously, many more than 93.  
17            Well, I've already covered this in my 
18  preamble.  Red coral commerce was the first fishery 
19  -- organized fishery we think known to man in the 
20  Mediterranean.  
21            What we've done with red coral and pink 
22  coral -- since it's a little hard to swim down 
23  there, 400 meters, we estimate its height using a 
24  device such as this, and then calculate a structure, 
25  and knowing the size, you can convert to age and 
                                                      96
 1  calculate mortality.  We've got growth.  MSY.  
 2            There it is.  So we put out a weight 
 3  limit, a size limit on the pink coral populations 
 4  around Hawaii, and the gold coral, by the way.  
 5            It's been sustainable for 40 years, 
 6  although I should tell you that that fishery has had 
 7  its ups and downs, meaning that at the present time 
 8  it's dormant.  The reason is that it's so expensive 
 9  to operate a submarine.  Not just the insurance, 
10  which is obvious, but in fact we've lost a few 
11  lives, that's why the insurance is so high.  
12            But there's peril.  This is rough water.  
13  This is out in the channels.  This is 400 meters.  
14  We go down in one-man submarines.  It is scary down 
15  there.  
16            So this part of the industry has sort of 
17  waxed and waned, and right now it's dormant.  But 
18  with the demand and the beauty of this product of 
19  the ocean being so great, I'm sure it will start up 
20  again.  
21            This will give you an idea of what was 
22  devised in order to selectively harvest the coral, a 
23  basket with a hydraulic cutter.  Showing a typical 
24  day's catch.  It might be about 50 to 100 pounds.  
25  At 500 a pound, well, you do the math.  It's pretty 
                                                      97
 1  good on a good day.  
 2            But what about the zeros?  There are 
 3  zeros.  
 4            (Brief technical interruption)  
 5            MR. GRIGG:  To give you an idea of the 
 6  diversity of the product, pink, black gold.  Let's 
 7  take a closer look at gold.  This is a little more 
 8  attractive on this one.  Gold coral.  (Laughter).  
 9            I think it explains the attraction of 
10  precious corals with the public at-large.  When 
11  people come to Hawaii, they buy precious coral -- 
12  and the last slide, I think explains without too 
13  many words why it's worth about 50 million dollars.  
14            Thank you very much.  
15            If there's time for questions, I'd be 
16  happy to answer them.  
17            MR. OSTERBACK:  Okay.  What we're going to 
18  do is do the last presentation and then take 
19  questions.  
20            MR. GRIGG:  Thank you.  (Applause)  
21            (What are the Policy Issues)
22            MR. SISSENWINE:  Okay.  Really, this isn't 
23  the first presentation, it's just three or four 
24  slides here which is to perhaps prompt a discussion.  
25            So we've heard about what NOAA is doing.  
                                                      98
 1  We've heard some very interesting historical facts 
 2  about these corals, as well as what is being done by 
 3  the Western Pacific Council to deal with its 
 4  precious coral fishery.  It's really very important 
 5  stuff.  
 6            Now we go back to sort of the more 
 7  bureaucratic type slides just to lay out the issues 
 8  that Dr. Hogarth and that the Agency and all of you 
 9  need to think about.  That is the way these are laid 
10  out is basically what sort of research needs are 
11  there in this one.  We can pause and get any 
12  comments -- questions you have about research, 
13  and/or comments you have about it, and then go on to 
14  policy issues, legislative issues, and so forth.  
15            So in terms of the research, again, we've  
16  identified priorities:  
17            For mapping;  
18            We certainly consider that there's need to 
19  better understand some of the functional aspects of 
20  these communities; how do they function in the 
21  ecosystem, how important are they;  
22            To assess the vulnerability and the 
23  resilience once the stressors are removed.  
24            There is an issue of the degree of 
25  endemism in the coral-water coral communities.  It 
                                                      99
 1  is generally accepted that in the more isolated very 
 2  deep-water communities on seamounts throughout the 
 3  Indian Ocean, the Pacific, and so forth, that 
 4  there's a very high degree of endemism, meaning  
 5  unique species in each place you look.  Of course, 
 6  this is an issue with respect to biodiversity.  
 7            Impacts on one seamount might be 
 8  eliminating an entire species forever.  
 9            So this issue of endemism is important in 
10  terms of what sort of policies you put in place in 
11  terms of protecting these.  The issue of endemism on 
12  continental shelves is one that might be quite 
13  different.  One would be expected to be quite 
14  different from what you would expect to see on an 
15  isolated seamount in very deep ocean areas.  
16            So these are research questions that we're 
17  dealing with.  
18            We have put a very high priority on the 
19  mapping.  Frankly, I think there's relatively little 
20  research focused on understanding how these habitats 
21  actually function -- how these ecosystems actually 
22  function as habitats for resource species.  There 
23  are various studies that identify what resource 
24  species are associated with it, but that's not 
25  establishing how they function.  
                                                     100
 1            There are some obvious vulnerabilities.  
 2  It's pretty obvious that when a heavy trawl gear 
 3  goes through and basically smashes up the cold-water 
 4  corals that they are vulnerable and there are 
 5  impacts.  It's less obvious what that means to 
 6  something like biodiversity.  It's obvious what it 
 7  means to physical structure.  But it's less obvious 
 8  what it means to biodiversity and other functional 
 9  aspects.  
10            The issue of resilience and recovery, 
11  there are some studies where areas that have been 
12  closed to fishing have been tracked for -- I guess 
13  in New England, it must be going on a decade now, 
14  and there obviously is some recovery, but my 
15  understanding is it's far from complete recovery.  
16            Now, there are literally an infinite 
17  number of different types of situations in terms of  
18  species, depths, community structures, and so forth.  
19  So it would be improper to draw any general 
20  conclusions from a very short list of studies on 
21  resilience and recovery.  
22            So I guess I suggest we open it up and see 
23  if there are any comments or questions on the 
24  science side at this point.  
25            MR. OSTERBACK:  Okay.  Are you done, then, 
                                                     101
 1  as far as the presentation goes?  Because if you 
 2  are, then what I'll do is just open it up so 
 3  questions can come for all three.  
 4            MR. SISSENWINE:  Well, if you'd like me to 
 5  go through these entirely, we can do that.  
 6            But let me just step through the three 
 7  slides and then you can open it up.  
 8            MR. OSTERBACK:  Okay.  Let's do the other 
 9  couple that you have.  
10            MR. SISSENWINE:  Okay.  What about the 
11  issues on the policy side?  
12            There is almost universal agreement that 
13  -- maybe there is universal agreement -- there needs 
14  to be some protection for these ecosystems and 
15  habitats and species.  But I would contend that it's 
16  not always clear in what context people are 
17  advocating protection.  
18            I mean one that's obvious, and Tom 
19  mentioned the -- sort of reviewed the Oceana 
20  Petition, which is a petition by a constituency 
21  that's very concerned about having more protection 
22  for these ecosystems.  
23            That Oceana Petition, as I understand it, 
24  is addressing it in the context of Essential Fish 
25  Habitat.  So clearly, there's a reason for 
                                                     102
 1  protection that's associated with -- that says 
 2  commercial.  It could be commercial or recreational.  
 3  So slap our wrist on that one.  
 4            MR. RAYBURN:  The previous one, too.  
 5  That's why I was wondering why --  
 6            MR. SISSENWINE:  Need to hit on both of 
 7  them.  
 8            Clearly, there is an issue of the 
 9  importance of these ecosystems in terms of habitat 
10  for resource species.  So that is one issue.  
11            In the international community, there's a 
12  lot of discussion that's associated with 
13  biodiversity.  In fact, you'll see that many of the 
14  discussions that are going on in the U.N. don't put 
15  as much emphasis on the important role for habitat 
16  as they do put emphasis on the concerns about loss 
17  of species in the biodiversity context.  
18  Particularly associated with the issue of endemism 
19  for seamount fish -- for coral communities on 
20  seamounts that are now being subjected to impacts of 
21  fishing.  
22            So biodiversity is another issue.  
23            When we talk about biodiversity, there 
24  needs to be a clear understanding in my mind whether 
25  people are specifically concerned about the loss of 
                                                     103
 1  species or the species richness element of 
 2  biodiversity, or more broadly, the fact that 
 3  activities like fishing alter biodiversity even if 
 4  species are not lost.  There's a different mix.  
 5            By the way, they may alter it depending on 
 6  what index you use to increase it or decrease it.  
 7  But they do change it.  
 8            So is the issue of biodiversity in terms 
 9  of what the agencies need to be setting and working 
10  towards as objectives.  An important one, is it 
11  important in the broadest context of just changing 
12  the biodiversity or is the focus and priority to be 
13  on specifically the issue of loss of species.  
14            Then finally, to my knowledge, there is 
15  not a very direct explicit discussion of the issue 
16  of broader protection, simply because these are 
17  beautiful communities.  They have existence value 
18  that is important to lots of people because of their 
19  charismatic nature and their beauty.  
20            And should we just be protecting them all 
21  on that basis?   I mean, yes, they are important 
22  habitat.  Yes, there are issues of extinction that 
23  may be very important -- that are very important.  
24  But even if those weren't issues, do they deserve to 
25  be protected in their own right because of their 
                                                     104
 1  beauty, because of the charisma associated with 
 2  them.  
 3            That's not an absurd question.  In part, 
 4  that's the basis for why marine mammals are 
 5  protected even when they're very abundant in some 
 6  cases, as some people have commented.  
 7            There is clearly an element of protection 
 8  for tropical corals.  No matter what, because of the 
 9  beauty of these ecosystems and their broad 
10  importance to so many entities and people.  So 
11  that's an issue that I haven't actually seen very 
12  much directed discussion of.  I would suspect that 
13  there are many people in society that would say yes 
14  to that question, although obviously not everyone.  
15            So to me, I think that at some point as we 
16  become more familiar with these ecosystems, how 
17  expansive they may be, and increasingly put 
18  protections in place, I think we need to have a 
19  pretty clear common understanding of what our 
20  objectives are and what are the risks that we're 
21  trying to mitigate against.  
22            To date I see that discussion is pretty 
23  confused, whether it be in the scientific community 
24  or the international community, to a significant 
25  degree domestically because the Essential Fish 
                                                     105
 1  Habitat has been very convenient and probably very 
 2  appropriate to have used that tool, but it's not 
 3  clear to me whether that's the means toward the end, 
 4  or in fact the end really is limited to the habitat 
 5  conservation issue.  
 6            MR. KENT:  Has it been demonstrated as far 
 7  as the --  
 8            MR. OSTERBACK:  Don, write them down.  
 9  Let's hold them -- I'd really like to get to the end 
10  of these, and then give everybody a chance.  
11            MR. KENT:  I'm sorry.
12            MR. SISSENWINE:  All right.  So what we 
13  have in place as mechanisms to protect right now.  
14            Obviously, we have the Magnuson Act and 
15  its Essential Fish Habitat provisions, and that's 
16  the basis under which many of the protections that 
17  have been afforded are being provided right now.  
18            And that's the basis under which Oceana, 
19  for example, has asked for greater protection to be 
20  afforded.  So that's pretty clear.  
21            There are also discussions and 
22  considerations as to whether the Magnuson Act might 
23  be applied directly under bycatch provisions or how 
24  it will be applied directly under bycatch provisions 
25  that provide that we would protect species from 
                                                     106
 1  bycatch and ways of discarding.  
 2            There are also issues as to whether it 
 3  could be applied directly as an FMP that sets a TAC 
 4  on a particular species or group of species even if 
 5  there weren't a targeted fishery.  
 6            So those are issues for the Magnuson Act.  
 7            The Marine Sanctuaries Act is another 
 8  legal framework under which protection is provided.  
 9  It's provided certainly by just various areas that 
10  are parts of marine sanctuaries, in which case 
11  regulations in the marine sanctuaries can be 
12  exercised for protection, whatever elements of an 
13  ecosystem one chooses to protect.  
14            Endangered Species Act.  If we are dealing 
15  with the issue of loss of species, in theory, I 
16  would see no reason why it would not be a legal 
17  vehicle.  
18            In practice, the problems of getting the 
19  data that's necessary and various other issues might 
20  be quite severe.  But theoretically, it would apply 
21  in U.S. domestic waters.  I guess it doesn't 
22  internationally, and then you get into discussions 
23  about the Convention on Biodiversity, for which the 
24  U.S. is not a signatory.  So internationally, it's a 
25  very different situation.  
                                                     107
 1            So we have these provisions.  I guess the 
 2  question before folks is, do they want to give any 
 3  advice or are there any additional legislative needs 
 4  in order to protect cold-water corals?  There's 
 5  certainly legislative agendas and initiatives out 
 6  there.  There have been proposals to expand the 
 7  reaches of the Coral Reef Conservation Act -- yeah, 
 8  to include cold-water corals.  
 9            So those are issues that we can use your 
10  views on in terms of whether or not there are needs 
11  for additional tools.  
12            Well, I think this just reiterates all of 
13  the things I've talked about.  What are some of the 
14  approaches that we might use to protect from 
15  trawling and heavy bottomfish gear; closures, gear 
16  restrictions.  
17            What are some of the approaches to monitor 
18  and assess the bycatch, which is basically a way of 
19  assessing where these communities exist, the bycatch 
20  itself.  While it obviously is adverse to the 
21  communities is in fact positive in terms of getting 
22  information about distributions -- or could be used 
23  more positive.  
24            What should we be doing?  Dr. Hogarth 
25  alluded to this in his opening comments, about areas 
                                                     108
 1  that are relatively pristine now that are likely to 
 2  have communities of cold-water corals.  How should 
 3  they develop for those fisheries, either be 
 4  restrictive or regulated in some manner.  So these 
 5  are possible discussion items in areas where we seek 
 6  your input.  
 7            I believe that's the last one.  
 8            MR. OSTERBACK:  Okay.  Thank you.  I think 
 9  what we'll do then is, since we did a panel you can 
10  direct your questions to individuals.  Or if you 
11  don't know who to direct it to, we'll figure out who 
12  answers it.  So, Don.  
13            MR. KENT:  Thank you, Michael.  
14            Do these deep-sea coral beds meet the 
15  criteria for Essential Fish Habitat?  
16            MR. SISSENWINE:  Well, you can open up a 
17  whole-can-of-worms, so to speak, discussion about 
18  criteria for Essential Fish Habitat.  I mean, 
19  broadly from the presence and absence of various 
20  species, being a low threshold determination of 
21  Essential Fish Habitat in terms of our guidelines, 
22  in which case they very clearly meet the criteria, 
23  to other scientific evidence that has identified, 
24  for example, on the northern edge of Georges Bank, 
25  important resource species like cod that as 
                                                     109
 1  juveniles, that are clearly associated with these 
 2  habitats and scientific literature that proposes and 
 3  argues -- I wouldn't say it's hard proof, but 
 4  proposes and argues that the communities are very 
 5  important for shelter for these juvenile fish and 
 6  enhances survival and possibly as food sources to 
 7  enhance their growth.  
 8            So there isn't any hard, ironclad evidence 
 9  I don't think in almost any case.  But the 
10  circumstantial evidence for their importance to a 
11  number of resource species as Essential Fish Habitat 
12  is about as strong as any examples we've had.  
13            MR. KENT:  But the establishment of EFH or 
14  the other designation, HAPC, are processes that are 
15  gone through?  
16            MR. SISSENWINE: Right.  
17            MR. KENT:  Without that being established, 
18  does the lawsuit that's been filed by Oceana have 
19  merit in that regard?  Do they have to prove that 
20  first -- I know you're not a lawyer, I'm just 
21  wondering --  
22            MR. SISSENWINE:  And it's not a lawsuit, 
23  it's a petition, as I understand.  
24            I mean, some of these areas are identified 
25  as Habitat of Particular Concern.  
                                                     110
 1            MR. KENT:  Okay.  
 2            MR. SISSENWINE:  So the issue is, one, 
 3  from let's say Oceana's perspective, have we 
 4  identified enough areas as Habitat of Particular 
 5  Concern because of the presence of cold-water 
 6  corals.  
 7            Second is, once identified, has the Agency 
 8  done enough to protect those habitats.  I think 
 9  those are basically the issues in the petition.  
10            MR. OSTERBACK:  Bob.  
11            MR. FLETCHER:  Two questions.  One for 
12  Mike.  How comfortable are you that you've 
13  identified these delicate habitats?  Because on the 
14  one hand, you want to protect something that's so 
15  easily destroyed; but on the other hand, if you go 
16  overboard, if you eliminate trawl grounds that may 
17  provide benefits for the industry and, really, 
18  you're not going to damage it if it's a sand bottom, 
19  let's say.  So how far are we in identifying these 
20  various areas?  
21            MR. SISSENWINE:  Well, you know, a decade 
22  ago each new area that was identified, there was 
23  almost an immediate response to protect it, because 
24  it was viewed as being rare and relatively not an 
25  impact to the user community because there were 
                                                     111
 1  relatively few areas.  
 2            Now we're increasingly finding that there 
 3  are more areas.  So the decision gets more difficult 
 4  as to how much to protect or which ones to protect.  
 5            I think it's clear, we know of many more 
 6  areas that have cold-water corals and these high 
 7  dimension biogenic communities than we knew a decade 
 8  ago.  
 9            There are vast areas that we don't know.  
10  There are lots of areas that people think there 
11  would be a high likelihood of presence, or a higher 
12  likelihood to be candidates.  
13            But that's the purpose of the priority 
14  given in the mapping.  It's very clear that there's 
15  a very serious deficit in geographically-specific 
16  information about what the distributions are.  
17            MR. FLETCHER:  One other question for Dr. 
18  Grigg.  
19            I think you said that the black coral 
20  fishery in the Hawaiian Islands is a 33 million 
21  dollar fishery.  Then you also said that there used 
22  to be 30 divers, and now there are four.  
23            Two questions.  What happened to the other 
24  26, did they leave or did they die?  
25            The other question, are those four that 
                                                     112
 1  are left the ones that are harvesting this 33 
 2  million dollars worth of black coral?  
 3            Pretty good deal.  
 4            MR. GRIGG:  I would like to answer both 
 5  questions.  
 6            The other 26 have suffered various fates, 
 7  around -- I would say about eight or ten have either 
 8  drowned or died.  The rest are severely hampered or 
 9  impaired by the bends and are paraplegic and can no 
10  longer dive.  
11            The four who remain are quite seasoned.  
12  They're all over 50.  It's almost a dying breed.  We 
13  don't see a new generation of recruits coming in.  
14            But maybe that's because the price of 
15  coral is only 35 dollars a pound, whereas these 
16  other species deeper down are much more valuable.  
17            That's the answer to one of your 
18  questions.  
19            We actually did a six-dive PISCES study of 
20  the relation between abundance of coral and fish 
21  abundance -- bottomfish abundance.  What we found 
22  was there was virtually no correlation whatsoever.  
23  There's co-habitation.  Bottomfish like high relief 
24  areas.  That's where the precious corals are found.  
25  But there's no predator/prey link and the fish are 
                                                     113
 1  swimming around looking in crevices.  They use it 
 2  for shelter.  They use it for orientation.  
 3            Possibly mating, because you do find 
 4  aggregations.  But there's no direct evidence that 
 5  there's a connection between fish abundance and the 
 6  abundance of coral in Hawaii.  
 7            Now, I recognize other places might be 
 8  quite different, like off South Carolina and  
 9  Norway, and so on.  I would not venture to 
10  generalize about that.  
11            But we do have information, and I think -- 
12  I feel that the precautionary approach is to protect 
13  things totally if you don't know the answer.  At 
14  least, to start with.  And that's probably a wise 
15  kind of strategy to take.  
16            But we shouldn't ignore what we do know.  
17  We should not ignore what we do know.  
18            This literature I talked about goes back 
19  to the 1800s, the Japanese, the Italians, the work 
20  that's been done here in Hawaii.  
21            I haven't seen -- I hope I don't sound 
22  like sour grapes here, but I haven't seen one 
23  reference to any of that in any of the recent 
24  literature.  And it needs to be incorporated, I 
25  would think.  
                                                     114
 1            Now, you had another question, which I --
 2            MR. FLETCHER:  Well, you said there were 
 3  only four divers left.  Yet, the fishery is a 33 
 4  million dollar a year fishery.  These guys are 
 5  making a lot of money if they're the only ones left.  
 6            MR. GRIGG:  No.  Now, what happens is that 
 7  a lot of it has been stockpiled and then we import a 
 8  lot of raw material from Taiwan and Japan, and we 
 9  use that as raw material, meaning the industry.  
10            Bear in mind, a pound of coral gets sliced 
11  up into maybe 20 different pieces of jewelry.  I 
12  mean, there's a tremendous markup, I'd say 100 times 
13  from the value of the raw material at the dockside, 
14  to what you see in the store, the retail.  It's at 
15  least 100.  
16            So these four guys continue to harvest  
17  and supplement the Maui Divers and a few other 
18  companies.  There's only about six companies.  They 
19  have warehouses full of this stuff.  
20            In Taiwan, I have seen rooms this big full 
21  of coral.  Same thing in Italy.  
22            You know, during World War II there was 
23  probably 100 tons of red coral buried so that the 
24  allies and the Germans wouldn't get it, because it's 
25  valuable.  A lot of those caches have not been 
                                                     115
 1  found.  They're still underground.  Isn't that 
 2  something?  
 3            MR. FLETCHER:  Yeah.  (Laughter).  
 4            MR. GRIGG:  Because the people who buried 
 5  the coral got killed.  
 6            MR. KENT:  So the 33 million is really 
 7  value added.  It's not the value -- it's the value 
 8  of the industry overall --  
 9            MR. GRIGG:  Yes.  
10            MR. KENT:  -- to the economy?  
11            MR. GRIGG:  Yes.  
12            MR. OSTERBACK:  Scott.  
13            MR. BURNS:  Mike, thanks.  
14            One of the slides mentions the process 
15  that was initiated by the North Pacific Council to 
16  identify, as I understand it, the areas that are 
17  undisturbed or unfit for -- can you say anything 
18  about where that stands today?  
19            MR. SISSENWINE:  I can't specifically.  
20            MS. MADSEN:  We'll be ready to take final 
21  action in February.  The analysis has been done and 
22  we're positioned to take final action on both 
23  designation of EFH and HAPCs, and then the 
24  particular HAPC concerns and any mitigation as the 
25  Council moves forward.  
                                                     116
 1            MR. BURNS:  Thanks.  
 2            One of the reasons I ask that is we're 
 3  looking at one of the maps that was shown, New 
 4  England, and you can see a pattern where it looks 
 5  like there's a number of remaining undisturbed areas 
 6  that aren't fished.  
 7            From the work that we do internationally 
 8  there's some interest within some of the regional 
 9  fisheries management organizations to have a 
10  passively managed deep-sea fisheries to take a 
11  similar approach.  
12            MR. SISSENWINE:  That's happening in --  
13            MR. BURNS:  Right.  
14            MR. OSTERBACK:  Peter.
15            MR. LEIPZIG:  Question for Mike.  
16            You indicated recently that more and more 
17  areas of cold-water corals have been identified and 
18  you anticipate more will be found.  
19            Is there any indication that those areas 
20  have not been fished, or that when fishing does 
21  occur, that it's not doing substantial damage?  
22            MR. SISSENWINE:  I think it's generally 
23  areas that have not been fished.  There are probably 
24  areas that are being identified that still have some 
25  cold-water corals present.  They're isolated corals, 
                                                     117
 1  and they're not all in big aggregations.  So it will 
 2  be around in various places that have been fished.  
 3  But as you know, even intense fishing doesn't get 
 4  everywhere.  
 5            There's a greater concern that because of 
 6  the improvement in very precise navigation, of 
 7  course, that areas that weren't fished before are 
 8  being increasingly fished and, therefore, there are 
 9  cold-water communities that are increasingly 
10  vulnerable.  So then you're talking about new areas 
11  because suddenly people decided to go out 500 miles 
12  from where they fished before and start working on a 
13  seamount.  That's an issue.  
14            But there will be areas that haven't been 
15  fished before on a very fine scale that are 
16  increasingly vulnerable simply because navigation is 
17  so fantastic today compared with in the past.  
18            MR. LEIPZIG:  And that includes some of 
19  these areas where you're finding deep-water corals?  
20            MR. SISSENWINE:  I think the things that 
21  I'm talking about, mostly of new areas are not on 
22  that micro-scale.  They're just surveying areas that 
23  haven't been surveyed before.  
24            MR. HOURIGAN:  I can add that a lot of 
25  these new areas which are being found are the deeper 
                                                     118
 1  slope areas, as opposed to shelf areas.  
 2            I think that that's where we're 
 3  increasingly finding new resources, and also some of 
 4  the seamounts that are being looked at for the first 
 5  time.  
 6            MR. LEIPZIG:  When you say deeper, what 
 7  depths are we talking about?  
 8            MR. HOURIGAN:  Well, if you're talking 
 9  about off the shelf edge, 200 meters.  Many of the 
10  Lophelia reefs, for example, they're primarily 
11  between about 200 meters depth, and 1800 meters.  
12            The reason why the Oculina reefs are 
13  probably the best known and were first protected is 
14  because those are really very shallow in comparison 
15  to a lot of these other resources.  Those are 80 to 
16  100 meters.  
17            MR. SISSENWINE:  In the international 
18  world, the expansion of seamount fisheries from 20 
19  years ago down to 1,000 meters, are now in excess of 
20  2,000 meters have really raised a lot of attention.  
21            MR. OSTERBACK:  Ralph.  Tom.  Then Paul.  
22  Steve.
23            MR. RAYBURN:  As I recall, is it the Line 
24  Office in NOAA that is in charge and oversees the 
25  management of corals is the NOS?  Is that still the 
                                                     119
 1  case?  And that may be relevant to the marine 
 2  sanctuaries and the issues of shallow-water coral 
 3  now that there's more emphasis on -- or at least 
 4  there's emphasis on deep-water, cold-water corals.  
 5  Are there any implications that perhaps NOAA 
 6  Fisheries ought to be more engaged at least on that 
 7  side as a leader?  Or does it really make any 
 8  difference?  
 9            MR. SISSENWINE:  Well, first, we are 
10  extremely engaged in the NOAA Coral Program and the 
11  International Coral Program -- excuse me, the U.S. 
12  Coral Program.  
13            In fact, Tom serves not only NMFS, but 
14  NOAA and the interagency process.  So we are 
15  engaged.  
16            But that process developed for warm-water 
17  tropical corals.  It is -- the individual who 
18  happens to lead the program is a NOS employee, but 
19  it is a major program for all of NOAA and it is 
20  actually part of the ecosystem program, which Jack 
21  leads.  So I don't think the Line Office designation 
22  is as much an issue here.  
23            There is an issue, though, that that 
24  program which has been developed to deal with 
25  tropical corals was the immediate place that people 
                                                     120
 1  said, well, you ought to have responsibility for 
 2  cold-water corals.  The obvious reason is the word 
 3  corals.  
 4            But if you actually look at the ecological 
 5  issues, you look at the threats, you look at the 
 6  legal mandates, they are probably more associated 
 7  with issues of Essential Fish Habitat than managing 
 8  fisheries.  
 9            MR. RAYBURN:  That's the point I was 
10  trying to get.  
11            MR. SISSENWINE:  There is a healthy 
12  discussion as to whether the association should be 
13  more with fisheries management issues and habitat, 
14  or with the issues that are more traditionally 
15  associated with tropical corals.  
16            I think, largely, it is hard for people to 
17  separate the word corals.  
18            MR. RAYBURN:  That is what my impression 
19  would be from the presentation, is that it should be  
20  separate and distinct.  
21            MR. HOURIGAN:  If I can add to that, I 
22  agree completely with what Mike said.  
23            One other little bit of this, a lot of the 
24  matrix programs and the whole approach is also 
25  related to budgets and management.  
                                                     121
 1            The Coral Reef Program has its own coral 
 2  money which flow from the authorizing legislation, 
 3  and their intent in Congress was for shallow-water 
 4  coral reefs.  It's running about 26 to 28 million 
 5  dollars a year, 11 million dollars of that was 
 6  originally budgeted for NMFS.  So we're about 40 
 7  percent or more for the shallow-water coral reef 
 8  program.  
 9            There is no dedicated funding for 
10  deep-water coral issues.  So to the extent that 
11  anything is being done there, it's being done under 
12  the auspices of the ecosystem research, the 
13  ecosystem observations or some of the habitat 
14  programs not actually using the coral resources, 
15  which are being managed by the Coral Reef 
16  Conservation Program.  
17            MR. OSTERBACK:  Okay.  We've got Tom, 
18  Paul, Steve, and then the gentleman that's -- Andy.  
19  Then I think that will take us into lunch.  We'll 
20  break for lunch after that.  Then if we have more of 
21  this and time for it after lunch, because this is a 
22  good discussion.  
23            MR. GRIGG:  I just have one comment, if I 
24  may.  
25            In Hawaii, the Executive Order which 
                                                     122
 1  established the Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve by 
 2  President Clinton bans the taking of precious coral, 
 3  over 75 percent of the archipelago, from Niihau all 
 4  the way to Kure.  So it's under protection under 
 5  that Executive Order, which I now understand is 
 6  going to be redesignated as a National Marine 
 7  Sanctuary, and that ban will also hold.  
 8            So three-fourths of the Hawaiian Islands 
 9  are totally protected against any kind of harvest, 
10  and the other one-fourth is under the management of 
11  the West Pac Council, and they've done an 
12  outstanding job of sustaining that fishery.  
13            MR. OSTERBACK:  Tom.
14            MR. BILLY:  First I'd like to thank the 
15  presenters for the information they provided.  
16            I feel like I suffer from the same lack of 
17  the science, except perhaps for the black coral and 
18  pink corals in Hawaii, as everyone else does.  Based 
19  on that, my recommendation would be to encourage 
20  caution until more is known.  I use the word 
21  caution, I don't use the word precaution nor do I 
22  use the word precautionary principles.  Because 
23  based on my experience in other venues precautionary 
24  principle is an excuse to apply politics instead of 
25  good science.  I think what we need here is good 
                                                     123
 1  science.  
 2            Given that, it seems to me what would be 
 3  appropriate would be interim or temporary measures.  
 4  I don't know among the various tools available, 
 5  including the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which is most 
 6  appropriate.  
 7            But I do support the research priorities 
 8  in the order that they were presented.  It occurs to 
 9  me that this is particularly critical to continue 
10  with this research, perhaps strengthen it, in order 
11  to enable us to develop fishery ecosystem plans in 
12  the future.  
13            Then finally, in terms of additional 
14  legislation, I think legislation, if it's necessary, 
15  supporting additional research would be appropriate.  
16  I'm a little worried about legislation that would 
17  take any other actions in the absence of better 
18  science.  
19            MR. OSTERBACK:  Paul.
20            MR. HOWARD:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
21            I think that you could see the councils 
22  are involved in protecting deep-water coral, but 
23  we're having a difficult time accessing funding to 
24  do the protection which is so critical.  
25            I think one way we could get better access 
                                                     124
 1  to the funding is if it was clear-cut that there was 
 2  a separation between deep water and warm water and 
 3  that Magnuson Act was very clear in corals as 
 4  opposed to new legislation that may come out and 
 5  fund NOS or someone different.  
 6            It might be appropriate for MAFAC to look 
 7  at changing Magnuson to make it clear that 
 8  deep-water corals would be under fisheries as 
 9  opposed to NOS, and to have it clear the funding and 
10  the mandate under Magnuson and fisheries to protect 
11  the coral.  
12            Otherwise, it's going to be quite confused 
13  if there's another agency managing coral in the EEZ.  
14  So I ask MAFAC to consider making that as a 
15  recommendation for Magnuson, making it clear that 
16  Magnuson be more definitive about corals and that 
17  fisheries have jurisdiction over deep-water corals.  
18            MR. OSTERBACK:  Steve.  
19            MR. ATRAN:  I'm Steven Atran.  I'm on the 
20  Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council staff.
21            One of the last slides Dr. Sissenwine had 
22  up was asking what's the appropriate regulatory 
23  framework.  I think the Council FMP process probably 
24  has everything that's needed.  The Gulf Council has 
25  had a Coral and Coral Reef Fishery Management Plan, 
                                                     125
 1  in least for warm water corals, in place since I 
 2  believe 1984.  It includes area, catches and 
 3  restrictions on bottom type fishing.  So I think the 
 4  necessary tools are already in place to protect the 
 5  cold-water, deep-water corals.  
 6            As Dr. Sissenwine indicated, we are also 
 7  looking at some additional protections and 
 8  designation amendments for our EFH EIS.  So we've 
 9  been holding some public hearings on that in the 
10  past few weeks.  
11            One possible sticking point -- I don't 
12  know if it's going to be a sticking point or not, 
13  but one objection that was raised at some of these 
14  public hearings that we've held is that if you're 
15  going to have a closed area to fishing methods to 
16  protect these coral reefs, you're going to have to 
17  draw a box.  Most coral reefs are an irregular shape 
18  and the Coast Guard can't enforce an irregular 
19  shape.  So you need a box preferably drawn along 
20  longitude and latitude lines so everybody can look 
21  at their nautical charts and need to able to tell 
22  where it is.  
23            But when you draw that box, you're going 
24  to end up with -- at least in the Gulf of Mexico, a 
25  mix of some coral reefs and some sandy bottoms.  
                                                     126
 1            The question that came up during our 
 2  hearings is, for regulatory purposes and for 
 3  purposes of drawing these boxes, how do you define a 
 4  coral reef.  These boxes may have 50 percent reef, 
 5  50 percent sand, maybe only have a little bit of 
 6  coral reef and a lot of sand.  
 7            People brought up these objections.  They 
 8  have no objection to protecting the reefs, but they 
 9  don't want to be cut off from any more fishing areas 
10  than they absolutely have to.  They are concerned 
11  about getting over zealous and closing off an entire 
12  huge area if there's only a tiny amount of coral in 
13  there.  
14            And they asked what is the legal 
15  definition of a coral reef.  I don't believe there's 
16  a legal definition right now.  I think we're 
17  basically going on what the scientists tell us is an 
18  area that's coral reef.  
19            MR. OSTERBACK:  Andy.  
20            MR. COLLINS:  Andy Collins with the 
21  Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem 
22  Reserve.  
23            I had a question for Dr. Grigg.  I was 
24  wondering if you could give me an impression of -- I 
25  assume these Taiwanese and Japanese coral reef 
                                                     127
 1  fisheries were kind of nonselective and destructive.  
 2  I was wondering if you could give us an impression 
 3  of if there were selective fisheries, say, in 
 4  precious coral areas outside of the Coral Reef 
 5  Reserve boundary in the Northwestern Hawaiian 
 6  Islands, but economically is that a feasible thing 
 7  for submersibles to harvest gold corals?  Or is it 
 8  just economically nonviable?  
 9            MR. GRIGG:  Well, the history tells us 
10  that it's right on the edge of being financially 
11  doable.  It's a marginal fishery because of the cost 
12  using selective gear, submersibles, manned 
13  submersibles.  
14            Now, if an unmanned submersible would be 
15  developed, that might change the economics.  
16            But, of course, the first part of your 
17  question was correct.  The foreigners did use 
18  nonselective methods, basically coral mops, nets 
19  behind them that they dragged, and that's extremely 
20  destructive.  And the Council outlawed that 25 years 
21  ago.  So it's a tough matter right now.  
22            I think the price has to go up.  
23            The reason why it hasn't gone up is 
24  because there's so much coral stockpiled in 
25  warehouses around the world.  As that stock 
                                                     128
 1  diminishes we're going to see -- as demand either 
 2  remains the same or increases, we are going to see 
 3  new entrepreneurs enter the fishery with higher 
 4  technology.  
 5            MR. OSTERBACK:  Okay.  So I really want to 
 6  thank the presenters for this.  This has been real 
 7  good information.  I think as the day progresses on 
 8  here, after lunch if people have more questions, 
 9  those that are going to be here, maybe we'll find 
10  time to go back to this.  
11            But to stay on schedule, it's noon.  So 
12  we'll break.  Come back at 1:30 and go into the 
13  Budget.  See you at 1:30.
14            (Lunch break taken)
15            MR. OSTERBACK:  Okay.  Everyone, welcome 
16  back from lunch.  We're going to go right into 
17  Budgets.  
18            Gary, if you're ready, you have the floor.  
19            (Budget FY05 & FY06)  
20            MR. REISNER:  I don't know why they always 
21  put me after lunch.  (Laughter)  
22            I'm going to talk a little bit about '04, 
23  primarily what we've accomplished.  I may spend a 
24  little more time on accomplishment than folks are 
25  wanting, but I think it's an important issue for us 
                                                     129
 1  that we are struggling with and that NOAA is 
 2  struggling with.  
 3            From my perspective, I don't think we hear 
 4  enough about the linkage of the Budget Program and 
 5  then what the outcome and outputs -- outputs and 
 6  outcomes of that money are for.  
 7            I'll go through '05.  I'm not going to 
 8  spend a lot of time on '06 because -- I'll try to 
 9  tell you a few things, but I'll defer to Bill to 
10  give away the secrets if he wants to.  
11            Okay.  For '06, we had 158 million 
12  dollars; about 620 in our Operating Account, 90 
13  million for Pacific Salmon Coastal Recovery Fund, 
14  about 22 for construction and then 26 for other 
15  things, which were SK Fund, the Construction Fund 
16  and Fishery Finance, that stuff.  
17            The issue, though, is the number in '04 
18  was 76 below the '03 level, but 26 above the 
19  President's budget.  We have this disconnect that 
20  we've had for a while now where the President's 
21  budget has historically been relatively low compared 
22  to the prior year enacted level.  It makes it 
23  difficult for us to plan and it makes it difficult 
24  for our constituency to know what ultimately we're 
25  going to have funding for and what we're not going 
                                                     130
 1  to have funding for.  
 2            I've got about three slides on 
 3  accomplishments.  I'm not going to read them, but I 
 4  wanted to talk about performance accomplishments.  
 5  Development of performance measures is an issue for 
 6  us.  We're still working on them.  
 7            Jack had to leave, I think he's gone.  But 
 8  it's an area that we need to work more on.  We need 
 9  to have more transparent measures, more 
10  understandable measures, and frankly simpler 
11  measures, something that's easier to tell your folks 
12  when you go home what it is that we do.  
13            We have -- you know, what's the 
14  distinction between overfishing, overfished and 
15  rebuilt.  We have a measure right now, reduce the 
16  number of overfished stocks, which it's an okay 
17  measure, it's not bad.  However, the actual 
18  indicators that we use in that are not whether it's 
19  overfished or not, it's -- well, I'll get to that in 
20  a minute.  
21            The problem with this measure and all of 
22  our fishery measures is they're based on the annual 
23  report to Congress on our status of stocks.  Year 
24  after year the numbers of stocks that we're 
25  measuring that are considered major come off the 
                                                     131
 1  measures, that if it's no longer a major stock it 
 2  will come off.  
 3            A stock that was minor, it's become major.  
 4            A stock that was unknown in prior years 
 5  will now become known, and it will become known and 
 6  now we know it's overfished.  So this number jumps 
 7  around, but it's difficult to get a good handle on 
 8  what's our performance because there are a lot 
 9  variables as to why it comes off and goes on.  
10            The issue of rebuilt.  We have one, 
11  increase the number of rebuilt stocks, how many 
12  stocks have rebuilding plans.  That measure -- well, 
13  we talk about in terms of increase the number of 
14  stocks that aren't overfished.  But the way we 
15  measure it is, we don't take it off that list until 
16  it's rebuilt, which is substantially a higher level 
17  than overfished biomass.  So we get all wrapped 
18  around the axle trying to articulate and explain 
19  that.  
20            So I say that just to say that we have 
21  trouble with our measures.  They all center around 
22  the same thing; stocks, biomass as indicators of our 
23  performance and the performance of the fisheries, 
24  but we're still not well versed in articulating 
25  them.  
                                                     132
 1            Jack is working on that to try to correct 
 2  that.  
 3            This is a slide -- we did a lot of work 
 4  this past year on sea turtles and take reduction.  
 5  With regards to protected stocks, which includes 
 6  marine mammals and includes ESA species, we have 
 7  similar measures that we try to capture number of 
 8  stable or increasing populations, number of 
 9  populations with a known stock status and structure, 
10  and reducing the number of fisheries that have 
11  mortality effects on protected stocks.  
12            Right Whale Ship Strikes Strategy we got 
13  out this past year.  Again -- I think Mike raised 
14  it, but as far as ecosystem approaches to 
15  management, this is again an area, from my 
16  perspective, where Fisheries Councils and the 
17  industry are doing a lot to change their management 
18  regimes and their behaviors, and somehow we need to 
19  get a forum out there to say that a lot of the 
20  damage -- a lot of what's happening is in commerce 
21  and transportation on ship strikes.  While we can't 
22  control that, the fact that it's occurring and it's 
23  impacting on the marine mammals, it affects our 
24  ability and our restrictions that we might have to 
25  place on fishing activities.  
                                                     133
 1            MR. HOGARTH:  Gary, back up to other 
 2  slide, because you didn't mention the bottom of that 
 3  that I mentioned this morning.  
 4            But look, the point of that is, the 87 
 5  percent one in 2004.  So we've basically come up 
 6  every year since the last four years.  So I think 
 7  the councils deserve a lot of credit for this, all 
 8  they've done in the process in doing things.  
 9            But the number of lawsuits is down 31 last 
10  year, and the year that we went into this job it was 
11  between 70 and 100.  
12            So I say that because I think the goal is 
13  to manage the fisheries right, and not manage it in 
14  court.  So I think we need to work together.  I 
15  think we're working together with a lot of the 
16  groups better than we have been.  I think we're more 
17  open.  I think if we can get that open dialogue, 
18  sometimes that can keep you out of court, too.  
19            But if you do the process right, it keeps 
20  you out of court.  I'm very happy with that 87 
21  percent.  It's about as good as you can do in court, 
22  particularly when you deal with the West Coast's 
23  courts.  
24            MR. REISNER:  That's one of our 
25  frustrations, is a lot of the reason this occurred 
                                                     134
 1  with the regulatory streamlining where some of it 
 2  wasn't necessarily new money that came in, but just 
 3  redoing things.  But we did get some money for 
 4  regulatory streamlining.  
 5            We've been trying to get money for NEPA, 
 6  and when it looked like we were going on an upward 
 7  track for the last two years, it's been cut after we 
 8  had hired on a significant amount of staff to meet 
 9  these needs and the council staff made commitments 
10  to hire people to meet some of these needs.  It's 
11  one of the areas we're struggling with.  
12            Okay.  On habitat, we have a real simple 
13  measure here.  Just sort of the number of acres that 
14  we restore or the number of stream miles that we 
15  open up with some of the work that we're doing on 
16  community restoration programs on culvert repair and 
17  placements.  
18            One of the issues with our habitat 
19  measures, from my perspective, is we don't have a 
20  real -- we know there's a relationship, it's pretty 
21  self-evident, between habitat improvements and stock 
22  size, living marine resources, what are the effects 
23  in the long run of increasing the habitat.  We don't 
24  really have a good one-to-one relationship.  
25            We restored 5,000 acres; what are the 
                                                     135
 1  effects of that on salmon or other species of 
 2  interest.  
 3            I say that because I don't think anybody 
 4  else does.  Although, we've been criticized about 
 5  it, I'm not sure others have the mechanism to do 
 6  that yet either.  
 7            The other thing with our habitat issues 
 8  are, what's the universe we should be looking at.  
 9  What does it mean to say you restored 3700 acres in 
10  a year.  Is that in a universe of five million acres 
11  that really needs work on?  Or are there 20,000 
12  acres.  So it's a fairly good chunk?  We don't have 
13  a good handle on that yet either.  
14            The next area is science.  We've got a lot 
15  more observers on vessels.  We've been able to 
16  increase some of our days at sea.  We have more of 
17  our fishery management plans in our analysis that 
18  are including social economic information.  
19            With regards to quantitative measures that 
20  we have here, one of the areas that we have is the 
21  number of stocks, number of fish stocks or protected 
22  stocks or managed stocks with known population size.  
23  What does that mean in terms of our ability then to 
24  take that to the next level.  
25            We know what the current stock size and 
                                                     136
 1  structure is.  Can we forecast that in the Year 2 
 2  out under various environmental regimes and under 
 3  different management policy issues and mortality 
 4  estimates.  
 5            We're trying to improve on that.  
 6            One of the issues, for me, oftentimes when 
 7  you hear about NOAA and talking about performance, 
 8  we'll trumpet the National Weather Service and their 
 9  ability to do forecasts.  It's true, they've done a 
10  pretty good job in their ability to -- on storm 
11  tracks, they're very good now at storm tracks.  
12            On their temperature data, when you go in 
13  there, their three-day forecast now is as good as 
14  their 24-hour forecast used to be about five years 
15  ago.  In fact, their five-day forecast is about as 
16  good as their three-day forecast.   
17            They're not as good, though, on 
18  precipitation rates and how much rain has actually 
19  fallen.  They're also not real good on storm 
20  intensity.  
21            Well, from our forecast perspective, we 
22  need all that information that they're not real good 
23  on before we can even start to do a forecast on 
24  stock assessments and populations.  So we're one 
25  level down in terms of difficulty, I think.  
                                                     137
 1            Then part of our mission is not just 
 2  saying how many fish are out there, it's managing 
 3  how many can we catch.  I've often talked with  
 4  science folks trying to separate those two issues 
 5  because they sometimes get blamed for when a stock 
 6  collapses, even though they might have forecast it 
 7  would collapse under these various regimes.  
 8            Anyway, so that's our measures for this, 
 9  our known stock size, from my perspective, looking 
10  for coefficient of variation on current stocks and 
11  structure and our future estimates of that 
12  structure.  
13            Heard a lot about ecosystem approaches to 
14  management.  I talk about it as though I'm talking 
15  about single species or -- but it could be a single 
16  species, it could be a complex of species, it could 
17  be a whole fishery, a whole groundfish complex and 
18  various geo-spatial areas.  
19            I'm not an expert on Magnuson-Stevens or 
20  what's going to happen to that, that's Jack's area.  
21            But it wouldn't surprise me from the 
22  constituent's perspective, fishermen and folks are 
23  still going to want to know individual stock levels.  
24  So while we may be managing from an ecosystem 
25  perspective we're going to have to be breaking that 
                                                     138
 1  out.  
 2            One other area that I don't have a slide 
 3  on is that we've done a fair amount of work in the 
 4  last couple of years is buybacks.  On the West 
 5  Coast, the groundfish buyback is pretty much 
 6  completed.  
 7            We've finished, after a stumble, the crab 
 8  buyback up in Alaska.  We're working on a 
 9  non-pollack groundfish buyback in Alaska.  And new 
10  this year, a Gulf of Mexico reef fish buyback that 
11  we don't have plans for.  
12            You might recall last year also there was 
13  a New England lobster fishery buyback.  On a number 
14  of these, we don't have plans, there's nothing in 
15  place.  So occasionally people put money in the 
16  budget and we can't use it because there are no 
17  plans in place to actually implement it, and that's 
18  what the deal is with the lobster buyback.  That's 
19  one-year money, and we're not going to be able to 
20  obligate that money.  That money, for all intents 
21  and purposes, shouldn't have been appropriated 
22  because we can't -- but buybacks are becoming 
23  increasingly used, and most of them -- or all of 
24  them -- none of them have been requested by the 
25  Administration.   They've all come through 
                                                     139
 1  legislation.  
 2            All right.  '05, 810 million dollars; 88, 
 3  89 million for Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund, 
 4  slightly less than last year.  Construction is 31.  
 5  Then the other programs that I talked about before.  
 6            Again, we have this issue with the 
 7  discrepancy between the President's budget, the 
 8  prior year enacted level and the current enacted 
 9  level.  This makes it hard for us to plan, makes it 
10  hard for us to tell folks, here's what we think we 
11  can do next year.  We really don't know until -- we 
12  can tell you what's in the President's budget and 
13  what we would do with that, and we can tell you what 
14  we think we would do if we got either the House mark 
15  or the Senate mark.  But it's very difficult to say 
16  exactly what's going to happen.  
17            In this case, the House mark was 600 
18  million.  The Senate mark was 550 million.  It's a 
19  big change.  So we were sort of left in there, well, 
20  we didn't know if we were going to get the House and 
21  the Senate.  
22            Now, historically, the President's budget 
23  has come in and the House mark has been at or about 
24  the President's budget, or a little lower.  The 
25  Senate mark has been substantially higher.  Then the 
                                                     140
 1  enacted mark is usually above or very close to the 
 2  Senate mark.  
 3            In this case, it came out below the Senate 
 4  mark.  
 5            But still, a fair increase for over the 
 6  House and the President's budget request.  To some 
 7  degree, over the '04 enactment.  I'll get into what 
 8  that money is going for in just a second.  
 9            MR. HOGARTH:  I think that's an 
10  interesting point about budgeting.  
11            The Admiral said, just what he was saying, 
12  we had both House people there and the Senate.  
13  They're pretty much straightforward and open, is 
14  that, that's the way we're going to do it.  We know 
15  the Senate is going to come in high, and so the 
16  House is going to come in low.  So you're really in 
17  this state of flux in how you can come out of the 
18  Congress.  
19            It's really hard budgeting that way for I 
20  think everybody.  But that's the way they have 
21  determined, that's the only way they have to keep a 
22  reasonable budget.  
23            If you look at our budget this year, they 
24  were definitely right.  They cut everything in 
25  Alaska because they knew Senator Stevens was the 
                                                     141
 1  Chairman on the Senate side, and it wasn't going to 
 2  happen.  
 3            To me, that's sort of a crazy way to run a 
 4  government this big, but it's just really the fact 
 5  of life that we have to get used to it and deal with 
 6  it.  But it is a very strange way -- and you really 
 7  don't know until the Conference Committee, and then 
 8  that's very secretive.  So you don't know until 
 9  afterwards how you fared.  It's crazy.  
10            The other thing I want to tell you, Gary, 
11  real quick, is you can look at 810 million.  But you 
12  have to go back and look at this as actually how 
13  much money does the Agency have to stretch to see 
14  how they're going to spend.  So much of that money 
15  is passive.  So it may be you go back in, we got 75 
16  above '04, and Gary made that number --  
17            MR. REISNER:  I'm going to --  
18            MR. HOGARTH:  Okay.  We don't know how 
19  much -- you know, you have to really look at how 
20  much we have that we can actually control and spend.  
21            MR. REISNER:  The next slide here talks 
22  about ATBs, sort of just general inflationary costs.  
23            There are some expansion of some programs, 
24  not all of the costs associated with the Current 
25  Services Program, in keeping that going, were fully 
                                                     142
 1  funded.  But there were some increases in some 
 2  areas.  
 3            Fisheries Research and Management, about 
 4  12 million dollars.  Looks like nice change, but 
 5  when you look at it, there's about two million for 
 6  expanding stock assessments, which we'll be able to 
 7  use.  There's 900,000 for rockfish research in 
 8  Alaska.  There's one and a half million for Hawaii's 
 9  seafood and safety.  
10            There is a million and a half increase for 
11  regulatory streamlining fishery management programs,   
12  which we talked about a little bit.  
13            There's about 2.8 million in increases for 
14  Mitchell Act and salmon management activities.  So 
15  there's about a million increase for Mitchell Act 
16  hatcheries.  There's a million and a half increase 
17  for the Salmon Treaty, which is money that goes to 
18  the states.  Not the Pacific Salmon Coastal Recovery 
19  Fund money, but within the Operations Account that 
20  goes to the states to help them.  
21            Then there was about a two million dollar 
22  increase for the Atlantic Cooperative Management 
23  Funds that goes to the Atlantic States Fishery 
24  Commissions for data collection, and stuff.  
25            That's just in the fishery management.  So 
                                                     143
 1  while it looks like 12 million, frankly it's all 
 2  directed at specific items for specific purposes.  
 3            Same with -- the marine mammal issue is a 
 4  little different.  We did get a 10 million dollar 
 5  increase there for a marine mammal initiative, and 
 6  we're working on spending plans to determine how 
 7  that money will be spent.  It combines some things 
 8  that we had asked for independently and put it into 
 9  this pot.  We don't have those plans fully embedded 
10  yet.  
11            But there were also some increases, about 
12  two million for the Mississippi Center for Marine 
13  Education and Research.  In fact, there were three 
14  or four increase across the budget for Mississippi 
15  Center for Marine Education and Research.  
16            There's additional funding for the Alaska 
17  Sealife Center and funding for the Headlands 
18  (phonetic) Marine Mammal Center.  
19            So, again, except for this ten million, 
20  we're working on plans, all the rest of the money 
21  was clearly earmarked for specific items.  
22            Marine sea turtles, 1.8 million of that 
23  increase is for the supplemental for the hurricanes 
24  in Florida and South Atlantic.  The other 1.2 is for 
25  Hawaii sea turtles.  So that's for those.  
                                                     144
 1            Habitat restoration increases.  Looks a 
 2  lot.  There's a million dollars for Scott Bay 
 3  (phonetic) restoration work.  There was a four 
 4  million dollar increase for community-based 
 5  recreation programs, grants that go out specifically 
 6  for that purpose.  
 7            Then the rest of it is nine million that 
 8  was in the supplemental, again, for oyster 
 9  restoration in the Gulf and South Atlantic.  
10            There is money for the fishery survey 
11  vessel number three.  So that's a good thing.  
12            They actually put some money in for the 
13  fourth vessel for what they call their long-term 
14  item.  
15            So other than 10 million dollars for 
16  marine mammals, which we're developing plans for, 
17  all the rest of these increases are clearly 
18  earmarked for specific individuals and clearly for 
19  specific purposes.  
20            MR. HOGARTH:  One thing to do here -- not 
21  to keep interrupting, the fishery survey vessels, 
22  which we've been calling them and continue to call 
23  them, I think that we'll keep them -- because it's a 
24  little bit different committee.  
25            The thing about this is, we are the ones 
                                                     145
 1  in fisheries that end up having to fight for them 
 2  and get them in our budget.  But we have been -- 
 3  when it comes to days at sea, we have to go fight 
 4  for days at sea for these vessels that have a 
 5  multitude of uses.  So we're the ones that fight for 
 6  them.  We're the ones that they end up in our budget 
 7  -- when it comes time to compete for days at sea, we 
 8  have to compete and get into the schedule like a 
 9  whole bunch of other people.  So it's sort of a 
10  strange process the way it's done.  
11            But they affect our budget, which we're 
12  happy for them to because we think it's that  
13  important to us.  But again, it's one of the strange 
14  processes that we deal with.  
15            MR. REISNER:  Now, the other side of the 
16  coin here, there are decreases and some items are 
17  eliminated.  
18            Again, NEPA funding, we've had a request 
19  in the last two years for eight million dollars.  In 
20  2003 they enacted five million and directed us to 
21  hire people to improve and enhance our NEPA 
22  capabilities.  A portion of that we kept in-house 
23  and a portion of that we shared with the councils.  
24            In 2004, in fact there was little or no 
25  NEPA funding.  We came up with money in part through 
                                                     146
 1  a reprograming to get back to the five million 
 2  dollar level.  
 3            We'd hoped that that money would be 
 4  restored going into '05.  Again, we requested eight 
 5  million, had hoped to get at least five million, and 
 6  they only enacted three million.  This is one area 
 7  where it's interesting because the House Bill, while 
 8  it was substantially below the Senate Bill, fully 
 9  funded NEPA at our eight million dollar request.  
10  But at the end of the day, only three million was 
11  enacted.  
12            I'm using these terms in round numbers.  I 
13  want you to understand there were two rescissions 
14  and one reallocation that affects the Fisheries 
15  budget.  There was a rescission -- and I don't know 
16  the exact percentages, like .3 percent in the CJS 
17  Bill.  There was like a .4 percent in the overall 
18  Omnibus Bill.  Those are separate, so you add them 
19  together.  
20            Then there was a tenth a percent 
21  reallocation, all monies that were appropriated to 
22  NOAA were hit with one-tenth of a percent to fund 
23  the Hollings Scholarships.  So there were three hits 
24  to -- when you look in the report and you say, why 
25  isn't this five million dollars, that's why. 
                                                     147
 1            Two of those things they never really 
 2  actually even appropriated that, and the third one 
 3  on Hollings, they said, we're going to take 
 4  one-tenth of a percent for each of those and give it 
 5  to the Hollings Scholarship Fund.  
 6            I'm using round numbers, but recognize 
 7  when you get to the table that it has this down to 
 8  the dollar.  
 9            ESA Pacific Salmon Recovery, minus 1.5 
10  million dollar cut.  I sort of want to tie this up 
11  with this lower one, where we had another sort of a 
12  general ESA category, which has a 2.8 million dollar 
13  cut.  In total, it's over four million.  
14            When I was talking about the increases, 
15  and I said there were increases for salmon 
16  management, about 2.8 million, okay.  They are 
17  giving money that goes to the Mitchell Act 
18  Hatcheries, which we have paid for, but they're run 
19  by Fish and Wildlife Service and the states and 
20  tribes.  And the Salmon Treaty money.  So there are 
21  increases for salmon, but they're offset with these 
22  decreases, and frankly, that's a net number.  
23            There was a slight increase for our BiOp 
24  work related to the Columbia River power system, but 
25  the other components are reductions that primarily 
                                                     148
 1  funded our Section 7 Consultation work.  So we're 
 2  struggling on how we're going to be able to cover 
 3  all of the Section 7 Consultations we have.  
 4            Not even included here is one of the items 
 5  that I was going to talk about, other issues.  In 
 6  our request we'd requested two million dollars for 
 7  consultation related to EPA pesticides work.  
 8  Remember, they'd been sued and was found in 
 9  violation of ESA and had to come to us for 
10  consultation on -- I don't know, how many, Rebecca?  
11            MS. LENT:  Hundreds.  
12            MR. REISNER:  Hundreds.  So they said, 
13  okay, we'll do that.  Of course, they didn't talk to 
14  us about funding for that.  So we had a request in 
15  for some of that money, two million dollars, and it 
16  wasn't funded.  So we're still on the hook to do 
17  these consultations, but we're not quite sure yet 
18  how we're going to proceed.  
19            Let me go on.  
20            The Enforcement and Surveillance, there's 
21  a small cut to some of the cooperative agreements 
22  with states and our baseline.  I think we can absorb 
23  this this year.  We had some carryover and some of 
24  the agreements with states hadn't been put in place 
25  yet.  So we'll be okay, but we would need it to get 
                                                     149
 1  restored if we're going to keep the same level of 
 2  activities that we've been doing in the enforcement 
 3  area.  
 4            Sustainable habitat management.  I talked 
 5  before about increases for habitat restoration, 
 6  community development.  Grants, the Scott Bay and a 
 7  couple others.  This is the Habitat Management 
 8  Program that does a lot of the permitting and a lot 
 9  of the consultation work.  They took a hit.  So 
10  we're going to have to figure out what to do.  
11            Now, some of this money, it's not quite as 
12  bad as it looks here because some of this money is 
13  for education that was funded in program support.  
14  It relates to Chesapeake Bay, education and outreach 
15  work related to habitat.  
16            But the other components of the program 
17  are still going to be struggling.  
18            Well, I don't know if I need to go into 
19  each one of these.  But there's the EPA pesticides 
20  work, which wasn't funded.  
21            There's Crab Rationalization, which Bill 
22  had talked about before, where they did give us a 
23  million dollars.  Although we've estimated that the 
24  implementation of Crab Rationalization is going to 
25  cost more like three million this year and upwards 
                                                     150
 1  of five in the future.  
 2            I think this is something that we're going 
 3  to have to come to grips with.  Particularly, if we 
 4  continue to push IFQs, simplistically, from a 
 5  layperson's perspective, you can manage one TAC on a 
 6  whole fishery or you can manage hundreds of TACs on 
 7  each IFQ.  Management costs implementing these are 
 8  substantially greater than the old way of managing.  
 9            I guess that's about all I have for '05.  
10            A couple things on '06.  These are the 
11  areas that we're going to be emphasizing.  From my 
12  perspective, I'm pretty pleased with the way '06 has 
13  been coming out.  It won't look like a great big 
14  increase to you guys, but to me it looks great 
15  compared to what a lot of agencies have gotten and 
16  what we've seen in the past.  
17            I want to say one other thing, not so much 
18  about '06, although it relates to '06.  I think one 
19  of the reasons that -- again, from my perspective we 
20  were very successful in the '06 process.  You may 
21  not perceive that as much when the budget comes out.  
22            Just remember, I went back -- and we have 
23  to think in terms of the President's budget, it's 
24  historically always been substantially lower, 
25  frankly, than the prior year's enacted level.  So 
                                                     151
 1  we're I think trying to close that gap, and we were 
 2  somewhat successful this year.  
 3            I think in part because of PPBES.  As 
 4  torturous as that process was, it allowed us to 
 5  articulate what we could produce for the money we 
 6  were asking for.  It also tied closer to our ability 
 7  to document performance objectives, and what we were 
 8  going to produce.  
 9            It's been tough, though.  I mean, I 
10  started a little over a year ago, almost a year and 
11  a half ago.  Since then we've gone through three 
12  budget structures.  
13            The other thing we've been able to do is 
14  in '07, as you'll recall, the President's budget in 
15  the past was submitted in a structure that was 
16  essentially, science and technology, and then 
17  conservation and management.  Everything was split 
18  up between those two.  
19            Last year they had enacted a budget that 
20  was more species-focused.  They also put this big 
21  pot of money called Overhead S&E.  We again 
22  submitted the budget in the old structure.  In '05 
23  they enacted the species-focused structure, but they 
24  got rid of the big pot of money called Overhead S&E 
25  and allocated that amongst a number of line items,  
                                                     152
 1  which has made it difficult.  
 2            In '07, we have convinced OMB and the 
 3  Department that we should submit our budget in this 
 4  species-focused structure.  So we will be submitting 
 5  our budget that way, and hopefully we'll go at least 
 6  a couple years with not too many changes in the 
 7  budget structure, which will help with transparency, 
 8  and I think with our ability to articulate what we 
 9  got and what we didn't get.  
10            I think that's the last.  
11            MR. HOGARTH:  Gary, let me say something. 
12            One reason we're doing better -- well, 
13  there's several reasons, in my opinion.  But one of 
14  them is that we had sort of a reputation in 
15  Fisheries of misusing base money and using out of 
16  slush funds, blah, blah, blah.  Gary has come in and 
17  has really done a great job of working with the 
18  Regions and Science Centers and Office Directors and 
19  making them more accountable in having to really 
20  account for funds.  
21            I think that has helped tremendously in 
22  the process.  
23            Also, I think we have a lot more support 
24  out in the field now, and things are being done.  I 
25  think we're more open and transparent, too, which is 
                                                     153
 1  also helping us in the budget process.  I think that 
 2  helps.  
 3            The comments I've heard from the Hill is 
 4  that they don't hear as many complaints.  They still 
 5  get complaints about what we do with Amendment 13, 
 6  or some things like this.  But it's a short-lived 
 7  type thing more than this constant, Fisheries being 
 8  the bad guy on the block.  So personally, I think 
 9  the budget -- we are treated very fairly in the 
10  budget, I'd have to say.  We do well in the budget, 
11  both from NOAA and from Commerce and on the Hill.  I 
12  think a lot of that is from the people sitting 
13  around this table, who have defended us to the Hill 
14  and has helped us.  So we appreciate that.  
15            We're going to continue to try to be open 
16  and transparent and account for how we spend this.  
17  I think that's the way we can continue to increase 
18  and to keep a good stable budget.  
19            Because there's a lot of work to be done 
20  and it costs money to do it.  
21            Gary has really -- I think that's the 
22  following step, that Gary gets that implemented this 
23  year fully, and we'll be able to really account and
24  hold peoples' feet to the fire.  
25            I just want to say that, because Gary has 
                                                     154
 1  done a good job.  
 2            MR. O'SHEA:  Thanks, Mr. Chairman.  
 3            Gary, I sort of hear the sort of internal 
 4  pressure, talking about your comment about the 
 5  increased expense of IFQ fisheries and the cost of 
 6  doing that.  I don't know if this is helpful to you, 
 7  or to maybe cheer you up a little bit, but it seems 
 8  to me we're spending an awful lot of money on 
 9  fisheries that have collapsed and trying to manage 
10  those fisheries.  
11            Maybe one of the ways to sell the 
12  so-called increased cost of managing restored 
13  fisheries is try to identify where those costs of 
14  failed fisheries are, and actually I think you could 
15  make the point that it's cheaper to manage 
16  successful fisheries.  
17            MR. REISNER:  I'm certainly not saying we 
18  shouldn't do IFQs.  I think we need to go forward 
19  with full guns blazing to do as well as we can.  
20            I think, from my perspective, from our 
21  Regions and the Councils, it would be good to 
22  address budgetary issues earlier in the process so 
23  that we can budget for them.  
24            As Jack said earlier, next month we're 
25  going to be starting the '08 process.  We're in the 
                                                     155
 1  middle of the '07 process.  If we know we're going 
 2  to have fisheries where we're doing some major 
 3  revisions to the fishery management plans and 
 4  amendments, there's going to be either 
 5  administrative costs, as we've seen in Amendment 13, 
 6  or Crab Rationalization and IFQs, we need to be 
 7  planning ahead of time to at least be able to say we 
 8  asked for that.  
 9            My frustration right now is I can't even 
10  go out and say I asked for funds for that.  You 
11  didn't give it to me, but I didn't ask for it, 
12  that's a hard sell.  
13            If I could say, I asked for it and you 
14  didn't give, I feel like I can say I told you so.  
15            MR. O'SHEA:  Just a quick follow-up, too.  
16            You did mention the Atlantic Coastal 
17  Cooperative Management Act, which is going to 
18  Statistics.  It's going to end up going back to the 
19  states to manage five key critical areas.  
20            But in looking at my counterpart across 
21  the table, and we've chatted about trying to input 
22  into your '08 process so that we're not in the fall 
23  of '07 or '08 taking part of your work that you did 
24  to try to get our needs met.  Because what we'd like 
25  to be able to do is go up there and support the NOAA 
                                                     156
 1  budget, period, without other requests built in 
 2  there.  So to the extent that you let us do that, 
 3  that would be great.  
 4            MR. REISNER:  I certainly -- maybe -- I 
 5  wasn't trying to criticize anybody for doing that.  
 6  I certainly suspect that people will do that and 
 7  continue to do that.  
 8            And in fact, it's incumbent on us at the 
 9  National Marine Fisheries Service to be able to 
10  articulate what our needs are better, and make that 
11  more transparent, and if we can, hopefully those 
12  monies will get absorbed into our current structure 
13  and can be used and planned for in an orderly 
14  process.  
15            MR. O'SHEA:  And I didn't take it as 
16  criticism.  
17            But I'm just saying I think -- I mean, the 
18  states are a key partnership issue here, and I think 
19  from that perspective, if we stand 
20  shoulder-to-shoulder when we go in there, I think it 
21  just makes it -- it shows that you aren't walking 
22  the partnership walk, and I think it makes a 
23  stronger package.  
24            MR. REISNER:  Yes.  And it was more to try 
25  to point out that -- because I have this problem 
                                                     157
 1  with downtown, both in DSC and NOAA, where they see 
 2  this big number, 800 million dollars, and they think 
 3  there's all these funds around there.  
 4            I'm trying to articulate to them that I 
 5  think we have I think over 193 lines - 193 lines 
 6  with actual dollars identified in our support table.  
 7  They range from 100,000 to over a 100 million.  It's 
 8  a factor of three or four.  So a lot of that money 
 9  is clearly identified.  
10            When we're asked to fund other items, it's 
11  going to be at the expense of one of those line 
12  items.  There's no free money.  
13            MR. OSTERBACK:  John.  
14            MR. REISNER:  Basically, I think one of 
15  the things I'm trying to do is to make pots of money 
16  that are a little more manageable, that we will have 
17  flexibility but are transparent enough that people 
18  will know as they look into the future what we're 
19  going to be doing.  
20            MR. FORSTER:  Thank you.  
21            It may be too early for the '06 process, 
22  but I'm conscious that I didn't see aquaculture 
23  listed on the major areas in '06.  It has been 
24  expressed as something that seems to be a priority 
25  for the future.  Are we likely to see it in the '07 
                                                     158
 1  process or the '08 process?  
 2            MR. REISNER:  I'm pretty confident you'll 
 3  see it in the '07 process.  
 4            Again, there's a lag between the 
 5  development of the budget and the decision-making 
 6  process as we go.  
 7            Bill and I right now are trying to find 
 8  sources of funds that can be identified to put 
 9  together a credible package for aquaculture.  But 
10  you're right, there are no big increases -- at least 
11  not planned right now -- for aquaculture in the 
12  President's budget.  
13            MR. HOGARTH:  We asked for money earlier, 
14  and to be honest with you, it didn't make it through 
15  the system.  
16            We are now in the process of trying to 
17  work with OER and NOS to see if they can provide us 
18  and help us through the next two years.  But we're 
19  trying our best to build that program internally. 
20            MR. FORSTER:  As a follow-up to that, I've 
21  often wondered how and if it's at all possible to 
22  work with the USDA in any way on this, because they 
23  I think had a strong interest in aquaculture, only 
24  from a little bit different perspective.  
25            And certainly from what NOAA is trying to 
                                                     159
 1  do in the offshore environment, which is quite 
 2  clearly it has its problems it has to meet from a 
 3  regulatory point of view, seems to me there's some 
 4  sort of natural alliance or potential alliance 
 5  there.  It may be when you're working across sort of 
 6  interagency boundaries, there may be potential 
 7  there.  But I don't know.  
 8            MR. HOGARTH:  We will be talking with you 
 9  tomorrow about the legislation, and I think that's 
10  what we're hoping for, because that legislation has 
11  been gone through by every federal agency.  We are 
12  seeing a lot of positive comments.  
13            MR. OSTERBACK:  Ken.  
14            MR. ROBERTS:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  
15            Gary, I know you don't have the ability on 
16  your slide to produce everything.  But on your 2004 
17  accomplishment slide, it listed as accomplishments a 
18  reduction in the number of fisheries that are 
19  overfished, overfishing that's going on and the 
20  number rebuilt.  
21            I'm thinking about something a little 
22  broader than that, as how the Agency reports as an 
23  accomplishment for a fishery that's never been 
24  overfished, never been in an overfishing state, and 
25  is not rebuilt.  
                                                     160
 1            In other words, if you hit at something 
 2  hard and you didn't get to those particular critical 
 3  numbers, how does the Agency reports its successes?  
 4            MR. REISNER:  One of the things -- and 
 5  that's something -- Jack is getting up to leave now 
 6  -- is to try to turn these into more positive 
 7  oriented measures of performance.  
 8            One of the ideas is to select for maybe a 
 9  five-year period a set of stocks that are important 
10  to fisheries, but that they're not going to change 
11  necessarily over time, and to track them where they 
12  are in terms of their maximum sustainable yield or 
13  their rebuilding structure or are they overfished 
14  and what is the track of that overfished stock 
15  looking like.  
16            And talk about it in terms of that rather 
17  than not talking about it unless it's already 
18  overfished.  
19            MR. OSTERBACK:  Okay.  Any other 
20  questions?  
21            MR. RAYBURN:  Is most of the restriction 
22  on the budget, is that within the Department before 
23  it goes to OMB?  Or is that OMB?
24            MR. REISNER:  On the growth of the budget?  
25            MR. RAYBURN:  Yes, where you get the 
                                                     161
 1  whacks from the Administration.  
 2            MR. REISNER:  The Administration has been 
 3  fairly clear over the last three years that their 
 4  focus is not domestic discretionary spending, per 
 5  se.  In fact, they've been trying to restrain that 
 6  as much as possible.  
 7            They've been interested in tax relief, 
 8  education on the domestic side, and terrorism and 
 9  war.  So if you look at the overall budget over the 
10  last three years, you're going to see the domestic 
11  departments with increases of one percent, maybe two 
12  percent if they're lucky, and it's not even covering 
13  current service costs to keep operating at the same 
14  level.  So that's sort of the over-arching pressure 
15  that's on all the agencies.  
16            So they're sitting there knowing that 
17  they're going to get a budget in '05 that's valuable 
18  to what they had in '05 requests.  
19            So if they're going to see increases in 
20  NOAA, they're going to see decreases somewhere else 
21  in the Department.  
22            NOAA and the Department of Commerce is 
23  also working with an agency called Census, which has 
24  a very cyclical budget, and it's starting now on its 
25  upward swing to the 2010 census.  So there's a lot 
                                                     162
 1  of pressure on our budget and all the budgets in 
 2  general.  
 3            In fact, I think the President said the 
 4  total increase for domestic discretionary spending 
 5  is less than one percent or so in the '06 budget.  
 6            MR. RAYBURN:  My point is if we in our 
 7  role as MAFAC, is there anything that we need -- 
 8  that we should address within the Department, like 
 9  in an advisory sense, to the Administrator or the 
10  Secretary, relative to the budget, any critical 
11  issues that need to be brought up?  
12            MR. REISNER:  From my perspective, I think 
13  there is a little bit, you can pay me now or you can 
14  pay me later.  Not in '04, but in '03, remember at 
15  the end of the day we had 100 million dollars in 
16  payments that went out to different groups all over 
17  the place.  
18            Prior to that we had a big chunk of money 
19  for stellar sea lions that went out.  
20            So what happens is you're managing, to 
21  some degree, by crisis by not putting the money up 
22  front.  
23            I can tell you, I don't think that would 
24  come as a surprise to them.  It's real hard to not 
25  manage that way in a tight budget situation.  But 
                                                     163
 1  yeah, I think that's the best message that they need 
 2  to hear and I think they're starting to hear it.  
 3            MR. RAYBURN:  Say again, summarize what 
 4  message that is.  
 5            MR. REISNER:  Well, I think, you can pay 
 6  me now or you can pay me later.  
 7            MR. RAYBURN:  When things are going to 
 8  happen, you need to prepare for those?  
 9            MR. REISNER:  Yes.  Because we're managing 
10  a trust resource, which economic activity is 
11  occurring in, and when it crashes, it's going to 
12  affect them on one side of the ledger or the other.  
13            MR. OSTERBACK:  Dave.
14            MR. WHALEY:  Your comment about managing 
15  by crisis is accurate.  We're already hearing calls 
16  for the network of tsunami buoys across the Atlantic 
17  and Caribbean Coast.  
18            MR. REISNER:  Yeah.  We're already hearing 
19  about that, too.  
20            MR. WHALEY:  So it's very accurate.  
21            I think Gary is right, the message is so 
22  we don't have a crisis you want to manage at a 
23  sustainable level, you need a certain amount of base 
24  funding in order to do that if you want to keep 
25  having that economic activity and have a sustainable 
                                                     164
 1  fishery.  
 2            MR. OSTERBACK:  Okay.  If there's no other 
 3  questions, thank you, Gary.  
 4            Gordon.  You're up.  Office of Constituent 
 5  Services.  
 6            (Office of Constituent Services)  
 7            MR. HELM:  There it is.  This 
 8  presentation, though, will be up on the web as soon 
 9  as we get back.  But we can make copies of it for 
10  you tomorrow, if you want.  
11            According to the agenda, I got a 
12  promotion.  Actually, I'm a Deputy Director in the 
13  Office of Constituent Services.  The Director, Linda 
14  Chaves, has taken another assignment.  She is now 
15  working directly for Bill in the area of Trade and 
16  Industry Services.  
17            I'm not sure whether Bill has said, you're 
18  going to advertise the Director's job?  We'll walk 
19  through that a little bit later in the presentation.  
20            I'd like to start off with a couple of 
21  outreach activities that I think kind of illustrate 
22  the kind of things we do.  This isn't ours.  This is 
23  we actually worked with Fish and Wildlife Service 
24  and a whole bunch of other partners on the mall in 
25  Washington, D.C. to talk about recreational fishing.  
                                                     165
 1            Rebecca Lent spends a lot of time down 
 2  catching with little kids, actually trying not to 
 3  get hooked by kids with fishing hooks just flailing 
 4  around.  
 5            The nice thing about it is that this is a 
 6  big national story for one day and it talks about a 
 7  very nice thing called recreational fishing on a 
 8  national level.  It's a good way to get out the 
 9  messages about the importance of recreational 
10  fishing, and it's something that we like to work on.  
11            Another one that we worked on this year 
12  was promoting seafood.  Two years ago, a year ago 
13  last October, Bill had the idea of having a national 
14  seafood cook-off.  We brought together a bunch of 
15  folks and started planning the event.  It rapidly 
16  became an issue of just not having enough time to 
17  get the product's process done within the time frame 
18  we had allowed.  
19            It also became a little controversial 
20  because there were some groups who wanted it done 
21  one way, and other people who didn't wanted it done 
22  that way or they wanted it done another way.  
23            So we partnered with the Louisiana Seafood 
24  Promotion Board to hold a national seafood cook-off, 
25  Great American Seafood Cook-off, at their Louisiana 
                                                     166
 1  Food Service event.  
 2            This also got really a lot of attention to 
 3  the issue of sustainability and seafood and eating 
 4  healthy food.  Part of that was developed in a 
 5  brochure -- and I did not bring enough for everyone 
 6  to take a look at, but let me sort of pass these 
 7  around, that tells the message of sustainability and 
 8  healthy eating and things that you don't necessarily 
 9  hear all of the time in the fishing industry.  This 
10  is good positive news.  
11            Well, we're going to be doing this again 
12  this year we believe.  We're at least working to do 
13  something similar to this this year to promote 
14  seafood.  
15            Just a couple of ideas and the kinds of 
16  things that are a little bit out of the box.  
17            We've also had a few other successes.  
18  Bill will probably disagree with me when I call the 
19  Shrimp Business Options Paper a success.  But it was 
20  a success.  It was a success because at the end 
21  people were talking about how to move forward in 
22  their industry.  
23            So yeah, it was a real tough bird, but at 
24  the end I think we're moving down a path that is a 
25  little bit better.  
                                                     167
 1            We also supported the aquaculture matrix.  
 2  Aquaculture was where my boss, Linda Chaves, went 
 3  for the last year, was to work on aquaculture.  
 4            We created a Recreational Fishing 
 5  Strategic Plan from scratch.  It involved many of 
 6  you in that process.  A little bit later Forbes is 
 7  going to talk about where we are in that process and 
 8  where we go next.  
 9            We've also moved quite a long ways in 
10  updating our website so that they are more current, 
11  and more able to give you the kinds of information 
12  that the public is looking for.  
13            We've increased the value of FishNews.  
14  Not only is it a better product, it's reaching more 
15  people.  
16            We've been going through some staffing 
17  changes.  We've added some staff.  We're losing some 
18  staff.  We're organizing in different ways.  
19            So 2004 was kind of a busy year for us.  
20            Probably the thing I'd like to focus on, 
21  because it got us thinking about where we want to 
22  go, was a retreat that we held for Constituent 
23  Services Staff from internal at NOAA Fisheries.  We 
24  invited folks from Regions, from Science Centers, 
25  everyone who was -- or had some relationship to 
                                                     168
 1  outreach.  
 2            We let them all define what the word 
 3  "outreach" meant.  We asked as many as could come.  
 4            We actually got at least one person, in 
 5  some cases two or three, from each Region or the  
 6  Science Center.  In some cases it was just the 
 7  Region.  In some cases it was just the Science 
 8  Center.  But all the regional areas were 
 9  represented.  
10            We also brought in staff from 
11  Headquarters.  There are outreach folks who do 
12  outreach in various parts of Headquarters.  
13            We did this because we wanted to find out 
14  how we could better integrate and coordinate our 
15  outreach investment.  We also wanted to figure out 
16  what we were doing, what all of us were doing.  
17  Because we had an idea at Headquarters what we were 
18  doing.  We kept saying, well, what are you doing out 
19  in the field.  We would get different answers.  
20            A few of us were saying, well, what are 
21  you doing, and I'm out here all alone.  
22            Then we wanted to look at devising a 
23  National Strategic Plan for Outreach.  
24            Well, what did we find out about our 
25  inventory?  Well, we found out that in many cases we 
                                                     169
 1  were doing so many different things, but we didn't 
 2  really know whether they were really outreach or 
 3  not.  
 4            Planning for events was hodge-podge.  One 
 5  Region might be doing one thing and other Regions  
 6  didn't even know that they were doing it and we at 
 7  Headquarters didn't know at all either.  
 8            We're inconsistent in our messaging.  
 9  We're inconsistent in our product.  We really just 
10  didn't have a good handle on it.  
11            We didn't even know what the total 
12  investment was.  If you asked a lot of our folks, 
13  they would say, well, I go to my boss and if he 
14  liked it, we'd do it.  
15            There's no budget involved.  Don't have a 
16  budget.  So we started to evaluate it.  But really, 
17  we didn't get all that far in this area.  It was a 
18  three-day meeting, we didn't get as far as we wanted 
19  to.  But we certainly got an idea of some of the 
20  successes that we had out there.  
21            For example, up in Alaska in the Alaska 
22  Science Center they have a science camp where 
23  hundreds of kids come in and learn about fishery 
24  science.  We had no clue this was going on.  
25            People are holding constituent meetings 
                                                     170
 1  and doing things involving their councils and their 
 2  constituents who in specific areas, the meetings are 
 3  occurring, information is being exchanged.  But we 
 4  were not really aware of those kinds of things.  
 5            Everyone was attending various conferences 
 6  and trade shows, not necessarily at the national 
 7  level but the one in their local town or the one 
 8  down on the docks or the one in their city where 
 9  people would get together and talk about NOAA and 
10  fisheries.  
11            We found that there were a lot of web 
12  offerings.  This is actually a good thing and a bad 
13  thing because what goes up on a web, you can't 
14  control.  Anybody can put anything on the web they 
15  want to.  
16            A lot of publications.  A lot of reports.  
17  A lot of brochures and a lot of information getting 
18  out, but is it exactly what NOAA Fisheries wants or 
19  is it what the Region wants, or the Science Center.  
20  We just don't have an effective, efficient handle on 
21  getting the consistent messages out that we want to 
22  get out or listening to the kinds of information we 
23  have taken in in any consistent manner.  
24            So some of the issues we focused on, quite 
25  honestly, were a unified recognition of we need to 
                                                     171
 1  do a better job of coordination.  
 2            We need to get together and talk more.  
 3  We're already doing it now.  We started that.  Every 
 4  month we invite everyone from our Regions and 
 5  Science Centers to do outreach, to get together on a 
 6  conference call and talk about what we're doing.  
 7  You'd think that's pretty simple, that we hadn't 
 8  done it.  Now we're doing it.  
 9            We also began an outreach plan.  We just 
10  started the process.  We got people involved in 
11  thinking about where do we want to go.  We did two 
12  things, we defined the word "outreach."  
13            Now, I bet that right now if I said write 
14  down what you think outreach is, I'll get 30 
15  different answers.  Because we got 30 different 
16  answers.  
17            And we also developed a few over-arching 
18  goals and recommendations to bring back to Bill and 
19  Headquarters Office and the Regions.  
20            There's our definition of outreach.  It's 
21  suspiciously like what NOAA's definition of outreach 
22  says.  That's at least the working definition we're 
23  going on now.  
24            Then we developed three goals.  Pretty 
25  straightforward.  Pretty no-brainer kind of stuff.  
                                                     172
 1  Everybody has to be going down the same track, and 
 2  that's what this meeting helped us to do, was to 
 3  start down this track together and to do something 
 4  as a group, as a team.  
 5            We also made a few recommendations.  We 
 6  think that there ought to be a NOAA Fisheries 
 7  Outreach Steering Committee.  It ought to be part of 
 8  the Leadership Council, perhaps Members of the NOAA 
 9  Fisheries Leadership Council.  Some of those members 
10  ought to form a team or a committee to look into 
11  what we're doing.  Give us guidance.  Move us down 
12  the path.  
13            We also thought we ought to have a more 
14  formal NOAA Fisheries Outreach Team.  We sort of 
15  started that.  
16            We also thought it would be important to 
17  name Outreach Coordinators in each of the offices.  
18  That's proven to be a little bit more difficult.  In 
19  some case there is someone who is the designated 
20  coordinator.  In other cases, there's no one.  As 
21  soon as you start talking about things like, well, 
22  you're the designated, all of a sudden, there is MT 
23  (phonetic) and money.  
24            Then, we thought one of the key things is 
25  put the term "outreach" into peoples' performance 
                                                     173
 1  plans.  One way to do it would be to stick it in the 
 2  Regional Administrator's performance plan and then 
 3  that person would be responsible for the job, or the 
 4  Science Center Director or one of their ARAs.  Make 
 5  it part of the Office Director's performance plan.  
 6            It's just not -- we're not at that step 
 7  yet.  That would cause us to look at outreach every 
 8  time we did something.  
 9            So where are we now?  What does the Office 
10  of Constituent Services look like?  
11            Well, what you don't see on there is 
12  another division.  We used to have another division 
13  called Financial Services.  Now Gary Reisner's shop 
14  moved over there.  So we're a one-division office.  
15            We also are a little top-heavy when you 
16  start looking at how things are laid out.  That's 
17  because of how we got to where we are rather than 
18  what we have been designed to go and be.  
19            Does that make sense?  
20            We at one time had a group that was 
21  Recreational and Intergovernmental, that's how this 
22  whole group started.  There was a recreational 
23  component and there was an intergovernmental 
24  component.  
25            Well, the intergovernmental component was 
                                                     174
 1  taken out and that's us, Sustainable Fisheries.  
 2            The recreational fisheries component was 
 3  matched up to the Trade and Industry component 
 4  headed up by Linda Chaves.  
 5            So then you have Commercial and Trade and 
 6  Recreational Fishing tied together. 
 7            Then there was the outreach group headed 
 8  by Laurel.  They were banded together.  
 9            So as you can see, pieces started to be 
10  assembled.  
11            Then at one point they said, well, 
12  Financial Services, that's a service, it's for 
13  constituents, let's put them in this group.  Just 
14  after I came on as the Deputy the decision was made, 
15  hey, it's mostly money, move it over there.  
16            So what did we end up with?  Well, we had 
17  a Recreational Fishing Group.  We had an Education 
18  and Outreach Group, who also did MAFAC.  Then we had 
19  a Commercial and Trade Group.  
20            I'd like to talk just a little bit about 
21  all of those and the addition that we've made of the 
22  Environmental Liaison to show you where we are now 
23  and where I think we're starting to head.  
24            I guess I'll start with Greg Schneider's 
25  group, Commercial and Trade.  We have a pretty darn 
                                                     175
 1  good International Trade Group.  You may not even 
 2  know what they do, but these are folks who when you 
 3  run into problems shipping your product overseas or 
 4  trying to get the product into the U.S. from 
 5  overseas, they help you out.  We have two Foreign 
 6  Service Nationals.  They sent over one to the 
 7  European Union and one in Japan and they help the 
 8  system work.  They are Constituent Services 
 9  representatives from the commercial industry.  They 
10  help in trade situations.  
11            Greg, who heads up that group, actually is 
12  probably one of our top policy analysts.  He's all 
13  the time working in World Trade Organization, and 
14  many other groups.  
15            Well, you heard about the new 
16  international group.  The star by Greg Schneider's 
17  name means he's going to that group.  So I'll lose a 
18  position there.  We're going to have to figure out 
19  how we're going to reconfigure so that we continue 
20  to help the constituents, our trade and industry 
21  constituents, with their internal or international 
22  needs.  We'll work that out.  That's one of the 
23  things we have to work on.  
24            Also the name of Bill Zahner, Education 
25  and Outreach Coordinator.  He was a recent hire.  
                                                     176
 1  Laurel, we moved over to head up MAFAC full time 
 2  because we think that you folks are some of the best 
 3  cover and best support we can have.  We can ask you 
 4  for your help.  We can ask you to go talk to your 
 5  folks and we need to spend more of our time and 
 6  dollars making our information more available to you 
 7  and to get your help.  That's why we've invested 
 8  that time with Laurel doing MAFAC.  
 9            Well, that left a hole in Education and 
10  Outreach.  We needed people to do that.  One of the 
11  agencies that does it pretty well was National Ocean 
12  Services.  So I went over and spoke to someone, 
13  hired him away.  
14            Recreational fishing.  You'll hear more 
15  about recreational fishing.  But we for the longest 
16  time have been looking for the right fit, the right 
17  kind of person who knows the industry, has big 
18  contacts in the industry and is respected by the 
19  industry to bring that expertise into our house.  
20  We've done that with Forbes Darby.  
21            At one time we had four people.  We 
22  currently have a vacancy in the National Outreach 
23  Specialist spot.  We have a specialist down in 
24  Florida and a specialist in California.  
25            Bill will tell you that he needs somebody 
                                                     177
 1  over here in Hawaii.  I'll bet if you ask around 
 2  everybody would like to have a regional person 
 3  handling recreational fishing issues given how hot 
 4  it is.  
 5            As I said, Laurel has moved to MAFAC.  
 6            The other area where we added was an 
 7  Environmental Liaison.  So we're basically now 
 8  covering all of our major constituencies.  Rachel 
 9  O'Malley has come over to us knowing everything you 
10  need to know about the regulatory business.  As 
11  Rebecca's Special Assistant for the last couple of 
12  years, she managed every regulatory issue you can 
13  imagine.  She has all of the contacts that you get 
14  when you work with those kinds of issues and she 
15  brings a good knowledge of environmental issues to 
16  that table.  
17            She's already begun the process of 
18  integrating our messages out to the environmental 
19  community, and taking their messages to work with 
20  them in getting Bill's attention.  
21            But if you look around and notice, there 
22  are things that say on detail or detail.  We have 
23  holes in where we are.  
24            The good news, for example, Kate Naughton 
25  was assigned to the Ocean Commission a few years 
                                                     178
 1  ago.  The good news is she's coming back on the 24th 
 2  of January.  The bad news is she's coming back to be 
 3  the Aquaculture Matrix Outreach Coordinator.  So I 
 4  have a hole next to her.  
 5            That's good, though.  We can build up with 
 6  Bill Zahner to find the team that we need.  
 7            We also have a specialist on detail from 
 8  the front office.  She worked out so well that she 
 9  got hired by HHS.  So now we have another hole.  
10            So as you can see, we're sort of designed 
11  to reach out to our various constituencies.  We 
12  could use some help in filling in some slots.  I 
13  have the funds to fill some of those, but I don't 
14  have the funds to fill all of them.  
15            Now, I want to talk about the top-heavy 
16  part of this.  You'll notice that there's a guy that 
17  says, Kevin Amos, IPA.  He's part of our Trade and 
18  Industry group, sort of.  We pay him to do various 
19  statistical things on the West Coast, primarily in 
20  trade sectors.  We paid for part of his salary.  
21            We have an economist, Dr. John Ward.  I 
22  mentioned some of our successes.  The Aquaculture 
23  Matrix Work and the Shrimp Business Options Paper, 
24  those are products that we did in-house because they 
25  need to be done quickly and thoroughly and working 
                                                     179
 1  directly with Bill and we were tasked to do them.  
 2            Then because our office was supposed to 
 3  have budget analysts, we have sort of a budget 
 4  analyst slot.  I would love to have that as a 
 5  full-time position, but I don't.  I have to figure 
 6  out where   best to work that and how we're going to 
 7  handle that.  
 8            So that's what my Org chart looks like.  
 9            I think we need to make some changes, and 
10  that's going to come as we work through some other 
11  of these things.  
12            Those are our goals.  I want to develop a 
13  National Outreach Plan.  The way I look at it, we 
14  have two masters.  One of them is sitting at the 
15  front of the table.  The other one is -- where's 
16  Jack?  He stepped out.  The ecosystem goal.  
17            If you listened to Vice Admiral 
18  Lautenbacher, we have two tasks.  We have to figure 
19  out how to best integrate in our outreach budget and 
20  activities to meet both of those goals.  The Agency 
21  goals and, perhaps more importantly, the ecosystem 
22  goals.  
23            We're going to have to tie in regional 
24  plans that help meet the national issues.  Obviously 
25  we're going to have to work closely with 
                                                     180
 1  constituents.  
 2            We also want to implement the recreational 
 3  fishing strategy that we've put together.  Forbes is 
 4  going to talk about that a little bit more.  
 5            We want to improve the Environmental 
 6  Liaison.  One of our key constituencies that we have 
 7  not really met their needs thus far has been the 
 8  environmental side.  We think we can make some 
 9  seriously important inroads there over the next year 
10  or two.  
11            Finally, again, the last one up there is 
12  seafood promotion.  That's one of Bill's top ten.  
13            For a long time this agency has not 
14  promoted seafood for a variety of reasons.  
15            It's the product we deliver.  We ought to 
16  be promoting it.  
17            As I said, I think changes are coming.  I 
18  think where we need to be going is recognizing the 
19  ecosystem approaches to management.  At the same 
20  time what we also need to know, though, is that NOAA 
21  is trying to figure out how it's going to do it.  So 
22  we're sort of waiting for NOAA to get through its 
23  process.  
24            A few months ago you heard myself and 
25  Lautenbacher talk about, and I think Jack, too, 
                                                     181
 1  there's an Education Council.  That Education 
 2  Council got five million dollars to educate the 
 3  public about natural resources.  
 4            The outreach community and outreach folks, 
 5  Constituent Services, were thinking we need to do 
 6  the same thing.  We need to show our work.  
 7            Well, the NEP, which one of the Deputies 
 8  asked a fellow in Public Affairs to put together a 
 9  Constituent Services Team Framework similar to what 
10  the education goal is.  He has done so.  He's 
11  presented that to the NEP.  The next step is whether 
12  it gets approved and moves forward.  
13            In essences, it would put all of the 
14  outreach services under the one mantel in NOAA.  
15            Now, that's at the NOAA level.  
16            We would then have to be working with them 
17  to figure out how we would fall within that.  When I 
18  say all the outreach services, I'm talking about 
19  Constituent Services, Media Relations, which is 
20  what's called Public Affairs, Legislative Services, 
21  Intergovernmental.  All those folks would report to 
22  one senior NOAA official.  That was at least the 
23  plan.  They're still working on whether that is 
24  actually going to be the case.  
25            But that's what they're looking at.  We 
                                                     182
 1  have to figure out how we're going to be playing in 
 2  that game once we know what the game is.  
 3            And as you heard from Jack, ecosystems 
 4  just now started grappling with communication 
 5  issues.  Well, we're going to be a part of that, but 
 6  we don't know what part that is yet.  
 7            NOAA Program Offices, Habitat 
 8  Conservation, Protected Resources, there are seven, 
 9  eight or nine of them, all of them will be playing a 
10  role.  
11            Finally, just like the lady with some of 
12  the thoughts for Vice Admiral Lautenbacher from 
13  Monday, three important areas to be thinking about.  
14  We need to get people together.  That's our job.  We 
15  want to make sure that we do as good a job as we can 
16  to get people together.  
17            There isn't going to be any magic amount 
18  of money.  But what money there is, we're going to 
19  have to tell people what they want and then see if 
20  we can make that happen.  
21            The bottom line is to keep building 
22  bridges.  
23            Questions.  
24            MR. OSTERBACK:  Vince.  
25            MR. O'SHEA:  Thanks, Mr. Chairman.  
                                                     183
 1            Thank you, Gordon.  I have a comment and a 
 2  question.  
 3            The comment is -- and I didn't see it in 
 4  your presentation, but it strikes me that it's 
 5  really important for your group to periodically be 
 6  getting external feedback on how you're doing.  
 7            MR. HELM:  Absolutely.  
 8            MR. O'SHEA:  And I'm not trying to suggest 
 9  another advisory committee, and maybe that's a role 
10  for this advisory committee.  
11            But my experience in the past with 
12  outreach people within the organization, they tend 
13  to sort of rationalize what they're doing, saying  
14  it's their perception of what's going on.  
15            MR. HELM:  Yes.  
16            MR. O'SHEA:  Frankly, that doesn't count.  
17  It's outside of the organization.  So that's the 
18  comment.  
19            The question is, I don't understand your 
20  relationship or your role in potentially 
21  controversial problems and issues that are 
22  confronting the organization.  I see Nicole here, so 
23  I'll pick on Marine Recreational Fishing Survey.  
24            But as I'm watching that -- and frankly, 
25  I'm trying to help.  I like to think I'm on your 
                                                     184
 1  guys' side on this issue.  
 2            MR. HELM:  Sure.  
 3            MR. O'SHEA:  But my impression is that you 
 4  have a group of technical people that are out there 
 5  being asked to sort of defend the program.  Again, 
 6  no disrespect to the people involved, but I think in 
 7  a lot of cases, between running the program and 
 8  fending off, I think they're overwhelmed sometimes.  
 9            My question would be, if your expertise is 
10  communicating and dealing with those things, would 
11  you envision your role as sort of offering to take 
12  them on as a client, and say, hey, we can help you 
13  smooth out your message here, we can help you deal 
14  with some of these issues.  
15            Because that's what your expertise is, and 
16  their expertise is in running their program.  
17            MR. HELM:  I think that I'm going to let 
18  Forbes get into that more deeply, because MRFSS was 
19  one of the main reasons that we looked at putting 
20  together a Recreational Fishing Strategic Strategy.  
21  We had the recreational community up in arms over 
22  our inability to give them good data, or effective 
23  management, or even a solid place at the table.  
24            We sat down and said, look, we don't have 
25  a current Recreational Fishing Strategic Plan, let's 
                                                     185
 1  put one together.  Let's see if we can meet those 
 2  needs.  That's where all last year we went through 
 3  that whole process to develop a strategic plan with 
 4  an implementation strategy that puts together teams 
 5  to answer the kinds of questions to make the kinds 
 6  of communication products to integrate the community 
 7  and the Agency and the scientists together to  
 8  achieve a common goal.  
 9            Like I said, I want Forbes to talk more 
10  about that.  
11            MR. O'SHEA:  My question -- let me just 
12  make sure that I hear what you're saying.  So what 
13  you're saying is that you are a potential resource 
14  to Dave Amoris (phonetic) to help him get his 
15  message out, that's how you envision your --
16            MR. HELM:  Dave Amoris is a part of our 
17  team to get the Recreational Fishing Strategic Plan 
18  up and running.  He has staff members -- in fact, 
19  Nicole was one of the instrumental persons putting 
20  together that plan.  
21            MR. HOGARTH:  But what I think he's 
22  asking, though, I think the connection is not there 
23  yet the way we need to be.  
24            I think he's saying when this issue came 
25  up about the problem with recreation, and we were 
                                                     186
 1  running to New York and everywhere, were you really 
 2  plugged into that to do a lot more outreach.  I 
 3  don't think there was a total connection there.  
 4            MR. HELM:  You're right.  You're right.  
 5            MR. O'SHEA:  That would be my 
 6  recommendation.  
 7            MR. HOGARTH:  Yeah.  That these people 
 8  need to be more connected to them so they can be 
 9  carrying this message and not having to depend on --  
10            MR. O'SHEA:  Because he has to get the 
11  next wave out.  
12            MR. HOGARTH:  Yes, Dave Amoris does.
13            MR. O'SHEA:  Yeah.  And the other part is, 
14  I mean you've got to be really giving them the 
15  stuff.  You can't just be putting wallpaper dressing 
16  on it.  You have to be closely integrated.  
17            MR. HELM:  That's what we think we're 
18  doing in the recreational plan.  
19            Now, one of the questions that was posed 
20  to us internally was, okay, you've got this great 
21  strategic plan for recreational fisheries, how come 
22  you don't have one for the whole agency.  
23            I didn't have a real good answer for that 
24  except that, first of all, we've never done one 
25  before.  We really need to start with something that 
                                                     187
 1  we could put our hands around.  
 2            The recreational fishing issue was one 
 3  that was really biting us.  So we think this is the 
 4  right model, and that is we're hoping we can take 
 5  the kinds of things that we have done to build up 
 6  the strategic plan and turn it into a national 
 7  outreach strategy.  
 8            MR. O'SHEA:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  
 9            MR. OSTERBACK:  Ralph.
10            MR. RAYBURN:  Thanks, Gordon.  
11            I'd like to extend appreciation for 
12  putting Laurel in a position where she can be more 
13  directly supportive and focusing in on MAFAC.  I 
14  mean, I think we're only as good as Bill sees us as 
15  being helpful to his staff and the overall mission, 
16  and the Admiral, too.  
17            But I think having Laurel in a position 
18  where she's freed up to focus more on MAFAC, it  
19  certainly seems to me to be reflective of where I 
20  see the committee has come since the short time I've 
21  been on it.  
22            I guess my question is -- and I'm sure 
23  it's just a matter of organization, but having the 
24  MAFAC Executive Director in the Division, does that 
25  minimize the contact that she has directly with Bill 
                                                     188
 1  and discussions, and stuff like that?  
 2            MR. HELM:  Are you kidding me?  
 3            MR. RAYBURN:  No.  I just want to see how 
 4  good a communicator you were.  
 5            I haven't experienced that.  It doesn't 
 6  seem -- even though it looks a little top-heavy 
 7  here, being around your --  
 8            MR. HELM:  Bill understands the importance 
 9  of communication.  
10            We're very lucky.  I think most everyone 
11  in our office has regular face time with Bill, 
12  because outreach issues are very important.  So he 
13  knows my staff.  
14            I'm not so sure that other staff within 
15  Headquarters can say that.  
16            I would bet -- while Bill may know their 
17  face, he doesn't know -- he knows all of us.  
18            MR. RAYBURN:  That's been my sense when 
19  I've been around your office, you know, it's that 
20  kind of a relationship.  But I thought we needed to 
21  bring that up as a point, and clarify that for the 
22  record.  Thank you.  
23            MR. HELM:  I appreciate that.
24            MR. OSTERBACK:  Don.  
25            MR. KENT:  You started out by talking 
                                                     189
 1  about your Great American Fish Cook-off.  I was just 
 2  wondering if you guys had thought about doing more 
 3  with the NOAA Fish Fry every year?  It seems like 
 4  you get calls --  
 5            MR. HELM:  Seems like an obvious thing, 
 6  doesn't it?  
 7            MR. KENT:  Yes.  Is there a reason why you 
 8  don't?  
 9            MR. HELM:  Yeah.  There's a real big 
10  reason, and that is -- and it's unfortunate, Don. 
11            The Fish Fry was actually set up to get 
12  people like Dave Whaley to come over and talk to 
13  NOAA, and that's the way it's set up.  
14            It was run by NOAA Public Affairs.  NOAA 
15  Public Affairs Office actually -- it's an outreach 
16  tool by NOAA to get them to schmooze with the Hill.  
17            Having said that, it's not a bad idea.  
18  But the resources to get that done is like a 
19  full-time person working there, about three-quarters 
20  of their time on the product.  I could probably hire 
21  the person who's done it before, and bring her on as 
22  staff, and that would be a good thing.  
23            It's just that I don't know that for that 
24  event, that we might not do better by going to the 
25  Hill much more regularly.  
                                                     190
 1            MR. KENT:  You're not going to have the 
 2  Fish Fry again?  
 3            MR. HELM:  I didn't say we would stop the 
 4  Fish Fry, I just said I didn't want to run it.  
 5            MR. KENT:  Okay.  
 6            I'm sorry.  I went to it last year and 
 7  Rebecca is over there serving beer.  Bill is walking 
 8  around with Secretary Evans.  You've got two 
 9  senators walking in.  I don't know if Dave showed up 
10  or not, but --  
11            MR. HELM:  Dave was at my beer station.  
12            MR. KENT:  It just strikes me as, what a 
13  great opportunity to get some messages out about 
14  seafood.  There's guys bringing up crayfish.  You've 
15  got salmon farmers, salmon fishermen.  
16            MR. HELM:  We were actually asked to take 
17  it on about March of last year, and I said we can't 
18  do it, we don't have the staff to do it.  We just 
19  don't have the people to do it.  
20            NOAA Public Affairs can take a person off 
21  their staff and let them do it for several months.  
22  I just don't have the staff.  I'd love to -- 
23            MR. KENT:  No, I appreciate that, but 
24  since you've got it there, why can't you just do 
25  value added to it?  Why can't you use the event for 
                                                     191
 1  some of the things you go out and organize a whole 
 2  new fish cook-off?  
 3            MR. HELM:  Well, we did.  Because we 
 4  brought in recreational fishing to use the machine.  
 5  We brought that in to promote marine recreational 
 6  fishing.  We have done some.  
 7            But you're right, I think that's a good 
 8  idea.  
 9            MR. HOGARTH:  Don, I think it is.  I think 
10  we'll talk.  Because I do think it is.  There's a 
11  lot of good reasons to do that.  
12            MR. HELM:  Well, if I get a couple more 
13  people in the outreach.  
14            MR. OSTERBACK:  Rob.
15            MR. KRAMER:  Rob Kramer.  Thanks, Gordon.  
16            I had a couple questions, and then one 
17  comment.  
18            How is John's time allocated, John Ward's 
19  time, allocated when it comes to economic studies 
20  and --  
21            MR. HELM:  He's pretty much -- it's 
22  totally economic.  He's not doing anything else.  
23            MR. KRAMER:  How is it split amongst the 
24  different constituents?  
25            MR. HELM:  Oh.  On an as-needed basis. The 
                                                     192
 1  Shrimp Business Option Paper was one example.  
 2            Right now he's completely involved in -- 
 3  he's putting together a business plan for 
 4  aquaculture, which involves spending a lot of money, 
 5  bringing in a lot of consultants together.  He will 
 6  run that process.  
 7            He's also working with Chesapeake Bay 
 8  Office on some economic-related issues with the 
 9  oyster reef things in the Chesapeake Bay.  
10            He basically is my consultant, when 
11  somebody needs to -- when Bill needs an economic 
12  assessment done on something, or to bring together a 
13  couple of people to answer questions, he's my  
14  twelve-shooter.  
15            But in terms of just -- he get 
16  assignments, and then as we work him through those 
17  assignments, we give him some more.  But it's not 50 
18  percent here and 20 percent there.  
19            MR. HOGARTH:  I think, to add a little bit 
20  here, Gordon, I think what we envisioned in this 
21  position there earlier was to do more with looking 
22  at the value of the commercial industry and the 
23  recreational industry, and these type things.  
24            What has happened is, with the shortage of 
25  economists and the need to do some of these 
                                                     193
 1  analyses, he's gotten pulled off to do more special 
 2  projects like shrimp business plan, he was asked to 
 3  do it, and this big issue now we have in the 
 4  Chesapeake Bay.  
 5            It was really intended to be more over 
 6  here looking at these industries and the value of 
 7  the fisheries.
 8            MR. KRAMER:  Sounds like it's been more of 
 9  a reactive type position based upon the needs.  
10            MR. HOGARTH:  That's the way it's become.  
11  It definitely wasn't intended to be, but that's the 
12  way it has become, to be honest with you.  
13            MR. HELM:  As soon as I'm able to free him 
14  up here, we've been discussing this idea of a 
15  project for a while, and that is, let's do a total 
16  economic analysis for these fisheries; how many 
17  fishermen are in it, what do they do, how are they 
18  catching, what's their history.  Do an entire 
19  picture of just five fisheries.  
20            Then use that as a model to say, hey, 
21  here's what the impact is on our nation.  Here's 
22  what's happening to those fishermen when you make a 
23  regulation.  
24            That's not that expensive.  Because the 
25  data are sitting there.  We just need a person to 
                                                     194
 1  sit down or people to sit down and analyze it.  
 2            We're hopeful we might be able to get a 
 3  part of that started.  We have a Sea Grant fellow 
 4  who starts in a couple of weeks.  We're going to be 
 5  looking at how we can integrate her into getting 
 6  some more aquaculture-related things done, and some 
 7  of these things.  That's kind of exciting stuff.  
 8            We would like to be able to bring to the 
 9  picture what it means to be a fisherman under the 
10  regulations we have today, recreational and 
11  commercial, and how therefore we can then best 
12  interact.  
13            MR. KRAMER:  My next point I guess is a 
14  bit of a follow-up on what Vince was referring to, 
15  is that this is kind of a notoriously difficult task 
16  to measure.  I was curious if you had any existing 
17  performance measures in place, and how are you 
18  measuring your success?  
19            Do you have ideas to calculate that?  As 
20  these strategic plans inevitably all lead down to 
21  performance measures at some point.  
22            MR. HELM:  I do have performance measures.  
23  I didn't put them up because I'm already running 
24  behind.  
25            One of them is to develop an Outreach 
                                                     195
 1  Strategic Plan.  As you know from Bill's 
 2  presentation, we're supposed to have at least the 
 3  genesis of that done by February.  
 4            Then I plan to hold some constituent 
 5  meetings to gather constituent input on what we're 
 6  doing.  We haven't totally fleshed that out yet.  
 7  Those are all performance measures for the output.  
 8            Laurel has two performance measures, it's 
 9  getting more attention and more interest in MAFAC, 
10  and that's based around the two meetings.  She 
11  didn't even know I put them in there.  
12            MS. BRYANT:  I had no idea.  
13            MR. HELM:  She's doing just fine.  Now 
14  I'll be able to sign that one off.  
15            MS. BRYANT:  I would change that, Gordon.  
16  Better internal communication.  
17            MR. HELM:  We have trade-related things, 
18  which, as I said, will go over to the International 
19  Office with Greg.  But it's all the different things 
20  that he does, that every time he needs -- last year, 
21  for example, I think we had nine different bilateral 
22  and multilateral meetings, in which he played a 
23  role, his staff members.  Getting Rebecca and others 
24  up to speed for various meetings, and also in the 
25  case of WTO acting as one of the leaders of some of 
                                                     196
 1  the discussion groups on some issues.  
 2            So those are written as performance 
 3  measures.  
 4            That's a good example.  We have six or 
 5  eight performance measures.  Like I said, we're 
 6  already behind on the strategic timeline.  
 7            MR. KRAMER:  My last comment I guess would 
 8  be to you, Bill.  
 9            We appreciate what you guys have been 
10  doing with this particular office.  We are seeing 
11  movement in the right direction, and I would just 
12  like to encourage that this office continues to get 
13  the support it deserves, because I think it's a good 
14  investment.  It can come back and really help with 
15  the image, it can help with the constituent's 
16  understanding of how the process works.  
17            As far as the term "outreach," I think 
18  that can be kind of single-faceted at some point, 
19  and it's critical to remember really what your staff 
20  members are trying to do is to enable your 
21  constituents to access, utilize and participate in a 
22  service that they in effect pay for.  
23            It's really important to keep that 
24  communication going both ways, that brochures and  
25  publications and websites oftentimes are a one-way 
                                                     197
 1  street.  But really, getting them out in a 
 2  community, getting that feedback and helping them 
 3  understand the process is the way you want to go.  
 4            MR. HELM:  Believe me, this is an outreach 
 5  meeting right here.  I really appreciate the kind of 
 6  input we get.  
 7            MR. HOGARTH:  I asked Alvin to put me on 
 8  at the end because there's a few things I'd like to 
 9  say when ya'll get through with your comments.  
10            MR. OSTERBACK:  Ken.  Then Tony.
11            MR. ROBERTS:  I'll talk to you afterwards, 
12  but in the interest of time, as I sit here and 
13  observe ecosystem management once the Agency figures 
14  out what it is so they can explain it in an outreach 
15  to other people, that's the biggest thing I think 
16  that's new in your organization that needs to be 
17  conveyed.  So I would put priority on that.  
18            I would say to be effective in outreach 
19  you need a lot of storefronts and you need a lot of 
20  educated people working out of those storefronts.  
21            I'm going to suggest to you that there are 
22  a couple ways to get into those storefronts, and 
23  that is the National Sea Grant Program, of which you 
24  know --  
25            MR. HELM:  Yes, sir.  
                                                     198
 1            MR. ROBERTS: -- has storefronts all over 
 2  the country.  They have educated people.  
 3            In terms of ecosystem management, once 
 4  it's determined what it is so that you can educate 
 5  about it and explain about it, those people need to 
 6  be educated, those people who are running those 
 7  storefronts.  That's a big challenge, but they can 
 8  be exceptionally effective for you, and there are a 
 9  couple three ways to do it.  
10            You know, the Sea Grant communicators I 
11  think have a meeting every year, I believe.  All our 
12  communicators come together.  That's the place for 
13  you to go make a presentation once the ecosystem -- 
14  or whatever else you want to talk to them about, but 
15  I see the big thing coming, the ecosystem management 
16  approach.  You need to work with those 
17  communicators' annual meeting.  
18            Then you may want to consider at some 
19  point a training session on a regional basis for 
20  those talented, educated faculty that are in the 
21  storefronts but are ignorant about ecosystem 
22  management.  
23            With the limited staff that you have, 
24  looking at your slides that you don't have much 
25  option for future resources, with your limited 
                                                     199
 1  staff, you go around to the five regions in the 
 2  country and have those storefront people brought in 
 3  and educated and exchanged so they can hear all the 
 4  ideas.  Then each one of those people essentially 
 5  has a website.  
 6            You know, it's incredible the number of 
 7  personal websites there are among faculty.  
 8            Of course, each Sea Grant Program has a 
 9  website.  
10            So I would encourage you very strongly to 
11  prioritize ecosystem management and then work on 
12  getting effectively into those storefronts.  But at 
13  the same time realizing it's not just the 
14  storefront, you have to educate the educators 
15  because they're going to be ignorant to this 
16  particular area.  
17            I think you have a big task ahead of you, 
18  but you've got the right kind of organization that 
19  can do it.  
20            MR. OSTERBACK:  Tony.
21            MR. DILERNIA:  You mentioned in your 
22  presentation that it was not -- not every region had 
23  an outreach coordinator.  I think that just that 
24  fact alone makes the outreach job very difficult to 
25  achieve, if not almost impossible to achieve.  
                                                     200
 1            I don't understand how you can get out a 
 2  unified message from the Agency if the Regions are 
 3  missing individuals who are supposed to deliver that 
 4  message, no outreach coordinators in particular 
 5  regions.  
 6            Your Office of Constituent Services, the 
 7  constituents are the ones that pound on the 
 8  legislators, that then turn around and pound on the 
 9  Agency.  It seems to me that the Agency would do 
10  well to ease some of the pounding it gets if somehow 
11  they could more effectively interact with 
12  constituents, and that would be your office.  
13            Our constituents don't call congressmen to 
14  complain.  
15            They don't call congressmen to compliment 
16  them also.  I found that out.  People who complain 
17  are slow to praise.  But somehow I think there is a 
18  way for it to be defined, to have those constituents 
19  to be happy.  
20            MR. OSTERBACK:  Okay.  Kate. 
21            MS. WYNNE:  I'm sort of following up on 
22  something Ken mentioned about Sea Grant not -- 
23  getting to the outreach discussion there.  
24            When I first came on MAFAC outreach was 
25  Laurel's backroom discussion, and I'm glad to see it 
                                                     201
 1  developing this way.  
 2            But also at that first meeting in D.C., 
 3  six or eight years ago, whatever it was now, I asked 
 4  about the sister agency, the Sea Grant side of NOAA, 
 5  has this institutional history and ability and when 
 6  was the fishery side to tap into it.  At that time 
 7  it was almost a dirty word even to discuss that, 
 8  that --  
 9            MR. HELM:  We actually use Sea Grant in 
10  complete sentences now.  (Laughter)  
11            MS. WYNNE:  Well, three meetings ago in 
12  San Diego, there was a meeting there, kind of a 
13  discussion where it sounded like you were joined at 
14  the hip.  Now, there's -- does that mean -- is there 
15  a strategic plan element that involves --  
16            MR. HELM:  There will be.  There will be.  
17  That is going to be part of our strategic plan, but 
18  it's part of our partnership with everyone.  Sea 
19  Grant is going to be a strong one, but we need 
20  better and more effective partnerships with those 
21  folks who are with us in the ecosystem goal.  That's 
22  the National Ocean Service, within the National 
23  Ocean Service, there's the National Marine Sanctuary 
24  Program.  
25            We're also talking about state directors.  
                                                     202
 1  Talking about councils.  Talking about commissions.  
 2  All those are our partners.  That's what I mean by 
 3  having a strategic plan.  
 4            MR. OSTERBACK:  Okay.  Randy.
 5            MR. FISHER:  Something just very quickly.  
 6            Bill, I think you've probably done more 
 7  positive outreach for this agency in the last four 
 8  years than anybody can think of and I hope the hell 
 9  you stay on the plane and you don't take another 
10  job.  (Applause).  
11            MR. HOGARTH:  I don't think anybody else 
12  would hire me.  (Laughter) 
13            MR. OSTERBACK:  Vince.  
14            MR. O'SHEA:  Mr. Chairman, Dr. Wynne and 
15  Dr. Roberts made my point about linking this effort 
16  to Sea Grant.  So I'll pass.  
17            MR. OSTERBACK:  Okay.  Mr. Hogarth.
18            MR. HOGARTH:  I just want to sort of bring 
19  this to a close and say several things.  One, I 
20  think Tony asked for this, he wanted to know what 
21  this office did.  
22            This is an important office, and it's gone 
23  through a lot of changes, and all.  We had a very 
24  long thorough discussion in the leadership meeting 
25  last time -- which was -- I lose track of time, but 
                                                     203
 1  in December I think it was.  
 2            As a result of that, they made a 
 3  presentation, and there are several things that are 
 4  being done.  In fact, John Oliver and Gordon are 
 5  looking at this whole office structure, strategic 
 6  plans, and all.  
 7            There are some real things here that are 
 8  not quite coordinated as well, and how we make it 
 9  happen is really important.  
10            Sea Grant, right now we're working 
11  extremely well with, but we're doing it on a 
12  regional basis, so to speak.  I mean, you look at 
13  the regional aspects of what's going on with Sea 
14  Grant.  There's a lot of things going on, regular 
15  meetings with RAs.  That's not really coordinated 
16  here as much.  
17            But if I had another job, I would like for 
18  it to be Sea Grant.  I'm probably one of the biggest 
19  supporters of Sea Grant there ever was.  I think it 
20  has tremendous potential, and all.  A lot of it, 
21  with us, is they're a key to our success.  We have 
22  to continue to push that, for Sea Grant.  
23            But one of the problems -- and the Admiral 
24  I think has probably realized this, I just hope it 
25  doesn't get too corporate before it's over with.  
                                                     204
 1            All of that was at the Hill, and that's 
 2  all downtown.  That's not us.  Even though we are 
 3  probably the ones that spend the most time, but they 
 4  belong -- we don't have anything to do with who's 
 5  hired, or anything.  
 6            In fact, I used to have them in our office 
 7  back when Peter Hill and Allen Rosley (phonetic) 
 8  when we had tremendous -- that's all gone downtown.  
 9  So now we don't even have them on a day-to-day basis 
10  even though we have to go through to the Hill.  
11            I'm trying to work on that some to get 
12  someone back out so they'll be in the day-to-day 
13  communication that goes on.  
14            Same thing with Public Affairs.  Public 
15  Affairs people don't belong to us, although we've 
16  probably hired a couple in the Regions.  They belong 
17  to NOAA and they belong downtown.  So they're not 
18  us.  So it makes it a little more difficult in the 
19  coordination.  
20            But we are trying to work through that.  
21  This office is going to have a little bit of a tough 
22  time and it's going to take -- we're going to have 
23  to make sure throughout the Agency it's how we 
24  coordinate and how we get the information, to go out 
25  and carry the message and put down all the back and 
                                                     205
 1  forth.  So that's what we really have to do.  
 2            We have a coordinator with Sea Grant in 
 3  Headquarters.  That person just left, we are getting 
 4  a new one now, and that will help to coordinate Sea 
 5  Grant activities and us on sort of a national level.  
 6            But we are going to continue -- I 
 7  appreciate the discussion because I think a lot of 
 8  good ideas came up here today, to go back and look 
 9  at this office and how we structure it and how we 
10  organize it.  
11            We are going to advertise for the vacant 
12  director.  We just really want to make sure where it 
13  is.  Right now it reports to John Oliver.  Is that 
14  the best place.  Should it be Administrative? 
15   Or should it be somewhere else.  We've really 
16  talked about those type issues, and have been open.  
17            We want to make sure we put it in a place 
18  where the information gets strong leadership, it's 
19  part of the -- in the budget process, and all.  We 
20  continue to look at this, and we have to make these 
21  decisions shortly.  
22            One of the things I listed today is 
23  because I think it's too important to us not to -- 
24  sometimes I'm not sure Constituent Services are the 
25  right name, but I don't know what the right name is, 
                                                     206
 1  as long as it does the job.  But we are dependent on 
 2  this group quite a bit and we are dependent on Sea 
 3  Grant.  
 4            I think we have a good working 
 5  relationship with Sea Grant, probably the best it's 
 6  been in a long time.  But we have to continue this 
 7  dialogue here.  
 8            Linda Chaves has really been the 
 9  commercial person for years, and she still is.  
10  She's living on the West Coast for several reasons, 
11  and she's working on some international issues now 
12  with some symposium on contaminants, and things like 
13  that.  So you'll hear more about that.  
14            It's a good group, and I hope we've got 
15  the people in there now.  We've got to do a little 
16  bit more to help, there's several aspects of it.  
17            One thing you're going to talk about later 
18  today is MAFAC and its mission and planning.  We 
19  have to decide what type of help Laurel needs, and I 
20  think we really want to see MAFAC a little bit more 
21  involved, I think between meetings we'd like to 
22  figure out a way to keep some dialogue going and 
23  some things to be looked at, and all.  
24            But I do appreciate your comments. 
25   This office, we will continue to look at the 
                                                     207
 1  structure and to look at its place in the 
 2  organization and try to make it extremely effective. 
 3  But we've got to get the dialogue internally to make 
 4  sure that these people are educated                    
 5  when they go out and take these messages forward.  
 6            We have a communication meeting every week 
 7  that all these people are involved in.  We've got 
 8  field people calling into that now.  We even have a 
 9  dialogue with the councils.  The councils have 
10  people we coordinate with.  
11            Thank you for you comments.  You'll hear 
12  about this office as we move forward, looking at the 
13  structure and all.  
14            But Gordon has stepped in to fill in and 
15  he's done a very good job.  Gordon and I have worked 
16  close together for a long time in Public Affairs.  I 
17  think we've got good people in these positions now.  
18  So thank you.  
19            MR. OSTERBACK:  Thank you, Gordon.  
20            We're going to take 15, then we'll come 
21  back with rec fisheries.  
22            (Brief break taken)
23            MR. HOGARTH:  I'd like to say a couple 
24  things before we start.  
25            At the last meeting we talked about the 
                                                     208
 1  Recreational Fisheries Program Plan.  There were 
 2  some questions and a lot of good comments.  Since 
 3  then we've had some other discussions and have 
 4  gotten input into the recreational plan.  So Forbes 
 5  has taken all these to heart and he's redone the 
 6  plan and wants to talk to you about it again today.  
 7  He's going to tell you about the plans moving 
 8  forward.  
 9            So, Forbes, you have the floor.  
10            (Recreational Fisheries Program) 
11            MR. DARBY:  Okay.  We're going to talk 
12  about recreational fishing.  
13            Why the heck are we going to spend our 
14  time talking about something as specific as 
15  recreational fishing?  
16            We've spent the last day and a half 
17  talking about seeing big picture stuff, like 
18  ecosystem management and budgets.  Well, Gordon hit 
19  at the answer in his presentation.  The fact is, as 
20  an agency, we're asking ourselves some fundamental 
21  questions about how we're going to be governing our 
22  ocean resources and how we're going to deal with 
23  some of these overwhelming questions.  
24            As it's been pointed out some of the ways 
25  you deal with this is by breaking it down into 
                                                     209
 1  smaller understandable pieces and by asking for 
 2  folks to help you carry the load.  
 3            I'm up here to talk to you about 
 4  recreational fishing and how that piece fits into a 
 5  larger puzzle.  I'm here to tell you that I think 
 6  recreational anglers could be some of our biggest 
 7  allies.  I think they can help us carry the load.  
 8            Okay.  I believe this is true because in 
 9  this slide we share a common goal.  We share a 
10  common motivation.  This is sort of my vision of 
11  what's going on inside the angler's head.  
12            You talk about ecosystems and healthy 
13  ecosystems.  Yesterday someone said, what does that 
14  mean, what is our vision of a healthy ecosystem.  
15            Well, to an angler this is what's going on 
16  inside of his head.  He's seeing more fish, healthy 
17  fish, more opportunities to go fishing.  
18            Healthy ecosystems mean more and better 
19  fishing.  
20            So when we talk about healthy ecosystems, 
21  inside my angler's mind, that what's I look like, 
22  that's what I think about right there.  I think it's 
23  this common motivation that makes us, anglers and 
24  NOAA, common allies.  
25            Now, unfortunately, this relationship 
                                                     210
 1  between the Agency and the anglers is often 
 2  strained, and some might even say it's adversarial 
 3  at times.  
 4            But it's been pointed out that humans are 
 5  a part of the ecosystem.  So NOAA is not just in the 
 6  business of managing resources, we're in the 
 7  business of managing people.  And as our resources 
 8  become healthier, as our ecosystems improve, so must 
 9  our relationship with our natural allies, in this 
10  case I'm talking about the recreational fishing 
11  community.  
12            So the question becomes, how do we get 
13  from being adversaries today to being allies 
14  tomorrow.  
15            Well, I'm proud to say that NOAA has 
16  stepped up to and demonstrated some leadership in 
17  this regard.  This right here, you have a copy of 
18  this.  This is the strategic plan Dr. Hogarth just 
19  referred to.  This is our first step in bridging 
20  that gap.  
21            Now, we've called this a strategic plan, 
22  but what it really is a contract.  It's a contract 
23  between the Agency and the recreational fishing 
24  community.  It says there are some goals that we 
25  agree on, we can both agree on.  There's a game plan 
                                                     211
 1  for making it happen, and it's our commitment, it's 
 2  our pledge to working together to make that a 
 3  reality.  
 4            This document has the support of not only 
 5  the recreational fishing community, but also of NOAA 
 6  leadership.  I want you to ask yourself, how often 
 7  is it that you can get Tony and Bob and Rob and Bill 
 8  and Rebecca to agree on the same document.  I think 
 9  that's progress.  
10            I believe most of you are familiar with 
11  this plan.  But for those of you that are not, I'm 
12  going to take a minute here to go through it.  
13            Before I do that, I'd just like to extend 
14  my thanks to MAFAC for their significant 
15  contribution to the plan.  Without your input, 
16  without your support, the plan would not be as good 
17  as it is today.  I hope we can continue to get at 
18  recreational issues and updates on this plan and  
19  implementation in future MAFAC meetings.  
20            So this is our plan.  What does it say?  
21            Well, what it does is it defines a common 
22  vision for recreational fishers.  
23            What is that common vision?  Well, a 
24  healthy ecosystem is more fish, it's better fishing.  
25  So it defines in broad goals, but it also identifies 
                                                     212
 1  some objectives and some strategies that are going 
 2  to help us achieve that vision.  
 3            Now, what it does not do is it does not 
 4  set priorities.  I'll talk more about that in a 
 5  second.  
 6            You know, I've gone around and talked 
 7  about the strategic plan, and they've always asked 
 8  me, well, what does this commit us to doing.  I say, 
 9  it's not so much the activities and the actions that 
10  it commits us to doing, it really commits us to 
11  operate in a different way.  It basically 
12  acknowledges the fact that we are better off when we 
13  work with our partners, when we integrate them in 
14  the earliest stages.  
15            That's what's so unique about the way the 
16  plan was developed.  It was developed cooperatively 
17  with cross agency work groups, from all across NOAA.  
18  It involves MAFAC and it involves significant 
19  constituent input.  Nine regional meetings, from 
20  Massachusetts to out here in Hawaii.  
21            It involved people we normally would not 
22  involve in the early stages of the development of a 
23  plan like this.  What we got was a plan that many 
24  people can stand by.  
25            In a message that I heard -- that we heard 
                                                     213
 1  most often when we had these constituent meetings 
 2  was, how can I help, what can I do to help.  
 3            Now, in the face of things you wouldn't 
 4  think that NOAA would need a lot of help.  I mean, 
 5  we've got something like 10,000 employees working in 
 6  the Coastal Services Center, in the Weather Service, 
 7  in Sea Grant.  
 8            But as Admiral Lautenbacher pointed out 
 9  yesterday, it's really this unique network of 
10  expertise, our science labs, our people, their 
11  expertise that forms this sort of NOAA network that 
12  is really unique among federal agencies and their 
13  ability to attack the natural resource problem in an 
14  interdisciplinary manner with a variety of tools.  
15            Also because we're NOAA and we're 
16  nationwide we have not only a national perspective, 
17  but we also have a strong regional perspective.  
18            Now, no matter how coordinated this team 
19  is, obviously we cannot work alone.  We've talked 
20  about that for the last few days as well.  We must 
21  leverage our resources, leverage our expertise with 
22  the expertise of folks out there in the field; the 
23  state agencies, the other federal agencies, 
24  universities.  
25            So I'll be saying a lot more about how we 
                                                     214
 1  want to do some more of this sort of stuff, involve 
 2  people, involve other agencies, define partners.  
 3            That's what we propose to do with this 
 4  implementation.  We propose to tap into this NOAA 
 5  expertise and integrate that with the expertise of 
 6  13 million Americans out there who go saltwater 
 7  fishing each year.  This is the strategy, this 
 8  includes the strategies of what we used in 
 9  developing this strategic plan, and it's the same 
10  formula we plan on using when we implement the plan.  
11            Now, we all understand that the issues 
12  here in Hawaii are drastically different from the 
13  issues, say, in New York.  So the success at 
14  implementing our plan really is going to hinge on 
15  our ability to design activities that are specific 
16  to each region.  
17            Now, developing these regional-specific 
18  activities, we sort of talked about this a little 
19  bit already, will be the responsibility of a 
20  regional implementation team that will be led by a 
21  NMFS Recreational Fisheries Coordinator.  
22            For those of you who need a flow chart or 
23  an organizational chart, I put this one together.  
24  This is essentially your basic step-down structure.  
25            You've got a regional coordinator in each 
                                                     215
 1  of our regions.  They will be leading a regional 
 2  implementation team, an interdisciplinary team, 
 3  developing priorities and work plans.  
 4            Those then filter back up to Headquarters, 
 5  where that is integrated into NOAA and NMFS 
 6  strategic planning process.  
 7            Now, I'll just mention two key components 
 8  for a regional implementation approach, then I'd 
 9  like to go into it just a little bit more.  
10            The first is the Regional Recreational 
11  Fishing Coordinator.  Now, you've guys have 
12  expressed this as well, and we think it's imperative 
13  that we have a point person on the ground, someone 
14  in that region who knows the players, who knows the 
15  issues, who can be there on the ground to drive the 
16  process from the region.  
17            Now, the Regional Coordinators, as seen 
18  here, will be responsible for a great many things, 
19  everything from selecting the key team members of 
20  the implementation team to designing and detailing 
21  these detailed work plans that I'll talk about more 
22  in just a second.  
23            Now, Gordon presented just a second ago 
24  the two folks who work for me.  We have two folks in 
25  the regions who do recreational fishing full time.  
                                                     216
 1  What we propose doing is adding a Regional 
 2  Recreational Fishing Coordinator in each of the 
 3  other regions.  
 4            Now, these Regional Coordinators are 
 5  really keystones.  They are key to our second 
 6  critical component of implementation, and that is 
 7  the Regional Implementation Teams.  These teams are 
 8  basically regional versions of the cross-agency team 
 9  that we use nationally to develop the strategic 
10  plan.  
11            Again, that strength of that effort was 
12  inclusiveness and the involvement of both the 
13  internal NOAA partners, as well as the external 
14  partners.  
15            So you can see from this slide, this is 
16  just sort of our quick thoughts on who should be 
17  involved in the team, but it really poses a similar 
18  structure for the regional teams.  
19            So now the role of the Regional 
20  Coordinator will be to pull together these Regional 
21  Implementation Teams.  What they'll be doing is 
22  they'll be leading the effort to identify, first, 
23  regional priorities and, second, detailed work plans 
24  based off those priorities.  
25            Now, the strategic plan you've got in 
                                                     217
 1  front of you, this is sort of a broad framework.  
 2  Everything we're going to be doing in the region is 
 3  going to fit underneath this broad national 
 4  strategic plan.  
 5            Now, what these regional plans -- and this 
 6  is sort of a sample agenda of what we see us doing 
 7  as far as planning goes.  What these plans will do 
 8  is basically they'll establish accountability.  You 
 9  can see here what we'll be doing is identifying 
10  specific outputs, strategies, budgets, timelines and 
11  who's responsible.  
12            Now, all of these things are dealt with 
13  here will fit into sort of a broader NOAA process.  
14            This is significant because what we're 
15  going to do is we're going to take all of these 
16  regional plans and we're going to combine them into 
17  a National Implementation Plan.  
18            This is our National Recreational Fishing 
19  Program.  
20            Now, we're going to do this for a couple 
21  important reasons, some of them are listed up there.  
22            First, from the national perspective, we 
23  can help identify linkages and gaps, and then we can 
24  help to coordinate those.  
25            Certainly, there's going to be one or more 
                                                     218
 1  reasons they're going to share priorities.  Vince 
 2  pointed out the MRFSS data statistics, that's going 
 3  to come up probably in several meetings, our role in 
 4  the national area should be to coordinate those 
 5  efforts.  
 6            Now, second, and perhaps the most 
 7  important role, is going to be for us to coordinate 
 8  the regional priorities into the national budget and 
 9  program planning cycles.  Now our goal is to help 
10  set the direction of those programs, to ensure that 
11  recreational fishing issues are part of those 
12  planning cycles.  
13            Our goal here hopefully is to improve 
14  coordination and accountability and understanding of 
15  recreational fishery issues at a national level 
16  during the planning stage.  
17            So that really is in a nutshell our 
18  implementation strategy.  
19            This is sort of my summary slide right 
20  here.  
21            What we're trying to do is maintain the 
22  positive momentum that we've gained over the past 
23  year in putting together the national plan.  We feel 
24  the plan provides a common vision that's going to 
25  guide our regional implementation efforts.  
                                                     219
 1            Our goal in doing this is to improve 
 2  coordination from within all of the NOAA programs, 
 3  as well as what our external partners are doing as 
 4  well.  
 5            Obviously, we're talking about to build 
 6  and foster partnerships.  
 7            Now, before I take some questions on this, 
 8  I just want to give you a brief look ahead at what's 
 9  coming next.  
10            The strategic planning process began about 
11  11 months ago when NOAA leadership and Gordon and 
12  Michael Kelly, my boss, committed ourselves, 
13  committed the Agency to undertake the strategic 
14  planning process.  So the plan is pretty much 99 
15  yards down the field at this point.  
16            We plan on rolling out the plan, 
17  officially debuting it to the wider community at 
18  this year's Miami Boat Show in February.  
19            We're planning a joint press conference 
20  where we're inviting members of the recreational 
21  community to stand alongside NOAA leadership.  This 
22  is sort of our symbolic gesture of us working 
23  together and coordinating our efforts.  
24            Of course, after all these celebrations 
25  are done, we'll get to the heavy business of the 
                                                     220
 1  heavy lifting of implementing the plan.  
 2            What we propose to do is moving forward in 
 3  the Southwest Region, as sort of a pilot project.  
 4  The simple fact there being that we have a 
 5  recreational coordinator already on the ground 
 6  capable of running this effort.  
 7            So our goal, as you can see here, is to 
 8  select that Southwest Regional Team in the spring, 
 9  and by no later than this summer, have a Regional 
10  Team Meeting sort of based on that agenda you saw 
11  about three slides ago.  
12            So with that, I will open it up questions.  
13            MR. OSTERBACK:  Bob.  Rob.  Then Tony.
14            MR. FLETCHER:  There is a little confusion 
15  on some numbers.  In your handout this morning, 
16  Bill, you talked about 17 million participants with 
17  over 65 million fishing trips a year.  Then in the 
18  draft of the plan you talked about 13 million and 82 
19  million trips a year.  So I think maybe you need to 
20  --  
21            MR. HOGARTH:  We have a tough time with 
22  numbers -- (Laughter).
23            MR. FLETCHER:  And just so I better 
24  understand the timeline for the implementation, I 
25  guess what you're saying is that you're not telling 
                                                     221
 1  us you're going to have all the players in place in 
 2  all of the regions right away, but that you're going 
 3  to begin by trying to have all the players in the 
 4  Southwest Region pretty quick and try to get that up 
 5  and running; and then hopefully you'll fill the 
 6  other vacancies in the very near future because what 
 7  you painted is a beautiful picture, but it doesn't 
 8  go anywhere unless you have the bodies to do the 
 9  work.  So I guess that has got to be a pretty high 
10  priority.  
11            MR. DARBY:  Well, you're absolutely right.  
12            The fact is we want to do it on a 
13  nationwide basis, but the fact is we don't want to 
14  wait, we don't want to take the time to put those 
15  people in place and lose that momentum.  
16            The fact is, a lot of the operation of how 
17  these regional teams will act, and how they set the 
18  priorities and set their work plans is really going 
19  to be determined by the Region.  
20            But in going through this process, and 
21  sort of taking the pilot project role for that, 
22  we're going to learn a lot of lessons and that's 
23  going to be the model for how it's going to work in 
24  the other regions.  
25            So the first time is always going to be 
                                                     222
 1  the most difficult, and then take that sort of model 
 2  and run it around until we get folks in place.  
 3            I think as you said correctly, having the 
 4  Regional Coordinators in place is really a critical 
 5  element.
 6            MR. OSTERBACK:  Rob.
 7            MR. KRAMER:  Bill, I wanted to thank you 
 8  for putting this process together.  I think Michael 
 9  Kelly did a great job getting input.  He was new on 
10  the job, too.  So the community was getting to know 
11  him and this whole process.  I thought that was a 
12  good thing, and Forbes has followed up on that very 
13  well.  
14            I just wanted to talk about the mechanics 
15  of his strategic plan and make sure that there's 
16  some things that are not included in this that are 
17  being attended to.  
18            You have goals, objectives and strategies, 
19  and then there's three other components that make a 
20  strategic plan work.  Next one is action plans, 
21  that's who, what and by when.  I think the who is 
22  important.  
23            You outlined these Regional Coordinators, 
24  and we just had a presentation that shows that you 
25  guys are real light in that area.  
                                                     223
 1            I guess, forcing people in the Regional 
 2  Offices or Science Centers to perform that task will 
 3  probably not be in the best interest of making this 
 4  plan happen.  So the action plan is the next step in 
 5  that strategic plan.  I assume you guys are working 
 6  on those internally.  
 7            Then the performance measures, which I 
 8  mentioned earlier today, if you can't measure it, 
 9  then it really doesn't exist.  So it's critical to 
10  have those.  
11            Then the final thing is something we 
12  mentioned in Alaska, Bill, is the necessary funding 
13  to do this.  Because like Bob said, this paints a 
14  real nice picture.  I think there's some really good 
15  items within here, but if the funding is not there, 
16  then it's never going to materialize.  
17            MR. HOGARTH:  I think that's a good point.  
18            I think one of the reasons for we're a 
19  little bit slow moving on some of the other regions 
20  is -- there were two questions there.  
21            There was some concern expressed by some 
22  people internally, should these be Headquarters 
23  people or Regional people, should they report to the 
24  Regional Administrator or report to Headquarters.  
25  The leadership discussed that thoroughly and I think 
                                                     224
 1  that decision has been made, I think it has to be at 
 2  a national level.  
 3            But I think you're right.  We have to look 
 4  at that, and we have to look at Constituent Services 
 5  as a whole.  
 6            For the outreach, we just talked about the 
 7  number of people that need to go into the region is 
 8  the way to look at outreach and this first, as maybe 
 9  some dual duties for -- you're talking about seven 
10  regions, if you hire seven coordinators, one for the 
11  Region, one for the Science Center, that's 14 
12  people, plus five more people here, that's going to 
13  make 20 people, and we can't really afford 20 people 
14  in this day and time.  
15            So I do think there's one thing that I 
16  think we can -- we haven't talked internally about 
17  this, but maybe it's to look at two pilot projects, 
18  one in the Southeast where we also have a Regional 
19  Coordinator, and one in the Southwest.  We can talk 
20  about that later.  
21            But the funds to operate the office and do 
22  the work is there.  It's just how do we -- we have 
23  talked to the Regional Administrators about the 
24  possibility of those that don't have, we can't hire 
25  now, but to bring in someone to do this.  So we will 
                                                     225
 1  continue to look at that.  We know the long-term 
 2  goal and what we're going to have to do.  
 3            MR. KRAMER:  My last point I'd like to 
 4  make is kind of specific to where we're holding this 
 5  meeting right now.  We know the challenges that the 
 6  State of Hawaii faces locally when it comes to 
 7  recreational fishing.  I think there's a unique 
 8  opportunity here with the new regional office down 
 9  here, to possibly bring someone in as a coordinator 
10  position down here for recreational fishing.  
11            I think if you're looking to have one 
12  somewhere, I noticed a couple vacancies on Gordon's 
13  chart there, that this would be probably a very 
14  unique opportunity down here to put someone in.  
15            MR. DARBY:  Let me just comment about your 
16  action plan idea, Bob.  
17            We call it sort of work plans, or 
18  whatever.  It's the same idea.  I actually glossed 
19  over what's going to be in the work plans, but I 
20  think you're absolutely right, it's got to address 
21  who, what, where, when and why, and have measurables 
22  attached to it, I think we'll definitely do that.  
23            MR. OSTERBACK:  Tony.  
24            MR. DILERNIA:  Thank you.  
25            First of all, I'd like to thank you for a 
                                                     226
 1  great presentation.  To the point.  Simple.  Clearly 
 2  understand it.  Quality doesn't necessarily mean 
 3  volume.  I thought it was very good.  
 4            MR. DARBY:  Thank you.  
 5            MR. DILERNIA:  Bill, I'd like to get back 
 6  to what Rob was saying about the hiring of 
 7  Recreational Fishing Coordinators.  In the 
 8  presentation I was very happy to see that there 
 9  would be one in each region.  
10            Yet, if I read between the lines a little 
11  bit, I hear that, well, we might not be able to hire 
12  them for each region right away.  I think if that 
13  happens, it's a great idea going bad quickly.  
14            Because you -- Forbes comes out, the 
15  Agency comes out and says, here's what we're going 
16  to do, we're going to have Regional Coordinators to 
17  do all this regional work for recreational 
18  fishermen.  So everyone gets ready to go to work and 
19  they sit and they wait and they get stalled because 
20  we don't have the funding in the budget to hire that 
21  Regional Coordinator for recreational fishing.  
22            Their desire to do good work quickly sours 
23  because the budget wasn't there to hire those folks 
24  and what becomes enthusiasm quickly turns to 
25  criticism.  So I think we have to be a little 
                                                     227
 1  careful with that as to what we promise the public 
 2  what we're going to be able to do, because there 
 3  would be lots of people that would love to jump in 
 4  and work with you, but if they have to wait a very 
 5  long time to do it, they will become discouraged.  
 6            And then when they finally do begin, 
 7  they'll begin with a bit of skepticism because 
 8  they'll say, well, how high was this a priority 
 9  really in the first place if it took so long to hire 
10  someone.  
11            So there's a balancing act there that has 
12  to occur.  I don't envy you trying to balance that, 
13  but there is a potential pitfall if those positions 
14  are not filled very quickly after they're announced.  
15  Thank you.  
16            MR. OSTERBACK:  Vince. 
17            MR. O'SHEA:  Thanks.  
18            Forbes, I've read through the draft and I 
19  really want to compliment you all on a terrific 
20  progression from when I first saw this about a year 
21  ago.  
22            One of the things, my sense is this is a 
23  lot shorter than it was initially.  I think it's 
24  harder to write a small document than a big 
25  document.  I also think a smaller document is more 
                                                     228
 1  likely to be used and internalized.  So I really 
 2  congratulate you all for doing that.  
 3            I was very pleased to see the part that 
 4  says about promoting stewardship.  I think in 
 5  previous efforts that's been a critical missing 
 6  link.  Bill certainly knows, in my little world, 
 7  stewardship on the recreational sector in some 
 8  species is something that really helped us out a 
 9  lot.  I think it needs to be part of the strategy, 
10  and I'm pleased to see it here.  
11            So to that end, I noticed going through 
12  there there's a number of times this plan uses 
13  "facilitate" instead of "promote."  I just sort of 
14  suggest in things like, perhaps, cooperating in the 
15  collection of scientific information, that seems a 
16  natural to me, that if you could promote this 
17  recreational community into participating in that, 
18  then that increases their ownership of the whole 
19  process and it gets us towards the stewardship 
20  thing.  
21            So there's a couple of places in here 
22  where we're saying "facilitate" and I'm not really 
23  sure why we're saying facilitate.  I think we want 
24  to be stronger than that.  I think we want to be 
25  flat out promoting it.  
                                                     229
 1            I don't know if there was a discussion 
 2  behind that.  For example, on the Science Goal 
 3  Strategy 1.2, it facilitates angler participation in 
 4  cooperative research and science development 
 5  process.  I think that ought to flat out be 
 6  promoting things.  
 7            Maybe he's in charge of promoting and 
 8  you're in charge of facilitating.  Anyway, thank 
 9  you.  
10            MR. DARBY:  First of all, thank you guys 
11  for your inputs on the plan because that's really 
12  what it reflects.  I mean, I acknowledge all of your 
13  comments by putting them in the plan.  
14            As far as the goals, I think one of the 
15  things that we can deal with, anglers used to be 
16  seen sort of as the conservationists.  Now they're 
17  not really looked upon that way.  If there's 
18  something that we can do working with the community 
19  to help shift that mantel back on to them.  If they 
20  want it, I think we can help give it back to them.  
21  I think that's sort of what we're talking about in 
22  all those --  
23            MR. O'SHEA:  Well, my motto is Ducks 
24  Unlimited.  That's where we want to end up with 
25  recreational fisheries, in my view.  People that -- 
                                                     230
 1  it's an intrinsic value that they want to support 
 2  sustainable management of natural resources, and the 
 3  duck guys figured it out and we should be able to 
 4  figure it out.  
 5            MR. DARBY:  It's a great motto. 
 6            MR. HOGARTH:  Vince, I think you've got a 
 7  great point.  I think that there's some things that 
 8  probably that we're doing and have done.  
 9            Another thing is we are promoting circle 
10  hooks right now, and we think that has got a great 
11  future.  I think in some of these tournaments, 
12  particularly in marlin tournaments, it's going to be 
13  tough not to continue to do that.  But I think we 
14  might have to start looking at catch-and-release a 
15  lot more with marlin tournaments, particularly on 
16  the East Coast of this country.  
17            So we would like to promote a lot more of 
18  that, and that's going to be a little bit tougher 
19  for us.  As I said this morning, I think we have to 
20  get involved in catch-and-release mortality.  
21            What is release mortality?  It's something 
22  that's going to have to be done.  So there are some 
23  things here that we have to -- maybe rather than 
24  facilitate, we're going to have to promote to a 
25  larger extent.  
                                                     231
 1            MR. OSTERBACK:  Tom.
 2            MR. BILLY:  Thank you.  
 3            First, I'd like to congratulate you, 
 4  Forbes, and the others that were involved in the 
 5  development of this strategic plan.  I'm getting 
 6  back up to speed in fisheries and this is by far the 
 7  best strategic plan I've seen this week.  
 8            I particularly like the vision statement.  
 9  It's thoughtful.  It's forward looking.  I like the 
10  mission statement.  
11            MR. DARBY:  Well, I'll tell you, I copied 
12  that right from the NMFS strategic plan.  
13            MR. BILLY:  Well, then there's hope.  
14            There's also the commitment.  I like the 
15  plan completely.  So I'm echoing the comments of 
16  others.  
17            I also would like to support the comments 
18  of others regarding action plans, performance 
19  measures and the critical importance of hiring 
20  coordinators as quickly as possible to not lose 
21  momentum.  
22            MR. OSTERBACK:  Dave.  
23            MR. WHALEY:  Thanks.  
24            This is a great document.  One thing I 
25  noticed that, from my point of view anyway, is we 
                                                     232
 1  talked a lot about recreational data collection.  
 2  Just looking real briefly at what you have here, I 
 3  don't notice that you're reaching out to 
 4  constituents to help develop better data collection 
 5  before you go out with new ideas, and that may be 
 6  something you want to put in there.  
 7            A couple of other things that maybe MAFAC 
 8  can help me, speaking for Congress, on a couple 
 9  things.  There's been a lot of talk about a 
10  saltwater fishing license as a way of getting better 
11  data collection.  I don't buy that, but I think the 
12  Congress needs to hear from the constituent groups 
13  and need to have other ideas on how to get better 
14  date collection.  
15            Second thing, and again, this is something 
16  MAFAC can help out, this is great and I think this 
17  really helps out because the recreational fishing 
18  community is felt to be kind of ignored by NOAA, but 
19  I don't want to see a further split between the rec 
20  and commercial industries and constituencies, and 
21  maybe MAFAC can help heal some of those wounds.  
22            Because facing the same challenges, facing 
23  the same concerns, same enemies, we can't have this 
24  split deepen and continuing.  So I think MAFAC can 
25  help out in that.  
                                                     233
 1            MR. DARBY:  Just to point to your data 
 2  collection issue, and I would probably be fired if I 
 3  had Bob and Rob here and I didn't have something in 
 4  there about cooperative data collection and 
 5  cooperative research efforts.  
 6            There is a lot of stuff in there and, 
 7  frankly, a lot of those are sort of split into three 
 8  sections; outreach, management and science.  There's 
 9  a lot of overlap there.  So even though it may not 
10  be where you think it may be, it actually is in 
11  there.  Because that's a critical component.  It's 
12  one of the major concerns we heard from 
13  constituents.  
14            MR. HOGARTH:  I can add to that point, 
15  too. 
16            We are trying to have the Rec Fish 
17  Symposium Workshop, trying to reconstruct that now, 
18  and we're working on it.  Probably one of the issues 
19  going to be discussed there will be data collection.  
20  I agree with you.  
21            One real thing about these, when you set 
22  up your offices, like recreational, environmental 
23  liaison, and all, the key there is not to split your 
24  constituents and those that you work with.  So 
25  that's the real key, is you can't let this lead to 
                                                     234
 1  that.  
 2            We've talked about it quite extensively 
 3  and internally, the overall goal of all of this is 
 4  -- should be the healthy fisheries that all of them, 
 5  all people, can enjoy, and we can't let it split.  
 6  We will take that to heart every day, that we can't 
 7  let that happen.
 8            MR. DARBY:  And the fact is that you 
 9  looked at that thing, and you can see a lot of this 
10  is sort of basic stuff.  I mean, it applies almost 
11  equally as well to the commercial guys as it does to 
12  the rec fishing guys.  
13            MR. OSTERBACK:  Roy.
14            MR. MORIOKA:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  
15            I applaud the effort the Agency has put 
16  forth on this strategic plan.  Bill, you came out 
17  and had your road show.  
18            I also appreciate Forbes' presentation 
19  today.  It was very, very concise.  
20            Rob, thank you for your support in trying 
21  to get a Regional Coordinator for Hawaii.  
22            But there are some concerns, and they've 
23  been shared earlier.  
24            This looks back at you, Mr. Hogarth, and 
25  that is the walk matching your talk.  
                                                     235
 1            The concern being, one, you're going to 
 2  have a MRFSS fix, and that's been a couple years in 
 3  the making.  It loses credibility.  The trust -- we 
 4  also understand that you have many masters 
 5  (phonetic) and realize you have to ferret your way 
 6  through that process of satisfying all of these 
 7  varying interests.  
 8            But when you come forth with a commitment 
 9  that says you are going to improve science and 
10  management of recreational species, you're going to 
11  inform and involve anglers and you're going to 
12  promote stewardship, that means you really have to 
13  have a person on the road with those people, to show 
14  that you really truly mean what you're saying and 
15  you're willing to support it as an agency.  
16            So before you put it out on the road 
17  you've got to have your ducks lined up.  And if you 
18  do something like Forbes is talking about and you 
19  just start in a region, then you make the other 
20  regions feel second class, third class, fourth 
21  class, and that causes another diminishing effect, 
22  if you will, of the importance of the recreational 
23  fishers in that region.  
24            So I ask you to look all of these things 
25  and put them into perspective, that before you come 
                                                     236
 1  in that you do have the resources and the 
 2  wherewithal to hit the road running versus promising 
 3  something, making people wait and then disappointing 
 4  them in the end.  That is the worst thing you can 
 5  do.  
 6            So I urge that caution and offer that.  
 7  Thank you.  
 8            MR. OSTERBACK:  Ralph.  
 9            MR. RAYBURN:  I probably shouldn't say 
10  anything.  
11            But I've had a hard time with this ever 
12  since it came about.  I mean, it's great and I think 
13  it does, pardon the expression, throw a bone to the 
14  recreational fishermen about, hey, we're going to 
15  have someone here for you.  
16            But when I look at the strategic plan, I 
17  mean somebody could go fishing with every big league 
18  fisherman in the region and probably satisfy the 
19  objectives or could provide a report that could 
20  satisfy the objectives in the strategic plan.  So 
21  that's what bothers me about it, I think.  
22            It's so broad and there are so many things 
23  out there to do, that to get someone -- to get one 
24  person in a region that's going to come even close, 
25  without some real clear direction and some real 
                                                     237
 1  clear priority as to what that objective will be, if 
 2  it is to identify the level of recreational fishing 
 3  in a particular region so that information can be 
 4  better applied to the management.  
 5            But a lot of things that are listed here 
 6  in this plan I think are being done, should be done 
 7  or in the process of being done at the council level 
 8  through the management process where you have that 
 9  dialogue, if you will, between the various interest 
10  groups and the management process.  So whether this 
11  particular person would be at those forums, you 
12  know, advocating for recreational fishing.  Again, 
13  is that going to be an objective.  
14            I have a difficult time seeing that as a 
15  role for this person.  
16            So I just want to express some of those 
17  concerns as I went through it.  
18            Having come from the state at one point in 
19  time, with a saltwater fishing license and a 
20  freshwater fishing license, and the tags and 
21  everything else, you had to build a recreational 
22  base and you had to keep that recreational fishing 
23  base recruiting new fishermen because those folks 
24  buying those licenses were paying for most of what 
25  happens in the ecosystem protection and the data 
                                                     238
 1  collection and a lot of what that state is doing.  
 2  So the state had an objective beyond just all these 
 3  feel-good type things.  
 4            They had to keep that business going or 
 5  they were out of business, basically.  
 6            So that was a real focused objective, and 
 7  a lot of things went into making that happen.  
 8            I think at the federal level you've got to 
 9  include a very strong relationship with the states, 
10  have a clear vision on how you can coordinate 
11  amongst the states, with the compacts that are set 
12  up, or whatever.  
13            If you just put somebody out there and say 
14  go with this plan and do good, again, it's a touchy 
15  feeling kind of thing, and you can hold it out and 
16  say, look what we're doing for the recreational 
17  fisherman.  But as far as bringing closer to any of 
18  the issues that are faced by the recreational 
19  community or the managers, I'm not sure you're going 
20  to achieve anything.  
21            So I don't know if there's any closure to 
22  that statement that I've made or not, but just kind 
23  of -- I needed to express some of those concerns.  
24            MR. DARBY:  No.  I appreciate that.  
25            The fact is, calling this a strategic plan 
                                                     239
 1  might be a misnomer.  It's really a vision document.  
 2  It's really a beginning of building a relationship 
 3  and it's based on the premise that when you work 
 4  together you're going to get a better product.  
 5            I mean, right now, we'll operate with that 
 6  same outfit that Gordon outlined in the outreach, 
 7  people working in areas on specific things, there's 
 8  no coordination.  Our effort really is -- we're not 
 9  going to get it.  We'll be lucky to get Regional 
10  Coordinators, which will be one guy.  
11            If there's a better way to do that, but I 
12  don't know what it is.  
13            MR. RAYBURN:  I would just use -- people 
14  are not operating in a vacuum and people have been 
15  -- all communities have been actively engaged in 
16  this process for years, since the '70s when Magnuson 
17  came into place.  Everybody got engaged and it 
18  shifted into -- where the power shifts, where the 
19  decisions shift amongst the different competing 
20  interest groups.  So everybody is going to say -- I 
21  think the people are going to say, hey, who's 
22  supporting me, I'm a commercial fisherman, who's on 
23  my side.  I'm a recreational fisherman, who's on my 
24  side.  
25            No matter what you give them, folks are 
                                                     240
 1  going to still think they're not getting a fair 
 2  shake, I think.  So you've got to be real cautious 
 3  when you do this.  
 4            Because I think, as Dave said, if all of a 
 5  sudden you stand out there, hey, we've got a 
 6  recreational guy supporting the industry in the 
 7  region, and that person is in a position of 
 8  advocating at some level for that interest, then 
 9  you're going to have, well, where's my advocate out 
10  of the feds.  You know, where's my commercial 
11  fisherman or my environmental advocate in the region 
12  doing the same thing.  
13            So I just think you've got to be cautious 
14  as you proceed with this, and how you couch it.  
15            If it's focused on management and working 
16  with that clientele to build the elements that you 
17  need to adequately manage the fisheries in an 
18  ecosystem-based approach, great.  That's targeted. 
19  Sure, the recreational needs a lot of folks on that.  
20            Anyway, exercise caution, that's all I'm 
21  saying.  Just a gut feeling I've got about this one.  
22            MR. DARBY:  I appreciate that.  Thank you.  
23            MR. OSTERBACK:  We have Dan.  Then Tony.  
24  Then we're going to move on because I don't think 
25  we're going to answer all these questions right now.
                                                     241
 1            MR. FURLONG:  Forbes, thanks for the 
 2  presentation.  
 3            I'd like to offer, kind of like in the  
 4  ecosystem world, they were talking about trying to 
 5  come up with some pilot programs.  We have a very 
 6  contentious fishery within our council that's driven 
 7  by the perception on the recreational fishermen's 
 8  side that the data that's being used is bad.  The 
 9  data that was used to create the fish allocation 
10  between user groups was bad.  
11            We're going to address that in an 
12  amendment process.  I think if you're interested in 
13  a pilot project for your recreational program, in 
14  the context of outreach, we've got a process beyond 
15  our council, it include nine states, has another 
16  management authority with the commission, and there 
17  are millions -- I'm sorry, millions of anglers 
18  targeting summer flounder along the East Coast.  
19            As I say, we're undertaking an amendment, 
20  and you're great, in terms of timing, just at the 
21  start of it.  So I know the Northeast doesn't have a 
22  coordinator.  The Southeast does.  North Carolina is 
23  in our jurisdiction.  It's a big player in terms of 
24  summer flounder.  Maybe we'll get Mike involved.  
25  Maybe we'll get someone in Silver Spring involved. 
                                                     242
 1            But the point is to that -- kind of along 
 2  the lines of what Ralph is saying, you've got to 
 3  deliver.  You talk a good talk and make it touchy 
 4  feely, but here's an opportunity where it's very 
 5  contentious, the lines are clearly drawn, people 
 6  have taken sides.  A lot of people are criticizing 
 7  MRFSS.  So if you're interested, we're starting and 
 8  we would really like to engage you if you've got 
 9  someone to do that.  
10            MR. DARBY:  You certainly have a fun 
11  region out there, I'll tell you that.  (Laughter).  
12  You have some good characters out there.  
13            I thank you for that.  I appreciate that.  
14            I'll tell you, we're doing a little bit of 
15  work with the ACCSP on some efforts like that and 
16  I'd love to coordinate with you guys.  
17            MR. OSTERBACK:  Okay.  Tony.  
18            MR. DILERNIA:  Thanks.  
19            Just to get a little bit of what Ralph 
20  just mentioned.  There's no reason why commercial 
21  fishermen couldn't also call their recreational 
22  fishing specialist with questions and get answers in 
23  the region.  
24            So I asked to speak because of something 
25  that Mr. Whaley had said regarding the commercial 
                                                     243
 1  and recreational split, I'm happy to serve on MAFAC 
 2  with other recreational representatives and those 
 3  representative that I sit with here, we don't make 
 4  that distinction.  And that's why I'm so happy to 
 5  sit here with them.  We see that as a we, not an us 
 6  versus them.  
 7            That us versus them is the stuff that 
 8  membership drives and organizations and dues are 
 9  made of.  So as long as those, what I call the 
10  werewolves exist, that will happen.  They'll just 
11  generate that type of controversy.  
12            The minute peace breaks out between 
13  groups, the werewolves won't have anything to do and 
14  they have to go home.  
15            It's a matter of economics.  Folks will 
16  just generate that.  Some of rhetoric that I see in 
17  the membership appeals, it's very disturbing.  
18            I think that if it's done right, we could 
19  educate some of the recreational community to 
20  understand perhaps what they read in some of those 
21  membership appeals is not always all that accurate.  
22  Perhaps that could be another role that the 
23  recreational coordinators could serve.  
24            MR. DARBY:  Again, one of our things to do 
25  is to bring people together.  Just as you guys sit 
                                                     244
 1  here working together, you got to know each other as 
 2  individuals and you're not drawing lines in the sand 
 3  and as you get to work with the folks more often  
 4  open those lines.  
 5            MR. OSTERBACK:  Okay.  Thank you, Forbes. 
 6   I hope you picked up some good advice.  
 7            MR. DARBY:  Absolutely.  Thank you so 
 8  much.  
 9            MR. OSTERBACK:  They're happy to share.  
10            MR. HOGARTH:  Thanks, again.  
11            Real quick.  I am trying to do one other 
12  thing which Don Kent, and I have talked about it 
13  some.  I've been trying to get some help outside.  I 
14  really do think the Agency has to put together a 
15  vision of U.S. fisheries in the next 10, 20 years in 
16  layman's terms that will show everyone where we are 
17  going and how it fits in for all people that have a 
18  stake, so to speak, in this fishery.  So I have 
19  talked quite extensively to others and I'm talking 
20  to Don because I know he's done some work with what 
21  he's trying to do.  We're going to talk some more 
22  about it.  
23            I am determined that there will be a 
24  vision document, no more than about eight pages, 
25  that sort of lays out where U.S. fisheries should be 
                                                     245
 1  and the goal, and I would love for you all to look 
 2  at that before it goes anywhere.  But I'm determined 
 3  to get it done in the next short time because I 
 4  think we need it as we go into this year.  So I'd 
 5  like to get something put together.  
 6            MR. OSTERBACK:  Okay.  Thank you.  
 7            We're going to have -- Laurel is going to 
 8  give us words of wisdom now.
 9            (MAFAC - Mission and Planning)
10            MS. BRYANT:  I've definitely taken one for 
11  the team by putting myself at the end of the day.  
12            Well, I'm first going to put everybody to 
13  work.  Maggie and Alvin and Bill and I have been 
14  having some discussions and it was noted earlier in 
15  the meetings, even yesterday, right now the 
16  subcommittee structure and organization that MAFAC 
17  is currently organized but no longer really reflects 
18  the issues perhaps that we're dealing with, and we 
19  know that.  That was done long ago in Budget and 
20  Outreach.  We've moved down the road.  A lot of 
21  those things have been responded to, and we need a 
22  change.  
23            This meeting, however, we got some key 
24  opportunities and some key issues that Dr. Hogarth 
25  would definitely like input on.  We've got some 
                                                     246
 1  opportunities.  So what we've devised is we'd like 
 2  everybody to write down the top two issues that 
 3  based on this meeting so far that you think need to 
 4  be addressed by MAFAC and fold them on a piece of 
 5  paper.  Maggie is going to calibrate that.  We're 
 6  going to generate and derive a list and I'll give 
 7  you what we think, which are probably obvious. 
 8            Maggie and Alvin and Bill will assign 
 9  people to that, who want to be on it.  
10            I know we're probably going to have 
11  recreational fisheries, there's a subcommittee for 
12  that.  
13            But there's not a subcommittee for 
14  Magnuson-Stevens Act.  We've got the meeting in 
15  March that's coming up.  Dave Whaley definitely made 
16  some specific requests yesterday on what are the key 
17  issues, Jack Dunnigan's presentation that was given 
18  with the key issues, some of the considerations.  So 
19  that's one question and one area of work.  
20            Another one is cold-water coral.  I know 
21  that there were some questions that were generated 
22  earlier today, Paul Howard kind of suggested one 
23  with regard to cold-water versus warm-water corals, 
24  is there something legislatively that might be 
25  needed.  
                                                     247
 1            So based on the meeting so far, on those 
 2  issues that MAFAC would want to do some work on on 
 3  Friday morning, and maybe even tonight since we 
 4  don't have anything organized for those of you who 
 5  might want to get together, that's what we sort of 
 6  want to get organized and structured so that the 
 7  committee can move forward.  
 8            MR. HOGARTH:  Did you say ecosystems?  
 9            MS. BRYANT:  And ecosystems.  
10            I've got it on here.  I need to put it on 
11  here.  Yeah, those were the three that we generated.  
12            MS. RAYMOND:  So I just want to restate 
13  it.  
14            We're going to basically make three 
15  working groups for the purpose of this meeting only, 
16  that are going to deal with Magnuson-Stevens 
17  Reauthorization, corals and ecosystem-based 
18  management approaches.  Give me your top two that 
19  you would like to be on, and I will do the best I 
20  can to put you there.  But I'm not going to 
21  guarantee it.  
22            (Brief period of people speaking at the 
23  same time)
24            MS. RAYMOND:  However, please, don't -- if 
25  you're interested in working on Magnuson 
                                                     248
 1  Reauthorization, don't write Magnuson 
 2  Reauthorization twice on a piece of paper because 
 3  that's either going to get you --  
 4            (Brief period of people speaking at the 
 5  same time)  
 6            MS. RAYMOND:  Your top one and your second 
 7  one, and I'm going to try to do that right now and 
 8  put together three working groups.  
 9            MR. KENT:  So this is just for this 
10  meeting, but your other groups, the other 
11  subcommittee still exists?  
12            MS. RAYMOND:  Yes.  
13            MS. BRYANT:  Yes, and they can still meet.  
14            MS. RAYMOND:  This is just so that we can 
15  answer the questions that were specifically asked 
16  under those three subjects.  
17            MR. KENT:  What were they again?  
18            MS. BRYANT:  Magnuson-Stevens, cold-water 
19  corals, ecosystem.  
20            (Brief period of people speaking at the 
21  same time) 
22            MR. HOGARTH:  Now, do ya'll think there's 
23  something that we haven't mentioned that you want to 
24  work on?  Do you see something that you would like 
25  to give us advice --  
                                                     249
 1            MR. FLETCHER:  MMPA.  (Laughter).  
 2            MR. HOGARTH:  Things that are up there 
 3  right now that are going to be hot topics, 
 4  particularly MSA and the ecosystem.  Corals I think 
 5  is an important issue that we need to move forward.  
 6  But is there something else that you want to work on 
 7  right now?
 8            MR. KENT:  Well, there's my favorite, 
 9  which is aquaculture, and I know you have a pending 
10  legislation and we may be jumping the gun to pick 
11  everybody for this now, if there's something you 
12  need with aquaculture in this legislation.  
13            MS. RAYMOND:  That committee will just 
14  have to meet twice.  
15            MR. KENT:  Pardon?  
16            MS. RAYMOND:  You'll just have to have two 
17  meetings.  
18            MR. OSTERBACK:  Let's put it a different 
19  way, if these are the three he's interested in 
20  because he needs to answer something on them, why 
21  give him something else, because he ain't going to 
22  use it.  
23            MR. HOGARTH:  But you have an aquaculture 
24  committee already --  
25            MR. KENT:  Yeah.  
                                                     250
 1            MR. HOGARTH:  -- that we could utilize 
 2  after we introduce some legislation and get comments 
 3  back, we can come back to you for that, is what I'm 
 4  saying. 
 5            (Brief period of people speaking at the 
 6  same time)
 7            MS. BRYANT:  What I wanted to talk about 
 8  initially is just kind of an overview on:  
 9            Issues and organization, which we're kind 
10  of dealing with right now;  
11            The nominations process that we're going 
12  to have to undergo;  
13            Talk about the next meeting, both with 
14  content and structure;  
15            Then also some administrative issues.  
16            So I'll try to move through it quickly.  
17  Sorry to throw this on you, but as we were talking 
18  today we don't have this structure that's going to 
19  be able to deal with these questions right now and 
20  we may want to change later on.  So thanks for kind 
21  of playing along.  
22            The nomination process.  For next meeting, 
23  by September 2005 we have a minimum of seven 
24  vacancies that will be coming up.  I'm sorry to say, 
25  it's almost like the passing, when I first started 
                                                     251
 1  this committee, I think that was when these members 
 2  started.  So it will be a big change.  The whole 
 3  committee will have completely changed over.  
 4            We also have a maximum of six 
 5  reappointments, because even Tony and Rob and Chris, 
 6  that class is up for reappointment.  So we 
 7  potentially have a lot going on.  We need to try to 
 8  see if we can get that done.  
 9            What we're hoping we can have happen is 
10  get that done at least maybe in time for the next 
11  meeting.  We have put some thought, Bill and I -- we 
12  don't know if we can pull this off, but our thought 
13  has been, perhaps we want to do a strategic planning 
14  meeting that we would be able to invite new 
15  candidates that have been selected if they've kind 
16  of gone through the thing and selected, and have a 
17  day meeting -- or maybe they're not voting members 
18  yet, but they're an incoming class, and have a day 
19  within this whole group and do some strategic 
20  planning, to talk about what are the structures, 
21  what are the issues and some of those strategies 
22  that we want to look at.  
23            We don't know if we can pull that off.  
24  Bill is anticipating that the nomination process may 
25  get contentious.  There's a lot of slots.  So we 
                                                     252
 1  don't know whether we could really pull that off.  
 2  But I'd like to kind of keep that in the back of his 
 3  head.  If we could pull it together, I think it 
 4  would be productive.  
 5            MR. DILERNIA:  What's the timetable for 
 6  appointments?  Whether it's a vacancy that you have 
 7  to fill or a reappointment, I would assume, is that 
 8  the same process?  
 9            MS. BRYANT:  It's the same process.  
10            MR. DILERNIA:  Okay.  What's the timetable 
11  for that?  
12            In other words, if I want to be 
13  reappointed, do I have to write a letter to the 
14  Agency next week?  
15            MS. BRYANT:  No.  Reappointments are -- I 
16  haven't gotten into the nomination process with 
17  those questions, but thank you for bringing that up.  
18            The reappointment process that I've gone 
19  through, and I've only gone through it once, is 
20  again, Bill and the Secretary, and all of that, do 
21  we want to continue on with these individuals.  
22            The term is three years, when the three 
23  years is up --  
24            MR. DILERNIA:  When is it up?  
25            MS. BRYANT:  September 2005.  
                                                     253
 1            MR. DILERNIA:  Okay.  
 2            MS. BRYANT:  So by September 2005 either 
 3  we have to have met with everybody in order to have 
 4  a quorum, or we have to have fully reappointed for 
 5  at least those seven vacancies going off.  
 6            MR. DILERNIA:  Would you meet during the 
 7  spring/summer of '05?  
 8            MS. BRYANT:  We could.  I mean, that's 
 9  part of the one slide on the next meeting.  We could 
10  try. 
11            MR. HOGARTH:  We usually have one in June, 
12  July, August, which is usually when we meet.  
13            MR. DILERNIA:  Yeah.  Okay.  
14            MS. BRYANT:  But we had thought if we want 
15  to try to go through -- we don't know if we can get 
16  through the nomination process that quickly, but if 
17  we could, it would be something to consider to 
18  actually invite those people as invited guests to be 
19  a part, since they're going to be one meeting later 
20  on -- be on the Committee and be a part of it.  So 
21  it's something to consider.  
22            MR. BILLY:  Let me make sure.  So you're 
23  saying you're planning to schedule another meeting 
24  of this Committee in June, July or August?  
25            MR. HOGARTH:  Probably July or August.  
                                                     254
 1            MR. BILLY:  July or August.  
 2            And at that meeting, if possible, you're 
 3  going to invite the nominated candidates --  
 4            MS. BRYANT:  Similar to like we did with 
 5  you, Tom. 
 6            MR. HOGARTH:  If it's in August 
 7  particularly, we think we can do it.  If it's in 
 8  July, it will be more difficult.  In August, we 
 9  could probably get it done.  
10            MR. RAYBURN:  We've kind of -- as Bill has 
11  re-energized the Committee, we've had some folks 
12  that are carried over.  But typically, what is your 
13  cycle?  There's a rotation off every two years?  I 
14  know there are three-year terms.  
15            But every year you have a certain number 
16  of folks that go off?  
17            MS. BRYANT:  Not now.  We won't -- we 
18  won't in 2006.  In 2006, I don't believe there's 
19  anybody that will be rotating off.  I think 
20  everybody will be in some stage of their term.  
21            The original plan was to have something 
22  shuffle like that.  But I don't know if that will --  
23            MR. RAYBURN:  Well, I'm trying to figure 
24  out what cycle we're on.  Because you're always 
25  going to have a factor where there's going to be a 
                                                     255
 1  significant number of people going off the next 
 2  year.  I mean, unless you carry us over.  You've got 
 3  this big class coming up.  You've got all these 
 4  folks that are up next.  If you add seven new people 
 5  to it, we're still in the same cycle.  
 6            So it's like -- I don't understand.  At 
 7  some point we're going to have to -- if it's going 
 8  to be three-year terms, you're going to have 
 9  everybody coming in and going off at the same time.  
10            (Brief period of people speaking at the 
11  same time)  
12            MR. RAYBURN:  Unless you rotate, like four 
13  people every year go off.  But then you'll never 
14  really get a stable group for any time period.  
15            Two of them are like the Admiral and Bill, 
16  it's 21, right?  So you've got seven folks going off 
17  every year.  
18            MS. BRYANT:  That would be nice, that was 
19  our plan, but it didn't work out that way.  
20            MR. HOGARTH:  Seven going off every year 
21  is not, in my opinion, a good idea.  
22            MS. BRYANT:  I'd be spending all my time 
23  doing nothing by nominations.  
24            MR. RAYBURN:  I understand.  But if you 
25  have 21 people, either you're going to have seven 
                                                     256
 1  going off every year or you're going to have 11 
 2  going off one year, and then two years you're going 
 3  to have 12, or whatever the math is.  
 4            MS. BRYANT:  Well, what we may want to 
 5  consider as part of the next meeting -- again, this 
 6  is kind of strategic things to get into, one of the 
 7  things that we did try one year and we got a bit 
 8  sabotaged on it, but we did try to come up with a 
 9  nomination process and cycle by modifying the 
10  charter so that we can have some staggered terms, 
11  for that very reason, so that you never lost a full 
12  brain trust or institutional memory.  
13            We kind of got sideswiped on that, and 
14  what we had thought was going to be a full class 
15  that we would be able to keep, it got changed.  
16  Politics entered in, and it was like, no, we want to 
17  appoint who we want, we all know what that process 
18  is.  
19            The Charter will be due I think next 
20  March, not this March, but next March.  I think it's 
21  every two years, and that's when you can kind of 
22  modify and maybe come up with another staggered 
23  membership.  
24            MR. HOGARTH:  I think we need to discuss 
25  that.  
                                                     257
 1            MR. KENT:  Don't we have three people that 
 2  just came on?  
 3            MS. BRYANT:  Yes, that why I said there's 
 4  nobody that's going to be going off in 2006.  
 5            MR. KENT:  Well, I go off this year.  
 6            MS. BRYANT:  2005, in September.  
 7            MR. KENT:  Right.  Okay.  
 8            But there's seven of us going off.  Why 
 9  not just fill three of them, and then the next year 
10  fill three more, and that way you've got every three 
11  years three people rotating?  
12            The three guys that just came on are out 
13  of sync, the Tony and the Bobs that are just closing 
14  out --  
15            MS. BRYANT:  You know, I don't know.  I 
16  think that's something certainly to consider.  
17            MR. KENT:  You don't have to fill every 
18  slot, do you?  
19            (Brief period of people speaking at the 
20  same time)  
21            MR. KENT:  So the point is, is you may not 
22  want to do it, because the only way to keep from 
23  having 50 percent of the people leave every three 
24  years is to stagger those three-year appointments so 
25  that every year you've got a third or a half of them 
                                                     258
 1  rotating out.  
 2            MS. BRYANT:  Right.  As I said, we did try 
 3  to do that one year we got undermined from it and we 
 4  weren't able to execute it as we wanted to.  But 
 5  it's something we could try again or, as you say, 
 6  not fill them all.  
 7            I do suspect, though, there are probably 
 8  pressures with announcing, hey, we've got these 
 9  extra slots, and to fill them.  I don't know.  
10            But that's something we could consider.  
11            MR. OSTERBACK:  Peter.
12            MR. LEIPZIG:  I guess I'm a little 
13  confused with having a meeting where everybody who 
14  is a member attends, gone out soliciting names for 
15  new nominees and then inviting those nominees to 
16  come and attend with the members that could also be 
17  up for appointment.  Is that sending a signal to 
18  some people about -- (laughter).  
19            (Brief period of people speaking at the 
20  same time)  
21            MR. LEIPZIG:  Just give it to me straight.  
22            MS. BRYANT:  It was just an idea kicking 
23  around.  I think more -- I think there was a note 
24  from the last meeting that Rob had suggested, 
25  because we had gone through a long strategic 
                                                     259
 1  planning process meeting.  But it did end up 
 2  resulting in the Committee being much more flexible 
 3  and responsive and a little more nimble, and it's 
 4  come a long way.  
 5            It's not ignored.  It's actually being 
 6  paid attention to and it's become a resource.  So 
 7  based on that, this was a suggestion that we 
 8  discussed at last meeting, just as a way of kind of 
 9  transferring that.  It's only an idea.
10            MR. HOGARTH:  I'd like for Mike to 
11  interject something else about the Ocean Commission 
12  that may shed some more light on this advisory 
13  committee and its potential future and involvement.  
14            MR. SISSENWINE:  I don't know if it -- it 
15  will just add another dimension for you to consider, 
16  and it's very -- this is almost like deja vu to me, 
17  in that last week I spent about a full day with a 
18  FACA Advisory Committee talking about the rotation 
19  of membership.  There were 18 three-year terms, and 
20  how were they going to six per year.  Same 
21  discussion.  
22            That isn't what I want to comment about.  
23            That group was called something -- it was 
24  an advisory committee, FACA advisory committee, 
25  called ORAP, Ocean Research Advisory Panel.  
                                                     260
 1            Now, you may recall Vice Admiral 
 2  Lautenbacher's picture from the Action Plan on the 
 3  Oceans.  That has in it something that says, 
 4  expanded ORAP as the FACA advisors do basically 
 5  Ocean Commission, the New Ocean Council Process.  
 6            I'm sure there are other FACA advisory 
 7  groups that deal with issues that will be covered by 
 8  the Ocean Council, there must be a lot of them.  
 9            But certainly the scope traditionally of 
10  this Ocean Research Advisory Panel is insufficient 
11  for this new scope of the Ocean Council and its 
12  mandate for both research and resource management 
13  integration.  So it's just appropriate that you 
14  folks as advisors to the government concerning a 
15  major element of resource management, not all of it, 
16  but a major element of it, for the oceans be 
17  convened about how you would see the actual 
18  implementation of this action plan and how -- where 
19  you might fit or don't fit or relate, or whatever.  
20            Just food for thought.  
21            MS. BRYANT:  Thank you.  
22            So I would like to -- if we want to move 
23  along here.  I've got ten minutes.  
24            Location and time of the next meeting.  
25  Bill and I have really been talking about it, and I 
                                                     261
 1  think we are looking at it if not Washington, D.C. 
 2  then definitely the East Coast.  Bill is focusing it 
 3  on July or August, August being the best time frame.  
 4  So I guess I would ask everybody a little bit of 
 5  homework, that in the next two weeks, if we can't 
 6  decide here, which I suppose it will take time, but 
 7  I can't imagine being able to make that decision in 
 8  the next ten minutes.  
 9            I would like to suggest that we either do 
10  that on Friday before we adjourn and talk about 
11  dates.  I don't have the council schedules in front 
12  of me, and I don't have yours from Gloria yet. 
13            But if Friday, everybody could really 
14  think about it, in that month, and know at least 
15  what doesn't work, that would be helpful.  July and 
16  August.  The months of July and August.  
17            The other thing that we'd like to consider 
18  for next meeting is holding election for Vice Chair.  
19  I don't know if Bill will want to say anything about 
20  that.  This is a position that during the last 
21  charter renewal we got questions and pinged on, 
22  because it's not in the charter, it's not something 
23  that was mandated or thought for, but we've kind of 
24  hung on to it as being kind of a liaison position 
25  for the Agency to coordinate with, and now they've 
                                                     262
 1  got me that's going to be able to work on it full 
 2  time.  So Bill wants to continue that position on.  
 3            But Alvin.  This last meeting is going to 
 4  be the next one in July or August.  So we probably 
 5  -- at least according to the operational rules, that 
 6  is the individual selected and nominated from within 
 7  the Committee.  So you need to think about that, and 
 8  we put that on the agenda for the next meeting.  
 9            MR. HOGARTH:  Yeah.  I think we need to 
10  keep that position.  
11            I think we have to look at -- and I know 
12  ya'll don't get paid for what you do, which is 
13  somewhat difficult.  But I think there probably 
14  should be some follow-up rather than just the two 
15  meetings.  Because if we're going to do some of 
16  these issues, I think we need to get follow up, 
17  particularly if we go through now with ecosystem and 
18  Magnuson Reauthorization.  Those people serving on 
19  those, we're going to have to have contact with 
20  them.  We're going to have to talk to them during 
21  the year, either by having a meeting of that 
22  committee, or something.  That's what the Vice Chair 
23  could help us coordinate, help us set up.  So I 
24  think we probably need to do more in between the two 
25  meetings on some of these issues rather than --  
                                                     263
 1            MR. FISHER:  How much does it pay?  
 2            MR. HOGARTH:  That's why I say, you don't 
 3  get paid so I hate to ask.  
 4            MR. DILERNIA:  Bill, you've got the 
 5  budget, can you give us the budget to do that?  
 6  Because that would be great.  That's going to be a 
 7  budget issue.  
 8            MR. HOGARTH:  We can pay for meetings.  
 9            MS. BRYANT:  Write that down.  
10            (Brief period of people speaking at the 
11  same time)  
12            MR. BRYANT:  One of the things I also want 
13  to put on the agenda for next meeting is part of the 
14  strategic planning.  I've talked with Bill about 
15  this.  What I'm planning on doing is going out -- 
16  one of the things I first did when I first started 
17  this was go out to other FACA committees, look at 
18  what they do, how they're managed, how they're 
19  structured and organized, do they produce any 
20  products or reports, and I want to try to collect 
21  that and get that to all of you in preparation for 
22  the meeting.  
23            Because I think, as Mike pointed out, 
24  there's these other FACAs, there's these other 
25  issues, I think we really are kind of at the point 
                                                     264
 1  now I'll be doing this full time.  I'm looking 
 2  forward to it.  We've kind of moved along.  We kind 
 3  of stalled there for a while, but now I think we can 
 4  sink our teeth into something.  
 5            We actually talked to the Admiral about 
 6  MAFAC and said, this is a committee that is not a 
 7  Fisheries Management Council, there's going to be 
 8  contentious issues of allocation, and it can get 
 9  heated.  
10            And it's not a huge FACA committee where 
11  it can't do anything like the MPA FACA Committee.  
12  It's got 41 people -- sorry, Mel, but it's a big 
13  one, you can't do a lot there.  
14            This body has really proven itself when we 
15  went through the first strategic planning session, 
16  the big question was, MAFAC was extremely 
17  frustrated, people pay to come to the meeting, they 
18  didn't do anything, they weren't asked anything and 
19  they were wasting their day.  The Agency didn't like 
20  it.  
21            Really, when we looked at it and 
22  everything that the committee did was coming out 
23  with like four or five things on something.  Well, 
24  that doesn't help the Secretary of Commerce on a 
25  contentious issue.  That just goes right in the 
                                                     265
 1  circular file.  
 2            This committee really made a decision to 
 3  go, let's be a consensus body.  Let's take off the 
 4  parochial hat, put on the national hat when we walk 
 5  through the door and let's really help move the 
 6  issues forward.  
 7            Well, Bill made that very clear to the 
 8  Admiral when we briefed him about this meeting, and 
 9  pointed out that there's going to be vacancies 
10  coming up, and that this committee, a lot of other 
11  agencies use their FACA committee very 
12  strategically, and it's something that I think we're 
13  poised to be moving toward, particularly with a lot 
14  of the issues that are on the table.  
15            So I wanted to throw that out there.  I 
16  think the next meeting can be fun.  It can be really 
17  dynamic.  We can get a lot done.  
18            I have thrown out two suggested items for 
19  us to deal with, and that is the Sea Grant 
20  Extension, the project review, what you have on my 
21  Tab 15.  Ralph and I and Jim Murray tried to chat 
22  with you about it in Alaska.  It's just something 
23  I've been involved with for a number of years since 
24  we first got the money congressionally to try to 
25  really build a better relationship between Fisheries 
                                                     266
 1  and Sea Grant and utilizing them to do fisheries 
 2  extension work.  
 3            It's this grant process that comes through 
 4  annually that we'd like MAFAC to kind of consider.  
 5  I don't know how.  Randy's right, Tony's right, it's 
 6  money, it's time.  But I do know that we've at least 
 7  pulled a couple members I think each year -- I know 
 8  Rob served on it once -- to at least review some of 
 9  those projects that are coming in that have to do 
10  with Fisheries Extension specifically, and ask for 
11  their review.  
12            It's not much more than that.  Jim and I 
13  have not had an opportunity to get together and 
14  flesh that out for you.  But I'm hoping that we can 
15  and get that to you in advance of the next meeting.  
16  And it may be a product, an annual process that 
17  MAFAC would want to commit itself to and actually 
18  produce each year.  So I simply throw that out there 
19  as a suggestion.  
20            The other thing, Bob, the MMPA.  One of 
21  the things we'd like to do that Bill wants to do -- 
22  he wanted me to do it at this meeting, but this 
23  meeting really shifted quickly over to the Action 
24  Plan and other things that were -- that just really 
25  needed to take the priority.  
                                                     267
 1            Also, Laurie Allen is out of the country 
 2  and Bill didn't want to conduct an MMPA discussion 
 3  without having her involved and there.  So we do 
 4  want to put MMPA Reauthorization on the agenda.  
 5            MR. FLETCHER:  Wouldn't that be too late?  
 6  They are probably going to be taking it up this 
 7  year, right?  
 8            MS. BRYANT:  Well, but the next meeting is 
 9  going to be July or August.  
10            MR. DILERNIA:  I'd like to go return back 
11  to location and time on the next meeting, now that 
12  we're back on the East Coast.  
13            MS. BRYANT:  Okay.
14            MR. DILERNIA:  I think I'm going to throw 
15  a pitch out there -- and I don't expect anyone to 
16  answer this, but just to keep it in mind and to 
17  consider it.  
18            MS. BRYANT:  Okay.  
19            MR. DILERNIA:  First of all, I can preface 
20  this by saying, for me, coming to a MAFAC meeting is 
21  great because I get to travel away from home and 
22  visit some areas of the country.  So when they offer 
23  another meeting in New York, I don't get a chance to 
24  go away but that's okay because of what I think we 
25  have to offer.  
                                                     268
 1            If folks want to consider the week after 
 2  the 4th of July in New York City, I can offer them, 
 3  again, very luxurious I think accommodations at the 
 4  Plaza Hotel, which has indicated a willingness to 
 5  accept a government rate that week and that week 
 6  only because it is a very slow week for hotel 
 7  reservations in New York City.  
 8            And I could probably offer the Committee a 
 9  grand old time with a fireworks display in New York 
10  Harbor.  So that's just something I want you to 
11  consider as part of your -- as you consider location 
12  and a time for a meeting.  
13            If you want more details, just ask me, but 
14  I'll just throw it out here.  
15            (Brief time of people speaking at the same 
16  time)  
17            MR. GILMORE:  Not as a counter to what 
18  Tony said, but just as part of our NEPA analysis to 
19  consider all alternatives.  
20            If we do end up in D.C., I think I would 
21  propose July over August because Congress would be 
22  there, and it would seem a little more relevant in 
23  being there when they are.  
24            MS. BRYANT:  We were hoping that.  Thank 
25  you.  
                                                     269
 1            MR. GILMORE:  Which is not to say New York 
 2  isn't the place to go, but if it's Washington.  
 3            MS. BRYANT:  Well, and I do have to say 
 4  that after listening to budgetary concerns, it would 
 5  be much cheaper and easier for me to do it in D.C.  
 6            MR. KENT:  Just a real quick point.  
 7            If it was going to be in Washington, D.C.,  
 8  I'd suggest even shifting it up a little early.  
 9  Bill said not as early as June, but if it is during 
10  June you could do it during the week of the NOAA 
11  Fish Fry, and that might be an opportunity as well.  
12            MR. FLETCHER:  We've got IATTC and Council 
13  meetings.  
14            MR. KENT:  At the same time?  
15            MR. FLETCHER:  The second and third week 
16  of June.  
17            MR. BRYANT:  Dave, when do you think MMPA 
18  might happen in the House?  I thought there might be 
19  some other ones, I didn't think there would be a 
20  whole lot going on.  
21            MR. WHALEY:  I think it's going to be very 
22  early.  
23            MR. BRYANT:  My sense is I think we still 
24  have an opportunity.  I want to get back to Bob's 
25  comment.  
                                                     270
 1            MR. O'SHEA:  Laurel, I do have a fairly 
 2  recent copy of Bill's calendar and all of July is 
 3  open, and I don't know if that's a deliberate thing 
 4  to accommodate vacations, but June and August are  
 5  starting to fill up now with other meetings.  
 6            MR. HOGARTH:  You know more about it than 
 7  I do.  
 8            (Brief period of people speaking at the 
 9  same time)  
10            MR. RAYBURN:  Now that you've got pretty 
11  well focused on MAFAC, I guess at least that's an 
12  evolving process.  
13            MS. BRYANT:  Right.  
14            MR. RAYBURN:  The rest of your 
15  responsibilities maybe are being minimized or is 
16  there an evolution?  
17            How are you going to be -- I mean, these 
18  are all good things.  I just don't think you can 
19  come together in a three-day meeting after all of 
20  the briefings that we have to have where we can 
21  really focus on some of these things to really get a 
22  solid commitment from folks and well-thought out 
23  plans on committee structures, subcommittee 
24  structures, and those kinds of things.  
25            Is there a way in the interim between our 
                                                     271
 1  meetings -- absent another meeting -- where we can 
 2  have some kind of -- oh, I don't know -- movement to 
 3  a decision process, I guess is maybe a term, to help 
 4  in developing some of these things?  
 5            We just -- we don't get it all -- I'm a 
 6  slow reader.  It takes me a long time to read stuff.  
 7  I really want to be constructive and do a good job.  
 8  I like the posting of it, that helps a lot.  
 9            But there's still stuff we received today 
10  and yesterday we hadn't seen before, where we really 
11  can be effective in commenting on that.  I think we 
12  really need to get the stuff early, maybe have some 
13  dialogue about what it is and the discussion topics 
14  you would like to address before we actually show up 
15  at the meeting and maybe it will make it a more 
16  productive time when we're here.  
17            I don't know how you do that --  
18            MS. BRYANT:  Now, you're hitting on 
19  something Bill and I talked about now that I'm going 
20  to be able to be full time.  I mean, I'm hoping -- 
21  I'm planning, and it will happen, but I want to be 
22  able to facilitate more dialogue, which, as you 
23  know, I've had very little time on, and we're 
24  missing out on a lot of opportunities.  So that is 
25  something that --  
                                                     272
 1            MR. HOGARTH:  To this point, too, I don't 
 2  think we need as many presentations as we're 
 3  probably making for information.  
 4            We probably need to settle on three or 
 5  four issues and maybe have some time for you to go 
 6  off and really work on those issues while you're 
 7  here.  
 8            I think, one, we probably need to get away 
 9  from some of the informational, and just the issues 
10  we want to deal with, like if you have a chance to 
11  -- the ecosystems, and then spend the next half a 
12  day in that committee, or something.  Maybe spend 
13  the first day and a half with sort of updates on 
14  those, or the information.  Then go off and spend a 
15  day or a day and a half really focusing on those 
16  issues.  
17            We may be better off, and a better use of 
18  your time, than information.  
19            MR. RAYBURN:  If I could, I would suggest 
20  that could be a role for this Industry Vice Chair, 
21  or whatever you wanted to call them, to build a 
22  schedule and all.  Then that Industry Vice Chair, or 
23  whatever you want to call them, they could work more 
24  closely with you and the other staffs out there, to 
25  develop discussion topics to bring to Bill so when 
                                                     273
 1  you do perfect the agenda or finalize the agenda, 
 2  things like that have been washed through.  
 3            Again, that Industry Vice Chair, or 
 4  whatever you want to call them, could be --  
 5            MS. BRYANT:  Help facilitate it.  
 6            MR. RAYBURN:  Yeah, help facilitate.  
 7            MS. BRYANT:  Or even the work group or 
 8  Subcommittee Chairman.  
 9            MR. RAYBURN:  Take some of the burden off 
10  you, too.  
11            MS. BRYANT:  And that's why I've got this 
12  question here, what changes do we need to make.  
13            MR. OSTERBACK:  Tom.  Mel.  Then Tony.  
14            MR. BILLY:  Thank you.  
15            As some of you know, in another life I had 
16  a job like Bill's and had two of these advisory 
17  committees that I chaired, and I went through a 
18  similar process, for reactivating them and making 
19  them more effective and useful.  
20            I'd like to pick up on what Bill just 
21  said, based on that experience.  
22            One was that we set up the meetings in a 
23  manner where there was a distinction made between 
24  just information presentations and then policy with 
25  issue presentations.  We divided the meetings so 
                                                     274
 1  that there was a day in the middle of the meeting 
 2  for the subcommittees or work groups, or whatever we 
 3  had, to carefully consider issue papers that were 
 4  written especially for the committee.  
 5            The burden was put on the Agency to very 
 6  carefully think the questions they wanted answered.  
 7  Then those answers had a lot of utility not only 
 8  within the Agency, but on the Hill and elsewhere.  
 9  So with Laurel having more time, I think there's a 
10  way where you could restructure this to provide an 
11  opportunity for the members of the committee to 
12  provide very useful input.  
13            MR. OSTERBACK:  Mel.
14            MR. MOON:  I wanted to talk a little bit 
15  about the MPA concept and where it was with this 
16  committee.  Because at one time we had some pretty 
17  intense discussions about the impacts that it may 
18  have on fisheries.  So there was an interest at one 
19  time for MAFAC to actually have a member sit on 
20  there.  
21            So far, you're right, it was very 
22  difficult for the committee to get together to have 
23  some really good dialogue with so many people that 
24  it took at least about a year for folks to get 
25  comfortable and -- the same direction type of thing.  
                                                     275
 1            But they are planning on having some 
 2  annual results by early summer.  The three subgroups 
 3  that have been formed, one is on a National System 
 4  of MPAs.  One is on Stewardship and Effectiveness.  
 5  The third is on Intergovernmental Coordination.  
 6            They've actually got some good papers that 
 7  I think could add some substance to the topics.  
 8            Forums have met pretty rigorously --  
 9            MS. BRYANT:  Yes.  They've got like three 
10  or four staff.  
11            MR. MOON:  -- in between the meetings.  
12            I have to say there is a lot more workers 
13  there.  But they are --  
14            MS. BRYANT:  I plan on meeting with them, 
15  too.  
16            MR. MOON:  I guess my question is, is it 
17  still in the interest of MAFAC to have some 
18  coordination with that?  Or is that subject no 
19  longer of interest as it was in the past?  I'm not 
20  certain where people might go with that.  
21            The second thing to that, too, is that 
22  after they get done with the first set of papers, 
23  the next forum is going to focus on science.  So 
24  they're going to redo the membership, at most I 
25  think everybody is going to roll over and continue 
                                                     276
 1  for the next phase, and that's going to be focused 
 2  on Science.  
 3            MR. OSTERBACK:  Tony.  
 4            MR. DILERNIA:  Thank you.  
 5            I'd like to return back to -- I don't know 
 6  when you're going to get an answer to your question. 
 7  When I raised my hand it was not to speak to that at 
 8  that point, but perhaps I'm returning to it.  
 9            But I raised my hand to speak to the point 
10  that Ralph was making, and I agree with it and I 
11  wanted to build on what Ralph was saying.  
12            Perhaps what we should consider in the 
13  future is publishing our agenda to the members a 
14  month or two ahead of time.  We probably know a 
15  month out what our agenda is going to be, and to 
16  poll the members what work groups associated with 
17  this meeting would you like to be associated with, 
18  and then if that work group produces a report at the 
19  end of the meeting, fine.  If they need to do a 
20  follow up, let them do that.  
21            But let that evolve with each meeting.  
22  Because as each meeting goes forward, the advice and 
23  the issues that -- the issues that you'll be looking 
24  for advice on will be different.  So that will 
25  present us with the opportunity I think to best 
                                                     277
 1  serve the Agency, by hearing what the topics are 
 2  going to be, and then calling the members and 
 3  saying, hey, who wants to be where.  
 4            MS. BRYANT:  These are good.  These are 
 5  the kind of discussions I think we should have 
 6  because I think we've got to make those decisions.  
 7            MR. DILERNIA:  We're here for the Agency, 
 8  so let's --
 9            MS. BRYANT:  Well, part of it is because 
10  we wanted the -- you know, Bill asking questions of 
11  you guys, and you wanted that.  
12            I don't really have anything else.  I 
13  wanted to kind of quickly go over travel orders 
14  right now.  I've got -- with Wendee, hopefully I'll 
15  be passing that out tomorrow.  I have all of your 
16  stuff for each of you in an envelope that I'm going 
17  to give you, kind of explaining that, and included 
18  with it also are -- I hate to say it -- financial 
19  disclosure.  Tom and Dr. Pizzini and Eric, you guys 
20  are fine, you've already done yours.  But everybody 
21  has to do it once again and every year.  So I 
22  brought it with me.  
23            But I took a Xerox of your last one. So if 
24  there's no changes, just copy it, sign the pages and 
25  resubmit it.  
                                                     278
 1            I've got stamped envelopes in there.  So 
 2  I'm going to try to make it for you as easy as I 
 3  can.  
 4            MS. LENT:  You just have to list all the 
 5  nannies you have.  
 6            MS. BRYANT:  All the nannies.  Don't 
 7  forget the nannies.  
 8            (Brief period of several people speaking 
 9  at the same time)
10            MS. BRYANT:  I was very disorganized in my 
11  presentation here because I wrote it over there 
12  before I came up.  
13            The last thing I wanted to mention is I 
14  would really like -- now that I'm doing this more 
15  full time and I can be more careful and detailed, 
16  and really get on this, I would love to see if I 
17  could get like a paragraph biography of everybody.  
18  Then at the next meeting maybe we could get like a 
19  digital picture.  Now, I know some of you are going 
20  off, but we meet in June or July.  Hey, you still 
21  have a couple months to be on the MAFAC web page.  
22            Anyway, talk to me.  This is merely to get 
23  you guys thinking about, one, to prep you up for the 
24  this meeting, and that is the issues that Maggie and 
25  Alvin are going to assign you to, because I think 
                                                     279
 1  that's important.  We've got some opportunities, and 
 2  we need to turn that around quickly.  So thank you 
 3  guys for being flexible in that and adjusting to it.  
 4            Number two, I really want to get you guys 
 5  thinking about the next meeting, about some of these 
 6  things on the benchmark.  
 7            Tom, I can't wait to talk to you and pick 
 8  your brain.  Because Bill has wanted this -- we've 
 9  moved a tremendous step forward, if I can even rely 
10  on Randy and Jack here to back me up, this has come 
11  a long ways since I first started with it when 
12  virtually none of you were here.  
13            So we want to keep it moving forward and 
14  make it much more visible, much more effective and 
15  efficient and supportive.  So I'm really looking 
16  forward to working with you more.  
17            MR. BILLY:  Tomorrow morning, where is in 
18  front of the hotel?  
19            MS. BRYANT:  Oh, I didn't get there yet.  
20  So we're done with this?  Are there any other 
21  questions on this?  I'm available and we can keep 
22  talking about this throughout the meeting.  Or I can 
23  move on to work group announcements?  
24            MS. RAYMOND:  No whining, okay.  
25            Ecosystem Approaches to Management; Ken 
                                                     280
 1  Roberts, Peter Leipzig, Kate Wynne, Mel Moon, Rob 
 2  Kramer, Scott Burns, Vince O'Shea.  
 3            Corals; Bob Fletcher, Tom Billy, Ralph 
 4  Rayburn, John Forster, Manuel Valdes, Chris Dorsett.  
 5            Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization; Jim 
 6  Gilmore, Eric Schwaab, Tony Dilernia, Don Kent, 
 7  Maggie Raymond, Randy Fisher, Dave Whaley has agreed 
 8  to join us when we decide we're going to need his -- 
 9  (Laughter).
10            (Brief logistical announcements made by 
11  Laurel Bryant)  
12            (Meeting adjourned for the day at 5:16 
13  p.m.)
14  
15  
16  
17  
18  
19  
20  
21  
22  
23
24
25