 So, and welcome to those that are on the line for our second meeting of this committee. We'll give folks another couple of minutes to hop on and then we'll get underway with some housekeeping items and introductions of the committee members. So, we'll maybe it's another one minute to hop on. We appreciate your patience. Because people are continuing to join, I'm going to just review a couple of quick housekeeping items. These should be fairly standard from meeting to meeting, but are still important for me to go through. So, we'll do that. And then we'll, I'll turn it over to Tom and we can do some committee introductions. First, I just want to note that this is a public open session. So, anybody is welcome to join this meeting and we will be recording it and it does take a little bit of time, but shortly after our meetings, we do intend to post the video recordings on our website as well. We ask that folks remain muted when not called upon to speak and we will use the raise hand feature, which is in the reactions tab in order to moderate the conversation. I do not anticipate it being an issue at all for today's conversation, but just to note that as a general rule, we aim to prioritize the questions and the information gathering efforts of the committee members. And allowing questions and comments from others on the line as time permits. I should say we prioritize committee members and invited guests and then allow for a more open discussion if in his time allowed. So, I think those are the primary things that I wanted to just review today. If you have any technological questions, please don't hesitate to reach out to my colleague, Eric, who's on the line, and he can assist with any. That's sort of more IP or logistical oriented questions. And if you have any content questions or questions about the agendas meetings going forward, you're welcome to reach out to me or my colleague, who's also on the line. With that, Tom, I think I will kick it over to you and we can get our committee introductions underway. Thank you, Stacy. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Tom Miller. I serve as chair of this committee, which is in tasked with conducting a consensus study assessing equity in the distribution of fishery management benefits with a particular focus on data and information availability. This study is sponsored by the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Office of Sustainable Fisheries, and they deserve considerable credit for bringing this topic to the academies for advice and input. This is our second meeting. And so in this meeting, we're going to reflect on some of the questions that the committee had after our first meeting, which I found to be really informative and helped me begin my thinking about this process. So we're going to go around and introduce all of the committee members so people know who they are. I'll start by introducing myself. I'm Tom Miller. I'm a professor at the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science. I'm a Fisheries Ecologist by training. I serve on the Mid-Atlantic Scientific and Statistical Committee. I also do work for the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and the International Council for the Expiration of the Sea. And I serve on the National Academy's Ocean Studies Board and the U.S. Committee for the U.N. Decade for Ocean Science for Sustainable Development. Long title. And so we'll go around in alphabetical order. So I think next on that list then is Rachel. Rachel Donkasloot. Yeah, thanks Tom. Good morning or good afternoon everybody wherever you are. My name is Rachel Donkasloot. My disciplinary background is anthropology. I call myself a social scientist and I do a lot of work in rural and Alaska Native communities here in Alaska. I have roots in the Bristol Bay region and currently live in the Cusco Quim region. But a lot of my current work focuses on if and how to effectively and appropriately measure various dimensions of well-being and equity as a component of that work. I manage my own research and consulting firm. So I work with a variety of tribes, local governments, university faculty and both research and more applied and policy realms. So I'm happy to be here. Thank you, Rachel. Caitlin, I think you're next. Caitlin Croats. Yeah, sure thing. So I'm a professor at Arizona State University in the School of Sustainability. I am trained as an economist and I currently serve on the Scientific and Statistical Council for the North Pacific Scientific and Statistical Committee for the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. Thank you, Caitlin. Grant, I think you're next. Yeah, hi everybody. I'm Grant Murray, Marine Social Scientist, Anthropology and Sociology is my background. I'm currently a faculty member here at the Duke Marine Lab on Beaufort, North Carolina. I'm interested in how communities work, how fishing communities work, their interactions with the environment, particular emphasis on values and different kinds of values and valuation, beliefs and attitudes and our understandings of how systems work and how they impact us. Done that work here in the US, both coast of Canada and a little bit internationally as well. Thank you, Grant. Matt Reimer, I think you're next. Hi, everyone. Nice to be here. I'm Matt Reimer. I'm a professor at UC Davis in the Department of Agriculture and Resource Economics. I'm an economist by training. A lot of my research focuses on fisheries related issues, particularly within the US. I've spent quite a bit of time on various science and statistical committees, both for the North Pacific and for currently the Pacific Council. And so I'm looking forward to participating. This is obviously a really important and interesting topic. So, nice to see everyone. Thank you, Matt. Jim, I think you're next. Jim Sancherico. Sure. Sure. So, hi, I'm Jim Sancherico. I'm Professor of Environmental Science and Policy at the University of California, Davis. I'm a natural resource economist who works at the interface of economics, ecology and policy. I also serve on the Ocean Studies Board and the US Committee for the UN Decade. And I'm also the chair of the new standing committee for BOOM and the Academy on offshore wind and fisheries. Thank you, Jim. Steven, Steven Scythes. Hi, everybody. I'm Steven Scythes. I am an associate professor at the University of South Alabama in the Dolphin Island Sea Lab. My background is at the interface of ecology and sociology. And we do a lot of work with human dimensions of fisheries in my lab. I serve on the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council's SSC and their ecosystem technical committee. And I'm also currently serving on the National Academy Standing Committee on Wind, Energy and Fisheries. Good to see you all today. Thank you, Steven. Rashid. Yeah, so I'm Rashid Sumaila. I'm a university healing professor and Canadian researcher in interdisciplinary oceans and fisheries economics. That's a very long one. I put the interdisciplinary very deliberately just to kind of signal to colleagues and everybody that I work at different scales, local, national, global. I work with colleagues from all disciplines. I really enjoy working with non-economists and economists alike because the problem of the ocean, I think, is something that we can tackle only if we think in an interdisciplinary way. We can co-create, co-manage, work together, bring everybody on board in order to really try to tackle and ensure a sustainable fishing, sustainable fisheries or current fishes, but also the future ones. So that's where I stand and I'm happy to be here to work with all of you. Thank you, Rashid. I'll note that Lisa Campbell is also part of this committee but cannot make the meeting today. Lisa is on the faculty at the Duke Marine Lab, where she works at the interface of sort of anthropology and geography looking at a range of different issues related to science and she also serves on the Ocean Studies Board with Jim and I. Stacey, I would like you to introduce yourself and then introduce the staff, please. Absolutely. Thank you, Tom. I'm Tracy Carras. I'm a senior program officer at the National Academy. I've been serving in that role with the Ocean Studies. Well, I've been serving the Ocean Studies Board since 2012. I've been a senior program officer for probably the last 45 years now and background was in marine affairs and fisheries from the University of Miami, followed by a law degree from the University of Virginia. And while my work in undergraduate and graduate school was focused largely on fisheries related issues, the National Academies were largely expected to be generalists. So I've had the opportunity to work on a variety of topics, everything from wetland restoration to oil spill response. Any time I have the opportunity to work on a fisheries related study, it is a special treat for me, and I'm really looking forward to serving as the study director for this, this committee going forward. So with that, I'll turn it over to Leanne. Hi, I'm Leanne. I am a research associate on the Ocean Studies Board. I'm fairly new, been here about seven months. Prior to that I was at the National Science Foundation and prior to that I was getting my masters in marine biology at the University of Texas. Thank you Leanne. Hi everyone, Eric Yanisco. I've been with the Ocean Studies Board since October. My background is more generally in environmental science, but most of my undergrad research has been in tropical forest ecology and remote sensing. Eric, we'll ask the speakers and other guests to contribute to the meeting to introduce themselves as we go along. I'll start by just paraphrasing our statement of talk, which is first to determine the categories of information required to oppress, to assess, where and to whom the primary benefits of commercial and for hire management accrue. And we had a lot of discussion at our first meeting about trying to define primary benefits and how we think about where and to whom. We then are asked to look at what information currently exists to assess that question of primary benefits and what additional information if any would know be required to collect if it wish to assess where and to whom the primary benefits accrue. To identify obstacles to collecting this additional information and to identify potential methodologies that could be used to to both qualitatively and quantitatively describe where and to whom the primary benefits accrue. And so we've invited three people from NOAA to come back to talk to us about really the first two of those parts of our statement of task. To ask about what information, what categories of information are available, what categories of information to NOAA currently collect that would be related to assessing where and to whom the primary benefits of commercial and for hire fisheries management accrue that will allow us then to go on and ask, well, where are the lacuni that we need to fill. So, on our schedule I don't know whether this is the order in which the NOAA research staff are going to come but we have Benjamin Fissell and Lisa Colburn from from NOAA Fisheries both I believe are attached to the Northeast Fisheries Science Center and Lindsay Fulcrum Camp from from Head Office OST in Silver Spring. So, if whomever is going to lead off, we invite you to introduce yourselves and let's begin the discussion. I just I don't mean to interrupt but I do just want to highlight we've got a couple of other folks on the line that I know are not listed on the agenda but are here in a supporting role for NOAA Fisheries. And I just want to make sure that they get some an opportunity to introduce themselves along the way. I know we've got Eric and Danica, Sabrina and others. So, you know, I'll leave it up to the speakers to introduce them or to integrate them in as well. But I just want to make sure we don't lose sight of some of the folks that are here playing a supporting role as well. Great. Thank you. Well, so you kind of named me first but I think Lindsay should probably be the first one to speak. And, but I'll just introduce myself really quick. My name is Ben Fissell. I'm the acting chief of economics and social analysis division at the Office of Science and Technology. None of us are at the Northeast Center although Lisa previously was, as some others were, we're all kind of from the Office of Science and Technology. But it's. So at any rate, I will leave it there and let Lindsay speak. Thank you very much. All right, so today I'm going to kind of give an overview of those offices. I think many of you serve on scientific and statistical committees and might be able to explain some of this slightly better than I can. So I'm going to attempt to kind of get us on the same page on fisheries management kind of basics, and then I'm going to describe the agency sort of how we're structured, who does what where just to kind of give a real sort of basic overview. I think that's going to talk a little bit with Lisa, and then we can handle questions from there. All right, I'm going to have another slide deck and I'm going to attempt to share my screen with you all. Oh, no, I can't share my screen. Can you enable this screen sharing. Yeah, try now. Great, thank you. Okay, can you all see my slide? I can't see you so how about a verbal. Yep, we can see them and they look great. Thank you, Lindsay. Thank you. Okay, so we're talking about no fisheries and no fisheries management. I'm going to talk about the structure and functions of no fisheries and then just again, kind of level the playing field on where all of our kind of understanding of fisheries management, there's three pillars of sustainable fisheries management science to inform the management enforcement to make sure management is working. And part of the reason I put this slide here is because the structure of no fisheries how we're organized sort of mirrors these pillars these three pillars of sustainable fisheries management. This is our color coded org chart it doesn't doesn't flow nicely on a slide. So we're presenting it this way. But up here, let's see in the upper left hand corner, we have our headquarters offices there in this kind of orangey red color is the head of the no fisheries our assistant administrator for fisheries is Janet quite. And she has three direct reports. Sam Rao is the deputy assistant administrator for regulatory programs in the green director of scientific programs is Cisco Warner here in the purple deputy assistant administrator for operations right now is Jim Landon here in this kind of teal color. So we have science to inform management and the enforcement. So starting up here in the right hand corner, our science programs there's one science program at headquarters that's the Office of Science and Technology, then it's currently acting as a division chief there and his colleagues on the call today mostly for the most in the Office of Sciences Technology. We have six science centers that are located around the country. We have the purple box in the green box. We have five regional offices. And in general, the locations and the sort of mission of each of those science centers kind of correspond at least for fisheries corresponds to the the areas that the regional offices color cover. So for regulatory programs, there's about three offices, including the Office of Sustainable Fisheries headquarters. And then there are five regions around the United States and the regional administrators including our newest for the West Coast region are listed here on this slide. And then in the teal box we have our operations division, including our enforcement, the Office of Law Enforcement, but also all of our other IT and management and budget and then some program offices, including international affairs and trade and commerce and those. Excuse me so that's kind of our org chart and here is sort of where everyone is. The southeast region here in green, and then there, there are sort of main headquarters regional offices in St. Petersburg, their main science center headquarters is in Miami, and then there's a number of laboratories. And that's kind of a similar structure to the way it is sort of around the country. I'm just kind of hoping no one asks me why Minnesota and Iowa and Kansas are colored here, but not like Indiana and Illinois because I don't know. In general, this should kind of give you an idea of where we are and where we work and the sort of structure of the five regions and the six science center supporting those regions. So because we have regionally distinct mission with regionally distinct fisheries and regionally distinct issues we have regionally distinct science so our science centers do many different things, including observations monitoring analysis. They do assessments stock assessments for fish and other protective resources. They do marine ecosystems research, they do many things, but also listed here are economic and social analysis for the most part that's done in our science centers. Okay, so that's kind of the structure of the fishery service. And then I'm going to get to kind of fisheries management and we'll talk a little bit about the fisheries management councils as I go on. So the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act or the NSA as we abbreviate it was adopted in 1976. It is the legislative structure and process to manage our nation's fisheries, our federal fisheries and I'll talk about some of the differences in the management of federal and state fisheries a little bit later on. The Magnuson Stevens Act did set up these eight regional fishery management councils, it was adopted in 1976. The primary goals of the NSA were to at the time in 1976 to extend control of the US waters to 200 nautical miles so establish that exclusive economic zone or the easy and to phase out foreign fishing. Other primary goals were to conserve and manage fishery resources so before the Magnuson Act fisheries were managed by just an array of state regulations. The NSA lays out 10 national standards that have goals for balancing harvest levels with socioeconomic considerations. I'll go into detail on our 10 national standards on the next slide. And then just kind of as a summary under Magnuson, the fisheries service in collaboration with our councils and our state partners and the state interstate fisheries commissions manage 460 stocks or stock complexes in an overall 46 fishery management plans. These are 10 national standards. The Magnuson Act is guided by these 10 national standards. They are principles that must be followed in all 46 of our fishery management plans. So you can see just kind of reading through this list that councils need to balance a number of priorities, a number of often competing priorities as they develop fishery management plans. All of these are important. But when we think about equity considerations, there's a number here that jumped out that I kind of wanted to point out. The first one is National Standard 4, which is written here as no discrimination. National Standard 4 requires that to the extent that the councils need to make allocations to different entities or sectors or what it may be, that those allocations need to be fair and equitable, that they need to be reasonably calculated to promote conservation and that they need to be carried out to avoid excessive share so nobody gets an excessive share of the allocation. The other somewhat obvious one here is National Standard 8. This is the consideration of the importance of fishery resources to communities that it says specifically in summary that conservation and management measures consistent with Magnuson conservation requirements must take into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities by using economic and social data based upon best scientific information available in order to provide for the sustained participation of those communities and to the extent practicable minimize adverse economic impacts on such communities. Now, for each of our national standard guidelines, we have each of the 10 national standards we have national standard guidelines these are sort of our publication of the rules and our interpretation of the national standards and I just also wanted to mention that in a national standard one, which calls for prevention of overfishing while achieving optimum yield. The minimum yield refers to an amount of fish, which provides the greatest overall benefit to the nation, particularly with respect to food production and recreational opportunities and taking into account the protection for ecosystems. It's prescribed on the basis of maximum sustainable yield as reduced by any relevant social, economic or ecological factor. So before the Magnuson Act, many US fisheries were in danger of collapsing. We had no kind of federal framework for managing them. The passage of the MSA change that trajectory by creating, you can see here this exclusive economic zone. Beyond 200 nautical miles are the high seas and within three nautical miles are the state slash coastal waters. Through the passage of the Magnuson Act 45 years ago, the US was able to restrict the foreign fleet access to fisheries and expand domestic access. After 76, the Magnuson Act has been reauthorized twice. First in 1996, and then in 2006, the amendments that were made in 2006 are the ones we are working under today, the amended Magnuson Act. The focus of the 2006 reauthorization was to end overfishing, rebuild stocks. And also, again, kind of relevant for our purposes implemented a section or kind of gave specific authorization for catcher programs or limited access programs. The 2006 reauthorization also connected directly connected the work of this science and statistical committees to the councils because it mandated the use of the science based ACLs annual catch limits. You'll hear ACLs a lot that just meant we had to have a numeric limit annual catch limit and accountability measure to better prevent overfishing. So critical to the success of the Magnuson Act has been this kind of feedback loop. This is where I'm going to sort of go and talk about the councils right so we have this highly participatory public process through our regional fishery management where by the councils are able to buy the sort of nature of how they're made up and also the nature of the process, the council process through its public participation requirements, they're able to adapt and respond to changing conditions within this framework of having catch limits of preventing overfishing and rebuilding stocks. So these are the regional fishery management councils, their color coding roughly corresponds to our five regional offices so the southeast region has three councils, the Gulf of Mexico Caribbean and South Atlantic Council Garfo our greater Atlantic regional office has these two councils. The Pacific Islands region has the Western Pacific Council, the West Coast region works with the Pacific Council and our Alaska region works with the North Pacific Council so biologically and economically and culturally the fisheries of the United States are extraordinarily different in the Caribbean we've got these super biologically diverse coral reefs and they support these valuable but very small scale fisheries up in the Bering Sea Alaska, we've got 300 foot vessels that catch and process millions of pounds billions of pounds of a single species in a year in the Gulf of Mexico, there are over a million recreational fishermen that are as much a part of that region's economy and their culture as the commercial fleets and seafood they provide so in order to effectively manage this sort of vast very different geographic area of the waters of the United States Magnuson established these eight regional fishery management councils. Each councils have voting members. One of those voting members is the representative from NOAA fisheries that's the regional administrator in each of the regions. And a voting member from each state fishery management agency in the region in the council region. There are also additional voting members, which are nominated by state governors, nominated to the Secretary of Commerce, and these include commercial and recreational fishermen environmentalist academics, government, excuse me scientists and others. The Pacific Council also includes a designated tribal seat and each of these stakeholders and that sort of expertise that they represent they bring their specific expertise to the count to the council and the council process. I'm also going to touch really briefly about I don't think I'm confusing too many folks about on the Atlantic coast, there are a number of species that cross boundaries, they primarily occur in state waters, but they cross the boundaries of those state waters. And so those are managed under an authority that established the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, some of them are managed solely by the commission, some of them co managed federally. In some cases such as salmon in Alaska. The NOAA Fisheries Service has delegated the authority to manage that stock to the state of Alaska. One more kind of little wrinkle here is the case of Atlantic highly migratory species, these include tuna, shark, swordfish and billfish. They are managed under Magnuson, but under the authority of the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Commerce has delegated that authority to NOAA fisheries. The range of Atlantic migratory species is international in the United States that ranges from Maine through Texas and the Caribbean, and these management measures apply to all US flagged vessels fishing in the United States or on the high seas. This slide kind of gives you an idea of the geographic area and the number of fishery management plans or FMPs managed by each of the councils so you see we've got this sort of little slice of red which the Mid-Atlantic Council covers but they've got six fishery management plans. There's obviously a huge geographic area covered up in Alaska and in the Pacific Islands, they each have five fishery management plans. So there's even though their geographic area is extraordinarily broad, they all manage between like four and seven fishery management plans. And as I mentioned, we have one fishery management plan managed by the Secretary, which is our Atlantic HMS fishery. And this is how it's done. This very straightforward slide here sort of explains it all. We at NOAA Fisheries rely on scientific advice to figure out whether and help the council figure out whether a fish stock is overfished or subject to overfishing. They, with the advice of our scientists, they the Regional Fishery Management Council set the ACLs, the annual catch limits and develop rebuilding plans. And so I'll sort of walk you through this a little bit up here in our upper right hand corner. We have data collection and processing that's done by a number of entities, but you know, I'd say mostly by our science centers. In the case of fishery stock assessment, it goes into the assessment report. Sometimes those go for full peer review but for routine update or benchmark, it goes directly to the scientific and statistical committee. They produce scientific advice and this fishing level recommendation. And that then those products are provided to the Fishery Management Council, but they also often go to a plan team, which is just kind of a group of experts who are going to figure out how to best take that scientific advice and that fishing level recommendation and turn it into measures that will be sort of enforceable acceptable by the public. And without, you know, taking all those other things into account that are necessary to get an effective fishery management plan in place. This is also where the industry, the public and any advisory panels that the council has their information comes into play. It ends at the fishery not ends goes to the Fishery Management Council, and they come up with a recommended annual catch limit. And you can see here that that annual can catch limit by since the passage of the 2006 amendments cannot exceed the scientific and statistical committees fishing level recommendation, which is based on best available science. After this recommended annual catch limit comes out, it is sent to the secretary of commerce the secretary can approve disapprove or partially approve what comes out of the council, and the no fishery service is also responsible for implementation of the council's recommendation. Here's kind of a different version of the steps to recommending a management measure or a summary of council action and issue is identified either by, you know, the council themselves the given the expertise they have or, you know, the public can bring an issue to the council there are public meetings held public testimony taken can be written that can be oral. There are then required analyses done and the council votes. They adopt these fishery management measures if the, you know, if the issue passes the vote through the councils, and they submit those measures to no fisheries who can then approve disapprove partially approve the measures and implement them through regulations. And that is all I've got. Thank you so much Lindsay. I will look briefly for a few show of hands for any clarifying questions. Otherwise, we'll turn it to to Ben and Lisa next. And take additional questions after their presentations, but just real quickly any initial. Questions for Lindsay again, I'll be looking for the raise hand feature. Fantastic. Well, I have a couple questions, but I'm going to save them for for afterwards. Oh, Rashid's raised his hand Rashid. Go ahead. Yeah, I thought it's nice to have at least one question right so. So, thank you. And my question is given how important the management is in the US this regional fisheries management council. Do you think it might want to structure our report around them because they're quite different like you said right. Right. Yeah, that kind of gets it like, how do we crack this night. I think that recommendations made should be national in scope. That's how I'm kind of feeling without the person being charged with doing it. I think that I, I know, and again, I don't want to get too confused with phase two of the study. But I know that it will be difficult to kind of make recommendations that are national in scope but I think that it would be more helpful to us for the purposes of this study to take a broad look. But to have recommendations provided to us that are not regional in nature that are more broadly applicable to the entire agency. That would be practical given the time we have and the resources that might be the level at which this committee cannot play ten away. Okay, thank you. We'll turn it over then to Ben and Lisa. No, just it says you started sharing your screen, but we're still seeing a black. So maybe there we go. Now we've got it. Ben, if you're speaking, you're muted. We can't hear you. Well, I've already kind of introduced myself. I guess one thing I'll notice that I'll speak first and then Lisa and Danica is actually are going to are going to be speaking next. And I'll let them kind of introduce myself themselves after this presentation. So just kind of what I'm going to cover here. I've already covered this quite a bit already. But I'll take a quick look at staff and research areas just so that you kind of get a broad feel for where the different kind of researchers are that that kind of deal with these data and have kind of better knowledge of them and that you might kind of need to interact with later. At some point kind of down the road in phase two. Kind of get a better understanding of the regional fields because there really is, I think significant differences regionally, and that'll kind of crop up throughout. And then in terms of categories of data, what I'm briefly going to cover here on the commercial sectors permits revenue data, cost data, and then we'll talk a little bit about cat share programs on the recreational side of things. We're looking at basically cost and earning surveys and and an angular expenditure survey, and then kind of coupled with that angular expenditure surveys. Also a durable expenditure survey that that we can discuss. So just in terms of economists and social scientists, this is kind of how we're distributed across across the science centers and regional offices. So, most of the science centers have one or more social scientists that work at that work there. And there are quite a number of economists also at each of these kind of regional science centers. So, when thinking about the data, you know, you also have to think about who you kind of got a contact, or at least I do if you come. If you were to come to me and ask, and this kind of shows you just how this is distributed across the nation. So, you know, in addition to the commercial and recreational we also, you know, human dimensions is another kind of research area. This is Lisa and Danica will be speaking kind of more to this human dimensions area, but this tends to be the focus of what we what we call the social scientists that you kind of saw in the previous slide. And then we also carry out research on ecosystem services as well. So, just some kind of broad definitions here. The commercial fishing fishing sector is really kind of in a broad sense is focused on operations that seller catch for profit. And so this doesn't include subsistence fishing. It doesn't include recreational fishing. The for hire sector for example. This is primarily comprised of national level this is primarily comprised of catcher vessels, but it also includes things like catcher processors vessels that catch their catch, both catch and process, as well as mother ships, mother ships kind of receive catch from catcher vessels and then do kind of onboard processing there. The recreational fishing sector is really fishing for leisure, rather than to sell as a commercial or, you know, like in the commercial sector. What we're going out here is that the recreational sector as we think of it isn't just the for hire sector but also includes private boat and shore sectors as well. So our definition of recreational is really a little bit more broad than just the for hire sector. So permits, we're going to see this theme kind of reoccur throughout the presentation. The information gathered from permits are on permits really varies not only by region but then also by fishery. The reality is this is basically true for much of the data that we collect and rely on is that there's some degree, sometimes significant degree of variation in these data across across the various regions. So in part, the result of kind of the structure of how fisheries are managed that Lisa was, or sorry, Lindsay, apologies, Lindsay was mentioning before and that it's, it tends to be management is more, in some sense, I not exactly bottom up but it's a little bit more bottom up than it is kind of top down where councils proposed measures, TACs and stuff like this. And then it's, you know, approved at the national level by nymphs. This can be a real challenge when trying to pull together national statistics for all but kind of the most basic variables. And in addition, it can also be a challenge when trying to kind of merge multiple data sets even kind of within a region. Some of the basic information that's kind of gathered on permits. It can be issued to vessels or individuals. They collected for open access or limited fisheries and some permits are tied capture permits are tied to allocations. You know, oftentimes you'll get the name and mailing address for the permit. The mailing address may not be necessarily the owner's residence might not even be in the same state even. You know, oftentimes you'll get home port and the primary or hailing port of the vessel, particularly if it's a permit issued on a vessel level. You'll get things like vessel characteristics. And for some permits you'll have ownership and and shareholder interest interest also captured as well. So, on the revenue side of things. This is probably where we have the most kind of regional and regionally consistent and thorough data. And, you know, this is in large part. So another thing that I do is I'm kind of, I'm the lead on what we call the fisheries economics of the US report which is flagship report for the kind of economic section of the Office of Science and Technology. And really the, the basis of that report is on landings and revenues, for the most part. And on the commercial side, in particular. And so, really our data for landings revenue is is or can be made regionally consistent for the most basic of variables, volume, value, vessel type gear and kind of port. Reporting of these is is mandatory. In part because it's necessary for in season management. You know, Oh, these data are publicly available in FOS, although FOS is kind of our data portal. Although it's highly aggregated basically at an annual and state level. More disaggregated catches and revenues would in some instances be more difficult to obtain. Some regions provide less aggregated data, but the levels of aggregation might not be uniform across regions. One thing that we often kind of have to deal with as economists and we're kind of used to it is that a lot of the kind of raw data that we might rely on, for example, at the vessel or process or level is kind of oftentimes confidential. So when sharing those when sharing information, we have to, there are aggregation rules that we have to apply in order to kind of produce and kind of publish this information in a public sense, or even share it necessarily with other researchers. So this inhibits kind of the sharing of some kind of raw level data. Some of which might be of interest for the later phases, but it's something to be aware of. Catch and revenue data can be combined with other data sources, for example, the permit data in some instances, if you have some kind of way of merging those. So far the most kind of consistent and accurate but there's usually enough information to kind of reconstruct revenue. So just kind of two broad categories of kind of information that are kind of associated with this or vessel level trip reports and in fish tickets, sometimes also called dealer first receiver reports. Share this presentation with you later but I provided some links in the presentation for the database and then also for some reports later that we discuss. In contrast, the collection of cost data is is much less comprehensive. And here I've been able to kind of pull a slide from previously produced slide so it's not the most recent, but it's still, I think it's still pretty accurate. Coverage within a region can range anywhere from 20 to 80%. You can see here that we've been trying to increase our coverage of the cost data collections, particularly since 2001. There's pretty substantial variation in the types of data that are collected here, even within a region, and it oftentimes comes from the genesis of these kind of cost data collections. For example, one very large fishery might only collect fuel data, while another in the same right region might have a pretty comprehensive cost data collection. Sometimes these cost data collections are essentially kind of implemented with certain kind of management measures, for example, catch shares and so they're attached, or they came with essentially something like a catch share program. And so the kind of era in which those cost data collections came to be can in some sense, or in some sense, determines the type of data that's available. And also this is kind of a negotiation between to some degree industry and industry representatives on the council, as well as the types of information that either nymphs or managers want to collect. And there's a detailed tech memo that I've linked to and that I believe has also been shared with the committee, kind of outlining the cost data collections. I've talked a little bit about catch shares already. We also have kind of detailed documentation documentation on on catch shares here. I don't cover all of our fisheries. You know, but it covers in volumetrically covers quite a bit. I can't remember the specific percentage of off top my head but, you know, catch shares can be issued as either I have cues or it cues, or in some cases cooperatives, or kind of in kind of sectors. Data are kind of issued can influence the types of information that you receive about transfers or swaps of quota. For example, you might not be able to kind of observe the transfer of quota quota within a cooperative. If vessels, a group of vessels join a cooperative and then cooperative is then issued the quota share. There can be differences in reporting for sellers and buyers. There can be various restrictions on leasing, kind of depending on what the fishery is specifically. And in some cases there are kind of quota consolidation restrictions that you can kind of encounter with various catch share programs. So just moving kind of quickly on to the recreational fisheries economics data. In addition to the large commercial analysis and other components of this kind of socio economic analysis. One of the things that we focus on is this recreational fishing and fishing effort. This along with actually a lot of the other data are housed in what are called the Fin network databases which are kind of regional databases. This isn't true for all the data but it's true for a significant portion of it. Recreational happen fishing happens along all the nation's coastlines but as Lindsay mentioned it's most of the effort, or the majority of the effort on a regional comparative basis happens in the southeast us. So these are kind of some of the recreational data collections that we rely on. You have your angler trip expenditure survey. And I'll cover each of these which has kind of a real reveal preference component. And then sometimes can roll into kind of a more targeted stated preference survey. So we also have the four higher kind of cost and earnings survey. And then kind of almost associated with the angler trip and expenditure survey, or is this durable expenditure surveys. In addition to this there are some one off surveys that don't happen on a kind of recurring basis. These are the basic surveys that you're going to see I'm kind of a that one might see on a recurring basis. The four higher cost and earnings survey is fielded to owners and operators of the four higher sector. This is a regional survey that usually happens approximately every 10 years and we're kind of due to reissue a new survey here at some point in the future. The surveys, it kind of varied the timing of them kind of varies regionally. But many of these surveys were kind of fielded in 2010 or a couple years thereafter. These are expensive surveys to field. And we're kind of working with OMB currently to get kind of a generic clearance, PR a clearance for these. And actually something to also kind of think about in general, you know, in a general sense like most of the data collections that we do on people have to go through some form of PRA. And so thinking about that when thinking about also thinking about what types of data we might collect. That's what we keep in mind. The data collected on the cost and earning survey vessel and owner characteristics. We get mostly trip based revenue trip length. This is really the survey here is really kind of focused on on trips. There isn't much in the way of kind of demographic information on this side on this survey, aside from some kind of minimal characteristics, owner characteristics. But the demographic information from this survey is relatively little. But as I kind of mentioned, we do however get measures of revenues costs species targeted. And then another interesting kind of component of the survey is that it solicits kind of perceptions of regulations and and economic conditions. So, whereas the for hire survey was focused on vessel owners and companies. This survey, the angler expenditure survey focuses on anglers. You know, and what this is really trying to what the survey in particular is really trying to get at is recreational fishing related expenditures from the anglers themselves. So this survey is fielded approximately every three to five years, and here the timing, it can be kind of staggered across regions. And so, you know, the timing of that can kind of influences the timing. Another survey here. There's also not much in the way of demographic information. There is some more demographic information, in particular on the durable expenditures survey. So durable expenditures capture things like fishing tackle and gears durable what we call durable goods, which are kind of things that don't necessarily change on say, trip level basis. So would this be the same as how do we call that, you know, fix, fix kind of cost or expenditure. The same as durable. Um, yeah, that's a good way to think about it. Yeah. So, on the durable expenditures survey we get age and sex, as well as race and race and ethnicity. Education. One difference between this and some of the, and the other surveys is that in contrast to the four higher survey, which looks at trip level expenditures. This survey focuses more on on on annual cert on annual expenditures kind of throughout the year. Yeah. So, I don't know if we want to do quick questions or if we want to save questions for the end. I'll leave that up to the moderator, but I'm happy to kind of try and answer any questions. We also have a Sabrina Lavelle and Eric here, who I might lean on, kind of depending on on what the question maybe. Thank you, Ben. I think questions for clarification. I see Steven's hand up. I have a very quick question about what's the spatial scale that this information from these surveys is usually communicated back in is it state level or does it get down to fishing communities, or how does it usually, you know, aggregated after the surveys are completed. Well, so it's going to depend a lot on the survey. If we're talking about what we aggregate things and report them on a public basis up to the state level. Some of these. Some of these data will include kind of location specific elements to them. And so in that sense, hypothetically with the raw data, one can aggregate them to kind of a smaller scale. But in terms of just what we report, for example, in the in the FE us, we kind of aggregate things at the state level. Matt, you're up next and then ground. Thanks, Ben. I found the figure that showed the different coverage of cost data collection across regions to be quite useful in terms of thinking the variation across regions. Has anyone put together something like that for some of the other types of data that we might be interested in, in particular like permit data crew data. I know you mentioned that it's quite variable across regions about how that's collected and reported. Has anyone put together a similar figure for that type of data or other type of data. Certainly not that I'm aware of some of that information would be kind of nested within the cost data. And so it would be kind of be like, for example, crew, or, or say crew remunerations, something like that might be part of the cost data collection. So if we don't have a similar knowledge note, we don't have a kind of similar graphic, and I mean, somebody may have tabulated it, but it wasn't me, or I don't know about it if we have like, how much, you know, on a national scale how much how many, how many numbers or how much coverage of crew data, for example, we kind of have it's going to be less than what it is for the, for example the cost survey because it's a subset of that. You know, yeah. Thanks Ben ground. Thanks Ben just on the floor higher sector I struck by the fact that there seem to be a lot of variability in terms of the granularity and quality of the demographic information collected across those different survey types. Is there an overarching reason for that like a privacy law or restriction on what we can do or is it just idiosyncratic that we each of those surveys developed over time. I'm going to lean on Sabrina here who's really our recreational kind of fishing expert, and she will kind of know that the genesis of these programs and will be able to better answer your question. Yeah. Hi, this is Sabrina. So it's more idiosyncratic where like different regions just felt like they wanted to do a survey and they kind of came up with their own, you know, survey questionnaire, depending on the issues in their region and, and you know, trying to limit the survey so it wasn't too long, etc. So we have at OMB now it's this hybrid generic we've looked at all the surveys in the different regions for the four higher coming up trying to come up with a set of accepted questions that like a question bank. And that would pull from all the different surveys that have been done in the regions. So hopefully for the next round that can be a little more standardized. Thanks. Thanks all and I think I'll turn it over to Lisa at this point. All right, thanks Ben. Lisa welcome. Thank you. I'm Lisa Colburn I'm with Ben at the Office of Science and Technology Economics and social analysis division. I am presenting today with Danica Kliber who's at the Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center. I will let Danica will begin. She covers aspects of the NOAA equity and environmental justice strategy within NIMPS. I will talk about the primary secondary data that we use and then Danica will go into the primary data collection that the agency is involved in. So I'm passing it off to you Danica. Okay, good morning. Can everyone hear me. And can you see the screen. Awesome. Thank you. So as Lisa said, I am a social scientist with the Pacific Island Fisheries Science Center. And since 2021 I've also been co-chair of the NOAA Fisheries National Equity and Environmental Justice Working Group, which is supported and led by Sam Rauch. So first I'm going to share a little bit about our EEJ efforts. So equity is the fair treatment of all individuals taking into account the fact that not everybody has been treated fairly throughout our history. And environmental justice is equity applied to environmental laws policies and practices within the strategy we talk a lot about underserved communities that's the term we've settled on their other terms frontline communities, historically communities, because we are the National Marine Fisheries Service we settled on underserved communities. Within the strategy we identify underserved communities these could be designated by geographic areas so for example rural communities, territorial communities, it could also be based on demographic attributes. Race and ethnicity, gender identity, etc. But we also recognize there are certain fisheries groups that have been understudied or under engaged with so this could include crew, as well as process plant workers, etc. The federal government recognizes through executive quarters and other mandates that barriers to equity have left many communities underserved, and these communities are often the most vulnerable to environmental issues, such as climate change. So this isn't a new thing it started under the Clinton administration with the environmental justice in minority populations and low income populations. However, there's been renewed interest both through the EO on advancing racial equity and the one on tackling climate, the climate crisis home and abroad. So within the strategy, we've identified three main goals. You'll notice that the third goal in particular points out the need for demonstrable progress which highlights the need for data. So we've identified six core areas where improvement is needed throughout our agency. The ones I'm going to focus in on our first benefits, because I think this relates directly to this research. So distributed distribute benefits equitably among our stakeholders by increasing access to opportunities for underserved communities. And of course this also points to the research and monitoring area where we identify underserved communities address their needs and support collaborative knowledge sharing and assess impacts of management decisions. So now I'm going to hand it back to Lisa. Thanks Danica. So I'll lead off. And if you could go to the next slide Danica. I'll lead off this section by talking about a secondary data that's used to create some indices that are used by NOAA. It's called the Community Social Vulnerability Indicator Toolbox. This data is available online for download as well as there are query tools available. The indicators were developed to address different mandates including social impact assessments as part of environmental impact statements and as well as improving the ability to conduct environmental justice assessments. The indicators are at the place-based community level and that was in relation to addressing aspects of national standard 8 which is the fishing community national standard. The project or the indicators began in a micro version of the indicators. The initial test was done on I think 120 communities and also once the indicators were developed they were ground proof with social scientists in each of three communities for about two months each community. So then it grew into a NOAA Fisheries project where we developed the indicators from Maine to Texas. We also ground truth those indicators by once they were created. We went into communities and asked and gathered information on how well did the social vulnerability indicators reflect the conditions in the communities that we visited. After that phase we then went national with this effort and so now it goes across 14 indicators across 24 states and we have over 4,000 communities in coastal counties around the United States. But part of the challenge with this project was that it needed to be feasible with available resources, that it was not intended to be a primary data collection effort but to make the best use of available data. And with that our approach has been to use create indices with US Census American Community Survey data as well as some NOAA Fisheries data and some Office of NOAA Ocean Service data on sea level rise and storm surge. Each indicator is calculated with approximately four to five variables. The indicator categories in the lower right hand side of the screen include fishing dependence. We have four fishing dependence indicators, two for commercial and two for recreational fishing. We have environmental justice indicators which I'll provide the example of in the next slide as some indicators covering economic conditions, gentrification pressure, which is an important threat to commercial and recreational working waterfronts. And then we have storm surge and sea level rise indicators. I notated in the lower right set all of the environmental justice economic and gentrification pressure indicators are constructed with the American Community Survey data. If you could go to the next slide. So this is an example of each of the three environmental justice indicators and the census data that's used to calculate each of the indices. So this data is capture it captures at the community level, and we're able to update it annually. You could go on to the next slide. So what are some of the caveats around the use of secondary data. So the strengths are, it's the best available data that, which is part of the charge of analysis with the Magnuson Act. It's place based community analysis so that it can begin to address national standard eight. They're updated annually, and it's national and scope in terms of weaknesses or challenges. The ACS data which are five year rolling estimates are aggregated that the data for fisheries is aggregated with hunting. So, when we are looking at and trying to use the census data specifically to identify the importance of fishing as an occupation. It is now aggregated with fishing and hunting. So what we've looked at and are continuing to look at is the extent to which fishing would be a more primary occupation, potentially in in coastal areas and hunting might be a more inland occupation. This is this is a challenge, definitely. And it's also a challenge in terms of who is sample with the ACS. We may not it may not capture all fishing community participants crew, fish processing workers, subsistence fishermen. These may be captured but they may not be captured depending on the size of the sample in a place. And then of course, because their estimates were dealing with potential standard error, and we're very aware of that in terms of the use of the data. So, some directions were currently going in, are the use of micro data. One very basic question that we are asking is what is the gender composition of the fishing industry in the United States. And we are working with set the census bureau to disaggregate data, so that we might be able to say something about as on a national level, just a national level, and then perhaps depending on the results of the national analysis, how far down can we go, can we go to the community and we go down to the community. And with that, I'll pass it on to Danica to talk about the primary data streams. Thank you Lisa. So as has been covered already, we have some we have, we've identified two different data streams for primary data so first is mandatory permits and reporting. So these are the most consistent sources of longitudinal data for commercial fisheries. There are current currently limits on demographic questions that can be included in permits and reporting forms used by Noah. However, the other one is voluntary surveys, demographic questions are often are allowed to be included in these surveys. It's not consistent, as was already been discussed, and I'll show some more data on that. Furthermore, these these surveys are infrequently longitudinal either by design or due to inconsistent funding. So we're unable to, we're often unable to use these in concert with longitudinal ecological data, or to understand to predict the effects of ecological change or regulations. So what I did is, I did a review of all of Noah fisheries primary data collection forms. I created a repository with the help of my colleague, Mia. We used a PR research and found 565 Noah fisheries forms and surveys that deal directly with fisheries. We characterized each of these surveys by the type of former survey, the fisheries sector that it targeted, and with it, according to demographic questions were collected. So first of all, you can see that most of the forms that we use are mandatory, either mandatory permit applications or mandatory reporting which applicants have to complete to maintain their benefits. A much smaller percentage are voluntary surveys. When we look at which fisheries are focused, you can see that the majority are focused on commercial fisheries with a smaller number devoted to recreational and also other non-commercial fisheries. In terms of demographic data collected, as you can see, among the mandatory forms, core demographic questions on gender and sex, race and ethnicity and age are very uncommon. And then questions of geography, which often come through questions like what is your address, tells us where the people live, that does get asked much more often. In terms of the voluntary surveys, you will see that the core demographic questions are asked more frequently, however, it is not across the board, and it's not consistent. In an effort to try and have greater consistency not only within NMFS but across non-line offices, we created a tech demo, which is in review, but we worked with social scientists across our line offices, and we wanted to gather all the possible demographic questions that we could be asking. So we went to the literature, we looked at executive orders, we looked at our social vulnerability indices, and we asked each other. And together we identified 19 demographic categories. We identified three core demographic categories that we believe based on the history of the United States and the interest of the fisheries should always be asked on voluntary surveys, if not permits. So that's race, ethnicity, gender and sex, and age. And then, as you can see, several of the executive orders identify many other types of demographic categories. So, such as, let's see, poverty, sexual orientation, disability, and geographic features like rurality. Okay, but the CSVI also brings up demographic questions such as language use, education, and employment. There were additional categories that didn't come up in any of these other cases, but were identified by the co-authors for being important for their region or their line office. For example, the National Weather Service, whether you have a vehicle available is very important. May not be so important to fisheries. And with just a few slides on our capacity for this work. So one in 60 scientists hired by NOAA, this is NOAA-wide, is a social behavioral or economic scientist. If we dig into this, most are from the economic scientists. So there's 102 social and economic scientists within NOAA at the moment. So this isn't just NMFS, but if we drill down to NMFS, again, this mirrors Ben's slide. So we have 50 economists and 14 social scientists, most are within the science centers, fewer, many fewer in the regional offices and program offices. That's Lisa and I are open to questions. Thank you both. We'll start with clarifying questions from the presentation and then if there is time, broaden up to other questions that are in people's minds. Rachel. Yeah, thanks to both for for walking us through that it was, it was, I found it really helpful. I did have a question. And I don't know who best to direct it to but earlier we heard that, you know, often some of the mandatory reporting in commercial fisheries tends to capture a mailing address versus the home residents of a permit holder. And then Danik, I think you were walking through some of that demographic data as capturing geographic residents. Is that capturing the home residents of permit holders or the home port and are there issues that we need to think about in terms of making that type of demographic data collection mandatory when it comes to commercial fisheries. Thank you, Rachel. When I, for that category I didn't drill down to that level of detail, if they asked any sort of question related to either residents or where the fish fisheries was done. I just included that. So we could get into more detail. And I, yeah. Rachel, do you have a follow up or vestigial hand. Yeah, it's, I guess the follow up would be and maybe is it, is it Ben. Faisal am I getting that name right. Is there issues with making that type of data collection mandatory that we should be thinking about. Eric has, well, so, first of all, only not all of the data collections are national minutes level some of them are, for example, state level data collections so when we think about some of those, particularly like think about well, I used to work for the Alaska Fisheries Science Center and so a lot of the data that we rely on there is, for example, on fish tickets and so you might kind of gather your information from there. But fish tickets are collected by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Getting some of that information. I mean we have more control over some information than we do, then we do over others is basically kind of what it boils down to. In terms of like difficulty on getting that into a survey I mean basically you. So when we anytime we change surveys we have to go through PRA, the paperwork reduction act, which kind of requires us to get clearance from OMB. So there's another negotiation that has to happen there as well. But I mean it's, it's definitely possible. Yeah, you know, it's but it's not like. It's something that we can just change on the survey, right away. It's more, there's a process, I guess. Eric, Eric Thunberg, did you have a response to the question. Yeah, I just wanted to clarify that the. The permit application is, it is a mailing address because it tells you where, where to send the permit. I just oftentimes it is a residence, but you don't know for sure. There are other ways to triangulate that information because sometimes they also ask for a primary court or a home court or something along those lines. So you can compare those types of things you can also repair you can also potentially compare. So basically where people actually land. And to see to type to determine, are there be as primary and principal court or things that are part of the permit application process there before they actually fish. So, a expectation of what you think you're going to do for the year may not match what you actually do. Thank you Eric. Grant, you're next and then Kellan. Yeah, thanks. I think this maybe is for Lisa I was interested in this social vulnerability indicator data that you shared and I'm wondering about the relationship between census data which I assume can be disaggregated down to the census tract level and then this notion of geographic community. In other words, are you combining census tracks can we disaggregate beyond the community level where where we have that. They, it is possible to go down to the track level and other social vulnerability tools, like the EPA, EJ screen, I mean there's a number of them that are out there, often go down to the track level. But that is less useful for the purposes of national standard date analysis. So, however, if other types of analysis that could be done at the track level might capture neighborhoods where processing plant workers live, for example, or where crew live, but at this point, we don't use track level. Thank you. Thank you, Lisa. Kalan, your next on the questions. Great. Yeah, thanks. So I have a question that relates to, I guess, the first presentation about management and in particular thinking about national standard date and sustained community participation but then trying to tie that in with Lisa, your presentation on the indicators and you mentioned one of the driving forces behind developing some of the indicators was something like national standard date. And I'm wondering if you've thought about or this has been discussed or written about. I'm going to highlight these indicators to national standard eight. And so, are there particular indicators that you think if, for example, we saw a decline in would be a flag in terms of decreased or sort of negative sustained community participation. So, a corollary to that will have you thought about or talked about or seen examples of how that then fits into the management process. She looks frozen. Yeah, I stunned her with the question. I'm doing that one, Kalan. Is there anyone else who wishes to take a swing at an answer to that while we wait for Lisa to unfreeze. I mean, so, one of the things I didn't mention with the national standards. This is really answer your question but I thought I have along these lines. One of the things I didn't mention about the national standards is they have varying levels of phrase like requirements right so national standard one says prevent overfishing. But national standard eight says, consider the importance of this resources. So, there's a lot of flexibility within the list of 10 national standards. But where that more, maybe more relevant comes in is in council deliberations and public input, and how much is the council willing to reduce the allocations to certain entities or reduce the overall catch for a lot of reasons because uncertainty management is one of them but impact communities is another one of those. So, can I ask just to follow my, I think that's, that's really true I guess this is something that I'm wrestling with more broadly so then you called out some of the national standards but I didn't hear you talk about national standard to and so here talking about information and data and so I could argue we're talking about best scientific information available and then I would think maybe there is language about what should be included in the safe documents and if this kind of community level information indicator type information is that that scientific information available. And then, you know, what national standard does it does it fit under. And so, maybe this is a question for for you about even the national standards that you thought were most important here because that that is clear about what you would be sort of reporting each year is fair, fair point fair question. I don't. I think you're, you've got the right issue in mind I don't. Okay, yeah I was keen. I was glad Lisa was here so we'll see if she comes back. I am actually back if you'd had a question apologies. Internet loss. Back by voice Lisa I know and the question that Kailin asked and initially was, how do we relate the, the community vulnerability indexes to national standard eight and then how does that relate to management. Yeah. Okay. So relating the indicators to the fishing community. We have the fishing dependence indicators which link the community in terms of the importance of fishing, but those indicators capture commercial and recreational fishing. They do not capture land the seafood processing facilities and other types of shore side infrastructure that where employment in the fishing industry is really critical. However, they are used in social impact assessments to understand how, in particular, the fishing dependence indicators, how communities, their level of dependence on a particular fishery may have changed over time. And the, the social aspects of the indicators are used to describe the current conditions, mostly the current conditions in, in fishing communities. And could they be used as a time series or they, you know, I know often it's been more of a kind of one off production in terms of some of the reports. And I think of sustained fishing participation that to me is a more of a long run kind of we should measure it each year and track it question. So that as I said that commercial and recreational indicators are based, you know, those are updated annually with annual data. And they do, you know, this sounds funny, but they, they reflect, they reflect change and are sensitive to change in the industry on an annual basis. The social indicators are based on census data five year rolling average estimates. And so they are less sensitive as a time series. It would have to be a very big shock. And then be reflected in, in change in the social conditions in the community. And so that's why I described them as best used right now as reflecting the current conditions or the conditions in the most current year. I think you're trying to speak, but you're muted. We can't hear you. We're three years in still forgetting. I do want to note that we have a break coming up, but I know Rashid has been waiting patiently with his hand raised so I'm going to give the last question to Rashid Rashid floor is yours. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, so when I listen to Ben and then I listen to. Yeah, and or at least I am right. It seems to me that Ben's talk is when I hear Ben's talk I can say fisheries management simply benefits the commercial and their equation. Right. Because in your talk you said this is not about subsistence is not about native or travel to fisheries. So it's mainly commercial. And then I hear in the two of you and you're talking about issues that really relate to small scale to indigenous or native fisheries and, you know, fisheries where there are black people active or even women, you know, so I kind of see like the two don't quite much. Am I missing something. Well, well, thank you Rashid this actually ties into one of the things I'd raise my hand for. So one of the issues we have with the ACS data is that it does not include the US territories in Commonwealth so Guam, CNMI, American Samoa US Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. There are other places that have been identified as being underserved communities at the national scale, and they are also data poor. So some of these larger national scale data collection, just don't occur in these areas. So I think that's that's one of the issues we we do wrestle with this because our fishing mandate is for federal fishing waters, a lot of the smaller scale fisheries occur in state in our Commonwealth waters. And yet there's, there's, there's definitely overlap. And so I think the work that I focus on where as social scientists were also trying to expand the types of fishing I believe under. I'm not Magnus and Steven expert, but at the moment I believe there's only two types of fishing that are identified commercial and recreational we are trying to expand that definition because at least in our region that binary doesn't adequately reflect the fisheries that is done even in federal waters. And also, I know we're very focused here on economics, but we're also trying to expand the values of fisheries that gets included beyond just just economic values. So what are other things that we can measure for how people benefit from and value their fisheries. So just to say this is an ongoing conversation. So I think you, you added you very astutely picked up on that tension. Thank you. Yeah. And I would just add that I don't think you're missing anything, Rashid. I think that for maybe for a long, long time. Historically, like with the fisheries focus has been on the maximization, something, whether or not that's profit or catch or kind of whatever it is, and the move to kind of more distributive considerations. It's not a lot of recent, but it's, it's, it's developing and I think that that's exactly what this committee is, you know, here to help us consider and, and, you know, as a, as a science and an agency. All right. Kelly is, is it a quick response. Tom, I just wanted to say maybe one, two quick things. I'm trying to wrap it up to get to a break. I think an observation that I would share what you all are hitting on with your comments and questions is. Can you all hear me. Okay. Sorry, I saw Tom reaching for his headphones. And so I was like, Oh, maybe I forgot to unmute. We have a patchwork of data collection in, in this area. And I think as you've seen through the presentations, at least in my eyes, it's driven kind of by two components. The first is our council process, which is where a lot of the data collection requirements derived from. And that is a very different process because there are very different dynamics within each of those councils. Then even once the agency gets that information from the councils, then we have to go through our federal process, which includes the paperwork production act and some of the challenges that that can present. So we have that kind of, in my mind kind of column of work. And then the other is some of the surveys and things that we want to do to collect information to drive our science, our social and economic science. Then that is, is largely challenged by resources and the paperwork production act and the different groups that we need to go through in order to conduct those kinds of surveys. And at multiple steps in each of those processes. We face a lot of questions and reticence in providing that information. And I don't think I'm telling any of you anything you don't already know, but I did just want to hit on those couple of things before we went to a break. So thank you for that indulgence Tom. Great. Thank you Kelly. I will call break. When we come back from the break, we have Bonnie McKay briefing us Bonnie was the chair of the recent National Academies Committee on the use of limited access privilege programs in mixed use fisheries. And she's going to be giving the committee a report out, followed by questions and answers. I invite all of those from know who are on the call, you're more than welcome to stay with us for Bonnie's report, if you would wish to do so. The advantage to us of you staying with us is that if additional questions come up that crossover between that report and the information we've heard from you this afternoon you'll be available to answer those questions. We also understand if you have other compete competing demands on on your time and have to leave us. So with that, I want to thank all of the presenters today. Lindsay, then Lisa and Danica for your presentations and for your thoughtful answers to our questions. And I'm going to call break at 10 to three and we'll be back at three o'clock. It will be the same zoom link. So I assume you can just leave your cameras off and go and get a well earned cup cup of tea. Thank you all. We'll see you in about 10 minutes. So I'd like to just call folks back to their computers that they've left them that we can get started on time. And Bonnie, since I see you're here, did you want to share your own screen or would you like me to do it for you? I can, I can share mine. I think. Okay. We'll try that if I can't do it within one minute then you can take over. Okay, fine. I sure appreciate you being here. Just give another second or two maybe for folks to back and I think I'll turn it over to you. But now you're muted again. All right. Are you ready to go to it? We all have fresh caffeine so so sources. Welcome. Welcome back to a National Academy's consensus. And thank you for making your time available today to brief us on the lack reports that you were the chair for. Just as a little bit of background for you, I'm sure Stacy provided it. But this consensus study committee has been asked by Noah fisheries to assess equity in the distribution of fisheries management benefits and paying particular attention in a phase one on data and information availability. In our first meeting, we focused on one particular part of the statement of task, which was the distribution of primary benefits. And several of us mentioned the report that you had shared that looked at at benefits in limited access privilege fisheries. And so we thought you were a great resource to help us work our way through our own statement of task and understand something about primary benefits and how your committee dealt with that issue as well so Welcome back. I'll ask, I know you know many of the committee members already but perhaps a short bio to begin with and then into your presentation. And if you would like the committee but why don't we do that. We'll go through the committee is a very quick in introduction to all, and then we'll, we'll, we'll hand my cover to you. So, my name is Tom Miller, I'm chair of the committee and I'm at the University of Maryland Center for environmental science. Also on the committee but not here today is Lisa Campbell, a member of the ocean stuff studies board and a social scientist at Duke Marine lab alphabetically Rachel. Rachel if you'd go next. Hi Bonnie, Rachel Donkersloat. I'm a social scientist working in Alaska fisheries. Yeah. Nice to see you. Thank you, Rachel. I think you're next. Great. Yes. Hi Bonnie so I'm Kailin credits I'm at Arizona State University in the school sustainability and I'm trained as an economist. Great. Grant. Hi Bonnie. It's nice to see you. As I think you know I'm a faculty member and at the new marine lab now and I'm former postdoc of body so personal moment here. Nice to see it. It comes full circle circle every now and again in life. Matt Reimer Matt. Hi Bonnie, I'm Matt Reimer. I'm a economist. Professor at UST Davis in the agricultural and resource economics department. Very nice to see you. Nice to see you. Jim, Jim center center curico. Sorry, Jim. Hi, hi Bonnie Jim St curico professor at the University of California Davis and environmental science and policy. Good to see you. Hi, Jim. Steven Steven ciphers. Hi Bonnie, I'm Steven ciphers. I'm an associate professor at the University of South Alabama in the school of marine and environmental sciences and the department of sociology. Wonderful. Nice to meet you. Nice to meet you. Thanks a lot. Thanks to all the students that know means least Rashid Shumaila. Hey, hey, hey, good to see you. I look forward to hearing from you. I'm still like you B.C. okay. Yes, I go right. That's it. That's all, all of us. very, very well. And it's great to see you again. And I'm glad to meet some of the rest of you. And I know some of some of your work. And, wow, another another cast of stars on one of these committees, I can see that. So you want me to I can go on now or please the staff would like to introduce. I forgot that this this time I'm usually one that reminds Stacy for that, but the staff should go. Thank you very much, Tom. Bonnie, Bonnie and I know each other. Well, we work together on this lab studies, but as a reminder, senior program officer with the ocean studies board. And I'll just highlight having now gone through the roster of our committee that I think you'll see some familiar areas of expertise and geographic representation from the lab study. And very likely, some of the same issues I'm sure will come up in this study has came up in that so we're so appreciative that you can share your wisdom having shared that study and any lessons learned that we can take with us into this one. I'll turn it to Leanne and then Eric. Hi, Leanne Martin, I'm a research associate on ocean studies board. Hi Leanne. Hi, Eric, let's go my program assistant on the ocean studies board. Nice to meet you too. You as well. Okay, so I guess I try not to take too much of your time because you've got a lot to handle there so I'm going to launch this to share screen. And I've got to get rid of this stuff. First of all, there we go. All right, so anyway, I'm, it was, I was, I was pleased to hear that somebody wanted to hear about our report. It seems like it's been a long time. But of course, yeah, I think it just, it sounds, I'll just say quickly that it sounds to me like this committee is in some ways a follow up to our report. And I'm happy to see that in any case you're dealing with some of the key, one of the key issues that we certainly confronted in this our report, which was called the use of limited access privilege programs or lapse as the acronym has become has sort of come into play mixed use fisheries and that meant in this case, primarily almost entirely fisheries. Both commercial significant commercial and recreational sectors competing for the same species. And so the committee members as Stacy said are very, you know, but from a variety of backgrounds that are very similar to the backgrounds that you represent myself and anthropology. David Lee Anderson. Marty Smith, etc. from economics. Courtney Carruthers, also an anthropology. Tracy Yandel kind of, you know, sustainability mixed multidisciplinary Sean Powers. And economics, recreational fisheries Steve Moroski biology, Tim Essington biology and ecology Josh Eagle law law, and Jim Cowan, who actually is deceased now biology but anyway there are people who have really strong backgrounds and fisheries and different parts of the of the country and and agreed to take on this, this endeavor which was a big challenge. But what we were asked to look at, I'm just summarizing and I'm not going to read the official statement, but basically look at the social economic and ecological effects on of changes in a fishery that included these that that amounted to these limited access privilege programs, basically, I have cues and I think it almost all cases it cues in the classic way. So they're looking the effects on the fishery per se on stakeholders the key stakeholders and on the communities. And we were supposed to look at those effects, and then also talk about the best practices in using lab programs in mixed use fisheries, and then policies to avoid negative impacts. And the fisheries that we were told asked to look at where the red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico and that was actually the red snapper and the grouper tile fish in the Gulf of Mexico. They were really key to a lot of the, the, the issues that were brought into their very complex fisheries and in some ways the political motivation for this study, rec fish South Atlantic which was the, the first I think the first federal waters itq program and golden tile fish in the mid Atlantic. And whoops, I'm sorry. And I've got your faces covering up the last part of the bluefin tuna, which is managed by the, by the headquarters, and bluefin tuna is an individual by fish quota, and not not a. It's not individual bluefin quotas individual by catch quota. So those are those are the study fisheries and the management councils associated with them. And so we were supposed to look at all of each one of those and answer these questions about the effects, the various effects of the fisheries and best practices for future management. So we identified two major methodological challenges. And one of them is looking at this kind of thing. Of course the, the most of the data available have to do with before the change was instituted, and after it was instituted. And this is a very limited way of understanding causation, as you all know. And so there are lots of other things to take into account. And this is something we had, we kept had to keep reminding ourselves of this as we went through and looked at each one of the programs. And as we read the reviews that are already made of the itq programs and lab programs by the various councils, which are required to do that. It's really important as we assess the nature of the evidence and the strength of the evidence in in drawing conclusions about the social ecological and economic effects of the programs. And the second methodological challenge was the very interdisciplinary of the topic itself and of our composition as a committee and of the nature of our backgrounds. And the kinds of models that we bring to the study. You know, the, you all understand that those differences, you know, from an economics perspective, open access, for example, is a problem and something like a lab program is, is a particularly attractive way of addressing those problems, and focus on profit and market mechanisms and change and human geography, anthropology, etc. sociology a more place based approach to things and looking at other things besides, in addition to gold profit and creation of wealth but also workings of power that importance of how people are related to each other, etc. Access itself becomes a really interesting and more problematic kind of variable. And then of course the other one is the standards of evidence that we hold to. And this is where this is where our committee spent a lot of lot of time. So powerful differences of opinion, and differences in in background and so forth. And one of the things that we spent a lot of time doing is coming up to ways to understand in understand these differences and to look for ways that we can work together and bring the bring to the different approaches, not just the difference between economics and anthropology let's say that's a there's a lot of, a lot of difference in ways of general approaches, but the kinds of data that we have the kinds of sampling, the degree of representative representatives and whether the samples are large enough to use statistics and so on and so forth, these kinds of questions. And then what do we do with the kind of qualitative information that comes from the more sociological and ethnographic approaches, and how do how do we relate those to each other. So this was, this was probably the biggest challenge and I, although it didn't, I don't think it appeared in our final report that one of the things we often talked about is we really needed to have a serious in person retreat, a workshop or we could come to some, you get some ideas about how to do this better, but we really worked hard doing that. And I'd say the investment that we put into it was large, and, and I, it was worthwhile I think, most of the part, I think all the participants. So, anyway, we did what we could as a committee, over a fairly long period of time, and having to have only virtual meetings. We do what we could we had lots of lots of data from a fisheries reports and the fisheries data various kinds and interviews with people, lots of representative representatives of different councils and different fisheries talk with us, huge amount of data coming into us for this. We did what we could over this period of time and we came up with the overall finding that the use of the laps in these mixed use fisheries show little effect of the laps on the recreational and for higher stakeholders. And they're in. So there's that that question is one where we could not figure out. And we could not see any evidence for the effects of the laps per se. And the second finding was that where we did see the outcomes of the laps, their effects, their consequences, the impacts are very similar to what we would see a lapse that are not mixed use components. So back to the first one about the recreational impacts and the recreational. This was a really big issue that behind the creation of this study so we gave a great deal of attention. And certainly to many of the participants in in the fisheries that we looked at especially the Gulf fisheries. The, the ITQ programs there were red snapper and the grouper tilefish complex were viewed as barriers to the to well as cutting back on the benefits available to to the recreational stakeholders. So there's a whole new class a whole new class was created with the creation of ITQ is a whole new political social group is created and they function as such in council meetings and deliberations about, about allocations. And they also function in the legal legal domain. So, yes, laps are there and they, they are viewed as as a problem. From the perspective of, of many of the people in the recreational communities. But we found no evidence for the direct effects of laps on either the private recreational angers, or the, or the people who run charter and party boats. Because we have a had a sense, and this comes mainly from what we came to know about the Gulf Council. Recent history that laps could actually affect a wreck of mixed use fishery by improving the accountability of all sectors to the management. Rules greater accountability because the laps tend to well because of the way that they're designed the participants in these ITQ programs are much more accountable there's they're carefully monitored. And so they're accountable for what their landings or what they land and how they how they operate. And this we suspected could lead to pressures to attain greater accountability on the part of the recreational sector, although we don't have any direct evidence that that is the case so that was, that was a one an idea that came out of this that has that could be tested red snapper is where this this seems to possibly fit and there was some talk in our report about the idea that I that some of you are familiar with the idea that we could actually see the evolution of management organizations of private anglers just as you have for ITQ holders and quota holders and in the fishery or other other organizations, and it's possible something like that could, could emerge sometime sometime but we did not certainly see any real side of that we were that's something like that is happening more as in the for for higher sector. An experimental basis. So we did what we could. These are our overall findings. And then, but then, as I mentioned, you know that the outcomes that we found are very similar to what we find in other cases, but here they go. Okay, so what about these, these ITQ programs per se, and here the evidence, the strength of the evidence is reflect reflecting our efforts to be really, really careful about whether it's just to be for an after whether we've taken into account other factors that might be in play, and also takes into account the kind of amount of data that we had the quality of the data, and so forth. So the economic impacts, very strong to strong, in terms of mediating the race to fish and increased profitability really good evidence. In most cases for that. Some evidence for some reduction in over capacity. And indeed, for example, there was some cases where the ITQ program comes into play after it's already been a reduction in capacity, because of other factors that are going on and so forth. And then with then, then, then there's, there is consolidation that occurs in this kind of fishery, which is a really important, you know, observed effect in many cases. But the, our finding was that that consolidation did not lead to market power, at least in the quota market it didn't affect the, the, the value of the quotas. We looked at the ecological or biological impacts. We found in only one case a strong effect and that was because the, that was the individual bycatch quota program from Luke and tuna, which was successful in reducing regulatory discards which was the major purpose of that program. But in other cases it was either weak or no evidence at all, some modest benefit of improved stock status for some species. The LAP programs themselves were not, were not usually the, the, the, the evident causes of improvements. Other things have taken place and this is another real big problem in assessing this kind of thing is that there's an awful lot going on when an ITQ program or other LAP program is created. There's often other changes that are occurring in the ways, ways in which stocks are, are assessed and the kinds of rules that are being used to deal with uncertainty and so on and so forth. And we found in any case there's no evidence that they've been bad for the, the biological dimension of the system. Okay, the last one is the social impacts and this is, this, here we found strong evidence for only one factor which is improved safety at sea. And this is something that was always advocated as a reason for developing this kind of ITQ or IFQ program. And we found evidence in, in the cases of that that was the case. The effects of labor is another really big issue. And certainly this is where these, you know, distribution of benefits question comes into play. And looking at each one of these cases we found very mixed and inconclusive evidence for the effects of the LAPs per se on labor in terms of the, how labor was compensated. And that sort of thing. There's, there's often, we gave a tremendous amount of attention to that question. And then the third, the third thing we were asked by the way to, to look, include in our notion of stakeholders, the communities per se that usually coastal communities that were engaged in the fisheries. And this was a really big challenge for us. And there's no, there's no direct evidence of the effects of the LAP programs on communities. And this is largely because of the lack of good data for social and community, both social generally and community impacts. So data emerged in that one as a really big problem. So, I, we've already, you know, in our official slideshow we would have one of these sections with the yellow up there for the effects on recreational but I've already talked about that. The impacts on the commercial participants. Number one, the way a lap is designed makes a big difference and has enduring effects, you know how the initial allocations done is one really big example of that. So we felt that councils, we were, you know, we recommended that the councils invest more in data collection and, and ways to deliberate issues when designing a new lapse and, and, and fixing the old ones. It's a very big problem. You know, when the horses left the barn, that's, that's a real legacy is created from the initial design of the laps is very, very difficult to, to change. So particular detention has to be given in that case to initial allocation options for hired captains include a more fully participate. This is, this is a really big issue in a lot of these programs, as you know, because the, usually the, the history of a boat becomes a commodity and, and the work of the hired captains and the crew is kind of factored into that history and, and so the boat gets the, gets the goodies and not the captains and the crew. And then the cost of new entry is another factor, the effects of, of, you know, I get my little, little head things that keep emerging now in the government, the effects of effects of new entry on later generations that's a huge, huge question. And the transparency and accessibility of markets for shares and allocations another really big issue, especially if you're looking at these, you know, distribution of benefits questions. You know, is actually engaged. How do we know them. What do we do about the use of corporate corporation titles as owners and so forth. How do we, how do we, who, how do we identify the actors and, and what differences it make to make to identify them in different ways. How transparent and is it, is it, what kind of market exists where the shares and allocations and is that something that is widely known and accessible to a large number of people or is that also limited. And does that, that will affect participation and distribution. Made a couple of recommendations here's one of one of them here is that the crew and hired captain should be somehow given opportunities to play into the initial allocations but then as you know, a huge data problems if not legal and and equity issues involved in that. You know, how do you define what's fair what is equitable, and I'm sure that you've already started talking about that that question. Huge one. So the impacts on fishing communities is where we really stumbled with the data problem. And people who've looked at at itq and other lab programs have, you know, looked at the possibilities that you'll get increased social conflict fewer jobs, or some, you know, the movement of boats to different areas and the loss of product for for processing products in particular places and so on so forth and others communities can be affected in different ways. And there's been a lot of concern about that as you know, you know, one of the reasons that Congress back in the when it wasn't the 90s, put a moratorium on creating those are concerns about questions like this, but the lack of community data in in the fisheries studies made it really difficult to look at the effects. The fishing community and especially only have to talk about the fishing community and Rex mixed use form. What do we know about the recreational fishing community in that sense in the fishing community way of thinking about things. And where do we have those data. So, this was a big question and we put a lot of effort into looking at it and talking around it and so forth. Our recommendations underscored of course the importance of more research and the human dimensions of fisheries and build on Noah's data on social indicators now I I know you've already talked about that because Lisa is there. And I'm sure that that even my mention that you say yeah we know all about that. So, but this was something that we were really, really, really interested in and we spent some time looking at it. So the toolbox issue you already know all about this. And it's, and we were just interested in its possible use in assessing the community impacts of fisheries changes. And this was this was tempting to be asked because everywhere struggling with this issue of the quantitative versus the qualitative the anthropologist versus the economist etc etc. Wow, look, here we have some information that social social information that has been put together by this team at Noah. Maybe we can you do some modeling work maybe we can come up with some ways that these data could be used in a more quantitative way. These are the kinds of social indicators that you, you've already learned about through the presentation earlier I'm sure. So I'll just skip on by that but anyway, so if in our study there's a discussion of an effort that was that was done by Josh Abbott primarily to look at what was exist the social indicators data on labor vulnerability. And to come up with a way of taking two parts of Florida the golf part and the Atlantic part, and the golf part is where the lap fisheries are, and the go and the Atlantic part is where they are not. Right, but they're pretty much similar fisheries is very similar in composition of the, the, the, the species involved and so. And so this he went through the data and he is described in our report have the details of how it was done it's done very, very carefully, and found no statistical significance. There does not seem to be in this case there's just no sign of, of, of an effect of labor in these in these coastal communities that are part of the social indicators, pro snapshots. No big surprise because fisheries are only parts of coastal economies in this region. And, and they're also problems with the measures of labor vulnerability maybe they're not fine enough they're certainly not directed to these particular fisheries. And that's a really teasing star suggesting the potentials for the use of these data and the importance of Noah's support for continuing to continuing this project as is this happening and refining them were appropriate and possible. Otherwise, there's a shocking lack of social data available for answering these questions, shocking lack. So one of our conclusions was, okay, it's shocking so let's do better. Oh, so then anyway that's that's basically it in a, in a nutshell. And I'm so good to you. Bonnie, thank, thank you very much. I'll open the floor for clarifying questions. So I'll, I'll, I'll start with just I'll take chair privilege. Bonnie, to what extent, do you think the conclusions the committee reached depended specifically on the fisheries that you looked at or do you think they are generally transferable the conclusions. They will they're intended to be pose. Okay, there. I mean, obviously, we did, we did emphasize quite often how important the specifics are the design of a particular program, the design of the program and the history of that program. The history is really important, because you know that are you that explains who's involved in how and what what happened in the past, which affects so much what happens in the future, but also, you know, just in the fishery itself so there is a history, and that that I think is a kind of a number one thing that, yes, these are there's some general generalizations about lab programs that that seem to be born out on a broad scale here. And you'll notice there are very few where we have really good strong evidence for outcomes that you might expect for that program, for example, the economics of reduction of over capacity. Yeah, maybe sometimes there was a reduction over capacity and other times, if there was a reduction that was because other things were going on. All right. So, so that's, that's basically good. Rashid waited patiently at the last question session so I'm going to give him first chance this this time so Rashid. Thank you very much. Thanks again for summarizing your reports in such a short time right it's not easy. Yeah, one thing you said that caught my attention. You said there was constant, there was consolidation, maybe I got it. Did you say there was consolidation but you didn't see concentration of market power. So if that is the case, what is the reason usually, usually that is the issue right you have one person dropping everything in BC, the Richard guy Jim Patterson is known to have go above 90% of the head in quota right and so. So what was the security and how could you get consolation consolidation without. Yeah, well, I mean I, I understand your question and I understand the concern here. I have to, I have to bow to my economist friends on the committee who have taken a very strict economic understanding of this and focused on the quota market. There are other kinds of market issues that you might want to look at, but also these are very these in, in all cases except the, the golden tile fish of the mid Atlantic I'd say these are very complex economic systems. So these flat fisheries are, you know, they're multi often the multi species of things going on their other factors that are in play. So there's not a simple, you know, herring situation and just herring alone and one one one clear market for their different markets and so forth. I'm kind of talking around this because I don't, you know, to to an outside you'd say oh my gosh this is the problem and, and we did, you know, the participants in the fisheries saw this is a real serious problem. You know, really asked in terms of the big guys taking over control. But the problem is that we don't have good evidence for that good economic evidence for it. So is it a real, you know what it, there's a narrative here, but we don't have necessarily the data required to support that narrative. Back it up. Yeah. Yeah, I was wondering whether there were limits to the proportion of the share that one one entity can. There are certainly imposed initially in the post after a while in the red snapper fishery, because I'm concerned about that. Yeah. There are different efforts in different fisheries to to control that to some degree but but that's a big question and so like in the red snapper case they actually did away with they did away with with a rule that you had to be that you had to be an insider you couldn't you couldn't be an outsider to participate in it. You know you had to be a fisherman fisherman. Yeah. Okay, they tried that one and they did away with that. You know, there's an effort to try to say we don't want to have as they talked about it in older ITQ fisheries the doctors and lawyers moving in and taking over. Yeah, this is a frequent. You know you can talk to people and certainly the Northeast. That's that's Grant remembers that from our interviews right the doctors and lawyers taking over a fishery. Yeah, but when you commodify it of course you're opening it up to anybody coming in and fisheries a good place to lose money if you want to lose money. You know, tax or whatever. And so that I didn't say that. But yeah. All right. No, thank you. Thank you. I get it. And the narrow definition could also be a player because economy. That's right. And that's that I mean that's one place where really getting together and and finding a way to work out a more effective discourse among the participants in a committee is really important. Not to mention the participants in the actual deliberation and the councils. So, let's move on grant. Your next. Yeah, thanks, Bonnie. And actually it was a nice segue. I think my question started about community or committee conduct and how you got to certain decisions that she's appeared to have made along the way. As I understand from what you told us there was a charge at the beginning for you to consider social ecological and economic effects of these things. In a later slide you showed us that you had the way I would describe it disaggregated some of those effects into certain bins or categories of impact and then talked about the strength of evidence within each of those those bins. How did you do that which that disaggregation and deciding to move beyond economic or within economic and think about labor force for example. What was your process to do that that certain things just appear as being more important. Were you directed by your sponsor to do that. We came out line and outline very early on. And so in that outline. Kind of controlled things for better or for worse. You know, I, there are other ways we could have done it but we, we chose to have us different chapters that would look at the, the economic part and the ecological and social, you know, kind of obvious sort of thing. So we went with that, that mentality. And, and that maybe you know that that's arguably is not not the only alternative and it's maybe not the best if you want to get a more interdisciplinary conversation going. It was efficient in the sense of deciding who's going to chat who's going to write which chapters, that kind of thing and that's it that's a real problem you've got to have a way to, you know, to let the people who know the temperatures and know the material, the, the discipline to, to write using their expertise. So it's a, I have to say though that we really, even though we had, we had disciplinary just divisions there. We interacted an awful lot on and argued about these things. And nobody, nobody jumped ship. We deliberated about these things. We did, we did, it was very deliberative. It was, it was very, it was very, it was, it was very good. I mean, we really, I think we really came to know each other well in this way, even though we never had dinner together. We never had a glass of beer together, nothing like that, but we managed to respect each other and learn to work together. But I do think I think your question is a really good one in terms of how do you, how do you do this and, and, you know, thinking thinking outside of the usual boxes is worthwhile trying to do. Thanks. Thank you. Steven. Thank you. Thank you, Bonnie for that presentation. So one of the, the probably consistent themes across your study and then lots of fishery social sciences is dealing with like data limitations or just data unavailability and I was curious if you all ran into any consistent trends across the regions of kind of response to that where they're, where they're consistent stakeholder groups or agency responses that aligned with, you know, support for collecting more data in either voluntary surveys or mandatory surveys, or was there a general hesitance towards more types of programs like that or just any kind of experiences and you thought you might have on that. So the Gulf, the Gulf Council and the Gulf region put a lot of effort into developing the ethnographic kinds of studies as well as social, you know, pretty careful social survey studies to complement what they were doing in other domains so they put it, they put a lot of effort into it. And I think that that was outstanding. And so we have David Griffith led a team that that that really went out into different places and, and really it did, you know, help develop a very rich program. The, you know, I think the others, it varied, they have where they're there, they did these lap reviews, these itq reviews which are required by law, and, and they were a varying quality and but in no no other case in the Gulf did it did anybody actually do it an independent study or try to flesh out what was actually happening in the in these fisheries. It had been done for tuna, the tuna thing but that's, that's a big huge. And that was done many years ago that we I did that. We did a really interesting community study, but in all cases, these studies that come out of that effort are are difficult to argue for as major as major sources of information because of this old problem. Well, okay, so you talked to a group of people or you had a focus group or something like that. But what do you really know. You know, did you, does it represent everybody and, and, and, and, you know, being aware that that they're that it does matter to have to have a very, very good broad representation. There's hesitancy and really pushing forth the kinds of conclusions that are that are provided by these studies. Maybe we have to find we have to find better ways of, of bringing them to bring it's just the same thing if you're using the user using indigenous knowledge traditional knowledge and so on and so forth. You know how it's the same problem but how do you bring this in in a meaningful way that for people understand its value and, and how to use it without just challenging it's, it's, it's validity for what it is. Stacy. Bonnie maybe I can ask you to weigh in on to both your last comments triggered my thinking on both of these points and the first is, you know, I recall one of the issues we had specific to the goal was in trying to get information from fishery participants in particular, but other community members as well that wasn't available. In the data, you know, I'm trying to bring folks into our meeting. We thought we had done or I'll take I thought I had done a pretty good job of. Of understanding who needed to be engaged in those public session meetings and who needed to be at the table to have a robust discussion of some of these issues. And one thing I learned after the fact through some of these more informal conversations with folks that had been in those open meetings is. The people that are necessarily engaged or the people that are engaged with our open session meetings are not necessarily representative of the broader groups that they represent. If that's, if I can say that right and I don't know Bonnie, if you had any other thoughts on that aspect too, but I, you know, I could imagine that being a challenge for this committee too. There is an inherent bias perhaps with people that are tracking our studies or willing to take willing available and and have the luxury really of being able to take time out of their day to participate. And so I think it's something this committee is going to have to think about to what are the challenges we had was where the data is limited getting any additional information from the public from our open public sessions. Maybe challenging for a variety of reasons. So that's one thing I'd love you to weigh in on by. And then the other was my recollection and it's hazy I admit, but as with some of these laps they've become so small that some of the data collection is really limited to because of the personally identifiable information concerns and I'm, I'm hoping you can refresh my memory a little bit about what some of those issues were that we ran into and whether or not we should anticipate those for this group as well. Yeah, but to the second yes the the group of three issue is an important one. So, I think we had for wreckfish we were quite limited in what we could do in any kind of quantitative way we just because the data were not available to us and that's where that's where the more ethnographic or ethnic approach is important and then you do rely on the people who are willing to talk to you as well as the people who actually work with the fisheries. So that's, that's, that's a, that's a big problem. I think, I mean, I think it's a genuine problem where you have, like, for particular, if you're looking at communities, particular community has only one, one existing plant, what do you do you can't even provide any information about what that's going on that plant, or if you have only three boats, and you can't provide information about. So there you have to use the more, the more boss a journalistic kind of information. There's no demographic information to, to, you know, kind of supplement the fact that, or to compensate in the with with regard to the first question. Yeah, of course the, the issue of participation and these kinds of open these as stakeholders. Oh, I don't know that we, I hope we didn't, we didn't use the word stakeholder, I hope. No, but I mean, but it does, it does tend to get people who have have an issue at hand at, and I want to talk about their issue. And which is fine, which is great, but of course they're using the using the forum for their purposes. And it isn't it, you did a great job, Stacy in helping us reach out and, and, and see what's out there and get a pretty wide variety of people involved but we couldn't get everybody. And again, that's where it would be great to have somebody advising who does know the lay of the land it does know who are the participants are. And I think you've, the people that know a staff have been helpful in that regard, and the, you know, see grant people could actually be used your reps to greater effect to help with that too. Okay, I'm going to give the last question or clarifying comment to, and I hope I'm pronouncing your name correctly. Hey, here. Bodwich, you've been very patient. Hi, thank you. That's great pronunciation. I'm hacky. I'm a postdoc and marine affairs at doll house you know I've been working with Maori groups in New Zealand, as well as first nations and Atlantic Canada on ways to use. New Zealand ways to use quota to support local fishing communities and I'm curious as to whether there's any initiatives underway in the US to reverse or attempt to rework existing. to reallocate quota in ways that are more equitable I'm just thinking about these indigenous reconciliation initiatives that have taken place, especially in New Zealand to allocate quota to Maori groups and if there's any of those discussions underway in the US. And obviously is one place where there's this has been an issue and the member of your committee from Alaska can probably speak to that. Pretty well. You know what one of the issues is I think it was mentioned, I think Rashi brought it up in the year earlier session that, you know, we're talking about indigenous groups, small scale groups and so forth. So we've got, we've got fishery, fishery systems that are that are federal waters, and these programs are the, these quota programs are in the federal fisheries and may or may not involve people who are fishing primarily in what we call state waters, state and territory waters which are not federal waters. So it's like it becomes a whole other institutional apparatus that would be involved in that. And so then we have, you know, yes, it's a really big issue. And, and I don't know of any particular ones in the fisheries that I'm looking at right now that are doing that. But certainly there have been efforts and except within commercial fisheries there's smaller scale fisheries that have tried as in Cape Cod. It was group that long ago tried very hard to make sure that their members had access to the quota that they needed to participate. And even though they, so they had to buy up these great pools of quota that their members could then get get access to that kind of system is has been used. Yeah, does that sound like the kind of thing you're talking about? Yeah, I mean, just, yeah, this kind of broader question in general. You know, we've seen exclusion happen. It's interesting that there's not evidence of consolidation, but yeah so then, you know when we redesign future systems or design future systems, you know, try to mitigating that from the start but then what about the existing system. So like features such as making sure that they are really tiny quotas that are available, tiny shares that are available. That's being done in some some fishery, some programs, so that rather than you so that people like a crew member could get a very small like a half share at least get a stake in the stake in the fishery that way. Well thank you. Great. Bonnie, thank you as always for a really clear explanation and discussion of the issues that your consensus committee faced. I think there are some broad parallels with some of the things we're going to have to explore. I'm somewhat jealous of your six case studies I think that helps a little bit by putting a fence around what you're being asked. I think appropriately know is asking us to think big first and then potentially come back and with a more case study based approach. Yeah, I've certainly benefited a lot from from reflecting on on the work that your committee did so thank you very very much for your time. This afternoon, and luck. Thank you. We're all waiting to see what you're going to do with this. Yes, so are we. Can can can canvas, but don't hesitate don't hesitate to ask me or any other member of our committee to, you know, because we, we'd be happy to help out any way we can. Well, thank you, thank you, we may welcome knocking. Thank you very very much once once again on behalf of all of the committee. We're about four minutes ahead of time which is a good place to be we have a 15 minute break. And we will return in closed session with a new zoom conference address it is on today's agenda. If Eric or Leanne could email it out to everyone again so it's top of their list. Thank you Eric, and we'll see you all suitably caffeinated at 415 or quarter past whatever hour you have. Thank you. Bye bye.