[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 4742, TO AMEND THE MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND
MANAGEMENT ACT TO PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY FOR FISHERY MANAGERS AND
STABILITY FOR FISHERMEN, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``STRENGTHENING
FISHING COMMUNITIES AND INCREASING FLEXIBILITY IN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT
ACT''--PART 1 AND 2
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Tuesday, February 4, 2014 (Part 1)
Friday, February 28, 2014 (Part 2)
__________
Serial No. 113-59
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
86-568 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
PETER A. DeFAZIO, OR, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS
Louie Gohmert, TX Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Rob Bishop, UT Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Doug Lamborn, CO Rush Holt, NJ
Robert J. Wittman, VA Rauul M. Grijalva, AZ
Paul C. Broun, GA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
John Fleming, LA Jim Costa, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Glenn Thompson, PA CNMI
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY Niki Tsongas, MA
Dan Benishek, MI Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Jeff Duncan, SC Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Scott R. Tipton, CO Tony Caardenas, CA
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Steven A. Horsford, NV
Rauul R. Labrador, ID Jared Huffman, CA
Steve Southerland, II, FL Raul Ruiz, CA
Bill Flores, TX Carol Shea-Porter, NH
Jon Runyan, NJ Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Markwayne Mullin, OK Joe Garcia, FL
Steve Daines, MT Matt Cartwright, PA
Kevin Cramer, ND Katherine M. Clark, MA
Doug LaMalfa, CA
Jason T. Smith, MO
Vance M. McAllister, LA
Bradley Byrne, AL
Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Legislative Counsel
Penny Dodge, Democratic Staff Director
David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, February 4, 2014 (Part 1)............... 1
Statement of Members:
DeFazio, Hon. Peter A., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon............................................ 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington........................................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Deem, Jeff, Representing the Recreational Fishing Alliance... 77
Prepared statement of Jim Donofrio, Executive Director,
Recreational Fishing Alliance.......................... 78
Geiger, George J., Owner and Operator, Chances Are Fishing
Charters................................................... 72
Prepared statement of.................................... 73
Giacalone, Vito, Policy Director, Northeast Seafood Coalition 60
Prepared statement of.................................... 62
Questions submitted for the record....................... 63
Krebs, David A. Jr., President, Ariel Seafoods, Inc.,
Representing the Gulf Seafood Institute.................... 66
Prepared statement of.................................... 68
Marks, Rick E., Robertson, Monagle & Eastaugh, PC............ 51
Prepared statement of.................................... 53
Pikitch, Ellen K., Ph.D., Professor and Executive Director,
Institute for Ocean Conservation Science, School of Marine
and Atmospheric Sciences, Stony Brook University........... 84
Prepared statement of.................................... 86
Rauch, Samuel D. III, Deputy Assistant Administrator,
National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration................................. 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Robins, Richard B. Jr., Chair, Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council......................................... 17
Prepared statement of.................................... 19
Question submitted for the record........................ 26
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Fina, Mark, Senior Policy Analyst, United States Seafood
Prepared statement of.................................... 102
Questions submitted for the record....................... 109
List of documents submitted for the record retained in the
Committee's official files................................. 117
Regional Fishery Management Council Coordination Committee,
Letter submitted for the record............................ 111
Rep. Rick Larsen and Don Young, Letter submitted for the
record to National Marine Fisheries Service................ 110
State Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Prepared statement of...... 111
Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, Prepared
statement of............................................... 115
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Friday, February 28, 2014 (Part 2)............... 119
Statement of Witnesses:
Grader, W.F. ``Zeke'', Jr., Executive Director, Pacific Coast
Federation of Fishermen's Associations..................... 143
Prepared statement of.................................... 145
Lowman, Dorothy, Chair, Pacific Fishery Management Council... 125
Prepared statement of.................................... 126
Questions submitted for the record....................... 130
Pooley, Samuel, Director, NOAA Pacific Islands Fisheries
Science Center............................................. 119
Prepared statement of.................................... 121
Questions submitted for the record....................... 123
Rees, Bob, North Coast Chapter President, Association of
Northwest Steelheaders..................................... 133
Prepared statement of.................................... 134
Question submitted for the record........................ 136
Shelley, Peter, Vice President, Conservation Law Foundation.. 137
Prepared statement of.................................... 138
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Frady, Troy C.D., Owner/Operator, Distraction Charters,
Prepared statement of...................................... 168
Members of the House National Marine Sanctuary Caucus, Letter
submitted for the record................................... 165
Senators Reed and Whitehouse, Representatives Langevin and
Cicilline, from Rhode Island, Letter submitted for the
record..................................................... 166
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 4742, TO AMEND THE MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY
CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT TO PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY FOR FISHERY
MANAGERS AND STABILITY FOR FISHERMEN, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,
``STRENGTHENING FISHING COMMUNITIES AND INCREASING FLEXIBILITY IN
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ACT''--PART 1
----------
Tuesday, February 4, 2014
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Doc Hastings
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Hastings, Young, Wittman, Fleming,
McClintock, Duncan, Southerland, Mullin, LaMalfa, McAllister,
Byrne, DeFazio, Pallone, Napolitano, Holt, Bordallo, Costa,
Sablan, Tsongas, Hanabusa, Horsford, Huffman, Shea-Porter,
Garcia, and Clark.
Also present: Representative Tierney.
The Chairman. The committee will come to order, and the
Chairman notes the presence of a quorum, which I thank Members
on both sides of the aisle here.
We are here today for a legislative hearing on the
discussion draft titled, ``Strengthening Fishing Communities
and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act.'' Or,
put another way, the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act.
I will now recognize myself for my opening statement, and
we will get the witnesses up there.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
The Chairman. So I would like to welcome our witnesses for
today's hearing on a discussion draft for the reauthorization
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act.
Since 2011, eight full committee or subcommittee hearings
relating to the reauthorization and Federal fisheries
management have been held. This hearing will be the ninth in
that series.
In addition to our hearings, eight regional fishery
management councils held a national conference specifically on
reauthorization issues. Each of the eight Councils submitted
recommendations to that conference, and the result of the
conference was yet another set of recommendations. The National
Academy of Sciences also released a report detailing additional
recommendations on the rebuilding provisions of the Act.
With all of the activity focused on the reauthorization, it
certainly should not be a surprise that all of those
recommendations were reviewed, and many of them were assembled
into a bill. The bill is a discussion draft that was released
and circulated in mid-December, about a month and a half ago.
The draft is entitled the ``Strengthening Fishing
Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fishery Management
Act.'' It has been released as a draft, rather than as an
introduced bill with text locked in stone to allow for public
discussion, review, and comment. The intent is to seek feedback
and listen to input. I would note that many of the provisions
in the draft also came from or were influenced by legislation
introduced in the past Congress by Congressmen Wittman,
Pallone, Runyan, Jones, and our former colleague from
Massachusetts, Barney Frank.
In the hearings we have held, there was general agreement
that the Act is working. I have said all along that I believe
the Act is fundamentally sound. And success does not mean the
Act works perfectly, or should not be modified or improved. We
have heard at almost every hearing that the balance between
preventing overfishing and optimizing the yield from our
fisheries has become unbalanced, and that additional
flexibility for fisheries managers should be added.
The revisions in the discussion draft uphold the
underpinnings of the Act. But let me be clear about what this
discussion draft does not do. It does not eliminate the
requirements that Councils and the Secretary stop overfishing.
It does not eliminate the requirement that Councils and the
Secretary rebuild overfished fisheries. It does not eliminate
the requirement that Councils and the Secretary develop and
implement annual catch limits. It does not eliminate the
requirement for accountability measures. It does not eliminate
the requirement that management decisions should be based on
science.
This draft addresses the requests of fishermen, fishing
communities, fishery management councils, and the
recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences that the
Act be modified to provide fishery managers with more
flexibility. That is the key word in this discussion draft:
flexibility.
The draft provides the Councils with more flexibility in
how they rebuild fisheries, and it provides Councils with
flexibility in how the Councils set the annual catch limits.
But it does not eliminate these requirements. This discussion
draft maintains that requirement to stop overfishing, a
requirement to rebuild overfished fisheries, and the
requirement to set annual catch limits. But it provides more
flexibility for better local decisions to achieve these goals.
The testimony throughout these last 3 years--or, I should
say, in testimony through the last 3 years, we have heard that
the 2006/2007 amendments, while well intentioned, may have gone
too far in restricting the ability of fishery managers, and the
Councils, in particular, from making management decisions that
include a calculation of the economic impact on coastal and
fishery-dependent communities.
I have noticed that some people oppose providing more
flexibility to allow fishery managers to take the economic
impact of fishing restrictions and environmental conditions
into account when implementing these restrictions. That may be
because those people are not directly affected by the sometimes
draconian economic impacts. But the fishermen who are directly
impacted have requested flexibility. The fishery managers who
have to implement the restrictions have requested flexibility,
and the National Academy of Sciences has recommended
flexibility.
So, I would further invite comments on the discussion draft
with the understanding that the intent is to move forward on
this legislation with the goal of reauthorizing the Act by the
end of the year.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hastings follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Doc Hastings, Chairman, Committee on Natural
Resources
I would like to welcome our witnesses for today's hearing on the
discussion draft for the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
Since 2011, eight full committee or subcommittee hearings related
to the reauthorization and Federal fisheries management have been held.
This hearing will be the ninth.
In addition to our hearings, the eight regional fishery management
councils held a national conference specifically on reauthorization
issues. Each of the eight Councils submitted recommendations to that
conference and the result of the conference was yet another set of
recommendations. The National Academy of Sciences also released a
report detailing additional recommendations on the rebuilding
provisions of the Act.
With all of that activity focused on the reauthorization, it
certainly should not be a surprise that all of those recommendations
were reviewed, and then many were assembled into a bill. That bill is
the discussion draft that was released and circulated in mid-December.
It is titled H.R. 4742--The ``Strengthening Fishing Communities and
Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act''.
It has been released as a draft rather than as an introduced bill
with text locked in stone to allow for public discussion, review and
comment. The intent is to seek feedback and listen to input. I would
note that many of the provisions in the draft also came from or were
influenced by legislation introduced in the last Congress by
Congressmen Wittman, Pallone, Runyan, Jones, and our former colleague,
Barney Frank.
In the hearings we've held, there was general agreement that the
Act is working. I have said all along that I believe the Act is
fundamentally sound. But success does not mean the Act works perfectly
or should not be modified or improved. We have heard at almost every
hearing that the balance between preventing overfishing and optimizing
the yield from our fisheries has become unbalanced and that additional
flexibility for fisheries managers should be added.
The revisions in the discussion draft uphold the underpinnings of
the Act. Let me be clear about what this discussion draft does not do--
it does not eliminate the requirements that Councils and the Secretary
stop overfishing. It does not eliminate the requirement that Councils
and the Secretary rebuild overfished fisheries. It does not eliminate
the requirement that Councils and the Secretary develop and implement
annual catch limits. It does not eliminate the requirement for
accountability measures. It does not eliminate the requirement that
management decisions be based on science. This draft addresses the
requests of fishermen, fishing communities, fishery management
Councils, and the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences
that the Act be modified to provide fishery managers with more
flexibility. That is the key word: flexibility.
The draft provides the Councils with more flexibility in how they
rebuild fisheries, and it provides Councils with flexibility in how the
Councils set the annual catch limits. But it does not eliminate those
requirements. This discussion draft maintains the requirement to stop
overfishing, the requirement to rebuild overfished fisheries, and the
requirement to set annual catch limits--but it provides more
flexibility for better, local decisions to achieve these goals.
In testimony through the last 3 years, we have heard that the 2006/
2007 amendments, while well intentioned, may have gone too far in
restricting the ability of fishery managers, and the Councils in
particular, from making management decisions that include a calculation
of the economic impact on coastal and fishery dependent communities.
I have noticed that some people oppose providing more flexibility
to allow fishery managers to take the economic impact of fishing
restrictions and environmental conditions into account when
implementing those restrictions. That may be because those people are
not directly affected by the sometimes draconian economic impacts. But
the fishermen who are directly impacted have requested flexibility. The
fishery managers who have to implement the restrictions have requested
flexibility. And the National Academy of Sciences has recommended
flexibility.
I invite further comments on the discussion draft with the
understanding that the intent is move forward on legislation with the
goal of reauthorizing the Act by the end of this year.
I look forward to today's testimony.
______
The Chairman. So, I look forward to the witnesses'
testimony, and I recognize the Ranking Member.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. PETER A. DeFAZIO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
welcome a Member from Massachusetts, Mr. Tierney, here today,
who along with many other Members has a very direct interest in
this.
I have a bicoastal concern and knowledge of this industry.
Actually, my dad ran a camp for inner-city kids on Cape Cod in
the summertime growing up. He was a teacher. And one of our
neighbors was a fisherman. And I have been to the Georges Banks
on a small boat, and I kind of understand what that kind of
life is all about. I also--I have been in Oregon now for a very
long time, and I represent half the Oregon coast. And we have
very robust fisheries there.
And, it is an ongoing work in progress to balance the
conservation needs with the economic needs. And I think the
Pacific Council has been doing a pretty good job, but they can
do better in a number of areas.
I heard a lot of ``nots'' from the Chairman, and I guess
that--well, let me back up for a minute. When we held the
hearings in the fall, I thought that this would be an issue on
which we could work on a bipartisan basis, with the current
concerns that were raised. None of the witnesses said, ``Let's
do away with the Magnuson Act and its requirements.'' And I
just heard the Chairman give a long litany of what we are not
doing. But, unfortunately, I read the legislation a little
differently with a number of exceptions that are provided. And,
in the end, even after you go through the whole list of
exceptions on which you can delay rebuilding of a stock, you--
the Councils, at least in my interpretation, under this bill
are given total license to ignore any and all quantitative
science that is provided to them about stocks, and just decide
that a stock is not overfished. It is kind of like the biblical
passage, making fish that fill previously empty nets. It was a
miracle in those days, and we are going to try to do it
legislatively.
As Gerry Studds said many years ago, ``Without fish, there
is no fishing industry.'' So, there is a balance here that has
to constantly be struck between devastating the communities
dependent upon these fisheries and people whose livelihood is
at stake, and the future of those stocks for those fishermen
and women.
So, I have a lot of concerns about many of the provisions
of this draft. And there are a number of things it doesn't look
at, which are real problems, too. Cooperative research and
management, I think that is a big problem, we need more of
that. Pirate fishing, no new provisions there. Refinancing, at
least from a parochial perspective, the West Coast ground
fishery buyout, which has been set up in a very inequitable and
unaffordable way, we don't deal with that. Conflicts with ocean
energy development, putting prime fishing areas at risk or off
limits, nothing in the bill about that, and I think that is a
big, 21st-century problem for our fishermen, in dealing with
BOEM.
And then, there is a particularly troubling issue that
relates to giving the Councils the authority to OK, without any
environmental review, large-scale, offshore fish farms full of
GMO fish, which I think are an unbelievable threat to the
future of, particularly, salmon. I mean we have these new,
enhanced salmon, and they say--they have said to me, ``Don't
worry,'' you know, ``most of them are sterile, and they won't
get out, anyway.'' Well, let's think about a floating net pen
fishery full of GMO salmon off the West Coast, and what
potential havoc that could wreak with the recovery of salmon on
which my people are paying $400 million or more a year to
operate our hydro system differently to help recover salmon, in
addition to a whole host of other measures. We are putting
those things at risk with some of these thoughtless provisions
in this bill, to basically just give the Councils total license
to do whatever they want. That is the bottom line with this
bill.
If all those ``nots'' that the Chairman talked about are
sincere, then we need to make a lot of revisions to this bill
to deliver on the promise that it is not doing those things.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. DeFazio follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, Ranking Member, Committee
on Natural Resources
It is unfortunate that we find ourselves here today debating
legislation that the Democratic side of the aisle had no part in
developing. Despite our offers to work cooperatively on issues of
concern to our fishermen--issues like cooperative research and
management, curtailing pirate fishing, and refinancing the west coast
groundfish fishery's buyout--the legislation we are discussing here
today addresses none of those concerns.
Instead, we are considering legislation that would undo 20 years of
fisheries reforms fought for by members like Gerry Studds from
Massachusetts and Ted Stevens from Alaska. No fisheries dilettantes,
these Members represented and worked closely with the fishing industry
throughout their decades in Congress. They knew the challenges fishing
communities faced, and they knew the economic importance of fishing to
their districts and their constituents--in fact, this is what drove
them to push for the passage of the Magnuson Act in 1976. Yet, they
also knew, as Studds would often say, ``that without fish, there is no
fishing industry.''
They watched in the late 1980s and early 1990s--in the heyday
following the passage of the Act--as a rapidly growing industry
harvested many fish stocks around the country at rates far beyond what
was scientifically advisable or economically sustainable. They saw
short-term political and economic pressures drive Councils to allow
overfishing and ignore rebuilding. In New England, they saw ground fish
stocks collapse, costing the industry hundreds of millions of dollars a
year in lost revenue.
By 1995, it was clear things had to change. As Senator Stevens said
in 1996, ``If the fisheries management councils have allowed a fishery
to become overfished, we want it to be stopped immediately.''
Sadly, this bill undermines fundamental reforms added to the law in
1996 and 2006, most notably the requirements for Councils to end
overfishing immediately, rebuild overfished stocks within 10 years, and
set science-based annual catch limits.
Under the guise of flexibility, the bill would transport us back in
time, allowing the Councils to once again to set catch limits based on
economic and social considerations, and eliminating timelines for
returning stocks to healthy levels that will sustain fishing
communities.
Even more remarkable, this bill says if a Council decides a fishery
is not overfished, then--poof--it is not and the rebuilding
requirements of the law no longer apply. Making fish fill previously
empty nets used to be the stuff of miracles--now apparently anyone can
do it. This make-believe does not just apply to fish. A water bill we
will debate on the House Floor tomorrow takes a similar approach,
ignoring the fact that California is in the middle of the worst drought
it has ever seen.
And as they have done with drought, Committee Republicans are using
a serious situation as an opportunity to push other polarizing
provisions. In the case of the bill before us today, that means rolling
back environmental laws like NEPA, the ESA, and the Antiquities Act.
We cannot just pretend there is more water or more fish, or
conveniently blame the law for shortages. We have to make hard choices
about conservation that, in the case of fish, will lead to more stable
and profitable fisheries and stronger fishing communities. As Sam Rauch
will tell us here again today, the Act is working. Overfishing is at an
all-time low, and fisheries landings and revenue are at or near all-
time highs. Now is not the time to forgo the progress we have made.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I think it is regretful we are going down
this path and missing some of the real challenges facing the fishing
industry today. And because we do not think this hearing provides
sufficient opportunity for a wide range of voices to be heard, I am
submitting my request under Rule 11 that another hearing be held where
the minority can invite additional witnesses to discuss these very
important issues.
______
The Chairman. I thank the Ranking Member. And I apologize
for Mr. Tierney, I didn't see you there. So I ask unanimous
consent that Mr.----
Mr. DeFazio. I forgot, Mr. Chairman----
The Chairman. Well, see, that is my one way of getting back
at you, by me making the unanimous consent request.
[Laughter.]
Mr. DeFazio. Doc, come on, please. I am--oh, I have another
one, though, OK? Can I ask this one?
The Chairman. Yes, go ahead.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. I ask unanimous consent that the
previously mentioned Mr. Tierney be allowed to sit on the dais
for today's hearing.
[No response.]
The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. And then, Mr. Chairman, I--the Minority
can invite additional witnesses to discuss a number of
provisions in the bill.
The Chairman. The request is noted.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I am pleased to welcome our first panel here.
We have Mr. Samuel Rauch III, who is Deputy Assistant
Administrator of the National Marine Fisheries Service, part of
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA.
And we have Mr. Richard B. Robins, Jr., Chair of the Mid-
Atlantic Fishery Management Council.
I want to thank both of you for appearing today. Just to
give you the rules here, if you have not had the opportunity to
testify before, your full statement that we ask of you will
appear in the record. But we would ask that you keep your oral
remarks to within the 5 minutes.
And the way the lights work, when the green light is going
you are doing very well. But when the yellow light comes on,
that means there is a minute to go. And when the red light
comes on, that means your time is absolutely exhausted. So with
that, if you can keep your remarks within that timeframe, we
would appreciate that.
And, Mr. Rauch, we will recognize you for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF SAMUEL D. RAUCH III, DEPUTY ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, NATIONAL
OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Rauch. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
DeFazio, and members of the committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Samuel
Rauch, and I am the Deputy Assistant Administrator for
regulatory programs at NOAA's National Marine Fisheries
Service.
Marine fish in fisheries, such as halibut in Alaska, salmon
in the Pacific Northwest, tropical tunas in the Western and
Central Pacific, cod in New England, and red snapper in the
Gulf of Mexico, are vital to the prosperity and cultural
identity of coastal communities in the United States.
They also play an enormous role in the U.S. economy. Our
most recent economic statistics show that U.S. commercial
fishermen landed 9.6 billion pounds of seafood, valued at $5.1
billion, in 2012, the second-highest landing volume and value
over the past decade. The seafood industry generated an
estimated $129 billion in sales impacts, and 37 billion in
income impacts, and supported 1.2 billion jobs in 2011.
Recreational fishing generated an estimated $56 billion in
sales impacts, and 18 billion in economic impacts, and
supported 364,000 jobs in 2011.
The success we are seeing is a product of the hard work and
ingenuity by the industry, and a sound Federal fishery
management system that is effectively rebuilding fisheries.
Since its initial passage in 1976, the Magnuson-Stevens Act
has charted a groundbreaking course for sustainable fisheries.
Today, the law requires rebuilding plans for overfished stocks
and annual catch limits and accountability measures to prevent
overfishing. Ending overfishing and rebuilding depleted
fisheries brings significant biological, economic, and social
benefit. The Federal Fishery Management System is effectively
ending overfishing and rebuilding overfished fisheries. And, as
a result, U.S. fisheries are producing sustainable U.S.
seafood.
Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, if a stock is determined to
be overfished, the Council has 2 years to develop a rebuilding
plan. By statute, the period to rebuild a stock may not exceed
10 years, but it permits a longer time period in cases where
the biology of the fish stocks and international agreement or
other environmental conditions dictate otherwise. Of the 43
active rebuilding plans with a target time to rebuild, 23 of
them are set longer than 10 years right now.
For example, the Pacific yelloweye rockfish has a
rebuilding time of 71 years, and red snapper in the Gulf of
Mexico is 32 years. The remaining 20 rebuilding plans are set
for 10 years or less. Flexibility also exists under the Act to
adjust rebuilding plans when a stock is failing to make
adequate progress, or when new scientific information indicates
changing conditions.
To successfully rebuild, we must first end overfishing.
Annual catch limits, or ACLs, are a powerful tool to accomplish
this. Prior to the implementation of ACLs, a number of
rebuilding plans experienced difficulty in ending overfishing.
Nine of the 20 stocks currently in rebuilding had failed to end
overfishing as of their last stock assessment. However, ACLs
are now in place, and we anticipate the next stock assessment
for these species to confirm that overfishing has ended. With
the implementation of ACLs and accountability measures, we
expect the number of stocks on our overfishing list to continue
to decrease, and to see further declines in the number of
overfished stocks, and see increases in the number of rebuilt
stocks.
Challenges still remain, however. Fishermen, fishing
communities, and the Councils have had to make difficult
decisions to absorb the near-term cost of conservation and
investment in long-term economic and biological sustainability.
Without high-quality fishery science, we cannot be
confident the Nation is attaining optimum yield from its
fisheries, or that we are preventing overfishing and harm to
the ecosystems of fishing communities. That is why NMFS is
committed to generating the best fishery science and research
to support the goals of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The
importance of increasing the frequency of stock assessments,
improving the quality of fisheries science with a better
understanding of ecosystem factors, investing in cooperative
research and electronic monitoring technology, and enhancing
our engagement with fishermen cannot be stressed enough.
Partnerships with industry and academia are a key component of
successful fisheries management.
We all share the common goal of healthy fisheries that can
be sustained for generations. Without clear, science-based
rules, fair enforcement, and a shared commitment to sustainable
management, short-term pressures can easily undermine progress
toward restoring the social, economic, and environmental
benefits of a healthy fishery. As we look to the future, we
must look for opportunities to build on the successes we are
seeing now. We need to approach the challenges we are facing in
our fisheries in a holistic, deliberative, and thoughtful way
that includes input from a wide range of stakeholders who care
deeply about these issues.
While NOAA has not yet completed its review of the draft
bill, we look forward to continuing to work with you on this
complex and important issue.
Thank you again for inviting me to testify before the
committee today, and I am happy to answer any questions you may
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rauch follows:]
Prepared Statement of Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant
Administrator for the National Marine Fisheries Service, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
introduction
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Thank you
for the opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Samuel D.
Rauch and I am the Deputy Assistant Administrator for the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) in the Department of Commerce. NMFS is
dedicated to the stewardship of living marine resources through
science-based conservation and management. Much of this work occurs
under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act), which sets forth standards for conservation,
management, and sustainable use of our Nation's fisheries resources.
Marine fish and fisheries--such as tropical tunas in the Western
and Central Pacific, salmon in the Pacific Northwest, halibut in
Alaska, cod in New England and red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico--are
vital to the prosperity and cultural identity of coastal communities in
the United States. U.S. fisheries play an enormous role in the U.S.
economy. Commercial fishing supports fishermen, contributes to coastal
communities and businesses, and provides Americans with a valuable
source of local, sustainable, and healthy food. Non-commercial and
recreational fishing provides food for many individuals, families, and
communities; is an important social activity; and is a critical
economic driver of local and regional economies, as well as a major
contributor to the national economy. Subsistence and ceremonial fishing
provides an essential food source and has deep cultural significance
for indigenous peoples in the Pacific Islands and Alaska and for many
Tribes on the West Coast.
Our most recent estimates show that the landed volume and the value
of commercial U.S. wild-caught fisheries remained near the high levels
posted in 2011. U.S. commercial fishermen landed 9.6 billion pounds of
seafood valued at $5.1 billion in 2012, the second highest landings
volume and value over the past decade.\1\ The seafood industry--
harvesters, seafood processors and dealers, seafood wholesalers and
seafood retailers, including imports and multiplier effects--generated
an estimated $129 billion in sales impacts and $37 billion in income
impacts, and supported 1.2 million jobs in 2011. Jobs supported by
commercial businesses held steady from the previous year.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See NOAA Annual Commercial Fisheries Landings Database,
available at http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/
commercial-landings/annual-landings/index.
\2\ See Fisheries Economics of the U.S. 2011. NMFS Office of
Science & Technology, available at: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/
economics/publications/feus/fisheries_economics_2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the same time, recreational catch remained stable. Recreational
fishing generated an estimated $56 billion in sales impacts and $18
billion in income impacts, and supported 364,000 jobs in 2011.\3\ Jobs
generated by the recreational fishing industry represented a 12 percent
increase over 2010.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Lovell, Sabrina, Scott Steinback, and James Hilger. 2013. The
Economic Contribution of Marine Angler Expenditures in the United
States, 2011. U.S. Dep. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-134, 188
p.
\4\ See Fisheries Economics of the U.S. 2011. NMFS Office of
Science & Technology, available at: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/
economics/publications/feus/fisheries_economics_2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The advancement of our science and management tools has resulted in
improved sustainability of fisheries and greater stability for
industry. Key requirements in the 2007 reauthorization mandated the use
of science-based annual catch limits and accountability measures to
better prevent and end overfishing. The reauthorization provided more
explicitly for market-based fishery management through Limited Access
Privilege Programs, and addressed the need to improve the science used
to inform fisheries management.
The United States has many effective tools to apply in marine
fisheries management. Yet, as we look to the future, we must continue
looking for opportunities to further improve our management system.
While significant progress has been made since the 2007
reauthorization, progress has not come without a cost to some.
Challenges remain. Fishermen, fishing communities, and the Councils
have had to make difficult decisions and absorb the near-term cost of
conservation and investment in long-term economic and biological
sustainability.
We all share the common goal of healthy fisheries that can be
sustained for generations. Without clear, science-based rules, fair
enforcement, and a shared commitment to sustainable management, short-
term pressures can easily undermine progress toward restoring the
social, economic, and environmental benefits of a healthy fishery.
Although challenges remain in some fisheries, the benefits for the
resource, the industries it supports, and the economy are beginning to
be seen as fish populations grow and catch limits increase.
My testimony today will focus on NMFS' progress in implementing the
Magnuson-Stevens Act's key domestic provisions, and some thoughts about
the future and the next reauthorization. NOAA has not yet completed
review of the draft bill but looks forward to working with Congress on
this complex issue.
progress in implementation
Working together, NMFS, the Councils, coastal States and
territories, treaty fishing tribes, and a wide range of industry groups
and other stakeholders have made significant progress in implementing
key provisions of this legislation.
Ending Overfishing and Rebuilding Fisheries
U.S. fisheries are producing sustainable U.S. seafood. The Federal
fishery management system is effectively ending overfishing and
rebuilding overfished fisheries. We continue to make progress toward
long-term biological and economic sustainability and stability. Since
its initial passage in 1976, the Magnuson-Stevens Act has charted a
groundbreaking course for sustainable fisheries. When reauthorized in
2007, the Act gave the eight Regional Fishery Management Councils and
NMFS a very clear charge and some new tools to support improved science
and management. We are now seeing the results of those tools. As of
December 31, 2013, 91 percent of stocks for which we have assessments
are not subject to overfishing, and 82 percent are not overfished--both
all-time highs. The number of stocks subject to overfishing was highest
in 2000, when 48 stocks were on the overfishing list. In 2002, 55
stocks were overfished. Nationally, we have rebuilt 34 stocks since
2000.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ These statistics were compiled from the quarterly stock status
reports at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/SOSmain.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We expect the number of stocks on the overfishing list to continue
to decrease as a result of management under annual catch limits. Ending
overfishing allows stocks to increase in abundance, so we expect to see
further declines in the number of overfished stocks and increases in
the number of rebuilt stocks.
Flexibility is inherent in the Magnuson-Stevens Act's rebuilding
requirements. The Act requires that the period to rebuild a stock not
exceed 10 years, but it permits a longer time period in certain cases
where the biology of the fish stock, management measures under an
international agreement in which the United States participates, or
other environmental conditions dictate otherwise, although this period
still must be as short as possible. Current rebuilding time periods for
stocks with active rebuilding plans range from 4 years to more than 100
years. Of the 43 active rebuilding plans with a target time to rebuild,
23 of them (53 percent) are set longer than 10 years due to the biology
of the stock (slow reproducing, long lived species) or environmental
conditions. For example, Pacific yelloweye rockfish has a rebuilding
timeline of 71 years. The remaining 20 rebuilding plans are set for 10
years or less. Of the 33 stocks rebuilt since 2000, 18 stocks were
rebuilt within 10 years. Two additional stocks in 10-year plans were
rebuilt within 12 years.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides flexibility to adjust rebuilding
plans when a stock is failing to make adequate progress toward
rebuilding. In these situations, the Councils can amend the rebuilding
plan with revised conservation and management measures. The Act
requires that the revised plan be implemented within 2 years and that
it end overfishing (if overfishing is occurring) immediately upon
implementation.
Rebuilding plans are also adaptable when new scientific information
indicates changing conditions. For example, the target time to rebuild
Pacific ocean perch off the Pacific Coast was recently lengthened based
on information within a new stock assessment. The assessment, conducted
in 2011, revised our understanding of the Pacific ocean perch stock
status and productivity and showed that, even in the absence of
fishing, the time it would take to rebuild the stock would be longer
than the previously established target time to rebuild. Given this
information, NMFS worked with the Pacific Fishery Management Council in
2012 to modify the rebuilding plan and extend the target time for stock
rebuilding from 2017 to 2020.
Rebuilding timelines can also be shortened based on new
information. As one example, the original rebuilding plan for cowcod, a
Pacific Coast groundfish, was 95 years. The rebuilding time has been
modified based on updated scientific information, and is currently 67
years.
Rebuilding fisheries brings significant biological, economic, and
social benefits, but doing so takes time, persistence, sacrifice, and
adherence to scientific information. Of 26 rebuilt stocks for which
information is available, half of them now produce at least 50 percent
more revenue than they did when they were overfished. Seven stocks have
current revenue levels that are more than 100 percent higher than the
lowest revenue point when the stock was overfished.
Atlantic sea scallops provide one example of rebuilding success. In
the early 1990s, the abundance of Atlantic sea scallops was near record
lows and the fishing mortality rate was at a record high. Fishery
managers implemented a number of measures to allow the stock to
recover, including an innovative area management system. The stock was
declared rebuilt in 2001. In real terms, revenues increased sixfold as
the fishery rebuilt, from $44 million in 1998 to $389 million in 2012,
making New Bedford the Nation's top port by value of landings since
2000.
Another example of rebuilding success can be seen with Bering Sea
snow crab. In 1999, scientists found that Bering Sea snow crab was
overfished. In response, managers reduced harvests to a level that
would allow the stock to rebuild, and the stock was declared rebuilt in
2011. In the 2011-2012 fishing year, managers were able to increase the
harvest limit by 56 percent to nearly 66 million pounds. By 2012,
revenue from the fishery had increased to almost 400 percent of the
2006 revenue (the low point during the rebuilding period).
Benefits of Annual Catch Limits
One of the most significant management provisions of the 2007
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act was the mandate to
implement annual catch limits, including measures to ensure
accountability and to end and prevent overfishing in federally managed
fisheries by 2011 (an annual catch limit is an amount of fish that can
be caught in a year such that overfishing does not occur;
accountability measures are management controls to prevent annual catch
limits from being exceeded, and to correct or mitigate overages of the
limits if they occur). This is an important move away from a management
system that could only be corrected by going back through the full
Council process in order to amend Fishery Management Plans--often
taking years to accomplish, all while overfishing continued.
Now, when developing a fishery management plan or amendment, the
Councils must consider, in advance, the actions that will occur if a
fishery does not meet its performance objectives. As of December 31,
2013, overfishing had ended for 71 percent of the 38 domestic U.S.
stocks that were subject to overfishing in 2007 when the Magnuson-
Stevens Act was reauthorized.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Fish Stock Sustainability Index. This report was the source
for the underlying data, but the numbers presented here were compiled
specifically for this hearing. The report is available at: http://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/2012/fourth/
Q4%202012%20FSSI%20Summary%20Changes.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ending overfishing is the first step in rebuilding. Prior to the
implementation of annual catch limits, a number of rebuilding plans
experienced difficulty in ending overfishing and achieving the fishing
mortality rate called for in the plan. As a result, rebuilding was
delayed. Conversely, stocks where overfishing has ended quickly have
seen their stock size increase and rebuild more quickly. For example,
Widow rockfish in the Pacific was declared overfished in 2001. Fishing
mortality on Widow rockfish was immediately substantially reduced
resulting in a corresponding increase in stock size. The stock was
declared rebuilt in 2011, ahead of the rebuilding deadline.
Most major reductions in allowable catch experienced by fishermen
when stocks enter rebuilding plans are predominantly from the
requirement to prevent overfishing--which is now required through
annual catch limits for all stocks, not just those determined to be
overfished. When unsustainably large catches have occurred due to high
levels of overfishing on a depleted stock, large reductions in catch
will be needed to end overfishing, and the stock must rebuild in
abundance before catches will increase.
Because ending overfishing is essential to rebuilding, annual catch
limits are a powerful tool to address prior problems in achieving
rebuilding. Nine of the 20 stocks currently in 10-year (or less)
rebuilding plans had failed to end overfishing as of their last stock
assessment. Annual catch limits, which are now in place as a mechanism
to control catch to the level specified in the rebuilding plan, are
working and we anticipate the next stock assessments for these species
to confirm that overfishing has ended. With that result, we will begin
to see stronger rebuilding for these stocks. In addition, preliminary
data show that annual catch limits have been effective in limiting
catch and preventing overfishing for the majority of stocks. Fisheries
have successfully stayed within their annual catch limit for over 90
percent of the stocks for which we have catch data.
Ensuring Transparency and Stakeholder Engagement
The Magnuson-Stevens Act created broad goals for U.S. fisheries
management and a unique, highly participatory management structure
centered on the Councils. This structure ensures that input and
decisions about how to manage U.S. fisheries develop through a ``bottom
up'' process that includes fishermen, other fishery stakeholders,
affected States, tribal governments, and the Federal Government. By
working together with the Councils, States, tribes, and fishermen--
under the standards set in the Magnuson-Stevens Act--we have made great
strides in ending overfishing, rebuilding stocks, and building a
sustainable future for our fishing-dependent communities.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act guides fisheries conservation and
management through 10 National Standards. These standards, which have
their roots in the original 1976 Act, provide a yardstick against which
all fishery management plans and actions developed by the Councils are
measured. National Standard 1 requires that conservation and management
measures prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis,
the optimum yield from each fishery, which is the average amount of
harvest that will provide the greatest overall ecological, economic,
and social benefits to the Nation, particularly by providing seafood
and recreational opportunities while affording protection to marine
ecosystems.
The Councils can choose from a variety of approaches and tools to
manage fish stocks to meet this mandate--e.g., catch shares, area
closures, and gear restrictions--and, when necessary, also determine
how to allocate fish among user groups. These measures are submitted to
the U.S. Secretary of Commerce for approval and are implemented by
NMFS. Thus, the Councils, in developing their plans, must carefully
balance the need for stable fishing jobs, ecological conservation, and
societal interests to create holistically sustainable fisheries. A key
aspect of this effort is to ensure that overfishing is prevented, and
if it occurs, to end it quickly and rebuild any stock that becomes
overfished. Other National Standards mandate that conservation and
management measures be based upon the best scientific information
available, not discriminate between residents of different States, take
into account variations in fisheries and catches, minimize bycatch, and
promote the safety of human life at sea.
Effects on fishing communities are central to many Council
decisions. Fishing communities rely on fishing-related jobs, as well as
the non-commercial and cultural benefits derived from these resources.
Marine fisheries are the lifeblood of many coastal communities in the
Pacific Islands and West Coast regions and around our Nation.
Communities, fishermen, and fishing industries rely not only on today's
catch, but also on the predictability of future catches. The need to
provide stable domestic fishing and processing jobs is paramount to
fulfilling one of the Magnuson-Stevens Act's goals--to provide the
Nation with sources of domestic seafood. This objective has even
greater purpose now than when the Act was passed, as today U.S.
consumers are seeking--more than ever--options for healthy, safe,
sustainable, and local seafood. Under the standards set in the
Magnuson-Stevens Act--and together with the Councils, States, tribes,
territories, and fishermen--we have made great strides in maintaining
more stocks at biologically sustainable levels, ending overfishing,
rebuilding overfished stocks, building a sustainable future for our
fishing-dependent communities, and providing more domestic options for
U.S. seafood consumers in a market dominated by imports. Thanks in
large part to the strengthened Magnuson-Stevens Act and the sacrifices
and investment in conservation by fishing communities across the
country, the condition of many of our most economically important fish
stocks has improved steadily over the past decade.
Limited Access Privilege Programs (LAPPs)
The Magnuson-Stevens Act authorizes the use of LAPPs, which
dedicate a secure share of fish to fishermen for their exclusive use
via a Federal permit. NMFS has implemented LAPPs in multiple fisheries
nationwide and additional programs are under development.
While limited access privilege programs are just one of many
management options the Councils can consider, they have proven to be
effective in meeting a number of management objectives when they have
broad stakeholder support. Both in the United States and abroad, such
programs are helping to achieve annual catch limits, reduce the cost of
producing seafood, extend fishing seasons, increase revenues, and
improve fishermen's safety.
For example, NMFS has three LAPPs in the Southeast Region,
including a South Atlantic commercial wreckfish individual transferable
quota program implemented in 1992, a Gulf of Mexico commercial red
snapper individual fishing quota program implemented in 2007, and a
Gulf of Mexico commercial grouper and tilefish individual fishing quota
program implemented in 2010. While the grouper and tilefish program is
too young to fully evaluate, recent reviews of the wreckfish and red
snapper programs demonstrate they are working as intended. The
wreckfish program eliminated excess fleet capacity and the race to
catch fish and reduced gear and fishing area conflicts. The red snapper
program is better aligning the capacity of the fleet with the
commercial catch limit, mitigating short fishing seasons, improving
safety at sea and increasing the profitability of the fishery.
Individual fishing quota participants are targeting red snapper year
round, compared to an average of 121-day seasons prior to
implementation of the LAPP. And the average ex-vessel price of red
snapper in 2012 was 27 percent greater than the average inflation
adjusted ex-vessel price in 2007.
In the West Coast Region, the groundfish trawl catch share program
has been remarkably successful in its first 2 years of implementation.
Results from 2012 indicate a substantial reduction in bycatch, with
fishermen catching more of their targeted species and fewer species
that should be avoided. Because fishermen have more flexibility under a
catch share program, they can be more selective in the areas they
target. To catch fish in better condition and sell them at a higher
price, fishermen are shifting their tactics. For example, trawl
fishermen increased their use of fixed gear (i.e., fixed pots that rest
on the sea floor or baited hooks on miles-long lines) the first 2 years
of the program. Additionally, in 2012, 58 percent of sablefish revenue
in the catch shares program was from fixed gear, up from 48 percent in
2011. The number of quota transfers in 2012--a good indicator of how
fishermen are fine-tuning their quota holdings to better reflect their
fishing plans--was double that of 2011. The total pounds of such
vessel-to-vessel transfers in 2012 was 25 percent above 2011 and
suggests that participants are planning earlier and becoming more
comfortable with the individual fishing quota management system. This
strong partnership will carry the West Coast Groundfish Catch Shares
Program toward the common goal of healthy, sustainable fisheries and
fishing communities. NMFS is hopeful that the increased planning and
knowledge about the fishery will lead to the continued success of the
program.
Improvements to Science and Recreational Fishing Data
Without high-quality fishery science, we cannot be confident the
Nation is attaining optimum yield from its fisheries, or that we're
preventing overfishing and harm to ecosystems and fishing communities.
Attaining optimum yield requires investing in information about fish
stocks, marine habitats, and ecosystems and the individuals and groups
that rely upon fishing. NMFS is committed to generating the best
fishery science--biological, ecological, and socioeconomic--to support
the goals of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. To achieve the goals of the Act,
we are conducting the research and analyses necessary to understand the
environmental and habitat factors affecting the sustainability of fish
populations. We must continue to increase what we know about our fish
stocks in order to reduce uncertainty and avoid potentially reduced
annual catch limits, resulting in lost economic opportunities.
The importance of increasing the frequency of stock assessments,
improving the quality of fisheries science with a better understanding
of ecosystem factors, investing in cooperative research and electronic
monitoring technology, and enhancing our engagement with fishermen
cannot be stressed enough. Partnerships with industry and academia are
a key component of successful fisheries management. Cooperative
research provides a means for commercial and recreational fishermen to
become involved in the science and data collection needed to improve
assessments, and develop and support successful fishery management
measures.
With regard to electronic monitoring, the agency recently
implemented a national policy to encourage the consideration of
electronic technologies to complement and/or improve existing fishery-
dependent data collection programs to achieve the most cost-effective
and sustainable approach that ensures alignment of management goals,
data needs, funding sources and regulations. In consultation with the
Councils and subject matter experts, we will assemble guidance and best
practices for use by Regional Offices, Councils and stakeholders when
they consider electronic technology options. Implementation of
electronic technologies in a fishery-dependent data collection program
is subject to the Magnuson-Stevens Act and Council regulatory process
and other relevant State and Federal regulations.
In the Southeast, the SouthEast Data, Assessment, and Review
(SEDAR) is a cooperative process initiated in 2002 to improve the
quality and reliability of Southeast Region stock assessments, and to
increase stakeholder participation in the process. SEDAR is managed by
the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic Fishery Management
Councils in coordination with NMFS and the Atlantic and Gulf States
Marine Fisheries Commissions. SEDAR emphasizes stakeholder
participation in assessment development, transparency in the assessment
process, and a rigorous and independent scientific review of completed
stock assessments. The Territorial Fisheries Science Initiative in the
Pacific Islands and Caribbean is an effort to overcome the lack of data
collection capacity in the U.S. territories that has resulted in a
paucity of scientific information to guide management actions. The
small size of the territory governments with their modest budgets; the
relatively low commercial value of the diverse and small-scale
fisheries; and the limited NMFS presence in the territories have all
contributed to the current shortcomings. This initiative also is
intended to address these shortcomings and improve the quality and
reliability of Pacific Islands Region stock assessments and increase
stakeholder participation in the process.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act required improvements to recreational
fisheries data collected by NMFS for use in management decisions. In
October 2008, NMFS established the Marine Recreational Information
Program (MRIP), a new program to improve recreational fishery data
collection efforts, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act
requirement and the 2006 recommendations of the National Research
Council. MRIP is a national system of coordinated regional data
collection programs designed to address specific needs for improved
recreational fishing information. One major component of this program
is the development of a national registry of anglers which NMFS has
been using in a series of pilot studies to test more efficient mail and
telephone surveys for the collection of data on recreational fishing
activity. Based on the results of these studies, NMFS expects to be
ready to implement new registry-based survey designs in 2015.
MRIP is also developing and implementing numerous other survey
improvements to address the National Research Council's
recommendations, including improvements in estimation methodologies,
shoreside survey design, and for-hire fishery data collections.
Improved fisheries science also relies on data collected by
fisheries observers as well as collaborative research with non-
government partners. Adequate observer coverage also is critical for
improving our bycatch data, and the biological samples collected by
observers are used in stock assessments and life history studies.
National Standard 9 requires fishery management plans to take into
account the impact of the fishery on bycatch, particularly for
protected species. NMFS continues to work with the Councils and through
take reduction teams established under the Marine Mammal Protection Act
to identify measures that can be taken to minimize serious injury and
mortality to sea turtles, corals, dolphins and other marine mammals
throughout the Nation's oceans.
Successes and Challenges
There are many examples of what fishermen, scientists, and managers
can do by working together to bring back a resource that once was in
trouble. In the Pacific Islands Region, NMFS, the Western Pacific
Fishery Management Council, the State of Hawaii, and fishing
communities have ended overfishing of the Hawaiian archipelago's deep-
water bottomfish complex--a culturally significant grouping of seven
species of snapper and grouper. This has enabled NMFS to increase
annual catch limits for these stocks for both commercial and
recreational fishermen and ensure these fish are available year-round.
On the West Coast, NMFS and the Pacific Fishery Management Council,
the fishing industry, recreational anglers, and other partners have
successfully rebuilt a number of once overfished stocks, including coho
salmon, lingcod, Pacific whiting, and widow rockfish. These and other
conservation gains, including implementation of the West Coast
groundfish trawl rationalization program, enabled NMFS to increase
catch limits for abundant West Coast groundfish species that co-occur
with groundfish species in rebuilding plans.
In the Southeast Region, NOAA, the Gulf of Mexico and South
Atlantic Fishery Management Councils, the fishing industries,
recreational anglers and other partners have successfully rebuilt a
number of once overfished stocks, including red grouper and king
mackerel in the Gulf of Mexico, black sea bass in the South Atlantic,
and yellowtail snapper, which is shared by both the Gulf of Mexico and
South Atlantic regions. These and other conservation gains enabled NMFS
to increase catch limits for six stocks or stock complexes and
eliminate or reduce two fixed seasonal closures over the last year. The
additional harvest opportunities attributed to rebuilding the South
Atlantic black sea bass stock alone have increased annual consumer
surplus for recreational anglers, annual ex-vessel revenues for
commercial fishermen and annual profits for for-hire vessels by about
$13 million, $1 million and $350,000, respectively.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ SAFMC (South Atlantic Fishery Management Council). 2013.
Regulatory Amendment 19 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper
Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region. South Atlantic Fishery
Management Council, 4055 Faber Place, Ste 201, North Charleston, SC
29405.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Atlantic sea scallop resource in New England was rebuilt after
fishermen partnered with academic and NOAA scientists to learn more
about scallop abundance and distribution, and then embraced a
rotational management approach focused on long-term sustainability.
Valued at approximately $389 million dollars in 2012, the scallop
fishery has made New Bedford, MA, the top revenue port in the United
States. In fact, many fisheries in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic are a
significant part of the national success story. Of the 32 stocks
rebuilt nationally since 2000, 18, more than half, were rebuilt by
NOAA, the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils, the
fishing industries, recreational anglers, and other partners on the
Atlantic coast. In addition to Atlantic sea scallops, these include
other important stocks such as summer flounder and Atlantic swordfish.
But meeting mandates to prevent and end overfishing and implement
annual catch limits can be very challenging where data is scarce, which
is the case for many of the stocks in the Pacific Islands region and
the Caribbean, particularly those species being fished in the coral
reef ecosystem. The agency has begun the process of reviewing the
National Standard 1 guidelines, which were modified in 2009 to focus on
implementing the requirement for annual catch limits. This was a major
change in how many fisheries were managed, and we want to ensure the
guidance we have in place reflects current thinking on the most
effective way to meet the objectives of National Standard 1, building
on what we and the Councils have learned. A May 2012 Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking was followed by an almost 6-month public comment
period where we asked for input on 11 topics addressed in the
guidelines. We received a significant amount of input, and are in the
process of working through the comments and developing options for
moving forward, be it through additional technical guidelines,
regulatory changes, and/or identifying issues for discussion as part of
a reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
We also face formidable challenges managing recovering stocks to
benefit both commercial and recreational user groups with fundamentally
different goals and objectives. This is perhaps most evident in the
Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery. Rebuilding measures put in place in
2007 are working. That stock is rapidly recovering and now supports the
largest combined commercial and recreational catch quota ever specified
for this stock. Commercial individual fishing quota program
participants directly benefit from stock recovery by receiving
additional pounds of quota that can be fished more efficiently as catch
rates and fish size increase over time. But recreational fishermen who
simply desire the opportunity to fish are seeing that opportunity
progressively restricted as the stock recovers because they are able to
reach their quota in fewer and fewer days. A lasting red snapper
management strategy will require broad agreement, equitable application
and management support at both State and Federal levels.
Currently, all Gulf Coast States have expressed support for moving
to a regional red snapper management strategy which could provide
greater flexibility in tailoring the recreational fishing season, bag
limit and minimum size limit to meet constituent needs. The Gulf
Council is working toward implementing such a regime in the
recreational fishery for the 2015 fishing year. NMFS fully supports
this and any other management option that has broad stakeholder support
and provides the fishery greater stability, while meeting conservation
objectives.
looking to the future
Remaining Challenges
Amid these successes, challenges remain. It is critical that we
maintain progress toward meeting the mandate of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act to end overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks. Annual catch
limits have been an effective tool in improving the sustainability of
fisheries around the Nation, but managing fisheries using annual catch
limits and accountability measures was a major change for some
fisheries, and the initial implementation has identified some areas
where we can improve that process. We will continue to work with the
Councils to achieve the best possible alignment of science and
management for each fishery to attain the goals of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act. We will continue to develop our science and management tools,
improve our stock assessments and monitoring efforts, and create more
effective annual catch limits and accountability measures. In so doing,
we must continue to ensure solid, science-based determinations of stock
status and better linkages to biological, socioeconomic, and ecosystem
conditions.
We value the important partnerships we have formed with the States,
territories, tribes, fishermen, and other interest groups in helping
address these challenges. These partnerships are critical to developing
successful management strategies. Together with our partners, we
continue to explore alternative and innovative approaches that will
produce the best available information to incorporate into management.
It is also increasingly important that we better understand
ecosystem and habitat factors, such as the effects of climate change,
interannual and interdecadal climate shifts, ocean acidification, and
other environmental regime shifts and natural disasters, and
incorporate this information into our stock assessments and management
decisions. Resilient ecosystems and habitat form the foundation for
robust fisheries and fishing jobs. The Magnuson-Stevens Act currently
provides flexibility for bringing ecosystem considerations into
fisheries management. This flexibility in the Magnuson-Stevens Act is
one of the Act's strengths, allowing us to meet our responsibilities
under the Act in concert with related legislation, such as the Marine
Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act, to reduce bycatch
of protected species to mandated levels. The alignment of measures to
conserve habitat and protected species with measures to end overfishing
and rebuild and manage fish stocks will be a key component of NOAA's
success in implementing ecosystem-based fisheries management.
NOAA supports the collaborative and transparent process embodied in
the Councils, as authorized in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and strongly
believes that all viable management tools should continue to be
available as options for the Councils to consider when developing
management programs.
The Next Reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act
With some of the largest and most successful fisheries in the
world, the United States has become a global model of responsible
fisheries management. This success is due to strong partnerships among
the commercial and recreational fishing, conservation, and science and
management communities. Continued collaboration is necessary to address
the ongoing challenges of maintaining productive and sustainable
fisheries.
The Managing Our Nation's Fisheries 3 conference--co-sponsored by
the eight Councils and NMFS-- brought together a broad spectrum of
partners and interests to discuss current and developing concepts
addressing the sustainability of U.S. marine fisheries and their
management. The conference was developed around three themes: (1)
improving fishery management essentials, (2) advancing ecosystem-based
decisionmaking, and (3) providing for fishing community sustainability.
We were excited to see a wide range of stakeholders represent many
points of view, from commercial and recreational fishermen, to
conservation and science and management organizations, to indigenous
communities. Before the last reauthorization, we co-sponsored two of
these conferences, and they played an important role in bringing people
together and creating an opportunity to present ideas and understand
different perspectives. We expect the ideas that emerged from this
event to inform potential legislative changes to the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, but the benefits are much greater than that. The communication
across regions and Councils provided an opportunity to share best
practices and lessons learned, and could also inform changes to current
policy or regulations that can be accomplished without statutory
changes.
conclusion
Because of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the United States is
sustainably and responsibly managing U.S. fisheries, to ensure that
stocks are maintained at healthy levels, fishing is conducted in a way
that minimizes impacts on the marine ecosystem, and fishing
communities' needs are considered in management decisions. Fisheries
harvested in the United States are scientifically monitored, regionally
managed, and enforced under 10 National Standards of sustainability.
But we did not get here overnight. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, our
Nation's journey toward sustainable fisheries has evolved over the
course of 38 years.
In 2007, Congress gave NOAA and the Councils a clear mandate, new
authority, and new tools to achieve the goal of sustainable fisheries
within measurable timeframes. Notable among these were the requirements
for annual catch limits and accountability measures to prevent, respond
to, and end overfishing--real game changers in our national journey
toward sustainable fisheries that are rapidly delivering results.
This progress has been made possible by the collaborative
involvement of our U.S. commercial and recreational fishing fleets and
their commitment to science-based management, improving gear-
technologies, and application of best stewardship practices. We have
established strong partnerships with States, tribes, Councils, and
fishing industries. By working together through the highly
participatory process established in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, we will
continue to address management challenges in a changing environment.
To understand where we are, it is important to reflect on where
we've been. We have made great progress but our achievements have not
come easily, nor will they be sustained without continued attention.
This is a critical time in the history of Federal fisheries management,
and we must move forward in a thoughtful and disciplined way to ensure
our Nation's fisheries are able to meet the needs of both current and
future generations. We will take the recommendations from the Managing
Our Nation's Fisheries 3 conference, and look to the future in a
holistic, comprehensive way that considers the needs of the fish,
fishermen, ecosystems and communities.
Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss implementation
progress of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. We are available to answer any
questions you may have.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Rauch.
Now, let me introduce Mr. Richard Robins, Jr., who is the
Chair of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council.
Mr. Robins, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD B. ROBINS, JR., CHAIR, MID-ATLANTIC
FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
Mr. Robins. Good morning, Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member
DeFazio, and distinguished members of the committee. I am Rick
Robins, Chairman of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
Council, and I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you
again on the reauthorization of the Act.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act is the strongest regulatory
framework and statutory framework for managing fisheries and
sustainable fisheries in the world. However, since the 2006
reauthorization was implemented, it has become clear that the
Councils need focused flexibility to make decisions that are
tailored to the needs and circumstances of each fishery.
The Mid-Atlantic region has had its share of rebuilding
successes. All of our assessed stocks are at, near, or above
their biological targets. These efforts have been successful in
biological terms. But the current statutory requirements
prevented the Council from considering alternative schedules
that would have attenuated the social and economic impacts
associated with the mandated rebuilding schedules. The Act
should enable the Councils to achieve success more fully in
biological, ecological, social, and economic dimensions, and
this reauthorization presents an important opportunity to fine-
tune, but not sacrifice, the primacy of biology in U.S.
fisheries management.
These changes should facilitate successful social and
economic outcomes, while preserving the integrity of the Act.
The most significant change you can make to enable the Councils
to more fully consider tradeoffs in stock rebuilding is
addressed effectively in the draft's proposal to replace the
requirement to rebuild stocks ``as quickly as possible'' with
``as quickly as practicable,'' and eliminating the 10-year
requirement. I will focus my comments today on ways that I
think the draft can still be improved.
I was concerned to find that several important issues were
not addressed in the draft, and I would strongly encourage the
committee to consider revisions to address the following
issues.
First, the draft does not address the problems with
recreational accountability measures. I strongly believe
recreational fisheries can be successfully managed under this
Act. But the Councils need statutory flexibility to develop
accountability measures that are appropriate, relative to the
available data and their statistical characteristics.
Recreational management should not be reduced to an exercise in
catch accounting, particularly in regions where catch estimates
lack the accuracy and precision to justify rigid responses in
management.
Second, the draft does not respond to the need for
sustainability certifications or verifications. Our standards
are among the toughest in the world. And in an increasingly
global market, U.S. fishermen and processors should be able to
market their fish as sustainably caught under U.S. Federal
fisheries management.
Third, the draft does not encourage or advance ecosystem-
based fisheries management references in the Act. The
ecosystem-based management may require temporarily fishing some
stocks at levels above maximum sustainable yield, which is not
an option of the current law. The draft is also silent on the
management of forage fish. Adequate consideration of the
ecological role of forage fish within the marine ecosystem is a
core principle of ecosystem-based management, and should be
addressed.
Fourth, the draft does not create any additional funding
mechanisms for observer coverage. Councils should be able to
specify observer coverage level requirements within their
fishery management plans. Cost sharing between the agency and
industry could facilitate improved coverage, and should be
added to the Act, but the agency also needs to have more
discretion about allocating funding to cover the incidental
costs associated with observer coverage.
The reauthorization should build on the Act's existing
strengths, and exemptions to key requirements should not weaken
our ability to ensure the sustainable management of U.S.
fisheries, or to address future challenges. I will highlight
several concerns regarding the provisions in the draft.
The draft changes to the role of the SSC may set up a
conflict with National Standard 2 by changing the annual catch
limit ceiling to the overfishing limit, rather than their
fishing level recommendation. The buffers between those two
values are essentially determined by the Council's ABC control
rule, or risk policy. Where the Councils do need flexibility,
in my opinion, on this issue is in the management of data-poor
stocks. And I would suggest re-crafting this exemption for
data-poor stocks.
The proposed exemption for incidentally caught species, as
proposed, would exempt any incidentally caught species from
annual catch limits. Some species considered to be incidentally
caught, in technical terms, are, in fact, high-volume important
species. This exemption needs significant revision.
We need a workable mixed-stock exception. And the recent
National Academy of Sciences' review offered insight into this
issue. The 1998 NS1 guidelines were essentially too weak in
their protection of weak stocks in a complex. They were
inadequate, while the current NS1 guidelines preclude effective
mixed species management. We need a solution in the middle that
maintains fishing mortality rates at appropriate levels for
weak stocks to ensure their continued resilience, while
enhancing yields on more productive stocks in the fishery.
Finally, the data confidentiality section of the draft does
not significantly improve the Council's ability to make
informed decisions, and the prohibition on the use of fisheries
data in coastal marine spatial planning would significantly
disadvantage U.S. fisheries in this process. Marine planning is
a data-driven process, and fisheries in the Mid-Atlantic could
be compromised if fisheries data are prohibited from use in
marine planning discussions in advance of large-scale wind
energy development.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Robins follows:]
Prepared Statement of Richard B. Robins, Jr., Chairman, Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council
Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member DeFazio, and members of the
committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today
regarding the discussion draft titled ``H.R. 4742, Strengthening
Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management
Act.'' I am Richard B. Robins, and I serve as the Chairman of the Mid-
Atlantic Fishery Management Council. The Mid-Atlantic Council has
primary management authority for 12 species of fish and shellfish in
Federal waters off the coast of North Carolina through New York.
Through the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act, the United States has one of the world's strongest statutory
frameworks for the management of sustainable fisheries. The Act is
highly effective at preventing overfishing and rebuilding overfished
stocks. However, in the years since the requirements of the last
reauthorization have been implemented, it has become increasingly clear
that the Councils need more flexibility to make decisions that are
tailored to the needs and circumstances of each fishery.
I applaud the committee's efforts to increase flexibility in the
Act by addressing one of the most acute impediments to the successful
management of some U.S. fisheries--the 10-year rebuilding requirement.
Giving the Councils flexibility to rebuild stocks as quickly as
practicable, instead of on a 10-year rebuilding timeline, will allow
Councils to incorporate biological, ecological, social, and economic
considerations more effectively into the development of rebuilding
plans. I strongly believe that this change will enable the Councils to
achieve more meaningful and durable successes in the stock rebuilding
process while promoting more productive and resilient fisheries.
Spiny dogfish is one example of a fishery that would have benefited
significantly from the proposed amendment to the 10-year rebuilding
requirement. The spiny dogfish rebuilding plan initially called for a
5-year rebuilding plan. This aggressive rebuilding schedule required a
1-year transition to an ``exit'' fishery that eliminated the directed
fishery in Federal waters and limited catches to incidental quantities
of 600 pounds per day. At the time, the fishery accounted for over 60
million pounds of landings annually and supported hundreds of
predominantly small, day boats and their crews from Cape Hatteras to
Maine. Spiny dogfish have a mean generation time of 35 years, so the
proposed modifications to the rebuilding requirements in Section 3 of
the draft would have allowed for a longer rebuilding period that would
have stabilized the fishery at a lower level. This would have
substantially mitigated the social and economic impacts to coastal
fishing communities.
I also appreciate the addition of a provision to vest the liaisons
of the New England Fishery Management Council and Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council with voting rights. This solution responds
effectively to concerns among many Mid-Atlantic and New England
stakeholders and will facilitate enhanced coordination between the two
Councils.
These are important provisions that, if included in the final
reauthorization, will have undoubtedly positive impacts on our Nation's
fisheries. However, after careful review of the draft I continue to
have a number of concerns. My testimony today will have two parts.
First, I will briefly comment on several issues that were not addressed
in the draft, despite being highlighted during the initial hearings.
Second, I will share a number of specific concerns regarding content
within the draft.
The draft does not address problematic accountability requirements
in recreational fisheries. The 2006 reauthorization of the MSA
introduced a new requirement for the Councils to develop accountability
measures (AMs) for all federally managed fisheries. While AMs have been
effective management tools for some fisheries, they must be developed
appropriately for recreational fisheries, relative to the available
catch data. Councils need the ability to develop recreational AMs that
are consistent with the precision, accuracy, and timeliness of the
catch estimates, in order to manage recreational fisheries effectively.
This issue is critical to the successful management of recreational
fisheries. The need for more statutory flexibility in the development
of recreational AMs was evidenced most recently by the Agency's partial
disapproval of the Mid-Atlantic Council's Recreational Omnibus
Amendment. In recreational fisheries monitored by NMFS' Marine
Recreational Information Program (MRIP), the Councils should be able to
consider confidence intervals about the catch estimates when developing
triggers for AMs.
The draft does not respond to the numerous recommendations
regarding a sustainability certification for U.S. fisheries managed
under the Act. In an increasingly global market, the sustainability of
U.S. fisheries needs to be affirmed. Our standards for sustainable
management are the strongest in the world, and an affirmation of this
sustainability would be an important step to facilitate education,
awareness and marketing for the benefit of U.S. fisheries.
The draft does not strengthen or clarify the Act's references
regarding ecological considerations or ecosystem approaches to
fisheries management. Implementing ecosystem principles in fisheries
management could require fishing some individual stocks at levels above
FMSY temporarily, which is currently precluded by the Act.
This is a statutory impediment to the implementation of ecosystem
management principles, and should be resolved by allowing fishing on
individual stocks at levels above FMSY on a temporary basis,
if those levels are within ecosystem reference points recommended by
the Scientific and Statistical Committee. The draft is also silent on
the management of forage fish stocks, which play an important role in
the structure and function of marine ecosystems. The optimum yield (OY)
definition in the current Act provides for reductions below maximum
sustainable yield for ecological considerations, and the National
Standard 1 guidelines include references to managing forage stocks at
levels above BMSY. Adequate consideration of the importance
of forage stocks within regional ecosystems is an important
consideration in the implementation of ecosystem principles in
fisheries management and should be clarified in the Act.
The draft does not include any provisions for cost-sharing or other
funding mechanisms for observer coverage, and the draft does not extend
any of the section 313 provisions to Councils other than the North
Pacific Fishery Management Council. The draft also does not enable the
other seven Councils to specify observer coverage levels within their
fishery management plans. Councils should have the authority to specify
observer coverage levels in their FMPs. This need is reinforced by the
recent disapproval by the National Marine Fisheries Service of the
observer coverage requirements in Amendment 5 to the New England
Fishery Management Council's Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan
and Amendment 14 to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's
Squid, Mackerel, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan. Councils
should be able to specify required observer coverage levels within
their fishery management plans. In the Northeast Region, this
discretion should supersede the inflexible allocations required by the
Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology (SBRM) omnibus amendment.
The Act should also enable the Agency to use cost-sharing mechanisms,
with the industry, to cover at-sea observer costs, and should have
specific discretion within their appropriations, to allocate sufficient
funds to meet observer coverage levels.
The reauthorization should build on the Act's strengths and enhance
its flexibility, without compromising its integrity. The exemptions to
the requirements in the current Act should be reviewed carefully to
ensure that they would not substantially weaken the Act's ability to
ensure the sustainable and effective management of U.S. fisheries, or
compromise our ability to address future challenges in fisheries
management, including changing environmental conditions associated with
climate change.
Several provisions in the draft reauthorization are of particular
concern. These include:
The ACL exemption for incidentally caught species,
The exemption for rebuilding mixed-stock fisheries,
The changes in the role of the Scientific and Statistical
Committees (SSC),
The proposed data confidentiality provisions, including
the prohibition on the use of fisheries monitoring data in
coastal marine spatial planning.
The draft's proposal to exempt incidentally caught species from
ACLs poses several problems (reference Page 8, line 16). Some
incidentally caught species are landed on a very large scale, and this
exemption would exempt them from quota-based management. Monkfish is
one example--most of the Northern Management Area landings of monkfish
are landed under ``incidental'' trip limits. Other species, such as
river herring, are caught incidentally but are a species of concern,
and are currently being managed by catch caps in the Northeast Region.
This exemption could be difficult to define and could substantially
weaken the management of important fisheries resources.
This reauthorization should address the mixed-stock exception, as
it relates to rebuilding requirements. The 1998 version of the NS1
guidelines allowed weak stock components within a mixed-stock fishery
to be exempted from rebuilding requirements, if they were not expected
to invoke protection under the Endangered Species Act. These guidelines
offered inadequate protection for weak stock components, while the
current NS1 guidance is overly rigid, since it does not exempt weak
stocks from the statutory rebuilding requirements. The National Academy
of Sciences' National Research Council devoted considerable attention
to the limitations of the current mixed-stock exception in their 2013
report, and it should be enhanced in this reauthorization. The draft
proposes to exempt weak stock components from rebuilding requirements
if they would result in significant economic consequences. This
exemption attempts to address the NRC's conclusions, but results in a
wholesale exemption from the rebuilding requirements. The NRC also
suggested focusing on maintaining F rates, rather than focusing on
fixed rebuilding schedules. Perhaps these concepts can come together in
the mixed-stock exception, by exempting weak stocks from a fixed
rebuilding requirement, but requiring the maintenance of an appropriate
F rate on the weak stock. This would ensure more biological protection
than the proposed solution in the draft, and would give Councils more
flexibility to mitigate the social and economic impacts associated with
the application of the current NS1 guidelines to the more productive
stocks in the complex.
The draft proposes to substantially change the role of the SSC, by
modifying the ACL ceiling from the SSC's fishing level recommendation
to their overfishing level recommendation (Page 9, line 3.) For
Councils that have a risk policy, the buffer between the overfishing
level (OFL) and the SSC's acceptable biological catch (ABC)
recommendation, is determined by applying the Council's risk policy to
the OFL, in fisheries with stock assessments that produce biological
reference points. All but one of the Councils have risk policies or ABC
control rules. In fisheries with adequate assessments, the Councils
ultimately determine the relationship between ABC and OFL through their
risk policy. In data-poor stocks that do not have assessment-based
reference points, the SSCs use ad hoc methods to determine ABC, and the
Councils generally have less control over the buffer. Since the OFL is
determined in the stock assessment and peer review process, this change
would marginalize the role of the SSC, and sets up a potential conflict
with National Standard 2.
The SSC's responsibilities, which include providing the Councils
with advice on ABC, do not change in the draft. Consequently, the SSC
would still be providing the Councils with ABC and OFL, and a
certification that their advice represents the best available science.
If the Council subsequently set an ACL above the ABC, it would create a
tension with the National Standard 2 requirements of the Act.
The greatest need for flexibility on this issue is on data-poor
stocks, rather than on stocks that are adequately assessed. Councils
should have more discretion in establishing ACLs on data-poor stocks
that do not have assessment-based reference points, or in cases where
the SSC invalidates the reference points. This issue should be
addressed in both section 302(h)(6) and section 302(g)(B) to avoid
conflicts relative to National Standard 2 in the management of data-
poor stocks.
With respect to the data confidentiality section of the draft, the
Act should safeguard the identity of individuals while ensuring
informed decisionmaking by the Councils and the Agency. Section 8 of
the draft does not adequately advance the ability of the Councils to
make informed decisions. Furthermore, the prohibition on the use of
fisheries monitoring data for purposes of coastal marine spatial
planning would significantly disadvantage U.S. fisheries in the future.
Marine spatial planning is a multi-sectoral, data driven process. The
Mid-Atlantic region of the United States is expected to experience
significant development of offshore wind energy. Preserving access to
these important fisheries will depend on adequate fisheries monitoring
data, and incorporating this data in data portals as the wind energy
siting process moves forward. This issue will be among our most
important challenges in the future on the East Coast, and the Act
should put the regional councils and U.S. fisheries in a strong and
effective position.
To the extent that electronic monitoring is intended to monitor
interactions with public, U.S. fisheries resources, it should be
available for law enforcement purposes. Fisheries monitoring data
(e.g., VMS data) should also be available to the U.S. Coast Guard for
search-and-rescue operations to promote safety at sea.
The transparency requirements proposed in Section 6 would benefit
from additional review. Transparency is an important aspect of the
Council process, and we have undertaken important efforts to webcast
our Council meetings, which facilitates enhanced access and
transparency. The proposal to require video broadcasting of the
meetings would require additional resources and would not add
significantly to the transparency of the process. Similarly, the
proposed requirement for written transcripts would add considerable
costs without providing additional resources. Audio archives of our
Council meetings are already available on our Web site and should
satisfy these concerns.
Section 7 proposes to extend the referendum requirements for new
catch share programs beyond the Gulf and New England Councils.
Referenda may be appropriate in certain circumstances, but may not
result in the most effective management of fisheries in other
situations. Many East Coast fisheries have been through a period of
overexploitation and stock depletion that were preceded and accompanied
by open access and oversubscription. If the referendum requirement is
extended to other jurisdictions, the Councils should have flexibility
in determining eligibility and voting details. I recognize that major
fisheries reforms require broad support, and we have made stakeholder
engagement a hallmark of our Council's management philosophy and
programs. Our Council has a solid track record of evaluating catch
shares objectively and pragmatically, as one option among many in the
management of fisheries, and we have not adopted catch shares in the
large majority of our fisheries.
I appreciate the committee's efforts to make resources available
for cooperative research priorities in Section 8(e) through the use of
the Asset Forfeiture Fund, and in Section 10, through Saltonstall-
Kennedy (SK) funds. I would suggest making a portion of the SK funds
available to all of the regions to support cooperative research
priorities identified by the Councils. I would also suggest including
the Northeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program (NEAMAP) in your
definition of eligible research programs in both of these sections.
The reauthorization also presents an important opportunity to
enhance the coordination between the Act and other Federal statutes;
notably, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species
Act, and the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. The references to these
coordination opportunities in the draft discussion document would
benefit from additional discussion by the regional councils, and I look
forward to providing additional information on these important
references following the upcoming meeting of the Council Coordination
Committee (CCC).
I have included below additional comments that focus on specific
details within the draft in the attached appendix. I appreciate the
complexity of the reauthorization before the committee and sincerely
appreciate the opportunity to testify before you.
DETAILED COMMENTS ON ``H.R. 4742, STRENGTHENING FISHING COMMUNITIES AND
INCREASING FLEXIBILITY IN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ACT''
SEC. 3--FLEXIBILITY IN REBUILDING FISH STOCKS
Page 2, Line 13
Description: In the management of ``highly dynamic fisheries,'' the
Council could phase-in the rebuilding plan over a 3-year period.
Comments: ``Highly dynamic fisheries'' should be defined. This
exemption may also benefit from some biological caveats.
Page 3, Line 17
Description: Exemption III to the rebuilding requirements would
exempt the requirement to rebuild components of a mixed-stock fishery
from the Tmax requirement if it would result in
``significant economic harm to the fishery.''
Comments: ``Significant'' is not defined. The mixed-stock exception
should be refined in this reauthorization, to strike a balance between
the 1998 NS1 guidance and the current guidance, to facilitate its
implementation where appropriate.
Page 3, Line 18
Description: Exemption III to the rebuilding requirements also
exempts mixed stock components from the Tmax rebuilding
requirement if that component cannot be rebuilt in that timeframe
without ``causing another component of the mixed-stock fishery to
approach a depleted status.''
Comments: Ecosystem references in the current Act should be
clarified and strengthened, particularly as they relate to OY and to
the management of fisheries across trophic levels.
Page 4, Line 9
Description: Exemption V provides an exemption to the rebuilding
timeframe if the Secretary ``determines that the stock has been
affected by unusual events.''
Comments: ``Unusual events'' are not defined. Councils should be
able to amend rebuilding timelines if ecological conditions inhibit the
recovery of the stock.
Page 4, Line 18
Description: The proposed requirement to consider ``predator/prey
relationships'' in specifying a rebuilding timeframe does not appear to
have any specific implication and would benefit from additional
clarification.
Page 5, Line 7
Description: This proposed provision would allow the use of
``alternative rebuilding strategies, including harvest control rules
and fishing mortality targets.''
Comments: If such an alternative still resulted in the development
of a rebuilding plan consistent with the other, proposed requirements
of Section 304, this may not be problematic. However, if the control
rules and fishing mortality targets are not set at levels that are
expected to achieve stock rebuilding within the proposed
Tmax, subject to the other draft exemptions, then this may
not result in stock rebuilding.
Page 5, Line 13
Description: ``Depleted'' appears here and is defined elsewhere in
the draft as a level below the normal range of stock sizes associated
with the production of MSY.
Comments: The addition of this language is welcome for stocks that
are depleted as a result of factors other than fishing. The definition
would benefit from additional review and discussion.
Page 5, Line 13
Description: The draft proposes to allow Councils to terminate the
application of paragraph (3), which include the requirements to end or
prevent overfishing, if a Council meets one of two exemptions if the
Council determines that a fishery is not depleted.
Comments: Exemption B is based on the completion of the next stock
assessment. Exemption A is the end of the 2-year period following the
effective date of a regulation, plan, or amendment. A stock assessment
or assessment update would be essential to making the determination
that the fishery is not depleted, so it may be cleaner to base this
exemption just on the assessment-based determination. If an assessment
update or other analytical product would satisfy this determination
requirement, that should be clarified.
Page 6, Line 8
Description: This proposed exemption to ending overfishing would
allow Councils to phase-in the regulations to end overfishing over a 3-
year period if chronic overfishing has not occurred and if an immediate
end to overfishing would result in significant adverse economic
impacts.
Comments: ``Significant adverse economic impacts'' are not defined.
This provision could be helpful in cases where assessments produce
results that are dramatically worse than previous assessments. This may
have the practical effect of allowing overfishing to continue for up to
3 years in some cases. This section may benefit from some additional
detail or biological caveats if this exemption goes forward.
SEC. 4--MODIFICATIONS TO THE ANNUAL CATCH LIMIT REQUIREMENT
Page 6, Line 19
Description: This adds language allowing Councils to consider
``changes in an ecosystem and the economic needs of the fishing
communities'' in establishing annual catch limits (ACLs).
Comments: This is vague, and it is unclear how these considerations
relate to National Standard 1 and OY. Ecosystem changes that have
adverse consequences for stock performance would typically result in
lower yields, and may lead to lower reference points if they persist.
Would this exemption allow Councils to specify higher ACLs than
indicated in an assessment due to ecosystem changes? If so, this would
not promote the ecological sustainability of our fisheries. Similarly,
could Councils set ACLs higher than currently allowed in order to meet
the economic needs of the fishing communities, and, if so, how does
this relate to National Standard 1? We have previously testified that
Councils should have the flexibility to optimize rebuilding periods to
more fully consider biological, ecological, and economic factors, and
the draft addresses this by replacing ``as short as possible'' with
``as short as practicable,'' and by eliminating the 10-year
requirement. This proposed language, beginning in line 19, should be
reviewed relative to National Standard 1 and clarified.
Page 7, Line 9
Description: The ACL exemption for short-lived species would be
extended to a stock for which ``more than half of a single-year class
will complete their life cycle in less than 18 months.''
Comments: We use the short-lived exemption for squid on the East
Coast, but we still set quotas for those fisheries, based on SSC
advice, and we still have to satisfy National Standard 2. The practical
benefit of the exemption is that accountability measures (AMs) are not
required on these short-lived species. The exemptions for short-lived
species might be more appropriately applied as exemptions to AMs (at a
minimum, they should be exempt from paybacks), since year classes are
already dead before regulations could be developed and implemented.
Page 8, Line 8
Description: ACLs may be set for a ``stock complex.''
Comments: ``Stock complex'' is not defined in the language and the
implications of this provision are unclear.
Page 8, Line 16
Description: This section defines Ecosystem Component Species as
stocks of fish that are ``non-target, incidentally harvested stock of
fish in a fishery, or (emphasis added) a non-target, incidentally
harvested stock of fish that a Council or the Secretary has determined
. . .'' is not subject to overfishing or depleted.
Comments: The use of ``or'' in line 16 would effectively exempt all
non-target, incidentally caught species from annual catch limits.
Consequently, this language is problematic and would benefit from
additional review and discussion.
Page 9, Line 2
Description: This language would substantially modify the role of
the SSC, by striking ``fishing'' and inserting ``overfishing.'' Whereas
Councils are currently required to set ACLs within the ``fishing level
recommendations of its scientific and statistical committee,'' the
draft language would require Councils to set ACLs within an
``overfishing'' level set by the SSC.
Comments: With the exception of data-poor stocks, the current
overfishing levels (OFLs) are identified in the stock assessment
process. This modification would marginalize the role of the SSC, and
could create a tension with NS2. The current process works well for
stocks that have adequate stock assessments, and has produced more
inconsistent results in the absence of reference points. We have
testified in support of having more flexibility in setting ACLs on
data-poor stocks. This section could also benefit from additional
review and discussion.
SEC. 5--DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN OVERFISHED AND DEPLETED
Page 9, Line 22
Description: Replacing the term ``overfished'' with ``depleted''
acknowledges that the deterioration of some stocks may result from
anthropogenic and other impacts unrelated to fishing.
Comments: The proposed definition of the term ``depleted'' would
benefit from additional review and discussion.
SEC. 6--TRANSPARENCY AND PUBLIC PROCESS FOR SCIENTIFIC AND MANAGEMENT
ACTIONS
Page 10, Lines 15 and 20; Page 11, Line 4
Description: This section would require live broadcast of the
Council and CCC meetings, and audio/video archives of each meeting.
Comments: Transparency is an important attribute of the Council
process. Audio webcasts and archives should be considered as an
alternative to the proposed video requirement. Similarly, written
transcripts pose a significant cost and an audio archive should be
sufficient for most uses.
Page 11, Line 17
Description: NEPA streamlining.
Comments: This reauthorization is an opportunity to streamline the
NEPA and Magnuson-Stevens processes.
SEC. 7--LIMITATION ON FUTURE CATCH SHARE PROGRAMS
Page 12, Line 12
Description: Catch shares are defined here to include ``sectors.''
Comments: This may need some revision, since ``sector'' is used
broadly in fisheries discussions, but has a distinct use in the New
England groundfish fishery. This language should be reviewed and
refined.
Page 14, Line 16
Description: This section includes a hardship provision for
participation in a referendum.
Comments: This could make it impracticable to conduct a referendum.
Limiting referenda to permit holders would facilitate the
administration of referenda. This section should be reviewed and
discussed.
Page 15, Line 2
Description: This section would preclude the use of catch shares in
any Secretarially managed fisheries unless first petitioned by a
majority of those eligible to participate in the fishery.
Comments: This requirement is burdensome and would diminish the
role of the HMS AP in the development of plan amendments.
SEC. 8--DATA COLLECTION AND DATA CONFIDENTIALITY
Page 16, Line 6
Description: This language would not authorize use of electronic
monitoring for law enforcement.
Comments: If electronic monitoring is in use to monitor
interactions with public fishery resources, they should be available to
law enforcement.
Page 16, Line 21
Description: This section would allow Councils to develop plans to
substitute electronic monitoring for human observers, if it will
``provide the same level of coverage as a human observer.''
Comments: This may be impracticable or impossible, depending on the
nature of the fishery and the details of the vessel. This requirement
should be reviewed and revised to facilitate and encourage the
development and use of electronic monitoring.
Page 18, Line 1
Description: Confidentiality provisions.
Comments: The confidentiality protections should allow for
reasonable use of fisheries data by Councils in making management
decisions, and by stock assessment scientists, without identifying
individual vessels or operators. Limiting the use to Council employees
may prevent Councils from making informed decisions regarding important
issues. That was the case when our Council made allocations to tiers in
the Tilefish fishery. The tiers were based on history, but we did not
know what the allocations were. This section should be amended to
improve decisionmaking.
Page 21, Line 14
Description: This would prevent the Secretary from providing
fisheries monitoring data to any person for the purposes of coastal and
marine spatial planning under Executive Order 13547.
Comments: This would severely disadvantage U.S. fisheries in the
ocean planning process and should be deleted. Ocean planning is a
multi-sectoral, data-driven process, and the best defense of
traditional fisheries uses of the ocean will depend on effective data
collection and interpretation.
Page 23, Line 4
Description: This would allow the Secretary to use law enforcement
proceeds within regions for fisheries science. At line 4, it states
``subject to appropriations.''
Comments: Since this section provides for the use of law
enforcement penalties, is it necessary to make it subject to
appropriations?
SEC. 9--COUNCIL JURISDICTION FOR OVERLAPPING FISHERIES
Page 26, Line 1
Description: This section would prioritize Saltonstall-Kennedy (SK)
funds for Gulf of Mexico Cooperative Research and Red Snapper
Management.
Comments: This same model could be used around the Nation to
address data-poor fisheries, and would benefit from broader discussion.
Some portion of the SK funds should be made available to all of the
regions to support cooperative research.
______
Question Submitted for the Record by Representative Hanabusa to Richard
B. Robins, Jr.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to Representative Colleen
Hanabusa's question regarding the implications of proposed Federal
fisheries legislation relative to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and
the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA).
Answer. The current Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) requires that
fishery management plans be consistent with all applicable Federal law.
Representative Hanabusa raises important questions about the
relationship between MSA, ESA, NMSA, and the role of the Council.
Through the Council Coordinating Committee (CCC), the leadership of
the U.S. regional fishery management councils have agreed to form a
working group to address the interface between MSA and other Federal
statutes, including ESA, NMSA, NEPA, and MMPA, among others, relative
to the draft reauthorization. This item will be discussed at the May
meeting of the CCC, and I anticipate that the CCC will develop specific
comments on this issue at the May meeting.
The CCC has expressed a strong interest in the role of the Councils
in the ESA consultation and implementation process. At the February,
2014 meeting of the CCC, a MAFAC working group made recommendations
that were endorsed by the CCC. These included measures that will
clarify the role of the Councils in the ESA process through the
development of regional memoranda of understanding (MOU) between the
regional offices of NMFS and the Councils, and the development of
national policy guidance on best available science in ESA
determinations. Previously, Councils have been involved to varying
degrees around the Nation in ESA consultations. The role of the
Councils in the ESA process should be clarified and will benefit from
the development of regional MOUs. Another important aspect of ESA
related to fisheries is the inconsistent integration of the regional
offices of Sustainable Fisheries within NMFS during ESA listing
determinations, and this issue is beyond the scope of the draft.
Organizationally, SF should be more effectively and more consistently
integrated with the offices of Protected Resources during listing
determinations.
Regarding the Member's question of legal supremacy, if a more
restrictive regulation has been implemented under another statute, or
another statute is more restrictive than the MSA, then such other more
restrictive regulations or statutes take legal precedence under current
Federal law. However, the current situation under NMSA is more complex
because of certain exemptions from it applying to fishing activities
regulated under the MSA. As long as a NMSA regulation is not
specifically exempted from being applicable to fishing, it would also
be the controlling legislation. The proposed legislative changes in the
draft are incorporated in the following language, ``In any case of a
conflict between this Act and the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16
U.S.C. 1431 et seq.) or the Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et
seq.), this Act shall control.'' The draft language would make MSA
controlling in the event of a conflict, which would ensure that
regulation of fishing activities in areas designated as marine
sanctuaries under NMSA or areas otherwise protected under the
Antiquities Act would remain under the control of Federal fishery
managers operating under MSA. If the draft is implemented, existing
limitations on fishing established under ESA or NMSA would remain in
effect unless superseded by regulations subsequently promulgated under
ESA, NMSA, or MSA.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to questions from
the Committee on Natural Resources and I look forward to continued
engagement with your committee as you move forward with the
reauthorization of our Nation's Federal fisheries legislation.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Robins, for your
testimony. Mr. Rauch, thank you also. I will now recognize
myself for 5 minutes for questions.
For you, Mr. Rauch, Section 303 of the Act tells Councils
what is required in each fishery management plan, requires that
each fishery management plan created by the Council--and I will
quote--``contain the conservation and management measures which
are necessary and appropriate for conservation and management
of the fishery to prevent overfishing.''
Does the draft discussion that is out there eliminate this
requirement?
Mr. Rauch. No.
The Chairman. Next question I have, also on Section 303.
Requires that the fishery management plans--and I quote again--
``In the case of a fishery which the Council or the Secretary
has determined is approaching an overfished condition, or is
overfished, contain conservation and management measures to
prevent overfishing or end overfishing.''
Once again, does the discussion draft eliminate this
requirement?
Mr. Rauch. No.
The Chairman. And my final question for you is National
Standard number 1 of the Act states that--and I quote--
``Conservation and management measures shall prevent
overfishing, while achieving, on a continuing basis, the
optimum yield for each fishery for the United States
industry.''
Once again, does this discussion draft eliminate the
requirement to end that standard?
Mr. Rauch. No.
The Chairman. OK. Thank you very much. And the reason I ask
those questions is simply to suggest that we are keeping the
basic parts of Magnuson-Stevens, but giving flexibility,
hopefully, to the Councils to carry out those instructions.
So, Mr. Robins, let me ask you this question. The last time
that Magnuson-Stevens was looked at was 2006, 2007. And the
2006 amendments required NOAA, along with CEQ, to revise the
NEPA guidelines to make the timelines mesh with the Magnuson-
Stevens timelines. Did that occur?
Mr. Robins. It has not, to the best of my knowledge.
The Chairman. So it is--OK, fair question. I have been--or
fair answer. But our understanding, it has not occurred. And
this goes, to me, to the very basic point. This is very, very
important in order to carry out your roles. And if they haven't
followed that through on something that they need to follow
through, why wouldn't one give flexibility to the Councils,
because you are the one on the ground--probably a bad way--on
the water to look at that? Am I correct in that assessment?
Mr. Robins. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. OK. Those are the only questions I have, and
I see a lot of members want to ask questions. So I recognize
now the Ranking Member.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just follow up
with Mr. Robins.
You said something which I think reflected a concern I
expressed at the beginning, which is, having held a meeting on
the coast of my district recently, a meeting with fishermen,
they expressed a lot of concern about some proposed wind and
wave energy off the coast, and felt that, in the current
hierarchy of things, they are kind of at the end, in terms of
being consulted, and the Bureau of Energy Management doesn't
really have them formally as part of the process. And their
only opportunity comes at the NEPA analysis of what has already
been proposed, as opposed to perhaps up front, being better
able to accommodate their concerns.
And you said something interesting. It said that the
restrictions in this bill that say you can't use any of the
data for any marine spatial planning would really inhibit that,
and could be destructive. Could you just expand on that for a
second?
Mr. Robins. Certainly. If you think about what could happen
in the offshore environment, particularly in the Mid-Atlantic
and in the Northeast of the United States, we could see
significant wind energy development. And we have never seen
anything like that in the offshore environment.
Wind energy is obviously something that is in the Nation's
interest to pursue, as far as renewable energy development
goes, but when an offshore array is sited, it could take up 25
to 30 square miles of the ocean. And those areas may then be
out of play for mobile gear commercial fisheries.
Mr. DeFazio. So, your concern is that if we have data that
shows, particularly where they want to put it, is a prime
fishing area, well stocked, we couldn't use that data to oppose
it.
Mr. Robins. That is correct. And I think it is critically
important that that data come into those discussions, to ensure
that our traditional uses of those areas and fisheries----
Mr. DeFazio. Right.
Mr. Robins [continuing]. And/or the resources----
Mr. DeFazio. Yes, OK. Well, thank you. I appreciate that.
That points to one problem.
Mr. Rauch, some of what is happening here is because of the
slowness of the bureaucracy. And I will raise two issues.
One, we have a pilot for electronic monitoring in the
Pacific, in North Pacific region, in our region, PFMC. And it
seems to be going very well. Yet I don't know what progress has
been made in other areas. And, further, in our region we are
requiring, as your--the share of the agency's budget for
observers goes down, putting an incredible burden--it is
already difficult enough to have another person on a small
boat, let alone to have another person on a small boat who
isn't contributing to your income, and have to pay them.
Can't we move this along more quickly? The bill would
mandate you do it all within 6 months. So, would you address
that, please? How quickly can you move?
Mr. Rauch. Thank you. The agency supports electronic
monitoring and other types of observing systems. But, in
particular, the new advents of electronic monitoring, they
offer a lot of promise, in terms of better data collection, in
terms of more cost-effective data collection. I don't think
that there is a circumstance in the near future in which they
will completely replace observers and all the things that
observers can get. But they certainly can supplement, and in
many instances can do some of the same things that the
observers do.
In the Pacific--well, let me back up. We, the agency, did
issue a policy last year, articulating those principles of
support, and requiring our regional offices to work with their
respective councils to come up with regional plans to move out
and to actually start implementing some of these systems, to
move out of the pilot process, which we are in, into actual
implementation.
The Councils are a key partner in this process. The
Councils have to set the goals for the monitoring. They have
to----
Mr. DeFazio. OK, so--and, you know, we are going to run out
of time, I have other questions.
Mr. Rauch. OK.
Mr. DeFazio. So you are basically putting the blame back on
the Councils for slow implementation.
Mr. Rauch. No, sir. But I think it is a partnership that we
need to work together to move more quickly.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Well, you hear the frustration here.
Mr. Rauch. I do.
Mr. DeFazio. And that is what is reflected in the
legislation.
ESA issues. This would put the Councils in charge of ESA. I
am wondering. How would that work for recovery of, say, the
Snake River sockeye salmon? Does the Council have the expertise
to deal with the BiOp up the Columbia River, how could they be
in charge?
Mr. Rauch. Well, certainly the Councils don't have the
expertise to deal with all of the ramifications of ESA
recovery.
I view the provision in the draft discussion bill as saying
that whenever you issue a fishery management rule, which is a
critical part for some species recovery, that that has to be
done in the Magnuson Act.
But there are many other things that are affecting salmon
and many of our other species which would retain their original
jurisdiction. Recovery plans are documents by--that the Marine
Fisheries Service does. And I don't see the draft is changing
that. It does, I think, say that if we do a harvest regulation
for salmon or other stocks, that that has to be run through the
council process.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Fleming.
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rauch, a
significant amount of money is going to be funding research in
the Gulf of Mexico from the RESTORE Act. A concern has been
raised that NOAA may not incorporate data from the research
projects such as surveys around the artificial reefs, and oil
and gas structures into upcoming stock assessments.
Our first question is why NOAA doesn't--why doesn't NOAA
currently search around reefs for red snapper in stock
assessments? Red snapper is a reef fish. Wouldn't it make sense
to survey around reefs?
Mr. Rauch. Thank you for the question. NOAA does conduct a
number of reef fish surveys which look for red snapper across
the Gulf. Some of those surveys intercept them around reefs and
others don't. They do not make--in these independent surveys,
they do not make a special effort to highlight around reefs,
because that would tend to bias the surveys, in terms of the
reefs.
We are aware that there are a number of data sets involving
the abundance of red snapper and others around reefs, and we
were looking for ways to incorporate those into the stock
assessments, accounting for the sampling bias that you always
have when you say that you are going to sample any particular
place. We think it can be done, and it should work into the
stock assessment. And we certainly think that information that
is generated through the RESTORE Act should be used and
incorporated into our stock assessments.
Dr. Fleming. OK. So, if I understand you correctly, what
you are saying is that you are still going to sample random
parts of the ocean, not necessarily going where the red snapper
usually live. Am I correct about that answer?
Mr. Rauch. We use a standard random sampling design. Yes,
sir.
Dr. Fleming. OK. I mean, obviously, if you are looking for
timber wolves, you wouldn't go to, say, a desert. Certainly you
wouldn't look for polar bears in Florida. So, again, if it is a
reef fish, why not sample on the reefs?
Mr. Rauch. The fish exist throughout the Gulf. They are
prevalent on the reef, they are a reef fish, but they also
exist everywhere else. They are ubiquitous throughout----
Dr. Fleming. Well, let me ask you this. That is your
opinion. Do you have any proof that they live apart from the
reef as much as they do around the reefs?
Mr. Rauch. I think you are right, Congressman, that they
are much more abundant around the reefs than everywhere else.
But they do live everywhere else. They do----
Dr. Fleming. We don't have--we haven't been monitoring, we
don't have any science, any data to actually support that.
Mr. Rauch. I believe there are data to support the fact
that they are prevalent on the reefs.
Dr. Fleming. So I can get on to the next question. Would
you please submit to the committee the data, the science, that
supports your statements on that?
Mr. Rauch. Yes.
Dr. Fleming. OK, thank you. Number two, NOAA's past
practice has been to wait 6 years or more to assess trends
before using a new source data. Wouldn't it make sense to
incorporate new data right away, and adjust as more data
becomes available? In some sense, isn't that what NOAA is doing
by using a predictive model and then adjusting after more data
becomes available?
In other words, the data that you may actually begin to use
could be as old as 6 years. Obviously--you know, I can
understand looking at trends, but why not look at data as
recent as it is put out in your science?
Mr. Rauch. Thank you. We do tend to look at both types of
data. If data is immediately available for some purposes, you
can use it immediately. There are certainly biological data on
species health, species presence or absence, that you can
incorporate immediately. But when you are looking at trends, as
you indicated, it takes a while for those trends to develop.
And for trends, you do need to wait and incorporate those into
the science when the trend becomes available. But there are
certain subsets of data that you absolutely should be using
immediately.
Dr. Fleming. So you would then agree that, while it may
have a value for trend purposes, that as soon as it rolls out,
we should be quite willing to utilize it immediately?
Mr. Rauch. It depends on what it is. Not all data tell you
the same things. Certain things can be utilized immediately in
stock assessment, and should be. Others only tell you
information about trends, and those you need to wait. But we
should evaluate the data that we get, and the ones that are
appropriate to use immediately, we absolutely should be doing
that.
Dr. Fleming. OK. My time I have left, Mr. Robins, real
quickly. Do the eight regional fishery management councils
believe that increased flexibility is a priority for the
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act?
Mr. Robins. They have identified that as a priority through
the CCC discussions. The CCC has not had an opportunity to
develop an all-council position. We have not had a meeting
since the draft came out. But just building on the discussions
that we had through the Managing Our Nation's Fisheries
Conference 3, I would say that that is a priority.
Dr. Fleming. OK, thank you. I yield back.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, is recognized.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Hastings. I would first
like to say that I agree with you that the Magnuson-Stevens Act
requires changes, and that in its current form it is not
working for fishermen. I appreciate today's hearing, and would
like to stress my belief that this reauthorization requires
careful consideration. And I hope that we can work together
after today to ensure that our committee puts forth a strong
bipartisan reauthorization bill.
My questions are of Chairman Robins. I have two questions.
Hopefully we can get through them. One, the draft legislation
we are examining includes flexibility in the rebuilding
timeline for stocks, something I have been advocating for
years, and have introduced legislation to accomplish. It also
allows the Councils to use alternative rebuilding strategies.
From your perspective, will these types of flexibility
allow the Mid-Atlantic Council to sustainably manage fisheries?
And how will this allow the Councils to mitigate social and
economic impacts associated with the current rebuilding
requirements? And finally, are there any other provisions
needed to improve the rebuilding requirements?
I have a second set, too, but let's take this first.
Mr. Robins. And I appreciate the first question. I would
suggest that what is in the draft, relative to the elimination
of ``as soon as possible'' and replacing that with ``as soon as
practicable,'' and eliminating the 10-year requirement and
replacing that, and leaving the maximum rebuilding time as F =
0 plus 1 mean generation time, I think that, more than anything
else, gives us the flexibility we need to fully consider a
broader range of rebuilding alternatives.
And if you think about the example of spiny dogfish that
happened in the Mid-Atlantic, that was probably the most
extreme case of rebuilding, where we started out with a plan
that would rebuild it in 5 years. It has a mean generation time
of 35 years. I think that highlights the difference in range of
potential outcomes that we could have considered. And I am not
suggesting we would have gone to the maximum, but we could have
considered a schedule that would have allowed us to attenuate
those impacts that wasn't available to us at that time, and we
could have allowed a sustainable but lower level of fishery to
occur that would preserve the infrastructure.
So, I think--in addition, I think that there is some need
at the end of a rebuilding period, if biological or
environmental conditions aren't favorable for rebuilding--you
know, if you have a period of low recruitment, or if growth
changes and your projections aren't realized in a stock that
you are trying to rebuild, I think you should have flexibility
to amend the timeline. You still have to maintain a low rate of
removals.
But part of the problem is if you get to the point that you
have 2 years left in a 10-year period and you are not there,
you may have to impose very draconian cuts on the fishery. And
we considered that in summer flounder, as you know, in the
past.
Mr. Pallone. Exactly. All right, let me ask you a second
question. I am interested in your proposal to give Councils
flexibility in the development of recreational accountability
measures when there is poor scientific information. And I have
proposed making management more contingent upon having adequate
scientific information.
Would you elaborate on how the Council could develop ways
of basing management on levels of scientific certainty, and
what type of statutory authority you would need to achieve
that?
Mr. Robins. Certainly. I think there are two areas where
this is most significant. One is in the process of setting
quotas. So, just thinking back to the way that the assessments
work, and then putting that through the SSC, the draft does
include a provision that would change the advice coming from
the SSC, or the ceiling that we would have in setting quotas.
And I see some problems with that provision. But I think if
that were re-purposed around giving the Councils some
discretion in setting quotas on data-poor stocks, I think that
would give us important flexibility, and that would be
important for some of our recreational fisheries in the Mid,
like black sea bass.
But with respect to the recreational accountability
measures, I think they shouldn't be set up in a way that
implies a level of precision and accuracy that does not exist.
And that is where we are now. So, if we had the ability to
consider the confidence intervals, for example, about the catch
estimates in developing accountability measures, I think that
would allow us to temper our responses and make them more
appropriate. Because these are not census estimates, they are
simply--on the East Coast they are sample-based surveys. And it
is not a complete enumeration of catch.
So, in those situations we need to treat the data
appropriately. I think accountability is still in order, but it
needs to reflect the data better.
Mr. Pallone. All right, thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. The Chair recognizes
the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for holding
this hearing. I am looking forward to the whole day's worth of
panels, and probably don't have any questions for this
gentleman in particular.
But I do want to share some comments, just for the record,
from the Charleston Area Hospitality Association, a number of
restaurants, and fishermen down in that area. It is not in my
district, but it is in our State. And I will tell you what. I
enjoy going down to Charleston and experiencing the culture and
the cuisine. And the cuisine means it is local seafood, that
shrimp, that snapper, that grouper, and all the other species
that they serve at those restaurants.
But the fishermen in South Carolina and the wider South
Atlantic Coast are now fishing under historically low fishing
quotas during seasons that can only be described as derby
seasons. All fishermen race out to catch as much fish as they
can before the quota closes, regardless of weather and other
safety conditions, based on stock assessments that are, more
often than not, based on very little data.
Most of the species that chefs rely on for their menus are
caught in Federal waters, and are managed by one of the
regional fishery management councils, based on the guidance and
science provided by the particular regional office or the NOAA
National Marine Fisheries Service. By law, as prescribed in the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, when
one of these assessments identifies a fishery as undergoing
overfishing, drastic measures must be taken immediately to end
that overfishing, often resulting in the closed fisheries--red
snapper, for an example--or huge quota reductions for snapper
and black sea bass, with little time for businesses to plan or
adjust.
And a chef that I talked with back in November, he states
that our culinary identity is one of the main reasons that
people come to visit the Charleston area, and we owe that, by
and large, to our fishing and shrimp fleets. These are huge
investments in these fleets. And one of the things he says is
that the data and the closure creates so much uncertainty that
we are going to start losing some of these fleets in South
Carolina because of the uncertainty that is created.
He says the flexibility--I will just read his whole
statement here. ``One of the things we are trying to accomplish
as a way to change the Magnuson-Stevens Act is to where there
is a little bit of flexibility in the shut-down times and
allowing businesses to prepare for it.'' Chef after chef that
was quoted in here mentioned that, that we lag behind in
collecting data that I think is paramount. But let's have real
data that is solid before we make these decisions.
Just the transparency of data, the way--and, more
importantly, that that data is collected and shared is just
integrally as important for all. The government is not making
it super-easy for fishermen to make an honest living, in my
opinion.
So, I will just wrap up my comments and say that we need
real data. Over the past, when we have had hearings on this
Act, we have heard from folks that have talked about the data
not being indicative of what they are actually finding at the
docks. When people go out and talk to the captains that are
coming in, and they are finding out what the fishery is like
out there, whether it is in South Carolina or Florida, I think
that that data is just as important as my friend from Florida
said once, as two guys in a lab coat up in a cubicle here in
Washington, using some computer model to figure out what the
fishery should be like. We need to use real data. We need to
use the data that, when you talk to the captains and you talk
to the guys.
And then, the last thing I will say is we need to make sure
that the recreational fishermen aren't cut out of this loop,
and they feel like that they are ostracized in a lot of ways.
So, I appreciate the hearing. I look forward to the other
comments today, as we move forward, and I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. The Chair recognizes
the gentlelady from California, Mrs. Napolitano.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And listening to the
comments from my colleague in regard to the chefs, the plans to
adjust, maybe we need to be able to figure out if there is a
phased-in notification, so they are able to plan ahead for, I
would say, a month, at least to be able to give them
notification of whether there is going to be a shut-down of--in
overfishing in certain areas. That might be something that
might help be able to create a better environment for the
fishing fleets and for the people who own the restaurants, so
there is a continuous assistance to them, if you will. That is
just a comment.
Mr. Rauch, you indicated that the bill does not eliminate
the requirement to end overfishing, but it would let
overfishing continue for as much as 7 years. Is that correct?
Mr. Rauch. I did not say that. I am not aware of where the
7 years came from.
Mrs. Napolitano. That is apparently in the record
somewhere, the 7 years.
The Chairman. I was consulting. What was the question? I
apologize.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, if overfishing is allowed for as
much as 7 years, would that harm? And would that be a good
move? Would that be detrimental or helpful?
Mr. Rauch. The United States right now enjoys a very good
reputation nationally and with our consumers for being
sustainable. That reputation is based on the fact that we end
overfishing immediately. We do not allow it to continue.
In prior versions of the Magnuson Act, before 2007, there
were situations in which you could allow overfishing to
continue. That led to a degradation of the stocks.
Mrs. Napolitano. Right.
Mr. Rauch. Led to a degradation of the reputation of U.S.
fishermen. It is something that we do not face right now, and
so we would try to----
Mrs. Napolitano. All right, thank you. And my time is
running out. The fact that there are still some endangered
species, am I correct, that are being overfished.
Mr. Rauch. There are still some stocks subject to
overfishing. Most of those are international. The ones that are
overfishing in the United States, domestically, it is because
we don't have a stock assessment to demonstrate that
overfishing has ended.
Mrs. Napolitano. OK. And how often do you assess? To be
able to answer Mr. Duncan's concern is that you are able to
determine that you are nearing a level of overfishing. Am I
correct?
Mr. Rauch. Some stocks we assess annually, some stocks we
assess usually on a 2- to 5-year basis.
Mrs. Napolitano. Is it based on their being overfished?
Mr. Rauch. Some of them we assess more frequently, based on
their vulnerability. Some of them we assess more frequently,
based on their importance to the U.S. economy, or to the
community. So it does vary, in terms of what we do. But we try
to assess the more vulnerable stocks more frequently.
Mrs. Napolitano. But then, overfishing could continue, if
not watched.
Mr. Rauch. Yes. If we do not monitor the fisheries,
overfishing could continue, even with well-meaning managers and
fishermen. It could happen.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir. Mr. Robins, one thing that
has not really been highlighted, though Dr. Pikitch mentioned
it in her testimony, the fact that any of the exceptions to
rebuilding timeline that are included in the draft be
triggered, there is then no timeline at all for rebuilding an
overfished stock.
And, as the Chairman of the Council, do you think it is a
good idea--one question--to have no timelines for rebuilding
more fish? Second, hasn't your Council already rebuilt all
stocks under the existing requirements of the law?
And, third, would that have happened, had you had no
rebuilding deadlines whatsoever?
Mr. Robins. I appreciate the question, and we have, in
fact, rebuilt our stocks in our portfolio. We have stocks that
are at, near, or above their rebuilding targets. So we have
done that. And I would suggest that we would have still rebuilt
stocks, albeit on a different timeline, if we had had the
option to consider what is in the draft.
But, having said that----
Mrs. Napolitano. Which part of consideration of the draft
are you talking about, sir?
Mr. Robins. That is the elimination to rebuild a stock ``as
quickly as possible,'' and replacing that with ``as quickly as
practicable,'' and allowing the maximum stock rebuilding
timeline to be the time it would take, in the absence of any
fishing, plus one mean generation, which is currently in the
Act as what we call T-max, that is the maximum time. But that
would still be there.
So, you would still have to rebuild it within that
timeline. But having that range would allow you to consider
more fully, I think, the tradeoffs involved in the biological
timelines versus the social and economic mitigations that we
have talked about.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you for your answer. Mr. Chair, I
yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady. I recognize now the
gentleman from Florida, Mr. Southerland.
Mr. Southerland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rauch, I am
going to ask you some questions. I am going to give you just a
couple here.
The 2014 omnibus contains $25 million for catch shares. How
do you plan to spend that?
Mr. Rauch. We have yet to submit our spend plans to the
Appropriations Committee, so I can just tell you in general,
but not the details. There are a number of existing catch share
programs around the country that we plan to invest in, some of
them in your region in the Gulf.
Mr. Southerland. Wonderful.
Mr. Rauch. Some of them on the West Coast. But in terms of
working out the actual details, I do not have any until we get
through with our discussions with the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. Southerland. Red snapper, as you know, is closed in the
South Atlantic. What year was that closed?
Mr. Rauch. I don't recall. It was before 2010, I think.
Mr. Southerland. OK. I think----
Mr. Rauch. Something like that.
Mr. Southerland. I think it was 2008, but I may be off a
year or two. So we are in the same----
Mr. Rauch. Yes.
Mr. Southerland [continuing]. Understanding there. Red
snapper--and it still remains closed with no updated
assessment. Is there--I mean what is the plan? When can we--you
know, because I know, according to National Standard Number 8,
the economic viability--and in your own testimony you alluded
to the red snapper and its economic viability to our region.
So, therefore, I am trying to find some consistency,
because I find great inconsistency to name a fish that is so
viably, economically important that you would name it in your
written testimony and verbally allude to it, and yet it has
been closed since 2008 and we still have not had an assessment.
Give me an idea into what you are thinking.
Mr. Rauch. Red snapper is very important to the region,
both----
Mr. Southerland. You stated that.
Mr. Rauch [continuing]. Both in the Gulf and the South
Atlantic.
Mr. Southerland. Yes.
Mr. Rauch. It has been closed in the South Atlantic. We did
create a framework that allows short-term openings, and it
did--there was a very brief opening----
Mr. Southerland. Weekend, one weekend.
Mr. Rauch. Yes, very brief.
Mr. Southerland. Very, very brief.
Mr. Rauch. Very brief.
Mr. Southerland. So, you and I, we talk the same language.
Mr. Rauch. Yes.
Mr. Southerland. That was very, very brief.
Mr. Rauch. It was very brief. We are concerned--we were
concerned when we closed it, because the way that you assess
the science in that fishery is with the fishermen's landings.
And once you close it, the fishermen aren't landing anything,
so you have no way to assess the stock.
So, in 2010 we created a fishery independent survey with
our Southeast Science Center to send a vessel out there to
collect the data on which to assess it. We are going to do a
stock assessment in 2014, which would allow us to evaluate
those openings, based on a set of data that didn't exist in
2008. And hopefully, if the stock is recovered, we will be able
to expand those very brief openings into much more substantial
openings, and to see some more of the economic promise that red
snapper does hold for the region.
Mr. Southerland. There was an assessment done in the Gulf
of Mexico in 2004 that said there were 8 million pounds of red
snapper. The one that was done last year, 2013, the fish had
doubled to 16 million pounds. And the recreational fishermen
were rewarded with reduced days. I found it ironic that our
Council would not release those results, or not address those
results, until after the season had been announced. Kind of a--
seemed like a little poke in the eye to most people.
But if something is--you know, you have not done an
assessment in so long, I have to think that you can chum for
snapper in the South Atlantic, as reports have been given.
So, you are saying that, even if the data comes back and it
is good, we can look for very brief--and you and I have
determined that ``brief'' is like a weekend--brief openings for
a fishery that clearly has rebounded?
Mr. Rauch. So the stock assessment was about Gulf red
snapper. So the Gulf red snapper has----
Mr. Southerland. I understand.
Mr. Rauch [continuing]. Rebounded fantastically.
Mr. Southerland. But I am hearing the same observations
that I hear in the Gulf about how the fish have rebounded.
Mr. Rauch. So, if that is correct, I would be hopeful that
we could have more than a brief season next year. But we
haven't seen that stock assessment yet.
Mr. Southerland. Because there hasn't been one.
Mr. Rauch. There hasn't been one in the South Atlantic.
Mr. Southerland. That is my point.
Mr. Rauch. Right.
Mr. Southerland. So you are waiting for an assessment that
hasn't been scheduled.
Mr. Rauch. It is going to happen in 2014, we believe.
Mr. Southerland. OK. I will be eager for those results.
Last question with 28 seconds. When a Council opens up a
public comment period, is there a threshold that needs to be
met before action is taken? For example, over 4,000 individual
comments against sector separation, and yet the Council has
been moving--in our neck of the woods--moving ahead with it,
now voting on something called ``voluntary sector separation.''
If 4,000 people showed up at a meeting and made public
comments, wouldn't that get the Council's attention?
Mr. Rauch. I think it would get the Council's attention.
Mr. Southerland. It doesn't.
Mr. Rauch. I don't think--I have not yet seen the Council
meet in a room that could hold 4,000 people.
Mr. Southerland. No, but I am talking about the comments
that come in. Clearly, the comments have been clearly against
them moving forward. And yet, there is a rush to get this done.
Mr. Rauch. The Councils are quasi-independent bodies. And,
much like Congress, they take issues up in their own time.
There are standards for action in the council process that,
before they take a final action, they have to meet certain
standards dictated by the Magnuson Act or we will overturn the
amendment. But within those broad standards, the Council sets
its own agenda.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman----
Mr. Southerland. I yield back, thank you.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Guam, Ms. Bordallo.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rauch,
I have a couple of questions for you.
On Guam in the Western Pacific, data collection and
scientific methods remain a significant challenge to us. But
they are crucial to the health of our fisheries and ecosystems.
Now, I also believe a science-based approach can and should
take into consideration unique cultural issues, as well as our
diverse ecosystem.
With that said, do you believe that this draft bill's
provision that undermined the advice of scientific and
statistical committees will result in more profitable and
sustainable fisheries?
Mr. Rauch. I am not sure what provision you are talking
about, but I do want to echo your concern about the importance
of science in the Western Pacific. It is something that we have
been very concerned about. We have recently increased our
investment there.
I do believe that fishery management depends on good
science. There needs to be science-based decisions and there is
a national standard that requires all management determinations
to be based on best available science.
Ultimately, at the end of the day, the Secretary acts as
the gatekeeper for science. We have to approve all the
regulations, and we will have to make sure that the Councils--
or that the regulations are based on best-available science. So
I am not sure exactly what provision you are talking about, but
we are concerned that the decisions need to continue to be made
science-based. And if there was any undermining of that, that
would be of a concern to us.
Ms. Bordallo. All right. And my second question for you is
under current law, NOAA makes the determination of whether or
not a stock is overfished. Now, Section 3 of the draft bill, it
says it would remove scientific criteria and allow Councils to,
one, determine independently whether or not a stock is
overfished; and, two, unilaterally terminate rebuilding
efforts. So, what would be the result of removing such
scientific criteria from determining whether or not a stock is
overfished?
Mr. Rauch. So that issue is somewhat complicated right now.
Currently, the Councils set the criteria for what is overfished
in all existing fishery management plans. It has to be based on
the best-available science. We, ultimately, as I said, are the
gate-keepers. So every fishery management plan right now has a
council-generated definition of what is overfished or not. We
then, the Fisheries Service, comes in and we run the science
and the stock assessments and determine were those criteria met
in any given basis. So, we will tell the Council whether the
situation has met that.
The current bill would seem to allow the Councils to short-
cut a rebuilding plan before it has achieved its objectives by
saying it was depleted and it is no longer depleted. And it is
unclear to me how that process works. We have seen in the past,
situations where rebuilding plans were going on, and then, for
whatever reason, the situation changes. And there needs to be
some flexibility and adjustment. We think we have done that,
but we have heard that there is this issue about rebuilding
plans which need to terminate early. This bill, it would seem,
would allow the Councils to terminate the rebuilding plan
early. It is not clear what the criteria they would use to do
that.
But, as I said, ultimately, the Secretary would be the
gate-keeper, and would require that it be based on the best
available science, but that is an issue that we would need to
look into.
Ms. Bordallo. So, let me get back to, then, this provision
that we spoke of, here. It would be a concern. Is that correct?
Mr. Rauch. The concern is that when we set out a rebuilding
plan, we say we are going to achieve a biological target. That
biological target, then, has economic consequences. The reason
we are doing this is we want to generate economic growth in the
fishery. This would appear to allow the Councils to stop their
rebuilding before you achieve that target. And it is not clear
to me what the consequences of that are.
Whether--so are you leaving economic value--are you
foregoing economic value, or are there significant short-term
costs that you need to account? So that is a delicate balancing
that we would have to look at. So we would want to look at that
issue before we take a firm position. But that would be the
issue about terminating before you achieve your biological
target.
Ms. Bordallo. In listening to the answers to my questions,
Mr. Rauch, I do feel that you think that scientific methods are
important, whatever section of the bill we are talking about.
Mr. Rauch. Absolutely.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back her time? I thank
the gentlelady. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Louisiana, Mr. McAllister.
Mr. McAllister. I yield back my time, Chairman.
The Chairman. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from the
Northern Marianas, Mr. Sablan.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr.
Rauch, thank you for meeting with me. And we are still looking
forward to a letter we wrote to NOAA. And please extend my
congratulations to the new Assistant Secretary Administrator of
NOAA.
Several of the witnesses have reiterated the argument that
the law does not provide flexibility when it comes to
rebuilding requirements. Yet, as you point out, 53 percent of
the stock currently in a rebuilding plan have rebuilding
timelines that exceed 10 years, due to a biology or
environmental conditions, and that current rebuilding timelines
actually range from 4 to 100 years. That seems very flexible to
me, as does your mention of the ability to revise building
plans based on new scientific information, or when a stock is
failing to make progress in rebuilding.
Would you care to expand on that? Elaborate on this,
please.
Mr. Rauch. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. Yes, we do believe
that there is a great deal of flexibility in the rebuilding
timeframes. First, on the timeframes themselves. As you say,
there is this perception that there is 10 years, and there is,
in statute. But there are a number of areas that would allow us
to extend them, based on certain factors, including the biology
of the stocks and others that I mentioned in my oral and
written testimony, so that we have roughly half of them are
longer, and some of them much longer, than 10 years.
Once you set the timeframe itself, there are circumstances
where you can change it, based on biological conditions, as we
have done a number of times in the Pacific Coast, or you could
determine that you are not making adequate progress, and
revisit that, like we are doing on the East Coast in a couple
of occasions. So, I do think that there is some flexibility
there.
But I do have to reflect that the National Academy of
Sciences did just come out with a report that indicated that
perhaps there are better ways to look at this. If the law stays
as written, we are undergoing a National Standard 1 rewrite
process in which we are looking at those flexibilities to see
if we can take the National Academy of Sciences'
recommendations within the law as it is currently structured to
highlight the flexibility that does exist.
Mr. Sablan. So my other question is, as you have mentioned
before, there are all types of electronic monitoring, from
catch accounting to electronic log books to VMS, vessel
monitoring systems. This bill contains language that would
prevent electronic monitoring data from being used for law
enforcement purposes. And the way it is written seems to
preclude the use of VMS. What would be the consequence of that?
And what other types of EM are necessary for compliance,
enforcement, and safety-at-sea purposes?
Mr. Rauch. Well, we certainly use a wide variety of
electronic monitoring systems for both enforcement and for data
collection. It would be a concern to us, in terms of how are
you going to implement the Act, if you could not use electronic
monitoring for such enforcement. And I did read that provision
in the statute. And, as written, it does seem to do that,
although I think that there may perhaps be another
interpretation which might not go so far.
So, we do use that currently. I know a number of Councils
we talked about with another one of the Members about the
importance of trying to develop more electronic monitoring
systems, and some of the Councils currently are considering
uses for this for enforcement purposes. So I do think that the
bill, as written, would limit that ability. And then we would
have a concern about how else are you going to enforce the Act
if you can't rely on these systems.
Mr. Sablan. All right. And before I ask my last questions,
I also want to associate myself with the distinguished lady
from Guam, and your office giving greater attention to the
Pacific, especially Guam and the Northern Marianas, in review.
But my final question for you, Mr. Rauch, is that we have
heard testimony today and over the past year that NOAA is
putting too much emphasis on ending overfishing, and not enough
emphasis on achieving optimal yield from fisheries. While I
agree that there should be coequal goals, isn't the second
contingent on the first? Is it possible to achieve OY while
overfishing is occurring? Optimal yield while overfishing is
occurring?
Mr. Rauch. I think ending overfishing is important, not
only for environmental sustainability reasons, but I think the
fishermen are achieving a great benefit from being able to
demonstrate that they sustainably fish their harvest. I think
that they get a competitive advantage from that. They are
improving the product, not only for the U.S. markets, but for
international markets. It is something we would not want to
lightly give away, even if we environmentally could.
I do not think that we could achieve optimum yield and
allow overfishing, certainly on a long-term basis.
Theoretically, it might be possible to do it in a year. But
over the long term, you could not do that.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Recognize the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Byrne.
Mr. Byrne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rauch, I have some
questions for you about snapper. I think I heard you say, in
response to a question from Mr. Southerland, that the Gulf red
snapper has ``rebounded fantastically.'' Did you say that?
Mr. Rauch. If I didn't say that exactly, I said something
like it.
Mr. Byrne. OK. Now, is that based upon the assessments by
the Southeast Science Committee?
Mr. Rauch. Southeast Science Center and the Council's
Science and Statistical Committee.
Mr. Byrne. OK.
Mr. Rauch. Yes.
Mr. Byrne. And in reply to a previous question about
snapper, you talked about how you assess not just the reefs, as
this is a reef fish, but other areas in the Gulf, as well. So
it is based upon that total assessment.
Mr. Rauch. Yes.
Mr. Byrne. Can you tell me, then, why the snapper season
for this coming year has only been increased by 10 days?
Mr. Rauch. While the stock itself has increased, and it has
increased much quicker than we thought, fishing effort has also
increased with the Gulf. The fish have expanded their range, so
they are encountering more recreational fishermen than they did
before. They are bigger than we expected, so one fish that a
fisherman got historically is now two or three times that size.
So, what that means is that the impact that the
recreational fishermen may be having is also growing, at the
same time that the fish population is growing. So, while we
have consistently added to the recreational quota in every year
for the past--I could get this wrong--for the past several
years, we have looked at the recreational effort and added
fish, increased the quota based on the growing thing, the
growing health of the biomass, it is also true that the
effort--the recreational fishermen have quickly caught that
quota every single year, and they continue to do so.
So, we did expand the quota, based on recent numbers. But
we couldn't expand it more than 40 days this year. We continue
to work with the Council. The Council is meeting, I think, this
week, to look for ways to increase that season. We understand
how important it is to the Gulf.
Mr. Byrne. Well, and I appreciate your saying how important
it is to the Gulf. Under the draft legislation, you would be
required to come up with a prioritization of the species that
you are actually assessing. Does that mean you are going to
prioritize the red snapper?
Mr. Rauch. I could be wrong. I think it talked about
prioritizing data-poor stocks. We already prioritize red
snapper. Red snapper is one of the most important economic
species in the Gulf, and is one that we are devoting a
substantial amount of our resources to, because it is so
important. I don't think that it would be any less important
under any prioritization scheme that we do.
Mr. Southerland. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Byrne. Yes, sir.
Mr. Southerland. The statement you just made, you said you
based red snapper as a priority. And yet we know, in the South
Atlantic, it has been closed since 2008 and you haven't had a
survey. That contradicts the statement you just made. It is not
a priority.
Mr. Rauch. We instituted a survey in 2010 for South
Atlantic red snapper.
Mr. Southerland. My point----
Mr. Rauch. And----
Mr. Southerland. OK. But, I mean, you clearly made a
statement that it is a priority. And you are satisfied that the
results from 2010 on a fishery that was closed in 2008--and you
just--by the way, your Department has come and testified. You
all just recently made the decision to do the 2014, because the
last time your Department came and testified, that wasn't on
the books. So, I mean, it is not a priority.
And with that I yield back to the gentleman. Thank you.
Mr. Byrne. Let me go back to the Gulf Council, because I
have talked to some of the members of the Council, including a
marine scientist that is on the Council, a very respected
marine scientist. And his conclusion, based upon data that he
had, scientific data, is that there are far more snapper in the
Gulf than you all are indicating.
Is it possible that the analysis that you are using, the
data collection you are using, is under-counting the red
snapper in the Gulf, because you are not adequately sampling
around the reefs? And we know that there are a lot of
artificial reefs out there.
Mr. Rauch. So it is always possible. We don't count every
fish, as I think Chairman Robins indicated. We count a subset
of the fish and try to do that to estimate the entire
population. In estimating the entire population, there is
always a possibility that we are under-counting or over-
counting that population. These uncertainties figured into the
stock assessment, and I think I am familiar with the individual
you are talking about, and he is a well-respected member. And
we do try to account for his data in the stock assessment.
Mr. Byrne. Well, let me ask you to go back again, bear down
a little bit harder, because I think the data is going to
reflect that we could fish more days than 40 days. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. The Chair recognizes
the gentlelady from Massachusetts, Ms. Tsongas.
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank
you all for being here today. I think your perspectives and
your experiences under the Magnuson-Stevens are very important,
as we continue to look at how best to reauthorize it.
I do not represent a coastal district, but my home State of
Massachusetts is home to one of our Nation's most historic
fishing industries. The fishing industry has not only shaped
the history and culture of our State for centuries--and it is a
very proud heritage, one we share whether we are on a coastal
community or not--but it also remains the lifeblood of many
communities, with a significant, though fragile, economic
impact. And while New Bedford, Massachusetts, is home to the
most profitable port in the Nation, based on a scalloping
industry, we have also seen the dire economic consequences of
the near collapse of the New England groundfish population, and
the ripple effects across many Massachusetts communities.
As today's hearing demonstrates, we all have similar goals
for the Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization. We all want to
implement a regulatory framework that results in healthy,
sustainable fish stocks, but also one that encourages vibrant
fishing communities. And I think, as you hear from the many
questions here today, we all struggle with the economic impacts
upon those who make a livelihood from fishing, as well as their
communities, even as we understand the need to think carefully
about how to maintain vibrant fishing stocks.
I have real concerns about this bill's potential impact on
the long-term success of Massachusetts fisheries. When I visit
our fishing communities, one of the main themes that I hear is
how best to balance the short-term needs of our fishermen and
their families with the long-term sustainability of the stocks,
which is necessary for the long-term survival of our fishing
economy, and for the generational responsibility many of those
who have spent not only their livelihood, but over many years,
their family's livelihood, and who look to preserve a fishing
life for their children.
But I am concerned that this draft prioritizes the short
term over the long term. I am also concerned about the impact
of waving bedrock environmental laws such as the National
Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act, which
are essential for maintaining the healthy marine ecosystems
crucial to securing the Massachusetts fishing industry well
into the future.
So, this is really more of a statement, just simply that,
as we work on reauthorizing Magnuson-Stevens, we know it is not
an easy process, we are all trying to find that delicate
balance, Dr. Rauch, that you referenced. But moving forward, I
hope we can work together on a bipartisan basis to address some
of these concerns.
And just, I guess, your thoughts, really, as to the balance
in the proposed draft, and where we might look to bring it into
better alignment in order to well understand the short-term
challenges, but also maintain a vibrant fishing stock and a
vibrant fishing industry, going forward, Dr. Rauch.
Mr. Rauch. Thank you. The Administration has not taken a
formal position on this discussion draft. And so I can't answer
the question about my thoughts on that.
I will tell you some of my thoughts on National Standard 1,
which are the regulations that we have written to implement
these kinds of provisions in the past. And one of the things we
have heard from fishermen through this process, through
Managing Our Nation's Fisheries--information also went to the
Congress--was about that balance that you just described.
We have done a very good job about ending overfishing,
putting our fish and fishermen on a sustainable basis. And we
are starting to see the economic value of that. But we also
know that, in doing so, we are leaving some economic growth on
the table, some growth that is important, some stability to the
fishermen that is important. And I do think that, collectively,
at least from the Administration's perspective, we want to re-
look at our regulatory process to determine whether we have
struck the balance correctly within the laws that exist. And I
would hope that Congress will do the same.
It is an issue that we need to struggle with. It is
something we are hearing from the fishermen.
Ms. Tsongas. And, Mr. Robins, you have a few seconds here.
Mr. Robins. Thank you. I would tend to agree. I think the
exemptions need to be treated very carefully, because, on the
one hand, they are necessary to, I think, enhance the stability
of the fisheries that we are all trying to achieve. And yet, if
they are put in in such a way that undermines the integrity or
the fundamental strengths of the Act, that would not be in our
long-term interest. So I would suggest, as I have in my written
testimony here today, that several of those exemptions receive
significant revisions and consideration before they get
approved.
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you both. I yield.
The Chairman. The time of the gentlelady has expired. The
Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Wittman.
Dr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, thanks so
much for joining us today. Mr. Robins, I want to go straight to
you and talk a little bit about catch shares. You know there is
a referendum requirement for the creation of new catch shares.
I wanted to get your perspective in the Mid-Atlantic about the
use of catch shares, and then also your thoughts about
flexibility within the creation of those catch shares.
And you made some comments on Section 7, talking about the
inclusion of sectors in defining catch shares, also hardship
provisions there, how those hardship provisions might create
some challenges. And then, also, a provision for the preclusion
of the use of catch shares. Can you kind of give us your
perspective in the Mid-Atlantic, and then talk about the
flexibility elements in some of these issues that you pointed
out that may contradict flexibility?
Mr. Robins. Thank you, Mr. Wittman, for the question, and I
will. The Mid-Atlantic manages 12 different species of fin fish
and shellfish. At this point, only three of those are subject
to catch share management. Two of them were among the first
ever in the country to have an ITQ, Surfclam and Ocean Quahog
Fisheries.
Dr. Wittman. Yes.
Mr. Robins. Those have been successfully managed under that
program for, now, over 20 years. The third is golden tilefish,
which is a more recent development.
But we have a longstanding history, I think, as a Council,
of looking relatively pragmatically at these questions, in
terms of considering catch shares among many alternatives in
managing a fishery. And we have a history of considering and
generally not adopting catch shares in those fisheries, and
that is why most of our fisheries now are not managed in that
way. But I think Councils should have the flexibility to
consider them as a management tool.
And I question whether the referendum is really an
efficient way, or an effective way, for the decisionmaking
process in fisheries management. There might be some situations
where it is appropriate. But we have a history, I think, on the
East Coast, some fisheries that had years and years of open
access, and that led to over-subscription to the fishery. And
so, you know, you may have a fishery that has a lot of
inactivity and latent permits in it. Is a referendum the best
way to address that question? I don't know that it is. And you
have a lot of concerns about how to craft a referendum, who is
eligible, how do the votes get counted. It strikes me as a
cumbersome and somewhat unwieldy tool by which to consider how
to best manage a fishery.
The council process allows for extensive public input. And
if you are going to consider a major reform in the management
of a fishery, it has to have broad support. I think that is a
basic principle of fact in making good management decisions.
So, you know, I see it as somewhat unwieldy. And I think
there is a loss of flexibility in what is proposed. If Councils
do have to use that process, I think they ought to have the
discretion to determine voting eligibility, and how it is going
to be done. But, again, I think it is somewhat cumbersome.
Dr. Wittman. Let me ask this. As an alternative, then,
maybe, to a referendum requirement, is there a higher level of
rigor that possibly could be put in place to incorporate public
comment in these decisions? Because I know some folks--and I
think rightfully so--sometimes they are concerned that the
public comment is separated from the ultimate public policy
decisionmaking.
So, I didn't know if there is a way--if it is not a
referendum, is there another tool that we could use to more
closely connect that, so the public understands how their
comments are put into the management decision process?
Mr. Robins. Well, I think, just reflecting more broadly on
the experience in the Northeast region, and thinking about some
of the difficulties that were experienced when the groundfish
fishery moved into sectors, one consideration might be to have
a minimum time for the development of allocated fisheries,
because in that case, you know, the process was accelerated,
and there was some significant dissatisfaction, as I know you
all have heard.
But I think it is critical that Councils take a
deliberative approach when they go through that process. And in
that situation New England had to do a lot quickly to comply
with the ACL requirements, and they were in a difficult
position. But I think it is important to have adequate time for
the development of those plans when they are being considered.
Dr. Wittman. Let me ask you one quick question, too, about
energy development. Obviously, off the Mid-Atlantic the Outer
Continental Shelf is a focus on energy development, especially
there off the Virginia coast. Do you see that there is an
opportunity for reconciling whatever conflicts may exist
between OCS energy development and fisheries management within
the Middle Atlantic?
Mr. Robins. I think there is. To some extent, the horse has
already left the barn, but--you know, through the Smart From
The Start energy program. And yet, when those arrays are
ultimately sited, there should be fisheries data that comes
into those discussions as it relates to the micro-siting
decisions. And I think, through that, we might be able to
mitigate some of the impacts on our fisheries.
Dr. Wittman. Very good.
Mr. Robins. While accommodating the energy development.
Dr. Wittman. Very good, thanks. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. The Chair recognizes
the gentlelady from Hawaii, Ms. Hanabusa.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Rauch, you have
heard both the Chair make reference and the gentlelady from
Massachusetts also made reference to the NEPA requirements and
the conflict between the MSA and NEPA. I think though, you
know, I don't necessarily advocate that we do away with the
NEPA requirements, you can understand the frustration,
especially that the fishermen feel and others feel that have to
deal with it, when in the 2006 MSA that basically NOAA was
tasked with trying to resolve the conflict.
I understood from your response to the Chair that,
basically, nothing has been done. I am asking now what exactly
has been done. We may not have addressed it, but what have you
done? And to really ignore a provision in an authorization act
for this many years--under a different administration, albeit,
but still--to ignore it is kind of difficult for those of us
who want to support all of your efforts to sit there and say,
``Well, 2006 to now''--that is a long period of time. And why
hasn't it been done?
Mr. Rauch. Thank you, Congresswoman, for that, and for
giving me the opportunity to address this. I think the last
time this issue was--it was addressed at Chairman Robins, who
offered his opinion about whether it had been done.
I disagree. I think we have dealt with this. A little
background on this issue. We have struggled, historically, with
integrating the timeframe requirements, the analytical
requirements between NEPA and the Magnuson Act for some time.
But in 2000, after we had lost a series of court cases on this,
we devoted a substantial amount of financial resources and
agency resources, both on our side and the Council, to try to
align the processes better. And we worked very hard on that.
And so, over that time, it is harder and harder to find any
actual evidence of more than a theoretical conflict between the
two statutes. It does require some increased analytical effort.
It requires, sometimes, an increased time effort. But, largely,
we have been able to mesh those two statutes.
In response to the 2006 requirement by Congress, we
initially did a proposed rule, which we put out for public
comment and then subsequently withdrew, which would mesh the
two provisions better. We then decided that we could do much of
the same thing by putting out a policy statement about how the
Magnuson Act and the NEPA provisions are supposed to apply
together. We have implementing policies. We did that last
February, in February 2013. And, as we said, then we thought
that that had complied with the 2006 requirements.
We are about to put that out for a further round of public
review, recognizing it is a living document. And so, in the
coming months I think you will see another revision of that,
because once we put it out we talked to the Councils, and the
Councils had some input they wanted to put into that process.
And so we have taken that Council input, and we will be putting
out a revision.
But we believe we have complied with the 2006 mandate
between NEPA and the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Ms. Hanabusa. Mr. Rauch, I guess my difficulty in
understanding that is that you have a NEPA, which is a law. You
have MSA, which is a law. And to mesh two laws together, it
doesn't seem to be logical that you can simply do it by a
policy statement. It would seem that you would need a law to
mesh two laws together, to at least have some kind of force in
effect.
And I still don't understand--2006 to 2013 is an awful long
period of time to come up with a policy statement that has been
put out, withdrawn, and now you are trying to convince me that
what Congress has to accept is that a policy statement will
mesh the MSA and NEPA. And, again, I want to believe that there
is a resolution to this, I just can't understand how a mere
policy statement can then trump two statutes that have the kind
of historic implementation that NEPA and MSA has.
Mr. Rauch. Well, we are not trying to trump either statute.
The two statutes do mesh together remarkably well, as long as
the Councils and NOAA make an affirmative effort to do that.
Both statutes require a consideration of a number of
environmental impacts before you take actions. Both have
timelines and public processes that inform decisionmakers. The
only real conflict comes, if it is not applied correctly, in
that the minimum time for action under NEPA is the maximum time
for action under the Magnuson Act. And so, you have to move a
lot of the NEPA processes down to the council level in order to
meet those timeframes.
So, we are able to mesh them together without trying to
trump each statute. It does take a little work. But as long as
we are invested in the process, and the Councils are, we think
that the two can be handled coherently.
Ms. Hanabusa. Mr. Rauch, I respectfully disagree that you
can mesh it like that.
Mr. Chair, I have some additional questions that I would
like to submit for the record, if that is OK.
The Chairman. They will be, and I will make that
announcement at the end of this panel. I thank the gentlelady
from Hawaii.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you.
The Chairman. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Alaska, Mr. Young.
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding these hearings. I think I am the only one in this room
that voted for this legislation when the original Magnuson-
Stevens Act passed. So this is interesting; I appreciate the
witnesses.
Mr. Rauch, as you know, in 2004, Congress required NMFS to
reserve an allocation of pollock for the Aleutian Islands for
the Aleut Corporation. Since NMFS set aside the Steller sea
lion habitat, the Aleuts have been unable to fish its
allocation, and NMFS has allocated it elsewhere in the Bering
Sea, frustrating efforts to improve the local economy following
the closure of Adak's naval facility.
What solution do you suggest that allows either the Aleuts
to fish their pollock allocation elsewhere in the Bering Sea,
where the habitat restrictions will not prohibit it, or will
allow them the economic benefit when others are allowed to fish
that allocation elsewhere in the Bering Sea?
Mr. Rauch. Thank you for the question. As you are well
aware, we are in the process of reviewing those Steller sea
lion restrictions. We had put out a biological opinion in, I
believe, 2010, which opposed those restrictions. We have
received a number of comments, critical comments from
independent peer reviewers. We had a court telling us that we
have to do the EIS for that process. We have reinitiated
consultation, and we expect a new biological opinion out this
spring. It is on a schedule, I don't recall it off the top of
my head. But it is in the coming months.
So, if, as a result of that review, we find that a
different harvest regime is available, that more flexibility is
available that can be done and also protect the Steller sea
lions, then we would look at how you could more easily
effectuate the needs of the Aleutians in their pollock
transfer, because there is a possibility there, if we find
flexibility, we find that the Steller sea lions are doing
better, we will do that.
We have committed to working with the Councils on the
results of that biological opinion and having revised
regulations in place next year, if we are also seeking an
extension from the court. But if that is not granted, revised
regulations will be in place January of next year, which may
provide some relief in this instance.
Mr. Young. Well, I appreciate that answer. Will you commit
to me today that you will work with my office and the
representative of the Aleut Corporation to find a solution?
Mr. Rauch. Yes, we absolutely will work with your office.
Mr. Young. I thank you. As you know, when areas experience
poor fishing, the Magnuson-Stevens Act allows NMFS to declare
disaster for commercial fishermen. However, poor returns don't
simply affect commercial users, but also those subsistence
users who rely on fish to feed their families. Do you have any
thoughts on how we can address this contrast between the two?
Mr. Rauch. Currently, the Magnuson Act requires disasters
to be based on whether the commercial fishery has failed. That
is in the current statute, and the discussion draft doesn't
change that.
Once that finding has been made, however, the current
statute allows--if Congress were to appropriate funds to
mitigate that disaster, allows those mitigation funds to be
spent on a wide variety of interests. Some of them could be
subsistence uses. Some of them could be recreational interests,
interests to other Members. It could be community-based
interests that don't have a direct connection to the commercial
fishery.
So, although the finding is based on a commercial fishery
failure, by statute, the uses of the money could be much
broader, to the extent that Congress appropriates money for
that disaster.
Mr. Young. OK. Mr. Rauch, I will compliment you. Usually,
when we get Administration people down in front of us they
dance pretty well. You are not much of a dancer, and I want to
compliment you on that.
Mr. Rauch. I have never been much of a dancer.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Take that home with you and box it up.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. The Chair recognizes
the gentlelady from Massachusetts, Ms. Clark.
Ms. Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time.
The Chairman. OK. Does the gentleman, your colleague
sitting to your right, Mr. Tierney, have something to say?
Mr. Tierney. Mr. Chairman, I say simply that I want to
appreciate the comments of both witnesses, and maybe just ask
Mr. Robins to expound a little bit more on the flexibility
issue with regard to how it might affect people in the
Atlantic, particularly in the Northeast, on that basis about
the need to have more flexibility in terms of the length of
recovery time that might be allowed, and other aspects of that
in their specific fishery.
Mr. Robins. Thank you, I appreciate the question. And,
indeed, in the case of fish in the Northeast region, I think
the flexibility that is proposed in the draft, relative to the
rebuilding timelines and mandates, would afford more
flexibility than we have had in the past to consider the
tradeoffs between biological rebuilding schedules and the
attendant social and economic impact. So I think that is
important.
I think one of the most important considerations, though,
in the Northeast in particular, for the groundfish fishery is
having an effective mixed stock exception. And there is a
proposal in the draft for that. I don't know that it affords
enough protection for the weak stock, frankly.
But I think what is needed is something between that and
what was in the old National Standard 1 guidelines. You know,
so we need to strike a balance--a better balance, I think--in
the management of those weak stocks, so that we can facilitate
the effective yields out of the more productive stocks in a
mixed-stock fishery. And in New England, in the Mid-Atlantic,
we have some mixed fisheries where that would be an important
consideration.
So, I think that is among the most important things in
there. I think that does need some additional draft. But I
think that would really help to create flexibility that could
be translated into economic and social benefits.
Mr. Tierney. I thank you for those comments, and I yield
back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Why don't you yield to Mr. DeFazio? He has a
question.
Mr. Tierney. I will yield to Mr. DeFazio, thank you.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Rauch, you mentioned at the beginning you are in the
process of evaluating National Standard 1 guidelines to look at
a balance and an increase in flexibility. Where are you in that
process? When can we expect to see a proposal, you know, so we
have some idea on when it could be done?
Mr. Rauch. Yes. The short answer is we think that this fall
we will put out a proposed rule. We have, as has the Hill, been
working, soliciting ideas from our stakeholders. We are still
waiting on the Council chairs to see whether they will have
inputs into this process. We have heard from a number of
stakeholder communities, we expect to hear from the
recreational community later, I think in March. So we wanted to
collect all those inputs into the process before we put out a
bill.
Mr. DeFazio. But, I mean, part of what you are hearing here
today--and parts were reflected in the bill by the Majority--is
the very ponderous pace at which you change things. And
couldn't you just say, ``We want comment, your ideas and
suggestions, by this date, because we want to move ahead''? You
have been in this review process for 3 years now. This is the
third year.
And couldn't this just move a little more quickly, as
opposed to saying, ``Well, gee, we are waiting to hear from
people, and we don't know if they are going to get something to
us, but they are waiting for it,'' as opposed to putting out a
notice, ``Anybody who is concerned, send us your ideas by this
date, because we are going to move ahead and we are going to be
done by this date with a proposed rule''? I mean, is that too
much to ask of a bureaucracy?
Mr. Rauch. We did solicit an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking where we asked that. What we didn't have is your
deadline date----
Mr. DeFazio. Yes, I mean, that is part of what you are
hearing here today, is you are looking at some pretty radical
changes, in my opinion--although they would say that we are not
making some of those changes. But all of this is a reaction to
bureaucracy. And a lot of what goes on in this House is a
reaction to bureaucracy. And I would like to see a more adroit
bureaucracy.
So, I am just suggesting that, if you could move that ahead
more quickly--I guess I just ask that--have you commented?
Mr. Robins. The Councils have. But when we commented, it
has actually been some time, I think, since we initially
submitted comments. And at that point the implementation was
still relatively early. I think if we were to take another bite
at it today, we would have a whole other layer of comments
that----
Mr. DeFazio. Well, couldn't you do that quickly? I mean
does it take you a really long time, too, to do these things?
Mr. Robins. Sir, not nearly as long. I think we can develop
comments fairly quickly.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, thank you--I thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts, thank the Chairman.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you. And I want to thank both the Chair
and the Ranking Member and my colleagues here for allowing me
the opportunity to sit in on this hearing, and I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman for his remarks. I ask
unanimous consent that the following documents be included in
the record: a letter from Mr. Young of Alaska, Mr. Larsen of
Washington, to Samuel Rauch regarding confidentiality of
information collected for fishery management; a letter from Mr.
Don McIsaac to me and Senator Begich regarding a census
statement; and then, information from the Charleston Area
Hospitality Council; and then, finally, comments on the
discussion draft that showed up on our Web site from a number
of individuals and associations.
[No response.]
The Chairman. And, without objection, that will be part of
the record.
I want to thank the first panel. Thank you very much. Many
times, as Ms. Hanabusa said, there may be follow-up questions.
And if you get those questions, if you could respond in a
quick period of time, we would appreciate it very much. And the
first panel is dismissed.
And while that panel is being dismissed, I want to call up
the second panel. Mr. Rick Marks from the firm Robertson,
Monagle and Eastaugh; Mr. Vito Giacalone, Policy Director of
the Northeast Seafood Coalition; Mr. David Krebs, President of
Ariel Seafoods, representing the Gulf Seafood Institute; Mr.
George Geiger, Owner and Operator of Chances Are Fishing
Charters; Mr. Jeff Deem from the Recreational Fishing Alliance;
and Ms. Ellen K. Pikitch, Ph.D., Professor and Executive
Director of the Institute for Ocean Conservation Services from
Stony Brook University.
OK, we will go through the testimony in the order that we
have it here on my list. Most of you sat in on the first panel,
and so you know what the rules are.
When the green light is going, you are going very well.
When the yellow light goes on you have a minute to go. And when
the red light comes on, we would ask you to wrap up your
remarks. Your full testimony will appear as part of the record.
So, with that, we will start with Mr. Rick Marks from the firm
of Robertson, Monagle & Eastaugh.
You are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF RICK E. MARKS, ROBERTSON, MONAGLE & EASTAUGH, PC
Mr. Marks. Thank you. I am here because I work with
commercial fishermen, processors, and seafood markets,
associations, fishing-dependent communities, Alaska Native
corporations, and a fishing-dependent Indian Tribe from the
Aleutians and Kodiak, Washington, Oregon, California, both
coasts of Florida and the Florida Keys, North Carolina, New
Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island. I canvassed these folks
about the draft, and I provided their views alongside my own.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for a discussion draft. This
provides an opportunity for input from all stakeholders, which
is a great start, and much appreciated, given the significance
of the topic.
Generally, the draft reflects much of what we heard from
several industry members that have come to this table the past
2 years, the recommendations from Managing our Nation's
Fisheries conference, as well as from the regional councils who
deal with these challenging issues on a regular basis. Whenever
we comprehensively reform complex policy, we cannot always get
it all right. And it makes perfect sense to consider some
carefully targeted reform to deal with some of the unintended
consequences. We hope this can be a bipartisan rebalancing
effort, rather than a perceived rollback of conservation, as
some groups have already suggested. We prefer to say ``re-
regulate,'' rather than ``de-regulate.''
Section 3 allows the Councils not to have to choose the
shortest, most economically harmful rebuilding strategy, but
still achieve the goals of the Act. The 10-year rebuild is
replaced with a scientific alternative, based on
recommendations from NAS that a predetermined period is both
arbitrary and harmful to coastal communities. Based on this
report, those clinging to the 10-year dogma are likely more
interested in harming our coastal economy than in reasonable
scientific management. This section also provides the
Secretary, and not the Councils, with some helpful, but
limited, rebuilding considerations.
Section 4 provides the Councils with limited ACL exceptions
for ecosystem species, short-lived species with high natural
mortality, and some transboundary stocks, and Section 5
clarifies overfished and overfishing, much of these generally
supported by industry.
Section 7 requires a catch share requirement only in
certain regions and only for future programs. We very much need
this provision to put an end to the inequity. There are some
questions that remain: defining an inclusive vote criteria;
determining whether we need to take prescriptive steps to
protect new entrants; and ensure that catch shares remain
within the fishing industry to protect the consumer.
I note here, Mr. Chairman, that even in the regions where
this would not apply, there are differences of opinion on this
topic.
There is industry support for clarifying provisions for
confidential data. I recommend we review this provision to
ensure that we do not inadvertently prevent industry from
accessing their own data so they can use it to protect
themselves in the national ocean policy arena, and to ensure
that the data used to justify closing fishing areas are
transparent.
Regarding electronic monitoring, there are divergent
industry views. A prudent approach would be to encourage EM
projects in specific regions in fisheries where they are needed
and wanted, rather than a prescriptive national program.
Section 10 requires improved scientific activities in the Gulf
and South Atlantic, all things we have begged of the Southeast
Science Center. This is an extremely important provision for
industry in the lower half of the country.
Section 6 and 13 add transparency, streamlining, and
consistency with other statutes impacting fisheries. Much of
this is also being supported by industry.
What is missing from the draft? May I suggest respectfully
the committee consider some of the following: a more developed
mixed-stock exception to address underfishing, and
consideration that all species cannot be maintained at peak
levels; an ACL exception for spiny lobster in the Gulf, where
there is no international agreement, but the stock is truly
transboundary; require the Secretary to develop a
comprehensive, national transparent stock assessment plan
similar to that contained in H.R. 3063; a reconsideration of
whether Congress intended for ACLs on every single minor
species, and be wary of efforts to add forage fish to FMPs, a
stalking horse to overwhelm the system with the proliferation
of data-poor choke stocks; amend Section 306 to extend or
remove the sunset date for authority over West Coast Dungeness
crab; amend Section 312(a) to require the Secretary render a
fishery disaster declaration within 9 months, or certainly no
later than a year's time, after receipt of request.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, in sum, the draft provides a
starting point for us to begin rebalancing the Act, providing a
more practical application of rules and flexibility to deal
with unique circumstances, and also an opportunity to ensure
that we are achieving, on a continuing basis, optimum yield in
every fishery. Thank you all for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Marks follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rick E. Marks, Robertson, Monagle & Eastaugh, PC
Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member DeFazio and distinguished members
of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you about
the ``Discussion Draft'' legislation titled ``Strengthening Fishing
Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act''
(henceforth referred to as ``Draft'').
I am Rick Marks, a Principal at Robertson, Monagle & Eastaugh, P.C.
(``ROMEA'') of Reston, VA. Our extensive fisheries-related client base
includes fishermen, fish houses, shore-based processors, fishing
associations and fishing-dependent coastal communities in many States
from several regions around the Nation.
My background includes service on the Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council, as a supervisory marine fish biologist for the
State of North Carolina and as a Fishery Reporting Specialist and
Benthic Marine Field Technician for NOAA. I hold a Master of Science
degree in Marine Environmental Science and a Bachelor of Science degree
in Biology. I have authored several scientific papers in peer-reviewed
journals regarding various aspects of marine finfish ecology and
biology and have a professional certification in Environmental Conflict
Resolution from the Morris K. Udall Foundation in Arizona.
My comments here today are my own as a Principal at ROMEA and
advocate for the U.S. commercial fishing and seafood industry. However,
in my preparation for this hearing I canvassed our clients extensively
about specific contents of the ``Draft'' so in large part my testimony
reflects feedback on issues critical to many of our clients operating
in Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, Florida (Gulf Coast, East
Coast, and the entire FL Keys), New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island.
The 2006 Amendments and subsequent implementation fundamentally
altered the way domestic fishery resources are managed. The core
concept was to separate fish politics from science. The new provisions
focused on ending overfishing immediately, accountability, rebuilding
stocks as quickly as possible, reducing fishing capacity through
limited access programs--all in the context of a more intensive
reliance on science in the decisionmaking process.
In 2009 NOAA revised the National Standard One Guidelines (NSG1)
requiring the Regional Fishery Management Councils (RFMCs) to consider
both scientific and management uncertainty when setting quotas. For the
2006 reauthorization to work it required a heavy reliance on high
quality scientific information. Unfortunately, this is information that
in most regions we simply do not have. Juxtaposition of insufficient
data on many stocks with consideration of uncertainty in the quota
setting process has resulted in precautionary buffers and yields below
MSY at the expense of the industry and our Nation. In addition,
proliferation of unpopular catch share programs in some regions has
intensified the call for reform.
The following points justify the idea that additional reform is
necessary and to address the unintended consequences from 2006. These
include but are not limited to: (1) the committee considered no less
than eight bills focusing on MSA reform in 2011; (2) you have convened
6 hearings with testimony from almost 100 witnesses in the 113th
Congress; (3) NOAA is conducting a re-examination of NSG1 and data
confidentiality standards; (4) in 2013 the GAO concluded that the 10-
year rebuilding requirement was arbitrary and the mixed-stock exemption
should be revisited; (5) many of the recommendations from the 2013
``Managing Our Nations Fisheries III'' and from the Regional Fishery
Management Councils (RFMCs) strongly support carefully targeted reform;
(6) we are plagued by weak stock management and a requirement to have
all stocks, incl. minor ones, at MSY in the same time/space; and (7) we
are not meeting our objectives to maximize harvest to provide the
greatest benefit to the Nation.
Whenever comprehensive changes are made to complex policies we
don't always get it all right. The time to begin discussing a
responsible rebalancing of the Act is now and we appreciate the
committee's attention to and leadership in this matter.
comments on the ``draft''
SECTION 3: Flexibility in Rebuilding Fish Stocks
The title of the ``Draft'' reflects the interest from around the
country in restoring some measure of flexibility to the stock
rebuilding requirements without undermining conservation. This theme
resonates with many in the fishing industry. RFMCs unanimously
supported adding an element of stock rebuilding flexibility during the
2006 reauthorization and renewed those efforts in 2013-2014.
The change to section 304(e)(4)(A)(i) of the Act of ``possible'' to
``practicable'' in terms of rebuilding periods affects the existing 9th
Circuit Court ruling in NRDC v. Daley which has been an issue for the
Pacific Council and the subject of Council comments. If approved, this
provision would provide the Council the option to choose between
several rebuilding scenarios and not just the shortest and most
harmful. The proposed change is viewed by the industry as beneficial to
coastal communities without undermining stock rebuilding objectives.
The section also removes the 10-year rebuilding timeframe and
substitutes the time a fishery could be rebuilt without fishing, plus
one mean generation (which is the current NSG1 for stocks that can't be
rebuilt in 10 years). The 10-year requirement has long been considered
by industry to be completely arbitrary but was touted by the
environmental community as the gold standard.
The National Academy of Science (NAS) concluded in their report
titled ``Evaluating the Effectiveness of Fish Stock Rebuilding Plans in
the U.S.'' (NAS 2013) that the pre-set 10-year rebuilding requirement
was indeed arbitrary and harmful, thus ending the debate. We need to
replace this requirement with more scientifically valid metrics.
The ``Draft'' also provides several common-sense exceptions to the
rebuilding time period which will be determined by the Secretary (not
the RFMCs) including: (1) biology of the stock, environmental
conditions or management measures under an informal international
agreement; (2) the cause of depletion is outside the jurisdiction of
the Council or can't be affected simply by limiting fishing; (3) if a
stock is part of a mixed-stock fishery that cannot be rebuilt in the
timeframe if that causes another component to approach depleted status,
or will lead to significant economic harm; (4) informal transboundary
agreements that affect rebuilding; and (5) ``Unusual events'' affecting
the stock and rebuilding and rebuilding can't be accomplished without
significant economic harm to fishing communities.
Subsection (a) also adds helpful new flexibility requirements that
rebuilding plans take into account environmental factors, including
predator/prey relationships; a schedule for reviewing rebuilding
targets and progress being made on reaching those targets; and
consideration of alternative rebuilding strategies including harvest
control rules and fishing mortality targets, things also requested by
the RFMCs.
The ``Draft'' also includes a helpful flexibility provision
allowing a RFMC the ability to terminate a rebuilding plan for a
fishery that was initially determined to be overfished when updated
science determines the stock is no longer overfished. This clarifies
that once a stock is in a rebuilding period the process does not have
to proceed to completion irrespective of stock response and condition.
The ``Draft'' omits a change to MSA Section 312(a) Fisheries
Disaster Relief that was a provision in 2011 in Mr. Runyan's H.R. 1646
which requires the Secretary to render a disaster determination within
specified time period after receiving a disaster request. Currently,
Section 312 applies no time constraint for the Secretary to render a
declaration. We recommend the committee consider a response time not to
exceed 1 year.
To illustrate, in May 2009 the Secretary closed the entire Gulf of
Mexico snapper-grouper fishery to protect sea turtles for 5 consecutive
months. The Governor of Florida issued a formal request to the
Secretary for a fisheries disaster declaration along with 350 members
of the Florida fishing industry. The Secretary did not respond to this
situation until early 2011, and determined that despite the hardship
the industry survived the closure so no disaster declaration was
necessary.
By comparison, it took the Secretary of Commerce just 90 days to
respond to the most recent 2013 disaster request for a commercial
fishery failure for Frazier River Sockeye in Washington State.
Subsection (c) allows increased flexibility by allowing a RFMC to
phase-in rebuilding restrictions over a period of 3 years for healthy
fisheries not subject to chronic overfishing and for which immediate
restrictions will result in significant economic impacts to fishing
communities. It is critical to note that overfishing will still need to
end but that in certain circumstances, up to 3 years will be allowed to
lessen economic harm.
SECTION 4: Modifications to the ACL Requirements
This section provides Councils with increased flexibility in
setting annual catch limits (ACL). The ACL requirement is retained in
the Act but the RFMCs could consider changes in ecosystem and economic
needs of the communities when setting limits. In light of changing
environmental conditions, these additions make scientific and common
sense.
There are helpful targeted ACL exceptions for ecosystem component
species that are not overfished or subject to overfishing or likely to
become subject to those conditions. These species are defined in a
manner that generally matches what is now in the NSG1. Since these non-
targeted species are such minor components, it makes sense to retain
them generally in the management context but not as species ``in the
fishery''. This allows for ecological monitoring but does not increase
management complexity or negative economic ramifications. A potential
example of this application is the Giant Grenadier in Alaska trawl
fisheries in the BSAI/GOA.
The ``Draft'' allows setting multiple year ACLs and annual catch
limits for a stock complex. We suggest ``stock complex'' be replaced
with ``mixed stock assemblage''. This provision will provide some
limited flexibility for RFMCs to set a single ACL for a group of fish
stocks that are commonly found in association with each other. Often,
the availability of individual species within a mixed stock assemblage
will fluctuate and may be inconsistent with species-specific ACLs.
However, this provision does not really address the weak stock
management problems inherent in mixed stock fisheries and should be
further developed to address minimum stock biomass. This problem can be
exacerbated as stocks rebuild, in data poor situations, and where
monitoring is not timely.
The Act currently provides an exemption from the ACL control rules
for stocks managed under international agreements and for species whose
life cycle is approximately 1 year that is not subject to overfishing.
These provisions are too narrow in scope and do not address species
that are truly transboundary in nature that have an informal agreement
(or no agreement) in place, or are species whose life history
characteristics prevent NOAA from being able to apply the ACL control
rules in an efficient manner. The ``Draft'' contains helpful provisions
to address two of these three concerns.
For example, in the case of Atlantic mackerel, scientific evidence
indicates the stock distribution is shifting into Canadian waters
(Overholtz, 2011). Unfortunately, the United States has no formal
transboundary sharing agreement and Canada takes what they can harvest.
In this instance, unilateral U.S. management actions pursuant to MSA do
not affect rebuilding or end overfishing but disadvantage our fishermen
and weaken the U.S. negotiating position. While the U.S. opportunity to
harvest mackerel was reduced by more than 80,000 metric tons since 2007
(from 115,000 mt to 34,907 mt) the Canadian government allowed their
fishermen to harvest most of the available quota since their fishermen
are under no obligation to fish under MSA rules. Due to the lack of a
transboundary ACL exemption, rigid interpretation of MSA requirements,
and application of layers of scientific uncertainty, the U.S. mackerel
fishery (which is not overfished) has been severely restricted and it
will prove difficult to rebuild quota levels under the new MSA
standards.
The proposed ACL exception is also appropriate for Atlantic
butterfish, a species that exhibits a short lifespan (1-3 years), an
extremely high natural mortality rate, highly uncertain and variable
survey indices, and an exceedingly variable catch level so that it is
not possible to accurately determine the condition of the stock on a
timely basis. Each of these uncertainties contributes to precautionary
ACLs, essentially turning butterfish into a ``choke'' stock with
negative effects on fishing for other robust species, undermining our
ability to achieve Optimum Yield (OY) which is a requirement of
National Standard 1.
However, Section (3)(B) in the Draft (Page 7) does not quite
address the problems related to the Spiny Lobster fishery in the Gulf
of Mexico. While valued at $375M and supporting more than 3,500 jobs in
Monroe County, FL alone--U.S. fishermen account for just 6 percent of
the total harvest. Genetic evidence indicates that stock recruitment
occurs entirely outside U.S. jurisdiction within the Caribbean Basin
and waters of Southern Cuba, Brazil, Belize, Honduras and Columbia.
In 2011, NOAA's Southeast Data Assessment Review (SEDAR) determined
it was not possible to establish population benchmarks based only on
the U.S. segment of the population (FKCFA 2011). There is no agreement
(formal or informal) to manage this international stock.
Despite the true transboundary nature of this stock and
insufficient data available to render a status determination, MSA
requirements could force the RFMC's to set precautionary ACL control
rules for this species that will harm U.S. fishermen with no biological
benefit to the stock. Considerations should be made in this particular
instance where there is no transboundary agreement but the recruitment,
distribution, life history and preponderance of fishing activities are
transboundary.
SECTION 5: Overfished and Overfishing Defined
This section correctly defines ``overfishing'' and removes the term
``overfished'' from the Act, substituting the newly defined term
``depleted''. The section also requires changes to the annual Status of
Stocks report submitted by the Secretary to distinguish between stocks
that are depleted or approaching that condition due to fishing and
those meeting that definition as a result of other factors. The
industry supports the separation and clarification of the two terms and
the requirement to differentiate vis aa vis stocks status. However, we
recommend the proposed definition of ``overfished'' be revised to
include a minimum stock biomass level which reflects the current NSG1.
SECTION 6: Transparency and Public Process
This section requires RFMC Science and Statistical Committees
(SSCs) to develop advice in a transparent manner and allow for public
input. However, the 2006 MSA amendments ceded unprecedented authority
to the SSC and the increased use of video/call conferencing/webinar
technology has increased to where critical decisions can be made
outside of the public eye. So, there is an elemental need to consider
public access.
While each Council operates differently, and the range of comfort
in the regulated community varies from region to region based on those
differences, there is no reason why we should not require RFMC, SSC and
Council Coordinating Committee (CCC) meetings be widely available in
some timely manner and archived for public access.
We note that subsection (b) requires the Council and CCC to provide
a live broadcast only if practicable to do so, but does require an
audio recording, video (if the meeting was in person or via video
conference), and a transcript of each Council and SSC meeting on its
Web site within 30 days. Note there are some concerns being expressed
that 60 days may be a more appropriate timeframe. It will be the
responsibility of the Secretary (not the RFMCs) to maintain and make
available an archive of the Council and SSC meetings.
This concept of ensuring public access was raised originally in
2011 and generally supported by the fishing industry, especially in the
Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic regions as a provision in H.R. 2753:
``The Fishery Management Transparency and Accountability Act''
introduced by Rep. Walter Jones (NC-R).
Subsection 6(c) stipulates that fishery management plans,
amendments, and regulations implementing those plans and amendments are
deemed to have met the requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). The provision also specifies that MSA timelines will
be the controlling schedule.
In spite of clear direction given by Congress in 2006 (Section
304(i), as added by P.L. 109-479), NMFS and the Council on
Environmental Quality have yet to adequately streamline the procedures
for review under the two statutes. The results are unconscionable
delays in conserving and managing our fish stocks due to duplicative
mandates. This delays and hamstrings the RFMC process and can harm the
fishing industry.
For example, 2014 measures for West Coast Groundfish are based on
data from 2010 to inform a regulatory process that began in 2011 in
order to comply with environmental review timelines. At its November
2011 meeting, the Pacific Fishery Management Council voted to maintain
status quo on almost all ACLs through 2014 in spite of data showing
markedly increased abundance on key stocks, simply because the
environmental review time requirements would prevent the fishery from
starting on time.
SECTION 7: Limitations on Catch Share Programs
Generally, the industry supports this comprehensive definition of
the term ``catch share''. We note the inclusion of the term ``sector''
which heretofore has been excluded from the limited access program
concept and one that has different connotations. The term ``sector''
should include the system being used today to manage New England
Groundfish.
My processors in Alaska, the West Coast, and New Jersey support
retention of ``processors'' in the definition. Though this inclusion
does not mandate that harvesting shares be awarded to processors, it is
a continual recognition (along with recognition of cooperatives and
communities), that in certain high volume fisheries where there is a
heavy reliance on shore side processing capacity, investment and
marketing capability, (such as Atlantic mackerel and pelagic squids,
Alaska and Pacific groundfish), that consideration can be given to
these critical elements of the infrastructure.
We note that Subsection (b) establishes a formal simple majority
catch share referendum process applicable only to future catch share
programs in New England, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, and Gulf of
Mexico regions. This is broad support across the fishing industry in
the named regions for an iron-clad transparent referendum process. Now,
there is no interest in my broad client base to dismantle existing
catch share programs or remove the tool entirely from the system.
However, what may not be widely known is a lack of consensus in the
exempted regions about a referendum requirement for future programs.
This is readily apparent in the small boat fishing-dependent
communities in the Aleutians and on the West Coast.
There is a groundswell of opposition from the named regions against
NOAA's National Catch Share program that plays out annually in the
Commerce-Justice-State appropriations process. It is important to note
this widespread opposition is not against the policy but rather its
implementation. Many in the fishing industry, particularly in the Gulf
and South Atlantic, consider the catch share process to be a top-down
process. NOAA indicated as early as December 2009 (in the initial
stages of the DRAFT policy!) that ``32 additional programs will begin
development in fiscal year 2012'' (NOAA 2009). Many fishermen firmly
believe the process to be tainted by foundation trust grants to NGOs
who do not have the best long-term interests of the U.S. commercial
fishing industry in mind.
It is important to note here that in some regions, catch share
programs are supported by industry, while in other areas they are
flatly opposed and viewed not as conservation tools but as a means of
social engineering and worse. NOAA clearly knows this, stating in the
Policy that ``Taken together, ACLs and LAPs [limited access privilege
programs] combine the positive benefits of a firm cap on fishery
removals with the additional benefits of achieving important economic
and social objectives . . ..'' (NOAA 2010).
It is the darker side of social and economic implications of catch
share programs that are the reason the fishing industry in many regions
desires to have an honest transparent vote. Reforming the referendum
process contained in Section 303(A) was first raised in 2011 by Rep.
Runyan in H.R. 1646/2772. The current law does not protect fishermen,
particularly small boat fishermen in New England and Gulf of Mexico,
and there is no referendum provision for the South Atlantic and Mid-
Atlantic, leaving the industry in those areas exposed to proliferation
of catch share programs they mostly do not want and for which there is
often insufficient scientific information.
Frankly, the only question before the committee should be what
definition of ``Permit holders eligible to participate'' is the most
appropriate. Some of my fishermen in the named regions support the
current proposed definition that requires holders of a permit with
landings in 3 of most recent 5 years (with allowances for hardship
considerations); while many others, particularly in the Gulf of Mexico
and South Atlantic, believe that an active permit holder (with no or
very low landing requirements) should be allowed to vote. There is
agreement in all named regions that all catch share program specifics
must be provided in advance to ensure a fully informed vote.
SECTION 8: Data Collection and Confidentiality
This comprehensive section constitutes a very large segment of the
``Draft'' and received mixed reviews from industry across regions,
covering the gamut of issues. I also note here there is currently
controversy surrounding the agency's codification of practices
pertaining to the protection of confidential data so the topic has
relevance.
First, regarding Electronic Monitoring (EM)--the industry feedback
was essentially that EM can be helpful in some targeted regional
fisheries (some of our clients are experimenting with electronic
logbooks to enhance reporting efficiency/accuracy; some fishermen see
EM as a key to cost savings for observer coverage) but perhaps not as
part of a national model. As such, there was some concern expressed by
industry that developing EM programs at a regional left would be
difficult enough and the Secretary should not be trying to develop
national objectives, performance standards and regulations.
Also, perceptions exist that the development of a national EM
program could be West-Coast centric. There was also concern that this
section could be interpreted as a potential mandate for broad use of EM
and about potential costs to industry. Many industry stakeholders
oppose video cameras while some support it, and there are others that
actually prefer human observers.
I fully recognize and appreciate the growing interest in EM being
expressed by NOAA in the 2014 ``Priorities and Annual Guidance'' Report
(NOAA 2013); in discussions at the recent CCC meetings; and for the
work being done by the PSMFC, the PFMC, and some participants in the
West Coast Groundfish IFQ program and in some small boat fisheries in
Alaska as a potential cost savings option.
However, I am not convinced from the feedback I am receiving from
industry that there is broad national acceptance for EM, esp. video
cameras, in all regions/fisheries. Perhaps a more suitable approach for
the ``Draft'' would be to limit EM to pilot projects in specific
fisheries where the RFMC of jurisdiction and stakeholders can
collaborate to develop/implement a program with objectives, standards,
regulations and costs suitable to the specific needs of a given
fishery.
Regarding confidentiality of information in Subsection (c), there
is general industry support for clarifying and enhancing the current
language regarding the collection and use of confidential information
and providing a comprehensive definition of what constitutes ``observer
information''.
I noted earlier that NOAA is under pressure from the NGO community
to relax confidentiality standards and increase the types of
information made available to the public, including trade secrets and
proprietary information. The ``Draft'' provides a clear indication that
it is the intent of Congress to protect sensitive information.
The only concerns raised by industry (from the West Coast mainly)
include: (1) the potential for an interpretation of the changes to
Section 402(b) to mean that NOAA/observers could be prevented from
informing fishermen of their catch, discards and MMPA interactions for
an observed trip; and (2) the inability to release data in the
aggregate to show the value of a fishery or a particular fishing area
to help the industry defend its interests during National Ocean Policy
implementation.
Subsection 8(d) focuses on Data-Poor fisheries by authorizing the
use of area-specific money in the Asset Forfeiture Fund (AFF) to gather
fishery independent data, to survey/assess ``Data-Poor'' fisheries, and
to develop cooperative research to collect fishery independent data. It
also requires the RFMCs to list and prioritize Data-Poor fisheries.
NOAA currently manages 528 stocks of fish. Of this total, roughly
114 are considered adequately assessed by the agency. Most of the 114
assessments (approximately 80) occur regularly on economically
important stocks in Alaska and New England. In other regions, the
assessment periodicity is far less--approximately 15 per year in the
Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic and Caribbean combined (Angers 2011).
Thus, a large majority of fish stocks are Data-Poor or not adequately
assessed at all with the result being uncertainty trumping opportunity
for the achievement of OY.
There is widespread industry support for the improved data
collection and focus on Data-Poor stocks contained in the ``Draft'',
especially in the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic
regions where assessments occur less frequently compared to other
areas.
I note here that Rep. Wittman introduced H.R. 3063 which contains a
potentially useful provision pertaining to development of a national
stock assessment plan under MSA Section 404(b). I have long been a
proponent for a national, transparent, prioritized stock assessment and
survey program to ensure that adequate assessments, supporting surveys
and cooperative research are conducted in each region to support
healthy commercial/charter/sport fisheries. This provision should be
considered in the context of the ``Draft'' and dovetail with current
requirements specified in MSA Section 302(h)(7).
SECTION 9: Council Jurisdiction for Overlapping Fisheries
This section adds reciprocal voting rights to established Council
``liaison'' positions between the New England and Mid-Atlantic RFMCs
only. While fishermen in the Mid-Atlantic have not requested this
action and do not wish to dismantle established Council membership,
fishermen in New England made the request. Since the provision
establishes a limited reciprocal voting right and does not disrupt
current Council procedures, there is general agreement about this
provision between fishermen in the two areas. Please note that H.R.
3848 was referred to this committee and provides the State of NY with a
non-reciprocal, 3-vote seat on the NEFMC. This legislation is likely to
meet with stiff opposition from fishermen in both regions and from
States on both RFMCs.
SECTION 10: GOMEX Cooperative Research and Red Snapper Management
There is longstanding and widespread industry support in the Gulf
of Mexico and South Atlantic for a requirement that the Secretary,
working with States, GMFMC/SAFMC, and commercial/charter/sport
stakeholders, develop and implement a cooperative research program for
both regions with a priority on data-poor stocks.
I note here that industry comments from Alaska elucidated concerns
that S-K funding proposed to be diverted for use in implementation of
subsection (b)(2) could potentially pull funds from other regions.
Subsection (d) of the ``Draft'' outlines specific scientific
requirements for timely surveys and stock assessments and task
prioritization at the NMFS Southeast Regional Science Center; and adds
a requirement to utilize any information generated from RESTORE Act
funding to be used as soon as possible in any fisheries stock
assessment. There is widespread industry support in the affected
regions for these requirements.
Regarding red snapper management and State seaward boundaries in
the Gulf of Mexico in Subsection (f), the proposal to uniformly extend
State jurisdiction 9 nautical miles has generated little comment from
my constituents in Florida. Their State already has jurisdiction out to
9 miles so this represents little change for Florida fishermen. The
comments that I did receive indicate the existing boundaries are
historic and should remain as they are, and also that the Federal
Government should not be dictating individual Gulf State authority.
SECTION 11: NPFMC Clarification
This section should be expanded to include extension (or removal)
of the sunset date for authority over the West Coast Dungeness crab
fishery (See 16 U.S.C. 1856 note).
SECTION 13: Consistency With Other Laws
This section clarifies that fisheries management activity impacted
by the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA), the Antiquities Act, or
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) be accomplished under the MSA using
the RFMC process. In instances where the MSA conflicts with these other
laws, the MSA shall be the controlling process. This provision does not
amend these other statutes.
Regarding Marine Sanctuaries, many stakeholders who fish in/around
these areas believe there are definitely conflicting jurisdictions
between the National Marine Sanctuary Act (See NMSA 16 U.S.C. 1434) and
the MSA when it comes to fishing regulations. I hear most often about
these conflicts (and the potential for increasing problems . . .)
related to the Channel Islands, Olympic Coast and Florida Keys
Sanctuaries.
The specific problem appears in Section 304(a)(5) of NMSA (16
U.S.C. 1434) whereby the Councils are afforded the opportunity to
prepare draft regulations using the MSA as guidance only ``to the
extent that the standards are consistent and compatible with the goals
and objectives'' of the Sanctuary designation. This is the crux of the
jurisdictional and philosophical conflict between NOAA/NMFS and NOAA/
National Ocean Service (NOS).
The RFMC Chairmen adopted a unanimous position in 2006 to amend
both the NMSA and the MSA to exclude fishery resources as sanctuary
resources and to achieve jurisdictional clarity by vesting Federal
fisheries management under the MSA. The House Natural Resources
Committee attempted to address this issue during the 2006
reauthorization but members at the time deferred to the NMSA
reauthorization.
The RFMCs did not resurface this as primary issue for the 2014 MSA
reauthorization. None the less, I agree with the 2006 position and
recommend the committee consider at least supporting the provision
contained in the ``Draft'' to ensure jurisdictional clarity under the
MSA in instances of conflict between the statutes. This approach will
help ensure that fishery resources are intended to be managed
consistently throughout their range and under a transparent public and
scientific process.
The potential for widespread adverse industry impacts from
Antiquities Act authority increases during the latter part of every
administration. Creation of the Hawaiian Islands National Marine
Monument was a case in point. The provision contained in the ``Draft''
will likely not protect the industry from expansive closures but could
provide some level of protection with the application of MSA
requirements.
Regarding conflicts with the ESA--during the past 20 years, ROMEA's
clients in several regions have struggled to contend with intrusive ESA
impacts in federally managed fisheries involving a number of protected
species. We assisted our clients with ESA decisions involving: Steller
Sea Lions (Alaska trawl fisheries); Loggerhead Sea turtles (Gulf of
Mexico longline fisheries); Atlantic Right Whales (South Atlantic
gillnet fisheries); Atlantic Sturgeon (Mid-Atlantic gillnet fisheries);
and Sea Turtles (Mid-Atlantic/NE Atlantic Sea Scallop dredge fishery).
Each one of these environmental conflicts represented extremely
difficult challenges that mostly did not end well for industry. In many
instances, fisheries were closed and industry losses severe. These
processes were often marred by NGO litigation (or threats thereof) but
also by several key characteristics such as: (1) lack of a transparent
process, (2) lack of adequate scientific data; (3) lack of adequate
time to address the problem, and (4) lack of a clearly defined role for
the RFMC.
The noted exception to this was the most recent 2013 situation with
Atlantic Sturgeon. NOAA/NMFS leadership adopted a different model for
the sturgeon, providing a Draft Biological Opinion and allowing input
from the RFMCs, Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, and the
public. The adequate time and added transparency ensured that
additional data were considered (a first ever stock assessment is
underway) which has, so far, allowed for a more informed decisionmaking
process.
The provision contained in the ``Draft'' specifying that the MSA
process will be used to develop changes to federally managed fisheries
impacted by these statutes is widely supported by industry and should
facilitate a less litigious, more transparent process, and signal it is
the intent of Congress that this be the preferred approach.
closing
Implementation of the 2006 MSA amendments exceeded our scientific
capabilities and limited our flexibility. The NSG1 evolved to include
precautionary decisionmaking leading to ACLs with safety buffers that
effectively prevent the U.S. fishing industry from achieving OY.
Furthermore, Data-Poor stocks persist and unwanted catch shares
threaten fishermen in several regions. These are some of the weaknesses
of U.S. fisheries policy yet achieving OY is a primary objective of
MSA.
Mr. Chairman, thank you and Mr. DeFazio and the members of this
committee for beginning this process in earnest. I and many of my
clients view the ``Draft'' as a helpful, measured step in the right
direction. I look forward to working with this committee to refine the
``Draft'' and to seek constructive balanced improvements in our
Nation's fisheries policy.
literature cited
Angers, J. 2011. In Testimony to the House Natural Resources Fisheries
Subcommittee Hearing on NOAA Science Costing Jobs, July 26, 2011.
FKCFA, 2011. Report titled ``Florida's Spiny Lobster (Panulirus argus)
Issues for Consideration by the National Marine Fisheries Service and
the 112th Congress'', 2 pages.
NAS, 2013. Report titled ``Evaluating the Effectiveness of Fish Stock
Rebuilding Plans in the U.S.'', 292 pages.
NOAA 2009. Powerpoint slide from NOAA presentation to RFMCs on Draft
National Catch Share Policy titled ``Catch Share Programs by Region'',
December 2009.
NOAA, 2010. National Catch Share Policy, 21 pages.
NOAA, 2013. Priorities and Annual Guidance for 2014, 20 pages.
Overholtz, W.J., J.A. Hare & M. Keith. 2011. Impacts of Interannual
Environmental Forcing and Climate Change on the Distribution of
Atlantic Mackerel on the U.S. Northeast Continental Shelf, Marine and
Coastal Fisheries, 3:1, 219-232.
______
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman for his testimony, and
I will recognize Mr. Vito Giacalone, Policy Director of the
Northeast Seafood Coalition.
You are recognized for 5 minutes, Mr. Giacalone.
STATEMENT OF VITO GIACALONE, POLICY DIRECTOR, NORTHEAST SEAFOOD
COALITION
Mr. Giacalone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished
members of the committee. Let me begin by expressing our
profound appreciation to all those Members of Congress and
their exceptional staff who supported the fishing disaster
funding included in the fiscal year 2014 omnibus
appropriations. With that assistance in place, we can now fully
focus on those aspects of U.S. fishery policy that could be
improved to ensure the long-term biological and economic
sustainability of our fishery and many others nationwide.
I would like to highlight several measures set forth in
your draft bill that I believe would greatly contribute to
achieving that objective. I note that there are so many
provisions that we view as positive and progressive that it
will be difficult to choose which to highlight today.
Section 3(a)(3) would add a new paragraph 8 to the
rebuilding provision of the Act that provides authority for the
Councils to implement alternative rebuilding strategies that
are based on fishing mortality rate targets such as Fmsy. This
represents perhaps the most important move in the direction of
basing rebuilding strategies on the actual biological,
ecological, and environmental realities that drive the
population dynamics of fish stocks.
Note this provision reflects the very specific
recommendations of the NRC in their recent report to Congress.
This policy allows the Councils to develop rebuilding plans
that will, by definition, achieve the dual primary biological
objectives of the Act to prevent overfishing and to rebuild
overfished stocks. But it will do so in a timeframe and to a
biomass that is the product of prevailing ecological and
environmental conditions, rather than man's arbitrary goals.
This approach will also, by definition, achieve the full suite
of elusive congressional objectives set forth in National
Standard 8, including, in particular, to minimize, to the
extent practicable, adverse economic impacts on fishing
communities.
That said, an equally important and necessary component of
implementing this approach is to ensure that Councils have the
authority to adapt their management response to drastic
fluctuations and results of stock assessments. We have
suggested one such authority, which is to revise the current
definition of overfishing to accommodate multi-year evaluations
of overfishing as a means to smooth the management responses to
these fluctuations.
A strategy structured around Fmsy will, instead, provide
the space to effectively smooth management responses to drastic
fluctuations in stock abundance estimates. While some have
argued that authority already exists for the Councils to employ
such smoothing techniques, we reiterate our request for the
committee to consider making that explicit in the overfishing
definitions.
Section 3(a) would eliminate the arbitrary 10-year
rebuilding timeframe and the discontinuity between stocks that
can be rebuilt in less than 10 years and those that cannot. We
appreciate your proposal to, instead, provide a consistent
biological basis for setting the rebuilding period based on
Tmin plus one mean generation for all stocks. We see this as a
major step forward in managing fisheries based on biological
and ecological realities, rather than arbitrary-stated goals.
Section 3 further sets forth a number of important
scenarios under which the Council can both phase in and extend
the rebuilding timeframe to reflect a range of realities and
circumstances that are beyond the Council's control. While,
again, this approach would still involve setting a specific
rebuilding timeframe and biomass target, these provisions will
provide the needed flexibility for the Councils to make common-
sense management decisions. They will enable the Councils to
avoid the kind of prescriptive management responses that have
achieved little, if anything, biologically in our fishery, but
which have been catastrophic to the economics of our fishery
and communities.
I note that one of the scenarios recognized the
difficulties faced in managing internationally shared stocks to
informal transboundary agreements. One such agreement with
Canada has profound impacts on our fishery for our valuable
Georges Bank cod, haddock, and yellowtail flounder stocks.
Another scenario contemplates unusual events that make
rebuilding within the specified timeframe improbable, without
significant harm to fishing communities. This is a scenario we
have endured often in New England.
Thank you again for this opportunity to provide some input
on these incredibly important and positive proposals in your
bill, and many more too numerous to address in this short
timeframe. We have learned the hard way in New England that
U.S. policy under the current statute is simply too narrow and
too prescriptive to embrace the dynamics of our fisheries and
ecosystems. This policy needs more flexibility to be realistic
and effective, so we greatly appreciate this effort and look
forward to working further with you and your fine staff on this
excellent draft.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Giacalone follows:]
Prepared Statement of Vito Giacalone, Policy Director, Northeast
Seafood Coalition
Thank you Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee.
Let me begin by expressing our profound appreciation to all those
Members of Congress and their exceptional staff who worked on and
supported the fishery disaster funding included in the fiscal year 2014
Omnibus Appropriations.
With that assistance in place, we can now fully focus on those
aspects of U.S. fishery policy that could be improved to ensure the
long-term biological and economic sustainability of our fishery and
many others nationwide.
With that in mind, I would like to highlight several measures set
forth in your draft bill that I believe would greatly contribute to
achieving that objective. I note that there are so many provisions that
we view as positive and progressive that it was difficult to choose
which to highlight today.
1. Section 3(a)(3) would add a new paragraph (8) to the rebuilding
provisions of the Act that provides authority for the
Councils to implement alternative rebuilding strategies
that are based on fishing mortality rate targets such as
Fmsy.
This represents perhaps the most important move in the direction
of basing rebuilding strategies on the actual biological,
ecological and environmental realities that drive the
population dynamics of fish stocks. I note this provision
reflects the very specific recommendations of the NRC in
their recent report to Congress. This policy allows the
Councils to develop rebuilding plans that will by
definition achieve the dual primary biological goals of the
Act--to prevent overfishing and to rebuild overfished
stocks. But it will do so in a timeframe and to a biomass
that is a product of prevailing ecological and
environmental conditions rather than man's arbitrary goals.
This approach will also by definition achieve the full
suite of elusive congressional objectives set forth in
National Standard 8--including in particular, to minimize--
to the extent practicable--adverse economic impacts on
fishing communities.
That said, an equally important and necessary component of
implementing this approach is to ensure the Councils have
the authority to adapt their management responses to
drastic fluctuations in the results of stock assessments.
We have suggested one such authority which is to revise the
current definition of overfishing to accommodate multiyear
evaluations of overfishing as a means to smooth the
management responses to these fluctuations. A strategy
structured around Fmsy will instead provide the space to
effectively smooth management responses to drastic
fluctuations in stock abundance estimates. While some have
argued that authority already exists for the Councils to
employ such smoothing techniques, we reiterate our request
for the committee to consider making that explicit in the
overfishing definition.
2. Section 3(a) would eliminate the arbitrary 10-year rebuilding
timeframe and the discontinuity between stocks that can be
rebuilt in less than 10 years and those that cannot. We
appreciate your proposal to instead provide a consistent
biological basis for setting the rebuilding period based on
Tmin plus one mean generation for all stocks. We see this
as a major step forward in managing fisheries based on
biological and ecological realities rather than arbitrary
statutory goals.
3. Section 3(a) further sets forth a number of important scenarios
under which the Council can both phase-in and extend the
rebuilding timeframe to reflect a range of realities and
circumstances that are beyond the Councils' control. While
again, this approach would still involve setting a specific
rebuilding timeframe and biomass target, these provisions
will provide the needed flexibility for the Councils to
make common sense management decisions. They will enable
the Councils to avoid the kind of prescriptive management
responses that have achieved little if anything
biologically in our fishery but which have been
catastrophic to the economics of our fishery and
communities.
I note that one of the scenarios recognizes the difficulties faced
in managing internationally shared stocks through informal
transboundary agreements. One such agreement with Canada
has a profound impact on our fishery for our valuable
Georges Bank cod, haddock and yellowtail flounder stocks.
Another scenario contemplates ``unusual events that make
rebuilding within the specified time period improbable
without significant harm to fishing communities'' which is
certainly near and dear to our hearts.
Thank you again for this opportunity to provide some input on these
incredibly important and positive proposals in your bill and many more
too numerous to address in this short timeframe. We have learned the
hard way in New England that U.S. fishery policy under the current
statute is simply too narrow and too prescriptive to embrace the
dynamics of our fisheries and ecosystems. This policy needs more
flexibility to be realistic and effective--and so we greatly appreciate
this effort and look forward to working further with you and your fine
staff on this excellent draft.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record by Republican Members to Vito
Giacalone
Question. In your testimony you highlight and support the need to
provide the Councils with authority to implement alternative F-based
rebuilding strategies--coupled with the need to provide managers with
the tools to smooth-out the drastic fluctuations in stock assessment
results for groundfish in your region. Can you elaborate on this?
Answer. To elaborate, there is only one rebuilding strategy
currently authorized in the Act--the so-called `10-year rebuilding
strategy' set forth in section 304(e)(4)--which prescribes a rebuilding
period to be as short as possible but not to exceed 10 years except in
certain limited circumstances.
This strategy is based on making a scientific projection of what
MSY and, therefore, Bmsy will be at the end of the rebuilding period
once a stock is fully rebuilt. The current MSA rebuilding strategy is
based on the assumption that the stock biomass will rebuild during the
rebuilding period at a rate that is sufficient to achieve Bmsy by the
end of the rebuilding timeline.
However, the rate at which stock biomass increases (or decreases)
over time and what biomass it will achieve in that timeframe depends on
three key elements of a stock's biological population dynamics. These
are: (1) ``recruitment''--the measure of reproductive success in any
given year and the degree to which it contributes to stock biomass, (2)
``growth''--the measure of the collective growth of individuals in the
population and the degree to which that contributes to stock biomass,
and (3) ``natural mortality''--the measure of non-fishing deaths that
occur naturally in the population through, for example, disease or
predation, and the degree to which those deaths subtract from the stock
biomass.
None of these three biological dynamics can be controlled by man.
They are instead a product of `nature' and they are highly susceptible
to changes in ecological and environmental conditions. Thus, they can
be extremely difficult to predict into the future, especially when the
dynamics of the ecosystem and environment are highly volatile and
unpredictable in themselves. In this way the current MSA rebuilding
strategy places unrealistic demands on science. (see NRC Summary, Task
4 discussion, Conclusions).
The fourth key element affecting stock biomass is ``fishing
mortality''--the measure of deaths caused by fishing and the degree to
which that mortality subtracts from the stock biomass. Unlike the other
three key elements, however, fishing mortality can be controlled by man
and, as confirmed by the NRC, is more predictable than estimates of
biomass itself. (see NRC Summary, Key Findings 2 & 3, Task 1
discussion, and Conclusions).
Not surprisingly, the NRC report concluded that the current
rebuilding strategy has produced mixed results. ``Fishing mortality . .
. has generally been reduced'', and ``stock biomass has generally
increased'' while . . . ``others are still below rebuilding targets and
some continue to experience overfishing.'' ``This reflects a mismatch
between policymakers' expectations and the inherent limitations of
science due to the complex dynamics of ecosystems.'' (see NRC Summary).
One major reason for these mixed results identified by the NRC is
that MSY (on which rebuilding targets are based) is not a static
quantity. Instead, MSY reflects the productivity of a stock (i.e. the
additions and subtractions by the three key elements above) under
prevailing ecological and environmental conditions which can change
quite dramatically and unpredictably over the course of a 10-year
rebuilding plan. MSY is not subject to man's management control--it is
a product of ``nature''. Thus, the setting of a Bmsy rebuilding target
10 or more years in advance is a highly uncertain exercise. (see NRC
Summary Task I discussion)
These inherent flaws in the reasoning behind the current MSA
rebuilding strategy are why most rebuilding plans begin with the stated
probability of success in achieving their objectives being no more than
50 or 60 percent. Unfortunately, when the 40 or 50 percent chance of
failure occurs, the burden is placed on the fishery--through fishing
mortality controls--to correct the error. And, as is often the case
when the deviation from rebuilding expectations occurs late in the term
of a rebuilding period, the resulting fishing mortality reductions can
be so extreme as to effectively shut the fishery down. This is a highly
disruptive, ineffective and costly strategy for rebuilding a fish
stock.
Despite these realities of nature, there is currently only one tool
in the Act's toolbox of rebuilding strategies in the statute. This `one
size fits all' strategy policy is clearly not working for some
important stocks, even those which are considered data rich including
the multispecies groundfish complex. Indeed, as noted by the NRC, this
has had significant social and economic consequences.
As set forth in the NRC's ``key findings'' the scientific community
has definitively concluded and recommended that a rebuilding strategy
based on controlling the fishing mortality rate would be more effective
than the current rebuilding target/timeframe strategy especially in
situations of high ecosystem/environmental dynamics:
3. Rebuilding plans that focus more on meeting selected fishing
mortality targets than on exact schedules for attaining
biomass targets may be more robust to assessment
uncertainties, natural variability and ecosystem
considerations, and have lower social and economic impact.
a. The rate at which a fish stock rebuilds depends on
ecological and other environmental conditions such as climate
change, in addition to the fishing-induced mortality,
b. A rebuilding strategy that maintains reduced fishing
mortality for an extended period (e.g., longer than the mean
generation time) would rebuild the stock's age structure and be
less dependent on environmental conditions than one that
requires rebuilding to prespecified biomass targets, and
c. When rebuilding is slower than expected, keeping fishing
mortality at a constant level below FMSY may forgo less yield
and have fewer social and economic impacts than a rule that
requires ever more severe controls to meet a predetermined
schedule for reaching a biomass target. (NRC Summary key
findings #3. See also Summary Task 2 Discussion, Task 5 and
Conclusions).
Once again, consistent with the NRC's advice, I believe there is a
critical need to add new additional discretionary authority to the Act
to enable the Councils to develop, and for the agency to approve and
implement, one or more alternative rebuilding strategies that are more
robust to the uncontrollable and unpredictable ecosystem and
environmental dynamics that are driving groundfish stock productivity.
Your proposed addition of paragraph (8) to section 304(e) of the Act is
right on target. (see NRC Summary Conclusions).
Taking into consideration the foregoing discussion, an equally
important and necessary component of implementing such an alternative
rebuilding approach is to ensure the Councils have the authority to
adapt their management responses to drastic fluctuations in the results
of stock assessments.
We have suggested one such authority which is to revise the current
definition of overfishing to accommodate multiyear evaluations of
overfishing as a means to smooth the management responses to these
fluctuations. A strategy structured around Fmsy will instead provide
the space to effectively smooth management responses to drastic
fluctuations in stock abundance estimates. While some have argued that
authority already exists for the Councils to employ such smoothing
techniques, we reiterate our request for the committee to consider
making that explicit in the overfishing definition or elsewhere in the
Act.
Question. Some witnesses have testified that the Act currently
provides enough flexibility and no additional flexibility is required.
Do you agree?
Answer. Although I would agree that there exists a more broad and
sensible interpretation of the current version of the Act than has been
implemented or opined by the Secretary (Agency), persistent legal
challenges have thwarted attempts to utilize these more sensible
interpretations. The legal ````vulnerabilities'' that plague the most
important areas where ``flexibility'' was once perceived to exist, in
my opinion, now drives the agency's notorious tendency to interpret the
Act in the most rigid, conservative manner. Perhaps now it could be
said that there exists more flexibility to interpret some provisions in
the Act far more conservatively than was intended by Congress when
enacted.
Now that areas where ``flexibility'' was perceived to have existed
have been marginalized through legal decisions or more often, simply
through persistent threats of challenge from ENGO's and what appears to
be a practice by NOAA General Counsel to make decisions on Council
recommendations based on an analysis of the financial, political and
public relations resources of the plaintiffs and the probabilities for
winning or losing--rather on what is the right thing to do. It appears
these decisions are then backfilled with whatever legal justification
is needed. So, the bottom line is that while additional flexibility in
the Act may exist, a combination of non-scientific forces does not
allow for it to be implemented.
For key provisions such as rebuilding and status determination
(overfished or overfishing) it is clear that we need more explicit
alternatives that are crafted from the experience of operating under
MSRA 2006 in order to advance the goals of balancing conservation and
maintaining viable fishing communities. Unless and until we acknowledge
the fact that the current provisions demand far more precision,
knowledge and control of stock dynamics than we are capable of
delivering, we will only succeed in achieving rebuilding and stock
status objectives by coincidence--i.e. by luck. In my opinion, many if
not most of our fishery management ``successes'' with regards to
attaining Bmsy have been largely due to chance because, with the
exception of limiting fishing to an ACL, everything else is outside of
our control.
Nowhere in the current version of the Act is there a rebuilding
alternative that adequately considers these realities. For this reason,
finding ``flexibility'' adequate to mitigate the impacts of holding
fisheries accountable for stock performance that is outside our control
is often difficult if not impossible.
Question. The Discussion Draft extends the time period under which
emergency or interim measures can be used. Do you support this
provision and can you explain why this was requested by the New England
fishing industry and whether this change is supported by the New
England Council?
Answer. We strongly support this provision. Section 3(b) of the
draft bill addresses the apparent discontinuity in the statute that we
were the unfortunate victims of with the management of our Gulf of
Maine cod stock. In that instance the Council and agency had agreed to
adopt interim measures for 1 year that, pursuant to section 304(e)(6)
of the Act, would reduce rather than end overfishing during the time a
new rebuilding plan was being developed. Although section 304(e)(3) of
the Act provides the Councils up to 2 years to develop such a new
plan--and despite the fact that the New England Council had clearly
notified the agency of its intent to fully utilize those 2 years--the
agency rejected the Council's request to have interim measures
implemented for a second year. This rejection was based on a
misinterpretation of the Council's request itself and a rather
contorted interpretation of the statute.
While section 305(c) does indeed limit the duration of any single
set of interim measures to 1 year, it in no way restricts the Council
from requesting or the agency from approving a second, sequential set
of interim measures for a second year. Such an interpretation would
have been consistent with the clear congressional intent of providing
the Councils with up to 2 years to develop a new rebuilding plan
(Section 304(e)(3)), and of allowing interim measures that reduce
rather than end overfishing to be implemented during the 2-year full
term of this plan development process. The agency's onerous decision
unnecessarily limited our Gulf of Maine small boat fleets' access to
their most important stock at a crucial time when the fishery was in a
state of disaster declared by the Secretary of commerce 5 months
earlier. Once again it appears the agency's incoherent decision was
made as a result of evaluating litigation probabilities rather than
sound policy and common sense.
Given this experience, we appreciate that the draft bill would
address this discontinuity with a common sense approach of allowing
emergency and interim measures to be in place for up to 2 years,
including those interim measures to reduce rather than end overfishing
during the development of a rebuilding plan. We can only wish we had
this provision in place 2 years ago--but this situation we faced then
may well arise again in the future.
______
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Giacalone, for your testimony.
And now I will recognize Mr. David Krebs, Jr., President of
Ariel Seafoods, representing the Gulf Seafood Institute.
Mr. Krebs, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DAVID A. KREBS, JR., PRESIDENT, ARIEL SEAFOODS,
INC., REPRESENTING THE GULF SEAFOOD INSTITUTE
Mr. Krebs. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, members of the
committee, my name is David Krebs, and I am pleased to be here
to discuss reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. I am a
lifelong commercial fisherman, and owner of Ariel Seafoods,
based in Destin, Florida. For today's hearing, I will be
speaking as a board member of the Gulf Seafood Institute, GSI,
representing all facets of the Gulf of Mexico seafood
distribution chain.
The mission of the Gulf Seafood Institute is to protect the
Gulf's unique culture and environment, while elevating the
Gulf's seafood brand with consumers, customers, and policy
leaders through advocacy, education, and science. Overall, GSI
maintains that MSA is working. The Department of Commerce,
NMFS, and the Council work together to monitor, manage, and
enforce a program that has led the United States to its
position as a global leader in responsibly managed fisheries
and sustainable seafood.
Prior to seeing the committee's discussion draft, GSI had
already outlined a platform for reauthorization that included
the following.
Flexibility in rebuilding timelines. GSI is in full
agreement with NRC's recommendations, which include support for
a biologically-based approach to rebuilding plans.
Annual catch limits. In order for fishery managers to set
appropriate annual catch limits, data collection must be
improved by accounting for actual take, both retained and
discarded. While a revision of National Standard 1 guidelines
might address this concern, it should be explicitly defined in
MSA.
Role of science and statistical committees. In today's
fast-moving world, we should be able to react swiftly by
calling SSC and other council meetings in a more timely manner.
The notice period for meetings should be more flexible to help
address very time-sensitive matters quickly and efficiently.
The process is overly long and needs better integration with
the demands of NEPA requirements to achieve a balance in time,
public access, and reasonable deliberation.
Regional fishery management council accountability. Strict
accountability measures must be established for the Councils
and their actions. Measures should include a revision of the
council membership and appointment process to ensure fair and
equitable representation from both the commercial and
recreational communities, as well as consumers.
One way to achieve this important goal would be to revive
language from Section 302(b)(2)(D)(I) of the 2006 Act that
required governors from States participating in the Gulf
Council to include at least one nominee each from the
commercial, recreational, and charter fishing sectors, and at
least one individual who is knowledgeable regarding the
conservation and management of fisheries resources when making
appointments to the Council.
Regarding catch share programs, Section 7 would require
referendum by a majority of the permit holders prior to the
Gulf Council submitting any new catch share program for
approval by Commerce. We support this concept, but feel that
referendums should be constrained to stakeholders. With regard
to data collection, GSI strongly supports the use of electronic
monitoring, and we believe this is an important part of the
data collection process.
Red snapper, Section 10. While there have been management
challenges in the recreational red snapper fishery in recent
years, the current program on the harvest side is working.
While I agree that Congress should take steps to improve
management of recreationally caught red snapper, any solution
that upsets the success of the commercial red snapper program
is not a solution at all, and will only harm the industry,
seaside communities, and the millions of consumers who depend
on the year-round availability of red snapper.
Section 10(f) of the discussion draft simply extends State
seaward boundaries in the Gulf to 9 miles, which would have the
effect of turning management of red snapper over to five Gulf
States. While this seems like a simple, straightforward
solution, the devil is in the details. Most importantly, we
need to clarify that this section only applies to the
recreational red snapper fishery. Our further concern is the
impact of the extension of State water boundaries on the
commercial fleet if they are excluded from operating in
traditional areas.
The committee should also take this opportunity to reassess
language found in Section 407(d)(1) of the current MSA that
mandates the shut-down of the entire recreational fishery,
which currently includes charter-for-hire boats, when that
sector's quota is met. Some other options that you should
consider include separate quotas for the charter-for-hire and
private angler user group, questions of State enforcement
capabilities, State scientific data collection capabilities,
State funding ability, and the enforcement of interstate
boundaries at sea.
With this testimony I hope I have provided the committee
with more clarity on how the proposed changes to MSA will
impact the Gulf of Mexico seafood community and consumers who
depend on us.
I look forward to working with the committee on these
important issues, and I welcome any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Krebs follows:
Prepared Statement of David Krebs, President, Ariel Seafoods, Destin,
Florida, Representing the Gulf Seafood Institute
Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member DeFazio, and members of the
committee, my name is David Krebs and I am pleased to be here to
testify before you today on the committee's draft reauthorization of
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). I
am a lifelong commercial fisherman and owner of Ariel Seafoods based in
Destin, Florida. For purposes of today's hearing, I will be speaking as
a Board member of the Gulf Seafood Institute (GSI), a broad-based group
representing all facets of the Gulf of Mexico seafood distribution
chain.
The mission of the Gulf Seafood Institute (GSI) is to protect the
Gulf's unique culture and environment while elevating the Gulf seafood
brand with consumers, customers and policy leaders through advocacy,
education and science. The GSI's board of directors represents every
Gulf State as well as every aspect of our industry--both commercial,
charter for hire, and recreational--and is positioned to be a leading
voice on key issues including sustainability, seafood safety, disaster
mitigation and recovery, and data collection. Additionally, GSI seeks
to bolster fisheries science and research to help preserve the Gulf
seafood resource and contribute to the longevity of the industry
overall. The GSI came together in July 2013 and is currently taking the
steps necessary to organize under the laws of the State of Louisiana
and will then seek approval of the IRS for determination of approved
501(c)(6) status.
Today, I will highlight several areas of the discussion draft that
GSI sees as improvements to current law, I will outline a few
additional measures for you to consider, and I will give you our
perspective on Section 10, ``Gulf of Mexico Cooperative Research and
Red Snapper Management'' which drastically modifies Sec. 407 of the
current statute.
Overall, GSI maintains that the process outlined under MSA is
working. The Department of Commerce, the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) and the eight Regional Fishery Management Councils work
together to monitor, manage and enforce a program that has led the
United States to its position as a global leader in responsibly managed
fisheries and sustainable seafood. Guided by 10 National Standards of
sustainability, these agencies monitor, manage and legally enforce all
marine fisheries in the United States under the most restrictive
regulations in the world. As a result, U.S. fish populations are
rebuilding and overall fish abundance is improving. Since 2000, 32 fish
stocks in the United States have been rebuilt meaning that routine
stock assessments conducted by fishery scientists indicate that the
abundance of the stock is above the maximum sustainable yield.
Prior to seeing the committee's discussion draft, GSI had already
outlined a platform for reauthorization that included the following:
Flexibility in Rebuilding Timelines:
Timelines for rebuilding fisheries must be relaxed to
enhance flexibility for fishery managers. The current MSA
requirement for rebuilding overfished fisheries within 10
years, with certain exceptions, is an arbitrary timeframe
and totally unrelated to the biological needs at hand.
Similarly, the requirement to end overfishing immediately
considers no other factors. These strict, arbitrary
timelines for rebuilding fisheries lead to significant
disruptions for the seafood community while the fishery is
usually capable of a far more gentle transition.
A recent National Research Council (NRC) report issued in
September 2013 \1\ addresses the existing rebuilding needs
and realities. GSI is in full agreement with NRC's
recommendations, which include support for a biologically-
based approach to rebuilding plans. We urge incorporation
of those recommendations into the revised MSA. Recognition
of the need for establishing a biological basis to
rebuilding strategies is a fundamental change to achieve
success for the fish stocks and the populace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Research Council. Division of Earth Life Sciences.
Ocean Board. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Fish Stock Rebuilding
Plans in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. National Academies
Press, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Catch Limits:
The process for establishing ACLs should be revised to
increase flexibility, particularly in cases where a fish
stock lacks enough data to make sound management decisions.
In order for fishery managers to set appropriate ACLs,
data collection must be improved by accounting for actual
``take,'' both retained and discarded. While the current
consideration of revision of National Standard 1 Guidelines
might well address this concern, it should be explicitly
defined in MSA.
New Funding Sources:
Monies collected from marine enforcement actions and
permitting fees should stay within the region in which they
were collected and not be transmitted to the general fund.
These funds should be managed by the relevant Regional
Fishery Management Council.
Balance should be incorporated into MSA's enforcement
language to ensure that the collection of fines does not
drive the process, but instead helps to achieve the true
objective of 100 percent compliance and $0 in fines.
Role of Science and Statistical Committees:
In today's fast-moving world, we should be able to react
swiftly by calling SSC and other Council meetings in a more
timely manner. The notice period for meetings should be
more flexible to help address very time-sensitive matters
quickly and efficiently. The process is overly long and
needs better integration with the demands of NEPA
requirements to achieve a balance in time, public access,
and reasonable deliberation.
Regional Fishery Management Council Accountability:
Strict accountability measures must be established for the
Councils and their actions. Measures should include a
revision of the Council membership and appointment process
to ensure fair and equitable representation from both the
commercial and recreational communities as well as
consumers. One way to achieve this important goal would be
to revive language from Section 302(b)(2)(D)(i) of the 2006
MSA reauthorization that required governors from States
participating in the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
Council to include at least one nominee each from the
commercial, recreational and charter fishing sectors and at
least one other individual who is knowledgeable regarding
the conservation and management of fisheries resources when
making appointments to the Council. Unfortunately, this
provision of the 2006 bill has since expired, leaving the
balanced makeup of the Gulf Council in jeopardy. GSI
strongly recommends that this language be renewed and made
permanent.
The GSI is pleased to note that several of these priority issues
are adequately addressed in the discussion draft and we thank you for
seeing our concerns were met. For example, on the issue of rebuilding
timelines, the committee draft vastly improves current law by allowing
for 3 years to end overfishing for highly dynamic fisheries and
provides that rebuilding times must be as short as ``practicable'' as
opposed to short as ``possible'' which we feel gives more appropriate
consideration for human needs.
Regarding Annual Catch Limits (ACLs), the draft bill provides for
consideration of the economic needs of fishing communities when
establishing and modifying ACLs which GSI believes is a step in the
right direction. We are also pleased to see language providing for 3-
year ACLs which is an improvement over the current 1-year requirement.
One area that could still be improved would be to require fishery
managers to incorporate actual ``take,'' both retained and discarded,
when setting ACLs as suggested in our list of recommendations.
Further, the GSI supports language in Sec. 6 requiring the Science
and Statistical Committees (SSCs) to develop their advice in a more
transparent manner that allows for greater public involvement.
Regarding catch share programs, Section 7 would require a
referendum by a majority of the permit holders prior to the Gulf of
Mexico Fishery Management Council submitting any new catch share
program for approval by Commerce. GSI would appreciate some
clarification on whether this new requirement would impact pilot
programs and, if so how? Also, Section 7(b)(1)(D)(i) provides that in
order to be eligible for the referendum, you must have fished in the
past 5 years, yet Section 7(b)(1)(D)(iii) provides that you must have
fished in 3 out of the 5 last years. It should be made clearer as to
what the exact eligibility requirements are. Further, is a petition
required before any catch share program can be considered? If a
petition by the majority is required, then a potential catch share
program is given a thumbs up or a thumbs down before it is even
designed and its ramifications determined, effectively shutting down
consideration of catch share programs before the Council can thoroughly
evaluate them. This may pose a serious challenge to Councils as they
work on a regional basis to implement management programs that may make
sense in their areas.
With regard to data collection, Sec. 8 requires the Councils to
work with the fishing industry to develop regulations to govern the use
of electronic monitoring for data collection within 6 months of
enactment. GSI strongly supports the use of electronic monitoring and
has already been working independently with the charter boat fishery in
the Gulf to establish similar, voluntary programs. Electronic
monitoring has come a long way in recent years with the introduction of
smartphone and tablet apps that can be available to all fishers in the
industry. We believe electronic monitoring is an important part of the
data collection process and programs that encourage its use should
absolutely be supported wherever possible.
Section 8(d) provides for the use of the asset forfeiture fund to
pay for surveys on data-poor fisheries. GSI supports this concept as
many of our stocks are considered data-poor and any additional funding
to increase science in those areas is appreciated. We also support the
concept of making fisheries that have not been surveyed in the
preceding 5-year period a top priority. However, given that many
species in the Gulf would meet that requirement, we may have a very
long list of priorities and conducting surveys on such a broad list
might be unrealistic.
Red Snapper/Section 10
Section 10 of the discussion draft addresses management of the red
snapper fishery in the Gulf of Mexico, an issue that has become fairly
volatile in the Gulf seafood community in recent years. This section
will uniquely impact GSI, our customers and all those that depend on a
healthy Gulf seafood supply chain. I know this committee held a hearing
on red snapper management in June of last year and GSI's interim
Chairman, Harlon Pearce, was a witness at that hearing. During his
testimony, Harlon outlined the importance of preserving a healthy,
commercial red snapper fishery for the benefit of consumers nationwide
and I fully support that position. I would ask that the committee
revisit his written testimony while deliberating this section as it
outlines some very important concepts of importance to GSI and the
commercial seafood community broadly.
While there have been management challenges in the recreational red
snapper fishery in recent years, the current program on the harvest
side is working. Yes, there have been challenges with overfishing of
the stock in the past, however the species is no longer undergoing
overfishing and it is now being managed under a rebuilding plan which
will allow the species to rebuild back to target population levels. The
commercial red snapper Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) program, which
began in 2007, has reduced the number of vessels and improved the
operation of this fishery. The IFQ program now provides the harvesting
sector with flexibility to fish during times that suit their needs and
the needs of the market resulting in less pressure on the fishery and
less pressure on the resource. Unfortunately, the recreational red
snapper sector has yet to adopt a similar solution and Federal
management of the recreational side of the business is in turmoil.
Fishery managers, still relying on the antiquated ``days at sea'' model
for management, have drastically reduced fishing days for recreational
red snapper leading to serious economic implications for the Gulf Coast
economy. While I agree that Congress should take steps to improve
management of recreationally caught red snapper, any solution that
upsets the success of the commercial red snapper program is not a
solution at all and would only harm the industry, seaside communities
and the millions of consumers who depend on the year-round availability
of red snapper.
Section 10(f) of the discussion draft simply extends State seaward
boundaries in the Gulf to 9 miles which would have the effect of
turning management of red snapper over to the five Gulf States. While
this seems like a simple, straightforward solution, the devil is in the
details.
Most importantly, we need to clarify that this section only applies
to the recreational red snapper fishery. Simply inserting the word
``recreational'' before the term ``red snapper'' in this section should
meet this important goal. Management of the commercial red snapper
fishery is working and to throw that program into turmoil would be
detrimental to communities and to consumers who might lose access to
the resource. Of equal importance to the future of the fishery would be
to ensure that the sustainability standards required by MSA be
preserved in any new State-run red snapper management program. It is in
all our best interests to maintain strong Federal oversight of these
new State programs to ensure a positive long-term prognosis for the
species and those who rely upon it to make a living. Finally, we would
like clarification on the seaward boundary lines. Section 10(f) seems
to extend the seaward boundary for red snapper to 9 miles two separate
times so it is unclear if the final boundary is 9 miles or 18 miles. A
final boundary of 9 miles is acceptable and would be comparable to the
territorial sea boundaries of Texas and the west coast of Florida,
while 18 miles is not and would be inconsistent with the boundaries of
Texas and Florida.
Of further concern is the impact of the extension of State water
boundaries on the commercial fleet if they are excluded from operating
in traditional areas. For example, in Florida, commercial vessels are
prohibited from harvesting reef fish in State waters and currently,
those waters extend to 9 miles. So, if the boundaries are extended to 9
miles in Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi as well, the vibrant
commercial red snapper fishery that has been operating in those areas
traditionally will suddenly be shut out causing serious challenges to
our community. Congress must ensure that traditional fishing grounds
for the commercial red snapper fleet are maintained.
The committee should also take this opportunity to reassess
language found in Sec. 407(d)(1) of the current MSA that mandates the
shut-down of the entire recreational fishery, which currently includes
charter boats, when that sector's quota is met. Under the current MSA,
charter boats are considered part of the recreational fishery, despite
the fact that the Gulf Council is moving forward with some innovative
new management programs that apply to charter boats only. If the
broader recreational community exceeds their quota, under current law,
the shut down of that sector would also handicap the charter boats. One
way to address this might be to remove language in Sec. 407(d)(1) that
states that the term ``recreational `` shall include charter boats for
purposes of this subsection. The GSI would appreciate an opportunity to
discuss this concept in more depth with the committee as this
reauthorization moves forward.
Some other questions that you should consider before moving forward
with this section include questions of State enforcement capabilities,
State scientific data collection capabilities, State funding ability,
and the enforcement of interstate boundaries at sea. Despite the usual
procedural challenges, the Council management process works as intended
and to throw one fishery into a State-run model might set a misguided
precedent that threatens to undermine the great successes MSA has had
overall.
While GSI has reservations about the State boundary language of
Section 10, the remainder of the section addressing research is very
positive. We strongly support the development of a real-time reporting
and data collection program, increased frequency of stock surveys, and
the use of updated fisheries information in red snapper stock
assessments. In fact, it would be helpful if these concepts were
expanded to all fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico, not just red snapper.
We look forward to working closely with the committee to see these
priorities are enacted.
With this testimony, I hope I have provided the committee with more
clarity on how the proposed changes to MSA will impact the Gulf of
Mexico seafood community and consumers who depend on us. Again,
maintenance of the Federal framework for sustainability and the
preservation of the current IFQ program for the commercial community is
imperative to any plan designed to eliminate confusion in the red
snapper fishery. Our consumers and the American public depend on it.
Further, I hope I've given you some food for thought with regard to
additional modifications to the draft bill that might benefit our
Nation's fishery management system overall.
I look forward to working with the committee on these important
issues and I welcome any questions you may have.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Krebs, for your
testimony.
I will now recognize Mr. George Geiger, Owner and Operator
of Chances Are Fishing Charters.
You are recognized for 5 minutes, Mr. Geiger.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE J. GEIGER, OWNER AND OPERATOR, CHANCES ARE
FISHING CHARTERS
Mr. Geiger. Thank you, Chairman Hastings and Ranking Member
DeFazio and members of the House Natural Resources Committee.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
My involvement with fisheries began when I retired from the
U.S. Army active duty in 1987, and my return to Florida. To
understand where we are, it is critical to understand where we
were with regard to fisheries prior to the 2006 amendment.
The story begins during my Army assignment in Daytona Beach
in 1971 and 1972. During that assignment I experienced fishing
opportunities with regard to species diversity and abundance
only dreamed of. The experience resulted in my buying property
in Sebastian, Florida, with a dream of an eventual return as a
resident, post-Army retirement. In a scant 14 years, the dream
became reality, along with the realization the fisheries which
served to lure me had become a mere shadow of what I knew in
1972. Worse, it seemed those in other fisheries were in an
unchecked continuing downward spiral.
I felt betrayed and angered, and began an effort to
understand what had happened, the cause, and who was
responsible for this debacle. A conclusion which readily became
apparent was the responsibility for managing and conserving
fish stocks was not being faithfully administered. It became
too obvious the system in place was fraught with potential
abuse, as there were no standards or firm goals established for
the fishery management councils to achieve.
To the contrary, the Councils had broad discretionary
powers--you can call it flexibility--allowing them to bend to
political pressures and the wishes of local fishers, the
majority of whom had a vested financial interest in short-term
economic decisions. The result were fisheries which were
becoming overfished, and overfishing seemed to be the goal, as
it appeared minimal and ineffective effort was applied to
stopping it.
After railing against the system, 19 years later, I was
nominated and appointed to the South Atlantic Fishery
Management Council in 2002, eventually serving three terms. I
worked joylessly for the first 3 years under the failed then
extant pretend system, getting and going virtually nowhere.
One only has to review the South Atlantic Council's
snapper/grouper fishery management plans from 1982 to 2004 to
see virtually every one--save two, which involved closures--
fail to meet the purpose and need of the plan, and virtually
every stock in the complex was in a continuing downward spiral.
That is 24 years of failed management, or, if you choose, 24
years of successful mismanagement.
Even efforts with the 1994 reauthorization failed. The
degree of overfishing resultant from Magnuson-Stevens Act,
which gave the Councils broad discretionary authority, and the
subsequent abuse of that authority, became so pervasive that
Congress, in a bipartisan effort, reauthorized the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Management Council and Conservation Act--excuse
me, Management and Conservation Act--in 2006, with requirements
for Councils to end overfishing managed species, and put
measures in place to ensure it didn't reoccur. And further, put
measures in place to recover those stocks so affected in a
specific flexible time period, acting upon the advice of their
science and statistical committees, where heretofore were
generally ignored.
My final 6 years on the Council working under the
requirements of the 2006 reauthorization were hard, but
extremely rewarding. The recoveries to date resultant from
science-based recovery plans, annual catch limits, and
accountability measures are testimony to the wisdom crafted in
that bipartisan Act in 2006, and has resulted in proven, sound
management, going far in ensuring sustainability of our
fisheries.
The fact is, it is not about the process. It is always
about the answer. Assessed stocks that do not require
regulatory action which are assessed using the same assessment
processes across the board, using the same type of data, are
never questioned as to their validity. The only stocks that are
challenged, the assessments that are challenged, are the ones
that require regulatory management.
The written proposals in the Magnuson-Stevens
reauthorization discussion draft would revert the fishery
management process to a period when the Councils failed to do
their duty with regard to managing and conserving fisheries for
long-term sustainability. The 2006 reauthorization is ending,
and has ended overfishing. Catch limits are in place,
overfishing does not reoccur. Recoveries are widespread and
well underway nationwide, with significant positive results
reflected in the NOAA Fisheries Annual Report to Congress.
Unfortunately, new species since have fallen into the
overfished category, and need mandates in the Act to recover.
Now is not the time, just 7 years into recovering our
fisheries, to make changes to a wisely crafted, successful
bipartisan bill, negating the sacrifice of fishers and hard
work done by fishery management councils and NOAA fisheries to
date, especially with the effect of returning fisheries
management to a period when our fisheries and fishers suffered
under a system of political influence and short-term economic
decisionmaking.
I strongly urge Congress exercise its courage and political
will and leave in place the proven and amply flexible
requirements in the 2006 reauthorization, and allow the long-
term economic benefits to the resource and fishermen accrue
with recovered long-term sustainable fisheries. If there is a
desire or a need----
The Chairman. Just finish your quick thought.
Mr. Geiger. Thank you, Chairman. If there is a desire to
improve fisheries management, provide direction and leadership
to the Councils to transition from single-species management to
an ecosystem-based management system. Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Geiger follows:]
Prepared Statement of George J. Geiger, Owner/Operator, Chances Are
Fishing Charters
Chairman Hastings and members of the committee, thank you for
inviting me to this legislative hearing to discuss the discussion draft
entitled ``Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility
in Fisheries Management Act.'' I am George Geiger, a former Chairman
and three-term member of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council
(SAFMC or Council). I am also a recreational fisherman and fishing
guide with a Coast Guard 50 Ton Ocean Operator License. I operated a
for-hire service for offshore and inshore trips until 1998, when I
switched to guiding near shore and inshore clients exclusively. In my
personal time, I still enjoy fishing offshore for coastal pelagic and
benthic species. I am also a retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel,
privileged to have been stationed in Daytona Beach, Florida from 1971-
72. During those 2 years I experienced fishing opportunities and
abundance heretofore undreamed of by me. I knew Florida was where my
wife and I wished to retire, if I was so privileged as to earn the
right to remain on active duty.
Upon my retirement and return to Florida in 1986, I was at first
shocked, then increasingly disgusted, and eventually angered to see
that the fisheries which lured me to my retirement Mecca had become
virtual shadows of what I'd experienced in the 1970s. I was angered to
the point of seeking out and joining the Florida Conservation
Association (now the Coastal Conservation Association of Florida). This
association lasted almost as long as my military career and culminated
in my rise through leadership positions to the Chairmanship of CCA
Florida in 2007.
During my 19 years with CCA Florida, I worked extensively on
Florida inshore fishery issues and was appointed to multiple Federal
advisory panels, including the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission's bluefish advisory panel and the South Atlantic Council's
red drum advisory panel. That work led to me to apply for an at-large
seat on the South Atlantic Council, a position that I held for three
terms, including serving as Chairman from 2006 to 2008.
Decades of experience with the South Atlantic Council and other
organizations has taught me that type of flexibility being proposed in
the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) reauthorization discussion draft before
this committee would lead us back to the failed policies of the past
that led to severe overfishing problems in the South Atlantic and
nationwide. My testimony will outline some of the key lessons learned
from the South Atlantic, and illustrate why a bipartisan Congress
reauthorized the Magnuson-Stevens Act in 1996 and 2006 with
requirements to implement science-based management, including annual
catch limits (ACLs) and accountability measures (AMs), to ensure the
end of overfishing in U.S. waters. Implementation of those requirements
coincided with my tenure as Council Chair. I'm very familiar with the
arguments--and sometimes fervent passion--about our charge to end
overfishing immediately. I'm also familiar with successes wrought by
our Council's difficult but necessary decisions, such as the recent
recovery of black sea bass after two failed rebuilding plans and more
than 20 years of being subject to overfishing.
Overfishing, or catching fish more quickly than the population can
reproduce, is ultimately a losing proposition for fish, but more
importantly, for fishermen. Just like it is important to maintain
fiscal discipline and make hard choices in order to balance the Federal
budget, managers must make difficult, and sometimes unpopular,
decisions to ensure that we don't ``overspend'' by allowing more fish
to be caught than populations can reasonably sustain.
The consequences of decades of chronic overfishing became acutely
clear with the sudden collapse of some of the Nation's most important
fisheries in the early 1990s. In the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996,
Congress took decisive action mandating that stocks that were
overfished (at unhealthy population levels) must be rebuilt ``as soon
as possible'' and within 10 years, unless the biology of the stock, or
an international agreement, dictated otherwise. In some parts of the
country, including New England and the Southeast regions, overfishing
continued unabated and it had become clear that traditional management
tools were not working. In 2006, Congress once again amended the MSA in
the following fundamental ways: ensuring that scientific-based
decisionmaking was prioritized over those based on short-term
economics, requiring science-based annual catch limits and
accountability measures for all managed stocks, with some exceptions,
and removing the Councils' discretion to permit continued overfishing.
These changes provided clear statutory mandates that empowered the
Councils to take action to address overfishing and rebuild populations,
within the boundaries of scientific advice.
At the time the MSA was reauthorized in 2006, the very same type of
``flexible'' management being proposed in the draft bill before the
committee had resulted in 11 stocks officially subject to overfishing,
and dozens more with unknown status. Anyone who has attended a South
Atlantic Council meeting knows that ending and preventing overfishing
in our region, like many others, has not been easy, but the changes
that Congress authorized were absolutely necessary to force our Council
into action to address overfishing, and to establish clear guidance on
how to rebuild fish populations to healthy levels. The Council manages
76 species through 8 Fishery Management Plans (FMPs), and still suffers
from the ramifications of decades of overfishing for a number of
snapper and grouper species. The annual catch limit requirements have
changed how the Councils operate and forced real accountability. In the
past, we generally managed fishing only using indirect controls like
``bag limits''--limits on the number of fish each angler could retain
per day, size limits intended to protect juvenile fish and older fish
that are often the best breeders, and trip limits that capped how many
fish commercial vessels could bring back to the dock at any one time.
However, very few of the species that we manage were subject to a cap
on the total amount of fish that could be taken out of the water each
year.
With the passage of the 2006 MSA reauthorization, the Council
embarked on a difficult, but necessary, path to implement science-based
management and rebuild overfished stocks. We succeeded in meeting the
statutory deadlines of 2010 and 2011 for implementing annual catch
limits and accountability measures for all of the stocks requiring
them. Today, we have catch limits and accountability measures in place
across the country. This is a major, precedent-setting accomplishment
that has made American fisheries some of the most sustainable and best
managed in the world.
Today, I see a number of our South Atlantic fish stocks benefiting
from implementation of catch limits and accountability measures. The
number of stocks subject to overfishing has dropped nearly in half,
from 11 to 6. One example is black sea bass, a popular recreational and
commercial target and a mainstay for many charter operators in our
region. It's recovery in 2013 offers a clear example of how the MSA is
working to rebuild depleted stocks, increase fishing access and provide
benefits to our coastal economies and communities. Before the MSA was
reauthorized to close the loopholes that had allowed overfishing to
continue, the South Atlantic Council approved not one, but two plans to
rebuild this species. Both of these plans failed to do so, and nothing
much changed because there was no accountability when quotas were
exceeded. Because of the 2006 Magnuson requirements, a new rebuilding
plan was initiated that included accountability measures to make sure
the catch limits were not exceeded. Austerity worked and fishermen
reaped the benefit: as of April 2013, 3 years earlier than expected,
the population was rebuilt and the catch limit was more than doubled to
1.8 million pounds. The black sea bass example illustrates why we must
not deviate from the MSA's course of recovery and prudent management
practices, and suggests the wisdom of the clear, science-based
requirements with strong accountability measures.
As this committee has heard numerous times before, recreational
fishing in the Southeast continues to increase, and this further
complicates the challenges of preventing and ending overfishing.
According to NMFS data, the number of angler trips in the South
Atlantic has increased from less than 15 million per year in the 1980s,
to about 17 million a year in the 1990s, to more than 20 million per
year since 2000. Cheap and widely available technological enhancements,
such as GPS and fish finding technologies, have led to an increase in
fishing pressure. This increasing fishing pressure makes it
increasingly challenging to manage many of our vulnerable snapper and
grouper species, some of which take 5-10 years to reach reproductive
maturity and can live for 50 years or longer. Once overfished, some
stocks can take decades to rebuild. Implementing annual catch limits
provides necessary accountability to ensure our fisheries continue to
recover and are able to support a growing number of recreational
anglers over time.
In the South Atlantic, we are faced with managing many species for
which limited scientific information is available. However, there are
no species that we know nothing about. For every species we manage,
some combination of data on catch and fish landed at the dock, biology,
reproduction, habitat, and other life history characteristics are
available. The annual catch limit mandate has spurred a flurry of
scientific advances in assessing and setting catch limits for stocks
for which we have more limited data than we may have for stocks that
have undergone more conventional assessment. Today, there are multiple
data-limited assessment methods and tools that are designed to utilize
the available data to determine catch limits that prevent overfishing
and allow higher long-term yields. For example, the Pacific region has
pioneered the use of several of these methods, which are now regularly
applied to over 90 stocks of previously unassessed, data-limited
groundfish. The Southeast region has lagged behind these scientific
advances in other regions due to a less efficient assessment process, a
propensity to conduct repeated and duplicative assessments on a limited
number of the most commercially valuable stocks, and a lack of
familiarity with some of the latest scientific methods. Fortunately,
this is now beginning to change thanks to the hard work of a number of
fisheries scientists in the region. Just a few weeks ago, about 30 of
the Nation's leading fisheries scientists, including many from the
Southeast Fisheries Science Center, gathered in Miami to review new and
emerging data-limited methods, to unveil a new data-limited assessment
toolkit, and to discuss a specific roadmap for streamlining the
assessment process to utilize the available data on all currently
unassessed stocks. In a few short years since the annual catch limit
requirement went into effect, we are seeing transformative changes in
how we assess and manage many dozens of stocks of previously neglected
stocks with important ecological and economic value. While some of the
stocks may not be as valuable commercially as the most popular,
targeted stocks, there is no doubt that they are essential parts of the
ecosystem and fisheries of the region. When I, like most all of my
recreational counterparts, fish on the diverse fisheries of the
Southeast and want to see more than a few undersized red snapper and
black sea bass. And the heavily targeted fish, like red snapper and
black sea bass, are dependent on healthy populations of other fish to
survive and thrive.
Driven by the ACL requirements, we have developed rational
scientific ways to set catch limits when full stock assessments are not
available. These approaches use the best science available to set
reasonable catch limits until new science becomes available that makes
it clear a population can support an increase in catch. With this
science-based framework in place, new information can continually
inform managers and we can make adjustments to maximize the benefits
for all participants in the fishery. This is exactly what we are doing
now in the South Atlantic, and it makes sense because it is a lot
better to deal with a short period of reduced catch than suffer the
years of painful recovery after a fish population has crashed.
Transitioning from the ``flexibility'' of the past to today's
science-based management system was a long and deliberate process, with
extensive public participation and scientific contributions, that took
years and cost American taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. I
believe we have made major improvements that could achieve
sustainability for our marine resources in the Southeast. Despite all
of this progress, this committee is now considering draft legislation
that would backpedal and return to the ineffective management practices
that produced failure after failure in fisheries management. This
legislation would re-instate the failed policies of the past, eliminate
the science from science-based management, and constrain the ability of
the public to evaluate or participate in fisheries management
decisions. In particular, I would like to highlight several specific
concerns with the draft legislation. The bill would:
Remove any time limit for rebuilding overfished stocks;
Allow Councils to continue overfishing for up to 7 years
on vulnerable fish populations that are in most need of
protection;
Permit Councils to ignore science-based annual catch
limits that prevent overfishing and protect long-term
economic value in the fishery; and
Remove the annual catch limit requirement for literally
hundreds of ``non-target'' stocks, many of which are not
specifically targeted but still valued by fishermen.
In addition to these concerns, the draft legislation also
significantly weakens other important requirements to fully evaluate
the impacts of management decisions and to provide the public access to
important information. Specifically, the legislation would:
Eliminate the authority of other important laws, such as
the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental
Policy Act, to influence management decisions related to
fisheries;
Establish new rules for data confidentiality that would
significantly restrict the ability of the public to access
data related to Federal fisheries; and
Create a new State management regime for Gulf of Mexico
red snapper fishery without any of the accountability
measures of the MSA.
Taken together, these amendments to the MSA would waste years of
sacrifice by fishers and hard work that have put our fisheries on a
course to sustainability. The conservation measures we have put in
place in the South Atlantic and around the country are working, but
require strong action supported by clear legal mandates to protect and
rebuild fisheries. I ask members of this committee to carefully
consider the history of fisheries management in this country, and to
recognize that we are only just beginning to see the benefits of our
science-based management system. Further, I strongly urge members to
reject this short-sighted proposal and redraft a new bill that will
move us ahead to address the challenges of the future rather than
reinventing the problems of the past.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
I now recognize Mr. Jeff Deem, who is here to testify on
behalf of the Recreational Fishing Alliance.
STATEMENT OF JEFF DEEM, RECREATIONAL FISHING ALLIANCE
Mr. Deem. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. I am Jeff Deem. And, although I serve on the Mid-
Atlantic Council representing Virginia, I am here today to
present the position of Mr. Jim Donofrio, the Executive
Director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance, who is,
unfortunately, snowbound in New Jersey this morning.
I would like to thank Chairman Hastings, committee members
and committee staff for holding a series of hearings over the
past 2 years, and listening to the concerns, needs, and
suggestions from the fishing community, fishery managers,
business owners, academics, and private citizens. The RFA and
many other stakeholders in the recreational fishing community
are encouraged to see many of the deficiencies identified at
previous hearings included in the discussion draft released to
the public on December 19.
The spirit and intent of MSA was to conserve fish stocks
for the benefit of the Nation in terms of food production,
economic output, and recreational opportunities. With this in
mind, we believe Magnuson is only producing positive results in
the conservation half of this equation, and this failure of MSA
to achieve both objectives is most painfully visible in
recreational fisheries.
Unlike commercial fishing operations that become more
efficient and profitable by spending less time on the water and
achieving more fish when stocks rebuild, the exact opposite is
true for the recreational sector. The recreational sector
desires open access and opportunity to allow the most
participants to engage in the fishery.
The rebuilding contradiction lies in the fact that, as
stocks rebuild, regulations must become more restrictive as the
fish become more available to anglers. To enforce annual catch
limits in the recreational sector, as mandated under the
current reauthorization regime, seasons become shorter, bag
limits are reduced, and minimum size limits are increased. Not
only does this scenario depress the socioeconomic capacity of
the recreational fishing industry, but, from a conservation
standpoint, the mortality associated with harvest is converted
to mortality associated with dead discards, which serves no
purpose. RFA believes language offered in the discussion draft
attempts to address this issue and inequity.
Flexibility is a common theme throughout the draft. RFA
strongly supports the use of limited, common-sense flexibility
in rebuilding fish stocks, and with ending overfishing. As seen
in the summer flounder fishery in the Mid-Atlantic region,
which was subjected to limited flexibility through the 2007
reauthorization of MSA, limited flexibility can be used to
accommodate the needs of the fishing industry, while causing no
more conservation issues with the stock.
In fact, the summer flounder stock continued to rebuild
during the period when limited flexibility was applied,
contrary to the dire predictions of the flexibility critics.
RFA believes that the successful use of limited flexibility in
the summer flounder fishery demonstrates the value of providing
flexibility and adaptive management options in all federally
managed species when appropriate. The use of flexibility
acknowledges a known fact that we cannot count every single
fish in the ocean, nor can we predict how every environmental
factor--water temperatures, salinity, current strength, et
cetera--will impact a stock's recruitment or speed at which it
can rebuild. Flexibility is simply using an adaptive fishery
management approach to accommodate the limitations of an
imperfect science.
RFA is encouraged to find that the discussion bill deals
with the application of annual catch limits specifications--
excuse me--specific to the recreational fishing community. No
recreational data collection program currently exists that is
designed specifically for quota monitoring, or that can monitor
recreational performance relative to an annual catch limit.
That said, annual catch limits either force managers to use
excessive precaution when setting specifications for the
recreational sector, thereby depriving the sector from fully
maximizing their allocation of fish stocks. Our recreational
fishermen are punished for simply following regulations
approved and put in place by fisheries managers to receive
specific annual catch limits.
In regards to the issue of catch shares, which is addressed
in Section 7 of the discussion draft, RFA is adamantly opposed
to the use of such measures in the recreational fishery. The
primary purpose of catch shares is to reduce capacity in the
fishing sector. This concept is a complete contradiction to the
traditional open access approach needed to allow the
recreational fishing sector to achieve its full socioeconomic
potential.
Furthermore, the implementation of commercial catch share
programs in a mixed-use fishery limits the ability to revise
commercial and recreational allocations. This is an issue that
must be raised during any referendum procedure. RFA suggests
that the members of the committee consider developing options
to allow some recreational input during any referendum process.
Also, the committee should work to develop a mechanism or
process to evaluate commercial-recreational allocation in
fisheries where a commercial sector has or is considering a
catch share program.
We appreciate this opportunity, and we are happy to answer
any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. James A. Donofrio, Executive
Director, Recreational Fishing Alliance follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mr. James A. Donofrio, Executive Director,
Recreational Fishing Alliance
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Jim Donofrio, the
Executive Director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA). The RFA
is a national 501(c)(4) non-profit grassroots political action
organization whose mission is to safeguard the rights of salt water
anglers, protect marine, boat, and tackle industry jobs, and insure the
long-term sustainability of our Nation's marine fisheries. Recreational
fishing produces significant economic activity in the United States.
The U.S. Department of Commerce estimates the economic output of
recreational saltwater fishing includes $59 billion in direct sales
impacts, $27 billion in value added impacts and supports over 260,000
full-time jobs. The recreational fishing industry is ``Main Street
America'' in every sense; it is largely composed of small, family-run,
mom and pop businesses. It goes without saying that these businesses
serve a critical role in the economic health of the Nation's coastal
economies.
I would like to thank Chairman Hastings, committee members and
committee staff for holding a series of hearings over the past 2 years
and listening to the concerns, needs and suggestions from the fishing
community, fishery managers, business owners, academics and private
citizens. The RFA and many other stakeholders in the recreational
fishing community are encouraged to see many of the deficiencies
identified at previous hearings included in the discussion draft
released to the public on December 19, 2013.
general comments
From a recreational fishing standpoint, it is difficult to justify
a statement that claims that the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act has been a success. As will be pointed out by other
witnesses today, the conservation portion of the Act has largely
worked. The number of stocks experiencing overfishing has been
significantly reduced and many fisheries are either rebuilt or on a
trajectory to rebuild in the near future. If conservation was the only
measure of success, we could claim that Magnuson has been working but
we can't. The spirit and intent of this fisheries law was to conserve
fish stocks for the benefit of the Nation in terms of food production,
economic output and recreational opportunities. With this in mind,
Magnuson is only producing positive results in one half of this
equation and this failure of MSA to achieve both objectives is most
painfully visible in the recreational fisheries. Unlike the commercial
fishing operations that become more efficient and profitable by
spending less time on the water and catching more fish when stocks
rebuild, the exact opposite is true for the recreational sector. The
recreational sector desires open access and opportunity to allow the
most participants to engage the fishery. The rebuilding contradiction
lies in the fact that as stocks rebuild, regulations must become more
restrictive as the fish become more available to anglers. To enforce
annual catch limits in the recreational sector as mandated under the
current 2007 reauthorization regime, seasons become shorter, bag limits
are reduced and minimum size limits are increased. Not only does this
scenario depress the socioeconomic capacity of the recreational fishing
industry but from a conservation standpoint, the mortality associated
with harvest is converted to mortality associated with dead discards
which serves no purpose. RFA believes language offered in the
discussion draft attempts to address this issue and inequity.
Flexibility is a common theme throughout the discussion draft. RFA
strongly supports the use of limited, common sense flexibility in
rebuilding fish stocks and with ending overfishing. As seen in the
summer flounder fishery in the Mid-Atlantic region which was subjected
to limited flexibility through the 2007 reauthorization of MSA, limited
flexibility can be used to accommodate the needs of the fishing
industry while causing no conservation issues with the stock. In fact,
the summer flounder stock continued to rebuild during the period when
limited flexibility was applied, contrary to the dire predictions of
the flexibility critics. RFA believes the successful use of limited
flexibility in the summer flounder fishery demonstrates the value of
providing flexibility and adaptive management options in all federally
managed species when appropriate. The use of flexibility acknowledges
the known fact that we cannot count every single fish in the ocean nor
can be predict how every environmental condition (water temperature,
salinity, current strength, etc . . .) will impact a stock's
recruitment or speed at which it can rebuild. Flexibility is simply
using an adaptive fishery management approach to accommodate the
limitations of an imperfect science.
RFA is encouraged by language in the discussion draft that provides
more power to the Regional Fishing Management Councils when setting
rebuilding timeframes and other rebuilding requirements contained in
fishery management plans. RFA believes the regional councils represent
the best composition of managers, industry representatives, and fishing
stakeholders to develop specifications in terms of quotas that balances
the needs of fishermen and the needs of the fish stock as the Magnuson
Act intended. However, fishery management plans and amendments prepared
by the regional Councils are not promulgated until approved by the
Secretary of Commerce. Moreover, a strong push by the environmental
industry to seat their representatives on the regional fishery
management councils has minimized the number of votes by those
representatives with a vested interest in the long-term, sustainable
management of our Nation's marine resources. RFA encourages members of
the committee to participate in the regional Council appointment
process beginning at the State level and conclude with the Secretary of
Commerce to ensure that the composition of the regional Councils
reflects the true and widely held views of the collective commercial
and recreational fishing community of the region and not the
ideological agenda of the environmental industry.
RFA is encouraged to find the discussion bill deals with
application of annual catch limits. Specific to the recreational
fishing community, no recreational data collection program currently
exists that is designed specifically for quota monitoring, or that can
monitor recreational performance relative to an annual catch limit.
That said, annual catch limits either force managers to use excessive
precaution when setting specifications for the recreational sector,
thereby depriving the recreational sector from fully maximizing their
allocation of fish stocks, or recreational fishermen are punished for
simply following regulations approved and put in place by fishery
managers to achieve a specific annual catch limit.
RFA supports greater transparency in the process that sets annual
catch limits and supports efforts that would allow a greater number of
stakeholders in the fishery management process. Engaging the fishery
management process can be costly and time prohibition for many
fishermen. Councils and Commissions should not only broadcast meetings
online but also allow for public comment via the web or teleconference.
This would expand the voice from stakeholders and allow fishery
managers to make management decisions based on a more comprehensive
public comment.
In regards to the issue of catch shares which is addressed in
Section 7 of the discussion draft, RFA is adamantly opposed to the use
of such measures in the recreational fishery. The primary purpose of
catch shares is to reduce capacity in a fishing sector. This concept is
in complete contradiction to the traditional `open access' approach
needed to allow the recreational fishing sector to achieve its full
socioeconomic potential. Furthermore, the implementation of a
commercial catch share program in a mixed use fishery limits the
ability to revise commercial/recreational allocations. This is an issue
that must be raised during any referendum procedure. RFA suggests that
the members of the committee consider developing options to allow some
recreational input during any referendum process. Also, the committee
should work to develop a mechanism or process to evaluate commercial/
recreational allocation in fisheries where the commercial sector has or
is considering a catch share program.
Comments on H.R. 4742, Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing
Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act
RFA submits the following suggestions and recommendations for the
committee's consideration.
SECTION 3. FLEXIBILITY IN REBUILDING FISH STOCKS
The urgency to rebuild fish stocks with complete disregard to the
needs of the fishing industry is a flawed management approach that
fails to achieve optimum yield from fisheries and reduces the overall
social and economic benefits that can be achieved from a well managed
fishery. Save the rebuilding timeframe extension language for summer
flounder included in the 2007 reauthorization, RFA was convinced that
mandates and lack of flexibility included in the 2007 reauthorization
was going to move fishery management away from the fundamental
objectives of the law when originally passed in 1976. What was most
concerning to the RFA was that the pain caused by the 2007
reauthorization would not be short-term but would cause permanent loss
of recreational fishing infrastructure. That said, RFA is encouraged to
see that the discussion draft attempts to address the shortcomings the
2007 reauthorization by inserting limit flexibility when appropriate.
RFA offers minor recommendations for this section.
RFA suggests that additional information be provided by the
committee to aid NOAA when defining the term highly dynamic fishery as
included in this section. RFA assumes that the intention of the term is
to provide implementation flexibility for fisheries that are shorted-
lived (<2 years) or display high variability in either recruitment or
spawning stock biomass on a year-to-year basis. Such fisheries are
typically influenced more by environmental conditions than direct
fishing pressure. However, this cannot be determined from the existing
language in the discussion draft and therefore RFA suggests some
clarification for this new term.
RFA supports changing possible to practicable as included in Sec.
3(a)(2)(A). RFA has long supported this wording change and experience
has proven that the time and rate to rebuild a stock should be a lower
priority compared to minimizing socioeconomic impacts on the affected
fishing communities. Most marine fish stocks have proven to be
extremely resilient and will respond rapidly to even modest fishing
restrictions. The fishing infrastructure that makes up a fishing
community is not nearly as resilient and as mentioned above, loss of
recreational fishing infrastructure tends to be permanent. Therefore,
the focus should be preserving and protecting the fishing industries,
not rebuilding a fish stock as quickly as possible. From an ecological
standpoint, rebuilding a fish stock in a time period as short as
possible may cause tropic imbalances where a stock dominates or impedes
other stocks' rebuilding progress. Again, this wording change would
promote more adaptive fishery management that is more responsive to the
dynamic nature of the marine environment.
In Sec. 3(a)(2)(B)(ii), RFA notes that the time to rebuild a stock
in the absence of fishing is a period of time that will vary from year
to year for a particular stock based on stock size, average
recruitment, environmental conditions, habitat limitations, etc. Also,
the time to rebuild in the absence of fishing will also vary throughout
the course of a rebuilding timeframe. It is unclear from the wording
provided in this section if the time to rebuild a stock in the absence
of fishing will be periodically reviewed or if it is a static value.
RFA suggests including some clarification in this section on the
process to revisit the extension period based on the time to rebuild
without fishing.
RFA would suggest to committee members that they consider also
providing limited flexibility to the provision that require ending
overfishing immediately as contained in MSA Sec. 304(e)(3)(A). RFA
certainly agrees that there are conservation benefits in ending
overfishing, yet, a review of post-Sustainable Fisheries Act fisheries
management proves that significant rebuilding can occur even if
overfishing is occurring in a fishery. To this point, Dr. Ray Hilborn
testified before the House Resources Committee in September 2013 that
an unwavering drive to end overfishing has resulting in the unnecessary
loss of harvest, jobs, recreational opportunities and revenue.
Moreover, this self-imposed obligation to end overfishing has not
resulted in significantly more conservation benefits than the those
benefits that would have been achieve by ending overfishing at a more
reasonable pace.
RFA suggests that the members of the committee consider applying
minimal flexibility to section 304(e)(3)(A) which would ultimately
allow managers to put forward a wider range of options when ending
overfishing. Possible wording for this flexibility to end overfishing
could be the addition of the following, or measures to end overfishing
following the word plan in Sec. 3(a)(1) of the discussion draft. An
alternative fix could simply be striking the word immediately in MSA
302(a)(3)(A) which would continue to ensure that overfishing is ended
but on a more reasonable schedule if needed.
RFA suggests adding section (VI) to Sec. 3(a)(2)B)(ii) to read as
follows: The Council(s) determines that new information supports a
revision or modification to the rebuilding plan. RFA believes the
addition of this wording would allow the Councils to adjust rebuilding
plans and rebuilding as new information becomes available or as stock
assessments are released.
RFA suggests the following wording be added to the end of Sec.
3(a)(2)(C)(B), all other non-fishing related factors that influence a
rate at which a stock can rebuild. RFA agrees with the discussion draft
that predator/prey relationships should be taken into consideration
when setting and evaluating rebuilding plans. However, RFA believes
that this consideration should not be limited to predator/prey
relationships and that all non-fishing related environmental conditions
should be factored when estimating the rate at which a stock is able to
rebuild. This type of approach is the very basis for ecosystem-based
management which is the preferred direction that the regional fishery
management councils and the recreational fishing community have
indicated they that wish to move toward. Ecosystem base management can
be very data demanding and expensive, yet, simply looking at a fishery
and how it interacts with its marine environment and other species as
this section suggests, is a very practical approach in light of the
resources currently available to the regional Councils and Commissions.
RFA suggests amending Sec. 3.(a)(1)((E) by adding the following
wording at the end of the subparagraph; and socioeconomic impacts
resulting of rebuilding efforts and progress. Consistent with the
original intent of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act, RFA believes a primary purpose for rebuilding fish
stocks is for deriving social and economic benefits from the fisheries.
Therefore, it is necessary to determine if this objective is being
achieved as fish stocks rebuild. Gauging success by simply measuring
the absolute amount of fish does not capture the health of the fishing
communities that are dependent on these fish stocks.
RFA supports Sec 3.(a)(3)(8) which approves the use of alternative
rebuilding strategies such as harvest control rules and fishing
mortality targets. RFA believes that the use of these strategies would
allow the regional fishery management Councils to manage the
recreational sector through traditional management regulations such as
season, size limits and bag limits. Moreover, monitoring recreational
mortality in the context of fishing mortality is a vast improvement
over monitoring recreational performance relative to a rigid annual
catch limit set in pounds of fish. Such an approach is neither
appropriate for the recreational sector nor practical due to the known
design limitations of the existing recreational data collection
programs.
In Sec. 3(b), RFA is unclear why MSA should be amended to increase
the time for which emergency regulations and interim measures can be
put in place. RFA suggests that rationale for this amendment be
provided by the authors of the discussion draft. In addition, RFA
suggests that the committee members consider expanding the authority of
the Secretary under MSA 305(c)(3)(B) to implement emergency regulations
and interim measures in order to allow a fishery to achieve optimum
yield. RFA makes this suggestion to expedite immediate access to a
fishery if information becomes available supporting an increase in
quota or easing of regulations.
SECTION 4. MODIFICATIONS TO ANNUAL CATCH LIMIT REQUIREMENT
In Sec. 4(a), RFA suggest changing may to shall in subparagraph
(m)(1). The stated purpose of marine fisheries management in the United
States is to manage fisheries for the benefit of the Nation. Those
benefits are provided to the citizens of the United States by way of
food and recreational opportunities through fishing communities.
Regional fishery management Councils must take into consideration the
economic needs of the fishing communities when setting annual catch
limits to ensure that this necessary infrastructure is sufficient
enough to parlay the benefits of rebuilding fish stocks to the American
people.
SECTION 5. DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN OVERFISHED AND DEPLETED
RFA supports revisions to the Magnuson Act that would distinguish
between overfished and depleted fish stocks. In most stock assessments,
natural mortality is a theoretical fixed parameter because empirical
data to determine a species-specific natural mortality rate is not
available. When natural mortality parameters are static, fluctuations
in natural mortality are reflected in fishing mortality rates which can
then trigger overfishing or overfished determinations. Fishing is not
always the cause for a stock to depart from a level associated with
maximum sustainable yield and therefore, the term depleted may be a
more accurate term in some fisheries.
SECTION 6. TRANSPARENCY AND PUBLIC PROCESS FOR SCIENTIFIC AND
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
RFA supports the intent of Section 6 in the discussion draft.
Scientific and Statistical Committee meetings are proving to be
extremely important in the fisheries management process as they are the
one opportunity where the public can comment on an annual catch limits
prior to them being released by the committee. Once annual catch limit
recommendations are released, having the Science and Statistical
Committees revisit these recommendations can be difficult if not
impossible. Despite their importance, it can be difficult and expensive
for the general public to attend Scientific and Statistical Committee
meetings. Moreover, participation in such meetings should not be
limited to those who are able to attend in person but any stakeholder
that has an interest. Inexpensive options exist that can allow remote
participation and thereby expanding the opportunities for members of
the fishing community to contribute to these important meetings.
RFA also supports the inclusion of wording in Sec. 6 that the
preparation of any fishery management plan, amendment or addendum
consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act satisfies and complies with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969.
SECTION 7. LIMITATION OF FUTURE CATCH SHARE PROGRAMS
RFA does not support the use of catch shares in the recreational
fisheries. We believe that catch shares are a management tool that has
absolutely no place in the management of recreational fisheries.
Specific to Sec. 7, the recreational fishing community must be afforded
an equal opportunity to weigh in on approval or implementation of a
catch share program in any commercial fishery that also has a
recreational component to that fishery. RFA believes this is necessary
to ensure that the allocation provided to the commercial catch share
program is representative and fair to the recreational sector. RFA asks
that the members of the committee consider this point and put forward
language for this section that would ensure that commercial/
recreational allocations are evaluated prior to the implementation of a
commercial catch share program in a mixed fishery and periodically
there after upon implementation.
SECTION 8. DATA COLLECTION AND DATA CONFIDENTIALITY
RFA supports amendments to MSA offered in Sec. 8. However, RFA
suggests to committee members that equal consideration in terms of use
of electronic reporting and monitoring be afforded to the recreational
sector. Specifically, provide greater opportunities for private anglers
to submit voluntary catch data and expand electronic vessel trip
reporting for for-hire and head boats. The recreational fishing
community has long been critical of NOAA for not using vessel trip
reports from federally permitted charter and head boats. Perhaps if
those trip reports were in an electronic format then NOAA would be more
willing to use this valuable information.
SECTION 10. GULF OF MEXICO COOPERATIVE RESEARCH AND RED SNAPPER
MANAGEMENT
The RFA supports the development of cooperative research programs
and making opportunities available to the recreational sector to
participate in such programs. The entire recreational fishing community
is in collective agreement that securing better data for both stock
assessments and quota monitoring is a top priority. A lack of data
almost always results in artificially lower quotas and unnecessarily
restrictive regulations that hurt participation and overall economic
output from the sector. Federal funding to improve fisheries science
has been drastically reduced over the past few years and RFA is
encouraged by the discussion draft's wording that would restore the
proper use of Saltonstall-Kennedy funds by making cooperative research
a priority for the Act. RFA also encourages committee members to
consider prioritizing money generated through the Sportfish Restoration
Act for cooperative research.
Consistent with the theme of Section 10, RFA suggests that members
of the committee consider the initiation of a review of recreational
data collection programs by the National Research Council. Congress and
the fishing industry called for such a review in 2005. In response to
this pressure, NOAA requested NRC conduct a review. The review included
public hearings and public comment periods in addition to an in-depth
analysis of programs in place at the time to collection information on
recreational catch, harvest, effort and participation. The NRC released
their findings in a 2006 report titled Review of Recreational Fishing
Survey Method. The report included numerous recommendations developed
by non-bias experts in statistical design to improve the accuracy,
precision, timeliness and confidence in the Marine Recreational Fishing
Statistics Survey (MRFSS), the Large Pelagic Survey (LPS), the
Recreational Billfish Survey, and other federally administered data
collection programs. During the MSA reauthorization process in 2006 and
early 2007, Section 401(g) was included in the final bill that
endeavored to improve recreational data collection by adopting many of
these recommendations put forward by the NRC. NOAA's attempt to
implement this section is manifest in the renamed MRFSS known as Marine
Recreational Information Program (MRIP). During previous committee
hearings, NOAA personnel have indicated that they have complied with
section 401(g).
This January marks the seventh year since then President George W.
Bush signed the Magnuson Reauthorization Act of 2007 into law. Many in
the recreational fishing community have not been satisfied with the
progress made by NOAA fisheries to make these improvements. Dr. F. J.
Breidt who served on the NRC panel for the 2006 review, indicated in
his testimony before this committee on May of 2013 that he felt the
Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) has ``directly addressed
the concerns noted in the 2006 NRC report and is now a complete
statistical system with a sound scientific basis.'' Based on this
statement, RFA believes it is appropriate for the NRC to again conduct
a formal review of NOAA's recreational data collection programs.
Acknowledging the budgetary constraints at the Federal and State
level, RFA encourages members of the committee to authorize the use of
funds from the Sportfish Restoration Fund. Funds in the Sportfish
Restoration Fund are derived from a federally imposed tax on all
fishing tackle, electronic fishing equipment, electric outboard motors,
import duties and marine fuel which on average amounts to $650 million
per year. Of these funds, Sportfish Restoration Fund disburses
approximately $383 million to State agencies to aid with the
administration of their fish, wildlife, game and habitat restoration
and protection programs which RFA believes is a valuable use of this
money.
Of the remaining funds, approximately $13 million is provided for
national outreach and communication programs. These programs are
primarily marketing campaigns administered by non-governmental
organizations given access to the funds under noncompetitive
agreements. These organizations directly benefit from marketing the
sport of fishing and boating and that also glean administrative fees
from of these programs. The results of these outreach and communication
programs have been minimal and $13 million set aside for these efforts
have become a private advertising account for a few industry groups.
RFA believes that a far better use of this money would be to fund a
follow-up NRC review of recreational data collection.
The 2006 NRC review cost approximately $430,000. RFA contends that
this number is insignificant considering the fact that the recreational
fishing industry generates several hundred million dollars in Federal
taxes every year. However, RFA also appreciates Congress's commitment
to reducing government spending which is why it suggests the committee
look to the Sportfish Restoration Fund, a fishermen funded account. Not
only would the money for a follow-up NRC review stand to benefit all
saltwater anglers that fund the Sportfish Restoration Fund through
their fishing related purchases, but such a review ultimately stands to
improve the management and conservation of the Nation's saltwater
fisheries. RFA believes a follow-up NRC review is the only way that
fishermen will ever gain any confidence in the new MRIP program.
For the committee's consideration, RFA offers the following new
language which would create an additional section in the discussion
draft and read as follows:
SECTION 14. EVALUATION OF RECREATIONAL DATA COLLECTION
a. Upon enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Commerce will charge
the National Research Council to undertake a review of all
recreational data collection programs to evaluate their
accuracy, precision, and timeliness and to offer
recommendations for improvements.
b. The National Research Council would make available their findings
to Congress within 365 days.
c. Funding for recreational data collection evaluation conducted by
the National Research Council under subparagraph (a) will
be made available from the Sportfish Restoration Fund (16
U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 777-777l).
closing remarks
In closing, I would like to again thank Chairman Hastings and
committee members for the opportunity to testify today on this
important issue. RFA believes the discussion draft is a good start and
stands to spur improvements to the current fishery management process.
The current reauthorization process being initiated for Magnuson
represents a significant opportunity to strike a balance between
conservation and the needs of the fishing communities in U.S.
fisheries. RFA appreciates the commitment taken by Chairman Hastings,
committee members and staff in reaching out to the fishing stakeholders
and putting forward pragmatic solutions to correct and improve U.S.
fisheries management. RFA looks forward to working with Chairman
Hastings and committee members in the coming months to refine the
discussion draft.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Deem, for your
testimony.
And last, but certainly not least, Ms. Ellen Pikitch. Did I
say it correctly?
Dr. Pikitch. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. I did say it correctly, OK. Professor and
Executive Director of the Institute for Ocean Conservation
Science from Stony Brook, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ELLEN K. PIKITCH, PH.D., PROFESSOR AND EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE FOR OCEAN CONSERVATION SCIENCE, SCHOOL OF
MARINE AND ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY
Dr. Pikitch. Thank you, Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member
DeFazio, and members of the committee. I appreciate the
opportunity to comment on the discussion draft to amend the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
Throughout my 30-plus-year career beginning in Oregon,
conducting research of commercial fishing vessels, I have been
deeply involved in fishery science and management. While
serving on the scientific and statistical committees of the
Pacific and New England Councils during the 1980s and 1990s, I
witnessed firsthand how flexibility was used to avoid
addressing difficult problems.
Scientific advice was often ignored. Political pressure was
applied to delay action desperately needed to prevent
overfishing and rebuild fish stocks. Over-fishing continued,
even on extremely depleted stocks. Coastal communities faced
economic hardships, due to collapsing fish populations.
Congress took notice. In 1996, and then in 2006, the law was
amended, strengthening the overfishing provisions and ensuring
the foundational importance of science.
Consequently, we have turned the corner. Many fish
populations have been rebuilt. The number experiencing
overfishing has declined. And science-based catch limits are
now in place for all federally managed fish.
In addition, fisheries profitability has increased. And
jobs, even in the recreational sector, have been created.
Although we have more work to do, the state of our fisheries is
improving. It is certainly stronger now than at any time during
my professional career.
I am very concerned, however, with the Chairman's
discussion draft, as it rolls back key provisions of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act that have boosted the health of our
fisheries. Among its shortcomings, the draft proposal would
weaken the Act's rebuilding requirements, reverse recent gains
in science-based fishery management, diminish the ability of
managers to prevent overfishing of forage fish, and put basic
fishery data, including information collected using taxpayer
support, off-limits to the general public. Rather than revert
to using policies and practices that were not successful in the
past, we should build on the success of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act.
No fish is an island. We must shift from managing fish as
separate, individual species, and recognize that they are part
of an interacting web of life, an ecosystem. We need to stop
using scientific uncertainty as an excuse for inaction.
Instead, we must see it as a sign that care is needed to
sustainably manage the ecosystem's interconnected parts. We
must confront new challenges, such as the impacts of a changing
climate on fish populations.
I recommend that, during this reauthorization of the Act,
that Congress firmly establish ecosystem-based fishery
management approaches in the law. Specifically, this would
include measures to sharpen existing provisions to protect
habitat, to enhance provisions to reduce by-catch, to require
Councils to prepare and implement fishery ecosystem plans, and
to ensure that forage fish are managed to account for the
important role they hold in the ocean.
As Chair of the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force, I would
like to discuss why small fish matter so much. These fish are
small, short-lived, but they represent about a third of the
world's wild marine fish catch. Yet only 10 percent are
consumed directly by people. In the ocean, forage fish serve as
a primary food source for larger fish, such as cod, salmon, and
tuna, as well as other marine life. Over-fishing of forage fish
jeopardizes not only the target species, but also the health of
the entire food web.
The task force I chaired estimated that the supportive
value of forage fish as food for commercially important fishes
is more than twice their value, as direct targets of
harvesting. In other words, forage fish are worth twice as much
when left in the water as they are taken out in a net. Forage
fish contribute to many other economically important coastal
activities, so there are even more reasons to expect that
little fish will equal big bucks.
So, to summarize, our Nation has taken steps to implement
science-based fishery management, and there is considerable
progress to report. Let's not undo the success we have worked
so hard to obtain. We must move forward with the Magnuson Act
that will help us confront the challenges ahead. Thank you
again.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Pikitch follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ellen K. Pikitch, Ph.D., Professor and Executive
Director, Institute for Ocean Conservation Science, School of Marine
and Atmospheric Sciences, Stony Brook University
Good morning Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member DeFazio, and members
of the committee. Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today.
I appreciate the opportunity to offer my perspectives on the discussion
draft circulated by Chairman Hastings to amend the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and my
recommendations for the next reauthorization of this critical law.
I am a Professor and the Founder and Executive Director of the
Institute for Ocean Conservation Science at Stony Brook University.\1\
The Institute conducts world-class scientific research in order to
increase our knowledge about critical threats to the ocean and its
inhabitants, provide the foundation for smarter ocean policy, and
establish new frameworks for improved ocean conservation. A primary
focus of our work is to advance ecosystem-based fishery management, or
put another way, to support the progression of fishery science and
management from its current species-by-species emphasis to a more
comprehensive and realistic approach. Importantly, an ecosystem-based
methodology accounts for the interactions among marine species, their
habitat requirements and environment, and the people who depend upon
them. There is a growing consensus among scientists that this approach
to management is the necessary next step to ensure sustainable
stewardship of our ocean resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The views expressed in this testimony are mine. They do not
necessarily reflect the views of Stony Brook University.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As such, I am very concerned about the Chairman's discussion draft,
as it roll backs many of the important provisions of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act that have led to recent improvements in the health of the
Nation's fisheries. Rather than relapse to using policies and practices
that were not successful when widely applied in the past, we should use
this opportunity to move forward, adopt ecosystem-based fisheries
management, and better equip our fishery managers to address future
challenges facing our oceans.
Throughout my professional career, I have been deeply involved in
fishery conservation and fisheries management science. As an Assistant
Professor at Oregon State University in the early 1980s, I conducted
cooperative research with the commercial fishing industry focusing on
Pacific coast groundfish assessments and complex management issues
(such as bycatch and discards) arising from the multispecies nature of
the trawl fishery. Much of this work took place aboard commercial
fishing vessels operating under commercial fishing conditions. Later,
while on the faculty of the University of Washington, I directed the
Fisheries Research Institute and expanded my research program into
Alaskan waters. I served on the Pacific Regional Fishery Management
Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee between 1989 and 1994,
and chaired its Groundfish Subcommittee in 1993 and 1994. I also served
as chairman of the New England Regional Fishery Management Council's
Scientific and Statistical Committee from 1998 to 2000. I have been a
member of several advisory panels convened by the National Academy of
Sciences to research sustainable fishery management issues. I have
conducted field research, in the United States and overseas, on many
iconic fish species, including sturgeon, sharks, and several species of
groundfish.
In the late 1980s and 1990s, I witnessed firsthand how regional
fishery management councils used flexibility to avoid addressing the
difficult problems affecting many of our Nation's important fisheries.
Scientific advice was often ignored. Political pressure was applied to
delay action desperately needed to prevent overfishing and rebuild
depleted fish populations. So, overfishing continued, even on stocks
experiencing substantial population declines. In many areas along our
Nation's coastline, fishing-dependent communities faced economic
hardships due to collapsing fish populations.
Congress took notice. In 1996 and 2006, a bipartisan group of
Senators and Representatives, led by the late U.S. Senator Ted Stevens,
amended the law to establish clearer provisions to prevent overfishing,
rebuild fish populations, and ensure scientific advice provides a solid
foundation for our Nation's fishery management system. In 1996,
Congress added a requirement that overfished fish stocks be rebuilt in
as short as time as possible but not to exceed 10 years, with certain
limited exceptions. A decade later, Congress amended the law to require
science-based catch limits and accountability measures in order to
restore and maintain fish populations.
Due to the hard work of managers, fishermen, scientists,
conservationists, and others, we are turning the corner in fishery
management. Although we certainly have more work to do, the state of
our fisheries is improving--it is certainly stronger now than at any
time during my professional career.
In December of 2013, the National Marine Fisheries Service reported
that 34 fish stocks have been rebuilt since 2000.\2\ These include
Pacific Coast lingcod, Georges Bank haddock, Southern Atlantic black
sea bass, and Gulf of Mexico red grouper. In addition, the number of
stocks experiencing overfishing has declined from 72 in 2000 to 28 by
the end of 2013.\3\ Science-based catch limits, designed to prevent
overfishing, are in place for all federally managed fish populations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ NOAA Fisheries. Status of U.S. Fisheries. 2013 Quarter 4 Update
through Dec. 31, 2013. Available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/
statusoffisheries/SOSmain.htm.
\3\ NOAA Fisheries. Status of U.S. Fisheries. Data from 2000 and
2013 updates. Available online at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/
statusoffisheries/SOSmain.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to National Marine Fisheries Service testimony submitted
to this committee last September, ``U.S. commercial fishermen landed
9.9 billion pounds of seafood valued at $5.3 billion in 2011, which
reflects an increase of 1.6 billion pounds (20 percent) and $829
million (18 percent) over 2010 figures. 2011 was the highest landing
volume since 1997 and highest value in nominal terms ever recorded.''
The agency went on to report that jobs generated by recreational
fishing represented a 40 percent increase between 2010 and 2011.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Rauch, Samuel D. 2013. Written Testimony by Samuel D. Rauch
III, Acting Assistant Administrator for the National Marine Fisheries
Service. For a Hearing on Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act before the Committee on Natural Resources. September 11,
2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I proudly share these facts, along with stories detailing how much
we have accomplished, with my students. The improvements we are making
are not only benefiting fish populations and ocean ecosystems but also
making important economic contributions through jobs and more
profitable fisheries. The United States has one of the best management
systems in the world thanks to our commitment to follow scientific
recommendations, prevent overfishing, and rebuild fish populations. As
we consider modifications to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, it is imperative
that we maintain and build upon this recent progress.
Concerns With the Discussion Draft
Unfortunately, the draft proposal circulated in December would
jeopardize the hard-earned progress the United States has made in
recent years. It would undercut the very requirements of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act that are largely responsible for the recent turn-around. It
fully embraces and re-institutes many 20th century management policies
that, in the 1980s and 1990s, failed to promote sustainable fish
populations and foster long-term productivity for fisheries and coastal
communities. It is not the forward-looking vision we need to ensure our
fishery management system can respond to and overcome challenges of
changing oceans in the 21st century. Among its shortcomings, the draft
proposal would:
Weaken the Act's rebuilding requirements. The proposal
would allow overfishing to continue by delaying the onset of rebuilding
measures in a rebuilding plan for 5, and perhaps up to 7 years, once a
population has been declared to be below healthy levels. There are both
ecological and economic arguments to begin rebuilding overfished
populations immediately. Allowing depleted fish populations to further
decline may reduce survival of early life stages, decrease genetic
diversity, and cause shifts in ecosystem structure and function.
Extending overfishing will, at worst, increase the risk of severe
collapse for some fish populations, and, at best, greatly delay their
recovery--jeopardizing both the resiliency of the fish population and
the long-term economic viability of businesses and communities that
rely upon them.\5\ \6\ For species like forage fish, continued
overfishing or extended periods of depletion jeopardizes not only the
target species, but also the health of the entire food web of marine
species.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Pikitch, Ellen K. 2003. The Scientific Case for Precautionary
Management: Current Fishery Problems Traced to Improper Use of Science.
In: Managing Marine Fisheries in the United States. Proceedings of the
Pew Oceans Commission Workshop on Marine Fishery Management.
\6\ Babcock, Elizabeth A., McAllister, Murdoch K. and Pikitch,
Ellen K. 2007. Comparison of Harvest Control Policies for Rebuilding
Overfished Populations within a Fixed Rebuilding Time Frame. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management. 27: 1326-1342.
In addition, the discussion draft would eliminate the target to
rebuild an overfished stock within 10 years if biologically possible
and add a number of new, broad exceptions for setting any timeline. My
research and that of others concludes that it is biologically possible
for the majority of fish species to recover in 10 years, even if they
were significantly depleted at the start of rebuilding.\7\ \8\
Moreover, rapid rebuilding confers long-term economic benefits because
the sooner a population approaches a sustainable level, the sooner
catches (and hence revenues generated by the fishery) can increase.\9\
In a comparison of rebuilding strategies, my colleagues and I concluded
that the best strategy to ensure healthy populations and economic
returns was to employ both a 10-year rebuilding target as well as
management strategies called harvest control rules that set varying
levels of catch in accordance with the abundance (or size) of the fish
population.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Safina, Carl, et al. 2005. U.S. Ocean Fish Recovery: Staying
the Course. Science. 309: 707-708. 29 July 2005.
\8\ Babcock, McAlister and Pikitch, 2007.
\9\ Babcock, McAlister and Pikitch, 2007.
\10\ Babcock, McAlister and Pikitch, 2007.
In addition, the discussion draft includes several broad
exceptions that would give regional fishery management councils the
option not to set any rebuilding target date. If these exceptions were
to be used, I would be concerned that rebuilding a stock to a
sustainable level could be delayed indefinitely. This would risk the
long-term economic benefits associated with a rebuilt, sustainable
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
fishery.
Current provisions of the Act already permit sufficient
flexibility including the ability to deviate from the 10-year timeframe
in appropriate circumstances, such as if biological conditions of the
stock would require a longer period. In fact, the majority of stocks
currently undergoing rebuilding have plans that exceed 10 years.\11\
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) analyzed 44 fish stocks
that had been put in rebuilding plans since 1996 and had sufficient
information to evaluate progress. In its 2013 report, NRDC found that
the average rebuilding time periods for these plans is close to 20
years.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ NOAA Fisheries. Status of U.S. Fisheries. Available online at
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/SOSmain.htm.
\12\ Natural Resources Defense Council. Bringing Back the Fish: An
Evaluation of U.S. Fisheries Rebuilding Under the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act. 2013. Appendix A.
Reverse recent gains in better incorporating science in
our fishery management system. The proposal would make significant
changes to existing requirements for science-based fishery management.
For example, it would allow regional fishery management councils to
dismiss recommendations of the Council's scientific and statistical
committees in setting annual catch limits by providing them with
opportunities to elevate short-term economic issues, jeopardizing the
sustainability of fish populations and sacrificing long-term economic
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
benefits.
Diminish the ability of managers to prevent overfishing
of forage fish. The proposal includes provisions that would exempt
forage fish species from the Act's requirements to establish science-
based catch limits that prevent overfishing. As a food source of larger
fish and other marine wildlife, forage fish play a critical role in
marine ecosystems. Because of this, they contribute to many
economically important coastal activities, including commercial
fisheries, recreational fishing, whale watching, and bird viewing. It
would be a mistake to sideline consideration of this crucial link in
the ocean food web by excluding forage fish from requirements to set
science-based limits that would help manage their populations.
Put basic fishery data, including information collected
using taxpayer support, off limits to the general public. The proposal
would reduce public access to data collected by on-board observers and
through cooperative research projects involving fishermen and
scientists. University and independent scientists rely on this data,
typically shared in ways to maintain privacy and confidential
information, to conduct research that helps improve knowledge of fish
populations and efficacy of management measures. Keeping vast amounts
of this information out of the public domain will not only be a set-
back to fishery science but also undermines our Nation's commitment to
open government, particularly for managing public resources such as
fish.
I am also concerned about provisions in the discussion draft that
would weaken core environmental laws, including the National
Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National
Marine Sanctuaries Act, and the Antiquities Act, as they would apply to
fishery management decisions.
Recommendations for Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization
Instead of these regressive changes, Congress, the administration,
and those of us involved in fishery management and science should be
considering and implementing ways to build on the success of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. We have unfinished business, such as how to
minimize bycatch, protect and restore fish habitat, and invest in
science.
No fish is an island. A species may be in good shape from a single
species perspective--but may be overfished from an ecosystem
perspective.
We must shift our focus from managing fish as separate, individual
species with a primary goal of maintaining populations of key target
species, and move toward recognizing they are part of an interacting
web of marine life, an ecosystem. We need to stop using scientific
uncertainty as an excuse for inaction, and instead see it as an
indicator that precautionary care is needed to sustainably manage the
interconnecting parts of ecosystem. In addition, we must confront new
challenges, such as the impacts of a changing climate on fish
populations.
The concept of ecosystem-based fisheries management is not new. In
fact, in 1996 Congress called for an expert panel to offer
recommendations ``to expand the application of ecosystem principles in
fishery conservation and management activities.'' \13\ In its
subsequently released report to Congress the Ecosystem Principles
Advisory Panel set forth core recommendations for incorporating
ecosystem principles in fishery management, including: that each
regional fishery management council be required to develop a fishery
ecosystem plan for the ecosystem(s) under its jurisdiction; that the
Secretary of Commerce should establish guidelines for developing
fishery ecosystem plans, and; that management measures consider
predator-prey interactions, consider the impact of bycatch to the
ecosystem, and minimize the impacts of fishing operations on essential
fish habitat.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act,
Section 406(a)-(e), 16 U.S.C. 1882.
\14\ Ecosystem-based Fishery Management, A Report to Congress by
the Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel as mandated by the Sustainable
Fisheries Act amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act 1996. 1998. pp. 3-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2004, several colleagues and I further analyzed and outlined
this approach.\15\ We identified several key components of Ecosystem-
based Fishery Management including:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Pikitch, E. K. et al. 2004. Ecosystem-Based Fishery
Management. Science. 305: 346-347. 16 July 2004.
Consideration of the overall state of the ecosystem,
habitat, protected species, and non-target species when
designing precautionary fishery management plans;
Identification, restoration and conservation of essential
habitat to ensure spawning and other crucial life stages of
species are protected;
Reduction of bycatch, or the killing of non-target species
or undersized individuals;
Accounting for direct and indirect impacts on endangered
and protected species, including ecological processes
essential for their recovery;
Requirements that new and developing fisheries first prove
that fishing pressure will have minimal direct or indirect
effects on ecosystem function; and
Management of forage fish with special consideration that
accounts for their role as prey for marine predators.
Subsequent, peer-reviewed scientific papers have been published,
exhibiting a strong and growing scientific consensus supporting a more
integrated ecosystem-based approach to fishery management.
In addition, in 2003 the Pew Oceans Commission recommended that the
principal objective of our Nation's fishery policy should be ``to
protect the long-term health and viability of fisheries by protecting,
maintaining, and restoring the health, integrity, productive capacity
and resilience of the marine ecosystems upon which they depend.'' \16\
And, in 2004, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, established by the
U.S. Congress and appointed by President George W. Bush, called for
managers to begin moving toward a more ecosystem-based fishery
management approach.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Pew Oceans Commission. America's Living Oceans: Charting a
Course for Sea Change. A Report to the Nation. May 2003. p. 109.
\17\ U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. An Ocean Blueprint for the
21st Century. Final Report. 2004. p. 295.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ecosystem-based fishery management will be our best tool for
ensuring productive and economically viable fisheries in the face of
stressors like climate change, ocean acidification, pollution, habitat
destruction, and the long-term consequences of fishing pressure. Using
ecosystem-based fishery management, we can sustain the long-term
socioeconomic benefits of fisheries without compromising the ecosystem.
In fact--we are likely to be able to enhance socioeconomic benefits of
fisheries as well.
I recommend that during this reauthorization of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, Congress firmly establish ecosystem-based fishery
management approaches in the law. More specifically, this would include
measures to:
sharpen existing provisions in the Act to protect habitat
needed for fish, including habitat adversely affected by
non-fishing activities;
enhance existing provisions to reduce bycatch;
ensure that forage fish are managed to account for the
important role they hold in our ocean; and
require Councils to prepare and implement fishery
ecosystems plans.
Each of these elements is important, but due to my recent
experience chairing an expert panel of 13 marine and fisheries
scientists that examined the unique role of forage fish in sustaining
ocean food webs, I would like to briefly discuss why these small fish
matter so much to marine ecosystems and coastal economies. This
project, conducted as the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force, undertook a
comprehensive worldwide analysis of the science and management of
forage fish populations. Our findings were released in a report \18\
and a peer-reviewed paper in 2012.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Pikitch, E., Boersma, P.D., Boyd, I.L., Conover, D.O., Cury,
P., Essington, T., Heppell, S.S., Houde, E.D., Mangel, M., Pauly, D.,
Plagaanyi, EE., Sainsbury, K., and Steneck, R.S. 2012. Little Fish, Big
Impact: Managing a Crucial Link in Ocean Food Webs. Lenfest Ocean
Program. Washington, DC. 108 pp.
\19\ Pikitch, E. K., Rountos, K. J., Essington, T. E., Santora, C.,
Pauly, D., Watson, R., Sumaila, U. R., Boersma, P. D., Boyd, I. L.,
Conover, D. O., Cury, P., Heppell, S. S., Houde, E. D., Mangel, M.,
Plagaanyi, EE., Sainsbury, K., Steneck, R. S., Geers, T. M., Gownaris,
N. and Munch, S. B. (2012), The global contribution of forage fish to
marine fisheries and ecosystems. Fish and Fisheries. doi: 10.1111/
faf.12004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forage fish are small to medium-sized fish, such as sardines,
anchovies, and menhaden, that provide a primary food source for marine
mammals, sea birds, and larger commercially and recreationally
important fish, such as cod, salmon, and tuna. Forage fish play a key
function in transferring energy from the plankton they feed on to the
larger animals that prey on them and thus are essential to ensuring
productive, resilient ocean ecosystems. Scientists have estimated that
the world's marine mammals consume up to 20 million tons of forage fish
annually.\20\ A 2011 study examining 14 species of seabirds, including
puffins, penguins, and terns, in seven ecosystems around the world
concluded that when the supply of forage fish drops to less than one-
third its maximum historic level, seabird breeding success is greatly
reduced which threatens the entire ecosystem.\21\ Because many marine
ecosystems have predators highly dependent on forage fish, it is
biologically imperative that we develop improved management strategies
for these small but significant species.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Kaschner, K., Karpouzi, V., Watson, R., and Pauly, D.,
``Forage fish consumption by marine mammals and seabirds,'' pp. 33-46.
In: Alder, J., and Pauly, D. (Eds.). On the multiple uses of forage
fish: from ecosystems to markets. Fisheries Centre Research Reports
14(3) (2006), Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia.
\21\ Cury, Phillppe M. et al. 2011. Global Seabird Response to
Forage Fish Depletion--One Third for the Birds. Science 334: 1703-1706.
23 December 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forage fish mature early, live short lives, and produce substantial
numbers of offspring. But, because of their short life span, they are
susceptible to significant population fluctuations. In addition, forage
fish are often found in large shoals. These characteristics make these
fish highly detectable and catchable. About one-third of wild marine
fish caught globally are forage fish. However, most forage fish are not
used directly as human food. Rather, an estimated 90 percent is
processed as feed for fish farms, poultry, and livestock, as well as
human nutritional supplement.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Tacon, A. G. J., and Metian, M. 2008. Global overview on the
use of fish meal and fish oil in industrially compounded aquafeeds:
trends and future prospects. Aquaculture, 285 (1-4), 146-158.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our panel synthesized 72 Ecopath models representing marine and
estuarine ecosystems from around the world. Our panel's final report
concluded that, in most ecosystems, at least twice as many forage fish
should be left in the ocean as typically are now in order to account
for their critical role as food for fish, seabirds, and marine mammals.
Our analysis found that conventional management approaches of forage
fish species did not ``adequately account for the population dynamics
of forage fish and their role in the ecosystem,'' thereby making these
small species top candidates to lead the transition to ecosystem-based
fishery management.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Pikitch, E., Boersma, P.D., Boyd, I.L., Conover, D.O., Cury,
P., Essington, T., Heppell, S.S., Houde, E.D., Mangel, M., Pauly, D.,
Plagaanyi, EE., Sainsbury, K., and Steneck, R.S. 2012. Little Fish, Big
Impact: Managing a Crucial Link in Ocean Food Webs. Lenfest Ocean
Program. Washington, DC. 108 pp. At 86.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are several examples of current management regimes that have
taken the step to account for the essential role forage fish play in
marine ecosystems. For example, in the Barents Sea, in order to ensure
an adequate food supply for cod, Norway and Russia established a
threshold to limit direct fishing on capelin if its spawning stock
biomass, a strong indicator of the population, falls below 200,000
tonnes. In addition to using other standard management tools, such as
minimum landing size and fishing seasons, managers have instituted
conservative catch levels for capelin, and ecosystem and multispecies
models are used as part of a comprehensive assessment methodology. As
these measures have been put in place, capelin populations have not
collapsed, as they have done in the past and the cod fishery is
improving.\24\ In fact, the cod fishery is the most valuable fishery in
the Barents Sea and is the largest stock of cod in the world.\25\ \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Pikitch, E., Boersma, P.D., Boyd, I.L., Conover, D.O., Cury,
P., Essington, T., Heppell, S.S., Houde, E.D., Mangel, M., Pauly, D.,
Plagaanyi, EE., Sainsbury, K., and Steneck, R.S. 2012. Little Fish, Big
Impact: Managing a Crucial Link in Ocean Food Webs. Lenfest Ocean
Program. Washington, DC. 108 pp. At 31, 36-37.
\25\ Pikitch, E., Boersma, P.D., Boyd, I.L., Conover, D.O., Cury,
P., Essington, T., Heppell, S.S., Houde, E.D., Mangel, M., Pauly, D.,
Plagaanyi, EE., Sainsbury, K., and Steneck, R.S. 2012. Little Fish, Big
Impact: Managing a Crucial Link in Ocean Food Webs. Lenfest Ocean
Program. Washington, DC. 108 pp. At 37.
\26\ The IndiSeas Project. Indicators for the Seas. http.//
www.indiseas.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And, it is important to manage forage fish from a more holistic
vantage point not only for the sake of the ecosystem--but for the
economic vitality of our Nation. Using the Ecopath models, our panel
estimated the economic importance of forage fish to global commercial
fisheries. We estimated the total ex-vessel value of forage fish to
global commercial fisheries to be an impressive $16.9 billion (2006
USD) annually, yet only about one-third ($5.6 billion) of this value
derives from catches of forage fish themselves. The value of the
supportive role of forage fish as food for larger commercially
important fishes (estimated at $11.3 billion annually) is more than
twice their value as direct targets of harvesting.\27\ In other words,
we estimated that forage fish are worth twice as much when left in the
water as they are taken out in a net.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Pikitch, E. K., Rountos, K. J., Essington, T. E., Santora, C.,
Pauly, D., Watson, R., Sumaila, U. R., Boersma, P. D., Boyd, I. L.,
Conover, D. O., Cury, P., Heppell, S. S., Houde, E. D., Mangel, M.,
Plagaanyi, EE., Sainsbury, K., Steneck, R. S., Geers, T. M., Gownaris,
N. and Munch, S. B. (2012), The global contribution of forage fish to
marine fisheries and ecosystems. Fish and Fisheries. doi: 10.1111/
faf.12004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The economic impact of wildlife viewing provides another compelling
reason to ensure management of forage fish accounts for their vital
ecological role. A recent report by Audubon Florida and The Pew
Charitable Trusts examined the importance of forage fish to Florida's
coastal waterbirds. The report cited Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission figures estimating the economic impact of bird
watching and other wildlife viewing in Florida to be $4.9 billion in
2011.\28\ This is another example of how conservation of little fish
translates into large economic gains.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Overview--
Fast Facts. Updated Oct 2013. Available online at http://myfwc.com/
about/overview.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
My work has taken me to many countries around the globe, conducting
research and helping to establish best practices for conserving and
sustaining fisheries. But I love these shores like nowhere else in the
world and it is my urgent concern that our Nation's fisheries and
oceans, and all the families who depend upon them, remain healthy and
strong, now and for generations to come.
It is plain--without fish, there are no fishermen. In recent years,
our Nation has taken steps to implement science-based fishery
management and there is considerable progress to report. We are
rebuilding fish populations and providing more opportunities for
fishermen. Unfortunately, we still have work to do to and are facing
new trials, such as changing ocean conditions due to warmer oceans and
ocean acidification. We need a Magnuson-Stevens Act that can help us
confront these challenges.
That is why I am so concerned about the Hastings draft proposal. It
would roll back the progress we have made in recent years and endanger
the long-term health, sustainability and productivity of our oceans.
Instead, we should be adopting an ecosystem-based fishery management
approach, that includes enhancing protections for habitat, reducing
bycatch, requiring fishery ecosystem plans, and ensuring we manage
forage fish to account for the vital support they provide to ocean
ecosystems and national and global economies.
Let's not undo the work we have accomplished that is widely
regarded as a great success story. We must ensure the health of our
fisheries--It is good for fishermen, it is good for the Nation, and we
should be moving forward not retreating backwards. Thank you again for
the opportunity to share my views.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much for your testimony. I
want to thank all members of the panel for their testimony. I
only have a couple of questions. First question is to Mr.
Marks.
Since the mega-settlement on the Endangered Species Act in
2011, there has been more and more discussion on the Endangered
Species Act, which--in coming from the Northwest, I am probably
more sensitive than most people, because of imposition of the
Endangered Species Act.
The discussion draft provides authority for the Councils to
develop, through the Magnuson-Stevens Act, any fishery
restrictions that would be the result of an interpretation of
the Endangered Species Act. Would you elaborate on that?
Mr. Marks. Thank you for the question. Yes. I have had the
task of dealing with clients that have dealt with Steller sea
lions in Alaska, South Atlantic right whales, loggerhead sea
turtles in the Gulf, and Atlantic sturgeon on the East Coast.
And all of those were ESA issues, and all of them incredibly
challenging, because of either the lack of information, the
short period of time, and not the best process to deal with
that issue. And, essentially, the agency published a biological
opinion, produced the alternatives, and basically handed it off
to the Council.
I think the benefit of what the draft would do--and it
certainly does not amend the Endangered Species Act--all it
simply does is, in situations where those other statutes would
affect fisheries and fishing regulations, it allows the
Magnuson process to move forward as the process to qualify what
regulations make sense. And, quite frankly, we put experts at
the table in the council process. They are there to help craft,
if we need alternatives to protect species and humans. The
Council seems to be the most logical place to do that.
The Chairman. So this falls broadly in that discussion we
had with the first panel of meshing statutes together. And we
heard testimony, somewhat different, at least a different
interpretation. But I think that the end result was that it
didn't happen in a timely manner. This, from your point of
view, would make whatever decisions happen in a timely manner,
so there is some predictability. Is that correct?
Mr. Marks. Well, not only timely, but a bit more
transparent, and a bit more informed. And I think Atlantic
sturgeon started to show that when we do it in a more
collaborative, open manner, we do a better job for the animal
and the fisherman. And I think that is where we want to go.
The Chairman. Thank you very much for that. Mr. Giacalone,
some witnesses--and you have heard--have testified that the
current Act provides enough flexibility, and that there is no
need for additional flexibility. Do you agree with that?
Mr. Giacalone. No, Mr. Chairman. We emphatically disagree
with that, that there isn't enough. And I think, really, what
it comes down to when I look at this draft bill, your ``not''
list was right on, where it says we are not looking--you have
not heard any commercial interests, and this bill does not talk
about eliminating the need to end overfishing, or the
requirement to end overfishing, annual catch limits set based
on the overfishing limit.
I have heard folks say--I think incorrectly--that by ending
overfishing, we are somehow suspending or foregoing the goal of
rebuilding. That is not true. The definition of Fmsy, the act
of ending overfishing, fish stocks rebuild. They rebuild to a
full--the MSY level. It is just they get there at their own
pace, at what Mother Nature's pace is.
And perhaps the shortcoming in the current law--and we went
through a full 10 years attempting it--is that the portion of
the 25 percent that humans have impact that we control through
the Magnuson Act, which is fishing mortality, that we have
succeeded at. And you are hearing commercial interests say,
``That is a good thing, because that is how we are doing our
part.'' It is the 75 percent of the stock that we leave in the
water, and the three recruitment, natural mortality--you know,
the things that we can't control, the congressional law can't
change that.
And all we have right now is we hold fishing communities
accountable for the lack of productivity that might be
happening on a cyclical basis in nature. And that is the part
where we need to get flexibility. End overfishing, do our part.
Stocks will rebuild on Mother Nature's clock. They are not
going to rebuild on our clock.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. I know that there is
going to be a lot of discussion on that aspect. I think it
deserves to be discussed, but I have always been one to believe
that any law where it is closer to the source is better
administered.
So, with that, I will recognize the gentleman from Oregon,
Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I would
like to explore with Dr. Pikitch this idea about using more of
an ecosystem approach, and particularly the forage fish issue.
You know, I guess this bill, as I read it--and I will see if
you agree--would say that forage fish would not need to be
regulated at all. Is that correct?
Dr. Pikitch. Well, that is the way I read it, too.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. And at this point are there unreasonable
regulations on forage fish? I mean, what is happening with
forage fish right now?
Dr. Pikitch. Well, there are lots of examples of what is
happening. There aren't requirements to manage forage fish in
many places. And I would say that there need to be. We need to
require that forage fish be managed, because they are so
important in marine ecosystems.
In the United States we have everything from a total
prohibition of fishing forage fish--so, for example, the
Pacific Council prohibited the development of a krill fishery,
because they recognized how important krill are to the marine
ecosystem. And we have everything from that to species of
forage fish that are totally ignored.
I would like to give an example that comes from outside the
United States that I think is really telling, and that might
help elucidate what managing forage fish can do.
Mr. DeFazio. Well, quickly, because I have--yes.
Dr. Pikitch. Yes, OK. So, in the Bering Sea, Norway and
Russia established a 200,000-ton minimum stock size for
capelin, which cod feed upon. And they wanted to do that to
ensure that cod had enough food. Prior to that, there had been
collapses of both species. Yet today, the cod stock in the
Bering Sea is the largest in the world. Compare that with what
has happened with cod stocks in the United States.
Mr. DeFazio. So you think part of the problem with the low
population, low density of cod stocks, is a loss of forage
fish, menhaden, or whatever they eat?
Dr. Pikitch. Well, I think that there are definitely some
problems with herring and other forage fish species. Of course,
there has been a lot of overfishing going on, as well.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Mr. Deem, from a recreational angler
standpoint? I know striped bass and forage fish issues kind of
go together. So do you have concerns about no regulation on
forage fish and how it could impact recreational fishing?
Mr. Deem. Well, I don't think it is safe to say that there
is no regulation on forage fish. The Mid-Atlantic Council has
started a program to regulate river herring, working with the
ASMFC to improve on the management of river herring. It doesn't
necessarily get a formal plan. But everybody on the Council and
in our public understands that you have to have forage fish to
have healthy stocks.
Mr. DeFazio. OK.
Mr. Deem. And we are taking steps very aggressively to
protect those.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, that is good to hear. Mr. Geiger, I think
you are the only person--I am not sure--up there who has served
on a Council. And I guess I just want your perspective--I think
you talked about it a little bit--in terms of if limits are
essentially optional, because there is one section of the bill
which I think--there are a number of exceptions in the bill for
ACLs.
But then it goes, on page 5, section 9, it looks like they
are giving an option that a Council could just opt out of catch
limits and essentially deem something not to be overfished or
understocked, even if it is. What do you think would happen at
the Council with that kind of provision? Would there be a lot
of political pressure on the Council? And was it like that in
the old days?
Mr. Geiger. It is exactly as you described. You give the
Councils the opportunity to exercise discretionary powers, and
in most cases you can't expect them to vote against their own
self interest. It takes discipline, it takes personal courage
and political courage to make the hard decisions to recover
fisheries. If you try to satisfy everybody under the umbrella
of ``everything is going to be OK,'' with new legislation it is
going to be a difficult process.
And I would like to thank--unfortunately, he is not here--
Chairman Hastings for his vote in 2006 for the reauthorization
then that got our fisheries back on track.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Well, I will convey that to the Chairman
for you. I think the Republican staff might not remember to do
that.
[Laughter.]
Mr. DeFazio. So I thank the Chairman.
Mr. Southerland [presiding]. Thank you very much. Before
Doc had to slip out, I was next in line. So I am going to ask
my question, and then we will go to Mr. Garcia.
First of all, thank all of you for being here today. Mr.
Krebs, I understand that when the Gulf Council and NOAA
Fisheries first began red snapper catch share program,
fishermen were opposed to allowing non-permit holders to own
shares. Do you believe that anyone owning catch shares should
also be a permit holder?
Mr. Krebs. Thank you, Congressman. So in the original IFQ,
when the red snapper started, there was a 5-year where any
permit holder could buy shares. That was an existing re-fish
permit holder for the first 5 years. And that was to allow the
system time to adjust to let fishermen decide who wanted to be
in, who wanted to be out, before there was any outside
influence. The advisory panel strongly was against opening it
up to private citizens. It was the Council that said it should
be opened up.
One of our revisions in the 5-year review that we have
offered up is to go ahead and sunset that, and stop allowing
the fishery to become an investor fishery. We think that catch
share programs should remain in the industry.
Mr. Southerland. OK. And so, therefore--so explain to me
your feelings when the Gulf Council, contrary to the wishes of
the fishermen who rise early in the morning and go out in those
waters--your thoughts or your feelings when they ignored your
wishes and voted to allow non-permit holders to purchase catch
shares.
Mr. Krebs. Well, that is exactly why we bring up the sunset
clause of Congressman Lott's provisions to have a balanced
Council. We feel that, at the time that the Council was looking
at this, they actually thought that the fishery could be bought
up by recreational interest. And I think that was why the votes
went the way they went.
We definitely have to have provisions to have a balanced
Council that will work toward solutions in the future to our
fishery problems, and allow recreational and commercial people
to sit down at the table and work out their differences.
Mr. Southerland. You are obviously--you are a catch share
owner, correct?
Mr. Krebs. Yes, sir.
Mr. Southerland. Are you a proponent of inter-sector
trading?
Mr. Krebs. I am one of those people, sir, that can sit at
the table and see the bright light in anything. And I see
promise and I see problems. I think it would take an awful lot
of deliberation.
The problem is what happens is the one user group says,
``Well, if you are willing to trade it, you don't really need
it.'' Where, in the case of--as a quota holder myself, I do
lease some of my red snapper every year to my friends in the
grouper industry that say, ``Hey, Dave, if we don't have red
snapper quota available to us, we are going to be discarding
fish that are going to be left dead. Will you lease us fish,
rather than catching them yourself?''
Some people turn that around and say that that makes me a
person who doesn't need my fish. I say I am an environmentalist
who says a dead fish is a dead fish, and we need to bring every
fish we can to the dock, contrary--when you look at inter-
sector trading or allowing commercial shares to go into the
recreational fishery, that is a philosophical topic that says
if you have a recreational component that says, ``Hey,
commercial fishermen, we are going to eat this fish, and we
would like an opportunity to land fish outside of our quota,
would you consider it?'' I think we can sit down and talk about
it.
Whether it makes sense or not, sir, I really don't know.
But I do like the discussion.
Mr. Southerland. I appreciate your optimism. Let me ask you
this. Do you support a referendum that allows all permitted
fishermen to vote before new catch share programs can be
implemented?
Mr. Krebs. I support all stakeholders in that fishery
having the opportunity to vote. In other words, in the case of
a grouper, in the grouper fishery----
Mr. Southerland. So stakeholders? Now, wait a minute, you
just opened up a Pandora's box. I mean, when you are talking
stakeholders, I am sure there are a lot of stakeholders that
don't have catch shares.
Mr. Krebs. No, sir. We are talking about people who get
allowed to vote. So----
Mr. Southerland. OK.
Mr. Krebs [continuing]. A guy that catches mullet shouldn't
vote on a guy that catches tuna's referendum.
Mr. Southerland. Right.
Mr. Krebs. That is my point. When I say ``stakeholder,'' I
mean participant. Maybe I should clarify.
Mr. Southerland. OK.
Mr. Krebs. If you participate in the fishery, then you
should be allowed to vote. If you don't participate in that
fishery, even though you are a----
Mr. Southerland. So how do you determine participation?
Mr. Krebs. We have had log book requirements since 1993. So
their history is documented in Federal log books.
Mr. Southerland. Mr. Marks, could you weigh in on that?
Mr. Marks. Well, the only thing I would add is that the
reason that is in the Act right now--and 303(a) doesn't protect
participant fishermen, because the Secretary and the Council
can determine what level a fisherman has to have of landings in
order to vote.
An example in the Gulf snapper-grouper program, the
landings were 48,000 pounds over 6 years, or an average of
8,000 per year. A tremendous number of regular working
fishermen didn't meet the criteria, therefore never got to
vote. So it definitely needs to be fixed, so there is a
provision, as Mr. Krebs indicated, that all participating
permitted fishermen should have a chance to vote, not just
those with all the landings.
Mr. Southerland. Very good. I see my time is expired. And
the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Garcia. Mr. Chairman, if we can recognize Mr. Costa,
because of his much more senior status.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Garcia. No, he has got an event to go to, so I will
wait.
Mr. Costa. I want to thank the gentleman from Florida for
yielding the order of the time. Obviously, I have a meeting I
have with the Secretary of Agriculture, and so this is very
helpful. Thank you very much, Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Chairman and the Ranking Member, who have now had to
leave, and to the members of this committee, I want to thank
you for this opportunity to speak on some of the concerns
related to the discussion on the draft of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act reauthorization. And I would like to confine my comments--
and, of course, they were applicable to the first panel, as
well as the second panel--to what I refer to as the law of
unintended consequences. And it may not be the intention, but I
believe it is potentially the impact, when we talk about those
of us who represent inland waterways and--in which the issue of
the Endangered Species Act, particularly as it applies to
endangered salmon, various runs, whether they be spring runs or
fall runs, and how this reauthorization may impact that.
The majority of the fishery issues that affect my
constituencies directly involve the Endangered Species Act,
specifically how salmon are managed, and the impact on the
water supplies for farming communities that are inland. When
the salmon stocks are put in danger, it increases the problems
that my constituents face, as it relates to the impacts of the
Endangered Species Act.
When I look at this bill, I have to ask myself a simple
question. And that is, how did the policies in this legislation
impact my friends and neighbors, who are dependent upon that
water supply, as our fishermen are?
The ESA provision in the Hastings Magnuson-Stevens
reauthorization I think--when we review it, the Chairman's
draft bill for reauthorizing this Act, I am particularly
interested in the provision dealing with the Endangered Species
Act, which has been a source of great contention, not only in
California, but throughout the Western States. The provision,
according to the language, applies to the ``management of
fisheries''--as I read this--``throughout their range.'' The
management of fisheries throughout their range, and states
that, ``Any restrictions on the management of fishery resources
that is necessary to implement a recovery plan under the ESA
shall be implemented using the Magnuson-Stevens Act authority,
and under the Magnuson processes and schedules.''
Now, the way I could interpret this, based on what we have
had to deal with, is that for species like salmon, whose range
includes rivers, it appears that the in-river management would
now occur under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and be carried out by
the fishery management councils.
This raises a question in my mind, and that is, do any of
the fishery management committees--or councils, excuse me--
contain any experience in dealing with in-river fish
management? Or, with the complicated water issues associated
with them that are always tenuous, at best, and always a
balancing act? Do any of the fishery management councils
currently have staff with any agricultural expertise?
If the fishery management councils and their entire
management process under the Magnuson-Stevens Act under this
proposal, it seems to me would totally lack the expertise and
the experience on these in-river management issues. For
California, the water management issues in these extreme
drought conditions we are facing are absolutely critical.
So, I don't think my farmers in the Central Valley are
going to have faith that the Endangered Species Act issues can
be handled by the fishery management councils in a way that
won't disregard their interest or management decisions that
could have adverse impact. So those are my concerns.
Mr. Geiger, I don't know if you have time to quickly
comment on that or not. They tell me that you are the best
person to direct my concerns to.
Mr. Geiger. Well, thank you for the question, Congressman.
Unfortunately, I served in the Southeast, and we don't have
concerns such as salmon. But I certainly appreciate and
understand your concerns with regard to Council staff having
the expertise in agriculture to understand land use issues and
water use issues in the Upland section, if they are
responsible.
I can assure you that, based on my experience, unless it is
written into the Act that it requires them to do so, it won't
get done. You know, they are extremely busy; they focus on the
issues that they consider to be extremely busy, extremely
important. And you need to write that into legislation if you
need it.
Mr. Costa. But is my concern about the potential ripple
effect, or this law of unintended consequences, real, do you
believe?
Mr. Geiger. I think it probably is real. I would be
concerned about it.
Mr. Costa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr.
Garcia, for yielding your time.
Mr. Young [presiding]. Thank the gentleman. And, Rick, you
want to comment on that, the question that was just asked?
Mr. Marks. Well, I would only add that I am not sure what
is in the draft actually undermines the authority of the Act. I
think that the Section 7 and Section 10 processes and the State
involvement, and jointly with the Fish and Wildlife Service
inland, along with the agency, would still proceed. I think the
only thing that would be changed is if there are any impacts
determined from federally managed fisheries that, just to
handle those aspects, the Councils would have to put in
reasonable and prudent alternatives and measures under ESA,
based on a biological opinion.
So, I am not sure that it undermines the process. But
certainly, in those Federal waters, the Councils would be used
to set those alternatives up.
Mr. Young. Thank you. And, Rick, while we are at it, the
Magnuson-Stevens Act national standards provide for the
management of the stocks of fish throughout the range to the
extent predictable, and the patchwork of marine sanctuaries,
marine monuments, and marine protected areas implemented under
such status in some areas has created a patchwork of management
regimes.
While the discussion draft does not restrict the creation
of sanctions on monuments, it does provide that the Council
provide the management of fish resources on the Magnuson-
Stevens Act. Why is this important?
Mr. Marks. I have a number of folks, Mr. Young, that
operate in and around the Olympic Coast National Marine
Sanctuary, the Channel Islands, Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary. And there has been an ongoing debate for years. In
fact, the Council chairman brought it up, that there should be
management of Federal fisheries by the National Marine
Fisheries Service, which is set up to actually do that, not
NOS, which is set up to run the Councils. They don't really
have a council process or a fisheries management process.
So, we felt all along that fishery resources that move in
and out of these sanctuaries should be managed consistently, as
you point out, across their range, and that the National Marine
Fisheries Service is the right place for that.
In terms of what we are concerned about, there are constant
issues of sanctuary boundary expansion, there are issues of
potential Antiquities Act at the end of any administration--we
collectively hold our breath--and issues of protecting habitat,
protecting coral from fishing impacts. So it is nice to
actually have a process where you can go to and resolve these
things with a law that sets up a system. And that is why we
think the Act is the right way to go.
Mr. Young. Right. Mr. Garcia, you are up if you have
questions.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you. Just want to broadly sort of talk
about this. And, obviously, I didn't make an earlier statement,
but my district is the Florida Keys and part of Biscayne
National Park. So I probably have the most recreational boating
in the world in my area; I think there are more boats per
capita in my district than anywhere else on earth. And, at the
same time, we have a vibrant, although stressed, group of
people that are engaged in fishing, and make their living. So I
want to ask a few questions.
But, generally, as I look across--and you will forgive me
for having arrived a little bit late--as I look across to all
of you, if you were to say what the state of our fishing is
since the last reauthorization, where it is today, would you
say it is positive, or would you say it is neutral, or would
you say we are falling behind? And I will just start with Rick
and we will go that way.
Mr. Marks. I would say it is----
Mr. Garcia. And you can make an additional comment.
Mr. Marks. Sure. I would just say it is positive with just
the need to do some rebalancing.
Dr. Pikitch. I would say it is working very well, positive.
Mr. Krebs. I would say in the Gulf it is positive, with
some caveats. We have had some redirected effort that has
impacted what the fisheries and other species look like, as the
IFQs went into place in 2007 and 2010.
Mr. Giacalone. I too think it is generally positive, but we
do need now to fix the rebuilding requirements. We have ended
overfishing. That is the biggest positive effect. And now we
have gone too far.
Mr. Deem. I think we have turned the corner, and the
difficulty now will be in managing the recovery of these
species and properly allocating them.
Mr. Geiger. Definitely positive. But positive only because
of the regulatory mandates that are put on the council process.
Mr. Garcia. OK. I am going to go back to Rick here real
quick, but any of you that want to comment on it, since I don't
think anyone else is--if you don't mind, Mr. Chairman--is
waiting.
So, fishermen have--at least I have found when I meet with
the fishermen, they have an extensive knowledge of the species
they catch, and I believe that knowledge needs to be included
in what we are doing, in terms of management. And so, the broad
question is, do you agree? And does the bill do enough to
include the deep knowledge that some of the people who work
with these resources have? Rick, and anybody else who----
Mr. Marks. Well, I wholly agree. And I have been a big
proponent of cooperative research anywhere that we can get it.
And we have been asking for it down in your region, sir. We
have had good success for it elsewhere.
In fact, I want to take the Northeast Cooperative Research
Program, clone it, and move it around the country so we would
actually have a dedicated cooperative research program in every
single region, because I think the fishermen can bring a
tremendous amount of research capability to the table, their
knowledge, using their boats as platform, helping them keep
employed when they are not fishing, and producing assessment-
grade work. We have shown we can do that; we need to do more of
it.
Mr. Garcia. None of you have comment? Yes?
Mr. Krebs. Yes, I couldn't agree more. Cooperative
research, this goes back to the earlier discussion about were
we sampling rigs, were we sampling reefs, or were you just
throwing gear in the middle of the desert. Getting the real
truth from people who know where it is at, and then seeing what
the trend is by going back to these sites year after year is
key.
Mr. Garcia. I guarantee blowing up rigs is probably the
worst part we could do.
Mr. Giacalone. Conservation requires stewardship. And buy-
in to the science and the data that underlies it is huge,
hugely important. And I think collaborative research is the
biggest step in that.
Mr. Deem. Well, I think I can speak on behalf of the RFA,
that cooperative research is critical. And I think a perfect
example would be the alarms that we were getting from all of
the fishermen on the spiny dogfish issue before we lost
complete control of that a few years ago, and now we are
suffering the effects of that.
Mr. Geiger. I would generally agree, but I just caution
that it is dangerous to generalize an assumption that, because
people fish, or because they speak about it, that they really
know about it. And I was one of those people until I really got
involved in this council process and got an education and held,
basically, every public hearing in the State of Florida for 9
years. The things I have heard are unbelievable from people
that you would think--and who should--know better. So it is
difficult to just generalize.
Mr. Garcia. Yes. No, no, there is no question. I am a
fisherman, and I have no idea what I am talking about, usually.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Garcia. But it is a general rule about fishermen.
I want to go back to the recreational part. And I will
start with you, Mr. Geiger, because I think it is important. We
have heard from several witnesses that the recreational fishing
community complains about MRIP program, right? But this bill
does nothing to improve data collection in most of the
recreational fisheries. You are talking to a recreational
fisherman.
So, how do you think we should go about improving the
certainty and accountability of this sector?
Mr. Geiger. To make those improvements would be cost
prohibitive. The way the MRIP system is set up, it is a trend
analysis. It demonstrates a trend in the recreational
fisheries. That data, although not precise, although not a real
data set that is like firm catch data based on landings----
Mr. Garcia. Right.
Mr. Geiger [continuing]. It is data that is used in the
assessment process. All the data used in a stock assessment
process is weighted by the assessment scientists. And through
that weighting, that data can have different impacts on the
eventual result in the stock assessment.
In addition to weighting that data, they also do
sensitivity runs. So they artificially inflate the MRIP data,
and they artificially deflate the MRIP data, to see what impact
it has on the assessment. And because of the weighting of MRIP
data, it really doesn't have all that much consequence to the
end result in an assessment.
You know, things such as recreational fishing or release
mortality has far more impact on the end result of a stock
assessment than the MRIP data, in terms of effort.
Mr. Garcia. Mr. Chairman, would you mind, if anybody else
wants to answer that, that I could just take it real quick?
Same question, I am not going to change it.
Anybody want to weigh in?
Mr. Deem. If I may, the MRIP data is all that we have. And
it is years behind schedule. And maybe once we fully implement
it and have some experience with it and can fine-tune it, it
will be worth more. But being all that we have, we have to use
it, but we have to take it in perspective, and we have to give
it credit only to the limit that we know it is not 100 percent.
Mr. Garcia. Again, thank you all for being here. I didn't
mention that at the beginning. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
your indulgence.
Mr. Young. Thank you. And, Rick, one last question. You
raised concerns that NOAA had been increasing the amount of
data, including predatory data, that is gathered for fishery
management purposes. Did the current data confidentiality
requirements adequately protect predatory data, including data
voluntarily provided to NOAA?
Mr. Marks. Well, we note that right now NOAA is undergoing
a Federal Register process to basically implement, or codify,
the regulations they are doing--using now to handle
confidential data. And they are under, I think, some extreme
pressure to relax those standards. So there is a lot of concern
about that right now. And I think the industry has weighed in
during that comment process. What we think the draft does is
enhance those protections, certainly shows congressional intent
to protect critical information from your fishermen and your
process, make sure it doesn't fall in the wrong hands.
So, we have a couple of issues with that. We don't want to
go too far with it, either, to make sure that people can access
the information they use in aggregate to defend themselves, for
economic information, for fishing areas, and such like that.
But generally, what I have found the feedback from the
industry has been, they support the protection of that
information.
Mr. Young. Thank you, Rick. And I want to thank the panel--
I don't see any other Members around here--for your testimony.
And as the father of this legislation--and I say it never
should have been named the Magnuson-Stevens Act, it started on
the House side. Mr. Studds and I wrote this bill--from
Massachusetts. And it got over there, and of course, the Senate
does what they usually do, they took the name and said, ``We
gave birth to it.''
[Laughter.]
Mr. Young. But that is not where it started. I would like
to remind them of that.
But thank you all for your testimony, and we will be
listening, and any comments you would like to submit.
And if there is no further business--wait a minute. Members
of the committee may have additional questions for the
witnesses, and I ask you to respond to them writing. The
hearing record will be open for 10 days to receive the
responses. If there is no further business, without objection,
the committee stands in recess.
[Whereupon, at 12:58 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Prepared Statement of Mark Fina, Ph.D., J.D., Senior Policy Analyst,
United States Seafoods
Good morning Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member DeFazio, and members
of the committee. I am Mark Fina, a policy analyst for United States
Seafoods and President of the Alaska Seafood Cooperative. My company
and the cooperative, which includes four other companies, fish in the
non-pollock multispecies groundfish fisheries off Alaska. We are
substantial participants in the flatfish, rockfish, Atka mackerel, and
Pacific cod fisheries in the Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands, and Gulf of
Alaska. We participate in both catch share fisheries, in which portions
of the total allowable catches are allocated for exclusive harvest by
the cooperative, as well as limited access, derby fisheries, which are
governed by limits on entry and in-season monitoring of harvests of
total allowable catches. I am not representing my employer, the
cooperative, or any other group today. I appreciate having the
opportunity to offer comments to the committee on its Draft Discussion
Bill and the Reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act. While I have some knowledge of
fisheries throughout the country, I am most familiar with the fisheries
in the North Pacific and therefore limit my comments to issues in the
North Pacific.
Overall, I believe that the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act (the Magnuson-Stevens Act), in its current form, is
serving its intended purposes well. The Act and its interpretation and
administration by the Regional Fishery Management Councils (the
Councils) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) provide for
the sound conservation and management of our valuable national fishery
resources and promotes domestic commercial and recreational fisheries
as intended. In the North Pacific, we have sustainable stocks as
demonstrated by years of catches consistently between 1.5 and 2 million
metric tons and no overfishing. Given these circumstances, only limited
and focused, carefully considered modifications to the Act would seem
merited at this time. One area addressed by the committee's draft
discussion bill is confidentiality of information. The majority of my
comments will be focused on that subject.
Data Confidentiality
Before joining U.S. Seafoods last year, I worked for 11 years as
the Senior Economist at the North Pacific Fishery Management Council
(NPFMC or North Pacific Council). In that position, I routinely worked
with confidential fisheries data preparing reports to be used by the
North Pacific Council to guide their decisionmaking. In considering
data confidentiality issues, the two primary questions that should be
considered are:
1. Do policymakers have adequate information to make informed
decisions? ; and
2. Do stakeholders and the public have adequate information to
support their participation in that decisionmaking process?
Based on my experience under the existing rules as they were
interpreted when I worked as an analyst, the answer to both of these
questions is `yes'.
General information concerning fisheries is readily accessible in
standardized reports that are publicly available and posted on NMFS and
Council Web sites. These include weekly and annual catch and bycatch
reports, fishery allocations, and closures. In addition, annual Stock
Assessment and Fishery Evaluations are available, which include
detailed biological, social, and economic analyses of all fisheries and
stocks under the North Pacific Council's management. In the most recent
year in the North Pacific, the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands report
alone exceeded 2,500 pages, including an economic section that exceeded
300 pages and an ecosystem section that exceeded 200 pages. In
addition, tens of thousands of pages of analysis and large volumes of
data are available from the analyses of all previously adopted or
considered measures. These documents, together with experience in or
related to the fisheries, provide stakeholders with the foundational
information needed to decide whether management changes should be
advocated. If the North Pacific Council wishes to pursue a management
action, staff prepare additional information and analyses examining
specific aspects of the fisheries that might be affected by the
proposed management changes. These reports and analyses provide ample
information for decisionmaking and stakeholder participation in the
Council and regulatory process.
Aggregating Under the Rule of Three
Analyses of fishery management measures tend to be data intensive.
Stakeholders and policymakers are often interested in examining several
alternatives and several different views of data that illuminate
various aspects of the effects of those alternatives. For example, a
Council considering a change in allocations may consider a variety of
historical periods, each of which will result in different allocational
distributions. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and current
confidentiality rules, data may only be disclosed in ``aggregate or
summary'' form to ``not directly or indirectly disclose the identity
and business'' of the submitter. Analysts can comply with this
requirement by showing the distribution of possible allocations
applying a ``rule-of-three'' under which each data point is an
aggregation of the data of at least three submitters. This rule
effectively allows analysts to show fishing data to assess a variety of
measures. Data can be aggregated spatially to examine management
measures such as area closures intended to protect habitat or bycatch.
Historical catches can be allocated across groups of vessels to examine
allocative measures or across vessels that deliver to a particular
community to examine the effects of a fishery on a community. At times,
analysts can be challenged to develop aggregations across submitters'
activities to display data. For example, if only a single vessel fishes
in a geographic area during a week, aggregations across multiple weeks
or a larger area would be needed to mask data at the weekly level. The
interest of policymakers and stakeholders in a variety of displays of
data can challenge analysts, but under the rules and practices that I
applied as a Council staff member, Council members and stakeholders are
able to understand the implications of alternative management actions
in all but the rarest of instances.
NMFS Proposed Rule on Data Confidentiality
In May of 2012, NMFS released a proposed rule implementing the
Act's current data confidentiality provisions for public comment. For
the most part, the proposed rule simply formalizes current data
confidentiality practices (see attached Department of Commerce,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Proposed Rule on
Confidentiality of Information 77 FR 30486-30496, May 23, 2012). Most
importantly, the proposed rule clearly establishes the requirement that
any disclosure of data be in ``aggregate or summary'' form to ``not
directly or indirectly disclose the identity and business'' of the
submitter. This provision is intended to clearly establish the ``rule-
of-three'' aggregation requirement. The proposed rule also clarifies
the breadth of protection of confidentiality rules by replacing the
word ``information'' with ``statistics'', ensuring that all
``information'' submitted to under a Fishery Management Plan (FMP) is
subject to confidentiality protection. A variety of other
clarifications are included in the proposed rule, including the
development of more specific rules governing access to confidential
information by NMFS, State, and Marine Fishery Commission employees and
observer employees for fishery management purposes. These provisions
all are consistent with the spirit of the current rule and formalize
the requirement to continue current practices.
The rule also addresses the Act's exception to confidentiality
protections for information required to be submitted for ``any
determination under a limited access program''. Currently (and in the
proposed rule) ``limited entry program'' is interpreted to mean any
catch share program (meaning any program which ``allocates privileges,
such as a portion of the total allowable catch, to a person'') and
``determination'' is interpreted as ``grant, denial, revocation of
privileges, approval or denial of a transfer of a privilege''. Under
this rule, any catch share allocations or transfers of those
allocations are not subject to confidentiality protections. In my mind,
this relatively narrow disclosure of information improves the workings
of markets by ensuring that participants are aware of the distribution
of shares to facilitate transfers. In addition, the disclosure is
consistent with current practices, as NMFS routinely makes share
allocations public through webpage postings.
Some comments to the proposed rule have suggested a broader
interpretation of the term ``determination'' should be applied, under
which any information used to make any decision under a catch share
program should be disclosed. Other comments have suggested that any and
all fishing information should be disclosed. These comments argue for
the disclosure of all catch and observer data (including all catch
amounts and fishing locations) in a disaggregated form with
identification of the submitter. Applying this broad definition would
be very compromising of proprietary information.
What Fisheries Data are Proprietary
Proprietary information is often thought of as financial
information and market prices. Proprietary information often extends
into many other aspects of a business, most importantly operational
information. In the fishing industry, fishing locations and catch
amounts are among the most sensitive business information. Location and
timing of fishing drive costs and often determine a person's position
in markets. Fish quality and catch rates often change with timing and
location of catch. Because of these factors, timing of fishing, catch
rates, and catch amounts can have significant implications for market
success and competition.
Contrary to the belief of some people, catch share programs often
increase the proprietary value of this type of information. In most
limited access fisheries, timing of catch is dictated by regulatory
openings and closings. Fishing locations can be limited in a derby
fishery by proximity to landing locations. Catch share programs, by
providing exclusive access to a specific quantity of catch that may be
harvested any time during an extended season, often provide
participants with much greater latitude to decide when and where to
fish. This greater flexibility increases the competitive effects of
choices of fishing time and location. Participants can use proprietary
operational information to increase their catch rates, improve product
quality, and time deliveries of products to markets. Broadening the
definition of ``information used to make determinations under a catch
share program'' in a manner that divulges data and information
revealing timing of fishing and location choices would compromise
valuable proprietary information.
For the most part, fishery participants are satisfied that the
masking effect of aggregating data under the ``rule of three'' protects
their propriety interests in business information; however, some
participants remain concerned that in cases where data are aggregated
across only a few submitters, competitors will be able to glean
information concerning their markets and operations. For example,
estimates of catch amounts of competitors can be generated, if only a
few other vessels are in a fishery during a period. Despite these
concerns, the current rule and its aggregation requirement strike a
reasonable balance between the interests of industry in maintaining
confidentiality of this proprietary information and the public interest
in obtaining information to participate in the effective management of
fisheries. Councils receive adequate information for decisionmaking and
a minimal level of protection is provided for fishing industry
proprietary information.
Data Confidentiality Rules Under New Catch Share Management Structures
The development of new management structures, such as cooperatives
in the North Pacific, and NMFS recent application of data disclosure
limitations to these structures have unnecessarily complicated
implementation of data confidentiality protections. Recently, NMFS made
an internal decision to consider a cooperative a ``submitter'' of data
for purposes of administering data confidentiality protections. If a
cooperative is interpreted to be a submitter of data when applying the
``rule-of-three'' to data aggregations, some meaningful restrictions on
the release of data can arise. For example, no data can be revealed in
a fishery with only two cooperatives, if data from three cooperatives
must be aggregated for disclosure. Such an interpretation shows a
fundamental misunderstanding of the operations of cooperative
management structures and data reporting. Under NMFS management,
cooperatives are organizations that are formed for the purpose of
coordinating harvest of annual allocations. NMFS and the cooperative
members can achieve efficiencies by having a single quota allocation
made to the cooperative. Under harvest agreements, which are not filed
with NMFS, quota holders can easily move the allocation among vessels
to efficiently harvest their collective allocation. To ensure that
quotas are not overharvested, each cooperative member must agree to be
jointly liable for any overharvest of their collective allocation. NMFS
reduces administrative costs by overseeing a single allocation to
several vessels.
In considering how to treat data of cooperative members for
confidentiality purposes, it is useful to consider how cooperative data
are collected. Catch data submitted to NMFS are transmitted by vessel
operators, who are employed by cooperative members (not the
cooperative). The cooperative is not liable for failure to submit these
data, the vessel operator is. Under most cooperative agreements, the
cooperative will be provided access to landings data by each member,
but typically the cooperatives access to a vessel's data is limited to
those data needed to oversee harvest of the allocation. A cooperative
typically does not have access to each vessel's fishing locations or
detailed catches by specific location. Those data are only shared
within the cooperative for limited purposes, such as identifying
bycatch hotspots.
Cooperatives are not price setting entities and often do not even
know the price paid to members for their catches. If cooperative
members wish to share price information among members and negotiate
prices collectively, they must take care to abide by antitrust laws,
ensuring that members qualify for an exemption, most likely under the
Fishermen's Collective Marketing Act. If a cooperative (or for that
matter, any fishermen in any fishery) chooses to avail itself of an
antitrust exemption, NMFS is unlikely to know. Even if and when a
cooperative negotiates pricing under the exemption, members may have
side agreements with processors and buyers that include price
adjustments or other types of compensation, which the cooperative may
be unaware of. For these reasons, NMFS collects price data from vessel
operators, not cooperatives, and any enforcement action for failure to
submit data are pursued with the vessel owner, not the cooperative.
Given that cooperatives do not submit data to NMFS and often do not
even have access to most of a member's proprietary data, it is clear
that a cooperative should not be considered to be a data submitter for
purposes of data confidentiality protections and applying ``rule-of-
three'' aggregations when implementing those protections. Applying the
aggregations at the vessel level ensures that Councils, stakeholders,
and the public have reasonable access to data for management and
conservation purposes. Furthermore, only if ``submitter'' is
interpreted as being a cooperative, is there even an argument that a
broad release of data under the ``catch share determination exemption''
is needed for fishery management purposes. In short, maintaining the
rule of three aggregation requirements at the vessel level and a narrow
definition of ``determination under a catch share program'' for
purposes of administering the exemption to confidentiality protections
provides a reasonable balance between the interests of Councils,
stakeholders, and the public in information for fishery conservation
and management decisionmaking and fishery participants' interest in
protecting proprietary information.
From a practical standpoint, I can say that in working for the
North Pacific Council for over 10 years I prepared thousands of pages
of analysis that relied extensively on confidential data. In preparing
those documents, I routinely applied the ``rule-of-three'' at the
vessel level, and not the cooperative level. Not once during that time
did any industry stakeholder express concern that aggregation at the
vessel level compromised proprietary information. Given this state of
things and the reality that cooperatives do not submit these data to
NMFS, it is unclear why anyone would choose to interpret the term
``submitter'' to mean the cooperative.
The Importance of Data Confidentiality to Maintaining Data Quality and
Existing Data Management Programs
The satisfaction of industry with current confidentiality
protections provides management benefits by increasing the willingness
of industry to improve fishery management information. In the North
Pacific, industry representatives have worked extensively with the
Council and NMFS in the development of new data collection initiatives,
including programs to collect data concerning bycatch management and
economic and social information. Although the Magnuson-Stevens Act
provides the Council with authority to dictate these data collection
initiatives independent of any industry cooperation, the effectiveness
of the programs are often increased greatly by industry participation
in their development. For example, bookkeeping discrepancies across
submitters and differences in interpretation of survey questions can
often lead to errors and biases in data. Working with industry can
ensure that questions and responses are accurate and correctly
interpreted by analysts. It is not an overstatement to say that over
half of the questions on the crab economic data collection forms were
revised from their original form after discussions with industry. The
importance of the NMFS/Council/industry working relationship is clearly
described in the letter from the North Pacific Council in its October
14, 2013 letter to NMFS Assistant Administrator, which states:
. . . any further relaxation of these [confidentiality]
provisions could undermine the cooperation and goodwill of the
fishing industry we have worked hard to cultivate. This
cooperation, including numerous biological monitoring and
economic data collection programs associated with North Pacific
catch share programs, is essential to the effective management
of our fisheries. Through these programs we collect sensitive
cost and other operational information from industry
participants. We need to ensure that such information remains
confidential, except where Congress expressly intended
otherwise. (see attached letter)
A separate issue with respect to any revisions to data
confidentiality protections, which may be specific to the North
Pacific, concerns data sharing arrangements between NMFS and the State
of Alaska. Currently, the State and NMFS jointly collect in-season
management data under a data sharing agreement. To maintain this system
NMFS must maintain data confidentiality to the extent required by State
law. The proposed rule is consistent with the data protection agreement
between the State of Alaska and NMFS and is consistent with the
requirements of the State law. Further relaxation of confidentiality
protections, such as providing for broader release of data under the
catch share determination exemption, however, could jeopardize the
existing relationship and require extensive restructuring of data
collection in the North Pacific. As noted by the North Pacific Council
in its letter to NMFS Assistant Administrator:
potential conflicts with State confidentiality statutes . . .
would inhibit the ability of the State to share State fishery
records with NMFS, and thus severely undermine the existing
data collection system used for inseason management of Federal
fisheries. Releasing information that the State deems to
require aggregation would be in violation of both State statute
and the existing data sharing agreement between the State and
NOAA.
In concluding, I will concede that under the ``rule-of-three'', it
is possible that Councils and stakeholders may benefit from additional
information that cannot be released under the current confidentiality
rules. For example, in a fishery with only a few participating vessels
or processors, it is possible that community landings cannot be
revealed. This need, while important, should not provoke a large scale
abandonment of data confidentiality protections. Any modification to
address this shortcoming should be focused with a well-defined process
for determining: (1) if a broader disclosure is necessary for sound
management, (2) the appropriate scope of that disclosure, and (3) any
limitations on the disclosure to protect confidentiality. In
considering these data needs, it should be noted that these needs arise
in both catch share and non-catch share fisheries and a simple
provision exempting catch share data from confidentiality protections
will not address the issue. Only carefully considered and developed
exemptions that focuses directly on specific data needs and balances
those needs against the need to protect proprietary data should be
developed.
Specific Comments on the Discussion Draft Bill
Section 3--Flexibility in Addressing Rebuilding Stocks
Modification of rebuilding timelines--The proposed modification of
the timeline for rebuilding would remove the current 10-year rebuilding
requirement, replacing that requirement with a more flexible timeline.
The proposed modification seems to appropriately accommodate the
influences of other factors (such as non-fishing environmental effects)
on rebuilding the time.
Relief from rebuilding requirement if stock is not depleted--
Provision to relieve requirements for rebuilding if it is determined
that a stock is not depleted is important, as it relieves the stress of
rebuilding plans when improved stock information shows that a
rebuilding plan was unnecessary in the first place.
Section 4--Modifications to the Annual Catch Limit (ACL) Requirement
Ecosystem components--The provision for the exemption of stocks
from ACL requirement by inclusion as an ecosystem components provides
effective protection to nontarget stocks that are unlikely to be
affected by fishing.
Scientific and Statistical Committee fishing/overfishing
recommendations--The bill would allow a Council to set an ACL for a
stock above the recommended fishing level of its SSC. The North Pacific
Council's policy of maintaining its ACLs at or below its SSC's
recommended fishing level predates development of the provision of the
current Magnuson-Stevens Act provision. Although a need for removing
this requirement may exist in other regions, it is our hope that the
North Pacific Council maintains its current policy of setting ACLs at
or below the SSC recommended fishing level.
Section 5--Distinguishing Between Overfished and Depleted Stocks
Distinguishing overfished stocks from depleted stocks could be
important in the future, if some stocks are depleted for reasons other
than fishing. Adopting a revised definition of ``depleted'' could have
some implications for the development of rebuilding plans depending on
how that definition is interpreted. For example, a stock might be
determined to be ``depleted'' by dipping ``below the natural range of
fluctuation associated with the production of maximum sustainable
yield'', without reaching an ``overfished'' state which occurs only if
``a level that jeopardizes the capacity of a fishery to produce the
maximum sustainable yield on a continuing basis'' is reached. The
proposed definition of depleted will require that the ``natural range
of fluctuation associated with the production of maximum sustainable
yield'' be defined for all stocks. The current definition of overfished
provides a more certain metric for assessing stock status. Maintaining
the current definition (and applying it to the term ``depleted'') or
developing a more transparent revised definition may provide more
certainty on when a stock will be considered depleted.
Section 6--Transparency and Process
The procedural and analytical under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) are somewhat redundant and at times difficult to
reconcile with the procedural and analytical requirements of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. Notwithstanding, NMFS and the Regional Fishery
Management Councils have generally managed to reconcile these
requirements. An explicit statement that actions prepared in accordance
with the Magnuson-Stevens Act are considered to comply with NEPA
requirements would remove any uncertainty as to whether the
reconciliation of the requirements has been fully achieved.
The requirements for video recording and broadcast and production
of transcripts seem excessive. Currently, audio broadcasts and
recordings and tape logs are available of North Pacific Council
meetings and deliberations. These materials provide adequate
information to the public without excessive costs. Maintaining the
current process provides for adequate transparency and public
participation in the North Pacific Council process.
Section 7--Limitation on Future Catch Share Programs
This applies only outside the North Pacific; therefore, I have no
comment.
Section 8--Data Collection and Data Confidentiality
Electronic monitoring--The use of electronic monitoring will be
important to gaining improved information in fisheries across the
Nation. The timeline for developing standards and regulations seems
aggressive, but the spirit of the measure seems appropriate.
To fully achieve the benefits of electronic monitoring, compliance
monitoring should be permitted with electronic monitoring. In addition,
several electronic technologies are currently used for compliance
monitoring, such as Vessel Monitoring Systems. Continued use of these
existing electronic technologies for monitoring should be maintained by
any electronic monitoring provision. Any legislation should clearly
provide that electronic monitoring may be used for compliance
monitoring. Throughout the consideration of electronic monitoring
systems, attention should be given to avoiding redundancies with
observer coverage to achieve the most cost effective monitoring.
Video and acoustic survey technologies--The support for further
development of video and acoustic survey technologies is an appropriate
measure for improving fishery information.
Data confidentiality--Under (c)(1)(B), the insertion limits the
protection to being ``exempt from disclosure under section 552(b)(3) of
title 5, United States Code''. Depending on interpretation, as written
this change could substantially broaden disclosures, since it only
prevents disclosures under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). An
alternative wording that provides the current protection could be:
``shall be exempt from disclosure, including disclosure under section
552 of title 5, United States Code, except--''. This change would make
it clear that FOIA disclosures are not permitted.
Under (c)(1)(B), the insertion at clause ``(F)'' disclosures ``to a
Council or State'' are allowed with written authorization from the
person submitting the data. The current rule allows disclosure of data
to any person identified by the data submitter with written
authorization. Industry has used the current exception to provide data
to a third party for overseeing catches and bycatch, implementing
bycatch reduction measures and area closures, and monitoring industry
measures to reduce fishing impacts. Maintaining the ability of data
submitters to release data to third parties, as permitted under the
current exemption, is important to achieving the conservation benefits
of these industry measures and poses no threat to confidentiality since
disclosures are at the discretion of the submitter. Deletion of ``to a
Council or State'' would clearly provide for the submitter to continue
to release data to third parties.
Under (c)(1)(B), the insertion at clause ``(G)'' allows for the
disclosure of information ``required to be submitted to the Secretary
for any determination under a catch share program.'' This modification
is consistent with the current interpretation of an exception that
provides for disclosure of information ``required to be submitted to
the Secretary for any determination under a limited access program''.
To date, NMFS has interpreted ``limited access program'' to mean
``catch share program''. More problematic are the potential
interpretations of the term ``determination''. In the Proposed Rule of
May 2012, NMFS suggests that a ``determination'' is limited to a
``grant, denial, or revocation of privileges; approval or denial of a
transfer of privileges; or other similar regulatory determinations by
NMFS applicable to a person.'' This interpretation adequately protects
proprietary information of submitters. Including the specific
definition of ``determination'' from the proposed rule in legislation
could ensure that this protection is continued.
A provision for the release of bycatch information with and without
vessel identification applicable only in the North Pacific is removed
by the discussion draft. When first adopted, this provision provided
important bycatch information that stigmatized poor bycatch performers
and likely stimulated improved bycatch performance. Since that time,
extensive regulatory bycatch control measures have been adopted and
fleets have developed cooperative arrangements to further reduce
bycatch impacts. In some cases, it is possible that disclosures under
the exemption could discourage experimentation or fleet coordination
that might yield further bycatch reductions. In addition, expansive
bycatch information is available without the exemption. Given the
advances in bycatch reduction, the potential for disclosures to create
a disincentive for bycatch reductions and the breadth of information
available regardless of the exemption, the need for continued release
of bycatch information under the current exemption should be explored.
Asset Forfeiture Funds--The use of forfeiture funds would be
beneficial for developing information on data-poor fisheries. In
developing a provision, it should be borne in mind that NMFS often
contracts surveys with private vessel owners. As written, the provision
allows the use of funds to contract State personnel and resources for
data development. A similar provision for the continued contracting of
private vessels for surveys should be included.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony. I look
forward to working with the committee on the Magnuson-Stevens Act
reauthorization process to continue the sound conservation and
management of our Nation's fisheries resources.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record by Republican Members to Mark Fina,
United States Seafood
Question. Can you explain how the disconnect between the timelines
in the Magnuson-Stevens Act and NEPA affected your work when you worked
as staff to the North Pacific Council? Do you believe the requirements
of NEPA are already required under the Magnuson-Stevens Act? If not,
what specific requirements of NEPA are not included in the Magnuson-
Stevens Act?
Answer. Timelines for actions under the MSA are driven by fishery
management council meeting schedules, fishing seasons, and the
availability of information needed for management decisions. Although
the Secretary of Commerce makes final determinations in the fishery
management process, Councils typically shape and define regulatory
measures. Consequently, stakeholder input and participation is most
effective in the Council process. The EIS process and timeline are
driven by NEPA, CEQ regulations, and NOAA Administrative Orders.
Despite the extensive opportunity for stakeholder input in the Council
process, NMFS interprets NEPA as requiring an independent scoping
process with written and oral comments outside of Council meeting
structure. Although NMFS staff typically provides the Council with
summaries of stakeholder input received during the NEPA scoping
process, this indirect participation is likely far less effective and
influential than the direct input received through the Council process.
This redundancy in processes is both costly and misguided especially
for stakeholders who are less familiar with the fishery management
process. In short, this confusing overlap of NEPA and the MSA processes
further marginalizes persons who are infrequent participants in the
fishery management process.
Conflicting NEPA and MSA timelines also arise from interpreting
Secretary of Commerce approval (rather than a fishery management
council's adoption) of a fishery management measure as the Federal
action under NEPA. The most direct conflict between timelines for
fishery management under the MSA and NEPA timelines occurs in the
preparation of Environmental Impact Statements. By interpreting the
Secretary of Commerce's approval as the Federal action under NEPA, all
judgments concerning the timing and adequacy of an EIS for a fishery
management action are evaluated based on the timing and substance of
that secretarial approval. Consequently, it is possible that the
analysis (including the scope of alternatives) may be deemed inadequate
only at the time of Secretarial approval, which may be months after a
determinative Council action. The result is that an action may need to
be fully revisited in the Council process months after a final Council
action.
The analytical requirements of the MSA fully satisfy the
requirements of NEPA. The analytical requirements for taking action
under the MSA are comprehensive. Analyses must broadly evaluate
environmental effects (including impacts on the ecosystem), as well as
social and economic effects. These MSA requirements not only fully
satisfy NEPA requirements but are more appropriately directed to
understanding the impacts of fishery management actions. It is unclear
why it may be perceived that NEPA requirements bring anything other
than procedural complications to the fishery management process.
Question. The 2006 amendments required NOAA and CEQ to revise the
NEPA guidelines to make them match up with the Magnuson-Stevens Act
timelines. Did that happen?
Answer. No, NOAA never completed the process of revising the NEPA
guidelines to match up with MSA timelines. A proposed rule was
published in May of 2008, but no final rule has been completed to date.
NMFS has issued a policy on this subject that discusses some of the
timeline conflicts, but fails to fully reconcile those conflicts.
Question. You raise concerns that NOAA has been increasing the
amount of data--including proprietary data--that is gathered for
fishery management purposes. Do the current data confidentiality
requirements adequately protect proprietary data--including data
voluntarily provided to NOAA? If not, what suggestions can you provide
to ensure that fishery managers have the information they need while
maintaining the confidentiality of propriety information?
Answer. Applying an aggregation rule-of-three at the vessel level
for the disclosure of any proprietary data is adequate to protect
confidentiality interests related to those data. Maintaining and
abiding by this rule should address all concerns related to the
disclosure of proprietary information in fishery management and
analytical documents.
An additional concern that arises with the increased collection of
proprietary data arises from the management of those data by NOAA. The
availability and distribution of data to both NOAA employees and
contractors should be evaluated to ensure that data are shared and used
only to the extent necessary for management of fisheries. In addition,
these data should be tracked after any distribution to ensure that they
are destroyed once the intended use is satisfied. Currently, the
greatest risk of disclosure of proprietary data is likely from
inadvertent disclosures because of poor data management or uses for
unintended purposes. These risks can be minimized through closely
attending to data management. During my time as Council staff, NOAA
data management was very good, but some risk of inadvertent disclosure,
particularly through distribution of data to contractors, remained.
Question. Your testimony notes that the Act ``currently provides
flexibility for bringing ecosystem considerations into fisheries
management.'' Do you support the provisions in the Discussion Draft
which would allow Councils additional flexibility to consider
environmental changes when developing rebuilding schedules?
Answer. Yes. The current MSA provisions that dictate a rebuilding
timeline that is as short as possible and no longer than 10 years can
force restrictive management measures that provide little or no
conservation benefit. At times, environmental conditions, including
inherent characteristics of stocks, may prevent achieving rebuilding in
the 10-year time period regardless of whether a rebuilding schedule
that accommodates increased fishing would delay stock rebuilding.
Allowing rebuilding schedules that consider environmental conditions
with reasonable limits to prevent harm to the stock (as proposed in the
Draft Discussion Bill) is a reasonable means of addressing this issue.
______
Letter Submitted for the Record to Samuel D. Rauch III, National Marine
Fisheries Service, NOAA, from Representatives Larsen and Young
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC 20515,
December 16, 2013.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Acting Administrator,
National Marine Fisheries Service,
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration,
Silver Spring, MD 20910.
Dear Acting Administrator Rauch:
We are writing to strongly encourage the National Oceanic &
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to promulgate a final rule
implementing the information confidentiality provisions of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) that protects proprietary information and
maintains reasonable recordkeeping requirements. On May 23, 2012, NOAA
issued a proposed rule (FDMS Docket No. NOAA-NMFS-2012-0030) that
largely meets these standards, which we urge you to keep as you move
forward. We believe the final rule must remain largely consistent with
Congressional intent and conform as closely as possible to the proposed
rule.
As fisheries management programs such as Limited Access Programs
and Catch Shares have been implemented, the data needs for effective
fisheries management have increased. However, in both 1996 and 2006
Congress recognized that if fishery participants were going to be
required to submit sensitive, proprietary information, then greater
confidentiality provisions needed to be afforded as well.
We have heard from our constituents in the fishing industry that
expanding the types and kinds of information subject to public release
well beyond that outlined in the proposed rule would diminish the
protections of confidential information in a way inconsistent with the
requirements of the MSA.
Indeed, the unnecessary release of sensitive, proprietary
information could undermine the healthy competitive relationships that
exist among fishermen, subject individual companies to unwarranted
attacks from outside groups, and destabilize the fundamental economics
of fisheries. We therefore urge you to not expand the release of
information beyond that outlined in the proposed rule.
Thank you for your consideration, We look forward to working with
you in the future.
Sincerely,
Rick Larsen,
Don Young,
U.S. Representatives.
______
Letter Submitted for the Record from Regional Fishery Management
Council
Regional Fishery Management Council
Coordination Committee,
November 8, 2013.
Hon. Doc Hastings,
U.S. House of Representatives,
1203 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
Hon. Mark Begich,
U.S. Senate,
111 Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Representative Hastings and Senator Begich:
On behalf of the eight Regional Fishery Management Councils, I am
forwarding to you a consensus statement from the October 23-24, 2013
Webinar meeting of the Council Coordination Committee (CCC) relative to
potential reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA). Given the
understanding that legislation drafting is advancing rapidly in the
near term, the following CCC statement is necessarily brief and
general.
In expressing confidence in most aspects of the MSA and the
perspective that any changes should be carefully considered so
as to not impair features that the CCC believes are key to
current successes, the CCC noted the following as high priority
candidate areas for improvement:
stock rebuilding plans, including
a. providing flexibility In stock rebuilding schedules,
b. addressing the discontinuity of the 10-year requirement, and
c. taking into account socioeconomic impacts;
ending overfishing;
mixed stock fishery flexibility;
recreational fishery considerations;
management of data-poor stocks; and
a variety of international fishery management issues.
In addition to this topical, general input, the CCC would also draw
your attention to the more detailed perspectives from each of the
Regional Fishery Management Councils (RFMC) that was available at the
time of the October 23-24 webinar meeting; these can be found at http:/
/www.pcouncil.org/council-operations/council-meetings/ccc-oct-2013/
#oct2013cccBB. Please note that individual RFMCs may further elaborate
on their individual priorities via separate communication in the
relatively near future, and that the CCC is scheduled to discuss any
legislation that is introduced at their mid-February meeting in the
Washington, DC area.
Last, please accept our thanks for the contributions of Mr. Dave
Whaley and Mr. Jeff Lewis during the October 23-24 webinar meeting.
Their professional participation was invaluable in making progress on
this important matter.
If there are any questions or specific information you need, feel
free to contact me at any time.
Sincerely,
D. O. McIsaac, Ph.D.,
Executive Director,
Pacific Fishery Management Council.
______
Prepared Statement of State Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
These comments are a compilation of issues raised by some of AFWA's
members and not an exhaustive list. We look forward to working with the
committee staff on addressing the State Fish and Wildlife Agencies'
concerns and suggestions. Please contact Jen Mock Schaeffer at
[email protected] for more information.
Section 3. Flexibility in Rebuilding Fish Stocks
We agree with the proposed changes in this section.
Section 4. Modifications to the Annual Catch Limit Requirement (b)
It appears that changes to 302(h)(6) allows Councils to
exceed recommendations made by the SSC and would only be prohibited
from exceeding the OFL. Concerns were raised that this is not a helpful
precedence and could set us back. Some Councils managing for
sustainability look at everything and must make very deliberate
decisions, which this section would not necessarily facilitate. One
State questioned the need for such a provision if the bill is already
providing more flexibility for States, communities and catches.
We do not understand what is meant by ``the Council may
establish ACLs for each year in any continuous period up to 3 years''.
Does this mean they can establish a 3-year ACL or three consecutive
annual catch limits?
Section 5. Distinguishing Between Overfished and Depleted
We support these changes because they indicate that
fisheries may be in decline for reasons other than fishing.
Section 6. Transparency and Public Process for Scientific and
Management Actions
We support more transparency in the Council and SSC
process.
Do the audio/video/transcript requirements include Council
committee meetings or just meetings of the full Council?
We recommend giving Councils the option and flexibility to
provide the audio, video or a transcript within 60 days because
producing such transcripts can be costly and time consuming.
Furthermore, some rural communities access to broadband and Internet
access for downloading video could be challenging and limiting, and
Councils need to be responsive to the needs and conditions of
interested parties. Additionally, under some circumstances or intense
discussion topics, videotaping the discussion could stifle the
scientific discussion and reduce its effectiveness, an undesirable and
unintended consequence. We recommend providing the Councils more
flexibility to meet the public transparency needs of their communities.
Compliance with NEPA
We support these changes.
Section 7. Limitation on Future Catch Share Programs
The definition of catch share could be broadened: ``. . .
allocates a specific percentage, poundage or portion, of the total
allowable catch . . .''
Currently, fishermen can petition the Secretary requesting
that a Council be authorized to initiate development of a Limited
Access Privilege Program (LAPP) such as an Individual Fishing Quota
(IFQ,) program. There is currently a special clause for multispecies
permits in the Gulf of Mexico, which states that only participants who
have ``substantially fished'' the LAPP proposed species shall be
eligible to sign a petition asking for an LAPP. Additionally, only
participants meeting these requirements would count toward the
percentage needed (permit or allocation holders) to petition the
Secretary. There is no such provision for multispecies permits in the
South Atlantic (such as Snapper Grouper and Coastal Migratory
Pelagics), which means that fishermen could be eligible to request an
IFQ program or other LAPP for species that they do not harvest.
We suggest revising the term ``permit holder eligible to
participate'' to specify that only participants who have
``substantially fished'' the LAPP proposed species shall be eligible to
sign a petition asking for a LAPP in the South Atlantic. The suggested
change would help ensure that only fishermen that have ``substantially
fished'' for a particular species can request LAPPs for that species.
This is important because many fishermen specialize in harvesting a few
species, even though their multispecies permit allows them to harvest
dozens of other species. This is also important because several South
Atlantic fisheries are regional, such as yellowtail snapper, which only
occurs in South Florida. Thus, in this example, anyone holding a
snapper-grouper permit would not be able to vote on a yellowtail
snapper LAPP, only those folks actually fishing for yellowtail snapper
(since that is one of many species covered by this permit).
In many cases, the captain and crew of a fishing vessel
may not own the permits under which they fish, but derive all or a
significant portion of their income from fishing. If a referenda is
held to determine if an LAPP program should be created in the Gulf or
South Atlantic, such fishery participants are not eligible to vote,
even though they are familiar with operation of the fishery and
directly affected by the referenda.
Suggested Change: Modify Sec. 303A(c)(6)(D)(v) of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act to require the Secretary to promulgate criteria for
determining whether additional fishery participants are eligible to
vote in Gulf and South Atlantic referenda to ensure crew members that
derive a significant portion of their income from the fishery are
eligible to vote. This is already a requirement for New England.
Reason for Change: This change would ensure crew members that
derive a significant portion of their income from the fishery can vote
on LAPPs that could change their industry and communities are created.
Section 8. Data Collection and Confidentiality
We do not support the limitation on enforcement use of
electronic monitoring (EM) because it may disrupt law enforcement
efforts to monitor the IFQ fisheries and ensure compliance with
regulations. States use electronic monitoring, in part, for
enforcement, and they believe limiting EM's use will hamper management
of the fisheries resources. In a time of low State budgets and reduced
resources, there should not be limitations placed on EM. Councils
should have the flexibility to utilize EM as needed for various
purposes to address resource, capacity, and other needs because it is
significantly cheaper than the alternatives.
We support the change that allows asset forfeiture funds
to go to fisheries independent data in the region from which they were
collected.
Under (3) ``may'' could result in nothing happening.
Councils should determine how best to monitor, but the intent of this
language is not clear to us.
(3)(B) doesn't seem to facilitate the use of EM, which the
States need and want. Some will argue that nothing replaces human
observers, and therefore, that is the only acceptable course of action,
but it is not a financially realistic one. What is the intent with this
language?
(3)(c) Confidentially of Information--Current rulemaking
for this is underway, and a final rule has not yet been published.
Understanding what constitutes a ``determination'' is very relevant as
well as the definition of confidentiality. Electronic landing systems
are at risk and could conflict with current State laws/rules. States
like the proposed rule but are not sure what will come out in the final
rule; States do not support having all information made public and none
kept confidential. States are comfortable maintaining the status quo on
confidentiality. They are not willing to provide individual vessel
info, but providing aggregated data for several vessels is acceptable.
p. 21, (5)--The intent and purpose of this provision is
unclear to us, but States think it will make marine spatial planning
more challenging.
Section 9. Council Jurisdiction for Overlapping Fisheries
No comment.
Section 10. Gulf of Mexico Cooperative Research and Red Snapper
Monitoring
We support extending seaward boundary of State waters in
the Gulf of Mexico to 9 miles.
We support the repeal of 16 U.S. Code Sec. 1854, Gulf of
Mexico Red Snapper Research.
We support the Cooperative Research Program for the Gulf
and South Atlantic that gives priority to data-poor species.
Reporting and Data Collection Program:
-- It appears that the bill is separating the recreational sector
into two separate sectors: ``charter'' and ``recreational''
(assumed to be private recreational anglers). They are
currently managed as a single sector by the Gulf Council.
-- We assume that a real-time reporting program would have to be
implemented by NMFS for the red snapper fishery with the
data collection program being implemented by the States
through dockside surveys. We are concerned that adequate
funds would not be available to administer such programs.
Stock Surveys and Assessments
-- We support more frequent assessments for the southeast region,
but are concerned that inadequate funds are available for
the data collection and modeling needs for this effort.
-- We support any effort to incorporate new fisheries data into
assessments as soon as possible.
Section 11. North Pacific Fishery Management Clarification
We support this change because it remedies an existing
loophole.
Section 12. Authorization of Appropriations
No comments.
Section 13. Ensuring Consistent Management for Fisheries Management
Under Other Federal Laws
We support these changes.
Other Suggested Changes that are not Currently in the Bill:
Suggested change: Section 302(b)(2)(D) should be removed
from the reauthorization and the process should be eliminated. Section
302(b)(2)(D) established a special Council appointment process for the
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council that expired at the end of
fiscal year 2012, This process was overly burdensome and should not be
renewed. The existing process that is used for the other Councils and
is currently being used for the Gulf Council is sufficient for
appointing quality candidates to the Gulf Council.
Issue: There has been concern that advisory panel members
that are purportedly representing a particular sector (e.g.,
commercial) are paid by NGOs, either directly or indirectly, to attend
Council meetings, serve on Advisory Panels, and lobby Council members.
Suggested change: Modify Sec. 302(g) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act
to require disclosure of financial interests by advisory panel members.
Reason for change: Sec. 302(g) currently requires disclosure of
financial interests by those serving on Council science and statistical
committees, but there is no such requirement for advisory panel
members. Requiring disclosure of such financial Interests would help
identify which organizations are represented by advisory panel members.
Section 317 Shark Feeding should prohibit shark feeding in
the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic EEZ. The purpose of this change
would be to reduce dangers to divers who encounter sharks.
Issue: Highly Migratory Species like sharks, tunas,
swordfish, and billfish are regulated by NOAA Fisheries, but are not
managed through the Council process. Magnuson establishes that the
Federal Councils have Scientific and Statistical Committees (SSCs) that
provide scientific advice for management decisions, but Magnuson does
not establish SSCs to review Highly Migratory Species management
actions.
Suggested Change: Sec. 304(g) of the Magnuson Act should be
modified to establish an SSC to provide scientific advice on potential
fishery management plans and plan amendments for Atlantic Highly
Migratory Species. At minimum, a mechanism for scientific peer review
of proposed management alternatives for HMS species should be
established.
Reason for Change: There is no mechanism for scientific peer
review of proposed management actions taken by NOAA Fisheries for
Highly Migratory Species. Such review is important in determining if
potential management actions are backed by sound science. This section
already provides for establishment of an advisory panel for Highly
Migratory Species.
Issue: According to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, a State may
only regulate a fishing vessel outside State boundaries in adjacent
Federal waters (A) ``if the fishing vessel is registered under the law
of that State,'' there is no Federal FMP for the fishery in question,
or the State's laws are consistent with the Federal FMP and Federal
fisheries regulations or (B) if fishery management authority is
delegated to the State. Accordingly, Florida has extended several of
their fishery regulations into Federal waters (ex. Snook) when those
fisheries are not federally managed. However, there are two issues with
this part of the Magnuson Act. First, the extension of State fishing
regulations into Federal waters has been successfully challenged in
court when Florida claimed regulatory authority over fishing for a
State-regulated species in Federal waters. Additionally, the State is
currently unable to enforce regulations on out-of-State fishing vessels
in Federal waters off Florida.
Suggested Change: Sec. 306(a)(3) of the Magnuson Act should be
changed to allow the State to regulate fishing and fishing vessels. In
Sec. 306(a)(3)(A), the requirement that the fishing vessel be
registered under the law of the State should be removed.
Reason for Change: These changes would address court challenges in
which the defendant claimed that the Magnuson Act only allows the State
to regulate fishing vessels, and not fishing activity. They would also
allow State officers working in Federal waters to enforce State rules
that have been extended in Federal waters on ALL vessels, including
vessels registered by the Coast Guard or in other States.
______
Prepared Statement of Western Pacific Fishery Management Council
Below are detailed comments from the Western Pacific Fishery
Management Council on the draft House Bill to amend the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The comments and
recommendations are presented by section.
Section 3: Flexibility in Rebuilding Fish Stocks
Overall, the Council supports the language proposed in Section 3 to
provide flexibility in rebuilding fish stocks. In particular, allowing
for a phased-in approach over a 3-year period is practical and takes
into consideration impacts to affected communities. However, further
guidance is needed in defining ``highly dynamic fishery'' as it applies
to the use of this phased-in approach.
This Section notes that rebuilding may be contingent on factors
beyond the control of the Councils, or in some cases beyond that of the
USA with regard to shared transboundary stocks. Moreover, it notes that
environmental conditions may predicate the rebuilding schedule. The
statement in item IV is unclear which refers to ``informal
transboundary agreements under which management activities outside the
EEZ by another country may hinder conservation effort by U.S.
fishermen''. How do ``informal transboundary agreements'' differ from
international agreements which are included in Section (I)?
Finally, Section 3(2)(C), we question the utility of including the
``predator/prey relationships'' in this sentence as it is only one
example of many that may be considered when accounting for
``environmental conditions.'' We suggest it be removed.
Section 4: Modifications to the Annual Catch Limit Requirement
The proposed changes in the Annual Catch Limit (ACL) section of
this bill addresses many of the problems faced in implementing ACLs in
the Western Pacific Region. Providing the Council the authority and
opportunity to consider ecosystem and economic needs of the fishing
community in implementing ACLs is a beneficial change to the current
MSA text. The Western Pacific Council provides for similar
considerations through an analysis that considers social, economic,
ecological and management uncertainty. Consideration should be given to
include social and management elements in this section as ecosystem and
economic variations are already accounted for. Given the overall
underutilized status of fisheries in the Western Pacific Region, this
language could be revised to: ``In evaluating the need to establish
annual catch limits, a Council may consider changes in an ecosystem and
the economic needs of the fishing community''. This provides the
Council flexibility in having to apply ACLs for in fisheries where it
may not be appropriate.
With regard to exempting Councils for having to develop ACLs, we
suggest adding a third item for fisheries that are currently inactive
and will remain inactive in the foreseeable future, Having to specify
annual limits for dormant fisheries, such as deepwater shrimp and
precious corals in the Western Pacific, unnecessarily consumes Council
and NMFS resources.
With regard to the section on ``Relationships of International
Efforts'', the Council is concerned as those stocks managed through
international agreements would now be required to have ACLs
established, where currently they are exempt as established through
NMFS guidelines.
The Council supports the provisions included addressing
multispecies complexes and multi-year catch limits and defining
ecosystem component species.
The suggested change to Section 302(h)(6) in striking ``fishing''
and inserting ``overfishing'' will result in a technical conflict with
the NS1 guidelines. Currently, the fishing level recommendation by the
SSC is the acceptable biological catch or ABC. The overfishing level is
derived from the stock assessment developed by NMFS. Changing fishing
to overfishing puts the onus on the SSC to develop its own stock
assessment which changes the process on how ACLs are specified. Is this
the intended outcome of this provision?
Section 5: Distinguishing Between Overfished and Depleted
The Council supports redefining ``overfished'' to help distinguish
between fisheries that are depleted as a result of fishing versus
``depleted'' as a result of factors other than fishing. This issue has
been a point of contention for our Advisory Panel and fishing
communities for many years, as numerous fisheries have been impacted by
changes in habitat resulting from coastal development and other non-
fishing activities. In particular, the Council looks forward to the
NMFS reporting on the status of stocks as a result of this change.
Section 6: Transparency of the Public Process for Scientific and
Management Actions
With regard to increasing transparency of the public process, to
the extent practicable this Council has routinely provided for most of
the public transparency elements identified in this section. However,
requiring complete transcripts of both the Council and SSC will require
additional resources to process this information within the 30-day time
frame suggested. At this time, the Council makes available meeting
minutes for all Council and SSC meetings on the web, among other
documents.
Sec. 314: Compliance with National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
The Council supports a reauthorized MSA that would allow for MSA
fishery management plans, plan amendments, and regulatory amendments to
be stand-alone documents that satisfy the requirements of NEPA. This is
because the existing MSA/Council process is analogous to the procedures
of NEPA with respect to public participation and impact analysis.
However, the Council suggests that minor technical modifications to be
made to Section 303(a) of MSA to ensure consistency with NEPA such as
requiring the consideration of alternatives to the proposed action and
requiring a broader-level of environmental review in MSA documents.
Section 7: Limitations on Future Catch Share Programs
The Council suggests that the use of catch shares also consider
regional flexibility in the need for its application to fisheries,
particularly the non-commercial/recreational sector. Catch shares are
not appropriate for the non-commercial/recreational fisheries sector as
new entry opportunities and equal access to a public trust resource are
imperative to effectively managing the Nation's fisheries resources for
the good of all.
Section 8: Data Collection and Data Confidentiality
Electronic monitoring should be one of many tools considered to
facilitate data collection and monitoring when developing fishery
management plans or amendments. We support developing objectives and
performance standards for this new technology to ensure consistency in
its application immediately after passage of the MSA reauthorization.
However, mandating the development of regulations for electronic
monitoring within this 6-month period is not appropriate. The
implementation of such regulations should be promulgated through the
standard regulatory process and not automatically mandated through this
top-down approach.
We also have serious concerns regarding prohibiting the use of
electronic monitoring for enforcement which contradicts this Council's
existing regulations on the use of satellite-based vessel monitoring
systems on Hawaii longline vessels to monitor area-based closures.
These regulations have been in place for nearly 25 years. If Congress
wishes to maintain this provision, we suggest defining electronic
monitoring to not include VMS.
Regarding the new provision to supported ``Increased Data
Collection and Action to Address Data-Poor Fisheries,'' the Council
supports directing a portion of the fisheries enforcement penalties
received by the United States to assess data-poor fisheries and
cooperative research to improve fishery independent data in stock
assessments. However, while this provision is good, it will be
important to ensure that it does not conflict with the existing
provisions in the MSA that directs enforcement fines and penalties in
the Pacific Remote Island Areas to the Sustainable Fisheries Fund or
those occurring in the U.S. EEZs surrounding American Samoa, Guam and
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands to their respective local
treasuries.
This Council supports the proposed definition for ``data-poor
fishery'' which would include many of the reef fisheries managed in the
Pacific Island region.
Section 9: Council Jurisdiction for Overlapping Fisheries
[No comments]
Section 10: Gulf of Mexico Cooperative Research and Red Snapper
Management
[No comments]
Section 11: North Pacific Fishery Management Clarification
[No comments]
Section 12: Authorization of Appropriations
[No comments]
Section 13: Ensuring Consistent Management for Fisheries Through Their
Range
The Council strongly supports this section recognizing the MSA as
the controlling authority over promulgating fishing regulations. In
addition to the National Marine Sanctuaries Act and Antiquities Act of
1906, other Acts impacting fisheries should be included such as the
Marine Mammal Protection Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the
Endangered Species Act.
This Council also strongly supports the provision related to
``Fisheries Restrictions Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973,''
but recommends that the text, ``. . . that is necessary to implement a
recovery plan . . .'' be removed. While Section 4 of the ESA relates to
rules that may be result from recovery plans, Section 9 of ESA may also
result in fishery restrictions through take prohibitions for ESA-listed
species. Further, the Council recommends that the text ``(1) using
authority under this Act; and (2) in accordance with processes and time
schedules required under this Act'' be modified to read ``in accordance
with processes established under Section 302 of this Act''. Currently,
fishery management measures deemed necessary to protect ESA-listed
species are promulgated under Section 305 of the MSA, which bypasses
transparent public process intended under MSA.
______
[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE COMMITTEE'S
OFFICIAL FILES]
Allison, David L., JD, LL.M, Shelton, WA, Letter
dated December 22, 2013
Association of Northwest Steelheaders, Russell
Bassett, Executive Director, Letter dated January 27, 2014
Bunny Clark Corp., Tim Tower, President, Letter
dated January 28, 2014
Center for Sustainable Fisheries, Discussion Draft
Review dated January 14, 2014
Center for Sustainable Fisheries, Policy Paper
dated November 20, 2013, also available online at http://
centerforsustainablefisheries.org/wp-content/uploads/MSA-
Reauthorization-Policy-Paper.pdf
Charleston Area Hospitality Association, Fisheries
Management statement
Combined Governing Bodies of Shishmaref, Alaska,
Joint Resolution 2013-02 dated April 17, 2013
Council for Sustainable Fishing, Tom Swatzel,
Executive Director, Letter dated January 14, 2014
Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, James P. Walsh, Letter
dated January 31, 2014
Hawaii Longline Association, Prepared statement
dated January 29, 2014
Maine Rivers, Landis Hudson, Executive Director,
Letter dated January 8, 2014
Mirarchi, Frank, F/V Barbara L. Peters, Scituate,
MA, Letter dated January 23, 2014
Natural Resources Defense Council, Bradford H.
Sewell, Senior Attorney, Letter dated January 30, 2014
PEW Charitable Trusts, Lee R. Crockett, Director,
U.S. Oceans, Letter dated January 27, 2014
Platt, Darren, Commercial Fisherman from Kodiak,
AK, Comments
Prime Seafood, James R. Chambers, Founder/Owner,
Letter dated February 6, 2014
Recreational Fishing and Boating Community,
Discussion Draft Review
Tsongas, Niki, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Massachusetts, Prepared statement
# # #
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 4742, TO AMEND THE MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY
CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT TO PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY FOR FISHERY
MANAGERS AND STABILITY FOR FISHERMEN, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,
``STRENGTHENING FISHING COMMUNITIES AND INCREASING FLEXIBILITY IN
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ACT''--PART 2
----------
Friday, February 28, 2014
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:32 a.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Doc Hastings
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Hastings, DeFazio, Sablan,
Tsongas, Hanabusa, Huffman, Shea-Porter, and Garcia.
The Chairman. I want to call our witnesses. We have Mr.
Samuel Pooley, who is the Director of NOAA Pacific Islands
Fisheries Science Center; Ms. Dorothy Lowman, Chair of the
Pacific Fishery Management Council; Mr. Bob Rees, the North
Coast Chapter President of the Association of Northwest
Steelheaders--I will get it right; Mr. Peter Shelley, Vice
President at Conservation Law Foundation; and Mr. Zeke Grader,
Jr., Executive Director of the Pacific Coast Federation of
Fishermen's Associations.
I want to thank all of you for being here. If you have not
had an opportunity to testify in front of the committee, you
will note that the little machine in front of you has a 5-
minute timeframe there. And the way that works is when the
green light is on, that means that you are doing very, very
well in your testimony. And when the yellow light comes on, it
is like going through a stoplight. It means you have to hurry
up so you can finish before the red light comes on.
Now, I say that because that gives you 5 minutes for your
oral testimony, but your full written testimony will appear in
the record. So it is not confined just to your oral testimony.
So, with that, we will start with Mr. Samuel Pooley,
Director of NOAA Fisheries--Pacific Islands Fisheries Science
Center, and you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF SAMUEL POOLEY, DIRECTOR, NOAA PACIFIC ISLANDS
FISHERIES SCIENCE CENTER
Dr. Pooley. Good morning, and aloha, Mr. Chairman, and
members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to
speak with you today. I am pleased to represent the Pacific
Islands region of NOAA fisheries. When the Pacific Islands
region was established in 2003, the agency was committed to
enhancing our relationships with stakeholders and local
communities. I believe this is increasingly the case, and I
hope to demonstrate that this morning.
I came to Hawaii for graduate school in 1970 as an
international trade and development economist, and I stayed
because of the people and vibrant cultures of the region.
Fisheries have been an important part of that culture and the
development of our communities. I will be revisiting Guam and
Saipan in 2 weeks. Much has changed in 30 years since my first
trips there, but much of the important cultural aspects of
those fisheries remain.
NOAA Fisheries is committed to conducting high-quality
marine science. We have worked with local resource agencies on
fisheries statistics through our WestPac FIN program since
1981, and we have conducted research missions on NOAA ships in
the Marianas since the 1980s. And now, for the first time, we
have permanent local scientific staff in Pago Pago, Saipan, and
Guam. We work closely with local resource agencies to
coordinate and improve the relevance of our work, including
inviting their participation in and planning two research
missions in the Marianas this year.
Last year the agency announced a territorial science
initiative of $250,000 to enhance our fisheries science work in
the U.S. territories in the Pacific and the Caribbean. The
final 2014 appropriation will allow us to further expand the
territorial science initiative to enhance the agency's and
local fisheries' capacity within these territories. In
addition, the NOAA Fisheries Saltonstall-Kennedy grant program
also identified cooperative research in U.S. island territories
and commonwealths as a priority.
But perhaps more important than these fiscal resources,
this initiative provides us increased opportunity for our
scientists to engage with the agencies, fishermen, and
communities in these areas to a greater extent than before.
With these partners, we are developing alternative assessment
approaches for our reef fisheries. These alternative approaches
integrate new life history information into data-poor
assessments.
We are also using human dimension studies from these
communities to conduct socioeconomic analysis for annual catch
limit determinations. Innovations like these allow us to
continue to make progress toward meeting the mandate of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act by adding more detailed information that
addresses the special characteristics of our region.
We made significant progress in the Pacific Islands, but
much remains to be done. Objective continues to be to provide
high-quality scientific information, to continue the agency's
and the fishery management councils' ability to prevent
overfishing, and achieve optimal yield.
As an economist and social scientist, I am particularly
interested in providing meaningful information on the
industries and communities of our area for conservation and
management decisionmaking. Thank you for the opportunity to
discuss with you Pacific Islands fishery science in the context
of the progress we have made under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Mahalo.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Pooley follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Samuel Pooley, Pacific Islands Fisheries
Science Center Director, National Marine Fisheries Service, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
introduction
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Thank you
for the opportunity to testify before you today. I am Samuel Pooley,
the Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center Director for the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS). NMFS is dedicated to the stewardship of
living marine resources through science-based conservation and
management. Much of this work occurs under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), which sets
forth standards for conservation, management, and sustainable use of
our Nation's fisheries resources.
NMFS is an acknowledged international leader in fishery science,
rebuilding overfished stocks, and preventing overfishing. Today, we
know more about our fish stocks than ever before, although there is
much yet to accomplish in our region. Nationally and locally, it is
vital that our science not regress, as this would inevitably lead to
declines in our stocks and a loss in the economic and social values
they provide. Our progress in making fisheries management more
effective is based on the principle that management is based on sound
science. National Standard 2 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) mandates that
all fisheries conservation and management measures must be based upon
``the best scientific information available'' (16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(2)).
While we face challenges to securing accurate, precise, and timely data
for stock assessments, on balance, our science-based management has
consistently proven to provide better resource management than without
this advice. This has, in turn, led to improved productivity and
sustainability of fisheries and fishery-dependent businesses and
communities.
NMFS continues to make substantial progress toward improving the
quality of the science available to effectively manage commercial and
recreational fisheries, benefiting coastal communities and the United
States (U.S.) economy both today and for generations to come. We
greatly appreciate the increased funding that Congress has provided to
make U.S. fishery management, and its preeminence worldwide, possible.
My testimony today will focus on how fisheries science in the
Pacific Islands is conducted and how this science underpins and
provides for good management. We represent a diverse region with
locally and internationally important fisheries, fisheries that are
important both commercially and recreationally but also culturally. We
provide scientific information for fishery management decisionmaking to
the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council through its Scientific
and Statistical Committee and to the Western and Central Pacific
Fisheries Commission through its Scientific Committee and the
independent International Scientific Committee on Tuna and Tuna-like
Species (ISC) in the North Pacific.
fisheries science in the pacific islands
Without high-quality fishery science, we cannot be confident the
Nation is attaining optimum yield from its fisheries, or that we're
preventing overfishing and harm to ecosystems and fishing communities.
Attaining optimum yield requires investing in information about fish
stocks, marine habitats, and ecosystems and the people, industries, and
communities that rely upon fishing. To achieve the goals of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, we must conduct the research and analyses
necessary to understand the underlying life histories and population
dynamics of our fisheries as well as the environmental and habitat
factors affecting the sustainability of fish populations. We must
continue to increase what we know about our fish stocks in order to
reduce uncertainty in our estimates of fishery population status and to
avoid reduced annual catch limits, resulting in lost economic and
community opportunities.
The importance of increasing the frequency of stock assessments,
improving the quality of fisheries science with a better understanding
of ecosystem factors, and enhancing our engagement with fishermen
cannot be stressed enough. Collecting adequate data in our region,
including the State of Hawaii, the Territories of American Samoa and
Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands as well as
the high-seas fisheries, presents unique challenges and requires
additional investments in personnel and resources to be successful.
These historically have relied on fishery dependent data rather than
the NOAA and cooperative research surveys that typify fisheries
research in the continental United States.
To address these challenges, NMFS announced on June 22, 2013, a
Territorial Fisheries Science Initiative. This initiative involves the
Pacific Islands and Southeast fisheries science centers to specifically
expand fisheries science capacity, including fisheries information,
from the Territories of American Samoa and Guam, and the Commonwealth
of the Northern Mariana Islands, as well as the Territories of the U.S.
Virgin Islands and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The Territorial
Fisheries Science Initiative is an effort to overcome the lack of data
collection capacity in the U.S. territories that has resulted in a
paucity of scientific information to guide management actions. The
small size of the territory governments with their modest budgets; the
relatively low commercial value of diverse and small-scale fisheries;
and the limited NMFS presence in the territories have all contributed
to the current shortcomings. This initiative is intended to address
this situation, increase our engagement with territorial government
agencies and academic institutions, improve the quality and reliability
of Pacific Islands fishery stock assessments, and increase stakeholder
and community participation in and understanding of our scientific
work.
Funds from this Territorial Fisheries Science Initiative will be
spent in the territories to support locally-based science, build
scientific and monitoring capabilities, and enhance capacity and
relationships with each of these U.S. territories. This initiative will
include grants to and contracts with the territorial fisheries agencies
as well as to local academic institutions and cooperative research
partners to help build local scientific capacity. In FY13 under this
Territorial Fisheries Science Initiative, $125,000 was issued to each
of the Pacific Islands and Southeast fisheries science centers to
expand fisheries science capacity, including fisheries information,
from the Territories of American Samoa and Guam, and the Commonwealth
of the Northern Mariana Islands, as well as the Territories of the U.S.
Virgin Islands and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
In fiscal year 2014, NOAA will expand the Territorial Fisheries
Science Initiative to enhance the agency's and local fisheries' science
capacity in the territories at a level of $1 million. Additionally,
this year the Federal Funding Opportunity (FFO) for proposals under the
FY13 Saltonstall-Kennedy (S-K) Grant Program, issued on July 31, 2013,
identified ``Cooperative Research in U.S. island territories and
commonwealths'' as a priority. This is the first year that Territorial
Fisheries Science is included as a priority in this FFO to indicate an
increased emphasis on these geographies within the S-K competition.
In addition, as part of our fisheries science portfolio, the
Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center is conducting two NOAA ship-
based surveys to the Mariana Archipelago this year. The NOAA ship Oscar
Elton Sette will conduct fisheries science surveys (e.g., supporting
resource assessments), cetacean surveys in support of our protected
species mandates, and support for local agency projects, and the NOAA
ship Hi'ialakai will focus on coral reef ecosystem surveys and, in the
last leg, ocean acidification and vents work with our partners in the
Marianas Trench Marine National Monument.
looking to the future
Remaining Challenges
It is critical that we maintain progress toward meeting the mandate
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to prevent and end overfishing and rebuild
overfished stocks. Annual catch limits have been an effective tool in
improving the sustainability of fisheries around the Nation, but
managing fisheries using annual catch limits and accountability
measures was a major change for some fisheries, and the initial
implementation has identified some areas where we can improve that
process. We continue to work with the fishery management councils to
achieve the best possible alignment of science and management for each
fishery to attain the goals of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. We will
continue to develop our science and management tools, improve our stock
assessments and monitoring efforts, and create more effective annual
catch limits and accountability measures. In doing so, we must continue
to ensure solid, science-based determinations of stock status and
better linkages to biological, socioeconomic, and ecosystem conditions.
A primary goal in the Pacific Islands Region is to bring more data
to the table and ensure the fishery management response to annual catch
trends is appropriate. Many fish stocks in the Pacific Islands are
managed in mixed stock complexes to make the best use of scarce data.
The majority of fisheries in the region are extremely data limited,
making it challenging to manage and monitor annual catch limits in the
way Congress envisioned. These small-scale commercial, non-commercial,
and subsistence fisheries are nonetheless critically important to the
island communities. Our work, both under our normal operations and
under the new Territorial Fisheries Science Initiative, involves basic
life history studies as well as improving collection and compilation of
fishery statistics. Of particular interest in our region is the
development of alternative assessment approaches in our coral reef
fisheries, integrating this new life history information into these
otherwise data-poor assessments, and using human dimensions research in
these communities. Collectively, these contribute to the Western
Pacific Fishery Management Council's Social, Economic, Ecological, and
Management uncertainty (SEEM) analysis used in annual catch limit
determinations. Aspects of the SEEM dimensions include the importance
of the fishery, both socially and economically, consideration of the
ecological importance of the stock or stock complex targeted by the
fishery, and whether managers can effectively constrain catch to
planned levels.
We value the important partnerships we have formed with the States,
territories, fishermen, and other interest groups in helping address
these challenges. These partnerships are critical to developing
successful management strategies. Together with our partners, we
continue to explore alternative and innovative approaches that will
produce the best available information to incorporate into management.
It is also increasingly important that we better understand
ecosystem and habitat factors, such as the effects of climate change,
interannual and interdecadal climate shifts, ocean acidification, and
other environmental regime shifts and natural disasters, and
incorporate this information into our stock assessments and management
decisions. Resilient ecosystems and habitats form the foundation for
robust fisheries and fishing jobs. The Magnuson-Stevens Act currently
provides flexibility for bringing ecosystem considerations into
fisheries management. One example is the use of oceanographic
information to identify overlaps between swordfish and loggerhead
turtles in the North Pacific to provide advice on avoiding fishery
interactions. Another is identifying the impact of ocean acidification
on the vital coral reef ecosystems of this region.
conclusion
Because of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the United States has made
great progress toward sustainably and responsibly managing U.S.
fisheries to ensure that stocks are maintained at healthy levels,
fishing is conducted in a way that minimizes impacts on the marine
ecosystem, and fishing communities' needs are considered in management
decisions. Fisheries harvested in the United States are scientifically
monitored, regionally managed, and consistent with 10 National
Standards for fishery conservation and management. But we did not get
here overnight. Our Nation's journey toward sustainable fisheries has
evolved over the course of 38 years.
This progress has been made possible by the collaborative
involvement of our U.S. commercial and recreational fishing fleets and
their commitment to science-based management, improving gear-
technologies, and application of best stewardship practices. NOAA
Fisheries has established strong partnerships with States, territories,
tribes in the continental United States, fishery management councils,
fishing industries, including recreational and non-commercial
fisheries, and fishing and shoreline communities. By working together
through the highly participatory process established in the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, we will continue to address management challenges in a
changing environment.
To understand where we are, it is important to reflect on where
we've been. We have made great progress but our achievements have not
come easily, nor will they be sustained without continued attention.
This is a critical time in the history of Federal fisheries management,
and we must move forward in a thoughtful and disciplined way to ensure
our Nation's fisheries are able to meet the needs of both current and
future generations.
Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss Pacific Islands
fisheries science in the context of the progress we have made under the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. I am available to answer any questions you may
have. Mahalo (thank you).
______
Questions Submitted for the Record by Representative Hanabusa to Dr.
Samuel Pooley, Director of the NOAA Pacific Islands Fisheries Science
Center
Question. During the hearing, you mentioned that ACLs for reef fish
around Hawaii are currently being updated, and you mentioned that the
updated figures will include the fish in the Northern Hawaiian Islands.
How will data from the Northern Hawaiian Islands be incorporated into
updated ACLs? Given that the Northern Hawaiian Islands cover a vast
area with large fish populations, is it reasonable to expect that the
inclusion of Northern Hawaiian Islands fish populations will lead to
higher ACLs?
Answer. The updated annual catch limits for reef fish around Hawaii
do not rely on data from the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, although
earlier assessments of bottomfish did (bottomfish assessments now rely
entirely on main Hawaiian Islands information). The Northwestern
Hawaiian Islands have been closed to any commercial fishing since 2006.
Thus, the Hawaii annual catch limits are based only on main Hawaiian
Islands information: catch data from State of Hawaii commercial
statistics on the main Hawaiian Islands fisheries and biomass data from
NOAA's Pacific Reef Assessment and Monitoring Program (Pacific RAMP)
surveys in the main Hawaiian Islands. The annual catch limits for reef
fish around Hawaii were developed by the Western Pacific Fishery
Management Council based on fishery dependent and bio-sampling data and
reef fish survey information provided by Pacific Islands Fisheries
Science Center.
Question. Is the Pacific Island Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC)
doing any work to provide the data and models necessary for effective
ecosystem-based management? What tools have been developed so far and
what tools are under development?
Answer. The Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center has been a
leader in ecosystem modeling since the development of one of the first
ecosystem models, Ecopath, by its lead ecosystem scientist Dr. Jeffrey
J. Polovina in 1983. Dr. Polovina continues to lead the Ecosystem and
Oceanography Division within the Pacific Islands Fisheries Science
Center whose purpose is to explore such approaches, including leading
the current integrated ecosystem assessment surveys in Kona, Hawaii.
Recent ecosystem modeling developments within this division include
research on fishery-induced and climate changes in the subtropical
Pacific pelagic ecosystem size structure and analysis of ecosystem
effects related to longline interactions with sea turtles (Turtle
Watch) in addition to Kona ecosystem modeling.
The Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center Coral Reef Ecosystem
Division has been deeply involved in developing ecosystem-based
management approaches relevant to the Pacific's small scale and reef
fisheries through collaboration with the U.S. Agency for International
Development, the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization, and
the Asia-Pacific Fisheries Commission in the Coral Triangle Initiative
in the Philippines, Indonesia and other southeast Asian countries. This
work informs our approach to ecosystem fisheries management in the U.S.
Pacific islands and the specific curriculum developed for these
international clients may be ported to work with the State of Hawaii in
the forthcoming year. We are also developing an Atlantis ecosystem
model as a decision support tool for ecosystem-based management of near
shore fisheries around Guam.
Question. Over the years, your office has not fared well when
competing for funding against other science centers. In some cases,
PIFSC did not even initiate requests for funds. What steps will you
take to ensure that PIFSC will make better use of funding opportunities
such as cooperative research, stock assessments, Recreational Fisheries
Information Network, and Saltonstall-Kennedy programs?
Answer. Since the establishment of the Pacific Islands Fisheries
Science Center in 2003, the fisheries portion of the Center's funding
has increased from less than $4 million in 2005 to approximately $10
million in 2013 and NOAA has been actively ensuring the use of funding
opportunities. In addition, we benefit via collaboration and support
from other programs and conservation efforts such as Marine National
Monuments and NOAA's Coral Reef Conservation Program, to achieve
multiple objectives.
In NOAA Fisheries Cooperative Research funding initiatives, the
Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center has successfully competed for,
and received, approximately $400K annually since 2010. Those funds have
been used to develop an industry-based, cooperative fishery-independent
survey for bottomfish stocks in Hawaii through the Pacific Islands
Fisheries Group and other partners. This year we will also be able to
conduct cooperative research in both Saipan and Guam. The Pacific
Islands Fisheries Science Center has integrated its cooperative
research with other NOAA Fisheries science initiatives, such as
Advanced Sampling Technology initiatives that will contribute to stock
assessment advancements in the Pacific islands.
We are also involved in testing new approaches for estimating non-
commercial (recreational and subsistence) landings in Hawaii under NOAA
Fisheries' Marine Recreational Information Program. In 2013, NOAA
Fisheries added ``territorial science'' as a new priority under the
Saltonstall-Kennedy grant program. Two projects are being recommended
for funding under the territorial science initiative:
A grant to the Bishop Museum in Hawaii to collect
reproductive information for exploited reef fishes in the
Pacific Islands. Amount: $161,482.00
A grant to University of Guam for fishery biological
sampling in Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands. Amount: $196,112
NOAA Fisheries has also allocated $500K in FY 2014 to the Pacific
Islands Fisheries Science Center (following $125K in FY 2013) in a
Territorial Science Initiative that is focused on enhancing the
information required for fishery stock assessments throughout this
region. This initiative includes placement of permanent staff in
American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands to conduct new
bio-sampling and stock assessment research in each jurisdiction as well
as to enhance our Western Pacific Fishery Information Network
(WPacFIN). Further, both NOAA ships currently stationed in Hawaii, the
Hi'ialakai and the Oscar Elton Sette are conducting extensive research
surveys in the Marianas archipelago this year.
We believe that the Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center
competes well for internal funding within NOM Fisheries.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Dr. Pooley, for your
testimony. And now I will recognize Ms. Dorothy Lowman, who is
the Chair of the Pacific Fishery Management Council.
STATEMENT OF DOROTHY LOWMAN, CHAIR, PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT
COUNCIL
Ms. Lowman. Thank you, Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member
DeFazio, and members of the committee. Thank you again for the
opportunity to testify before you today regarding
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation
and Management Act. My name is Dorothy Lowman and I serve as
the Chair of the Pacific Fishery Management Council. It is from
our experiences of managing over 160 fish stocks off the West
Coast that I offer the Pacific Council's perspective regarding
refinement of this important legislation.
The Pacific Council has not yet had an opportunity to
review the discussion draft put forth by Chairman Hastings, but
we will be doing so in just a few days at our March Council
meeting. So my comments today are based on council discussions
regarding priorities through our November Council meeting.
First, I would like to be clear that the Pacific Council
believes that the current MSA is a success and, in fact, has
been a key driver of a number of Pacific Council successes,
including ending overfishing of any and all stocks within 1
year of detection; rebuilding seven depleted stocks, and being
on track to rebuild eight long-lived stocks that remain
depleted, three of which are projected to be rebuilt in the
next year; implementing a successful catch share program for
the trawl fishery that has been held up as a model for its
ability to reduce by-catch and increase economic yield; and our
recent developments of an ecosystem management plan.
While we believe that large-scale changes in the MSA are
not warranted, after 7 years of managing under the 2006
reauthorized bill, we have identified a few refinements to
enhance marine fishery management. I am going to highlight just
a few of these, and refer you to our written testimony for the
full list in greater detail.
With respect to rebuilding, we ask for some clarification
and focused flexibility. First, address the discontinuity
associated with a 10-year rebuilding requirement. We agree with
the National Academy of Sciences: a strict requirement to
rebuild within 10 years may eliminate some management responses
that could lead to greater social and economic benefits, while
still assuring that stocks are rebuilt.
Second, we have experienced situations where assessment
uncertainty leads to results that vary in either direction,
without changes in true status over time, yet currently can
demand expensive revisions and rebuilding plans. Clarification
is needed to provide a reasonable threshold for stock status
changes before significant changes in management approaches are
required.
Third, the MSA requirement to rebuild as soon as possible,
taking into account the needs of fishing communities has,
unfortunately, been subject to court interpretation as nearly
ignoring the needs of fishing communities until such time as
they have demonstrated a disastrous state. But, as we know, the
road to disaster starts long before a community or fishery
arrives at that state. It may be possible that a solution is as
simple as changing the word ``possible'' to ``practicable.''
However, at any rate, some clarity is needed to allow Councils
to properly take into account important social and economic
impacts, while reducing catches in a rational stock rebuilding
plan.
For some situations where improved science and subsequent
stock assessments show that the stock was never overfished,
continuation of rebuilding restrictions may not be necessary.
However, the MSA does not explicitly allow for such a course of
action, and so we would like to have some clarification on that
point.
Finally, a few words regarding better alignment of NEPA and
MSA. It is not our desire to be exempt from the important
environmental protections of NEPA. Rather, we are advocating
for more effective reconciliation of the requirements of NEPA
and MSA.
The Councils, along with our partners at NOAA Fisheries
have been working to find ways to front-load some of the
required analyses as much as possible. But efficiencies do
remain in the current process, requiring substantial additional
work and process to satisfy duplicate requirements and
mandates. This unnecessarily delays implementation of
regulation, causes obsolescence of scientific information, and
burdens management resources that could be used more
efficiently. In some cases, a mismatch of MSA and NEPA
timelines also results in alternatives being developed under
NEPA after the Council has taken final action.
In short, we believe the 2006 mandate to streamline NEPA
and MSA has not yet been effectively addressed, and look
forward to working with you to achieve this goal. It may be
possible to craft revisions to the MSA to include explicit
requirements that would result in essential MSA consistency
with NEPA, and address current challenges without sacrificing
the environmental protections of NEPA, and efficiently taking
advantage of the public process provisions of MSA.
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide testimony
today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lowman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dorothy Lowman, Chair of the Pacific Fishery
Management Council
Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member DeFazio, and members of the
committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today
regarding the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (MSA).
My name is Dorothy Lowman and I serve as the Chair of the Pacific
Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council). It is from our
experiences of managing over 160 fish stocks off the States of
Washington, Oregon, and California under the mandates of the MSA that I
offer the Pacific Council's perspective regarding refinement of this
important legislation.
First I would like to be clear that the Pacific Council believes
that the MSA as reauthorized in 1996 and again in 2006 has been a
success. The Act has worked well to ensure a science-based management
process that ensures long-term sustainable fisheries while preventing
overfishing and mandating rebuilding of depleted stocks. As a result,
the Pacific Council has ended overfishing of any and all stocks within
1 year of detection, has rebuilt seven depleted stocks, and is in the
process of successfully rebuilding eight long-lived stocks that remain
depleted--three of which are projected to be rebuilt in the next year.
We have implemented a successful groundfish trawl catch share program
that has been held up as a model for programs in other regions for its
ability to reduce bycatch and increase economic yield. We annually
craft ocean salmon fisheries that accomplish stock-specific
conservation goals for a multitude of individual salmon stocks,
including many listed under the Endangered Species Act. We have created
an ecosystem fishery management plan, which we are now in the process
of implementing, along with protections for unmanaged forage fish. We
are successfully participating in international fisheries organizations
to protect highly migratory tuna-like species and the West Coast
fisheries that rely on them. The current MSA has been a key driver of
these successes. We believe large-scale changes to the MSA are not
warranted, and any changes made to the Act should be carefully
considered.
That said, after 7 years of managing under the 2006 reauthorized
bill, we believe that a few refinements would enhance marine fishery
management in the United States and internationally. A number of the
Pacific Council priorities for reauthorizations were echoed by others
at the Management Our Nation's Fisheries 3 (MONF3) conference which was
held in May of 2013. The Pacific Council was the primary organization
responsible for planning the MONF3 conference. Findings from the
conference can be found on our Web site, and the final report should be
available within a few weeks. At subsequent Pacific Council meetings we
have continued to discuss reauthorization of the MSA, and the
priorities outlined in this testimony represent the results of our
discussions through our last Pacific Council meeting in November. The
Pacific Council has not yet had the opportunity to review the
discussion draft bill put forth by Chairman Hastings but will do so at
our March Council meeting and intends to provide the results of this
review to the committee as soon as possible thereafter.
The Pacific Council's priorities for MSA reauthorization are as
follows. These represent notable priorities identified at this time,
with the reservation for additional priorities and refinement of
positions as the reauthorization process moves forward.
higher-priority matters
Revise rebuilding time requirements.
Address the discontinuity associated with the 10-year
rebuilding requirement.
Don't ``chase noise'' in rebuilding plans (in other words,
temper immediate reactions to changes in stock assessments
that may merely be statistical ``noise,'' rather than a
true signal of significant status change).
Address problems associated with ``rebuilding as soon as
possible'' in order to properly take into account the needs
of fishing communities.
We agree with the National Academy of Science that a strict
requirement to rebuild within 10 years may eliminate some management
responses that could lead to greater social and economic benefits while
still assuring that stocks are rebuilt. Focusing on rebuilding in a
certain amount of time can result in overly restrictive fishery
management that is illogically and unnecessarily harmful to fishermen
and fishing communities; it is apparent that more flexibility is needed
to optimize multiple goals. At the same time, care must be taken when
providing focused flexibility to assure that we continue our recent
successes in rebuilding the stocks upon which our fisheries and fishing
communities depend.
The current MSA requires that rebuilding must take place in as
short a time as possible, with an maximum of 10 years if biologically
possible. This ``10-year rule'' can grossly disrupt fisheries for
little conservation gain. If a stock can rebuild in 9 years at a cost
of closing all fisheries, this becomes a mandate. Paradoxically, the
requirements for rebuilding a fish stock in worse condition, e.g. one
that requires 11 or more years to rebuild with no fishing, provides for
more than 11 years to rebuild (11 years plus the length of one
generation of the species), with obviously less economic disruption.
This is illogical and potentially disastrous for some fishing-dependent
communities.
In addition, uncertainty in stock assessments and rebuilding
analyses for overfished stocks has created a situation where seemingly
small changes to analytical results can lead to expensive revisions in
rebuilding plans and unwarranted consequences to fisheries and fishing
communities (``chasing noise''). This disruption is especially
problematic when analytical results vary by small amounts due to
assessment uncertainty, and vary both up and down without changes in
true status over time. The current process needs to be revised such
that a reasonable threshold exists for stock status changes before
significant changes in management approaches are required.
The MSA requirement to rebuild as soon as possible, taking into
account the needs of the fishery communities, has been subject to court
interpretation as nearly ignoring the needs of fishing communities
until such time as they have demonstrated a disastrous state. Current
administration of this requirement necessarily leads to large
reductions in catch of directed fishery stocks that are being rebuilt,
and can restrict mixed-stock fisheries when the rebuilding stock
coexists with healthy stocks. It has been said that a solution may be
as simple as changing the word ``possible'' to ``practical.'' At any
rate, there is a need for threshold clarity so as to allow Councils to
properly take into account important social and economic impacts to
communities when reducing catches in a rational stock rebuilding plan.
It is important to note the purpose that rebuilding programs are
designed for is to increase stock sizes to provide for biological
stability and the attendant future economic benefits to the same
fishery-dependent communities negatively impacted (and may even be
required to endure a disaster) by the rebuilding program.
Explore more flexibility for fishery impacts on data-poor species when
the current precautionary approach becomes the bottleneck for
healthy mixed-stock fisheries.
One common management challenge is developing and implementing
annual catch limits (ACLs) effectively when the requisite data are
lacking, when no data collection program is in place, and/or when major
natural fluctuations in stock abundance occur more rapidly than stock
assessments can be updated. When less information about a stock is
available, or the data are outdated, current requirements call for a
Council to set a particularly low ACL compared to the theoretically
maximum allowable catch, out of recognition of a higher level of
scientific uncertainty. While this is a logical approach in some
regards, there is concern it may be overly conservative in some
situations. It can lead to severe economic consequences when a rarely
caught stock about which little is known appears occasionally in a
healthy mixed-stock fishery, and a new, highly buffered ACL for this
rare stock suddenly requires a large reduction in the catch of healthy
species; this situation essentially creates a bottleneck species that
closes or substantially reduces an otherwise healthy fishery.
There are times when the best available science is not sound enough
for active fishery management decisionmaking; the current approach for
data-poor species may occasionally fall into this situation. Further,
the current approach may limit obtaining scientific information on
stock performance under higher catch rates.
Better-align and streamline the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) & MSA section 304(i).
The Councils have a long history of advocating for more effective
reconciliation of the requirements of NEPA and the MSA. We appreciate
the opportunity to work with National Marine Fisheries Service in
developing a recently completed policy directive that accurately
describes our current roles and responsibilities in complying with NEPA
process and requirements.
However, inefficiencies remain in the current process, requiring
substantial additional work and process to satisfy duplicative NEPA and
MSA mandates. This unnecessarily delays implementation of regulations,
causes obsolescence of scientific information, and burdens management
resources that could be used more efficiently. In some cases, the
mismatch of MSA and NEPA timelines also results in alternatives being
developed under NEPA after final action has been taken by the Council.
In short, we believe that the mandate to streamline NEPA and MSA
processes that was included in Sec. 304(i) of the 2006 reauthorization
of the MSA has not yet been effectively addressed.
A defining characteristic of fishery management under the MSA is
the mandated transparent and participatory process. Given the Council
expertise that can be applied in the near future toward revising the
MSA to include explicit requirements for a robust environmental impact
analysis of a full range of reasonable alternatives, I personally
believe it is possible to achieve essential compliance with the intent
and purpose of NEPA. If this can be accomplished, making MSA consistent
with NEPA in this manner could address current challenges without
sacrificing any environmental protections of NEPA and efficiently
taking full advantage of the public process provisions of MSA.
Include a carryover exception to allow ACLs to be exceeded in order to
carry over surplus and deficit harvest from one year to the
next, provided there is a finding from the Scientific and
Statistical Committee (SSC) that such a carryover provision
will have negligible biological impacts.
As part of their business planning, fishermen in catch share
programs need to know whether they may carry over surplus harvest from
one year to the next; deficits are now routinely paid back the next
year. In the past, there has not been a consistent policy application
on this matter. If the SSC finds that carryover will not adversely
affect a fish stock, then it should be explicitly allowed.
Stocks later determined never overfished should not be held to
rebuilding provisions.
The data and scientific approaches used to determine stock status
evolve and improve, and revisions to past stock statuses are common.
The best available science used to declare a stock overfished may later
be improved and show that the stock was never overfished. In these
cases, continuing to manage the fishery under rebuilding plan
restrictions may no longer be necessary. However, the MSA does not
explicitly exempt stocks from rebuilding plans when it is later
determined the stock was never overfished.
For example, in 2000, a stock assessment indicated that widow
rockfish on the West Coast were below the minimum stock size threshold
(MSST) that triggers an overfished status designation. Accordingly, the
stock was declared overfished and a rebuilding plan put in place.
However, subsequent assessments in 2005 and 2007 estimated that the
biomass had never dropped below the MSST, and thus the stock had never
been overfished. Despite the best available science, uncertainty
regarding MSA requirements and the assessment results caused the
fishery to remain under a restrictive rebuilding plan until 2013.
Continuing to manage widow rockfish under a rebuilding plan, even
though the stock was never overfished, resulted in negative social and
economic impacts to fishing communities and industry. It also
represented a significant expenditure of Pacific Council resources to
construct and maintain a rebuilding plan, and the new catch share
program was unnecessarily complicated by the overfished declaration of
widow rockfish and its subsequent rebuilding plan.
Provide flexibility in requirements and qualifications for observers.
Current requirements and qualifications for National Marine
Fisheries Service certified observers may be too restrictive regarding
formal education and full independence provisions. There have been
difficulties in providing a sufficient pool of observers.
lower-priority matters
The Pacific Council has also identified the following lower-
priority areas that we ask you to take into consideration in drafting
new legislation.
Designate one Commissioner seat on the Inter-American
Tropical Tuna Commission to represent the Pacific Council.
Provide flexibility to address rebuilding requirements
when environmental conditions may be a predominant factor
in a stock's decline.
Include a viable mixed-stock exception.
Replace the term ``overfished'' with ``depleted'' to
account for non-fishing causes of stock size below MSST.
Consider a national standard for habitat that can more
effectively minimize adverse impacts on essential fish
habitat.
Implement stricter imported seafood labeling requirements
in the U.S. market.
Enhance enforcement capabilities for international
fisheries, including at-sea and in-port monitoring and
enforcement, and providing assistance to developing
countries in their enforcement capacity.
Improve access to currently confidential harvest or
processing information for purposes of enhanced
socioeconomic analysis.
Amend MSA language to change ``vessels'' to ``vessel'' in
the illegal, unreported, and unregulated certification
section.
Make a consistent distinction between ``overfishing'' (a
measure of fishing rate) and ``overfished'' (a measure of
abundance).
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before this
committee. We look forward to continuing to work with you during the
reauthorization of the MSA to make what we believe to be one of the
strongest and most effective pieces of legislation governing fishery
management in the world even better.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record for Dorothy Lowman, Chair, Pacific
Fishery Management Council
Questions Submitted by Republican Committee Members
Question. You note that there is a duplicative aspect to the
Magnuson and NEPA statutes and you note that the Magnuson Act already
includes a ``mandated transparent and participatory process'' which is
one of the key aspects of NEPA. Are there provisions within NEPA that
are not also included in the Magnuson Act that the committee should
consider putting in the Act to make Magnuson more consistent with NEPA?
Answer. We thank the committee for recognizing that the mandate for
NEPA streamlining and process efficiencies in the current MSA remains
unfulfilled. However, in order to assure consistency with NEPA, we
believe that there are other aspects of NEPA that should be explicitly
recognized in the Act. In particular, we recommend including language
specifically requiring a reasonable range of alternatives and thorough
assessment of environmental impacts prior to final Council
decisionmaking to help assure that process efficiencies are achieved
while also maintaining robust compliance with the essence of NEPA. We
understand the Council Coordination Committee (CCC) is preparing
specific language suggestions that can accomplish this goal, and are
happy to forward any forthcoming recommendation after the May 13-15,
2014 CCC meeting.
Question. You note that the Council recommends a change to the
rebuilding provisions currently in the Act and note that one possible
change could be to change the word ``possible'' to ``practicable''. Mr.
Rees believes that change this would give Councils the ability to ``put
off rebuilding indefinitely''. What would be your response to this
claim?
Answer. In suggesting that changing the requirement to rebuild as
soon as practicable rather than the current ``as soon as possible''
language, it was not our intent that Councils be able to put off
rebuilding indefinitely. In fact, Congress has used the term
``practicable'' deliberately and effectively when they amended the Act
in 1996 with respect to National Standard 9 and associated requirements
for conservation and management measures to minimize bycatch and
associated mortality to the maximum extent practicable. In the
Congressional Record there is recognition that this term was chosen
deliberately and requires an analysis of the costs associated with the
action but does not allow Councils to ignore their responsibility
relative to minimizing bycatch. Similarly, we believe that such a
change would not allow Councils to ignore their responsibility to
develop reasonable and effective rebuilding plans within the maximum
time allowed in the Discussion Draft (tied to scientific advice on the
mean generation time of the fish stock involved), but would allow the
Council to exercise flexibility within that timeframe to account for
the needs of communities. It may, however, be useful to include
discussion in the Congressional Record as was done in 1996 to provide
clarity with respect to congressional intent with the use of the word
``practicable''.
Question. The Discussion Draft includes language that would allow a
Council to terminate a rebuilding plan if, after a new stock assessment
is completed, it is determined that the stock was not overfished. Some
have argued that this provision would give Councils unlimited authority
to negate rebuilding plans whenever they want. This provision was
included in the Discussion Draft specifically due to a situation in the
Pacific Region where NOAA determined that a fishery was overfished,
later determined that it had not really been overfished, but told the
Council that the rebuilding plan had to remain in effect once it had
been adopted. Is that correct? Do you view that provision as giving
Councils unlimited authority to negate rebuilding plans?
Answer. There was a case with widow rockfish in the Pacific Council
area, whereby a new stock assessment showed a stock status below the
overfished level and the Pacific Council developed a rebuilding plan
that restricted fisheries so as to rebuild the stock to the maximum
sustained yield biomass. During a subsequent stock assessment, the best
available science was revised and showed that the widow rockfish stock
had never fallen to the overfished level threshold. Based on
discussions at the Pacific Council table that included policy and legal
NOAA representatives, the Pacific Council continued with the rebuilding
plan and associated fishery restrictions through the balance of the
rebuilding plan, until they were officially rebuilt in 2012.
The Discussion Draft language could be subject to different
interpretations, and in our view does not specifically address what
happens when a new stock assessment shows a stock was NEVER overfished.
We recommend language be explicit in specifying that stocks later
determined never depleted (overfished) should not be held to rebuilding
provisions. The current draft could be read to say that you could
suspend the rebuilding plan once the stock is not technically depleted
even though it is not fully rebuilt. In these cases, the Pacific
Council is in favor of continuing rebuilding plans until the stock
reaches its maximum sustained yield biomass level, which is typically
significantly higher than the depleted threshold.
Question. There has been much discussion about how well the council
process works including providing a transparent public process. Do you
believe that process should also be used when restrictions to fisheries
which are managed under fishery management plans are required as a
result of the Endangered Species Act?
Answer. We believe that involving the Council, with its transparent
public process and advisory body expertise, when developing management
responses to ESA-related issues leads to better decisionmaking. The
Pacific Council is currently comfortable with the kind of ESA
integration with MSA that has recently been occurring in the Pacific
Council forum for Pacific salmon in terms of enhanced transparency of
the scientific and policy basis for determining appropriate fishery
restrictions. This process has included the Council making
recommendations that the Secretary has taken seriously. However, it is
not clear that this is currently the practice in other Councils.
Question. You note that your Council has created an ecosystem
fishery management plan and have already implemented protections for
forage fish. Do you believe it is necessary to mandate that all
Councils create ecosystem plans and protect forage fish?
Answer. While we think that creating ecosystem plans should be
encouraged and that forage fish are an important part of the ecosystem,
the Pacific Council has not taken the position that it is necessary
have a mandate in the Act requiring such action.
Question Submitted by the Hon. Joe Garcia
Question. We have heard a great deal about the importance of
socioeconomic considerations in the reauthorization of this Act.
Assessing the impacts of fisheries management decisions on fishermen
and their communities requires the collection and analysis of very
specific economic data--data that would be shielded by very strict
confidentiality rules under this draft legislation. Would this limited
access to data inhibit the Councils and others from evaluating economic
impacts? Could these restrictions also hamper attempts to institute
cooperative research and management programs?
Answer. Under the interpretation of current confidentiality
requirements of MSA, we are sometimes challenged in fully analyzing the
impacts of management alternatives. Therefore, we do not wish to see
further tightening of confidentiality rules but instead recommend
improving access to currently confidential harvest or processing
information for purposes of enhanced socioeconomic analysis. There are
instances where the Pacific Council has struggled with balancing the
needs of fishing communities with proper conservation of fish stocks,
and assessing how much an additional increment of conservation affects
community business activity cannot be determined because the necessary
socioeconomic data is not available.
Additionally, interpretation of current confidentiality
requirements have also challenged the development of cooperative
partnerships. On the West Coast, as part of the trawl groundfish catch
share program, a number of voluntary industry partnerships have
developed to collectively better manage the constraining species held
in order to most effectively access healthy target stocks. Cooperative
or risk pool members' and managers' ability to voluntarily share data
among fishery participants in order to facilitate these co-management
partnerships have been hindered at times by agency concerns that
requests by fishermen to share their own data would violate
confidentiality rules. For this reason, further tightening of
confidentiality rules under MSA could inadvertently hamper important
co-management arrangements.
Question Submitted by Congresswoman Hanabusa
Question. I understand that regional fishery management council
budgets have fluctuated significantly since 2012. What is the current
budgetary situation for the Councils and how do you see this affecting
your operations?
Answer: The current budget situation (FY 2014) for Regional Fishery
Management Councils (RFMC) remains unclear, pending congressional
approval of a spending plan submitted by the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS). On February 25, 2014 the Council Coordinating Committee
requested NMFS reconsider its initial plan to reduce funding from what
had been expected (see attached letter), but were informed on March 18,
2014 that while calculation corrections would be made to allocations,
the policy decision had been made to forward a spending plan to
Congress that called for $1M less funding to the Regional Fishery
Management Councils (RFMCs) than expected.
From the Pacific Council perspective, we feel it is important to
receive adequate funding to accomplish the important obligations under
the MSA. The amount to be received under the NMFS proposed spending
plan is inadequate for the kind of operational activity needed at the
Pacific Council. We feel the FY 2012 level of funding--which was stable
at the 2011 level is the minimally adequate level that should be
allocated by the NMFS for FY 2014, given the circumstances at hand. We
also note that the total funding provided to the NMFS in FY 2014 is
greater than FY 2012.
The effect of any funding shortage on Council operations will be
determined after a final congressional decision is made and the Pacific
Council's Budget Committee considers alternatives. As the MSA
reauthorization process proceeds, a new way of providing the proper
appropriation to RFMC should be considered.
______
Regional Fishery Management Councils,
Coordination Committee,
February 25, 2014.
Ms. Eileen Sobeck, Assistant Administrator,
National Marine Fisheries Service,
Silver Spring, MD 20910.
Re: FY 2014 Funding Allocation to Regional Fishery Management Councils
Dear Ms. Sobeck,
Thank you for the presentation of Mr. Paul Doremus February 19,
2014 on the status of FY 2014 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
budget and current thinking on the allocation to Regional Fishery
Management Councils (RFMC) at this time. As we understand the current
state of spending plan development at this time, key information is as
follows in terms of spendable dollars.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding Category FY 2012 FY 2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMFS Total Budget............... $895.0 M.......... $992.3 M ($917.3
absent the $75 M
Disaster Fund)
NMFS ORF Budget................. $804.7 M.......... $812.6 M
RFMC Allocation (all PPAs)...... $ 28.2 M.......... $ 26.5 M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preparatory to this meeting, the RFMC were under the impression
that a reasonable allocation in terms of spendable dollars would be
approximately at the FY 2012 level and that agency management and
administration user-costs would not be charged to RFMC in FY 2014,
contingent to an in-depth discussion of the relevant issues at this
meeting that was to be preparatory to FY 2015 decisionmaking. There are
several components and ramifications of the described approach to
resolve agency management and administration user-cost charges that
remain unclear at this point.
The RFMC view the best barometer of congressional intent for an
RFMC allocation of traditional line items to be the Regional Councils
and Commissions line item, which was $31.8 M in FY 2012 and $32.0 M in
FY 2014. Given this, the key partnership role the RFMC play in the NMFS
core mission, and the status of the NMFS budget, the RFMC request that
you reconsider the current state of spending planning to reflect an
allocation of $28.2 M in spendable dollars, reflecting stability with
the FY 2012 status of funding.
On behalf of the eight RFMC,
Rick Robbins,
2014 CCC Chairman.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much. And I look forward to
getting some feedback from the Council, obviously, when you do
meet. So thank you very much for your testimony.
Next we will recognize Mr. Bob Rees, the North Coast
Chapter President of the Association of Northwest Steelheaders.
STATEMENT OF BOB REES, NORTH COAST CHAPTER PRESIDENT,
ASSOCIATION OF NORTHWEST STEELHEADERS
Mr. Rees. Good morning, Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member
DeFazio, members of the committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to provide comments on the Magnuson-Stevens Act
reauthorization. My name is Bob Rees, and I am a sixth-
generation Oregonian. I have been fishing Oregon's rivers and
Pacific Oceans since 1978. In 1996 I started a fishing guide
business, and considered myself fortunate enough to spend time
with beginners and expert fishermen, catching salmon,
steelhead, sturgeon, and bottomfish. My business and livelihood
depend on healthy fish populations.
I have been both the beneficiary of sound, science-based
management practices, and the victim of poor management
decisions. I can tell you now we are on the right path for
recovery, and can't afford to turn back the clock on the
progress we have already secured, thanks in large part to the
Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Today I am privileged to provide testimony on behalf of the
Association of Northwest Steelheaders. Founded in 1960, the
Steelheaders is one of the oldest and most cherished sport
fishing organizations in the Pacific Northwest. The
Steelheaders mission is anglers dedicated to enhancing and
protecting fisheries and their habitats for today and for the
future.
Before sharing my concerns with the draft proposal, I would
like to present some overarching thoughts on fishery
management. The United States has one of the most advanced
fisheries management programs in the world, because it is based
on science, and includes strong, clear accountability measures
to prevent overfishing of recreationally and commercially
important stocks. Changes to the Magnuson-Stevens Act in 1996
and 2006, including timeline targets to rebuild depleted fish
populations and requirements to set science-based annual catch
limits that prevent overfishing, are working to ensure we enjoy
more sustainable fisheries.
Ending overfishing and rebuilding fisheries is not easy.
But West Coast fishermen and coastal stakeholders have made the
hard choices to end overfishing and steer us toward a more
sustainable future. Unfortunately, other regions of the country
put off the hard choices in the 1980s and the 1990s, and face
difficult challenges rebuilding important fish stocks. The
proposal to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Act that is under
consideration today would take us back to the old days, where
politics, not science, drove management decisions, and resulted
in many of the overfishing problems that we are still trying to
fix today.
Some specific concerns with the proposal include the
proposal would allow overfishing to continue on depleted
populations for at least 5, and possibly up to 7 years. When
you have an overfishing problem, the last thing you want to do
is allow more overfishing on vulnerable stocks that will make
recovery more difficult, costly, and delay the achievement of a
rebuilt population.
The proposal would allow a suite of new broad exemptions
for establishing a rebuilding timeline target, and delay the
ultimate goal of rebuilding depleted fish populations. And the
proposal would exclude many forage fish from requirements to
set science-based annual catch limits, establishing a dangerous
precedent that will likely compromise these volatile,
economically important coastal fisheries.
Instead of weakening the Magnuson-Stevens Act, we should
build on our record of achievement. The Pacific Fishery
Management Council is moving forward with initiatives to
improve management by incorporating more ecosystem factors into
conservation decisions. Specifically, the Council is leading
the way in protecting small prey fish, called forage fish, that
support a healthy ecosystem, and advancing ecosystem plans that
consider factors beyond single species management.
Forage fish and the habitats that support them are critical
to the health of all ocean species, especially our commercially
harvested fish that fuel our coastal communities. The
Steelheaders have been very actively involved in these changes,
and are proud of the work we have done to get these important
changes in place.
The next reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens Act should
help further advance ecosystem-based fishery management by
focusing on protecting habitats, avoiding non-target species,
accounting for the important role of forage fish in the ocean
food web, and requiring ecosystem-level fishery management
plans. Unfortunately, the proposal under consideration does not
take that step forward, but jeopardizes the progress we are
currently seeing under Magnuson-Stevens.
Our goal, as consumptive users, is to continue to utilize
this valuable natural resource for future generations to come.
The best way to do that is to manage our Nation's fisheries
proactively and conservatively. We already know that we have
the capability to easily overfish this resource.
In the late 1980s and 1990s, as a Department of Fish and
Wildlife employee, and a Federal fisheries observer in the
Bering Sea, I witnessed firsthand the hardships our ports
experienced and suffered, due to the over-exploitation of this
resource. Our fragile coastal communities cannot afford to
relive the overfishing problems we experienced during these
times. We can't again downsize a fleet that already operates on
a shoestring.
Thank you very much for considering these comments.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rees follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bob Rees, President, North Coast Chapter,
Association of Northwest Steelheaders
Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member DeFazio and members of the
committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on
Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization.
I am a sixth generation native Oregonian. I have been fishing
Oregon's rivers and Pacific Ocean since 1978. In 1996, I started a
fishing guide business and consider myself fortunate to spend time with
beginners and expert fishermen catching salmon, steelhead and sturgeon
and bottomfish. My business and livelihood depend on healthy fish
populations and sensible, science-based management of fish and coastal
waters is essential to me, my family, my clients, my colleagues and my
community. I've been both the beneficiary of sound management practices
and the victim of poor management decisions. I can tell you now; we are
on the right path for recovery and can't afford to turn back the clock
on the progress that we've already secured.
Today, I am privileged to provide testimony on behalf of the
Association of Northwest Steelheaders (ANWS). Founded in 1960, the
Association of Northwest Steelheaders is one of the oldest and most-
cherished sportfishing organizations in the Pacific Northwest. ANWS
currently has 1,600 active members and 12 chapters in Oregon and
southwest Washington. The Steelheaders mission is ``anglers dedicated
to enhancing and protecting fisheries and their habitats for today and
the future,'' and our vision is ``responsible and enjoyable sport
angling with good access to healthy, abundant and sustainable fisheries
in the Northwest's healthy watersheds.''
Steelheaders respectfully submit the following comments regarding
the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Before highlighting
several concerns with the draft proposal that is the subject of today's
hearing, I would like to present some overarching thoughts on fishery
management:
The United States has one of the most advanced
fisheries management programs in the world because it is based on
science and includes strong, clear accountability measures that will
prevent overfishing of recreationally and commercially important
stocks. The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the solid foundation for our
management system and our Nation's commitment to support the long-term
health of our ocean ecosystem, coastal economies and communities.
Changes to the Magnuson-Stevens Act in 1996 and 2006--
including timeline targets to rebuild depleted fish populations and
recent requirements to set annual science-based catch limits that
prevent overfishing--are working and are helping the United States
achieve its reputation as a global leader. We are turning the corner to
end overfishing and rebuild depleted fish populations in U.S. ocean
waters.
In large part due to these requirements and the hard
work of fishery managers, fishermen, scientists and others, 34 depleted
fish populations have been restored to healthy levels since 2000,
including Pacific lingcod off the Pacific Coast.
According to the NOAA Fisheries, the number of fish
populations subject to overfishing has declined from 72 stocks in 2000
to just 28 in December 2013. We credit the combination of sound
management practices and a rebounding ocean environment.
Ending overfishing and rebuilding fisheries is not
easy, but West Coast fishermen and coastal stakeholders have already
made the hard choices to end overfishing and steer us toward a more
sustainable future. Unfortunately, other regions of the country like
New England put off the hard choices in the 1980s and 1990s, and are
still paying the price with significantly depleted fish stocks and a
Federal disaster declaration. It is time for the rest of the country to
follow the lead of the West Coast and embrace science-based management,
end overfishing and move fisheries management forward. This step
requires a firm commitment and patience. It means we need to make some
difficult sacrifices in the short-term to conserve and rebuild stocks
to realize the long-term benefits of healthier fish populations and
coastal environments.
The recently released discussion draft of the MSA reauthorization
bill would take us back to the old days where politics, not science,
drove management decisions and resulted in many of the overfishing
problems that we are still trying to fix today.
Some specific concerns with the discussion draft
proposal include:
-- The proposal would allow overfishing to continue on
depleted populations for at least 5, and possibly up to 7 years. When
you have an overfishing problem, the last thing you want to do is to
allow more overfishing on vulnerable stocks that will make recovery
more difficult, costly, and delay the achievement of a rebuilt
population. We need to stick to the current law that requires managers
to end overfishing ``immediately''.
-- The proposal would allow a whole suite of new exemptions
for establishing a rebuilding timeline target. These new exemptions are
broad, are not in line with science and would allow managers to avoid
rebuilding depleted fish populations. In addition, the proposal would
allow managers to rebuild ``as soon as practicable'', instead of the
current goal to rebuild ``as soon as possible.'' In practice, this
means they could allow economic and political reasons to put off
rebuilding indefinitely, denying coastal communities, businesses and
stakeholders of the benefits that would come with fully rebuilt
fisheries.
-- The proposal would restrict the public's ability to access
fisheries data through changes to the law's confidentiality rules,
including data that is collected with taxpayer dollars.
-- Finally, the proposal would undercut the ability of the
public to assess and mitigate the impacts of fishery management
decisions by exempting key provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act from applying to the MSA.
Instead of weakening the Magnuson-Stevens Act, we believe we should
use this opportunity to build on a record of achievement. In many ways,
the Pacific Fishery Management Council provides a solid example of what
direction we should be taking. For example, the Council is moving
forward with initiatives meant to improve management by incorporating
more ecosystem factors into management decisions. Specifically, the
Council is leading the way in protecting small prey fish, called forage
fish, that support a healthy ecosystem and advancing ecosystem plans
that consider factors beyond single-species management. These forage
fish, and the habitats that support them, are critical to the health of
ALL ocean species, especially our commercially harvested fish that fuel
our coastal communities. Proposed modifications to Annual Catch Limits
that exclude forage fish, sets an extremely dangerous precedent that
will likely severely compromise these volatile, economically important
coastal fisheries. The Steelheaders have been very involved with these
changes and are proud of the work we have done to get these important
changes enacted.
In summary, we believe the Magnuson-Stevens Act is working. Sure,
there is more work that needs to be done. But, we need to roll up our
sleeves and continue the hard work to better ground fishery management
in science, prevent overfishing, and rebuild stocks. It is time to
build upon the successes of the 1996 and 2006 reauthorizations and move
forward with ecosystem-based fishery management. We need to protect
habitats, avoid non-target species, account for the important role of
forage fish in the ocean food web, and require ecosystem-level fishery
management plans.
Unfortunately, the proposal under consideration jeopardizes the
progress we are currently seeing under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Our
goal, as consumptive users, is to continue to utilize this valuable
natural resource for future generations to come. The best way to do
that is to manage our Nation's fisheries proactively and
conservatively; we already know we have the capability to easily
overfish this resource. In the late 1980s and 1990s, as a department of
fish and wildlife employee and Federal fisheries observer in the Bering
Sea, I witnessed first-hand the hardships our ports and fishermen
suffered due to over-exploitation of this resource. Our fragile coastal
communities cannot afford to relive the overfishing problems we
experienced during these times. We can't again downsize a fleet that
already operates on a shoestring.
______
Question Submitted for the Record by Chairman Hastings to Bob Rees,
President, North Coast Chapter, Association of Northwest Steelheaders
Question. How, in your testimony, did you come up with the
potential for allowing up to an additional 7 years of fishing on
already declared ``overfished'' stocks of fish?
Answer. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the question
about how the draft proposal could allow overfishing to continue once a
rebuilding plan is needed. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires an
immediate end to overfishing, but there are numerous examples of stocks
still subject to overfishing. The act gives Councils 2 years to prepare
and implement a rebuilding plan to end overfishing. The proposal would
allow rebuilding plans to be phased-in over an additional 3-year
period, providing up to 5 years to begin fully implementing a
rebuilding plan. Finally, the proposal extends the time period Councils
may use interim measures that would reduce--rather than end--
overfishing from 1 year to 2. I am concerned that a Council will push
to use these provisions to potentially delay ending overfishing for up
to 7 years. In the past, when Councils have had the discretion to allow
overfishing to continue in a rebuilding plan, many have used it and
would likely do so again.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much for your testimony. And I
will now recognize Mr. Peter Shelley, Vice President of the
Conservation Law Foundation.
STATEMENT OF PETER SHELLEY, VICE PRESIDENT, CONSERVATION LAW
FOUNDATION
Mr. Shelley. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Hastings,
Ranking Member DeFazio, and members of the Natural Resources
Committee. My name is Peter Shelley. I am senior counsel at the
Conservation Law Foundation in Boston. I am not here this
morning to talk about the economic disaster that some New
England cod fishermen face. Congress has provided 32.8 million
public taxpayer dollars in disaster relief to these fishermen,
and the New England delegation deserves great credit for the
work they did getting that funding.
I am here to challenge the notion that the Magnuson Act's
rebuilding requirements, quota accountability provisions, or
the science-based quotas are in any way to blame for the loss
of the Nation's oldest fishery on Atlantic cod. If the 2006
amendments had been in place in New England in the 1990s, that
$32.8 million could have been appropriated elsewhere in this
recent appropriation. Over-fishing--not the environment, not
sun spots, not seals, not ocean temperatures--overfishing fully
explains why there are no cod to catch any more in New England.
New England's fishermen were allowed to catch all the cod,
because short-term economic needs and flexibility with even the
minimum management goals overrode long-term economic benefits
and sustainabilities.
The fisheries that are in trouble in New England are in
trouble because rebuilding was improvidently delayed, and
ineffectually pursued. The future was sacrificed to the
present. Even today there is still a directed commercial and
recreational fishery on Atlantic cod in New England. Existing
law allows managers to adjust rebuilding times to account for
environmental factors or biological circumstances. New stock
assessments allow managers to reset the rebuilding clock. And
rebuilding control rules allowed fisheries to continue, even if
the rebuilding is not accomplished on schedule. The law allows
rebuilding quotas that have no better than a 50 percent chance
of accomplishing their purpose. And quotas for cod and other
groundfish in New England are always set at the highest level
and at the highest risk level that can be legally allowed.
As a result, overfishing on cod has been persisting, even
after the 2006 amendments have come into place, and we have the
disaster that we have with cod fishermen. This committee must
not advance legislation that would recreate the very factors
that led to the cod disaster in New England in the first place.
Magnuson has not destroyed the New England groundfish fleet.
What the industry representatives don't tell you when they
argue that the law should be weakened so that they can continue
to overfish cod is that groundfish permit holders have doubled
their gross revenues from $226 million to $550 million from
1996 to 2011, in constant dollars. Since the Magnuson Act has
been strengthened, gross vessel revenues for fish and shellfish
landed in New England have doubled, from $779 million to over
$1.4 billion in constant dollars.
Most, if not all, of the issues being debated in the
discussion draft are the subject of active debate in science
circles, at the management councils, and at NMFS. The committee
should let those processes play out.
At the same time, the discussion draft fails to address the
real oncoming fisheries tsunami, and that is the ecological
shifts and instabilities associated with climate change,
already documented in New England, with ocean temperature
increases, dropping pH levels, major fluctuations in plankton
blooms, and shifts in species abundance and productivity. More
than 74 percent of the gross revenues in New England in 2010
came from shell-forming animals like scallops and lobsters,
that are likely to be affected by climate change.
Congress needs to reach bipartisan agreement on measures
that push fishery management councils and NOAA to develop more
comprehensive and dynamic management approaches, based on
ecosystem-based fisheries management, expanded habitat refuges
and reference sites, protection of forage fish, and other
approaches that have been strongly recommended by the
scientific community in anticipation of these oncoming
ecological shifts. The discussion draft's preoccupation with
weakening Magnuson provisions that are working now, as Congress
intended, is a distraction from the real needs of this Nation's
fisheries and ocean resources.
The future of our fishing communities and the health of our
oceans relies on Congress taking a sober, bipartisan view of
what is really at stake in the legislative choices it makes.
The committee should approach Magnuson reauthorization based on
hard fact, and a firm commitment to the best welfare of future
generations of fishermen.
Thank you for your consideration of my comments.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shelley follows:]
Prepared Statement of Peter Shelley, Esq., Vice President, Conservation
Law Foundation, Inc.
Chairman Hastings and members of the Committee on Natural
Resources, thank you for your invitation to participate in today's
hearing on the discussion draft developed by the committee, currently
identified as H.R. 4742, Strengthening Fishing Communities and
Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act (``Reauthorization
Discussion Draft''), for purposes of considering potential
reauthorization amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1801 et seq.
My name is Peter Shelley and I am a vice president and senior
counsel with the Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. (CLF), on whose
behalf I am testifying today. I have worked on a range of marine
conservation issues during my professional career and have been in
charge of fisheries management efforts at CLF since 1989. I represent
CLF on the Marine Fish Conservation Network, based in Washington, DC,
an umbrella network comprised of fishermen, conservationists,
scientists and private citizens. I have also been an avid recreational
freshwater and marine fisherman my entire life.
My testimony today is based on my direct, personal experiences with
fisheries management in New England over the past 25 years,
particularly with the management of the iconic and historic groundfish
fishery in New England. This fishery includes such economically and
ecologically important fish as Atlantic cod, haddock, a number of
flounder species, Acadian redfish, and others, a number of which have
supported the New England fishery since the 1600s.
Almost 40 years after Congress adopted the first comprehensive
fishery management law to stop overfishing and produce optimum yield in
the Nation's fisheries, this fishery and its dependent fishing
communities continue to struggle with the economic and social
instability produced by decades of chronic overfishing and
mismanagement. The unfortunate and totally avoidable state of this
historic fishery is reflected directly in the recent disaster funding
that Congress directed toward New England in the FY 2014 Omnibus
Appropriations.
I will focus my testimony today on two aspects of the
reauthorization discussion draft because of their potential direct and
negative impacts on these troubled groundfish fisheries in New England:
first, the proposed provisions to provide additional so-called
``flexibility'' and delays in the management responses to overfished
fish populations, and second, the proposed provisions to allow fishery
management councils to ignore the catch advice of their respective
science and statistical committees.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These measures are found in Sections 3 and 4 of the
Reauthorization Discussion Draft. CLF is also very troubled by the
Section 6 provisions related to the Endangered Species Act, the
National Environmental Policy Act, the National Marine Sanctuaries Act,
and the Antiquities Act and believes that Section 6 is fundamentally
flawed and would be destructive Federal policy if enacted. We will
provide separate comments on those measures as the reauthorization
process evolves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From our perspective and the experience in New England, Chairman
Hastings, the reauthorization discussion draft proposes re-opening the
regulatory door to management approaches that have repeatedly failed in
New England, that have put fisheries managers in impossible positions
that overweighed short-term economic perspectives, and that have cost
New England coastal communities jobs and economic opportunity. CLF
strongly believes that it is important to New England's fishing future
that Congress acts in ways that build on the success of the 2006 MSA
reauthorization and avoid drastic revisions that would diminish the
accountability and science-based management prescriptions that have
finally started to produce healthier fish populations and more
successful fishing businesses in New England.
The Federal fisheries in New England that are currently still in
trouble are not failing because the Magnuson-Stevens Act is too rigid,
but rather because the law prior to 2006 was too flexible; the law
failed to hold managers accountable for their results and allowed them
to ignore science-based fishing limits. These were fundamental
structural flaws in Magnuson-Stevens before 2006. I have studied many
fisheries during my career, both in the United States and abroad.
Without exception, the successful fisheries are founded on good
science, accountability for results, healthy fish and shellfish
populations, and an execution of long-term and sustainable economic
strategies by fishery managers.
Congress fixed those flaws in Magnuson-Stevens in 2006 and must
continue its bipartisan support of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. In our
view and notwithstanding the committee's best intentions, many of the
provisions of the Reauthorization Discussion Draft re-introduce failed
management approaches, approaches that have been documented in New
England to hurt, not help, fishing communities and fishermen.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Among the factors that kept fish populations from rebuilding
despite fishing rates being set at low levels identified in the NRC
Report entitled Evaluating the Effectiveness of Fish Stock Rebuilding
Plans in the United States, (NRC 2013) were: ``ineffective input
controls [gear restrictions, closed areas and the like] and lack of
accountability measures, difficulties of reducing fishing mortality of
species caught as bycatch in other fisheries, or errors in the
estimates of stock size that led to catch limits that were too high.''
Id. at 6. The 2006 Magnuson-Stevens Act amendments were designed to
address many of those documented problems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the same time, we believe strongly that there are some critical
and time-sensitive changes to the Magnuson-Stevens Act that are
appropriate for reauthorization debate that are not in the
Reauthorization Discussion Draft and need to be. Among the strongest
recommendations to come from the recent National Research Council
report entitled Evaluating the Effectiveness of Fish Stock Rebuilding
Plans in the United States were the recommendations to advance the
application of ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) principles
to U.S. fisheries. EBFM principles are the bridge between the
limitations and challenges of single-species management that the NRC
report identifies and the dynamic and adaptive requirements of
fisheries management in the modern era that the NRC report points to.
While we would share the report's view that EBFM is ``still only
conceptually defined,'' \3\ it is the direction that fisheries
management science is headed and could supply robust management
responses to many of the concerns raised in other testimony to this
committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ NRC Report, supra, page 180.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLF believes that any reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens
Reauthorization Act should recognize this growing body of science and
include measures designed to force the consideration and implementation
of ecosystem-based fisheries management approaches including, in
particular, an expanded approach to spatial controls and habitat-based
approaches to achieve healthy and diverse fish populations, special
protection of forage fish populations, and continued progress in
bycatch reduction. The importance of this focus is heightened by the
ecological instability and changes that are already being observed and
felt in New England from sea temperature rises, increased ocean
acidification, and changes in plankton bloom timing and abundance.
With that as introduction, I would now like to turn to a discussion
of what I would call the three myths about New England groundfishermen
that I sometimes hear circulating around Washington in discussions
about fisheries and the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
The Three Myths About the New England Groundfishery
New England's groundfish fishery has suffered ups and downs since
the 1600s. It has been in sustained trouble since the mid-1980s and
cod, haddock and yellowtail flounder were officially declared to be
overfished in a management plan as long ago as 1990. Cod, coastal
haddock, and yellowtail flounder are still overfished, 24 years later.
This fact has costs hundreds if not thousands of fishing captains, crew
and boat owners their livelihoods, at least to the extent they were
solely dependent on those species. But the notion that the current
provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act are somehow behind this problem
is false.
The first myth is that the rigidity of the Magnuson-Stevens Act has
devastated New England's groundfish boats. There is a fisheries crisis
in New England in the groundfish fishery but only with respect to a
number of the once plentiful fish species in that fishery that have
been wantonly and chronically overfished and mismanaged for decades
under prior ``flexible'' management rules. The truth is that most of
our fisheries are healthy and sustainable.
From 1996 when the Sustainable Fisheries Act went into effect
through 2011,\4\ gross boat revenues for all fish and shellfish landed
in New England grew from $779 million to over $1.4 billion (2010
dollars). Massachusetts' fishermen increased their gross revenues from
$316 million to $531 million (2010 dollars). Groundfish permit holders
in New England have increased their gross revenues from $226 million to
$550 million, primarily by diversifying their catch to alternative,
more abundant and better-managed fish species. There are also positive
signs in the groundfish fishery for many stocks and a number of quotas
increased last year. With continued rebuilding achieved by effectively
lowering fishing mortality below levels recommended by the scientists,
these groundfish stocks should recover and support new opportunities to
grow and diversify fisheries in New England.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ These are the latest NMFS economic data to which CLF has
access. We are currently updating those numbers to include 2012, which
data are now available to CLF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are some of the first promising economic signs seen in New
England groundfishery in decades and they are the largely the result of
the steps that Congress took in 2006 to force fisheries managers to
prevent overfishing, to rebuild overfished stocks quickly, and to use
science-based quota setting. Fishermen and fishing communities across
New England paid a terrible price because those same actions were not
taken earlier when the law allowed more ``flexibility'' in setting
harvest levels. For many fishermen who face economic challenges, short-
term economic returns are almost always the most important objective.
For a healthy fishery, a focus on short-term economic returns is almost
always the wrong basis for fisheries management.
The new provisions in the Magnuson-Stevens Act are beginning to
work, and in many cases working well for many New England fishermen,
particularly those fishermen who have decided for a variety of reasons
to stop fishing on the depleted groundfish species and who now target
more abundant and better-managed stocks. Increased ``flexibility'' to
extend overfishing in Magnuson-Stevens Act is not necessary for these
fishermen; indeed, it will put their successful fisheries at increased
risk of future failure. There are few areas of human endeavor where the
law of unintended consequences operates with such enthusiasm as
fisheries management and CLF believes that many of the provisions of
the Reauthorization Discussion Draft will have the exact opposite
result of the one they are intended to achieve.
This point of this testimony is not to suggest that individual
groundfishermen have not suffered significant economic or social harms
over the past several decades. As indicated above, the management
failure to set catch levels on cod and haddock and other groundfish at
appropriate levels in the 1990s virtually guaranteed that a number of
the groundfish populations would fail to rebuild and, indeed, would
likely plummet even further. Fishermen who did not anticipate this
reality and stayed focused on harvesting some of the most heavily
targeted species like cod and yellowtail flounder saw their
opportunities disappear in the first decade of this century along with
the fish. There is nothing that relaxing the Magnuson-Stevens Act might
do to provide a different future for these fishermen; the fish simply
aren't there. But if there is to be a future cod fishery, then the
answer in New England--as it was in Atlantic Canada--is to close the
fishery and protect the large spawning female cod in order to give this
fish every chance possible, not to create a legislative loopholes to
allow any more overfishing of a fully depleted stock.
The second myth is that the problems with depleted stocks like
Atlantic cod have nothing to do with fishing effort, or that fishing
levels have nothing to do with stock abundance. According to this myth,
fishermen in New England are in compliance with their catch limits and
Atlantic cod are still depleted and not rebuilding so the fishermen are
not to blame.
The myth is false because it suggests the catch levels in New
England have always been within their biological limits. It is true
that the fishing industry is not to blame for these damaging catch
limits because they don't set the fishing levels, although they have
always pushed hard through the council system and through political
channels for the highest levels the managers would give them. Even
though the MSA was revised in 2006, New England's groundfish fishery
did not institute hard catch limits until May 2010. Moreover, in the
last 2 years, the groundfish fleet hasn't even caught most of the fish
it was been authorized to catch because they can't find the fish
anymore. Through the mid-2000s, though, the industry often caught more
fish than the quota--sometimes even several multiples of the quota.
Only the 2006 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act forced the catch
levels to be treated as hard limits, not aspirations. Aspirational
limits were not kind to fishermen; they put many, many New England
fishermen out of work.
More importantly, based on the NMFS stock status reports,
groundfish stocks continue to be overfished and experiencing
overfishing to the current day.\5\ I will use the two stocks of
Atlantic cod to illustrate this fact. Gulf of Maine Cod is reported as
overfished in 15 out of the last 17 years \6\ and Georges Bank cod was
overfished for 13 out of the last 17 years. Overfishing was happening
with Gulf of Maine cod 13 out of the 14 years reported to Congress
through 2013, and 12 out of 14 years with Georges Bank cod. Atlantic
cod are depleted as a direct result of overfishing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 2013 Status of U.S. Fisheries (NMFS) Table A at 4-6 (http://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/2013/fourth/
Q4%202013%20Stock%20Status%20Tables.pdf).
\6\ Moreover, the 2 years when Gulf of Maine cod were not
considered to be overfished was the result of science error in the
assessment; they were determined later to be overfished in fact both
years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This illogic of this persistent overfishing of Atlantic cod--how
can fishermen be fishing within their limits and still have overfishing
occurring?--introduces the third myth, the myth that the Magnuson-
Stevens Act imposes rigid, unrealistic rebuilding schedules that
arbitrarily require rebuilding to a fixed biomass by a fixed time. The
truth is that while the law sets a 10-year time limit as the default
maximum rebuilding period, that limit is hardly rigid and neither the
managers nor the fish obey it.
The current requirement is that overfished stocks of fish should be
rebuilt in a time ``as short as possible,'' 16 U.S.C.A.
Sec. 1854(e)(4), and, in any event, within 10 years of being declared
to be overfished ``except where the biology of the stock of fish, other
environmental conditions, or management measures under international
agreement in which the United States participates dictate otherwise.''
16 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1854(e)(4)(ii). The language of the law already allows
exemptions to that 10-year period if exemptions are justified by
considerations that are independent of current fishing effort.
Many of New England's groundfish have rebuilding plans that are
based on terms exceeding 10 years. As noted above, Georges Bank cod has
been formally determined to be overfished since 1990 and still has 12
years left in their projected rebuilding program. If that timeline is
not met for any possible number of reasons, the rebuilding framework
will be extended based on a control rule adopted by NMFS and the New
England Fishery Management Council. Numerous stocks of Federal managed
fish have rebuilding requirements that exceed 10 years and, in some
regions, we understand that the majority of a Council's stocks exceed
the 10 years under existing law.
Rebuilding catch limits that are prescribed for an overfished stock
are hardly even prescriptive; they don't have to have produce any
higher than a 50 percent probability of succeeding in accomplished the
projected rebuilding within the stipulated time period. The current law
allows the rebuilding probability for the stocks in the worst trouble,
the stocks in a rebuilding program, to have the same odds as a coin
toss. And if circumstances change during that rebuilding that are
identified in the periodic stock assessments, that rebuilding framework
itself can be and is revisited by managers.
In New England, with only one or two exceptions that I can remember
over the past two decades, managers have always opted to take the
highest risk rebuilding strategy to protect short-term economic
objectives, that is, the longest time allowed for rebuilding at the
highest level of catch. These levels often end up being too high in
retrospect, which is why fisherman can point to their compliance with
fishing quotas in New England--as with the Atlantic cod example above--
while scientists continue to conclude after each new stock assessment
that overfishing is still taking place. There was a built-in 50 percent
chance that the levels would be too high to begin with, that
overfishing would occur under that harvest cap in the first place. The
current law already allows fishery managers to take risks with their
fundamental inventories that private business managers would consider
reckless.
Congress Got It Right: Successful Fisheries Require Accountability,
Science-Based Quotas, and Healthy Fish Populations.
In 2006, Congress passed the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Reauthorization Act of 2006, Pub. L. 109-479, 120 Stat. 3575 (2007)
with strong bipartisan support. Mindful of the situation in New England
and in other troubled fisheries around the Nation and after receiving
extensive testimony and material, Congress used this reauthorization to
make some significant changes to the Magnuson-Stevens Act to fix
critical structural problems in the law. Specifically, the
reauthorization prohibited overfishing during the rebuilding period of
a fish stock; it imposed accountability measures on the managers in the
form of requiring annual catch limits; and it required accountability
management measures if a fishery exceeded its annual catch limit. The
2006 reauthorization also emphasized the importance of science-based
fishery management plans in U.S. fisheries, requiring, for example,
that all fishery management councils have a standing committee of
science experts to advise the Council on setting fishery specifications
and having the authority to set maximum harvest rates that a fishery
could not exceed. These are reasonable and well-grounded requirements
that are used by all successful fisheries in industrialized nations
around the world.
The 2006 reauthorization addressed an explicit congressional
conclusion with respect to the Nation's fisheries that had come at a
high price: the historic flexibility, discretion, and latitude
associated with many--but not all--of fishery management plans being
developed by the regional councils was doing harm to the Nation's
interests by delaying the achievement of optimum yield on a continuing
basis for the Nation's fisheries. In too many fisheries, overfishing
had become a way of life; it had become institutionalized in the
system. Nowhere were the economic, social, and ecological costs of this
delay in stopping overfishing more apparent and more devastating than
in New England's groundfish fishery. Those were important and necessary
legislative changes. Nothing has changed to support departing from the
current provisions of the law.
While a set of 2006 amendments may seem like ancient history in
Washington, DC in 2014, it is important to recognize that the positive
productivity changes and economic benefits associated with these new
management requirements are only now beginning to be observed around
the country. The New England Council's first groundfish plan under the
2006-reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Act did not take effect until May 1,
2010, less than 4 years ago. At the time the new provisions took
effect, economic analysts indicated that the potential economic losses
associated with this fishery management plan (known as Amendment 16) in
the first year could be on the order of 15.2 percent, or $15 million,
as a result of the scientific recommendation of cutting back groundfish
landings by over 47,000 metric tons of fish. The new accountability and
science-based quota setting provisions in New England did not, in fact,
produce those dire predictions in New England's groundfish fleet.
In fishing year 2010, when large quota cutbacks to stop overfishing
and rebuild cod stocks were finally required, gross groundfish revenues
stayed relatively flat with a decline of only $0.209 million or ^0.002
percent, while the gross total revenues earned by those same groundfish
boats (including the revenues from the other species they landed) grew
$28.110 million, or a 10.6 percent increase over 2009 (2010
dollars).\7\ In the 2011 fishing year, groundfish revenues increased
$5.272 million, + 6.3 percent, over 2009 groundfish revenues and total
gross revenues increased $58.554 million, a 22 percent increase over
2009 revenues (2010 dollars). In the 2012 fishing year, when even
further heavy groundfish quota cuts were required, total groundfish
revenues declined $16.134 million from 2009 groundfish revenues but
total revenues remained $28.750 million above 2009 levels (2010
dollars).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The data in this paragraph is derived from the Murphy et al.,
2012 Final Report on the performance of the Northeast Multispecies
(Groundfish) Fishery (May 2012-April 2013), Table A. It can be found
online at http://www.nefmc.org/index.html.
\8\ This analysis does not include any changes in the net revenues
for groundfish boats during those years and there were some increased
quota leasing costs. The analysis also does not explore the
distributional aspects of those increased total gross revenues, i.e.
whether the Council succeeded in fairly distributing this fleet's
access to New England fish populations, either by boat size or by
State. Much of that data, unfortunately, is not available to the
public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total gross revenues to groundfish boats in 2012 were roughly twice
the average gross revenues to the groundfish fleet averaged over the
2005-2007 fishing years (nominal dollars).\9\ The New England
groundfish fleet has demonstrated on the water that it can accommodate
full accountability to science-based quotas while growing the value of
the fleet's landings through species diversification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ This analysis was derived by comparing the revenues set forth
in the report identified in fn. 7 with economic analysis from Amendment
16 to the Northeast Multispecies (Groundfish) Fishery Management Plan,
Table 255 on p. 691. Amendment 16 can be found online at http://
www.nefmc.org/nemulti/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The New England groundfishery as well as the other New England
fisheries are performing better as a result of implementation of the
2006 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Congress should stay the
course with responsible rebuilding requirements and science-based quota
setting to ensure economic opportunity for the region's fishermen.
Thank you for inviting us to testify in this hearing and for
considering our testimony.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Shelley. And now we
will recognize Mr. Zeke Grader, Executive Director of the
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations.
You are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF W.F. ``ZEKE'' GRADER, JR., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATIONS
Mr. Grader. Thank you, Chairman Hastings and Mr. DeFazio.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify here this morning. The
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations represents
working men and women in the West Coast commercial fishing
fleet, and this will be our fourth reauthorization that we have
participated in. And we have watched the Act as it has evolved
since first passage in 1976.
I should say, Chairman Hastings, that we have gone through
the committee's draft, the ``Strengthening Fishing Communities
and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act.'' The
first thing I would say is that you probably ought to change
the name. It is too long. And I can tell you, from an
organization, just trying to say it in testimony, it is too
long. Come up with something shorter. But there are a number of
provisions that we really want to commend the committee that we
do like in your draft.
First of all, I think it is long overdue that we recognize
that not all depleted fish stocks are overfished. We have
certainly seen that with coho on the West Coast, where in some
cases we have had no fishing for 20 years. The stocks are
depleted, but not because of fishing, but because of habitat
degradation. And that needs to be recognized. And I think
certainly in the future, as Mr. Shelley mentioned with climate
change, we are probably going to be looking at more stocks that
are going to be at risk, not because of fishing, but because of
climate change, or even pollution. So I think changing the term
is long overdue. That is not to say, however, that we would
condone any overfishing.
I also think your suggestion in the draft to look at
alternatives to annual catch limits makes sense, not that
annual catch limits are not a good thing, but they don't work
for every fishery, particularly those where we don't use quota
management.
Two good examples are Pacific salmon, where, at least along
the West Coast, we use quotas only sparingly. Yet, at the same
time, we have protected against overfishing, and these are
managed sustainably. Another example, of course--but it is a
State-managed fishery--is our Dungeness crab, which are not
managed by quota. But, in fact, we use a different form of
management, but they are well managed and not overfished. So, I
think looking at alternatives where appropriate to ACLs may be
good, where the particular fishery does not lend itself to
quota management.
I also really want to applaud the committee draft in
promoting electronic monitoring. We believe very much that
monitoring of our catches has to take place. The problem is
onboard monitors, particularly on small boats and small
fisheries does really very little, other than make it so cost-
prohibitive for fishermen to operate, that we need to have some
other alternative to that.
And finally, on the referendum on catch shares, this is
needed. But it is also needed on the West Coast. West Coast
fishermen deserve a vote on the fisheries that they are to be
managed under.
We do, however, have some problems with the draft. And our
biggest problem is in the attempt to address flexibility.
Indeed, we think flexibility already exists in the Magnuson
Act. But I think we really do need to stay the course on strict
adherence to prohibiting overfishing, strict adherence to
rebuilding plans, and strict adherence to good science.
I just spent the last couple days in Half Moon Bay at the
World Oceans Conference, and there was all kind of talk there
about overfishing. We fishermen were not invited to speak, but
we could have told them that in the United States we are making
progress on eliminating overfishing. I would like to be able to
go back to that conference 2 years from now and tell them we
have eliminated overfishing in the United States. And I think
we can do that by adhering to the current law.
We also have a number of changes that we think need to be
made in Magnuson that are not part of the draft bill, most
specifically addressing community fishing associations, the
need for Congress to do something. Because, to date, both the
National Marine Fisheries Service and the Councils have been
derelict in carrying out the charge by Congress in the 2006
reauthorization to establish community fishing associations.
And I would be glad to address that, or talk to the committee
further about it.
One final note. We have to finally start looking at how do
we fund our fisheries. We have come up with some ideas in the
past where there would be establishing a trust fund, say,
funded by an ad valorem fee on all fish sold in the United
States. There have been alternative proposals, such as looking
at the Saltonstall-Kennedy Act. But we really do have to find
the funds necessary to pay for the science and other needs we
have for our fisheries. Otherwise, we are going to continue to
be in crisis every 10 years we come back to see you on
reauthorization. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grader follows:]
Prepared Statement of W.F. ``Zeke'' Grader, Jr., Executive Director,
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations
Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the Natural Resources
Committee. My name is Zeke Grader and I am the Executive Director for
the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA). I
wish to thank the committee for its kind invitation to testify here
today.
By way of introduction, I grew up on California's north coast where
my father was a fish processor and I worked in fish processing plants
through law school and until I was hired by the PCFFA in 1976.
PCFFA was incorporated the same year as the passage of the Fishery
Conservation & Management Act; prior to that, a number of PCFFA's 14
member organizations supported establishment of a ``200 mile fisheries
act.'' That campaign, as you know, culminated in the passage and
signing of H.R. 200 in 1976, creating a 200-mile fishery conservation
zone and establishing the eight regional fishery management councils to
develop management measures within these newly established Federal
waters. PCFFA, thus, has considerable experience with the law and this
upcoming reauthorization of the MSFCMA will be the fourth now that
PCFFA and I have participated in.
In addition to my position with PCFFA, I also serve as Executive
Director for PCFFA's sister organization, the Institute for Fisheries
Resources (IFR), a 501(c)(3) non-profit engaged in research, outreach
and education on behalf of working men and women in the commercial
fishing fleet. I should also add that I am the vice-chairman of the
Golden Gate Salmon Association, a member of the executive committee of
the Marine Fish Conservation Network and am currently working with the
Pew Charitable Trusts, principally on funding issues related to our
fisheries. My testimony here today, however, is on behalf of the PCFFA
and no other organization.
I have attached two PCFFA columns from the Fishermen's News, one
from last year and one from this month, of our ideas on the upcoming
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA), including in the
February some thoughts on the Natural Resource Committee's draft
legislation, the ``Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing
Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act''.
some context
To provide the committee the rationale behind our position, it is
useful to review PCFFA's involvement in the past three
reauthorizations. In the 1980's reauthorization, PCFFA, based on its
experience with salmon and the Pacific Fishery Management Council,
worked to include fishery habitat language in the FCMA, where the
impacts of habitat degradation on Pacific salmon stocks was being
largely ignored by the Pacific Council. PCFFA also worked to get report
language on the need for a commercial salmon fisherman representative
on that Council. The most regulated fishery under the Pacific Council
at that time, commercial salmon trollers were treated as poor
stepchildren by the Pacific Council and National Marine Fisheries
Service until passage of that first reauthorization.
The Pacific Council and NMFS aggressively regulated the ocean
salmon fishery from the beginning, heeding the FCMA's prohibition on
overfishing. That was not the case with other fisheries, however,
particularly mixed stock fisheries. By the 1990s it was becoming
evident that some stocks were being overfished, such as some of the
groundfish complex. In the 1995-96 reauthorization, PCFFA, as a
commercial fishing member of the Marine Fish Conservation Network, a
broad coalition of organizations working for sustainable fisheries,
supported language aimed at ending overfishing. We recognized that
overfishing was not in the best long-term economic interest of the
fleet and had to be ended if we hoped to have robust fisheries again.
In 2006, PCFFA supported further amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens
Act--beyond the explicit language to end overfishing--requiring strict
stock rebuilding plans and adherence by the Council's to the fishery
science. Based on the past 2 years' status of U.S. fishing stocks
reports, the 1996 and 2006 amendments to the MSA--on overfishing, stock
rebuilding, and adherence to science--are working.
We also recognized the problems with much of our fishery science;
it sometimes did not cover the total range of a stock, in other
instances the stock assessments were too infrequent and not accurately
reflecting the condition of the current population, and sometimes those
doing the stock assessments simply didn't know how to fish to be able
to accurately assess fish stock abundance. The problem we saw, that
still exists today, is not with the MSA, but that there never have been
sufficient resources appropriated for the research and stock
assessments needed to sustainably manage our fisheries.
In recognition of the problem of funds for fishery science, PCFFA
in its August 2003 the Fishermen's News column (http://www.pcffa.org/
fn-aug03.htm) called for establishment of a national fisheries trust
fund, with its own financial support source(s) and outside of the
annual congressional appropriations process, to pay for fishery
science, as well as other fishery needs, including development of more
selective fishing gear, disaster relief, even underwriting a catch
insurance program. In the 2006 reauthorization, language by Senators
Stevens and Boxer to establish a fishery trust fund was incorporated in
the reauthorization bill. Identifying a financial source, or sources,
to provide the support needed for the fund, however, was left until
another day. And, it is establishing a stable and ample funding source
for fishery science and other fishery needs is what is really needed
now, not weakening the existing MSA.
some thoughts on the ``strengthening fishing communities and increasing
flexibility in fisheries management act''
Given the history PCFFA has with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, we have
the following recommendations regarding provisions of the draft
``Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in
Fisheries Management Act'':
``Flexibility,'' Overfishing, and Rebuilding Periods. PCFFA is not
insensitive to the plight of fishermen in other parts of the Nation,
particularly New England. We have felt the pain. Our members have gone
through highly restricted seasons, when stocks were down--and through
no fault of our own. In the early 1990s we were forced to seek disaster
relief, as a result of the impacts of a multi-year drought on salmon
stocks. In this century our salmon fisheries were all but closed for a
2-year period in 2004-2005 because of Federal water policy impacts on
salmon in the Klamath Basin. Our salmon fishery was totally closed in
2008-2009 due to impacts from earlier State and Federal water
operations in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta estuary that decimated
juvenile salmon populations.
The problem is, we don't see what will be gained by continuing to
fish down stocks or put-off rebuilding--which is exactly what would
happen under the ``flexibility'' that is being proposed by some fishing
groups and incorporated in the draft bill. What is to be gained by
overfishing for an additional 5 or 7 years? It simply puts off the day
of reckoning, with the fleet trying to survive in the short term on
depleted stocks when it could be thriving in the long term fishing on
rebuilt stocks.
In fact, the MSA already has a great deal of flexibility in how
long those plans should be. As you know, the law's 10-year target for
rebuilding can be exceeded due to the biology of the species, other
environmental conditions or if the stock is managed under an
international agreement. In addition, the Councils have amended a
rebuilding plan when new scientific information indicates conditions
have changed. The existing flexibility in the law is clear when you
consider that more than half of the current rebuilding plans (23 of 43)
are longer than 10 years.
For example, the rebuilding time for ocean perch off the Pacific
coast was recently extended for an additional 3 years based on a new
stock assessment. Other stocks, like cowcod, have had their rebuilding
times modified based on updated scientific information, and have
rebuilding timelines that far exceed the 10-year limit--in the case of
cowcod the rebuilding period is 67 years.
There is significant flexibility in the MSA, and we need to use the
Pacific as an example of how the existing flexibility can produce
results in rebuilding and advance sustainable fisheries and coastal
communities.
The better answer it would seem would be to provide some form of
interim financial help to the affected fleets, allowing stocks to
rebuild, while working to improve our fishery science to know when to
allow higher catch levels and/or to develop more selective fishing
practices, where possible, to allow targeting on abundant species while
avoiding those still undergoing rebuilding.
We urge the committee, therefore, not to change the existing law
regarding overfishing and stock rebuilding.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance. PCFFA
recognizes that many of the regional councils would like to do away
with the NEPA requirements for fishery management plans and amendments.
NEPA, however, requires a full analysis of an agency action and for a
range of options to be considered. These two provisions of NEPA are
very important for our fishermen and fishing communities. Considering
the Councils do not always act in the best interests of fish stocks,
fishermen or fishing communities, we think it would be a very bad idea
to do away with NEPA compliance and we strongly oppose any
reauthorization language to weaken or do away with NEPA compliance by
the regional councils.
Delegating Endangered Species Act (ESA) Authority to the Regional
Fishery Councils. PCFFA, probably more than any other commercial
fishing organization in the Nation, has worked extensively with the
ESA, since the first salmon runs were proposed for listing in 1985. The
ESA has prevented the extinction of the unique Sacramento winter-run
chinook salmon, and may have prevented the extinction of subpopulations
of species of other salmon runs and certainly stopped the extirpation
of salmon from numerous watersheds. The ESA works when it's given a
chance, particularly where there is agency resolve and there are the
resources necessary--personnel and funding--to do the job.
Handing over authority for protecting and recovering ESA-listed
fish to the regional councils is a bad idea. Trying to superimpose the
MSA process over the needs of ESA-listed species would be disastrous.
Moreover, the regional councils are already strapped under their
existing workloads. The have neither the resources, nor the expertise,
to carry-out ESA responsibility for protecting and recovering listed
fish species. If Congress is concerned with the implementation of the
ESA and its successes, than it should provide the responsible agencies
the resources they need to carry out their charge and leave them alone
thereafter.
Changing the term from ``Overfished'' to ``Depleted.'' PCFFA, in
its salmon experience, has long argued against the broad categorization
of every depleted fish stock being defined as ``overfished.'' We
support, therefore, the proposal in the draft to change the term. This
would more accurately describe the condition of many salmon stocks,
some of which have had no fishing on them in nearly two decades. Also
considering the progress being made in ending overfishing, while
looking at numerous threats now and in the future to fish stocks from
non-fishing impacts, a better term than ``overfishing'' is needed to
describe stocks that are depleted. This is not to say, however, that a
change in terminology should be used to allow overfishing. A strict
adherence to the existing law to stop and prevent overfishing remains
essential.
Referendums on New Catch Share Programs. PCFFA supports the draft's
language to require a referendum on any new catch share program, but we
cannot support an exemption from this requirement for the Pacific and
North Pacific. The referendum requirement must apply to all the
Nation's fisheries, not just those along the Atlantic seaboard and in
the Gulf of Mexico. Fishing men and women on the West Coast also
deserve a vote on their fisheries.
Strengthening Fishing Communities. PCFFA was heartened by part of
the title in the committee's draft reauthorization bill. We were
disappointed, however, to find little of substance in the draft that
will actually strengthen fishing communities. Based on our experience,
the best way now to strengthen our Nation's fishing communities is to
ensure they have access over the long term to rebuild abundant fish
stocks and the financial resources available to carry out the science
and other needs essential for sustainable fisheries.
the changes needed to the magnuson-stevens act
Investment in Fisheries. In the 2006 reauthorization language was
adopted creating a national fishery trust fund. In this reauthorization
Congress needs to now identify a financial source or sources for such a
fund and spell out how the fund would be operated and the purposes for
which monies from the fund may be used. Some years ago, PCFFA crafted a
discussion draft for a national fishery trust fund, including a revenue
source and uses for monies deposited into the fund. If it is useful, we
will provide that to the committee for the purposes of starting the
discussion. Moreover, the committee may want to revisit the legislation
proposed in 2012 to use Saltonstall-Kennedy Act monies to support vital
fisheries science.
Protecting Fishing Communities. In the 2006 reauthorization,
Congress provided in the Limited Access Privilege Program (LAPPs)
provisions of the Act for the creation of community fishing
associations (CFAs) to receive initial quota allocation and hold quota
on behalf of a fishing community however that was defined. This
language was extremely important, since NOAA/NMFS promoted individual
fishing quotas (IFQs) and other forms of catch shares, to ensure
fishing communities continued to have access to those fishery resources
they traditionally relied on to support their fleets and economies.
Moreover, CFAs are a means for avoiding ``stranded assets'' for fish
processors--a common complaint when quota is issued to individual
fishermen or boat owners--without the need for issuing quota to
processors directly raising anti-trust concerns, among others. CFAs may
prove important, as well, for protecting our fishing communities, if
provisions in catch share fisheries, such as restricting quota
ownership to U.S. citizens or limiting quota accumulation by a single
entity, are struck down by current or future U.S. trade agreements,
such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership now being negotiated.
While NOAA/NMFS and many of the Council's continue to push IFQ or
catch share management, nothing has been done since that last
reauthorization to fully define what constitutes a CFA or their
operation. As a result, we have community groups here on the West Coast
that have formed or are forming what they believe would constitute a
CFA, but are left in limbo due to NOAA/NMFS and Council action to put
over work on CFA development. Indeed, the Pacific Council considers
CFAs a ``trailing action'' in its implementation of its trawl
groundfish IFQ scheme. That is outrageous. What they are in essence
doing is circumventing Congress by issuing all of the quota to
individuals leaving nothing for CFAs. Congress needs to set forth
standards for CFAs and implement a moratorium on any new IFQ or catch
share programs until such time as CFA language is fully developed in
regulation and CFAs are formed to accept and hold quota.
Ecosystem Services. PCFFA has argued since the first
reauthorization of the FCMA for consideration of habitat impacts on
fish abundance and the need for habitat protection. Our organization
has also recognized predator-prey relationships and the importance of
forage fish considerations in fish management when it initiated in
California successful legislation to ban the harvest of krill (at the
base of the ocean food chain) and the catch of white sharks (an apex
predator in the ocean food chain). In the succeeding reauthorizations
Congress has added language for the identification and protection of
essential fish habitat and development of ecosystem-based fishery
management plans. What we ask in this reauthorization round is that the
discussion on ecosystem fishery management continue, including
consideration of small pelagic fish that are an important food source
for many of our Nation's major commercial and recreational fish stocks.
Addressing Non-Fishing Impacts. Finally, given the actions taken by
other agencies that can affect the health of fish stocks managed by a
regional fishery council, the Councils need to do more than simply
regulate fishermen, if we hope to successfully conserve many of our
Nation's fish stocks. The regional councils cannot sit by quietly when
some other agency acts in a way that damages the very fish stocks a
regional fishery council is charged with managing. To that end, PCFFA
believes it important that in this reauthorization round of the MSA,
Congress charge the regional councils with an affirmative duty to
notify, when they become aware of, any agency whose actions or planned
actions will adversely affect the health of a fish stock that Council
is charged with managing. Further, the regional councils should be
given the duty to consult with another agency whose action is or may
affect a fish stock or stocks and to recommend measures to either
prevent damage to the fish or mitigate for any damage. Giving the
regional councils this charge could help prevent non-fishing related
damage to fish stocks in the future.
conclusion
I'd be pleased to answer any questions you or committee members may
have. Thank you again for this opportunity to testify.
______
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Grader, and thank
all the witnesses for their testimony.
As a programming note here, we are going to be coming up
with votes here very shortly, so I am going to be very brief on
what I say.
But, Mr. Rees, I do want to ask you. In your testimony and
your oral remarks you said that overfishing in the draft would
be allowed for 5 to 7 years. Where, specifically, in the draft
are you referring, or where do you get those figures?
Mr. Rees. Well, I don't know if I could fully answer that
question, Mr. Chairman. A lot of it has to do with just initial
2 years before an assessment is done. Also, the flexibility
that is being allowed in the draft, there is a minimum of a 5-
year lapse that can happen between a full assessment being done
and whether there are any management actions taken.
The Chairman. Well, I will just simply say we are trying to
deal with facts here. And in your testimony, you said 5 to 7
years. The draft does say, however, that there should be
consideration taken for those that make a living from
fisheries. But that is not a ``shall,'' it is ``may'' in the
draft, meaning--when you are drafting a law, ``shall'' and
``may'' are very, very big words. And this says ``may,'' but it
does not suggest that there should be overfishing. I mean we
want to base the reauthorization on the best facts we have. In
your testimony you said 5 to 7 years. That is why I asked
specifically wherein.
So, if you want to go back and look at that again and
respond in writing, we will very much accept that, if you would
want to do that. But we are trying to get to a position where
we can reauthorize it, based on the facts. You said 5 to 7
years, and you couldn't tell me specifically. So I will give
you an opportunity to write back to the committee and tell us
exactly how that happens. OK?
Mr. Rees. Yes, I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman. OK, good. I recognize Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I recently, just this
week, met with some trawlers from Oregon, Washington, and we
were discussing the need that Mr. Grader mentioned to move
beyond observers, get to electronic monitoring, and I am
frustrated that we are not moving more quickly with that. And
you mentioned that the bill encouraged it, but I saw in the
bill that it said it encourages electronic monitoring, but it
can't be used for enforcement. Do you----
Mr. Grader. Yes, I----
Mr. DeFazio. Doesn't that cause a concern? That----
Mr. Grader. I understood that, too. The issue here--I
didn't look so much at the enforcement as just providing the
observer coverage. And right now, where we have with the small
boat fleet, particularly the small trawlers, is that it is very
expensive, because each boat is required to pay for its own
observer, rather than sharing the observer cost among the
fleet.
So, if you are a vessel that, say, catches,
hypothetically----
Mr. DeFazio. Right. No, I get that. I understand the
burden, the expense----
Mr. Grader. Yes.
Mr. DeFazio [continuing]. And they educated me more on the
problems sometimes with the people provided by the contractors,
you know, as observers. But my point is if we say let's move
and mandate that we move ahead with electronic monitoring, but
say it can't be used for enforcement, that doesn't seem to me
that that is going to meet the objectives here.
Mr. Grader. Yes, and we did not mean to--we really did not
focus on the enforcement aspect, it was mostly just on the
observers. And I would tend to agree. I think that perhaps use
of that clause, ``except for enforcement,'' probably should be
deleted and leave it up to the Councils to decide how----
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Ms. Lowman, would you address that, too?
Because this is a big concern for the Pacific region.
Ms. Lowman. Sure. Thank you, Congressman DeFazio. You know,
that doesn't work for us, to not have it be able to be used for
enforcement. We are in the process of trying to make that tool
available, be able to use EM when it meets to maintain our
objective, 100 percent monitoring, but allow for some different
tools to be used, like EM, to reach that.
One of the alternatives to do it is actually a kind of an
audit approach. This is the way it is done in Canada, where you
are actually using the fishermen's logbook information to
understand what the catch has been, but the camera is used to
audit those. And so, kind of by definition, if you don't have
law enforcement, then if the audit shows that it is not
working, that there has been a violation, then that would
preclude this way, which is probably one of the most cost-
effective ways to use EM from being used.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, thank you. You also briefly mentioned in
the beginning this morning that you are looking toward some
success on some of the longer-lived stocks. Yet you also
expressed concerns about the 10-year guideline--or 10-year
mandate. Can you get into that a little bit more? Because you
are calling for a little more flexibility there. It is an issue
where some people's flexibility would kind of remove any
rebuilding goals, and other people's would perhaps provide a
little more leeway, but keeping the goal strong. Can you
address that a little bit?
Ms. Lowman. Well, you know, I think our Council has a
history of trying to do this as soon as possible, you know? But
you can come to a situation where, OK, the biology says it
could be done in 9 years, but you would have a lot easier time
and a lot less social and economic impacts if you were able to
do it at 11. And so, it just seems like you should sort of
balance those a little better.
Mr. DeFazio. Right. And you don't think the current law
allows that flexibility.
Ms. Lowman. I think that there is some work to be done
there, and I think we agree with the National Science Academy
on that.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, thanks. Anybody else have a comment on
that issue, the idea of sort of the hard goal of 10 years
versus how you build in some flexibility? Yes, sir?
Mr. Shelley. In New England, which is the area that I know,
having a hard goal as the basis for crafting the rebuilding
program has been very important. And there may be circumstances
with particular stocks or fisheries that would be unique.
But to change the law so that all fisheries would be able
to re-entertain those sorts of arguments would throw New
England back to where it was in the early 1990s. And for our
purposes, the stocks have a whole variety of rebuilding
timeframes under the current statute. And we think that there
has been more than adequate accommodation of economic--in fact,
there has been over-accommodation, frankly, of some of the
short-term economic and social goals.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, thank you. Thank you. My time has expired.
The Chairman. Ms. Tsongas.
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank
all of our witnesses for being here today. I am a Member from
Massachusetts, but I don't represent a district that has
fishing as a part of the backbone of its economy. But I very
much appreciate how much our fishing families are a cornerstone
of our State's economic and cultural foundation, with the grit
and determination so reflective of the New England spirit.
And yesterday we did get word that NOAA will be allocating
nearly $33 million in Federal aid for New England fishermen.
This much-needed assistance will support the hard-working men
and women and their local economies that were hard hit in the
wake of a federally declared economic disaster. And we are
grateful for that much-needed assistance.
As I have attended these hearings, though, I know we all
have similar goals for the Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization. We
all want to implement a regulatory framework that results in
healthy, sustainable fish stocks, vibrant fishing communities
that can support our fishing families. And I know in
Massachusetts there are a variety of views as to how best to
proceed.
I have serious concerns that the draft bill we are
discussing today, however, overwhelmingly favors short-term
economic management decisions over long-term economic and
environmental sustainability. And from what you all are saying,
I think we have different views, depending on what part of the
country you come from. More success on the West Coast; the East
Coast has greater challenges to overcome.
So, in your opinion--and I would like to start with Mr.
Shelley--what provisions should be included in any
reauthorization so that we can best improve--and you may have
different opinions--the sustainability and long-term optimum
yield? And I would like to start with you. And if you could
just come up with two or three that you think are key.
Mr. Shelley. Thank you, Representative. I think the key
thing that the reauthorization has to focus on is climate
change, and the fact that it is going to disrupt virtually
every fishery in the United States in the near term. And it is
already showing up in New England. Long-term sustainability is
going to require us to confront the fact that this is coming,
that it will affect fisheries. Some of them will become more
profitable, some will become less. There will be all sorts of
changes. But the reauthorization could really benefit that
critical debate by laying out some provisions that would
advance ecosystem-based fisheries management, push the
management system in the direction that the scientists are
recommending. It needs to be pushed to make it more robust to
withstand these ecological forces that are coming our way.
Ms. Tsongas. Others, can others comment?
Mr. Grader. If I can just comment quickly, Representative
Tsongas, and I don't disagree at all with what Mr. Shelley
said. But I think one of the things that is critical to us, and
I think, actually, if you drill down and look at the problems
in New England--I have many friends in the fishing fleet from
there--is that a big part of our problem is we have never
adequately provided for the science that we need. We have been
trying to manage on science that is outdated at times. Other
times it just isn't comprehensive enough, it doesn't look at
the total range of a stock, not to mention the problem you have
that people then choose to ignore the science.
So, I think, really, we are going to have to figure out--
and, from your State, Senator Kerry, when he was in the Senate,
and Senator Snowe, basically started to tackle that issue when
they were looking at earmarking Saltonstall-Kennedy Act funds
specifically for fishery research. We have to find a funding
source that can be outside of the normal appropriations, and
that is why we have suggested perhaps looking at a trust fund.
But to come up with a separate funding source, and not just
for the science, that could help underwrite such things as
helping fishermen develop more selective gear. It could help
with--say, even helping underwrite such things as catch
insurance. And finally, looking at providing the money for
disaster relief, because I watched and read the Gloucester
papers and all the others in New England, and watched how long
it took before that--and it was shaky, how long it took to get
that disaster money to fishermen. If we had a fund that was
there when we needed it, I think it would make a lot more
sense.
Ms. Tsongas. Comments from others?
Mr. Rees. I might just add there are two important key
components that may not have enough emphasis in the current
Act.
One is paying attention to critical forage species, which
is really all forage fish. These are the species that provide
the basic beginnings of the food web. And if we don't pay
attention to those stocks, we risk jeopardizing many, many
commercially and sport fishing important species.
Also, the concept of ecosystem-based management, which is
taking root, and ever so critical that we understand all the
inner workings of ecosystem-based management is probably
underemphasized in the current Act, and may need strengthening.
The Chairman. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you.
The Chairman. I recognize the gentlelady from Hawaii, Ms.
Hanabusa.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is for Dr.
Pooley.
Aloha. I think we can all agree that the purpose of the
science-based fishery management is to ensure that we make
management decisions that provide sustainable fisheries and
protect the vulnerable species, basically. If this is the goal,
then management decisions should reflect the actual status of
the fish stock, based on adequate data and accurate scientific
models. Otherwise, I think we are forced to set catch levels
based on what I would consider to be uninformative measures
like past catch levels, which are also, I think, unrelated to
the health of a fish stock.
So, as far as I am aware, the Pacific Islands Fisheries
Science Center has only produced two stock assessments for
bottomfish in the region, in addition to collective work that
is done in connection with the pelagic species, while nearly
all of the 2,000 coral reef species under Federal management
are categorized as data-poor.
Given the importance--and I think everyone here has
testified that science is the necessary underpinning of all of
the information--why are so many stocks categorized as data-
poor, and what is being done to improve that situation?
Dr. Pooley. Good morning, and aloha, Representative
Hanabusa. It is good to see you again. You are factually
absolutely correct. And the reason that fisheries in the
Pacific Islands, including Hawaii, are data-poor ranges from a
variety of reasons. And if we focus on Hawaii, it really
relates to the complex relationship between commercial and non-
commercial fisheries.
The State of Hawaii has a quite robust commercial fisheries
data collection system that we utilize in our stock
assessments, and used for the bottomfish assessments. But reef
fish are caught not entirely by commercial fisheries at all. In
fact, the fish auction no longer sells reef fish. That means
that we have to rely on recreational surveys and other methods
of trying to get a handle on that.
The way that we have approached it--and we have worked with
the Fishery Management Council staff closely on this, who have
identified a number of innovative methods--is to try to bring
in some of our coral reef diver surveys, as well as new life
history information to come up with alternative assessment
approaches.
All of the species have ACLs and the reef fish ACLs are all
being revised this year. And we need to give tremendous credit
to the Fishery Management Council for the work that they have
taken in initiating that. Our role has been primarily to
provide the information by which the ACLs can be revised.
Ms. Hanabusa. Now, let's follow up on that. The issue of
the ACLs, of course, is what, as you probably know, most of our
fishermen take great issue with. Now, when you say that they
are being revised, what is the basis of that revision? In other
words, what science, given the fact that we are data-poor on
all of these species, basically, what science is being relied
upon to justify the change in the ACLs, whichever way it may
change, up or down?
Dr. Pooley. Yes, and we don't know which way it will go,
whether it is up or down. Basically, it is this approach of
moving from measures that were based on previous catch, which I
think we all felt was inadequate, but was the best that could
be done at the time, to these alternative biomass measures that
bring in multiple sources of information within our modeling
framework that provides at least a proxy approach toward it.
Our expectation is--although we can't guarantee it--is that
these will not be binding on the existing fisheries, because of
the breadth of the reef fisheries throughout the Hawaiian
archipelago, and the closure of the Northwestern Hawaiian
Islands to fishing.
Ms. Hanabusa. So I don't understand what you just said.
What do you mean by they will not be binding?
Dr. Pooley. They won't be binding, because the biomass
available for reef fisheries is very broad when you include the
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands as part of your biomass
estimates.
The other thing is that fishing pressure, although
substantial on reef fish, is very localized. And without the
heavy levels of commercial exploitation that occur in some
other parts of the world, it is less likely to lead to
restrictions on fishing activities. That is really something
that is yet to be determined, and it is something the Council
will be discussing at its scientific and statistical committee
next week and the Council meeting the following weeks in Guam
and Saipan.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you. I yield back.
The Chairman. The time of the gentlelady has expired. The
Chair recognizes the gentleman from the Northern Marianas, Mr.
Sablan.
Mr. Sablan. Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And
good morning. And it is good to hear that Dr. Pooley will be
visiting in Northern Marianas and Guam very soon.
What I have caught earlier in some of the statements is--
and I appreciate very much that the issue of climate change
must be taken into consideration in the management of
sustainable fishing for the future, because, from where I come
from, climate change is not just making changes to the ocean,
it is actually making changes to the land, the small land areas
of where some of us live--where it is our home. Some of those
signs we see very much, and I have always invited people who
don't believe in the signs of climate change and global warming
to come to my place of the world and I will show them the
physical evidence of what it is doing.
And while we discuss the fisheries, the reauthorization of
the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Act, and we discussed
sustainable fishing in terms of volumes and fish and how we
sustain this, and it is a huge economic--it is important to the
commerce and everything. But from where I come from, there are
actually people who, when we are talking about fishing, they
actually fish for what they eat, almost on a daily basis. So it
is that small, but it is also that important to us. Fishing is
a very important part and a critical source of food for many of
us. And we are so much tied to the ocean.
So, I am going to ask, and I am going to start with Dr.
Pooley. Can you tell us how NOAA, sir, your new territorial
science initiative, is providing support to assess the health
of our fish stocks, particular to the Northern Mariana Islands?
I know there has been very little in the past, and you have new
initiatives. I wanted to see where we are headed with that.
Dr. Pooley. Sure, I would be happy to. The territorial
science initiative that began last fiscal year and is
continuing this fiscal year has helped, along with marine
national monument funding, for us to station permanent
scientific staff in each of the three island areas, including
Saipan. It has allowed us to develop a bio-sampling program
that reaches around the islands to provide new life history
information on reef fish, which are the most important, and it
will provide a way to integrate improved fishery statistics
systems into the assessment methods that we use.
We are also using some of this funding to do what we call
human dimensions work, or sociological work in each area, where
our staff work with anthropologists and archaeologists in the
Marianas to look at the cultural and historic social role of
fisheries in the region. And this information is used by the
Fishery Management Council in adjusting its annual catch
limits.
Mr. Sablan. With all due respect, Dr. Pooley, you don't
need to get scientists to do that. You can come sit down, and I
will tell you how much fish I eat a week. And I am not a
fisherman, so----
Dr. Pooley. I appreciate that. Next time I'm in Saipan, I
will visit.
Mr. Sablan. But, you know, again, I have taken a one-on-one
on the Magnuson, and you know, this is an important issue, very
much, and achieving the balance, striking the balance between
what is sustainable--and, of course, we have the commercial
side of the Magnuson. NOAA is under Commerce.
But one thing also that affects us in the territories, in
the Northern Marianas--and the distinguished lady from Guam is
not here, she will tell you--is illegal fishing. And because we
have the U.S. Coast Guard that thwarts off--keeps an eye out
against pirates that fish illegally, but then you have a Coast
Guard that takes care of the distance that is just about the
size of the entire United States. And when you have one small
boat and a smaller boat looking over all of that area, it is
very hard to catch illegal fishing.
And not just--you know, it takes fish that we don't account
for, but it also takes the value of some of the fish. And, from
where I come from, I think the smallest in--NOAA reported that
fish value is only at $581,000 in 2012, but I am sure there is
much more, it is just that we haven't reported.
And my time is up, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I just want to advise Members that we are
very close to having votes here. And I see two Members that
came in, and I want to give them the opportunity.
Mr. Huffman, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I know that
Mr. DeFazio asked a little bit earlier about the observer cost
issue. I wanted to, in addition to that, ask about the loan
refinance legislation that Congresswoman Herrera Beutler and I
and several members of this committee are supporting.
We know that we have work to do on the Magnuson-Stevens
Act. But as we do that, I wonder if any of the witnesses could
comment on the importance of also addressing issues like that
loan refinance challenge we face with the Pacific groundfish
fleet, especially in light of these additional observer costs
that are being foisted on the industry.
Mr. Grader. Well, if I can, Mr. Huffman, I think that
legislation is going to be important. Our big concern with the
whole way that the Pacific Council has gone about its
rationalization is it appears that it is putting the squeeze on
the small boat operators. Any type of assistance we can have so
that they are not squeezed out of the fishery and we have even
more consolidation of the fleet, I think is a good thing.
And the observer coverage is one issue, and the idea of
lengthening out that loan repayment program, so it is not such
a financial burden on the small operators would be helpful. So
I think the two of them would help a lot, and ensure that our
groundfish fishery is a community-based fishery, and not just a
few large boats from a super trawl port.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Grader. Would any of the other
witnesses care to comment?
Ms. Lowman. Thanks. I just wanted to emphasize the Council
is really interested and really supportive of getting that
refinancing done as soon as possible.
You know, I sort of view some of the costs in the fleet as
sort of three legs. One is the loan, you know, which they have
already paid over $20 million in interest, yet they have barely
touched the capital. And, you know, like anything, should more
reflect today's interest rates, et cetera. The other piece is
that cost recovery for this catch share program that has some
real potential to provide some great benefits to the fleet, but
we do need to also realize that, as we are building up to all
those benefits, we have these costs coming online fairly
rapidly.
So, a 3 percent cost recovery fee just started this year,
as well as an ever-increasing amount of the cost of the
observers to the fleet. So, in my mind, it is extremely
important to find the fastest way to do this refinance.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you. Anyone else?
[No response.]
Mr. Huffman. Well, I want to thank the witnesses. Thank
you, Mr. Chair. I will yield the balance of my time.
The Chairman. I am sorry, thank you, Mr. Huffman. I
recognize Mr. Garcia from Florida for 5 minutes, and he will be
our last Member, because votes are imminent.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won't take----
The Chairman. Wait, wait.
Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Chairman, the first vote will take 20
minutes, and I do have a quick second round, if I might be
allowed.
The Chairman. We picked up some time with Mr. Huffman, we
will try to work that in. Mr. Garcia?
Mr. Garcia. Very good. I won't be too long, Mr. Chairman.
My question is for Ms. Lowman. But, of course, if others want
to comment, that is alright. We have heard a great deal about
the importance of the social and economic considerations in
reauthorizing this Act. Assessing the impacts to fisheries
management, decisions on fishermen and their communities, and
the collection of very specific analysis of economic data that
would be shielded by very strict confidentiality rules under
the draft legislation.
So, my question is, would limited access of this data
inhibit the Councils and others from evaluating the economic
impacts, one; and could these restrictions also hamper the
attempts to institute cooperative research and management
programs?
Ms. Lowman. Thank you for the question. We sometimes
struggle to be able to fully demonstrate the economic and
social impacts of different issues. And actually, in our
written testimony, we identify this as one way that we actually
think maybe a little greater access is important, rather than
less access. You know, information is power, and I actually
think it helps fishermen to have that data available.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you.
Mr. Shelley. Thank you, Congressman. That is a really
important question. We are tremendously frustrated, as
interested members of the public, in getting access to social
economic science data, even the data that is generated with
public funding. Everything is protected.
And so, when small ports in Massachusetts say they are
being crushed, relative to the larger ports, there is no way we
can actually understand what is going on with those ports,
because the data won't be released to us, because it might
reveal some confidential business information in a small port.
We really need to get both better data and better access to
data, and I think we would make better policy decisions to the
degree we did that.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman from Florida, and I
recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I think this
would be probably both to Ms. Lowman and Mr. Grader. There is a
provision in the bill that says fisheries data--and perhaps the
gentleman who just spoke addressed this in a different way--but
from being used in coastal and marine spatial planning, meaning
this data could not be used when we are having discussions of,
in particular right now, wind farms off Oregon and elsewhere.
And I have had my fishermen express tremendous concern about
their lack of meaningful input dealing with the Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management as it relates to this. And it seems to me
that this is an unnecessary prohibition, particularly if we
want to try and put these things in places that aren't prime
fishing grounds.
And it is not secret, where people fish any more. You know,
I mean, everybody knows where you fish. And it is not like the
old days, where you have your place to go, and you went over
the horizon, and no one knew you were there. Could anybody
address that?
Ms. Lowman. Thank you, Representative DeFazio. I think I
sort of mentioned it in my last one, information is power. And
we get fishermen coming to the Council, pleading for us to
engage more and to be able to share that kind of information
that we have collected across fisheries and different places,
and have access to. So I think it is important to be able to
use that information in those discussions with other users.
Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Grader?
Mr. Grader. Yes. I think it is also important to have that
information. In fact, when we were developing California's
network of protected areas, the process was problematic. But I
think one of the better aspects of it was the fact that we did
try and get good economic data from the fleet, so we knew just
what type of impact those protected areas would have, and try
to avoid those as much as possible. And that is where there
would be serious economic displacement.
Mr. DeFazio. Great. Ms. Lowman, on a point you raised--and
you know, I have been focused a lot more on transportation over
the last few years when I took over ranking. And one thing we
have done in California is something called CEPA. And we have
given them, actually, authority under Federal law for highway
projects--strangely enough for transit projects, but highway
projects--to use CEPA and not have to do CEPA and NEPA because
it is generally regarded that CEPA is probably even more
rigorous than NEPA.
You are raising the issue of MSA pretty much satisfying
NEPA, but we really haven't aligned them yet. Do you think
there is a way we could basically develop something that most
people would agree is sufficient to meet NEPA requirements as
some kind of--you know, a little bit different approach to the
MSA work by the Council so we could have one process, but we
are accomplishing both goals at the same time?
Ms. Lowman. That is really what we are looking for. We are
not trying to get out of it, but I think that we would need to
bring things in to MSA to be sure that we did have that robust
environmental analysis, the full range of reasonable
alternatives. But that is the kind of the goal, get it under
the same timeline.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Well, I would welcome any suggestions you
have on that.
You have a suggestion on that, sir? Yes?
Mr. Shelley. Yes. Thank you, Representative. The issue for
us is that the Council system is connected to the development
and achievement of optimum yield in fisheries. It is primarily
focused on economic development, which it should be.
NEPA serves a much broader set of national interests in the
ocean zone. And the Federal agency's unique and non-delegated
role under NEPA is to make sure that the fishery-driven
decisionmaking that is happening through the Magnuson Act is
understood in a broader context of environmental impacts.
And so, while we agree with the 2006 amendments, where
there are a lot of ways that these roles could be integrated
better, the agency hasn't really moved that 2006 push from
Congress to do so, and we would hope that they will in the
future. We would keep the functions of those two statutes
separate.
Mr. DeFazio. Well, again, I am saying we already have an
example where we have delegated because we felt the State laws
exceeded. And it has been very successful, no complaints. And I
am just thinking there is some way we could meet both goals at
once without parallel processes with different timelines.
Because, as I understand it, sometimes the Council is done with
its decisionmaking, and you are still in the NEPA process,
which is supposed to inform the decisionmaking.
So, NEPA is supposed to inform decisionmakers, it is not
just supposed to be a process. Anyway, I am open to any ideas
anybody has about how we can meet this goal.
But thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grader. I just wanted to, if I could, just follow up on
what Mr. DeFazio said. I think, from our standpoint, from
representing commercial fishermen, we are very wary of any
attempt to try and change the NEPA process. It has been very
important to us for the reasons that Mr. Shelley said, as well
as to ensure that we have thorough analysis and have a good
range of options presented.
The other thing I should say is that ESA provisions in the
draft are problematic to us. We have probably had the most
experience of any fishing group in the Nation, dealing with the
ESA. And it works when there is funding for it and support for
it. But I don't think that the Councils really are set up, nor
do they have the staff to be able to handle ESA issues. And I
think, for that reason, ESA issues need to be kept where they
are.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
votes have been called now. But Mr. Lowenthal, I know you were
here earlier. Did you have a burning question? All right, good.
Thank you very much.
I want to thank all of the panelists for their testimony
today. As happens many times, something comes up and there may
be a follow-up question to each of you. I would hope that, if
that is the case, you would respond back to the committee in a
very timely manner. Our intention is to take up the
reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens this spring, and we hope we
are successful, because the law has expired.
So, if there is no further business to come before the
committee, the committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:36 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Letter Submitted for the Record by Members of the House National Marine
Sanctuary Caucus
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC,
May 28, 2014.
Hon. Doc Hastings, Chairman,
Hon. Peter DeFazio, Ranking Member,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Hastings and Ranking Member DeFazio:
As members of the House National Marine Sanctuary Caucus, we write
to express our concern regarding the language in the Magnuson-Stevens
Act (MSA) reauthorization discussion draft that would preempt key
marine Sanctuary management authorities currently granted under the
National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA).
As you are aware, the National Marine Sanctuary System consists of
14 sites with unique cultural and natural resources throughout the
Nation. These underwater treasures serve as a source of national pride
in addition to providing numerous economic and recreational
opportunities for surrounding communities.
While the primary mandate of the NMSA is marine resource
protection, the Act allows for many compatible uses including
recreational and commercial fishing, boating, diving, and whale
watching. A determination of what is compatible is facilitated through
a transparent, stakeholder-driven process. The NMSA ensures that
sanctuary managers incorporate diverse community perspectives into
policy via public comment and Sanctuary Advisory Councils. These
Councils are composed of local representatives from industry, advocacy,
and the public who use or value the resources of the Sanctuary. As
such, the Sanctuary management system represents a comprehensive and
balanced approach to decisionmaking.
We share an interest in promoting economically and ecologically
sustainable fishing practices. A thriving fishing community both
benefits local economies and encourages active stewardship of the
resource. Marine Sanctuaries support healthy fisheries within the
majority of their boundaries in a manner consistent with Magnuson-
Stevens Act objectives. We believe the proposed preemption of the NMSA
management system by Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization would, in
practice, limit the ability of managers to make decisions that fully
reflect the many uses of the Sanctuary by the local community.
As you move forward with the reauthorization process, we ask that
you work closely with stakeholders to better preserve the current
inclusive nature of sanctuary management.
Sincerely,
Lois Capps, California,
James P. Moran, Virginia,
Alan S. Lowenthal, California,
Sam Farr, California,
William R. Keating, Massachusetts,
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa,
Henry A. Waxman, California,
Members of Congress.
______
Letter Submitted for the Record by Senators Reed and Whitehouse, and
Representatives Langevin and Cicilline from the State of Rhode Island
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC,
April 1, 2014.
Hon. Doc Hastings, Chairman,
Hon. Peter DeFazio, Ranking Member,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Hon. Mark Begich, Chairman,
Hon. Marco Rubio, Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Chairmen Begich and Hastings, and Ranking Members Rubio and
DeFazio:
As you move forward reauthorizing the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries
Conservation and Management Act (MSA), we ask that you keep the
priorities of the Rhode Island fishing industry and our coastal
communities in mind. Rhode Island's fishing industry supports our
coastal economy and is part of our heritage. Preserving this industry
and the stocks it relies on is of utmost importance to us as we
represent the Ocean State.
On February 14, 2014, we held a listening session on the
reauthorization of the MSA. We have outlined below several priorities
we heard and hope you take the views expressed by our stakeholders into
consideration as the reauthorization is discussed.
1. Seats on the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council (MAFMC)
for Rhode Island. This has been a long-standing priority for the State.
Indeed, the 2006 MSA reauthorization authorized a report that examined
adding Rhode Island to the MAFMC. There are compelling reasons and
precedent for Rhode Island to have membership on this Council, as well
as the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC). While the State
continues to have significant participation in NEFMC-managed fisheries,
approximately 63 percent of commercial landings in Rhode Island now
come from species managed by the MAFMC, including squid, summer
flounder, scup, black sea bass, butterfish, and mackerel. Many of the
State's recreational fisheries, like summer flounder, scup, black sea
bass, and blue fish, are also managed by the MAFMC. Having
representation on more than one fishery management council is not
without precedent. Florida and North Carolina, for example, have been
granted voting representation via statute on the two regional fishery
management councils from which their fishermen derive significant
landings. It is worth noting that between 2007 and 2010 Rhode Island's
landings of MAFMC-managed stocks were approximately six times those of
North Carolina, which was granted voting representation on the MAFMC in
1996.
In order to ensure that Rhode Island's interests are adequately
represented in the management of the fisheries our industry relies on,
the State should have full representation on the MAFMC. A ``liaison''
from the NEFMC will not ensure that Rhode Island can fully participate
in council decisions. Therefore, we urge you to include the Rhode
Island Fishermen's Fairness Act (S. 713 and H.R. 1504) in the MSA
Reauthorization, ensuring Rhode Island two voting seats on the MAFMC.
2. Cooperative and Collaborative Fisheries Research. Rhode Island
recreational and commercial fishermen are eager to play a more active
role prioritizing fisheries research objectives and participating in
data collection that informs stock assessments and management
strategies. The demands on State and Federal fisheries agencies to
conduct surveys, monitor fishing activity, record environmental
variables, and analyze data are more than their resources can match. To
improve the quality of the ``best available science,'' reduce
scientific uncertainty in stock assessments, and hopefully improve
optimum sustainable yield and annual catch limits, the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) must see the fishing industry as a partner
that can leverage resources and expertise to conduct research and
collect data. Fishermen should have the opportunity to collaboratively
identify research needs and priorities, assist in conducting research
and collecting data cost-effectively, and share on-the-water
observations and historical knowledge to add context for data analysis
and informing assumptions being made in stock assessment models.
Expanding the use of research set-aside programs (RSAs), like the
Monkfish RSA, and maintaining the Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant program are
two ways to support cooperative research. However, it is also important
to make sure these resources are used effectively. Rhode Island
fishermen believe they should have a greater role determining how these
resources, including those of the NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science
Center Northeast Cooperative Research Program, are directed. This would
include access to the information the research generates, and
communication on how results are used. As a step toward addressing this
issue, the Northeast Cooperative Research Program could be required to
establish an oversight committee of industry representatives who would
be involved in setting research priorities and evaluating outcomes on
an annual basis. The current process of coordinating with the Councils
does not sufficiently address concerns of those who depend on the
results of this research. In addition, data generated from the research
should be made available to the public within the parameters of
confidentiality. To Rhode Island fishermen, this is essential. If NMFS
is the only entity with access to all the data it collects and
generates through cooperative research, it has a monopoly on analysis.
Making all data collected as part of cooperative research available
would build trust by allowing for additional or comparative analyses.
3. Flexibility in rebuilding timelines. The MSA has successfully
reduced overfishing and rebuilt some stocks. In general, fishermen who
attended our listening session did not express a desire to turn away
from the law's provisions related to annual catch limits or promoting
accountability. Many indicated that catch limits have reduced discards
and created certainty in markets that benefit their businesses.
However, some fishermen would like to increase flexibility in
rebuilding timelines or catch limits under certain conditions,
including for short-lived species, while being careful not to return to
the boom-bust model of fishing that benefits no one.
The committee should consider addressing flexibility in certain
situations without overhauling current law or providing blanket
exemptions. For example, flexibility could he linked to demonstrated
progress made rebuilding a stock. Many stakeholders have also noted
that the terms ``overfished'' and ``overfishing'' do not capture the
reality of what is happening to fish stocks and the many variables,
including climate change and changing ecosystem dynamics, which can
contribute to stock status. Updating these terms may be necessary at
this time.
4. Climate Change. Climate change makes fisheries science
increasingly uncertain and complex. Fishermen recognize that climate
change, and the associated increase in water temperature and
acidification, affects their bottom line. They see great need for all
those involved in fisheries management to be better informed about how
climate change affects fisheries at a regional scale so that timely
response measures can be developed and economic opportunities realized.
Lobster in Southern New England, for example, are moving out of State
waters into colder Federal waters offshore. States manage the lobster
fishery through the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission in
coordination with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), yet NOAA does not share in the cost of existing lobster
surveys, nor has it recognized the need to update survey methods in
Federal waters. NOAA should invest in the surveys that can help
evaluate how the changing ocean conditions affect the dynamics of
lobster and other stocks.
5. Transiting between Block Island and the Rhode Island mainland.
There is a narrow 2-mile band of Federal waters between State waters
off Block Island and the mainland. State-licensed commercial and
recreational fishermen fishing legally in State waters surrounding
Block Island are subject to uncertainty, and legal risk, as they
transit through Federal waters back to the mainland. Indeed, these
fishermen could be found in violation if they are stopped while in
Federal waters with fish on board that they are not allowed to possess
pursuant to Federal law, even though they were legally caught and are
allowed to possess the fish in State waters. Although the Rhode Island
Department of Environmental Management is not aware of any enforcement
action occurring against vessels making this trip, it would provide
fishermen peace of mind to know that they would not be in any legal
jeopardy. An exemption currently exists for fishermen transiting
between Block Island and the mainland with striped bass. To provide
greater certainty, a broader exemption or other measures should be
considered.
6. Differences between Commercial and Recreational Fishing Sector.
The Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee's Recreational Fisheries
Working Group (RFWG) has prepared recommendations for updating the MSA.
The paper highlights the difficulty in managing recreational fisheries
when there is a lack of recognition about how differently they function
from commercial fisheries. As noted in those comments, ``[c]harter for
hire captains are operating in commerce like commercial fishermen, but
are handicapped by a derby fishery that does not allow them to fish
when they have customers available. It is important that the charter
for hire and recreational sectors both are able to maximize full
economic benefit for their respective sides of the fishery.'' We hope
that recreational interests can be adequately addressed in the
reauthorization.
7. Short-lived specks and bycatch. More adaptive management of
short-lived species, like butterfish, is particularly important to
Rhode Island. The variability in these short-lived species can defy
typical surveys and stock assessments, leaving them hopelessly out-of-
date. The absence of up-to-date data can result in more cautious
management controls, and short-lived species can become ``choke
stocks'' for other targeted species when their population growth is not
reflected or predicted in models. Our fishermen have reported this
experience with respect to butterfish, which can be a ``choke stock''
for squid. The committee should consider requiring NMFS to adopt a
pilot program for short-lived species that would more quickly
incorporate valid on-the water observations into management measures.
As part of this effort, there should be a concerted investment in
reducing bycatch of short-lived species through gear innovation or
other management measures.
Due to the high mortality and waste associated with discards,
measures should also be considered that will reduce or eliminate
discarding. While this may be difficult to balance with other controls,
like catch limits, the committee should encourage innovative management
approaches to address this issue. One possibility discussed at the
meeting is the adoption of trawl limits, supported by modern
geolocation technology.
8. MSA interaction with other laws. Stakeholders have also
expressed concern with attempts to have the MSA take precedence over
other Federal laws like the National Environmental Protection Act,
National Marine Sanctuaries Act, the Antiquities Act of 1906, and the
Endangered Species Act. These statues also have an important role to
play managing natural resources and we would not support these kinds of
provisions.
We hope any reauthorization of the MSA can address these priorities
and we look forward to working with you on these and other ideas and
concerns that may arise during this process.
Sincerely,
Jack Reed,
Sheldon Whitehouse,
United States Senators.
James R. Langevin,
David N. Cicilline,
Members of Congress.
______
Prepared Statement of Troy C.D. Frady, Owner/Operator, Distraction
Charters
Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member DeFazio, and members of the
committee, I wanted to offer my thoughts on the legislative hearing on
the ``Strengthening Fisheries Communities and Increasing Flexibility in
Fisheries Management Act'' draft as it relates to the reauthorization
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, or
MSA.
My name is Troy Frady and I am a full time charter boat owner and
operator, from Orange Beach, Alabama. I use light tackle gear that
allows my customers to feel the bite while providing a lot of rod
bending action. I am a family fishing specialist that places emphasis
on education and conservation on all of my trips. My business
trademarks include: ``Experience fishing,'' ``Keep the best and release
the rest'' and ``Why kill it, if you're not going to grill it.''
Currently, I am the co-chair of the Data Collection Advisory Panel and
a member of the Red Snapper Advisory Panel of the Gulf of Mexico
Fishery Management Council (GMFMC). I am also serving a 2-year
appointment on the Recreational Fisheries Working Group (RFWG) of the
Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee (MAFAC). I am a steering committee
member of the Marine Recreational Education Program (MREP), which is
tasked with educating anglers on fishery management and science issues.
Finally, I am a member of the board of directors of the Orange Beach
Fishing Association and a member the Professional Outdoor Media
Association (POMA).
After almost two decades in the corporate world of banking and
transportation management, I returned to the Alabama Gulf Coast to take
care of my elderly, sick parents. Upon my father's passing in 2002, I
hung up my coat, removed my tie and decided to fulfill a lifelong dream
of becoming self employed as a charter fishing guide. I figured I could
make a living on the water because I knew how to catch fish, as I grew
up fishing near Galveston, Texas, along the Alabama Gulf Coast and in
Destin, Florida. I purchased a 1962 model Hatteras 41-foot convertible,
restored it, and went into the charter fishing business in July 2002.
When I began chartering, I was shocked to find that the once
abundant reef fish populations that I was used to seeing in the '70s
and '80s were severely overfished and in some cases, almost completely
gone. I found it extremely hard to catch legal reef fish for my
customers in areas that were once pristine.
When I started my business, I noticed that all of the other charter
boats had huge coolers on their decks because the larger the cooler,
the more fish there were for the customers. As innocent as it may
sound, there was a competition to fill the cooler every day. A full
cooler was an indicator that a captain had done his job and satisfied
their customers' needs. I also learned that if you published a picture
of a large catch hanging on nails, your customers expected to catch
that size and amount of fish. It was after these realizations that I
changed my marketing strategy and began photographing customers holding
mostly live fish and used them on my Web site. By doing so, I began
attracting customers that were more interested in the fishing
experience overall, which meant a great day spent on the water with
friends and family catching fish. Some captains thought I had gone
insane. Many did not understand how I could fish all day and come to
the dock with only a couple of fish for dinner. They had no idea that I
was asking my customers to tell me what they expected to get out of the
day's fishing trip. To my amazement, many of my customers simply wanted
to experience fishing or keep a few for dinner.
Just when I got my business growing and was trying to separate
myself from the competition, the Gulf Coast experienced two hurricanes
within a year of each other. These storms wiped out 90 percent of my
lesser known artificial reefs off the Alabama coastline preferred by
fishing captains. Other captains were saying that they too had lost
most of their private reefs. The only reefs that survived the storms
were the larger ones that were mostly public knowledge. Some of the
newer private reefs survived and some were found a few seasons later.
The reported 40-knot undersea current not only toppled and destroyed
the reefs, but it washed away most all of our reef fish, like red
snapper, out of our fishing area to other parts of the Gulf. Needless
to say, 2006 was the toughest year I had ever seen. However, I soon
realized that the two hurricanes actually leveled the playing field
among the competitive captains. Nobody was bringing in red snapper to
the dock like they used too because there were only a few fish to
catch. If and when the fish did come back, there were not nearly as
many reefs as there once were to attract the fish.
In 2008, when the bag limit was reduced to two red snapper per
person, we really started to notice a change and the positive effects
that MSA was having on the fishery. We began to see red snapper growing
at a rate of about 2 inches per year. With the decrease in bag limit, I
soon noticed many other captains followed my lead and began reducing
the size of their coolers because it was obvious that filling the
cooler was not an option anymore.
However, selling a fishing trip was tough in 2008 and 2009 because
the economy failed and all of those corporations, who used to spend
money entertaining their clients by taking them fishing, were no longer
booking trips. I often hear that it was the MSA that caused economic
hardship in the region, but I believe the recession had the biggest
impact on our fishing industry. We saw a difference when the economy
picked up, there were more fish in the water thanks to the requirements
of the MSA,
Since that time, the Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery has made
historical progress in its rebuilding. Unfortunately, what most people
don't realize is what we are witnessing is 3 strong year classes moving
through the fishery. 2011, 2012 and 2013 were banner years for red
snapper, but we are not out of the woods yet. We are seeing a localized
depletion of the stock each year close to shore and it's getting worse.
There are quite a few 2- and 3-pound red snapper near the shore, but
nobody wants to keep them. Everyone keeps fishing and tossing the
little ones back in hopes of catching something larger. That's because
with the bag limit at two fish, everyone wants the big fish. Back
before MSA was reauthorized, anglers were happy to catch four red
snapper at 3 pounds each. Now everyone wants two 10-pound fish or
larger.
Even though the red snapper fishery in the Gulf of Mexico is
rebuilding and fishing is somewhat getting better, now is not the time
to change course. Being a former corporate guy myself, I understand why
these captains and the communities are feeling frustrated. In order to
stay in business, you must have growth and profits--not unlike our
fisheries. We need diversity in our fisheries just as a tackle shop
needs a variety of rods and reels. We need to leave fish in the water
as a buffer against catastrophic events like the BP disaster, just as a
business needs reserves to weather tough economic times. The draft bill
would water down the MSA by adding more flexibility without adding any
accountability. This may seem like a good short time idea for the
industry, but it is a poor decision for the long-term health of the
fishery and the coastal communities and businesses that depend on a
sustainable resource. We need to ensure we continue the progress that
is being made and protect the conservation provisions of the MSA. Based
on my 12 years experience in the fishing industry as a Charter Boat
Captain and Gulf Resident, I offer the following suggestions and
solutions on how to improve fisheries management.
Annual Catch Limits
When Councils were required to adhere to the scientific advice of
the Science and Statistical Committee, it actually helped restore our
fisheries to what they are today. However, the discussion draft
proposed by Chairman Hastings would seek to roll back this progress by
providing Councils with the opportunity to marginalize the scientific
advice and simply not set Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) based on several
exemptions. Without science-based rules and a commitment to managing
our Nation's fisheries sustainably, short-term gain can undermine long-
term sustainability. This shortsightedness caused the very problems we
are now trying to fix. Rolling back these provisions would impede our
progress as we move toward the economic and social benefits of having a
fully restored fishery.
There is no doubt that by requiring strict ACLs, some fishermen and
communities have experienced economic hardship. In the past 7 years
however, the stock has been rebuilding, Captains have changed tactics
with many adopting my business model, and they are still in business
and some are even thriving.
When it comes to adhering to science-based ACLs or using the best
available science, I believe we can do much better by having increased
funding for more frequent stock assessments. Furthermore, by investing
in cooperative research, fishermen and scientists can continue to work
together to provide managers with the best information. One suggestion
to improve the process of setting catch limits would be to fund and
incorporate real time data derived from electronic monitoring of the
recreational fishery.
Flexibility in Rebuilding the Fishery Timelines
There is much controversy over giving more flexibility to the
Councils when it comes to rebuilding requirements. If the Gulf Council
approached rebuilding the way they approached ACLs, we would never have
made the progress that we are seeing on the water. It's amazing to me
to see the Gulf Council has all the flexibility they want when it comes
to allowing anglers to go over the ACL each year on red snapper. The
recreational sector has exceeded their quota 5 of the past 6 years with
the one exception being the summer of the Deepwater Horizon disaster.
However, the Council continues to allow overages and has taken little
if any steps to improve accountability in the recreational sector
despite the pleas of fishermen. If the Councils were allowed to be more
flexible when rebuilding a stock, nothing would change.
The requirement to end overfishing immediately, to some degree, has
hurt our coastal fishing communities' economies but not for the reasons
you may think. Our economy failed in mid to late 2008, which was the
same year the bag limits were reduced. Corporations stopped spending
money entertaining and families stopped discretionary spending by not
taking vacations while they rode out hard times. In the charter fishing
industry, we changed from taking corporations and individuals wanting
to fill their cooler, to taking mostly tourists and families fishing.
The failed economy actually did me a favor, in that it allowed me to
drill down and get focused on the tourism market that has grown each
year. Even though charters that focused on mostly corporate trips lost
their core business, they were like every other company in America who
had to tighten their belts and redefine who their customers were.
However, if we hadn't overfished in the first place, we wouldn't
need rebuilding plans or the need to set low ACLs. Currently, Councils
are able to set rebuilding timelines over the 10-year requirement if
the stock is unable to rebuild in that time due to international
treaties, environmental conditions, or the biology of the stock doesn't
allow for it. As of the end of 2013, four species in the Gulf of Mexico
are under rebuilding plans and over 90 stocks are of unknown or
undefined population status.\1\ The rebuilding plan for red snapper is
not scheduled to be completed until 2032 because of past fishing
pressure and the long lifespan of the species. According to SEDAR 31,
even if there was no fishing allowed at all, red snapper would still
take 12 years to rebuild. However, while anglers are seeing a lot of
red snapper out on the water, what we really have is an abundance of 5-
, 8- and 9-year-old with no older or younger fish. I understand that
some stocks may warrant shorter rebuilding times based on the life
cycle of the fish, but nobody logically believes that the red snapper
fishery, where the fish live for five decades can be restored and
become sustainable in just 6 short years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.nrdc.org/oceans/files/rebuilding-fisheries-gulf.pdf,
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/2013/fourth/
Q4%202013%20Stock%20Status%20Tables.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While I would agree that some of the hard 10-year rebuilding
timelines that were put in place to rebuild a particular fishery can
seem restrictive and cause short-term economic challenges to the
community, the rebuilding timelines set out in MSA are working and will
ensure long-term success of our Nation's fisheries. By requiring
Councils to keep some kind of hard number in the form of years, we are
far better off than allowing a particular fishery to hang in limbo
while rebuilding stretches out for years denying communities the
economic benefits of a rebuilt stock.
The draft bill would allow overfishing to continue for at least 3
years if not more. By allowing a fishery to continue to undergo
overfishing, it reminds me of the banking industry where we had someone
who failed to pay their note which likely was going to result in a
charge off. We always said, ``It doesn't make sense to put good money
after bad money.'' This means if you recognize you have a loss, it's
best to deal with it now because a loser today will be a loser
tomorrow.
Economic Impacts of MSA
Many charter boat operators, bait and tackle stores, marine
industry partners, lodging companies, and restaurants all say that the
recent series of short red snapper seasons have hurt our coastal
economies. In my opinion, the economy failing in late 2008 and
continuing for almost 3 years, had more of an impact on fishing than
the supposed ``lack of flexibility'' in fisheries management did.
According to a recent article in the Biloxi Sun Herald, the
National Marine Manufacturers Association reported a 10 percent
increase in new powerboat sales in 2012, 5 percent increase in 2013,
and is predicting a 5-7 percent spike this coming year. Even with the
restricted seasons of red snapper, sales are up because the fishery is
rebuilding and there are big fish to catch. There are fish in the water
due to the success of the rebuilding plan. In order for all coastal
communities and businesses to continue to grow their businesses and
make a profit, they must have abundant marine resources. There is
flexibility in the current law and instead of allowing loopholes for
establishing rebuilding requirements or eliminating ACLs, there should
be more accountability.
Electronic Reporting/Accountability
Section 8 of the discussion draft requires the Councils to work
with the fishing industry and to develop regulations on the use of
electronic monitoring and reporting. We all know that we must have the
best tools to gather real time catch and effort data in order to have
the best science. In the Gulf of Mexico for example, the approximate
1,300 federally permitted charter boats prior to MSA being reauthorized
in 2007, harvested as much as 60 percent of all recreationally caught
red snapper. Since NOAA knows who these Federal permit holders are,
this would be the easiest group of fishermen to control by requiring
mandatory Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) be installed on their boats
to capture real time catch and effort data.
At recent Gulf Council outreach meetings held along the Gulf Coast,
recreational anglers were asking to become accountable so they could do
their part. By ensuring that charter boats are more accountable for the
amount of fish they are harvesting, the Council would be taking steps
to ensuring that the recreational sector could better stay within their
ACL.
Regional Fishery Management Councils Makeup
Even though the language in MSA has expired, I feel it is important
to have balance on the Regional Fishery Management Councils. I would
urge you to add the requirement to Section 302(b)(2)(d)(i) that
requires governors from States who participate in the Council process
to include at least one nominee each from the commercial, recreational,
and charter fishing sectors and one other individual who is
knowledgeable regarding conservation and management of our marine
resources. This requirement should be added and made permanent.
Conflict of Interest between State and Federal Management
Because fishing licenses are sold by coastal States to generate
much needed revenue and the marine industry generates sales tax from
saltwater fishing, it is important that MSA include language that
requires State directors to abstain from voting on all allocation
issues between Commercial, Recreational and Charter for Hire sectors.
Extending the 3-Mile Boundary Line to 9 Miles
Section 10(f) of the discussion draft would extend State boundaries
to 9 miles in all Gulf States for the purpose of managing red snapper.
As I mentioned earlier, fish stocks close to shore are seeing
localized depletion and we have to go farther offshore to catch quality
fish. Even if we extended State boundaries to 9 miles and built
artificial reefs to attract and hold fish, they too would be fished out
sooner with the amount of fishing pressure in these areas. Currently,
the larger 7 to 10-pound fish within the proposed 9-mile territory are
mostly harvested by the second week of red snapper season each year.
Because anglers want to catch larger fish, there will be temptation to
go beyond the State boundary into the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)
where fishing pressure may be less but could lead to enforcement
issues. If all Gulf States had 9 miles of State territorial waters,
States would be encouraged to ignore the laws of our Nation and go
noncompliant with Federal regulations causing even shorter Federal
seasons for federally permitted charter boats and undue hardships on
charter fishing families and further reduce non-boat owning Americans
access to the fishery.
In my professional opinion, since only Texas and the Gulf side of
Florida have 9 miles of State waters, it makes sense (for the purposes
of fishery management only), to revert their waters to be the same as
every other coastal State in the union, which is 3 nautical miles. Why
should Texas and Florida's anglers get preferential treatment and cause
economic hardships on other Gulf Coast fishing communities because of
the user conflict they create each year by going inconsistent with
Federal fishing laws? Since National Standard 4 prohibits
discrimination between residents of different States, I believe it is
imperative that we make all coastal States natural resources
boundaries, for the purpose of fisheries management only, equal.
Florida and Texas set their red snapper seasons outside of the Federal
seasons, which results in their private recreational anglers being able
to fish when the other three Gulf States are unable to access the
fishery. Their inconsistencies with Federal law and keeping seasons
open longer than Federal seasons cause the rest of us to have fewer
days to fish because their overages are taken off the top of the ACL
for the next year. Furthermore, their overages of almost 4 million
pounds per year are not being remanded as the Gulf Council has yet to
put in any form of payback provision.
Another reason to make all State waters only extend to 3 miles is
that National Standard 3 requires that individual fish stocks shall be
managed as a single unit throughout its range. By making all Gulf
States boundaries consistent, this would make all States equal, none of
the National Standards would be violated, and enforcement could be
consistent. I believe these standards were put in place to protect us,
so why are we allowing a Texas and Florida to violate them while
causing economic hardship to the rest of the Nation's fishermen. To
further complicate matters, the State of Louisiana who has a 3-mile
boundary, has opened their red snapper season to an 88 weekend day
weekends only format to private recreational angling.
Because federally permitted charter boats must adhere to the
stricter of the regulations because of Gulf Council Amendment 30b,
Texas, Florida, and now Louisiana are causing an unnecessary economic
hardship on other States fishing communities. If 30b was rescinded and
the charter for hire sector was allowed to harvest red snapper in State
waters outside of the Federal season, they would ultimately decimate
the reef fish populations in those areas within a short period of time
and create another violation of National Standard 8's conservation
measures. Once those fish close to shore were harvested each year, we
would see anglers venturing into Federal waters in search of fish,
which would hurt the rebuilding of the fishery and causing an
enforcement nightmare.
Charter for Hire Industry Designation
Finally, we must amend section 407(c) that requires a referendum of
a vote from recreational participants who held a permit during the time
period of 1993 to 1996. This does not accurately reflect our current
make up of the charter fishing industry. Section 407(d) needs to be
amended so that separate ACLs can be established for both private
recreational fisherman and the charter for hire fishermen. This way,
when one sector is approaching their ACL, the other sector can continue
fishing until their quota is met. Currently, recreational anglers are
exceeding their ACL on red snapper in the Gulf by almost 4 million
pounds per year. Through separate allocations, one sector would not get
punished by the other sector's overages. The charter/for hire industry
wants to become accountable and do their part to help rebuild our
Nation's fisheries while maximizing non-boat owning America's angling
opportunities. If you move State boundaries out to 9 miles, to 120
fathoms or out to 200 nm, fishing communities would suffer while Gulf
States argue over their individual allocations.
With that respect, I request that language be added to MSA that
recognizes, allocates, strengthens and protects the federally permitted
charter for hire industry by requiring us to become accountable and
adhere to an allocation based on historical landings. This way, we can
stay within our ACL and not lose days to fish because of another user
groups overages. By doing so, will ensure the non-boat owning public
have equal access to America's public trust resources.
In sum, growing up fishing on the Gulf Coast, I was fortunate to
experience plentiful reef fisheries and pristine reefs. But two decades
later, that fishing experience I knew was gone because of rampant
overfishing and poor management of our fisheries resources. However
today, with the reauthorizations of MSA in 1996 and 2006, we have begun
to experience a turnaround in our fisheries. MSA's foundations of
science-based catch limits, commitment to ending overfishing, and the
incorporation of co-operative research have led to stocks like red
snapper rebuilding at a rate faster than we expected. This success,
however, does not mean our fight to recovery is over. Congress has the
opportunity to build on the progress we have made in the last 20 years.
While I understand the frustrations of communities who have experienced
some economic consequences and that the 10-year timeline seems
restrictive in some fisheries, the short-term gain that would result
from the Hasting's draft should not outweigh the long-term
sustainability of our Nation's fisheries.
[all]