[House Hearing, 105 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
WEST COAST GROUNDFISH AND DUNGENESS CRAB CONSERVATION
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
WEST COAST GROUNDFISH
and
H.R. 3498
THE DUNGENESS CRAB CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT
__________
APRIL 30 AND MAY 7, 1998
__________
Serial No. 105-99
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house
or
Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
48-663 CC WASHINGTON : 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Samoa
KEN CALVERT, California NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
RICHARD W. POMBO, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona SAM FARR, California
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon ADAM SMITH, Washington
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
KEVIN BRADY, Texas CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
RICK HILL, Montana Islands
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado RON KIND, Wisconsin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
Carolina SAM FARR, California
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
Harry Burroughs, Staff Director
David Whaley, Legislative Staff
Jean Flemma, Democratic Legislative Staff
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 30, 1998................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Saxton, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New Jersey.............................................. 1
Wyden, Hon. Ron, a Senator in Congress from the State of
Oregon..................................................... 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Alaska, prepared statement of........................... 1
Statement of Witnesses:
Anderson, Philip, Pacific Fishery Management Council......... 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 61
Garrison, Karen, Natural Resources Defense Council,.......... 24
Prepared statement of.................................... 80
Gunnari, Gerald, Coos Bay Trawlers Association............... 22
Prepared statement of.................................... 78
Moore, Rod, Executive Director, West Coast Seafood Processors
Association................................................ 26
Prepared statement of.................................... 92
Sampson, David, Oregon State University...................... 20
Prepared statement of.................................... 85
Schmitten, Rolland, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,
U.S. Department of Commerce; accompanied by Richard D.
Method, Jr., Division Director, National Marine Fisheries
Service; William Robinson, Assistant Regional Administrator
for Sustainable Fisheries, Northwest Region, National
Marine Fisheries Service................................... 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 69
Communications submitted:
Blackburn, Chris, Director, Alaska Groundfish Data Bank,
prepared statement of...................................... 82
Lund's Fisheries, Inc., Cape May, New Jersey, prepared
statement of............................................... 103
Hearing held on May 7, 1998...................................... 35
Statement of Members:
Saxton, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New Jersey.............................................. 35
Pallone, Hon. Frank, Jr., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New Jersey.................................... 36
Prepared statement of.................................... 36
Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Alaska, prepared statement of........................... 56
Statement of Witnesses:
Anderson, Philip, Pacific Fishery Management Council......... 39
Prepared statement of.................................... 74
Evans, David, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,
National Marine Fisheries Service; accompanied by William
Robinson, Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service Northwest
Region..................................................... 37
Prepared statement of Mr. Evans.......................... 58
Fisher, Randy, Executive Director, Pacific States Marine
Fisheries Commission....................................... 40
Prepared statement of.................................... 61
Furman, Nick, Executive Director, Oregon Dungeness Crab
Commission................................................. 45
Prepared statement of.................................... 63
Moore, Rod, Executive Director, West Coast Seafood Processors
Association................................................ 51
Prepared statement of.................................... 67
Parravano, Pietro, President, Pacific Coast Federation of
Fishermen's Associations................................... 49
Prepared statement of.................................... 65
Thevik, Larry, Washington Dungeness Crab Fishermen's
Association/Columbia River Crab Fishermen's Association.... 47
Prepared statement of.................................... 64
Communications submitted:
Beasley, Dale, Commissioner, Columbia River Crab Fisherman's
Association, prepared statement of......................... 102
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON WEST COAST GROUNDFISH
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 30, 1998
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Fisheries
Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, Committee on
Resources, Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:11 a.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Jim Saxton
(chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM SAXTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Saxton. The Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation,
Wildlife and Oceans is meeting today to conduct an oversight
hearing on the West Coast groundfish. The main thrust of the
hearing is to explore the methodology used by the National
Marine Fisheries Service to place new restrictions on
harvesting of certain species of groundfish on the West Coast.
As with most issues associated with groundfish, this issue
is complicated. Many of these groundfish, which are long-lived
species with slow growth rates and a very low ratio of
production to biomass, are important to both commercial and
recreational sectors. Therefore, it is very important that
stock assessments be accurate and timely.
A number of stock assessment methods have been used by the
National Marine Fisheries Service to determine the status of
specific stocks of groundfish. Historically, the National
Marine Fisheries Service has gathered stock assessment data
through several methods, including slope surveys, shelf
surveys, pot surveys, and long-line surveys. I look forward to
hearing from our witnesses about the relative benefits and
disadvantages of each survey method, as well as other comments
on the fishery.
Now, I will move to the first panel for their opening
statements. Mr. Schmitten, why don't you begin, and we
appreciate very much your being here this morning, and that
goes for the whole panel, of course.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]
Statement of Hon. Don Young, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Alaska
Mr. Chairman, thank you for scheduling this hearing on west
coast groundfish.
As you are well aware, in December of last year, the
National Marine Fisheries Service announced the 1998 harvest
levels for 13 species (or species groups) of groundfish that
are managed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council. The har-
vest levels for eight of the thirteen species were drastically
cut from the 1997 levels--some as much as 60 percent.
While I have always advocated harvest levels that ensure a
sustainable harvest, I am concerned by such a drastic
reduction. If the stocks were in such bad shape that a harvest
reduction was in order, why was it not predicted earlier? Was
there a sudden change in ocean conditions that caused a huge
decrease in the population in one year's time? If not, then
what caused such a sudden, drastic cut in the acceptable
harvest level?
This is yet another example of the fishery managers not
having enough information on the health and status of the
fishery resources to make timely, informed decisions. If we are
to maintain sustainable populations of fishery resources, and
if we are to maintain a viable fishing industry, we need to
provide the fishery managers with adequate information.
We cannot continue to manage from one crisis to another. It
certainly doesn't help the fishery resources to have widely
varying harvest levels that allow high harvest levels one year
and put the fishery in danger of collapsing the next year. It
also certainly doesn't help the fishing industry who think they
are harvesting at an acceptable level and suddenly find
themselves on the beach and looking to the Federal Government
for help.
One of the problems with assessing the abundance of west
coast groundfish has been that the trawl survey is only done
once every three years. It is very difficult for fishery
managers to predict trends in the populations without up-to-
date information. Two or three year old information may not be
adequate.
This Committee, and the Merchant Marine and Fisheries
Committee before it, have been asking NOAA to develop a plan
for fishery research for at least 7 years. After years of
inaction, NOAA finally developed a plan for new fishery
research vessels and asked this Congress to appropriate money
for design work in fiscal year 1998. We responded positively to
that request. Now, however, I find that the Administration's
fiscal year 1999 budget submission contains no funds for these
essential vessels. This is remarkable and incredibly
disappointing.
The problem of inadequate fishery data is not unique to the
west coast or the groundfish fishery. This is a problem in
almost all of our fisheries. In fact, NOAA admitted how little
data they have in the report to Congress on the status of
fisheries of the United States. According to this report, we do
not know the status of almost two-thirds of the species managed
by the Federal Government. How can fishery managers make
informed decisions without information?
We need to do something about this. I hope we will hear
testimony today that will give NOAA officials some ideas for
developing research plans which will give fishery managers
better information so that better, more consistent management
measures can be implemented.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
STATEMENT OF ROLLAND SCHMITTEN, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR
FISHERIES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; ACCOMPANIED BY RICHARD
D. METHOT, JR., DIVISION DIRECTOR, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES
SERVICE; WILLIAM L. ROBINSON, ASSISTANT REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES, NORTHWEST REGION, NATIONAL MARINE
FISHERIES SERVICE
Mr. Schmitten. Well, thank you very much, and good morning,
Mr. Chairman. I'd like to thank you for inviting us to testify
on the issue of West Coast groundfish. Just for the record, I
am Rollie Schmitten. I'm NOAA's Assistant Administrator of
Fisheries, and, as requested by the Committee, I'm accompanied
by Mr. William L. Robinson, the Assistant Regional
Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries in our Northwest Region
and Dr. Richard Methot, the Director of Fisheries Resources,
Analysis and Monitoring Division of the Northwest Fisheries
Science Center. Mr. Chairman, these will be your experts today,
and I will introduce--although I'm sure he will introduce
himself--from the Pacific Fishery Management Council, Mr. Phil
Anderson, a representative from the State of Washington.
You have our complete testimony, so let me just summarize
that very briefly for you. I'd like to begin with my conclusion
and recommendation to you and the Subcommittee. Mr. Chairman,
my concern for West Coast groundfish comes from the 14 years
that I was a State and a West Coast regional fisheries manager.
During that time, I had the pleasure to serve on both the
Pacific Fisheries Management Council and the North Pacific
Management Council, so I have some knowledge of the issues of
groundfish on our West Coast, and also the process that was
used to manage those fisheries.
Let me note, though, that although the Committee's focus is
on West Coast groundfish, my concern from groundfish in the
west extends from California to Alaska, and that the major part
of the solution remains the same, whether it's for California,
Oregon, Washington, or Alaska. That is, given the fact that
most of these fisheries are overcapitalized, that the
competition for each fish has become very aggressive, that
technology often outpaces management and scientific knowledge,
that abnormal ocean environmental conditions have existed the
past decade, therefore, the accuracy and timeliness of fishery
data is imperative to maintain both healthy fisheries and fish
stocks.
So the solution is simple. We must move from a triennial to
an annual survey basis. And the need for annual surveys applies
to Alaska as well as to the lower, or the southern part of the
West Coast, so as to assure that the largest and most valuable
fisheries in the Nation remain robust and that increased
knowledge through the annual surveys in the lower West Coast
help restore the confidence in the system.
Mr. Chairman, just for a moment, I'll focus on the process
of managing West Coast fisheries. First of all, the term
groundfish is an oversimplification for what these people work
with. In fact, the Pacific Council's fisheries management plan
for groundfish includes 83 diverse species. Currently, the best
available information now indicates that some of the stocks are
only at 10 to 20 percent of their unfished levels, and that
reductions in catch were necessary to allow the rebuilding to
safer, more productive levels to occur.
I think the Subcommittee is aware, but, pursuant to
Magnuson, NOAA fisheries is responsible for providing the
scientific information on which the Councils base their
management decisions, and we work very closely with the Council
on doing that. What is unusual on the West Coast is that the
agency's northwest, southwest, and Alaska science centers all
conduct the research that provides the scientific basis for the
Council's recommendations on harvest levels.
Mr. Chairman, just to conclude, let me summarize what we've
achieved in the past four years, and you can track that by the
document, that I believe each Member has.
[The information referred follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8663.001
Mr. Schmitten. While I was still in Northwest, we began to
witness major declines in certain Northwest groundfish stocks.
Upon becoming the Director of National Marine Fisheries Service
in 1994, I promulgated the need to establish a separate
groundfish unit in the Northwest science center, and to no
longer rely on the Alaska science center to do the data
analysis working up to the stock assessments. It wasn't saying
that they couldn't do, and weren't doing, a good job. It was
saying that we wanted to establish a separate unit in the West
Coast for the West Coast.
In January, 1995, we initiated the Northwest Fisheries
Science Center groundfish program at the Newport lab in Oregon,
and they began to provide a coordinated stock assessment
program which focused on the important and valuable deep-water
species in that area. We initiated that program with a one-and-
a-half million dollar dedication of funds and a staff of seven
people that same year. To make sure of what was needed, we
conducted an external review of West Coast groundfish stock
assessments, and they identified that the number one weakness
was the lack of survey data as a main cause of the problem.
That links back to my solution, that we have to get away from
relying on three years before we go back in a survey, and move
to an annual survey basis.
Many other things have occurred, including providing the
funds--$400,000--to take care of the triennial survey, because
the NOAA research vessel was about to go into drydock. That was
the number one request of industry. Also this year, we added
$750,000 in permanent base funding to the Northwest region for
the West Coast groundfish management and research, and that was
the number two request of the industry. An unusual feature that
Congress asked us to consider the Magnuson-Stevens Act, was the
use of fish under a new fish-for-research provision, and that
will be embraced for the first time in the Nation on the West
Coast.
To just close, I want to comment on an issue that we've
been working on closely with Senator Wyden. And I want to
stress my admiration for his strong support for the West Coast
fisheries industry, and to indicate that the National Marine
Fisheries Service supports the utilization of trip-limit
overages for science, as proposed by Senator Wyden. Not only
would it reduce the unnecessary waste, it would also add
science that would help provide a better accounting for the
overall groundfish quota. And after extensive talks with the
industry, with the State, with the Councils, we will propose
such a pilot program to the Pacific Fisheries Management
Council in June. To further help facilitate such a proposal,
I've agreed with Senator Wyden that a way of closely involving
the affected industry is that our agency will sponsor a
workshop, under the auspices of the Council, to develop a draft
pilot program.
Mr. Chairman, I think that shows you that in a short four
years, we've developed a program, we've nurtured it, and it now
is a first-class science program. It's not without problems yet
before it, but I think we've come a long way, and I appreciate
this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schmitten may be found at
end of hearing.]
Mr. Saxton. Phil Anderson, go to it. Thank you very much.
STATEMENT OF PHILIP ANDERSON, PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT
COUNCIL
Mr. Anderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning,
and good morning members of the Committee. My name is Phil
Anderson. I represent the Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife on the Pacific Fishery Management Council, and I'm
here today to testify on behalf of the Pacific Council. The
Council appreciates this opportunity that you've provided us to
provide testimony on the management and research needs of the
West Coast groundfish fishery.
The Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service
manage the groundfish fishery consistent with the Pacific Coast
groundfish fishery management plan, which was developed in
1982. The fishery is comprised of three primary sectors, the
commercial fishing sector, processing sector, and the
recreational fishing sector.
The commercial fishery harvests primarily Dover sole, sable
fish, Pacific whiting, and a variety of species of rock fish.
The majority of the commercial fisheries to extend landings
throughout the year by setting cumulative trip limits per
vessel, and adjusting them in season as necessary. The
recreational fishery harvests a relatively small portion of the
total harvest; however, groundfish does represent an important
species for that industry.
Annual management specifications for major species are
established each year and are derived from stock assessment.
Stock assessments are generally conducted with models which
allow the utilization of information obtained from a number of
different fishery and resource survey sources. In addition,
beginning in 1995, National Marine Fisheries Service has made
very significant efforts to improve survey technique. However,
given the limited amount of funding available, and the
technological difficulties of estimating the biomass of
groundfish, survey and assessment results are accompanied by
substantial uncertainty and imprecision.
The Council recently implemented a new stock assessment
process designed to, first, improve public participation, and
increase the level of scientific peer review and to provide
greater separation between the science and management. Based on
the 1997 stock assessment, the Council recommended very
significant reductions in the allowable harvest of a number of
the major species that contribute to the commercial fishery for
1998.
The total ex-vessel, or landed value, of the species that
were reduced are projected to decline from a level of 59.8
million in 1996 to 41.4 million in 1998. This substantial
reduction in revenue will further aggravate the depressed
economic conditions in both the fishing and processing sectors,
in addition to the overall economies of the coastal communities
where they are based. Reasons for the dramatic reductions in
biomass from previous assessments are unclear. The results of
the 1997 assessments raise a number of questions about the
adequacy of the science used to manage the fishery. The
industry has been harvesting at levels adopted by the Council,
yet significant declines appear to have occurred in many
species.
To increase the accuracy of stock assessments, improve
management, and provide for a stable fishery, the Council
believes the following steps should be taken.
First, National Marine Fisheries Service should increase
the frequency and coverage of trawl surveys. The Council also
supports cooperative agency and industry research projects, a
tool that was recently made available through the
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation
Fisheries Management Act. In particular, we--I'm sorry, it has
the potential to collect needed information at less cost, while
providing support to the industry.
Second, we must take a precautionary approach, because even
with improved assessments, there will continue to be a wide
confidence interval in the biomass estimates. The Council is
examining a more conservative harvest policy. Exploitation
rates would be reduced as biomass levels decline to address
management uncertainty. If approved, this management approach
should provide more stable and abundant populations for the
future.
Third, we must improve estimates of total fishing
mortality. Assume levels of discard are based upon limited and
outdated studies. A comprehensive observer program, and
alternative ways of collecting this information are being
considered by the Council.
Finally, we must reduce the existing harvest capacity. In
1994, the Council, through National Marine Fisheries Service,
implemented a license limitation program in an effort to curb
the growth in the fishing fleet. However, the capacity still
far exceeds the resource available for harvest. Additional
measures are necessary to achieve a stable and economically
healthy industry. An industry developed and funded trawl permit
buy-back program is currently being considered by the Council.
Individual quotas are another method of addressing excessive
capacity; unfortunately, this tool is not presently available
to the Council.
The Council looks forward to working with the fishing and
processing sectors, and National Marine Fisheries Service to
meet the resource management challenges that lie ahead.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Anderson may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much. Let me just ask a couple
of questions, and then go ahead and turn the rest of the
questions over to the other members.
Why have some stock assessment methods been abandoned, such
as pot surveys in favor of some others, and are there any types
of surveys that are particularly useful to fisheries managers
that should be continued or increased? Dr. Methot?
Mr. Schmitten. Dr. Methot?
Dr. Methot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The survey methods
that are used on the West Coast have included a number of
different techniques. The discontinuation of the pot survey
that had been done for sablefish through 1991 was partly based
upon the number of resources available to conduct overall
surveys, and also due to some technical limitations of
conducting that particular pot survey.
The emphasis since then has been on a multi-species trawl
survey. The multi-species aspect of the trawl survey provides
us information not just on the sablefish, but also the
thornyhead species which are growing in importance, and Dover
sole as well. The opportunity to expand our survey efforts to
once again include a sur-
vey that would be targeted on sablefish, such as a pot survey
or a long-line survey, is an opportunity that we are very
interested in exploring, as we have greater opportunity to
expand our resource survey capabilities.
Mr. Saxton. You mentioned the trawl survey, which my
understanding, you have historically done that every three
years. Is that correct?
Dr. Methot. There are two trawl surveys that are conducted
upon the West Coast, and they're independent efforts. One is a
triennial survey, every third year, beginning in 1977. And it's
a survey that has been targeted upon primarily the rock fish
and other species that are upon on to the shallower waters of
the continental shelf. Again, that survey's gone on every third
year, since 1977, again in 1998.
The other survey has been conducted annually since 1988,
and it's a survey that's directed more to the deep-water
species. It uses a slightly different trawl, and it's a survey
that's been conducted by the NOAA vessel MILLER FREEMAN,
whereas the triennial survey has been conducted aboard two
chartered trawl fishing vessels, as well as university vessels.
So these two surveys, together, give us some coverage of
the diversity of groundfish species, but even these two trawl
surveys do not cover all of the various species of groundfish
that we have under our jurisdiction.
Mr. Saxton. Let me just ask, with regard to the trawl
survey, understand that the NMFS vessel that conducts, or that
you use to do the trawl surveys, is going to be taken out of
service, at least temporarily. Is that correct?
Mr. Schmitten. Mr. Chairman, this is one that I've been
very directly involved in. Yes, for the leg of the triennial
survey that it was going to conduct, it will be laid up in the
drydock. I think this vessel is 32 years old. Industry was
extremely concerned, because that could mean, instead of a 3-
year, there could be a 5-year lapse. They sought for some
funding relief. I have guaranteed that the $400,000 that is
necessary to conduct that survey is committed, and that we will
contract with the private sector to get the job done. That was
their number-one request of us.
Mr. Saxton. Will the methodology and the results of the
methodology done by NMFS that you will do through private
contracts be compatible with the results of the surveys that
you did?
Mr. Schmitten. It certainly is our intent, and that was
part of the reason that we contracted with the University of
Washington to develop the protocols for allowing and working
closer with the private sector to conduct some of the survey
work. I ultimately envision both the private sector doing up to
40 percent of the surveys, and NOAA conducting the balance, but
in partnership. And I think by doing that, you gain much more
believability and reliance, or support of industry.
Mr. Saxton. I wonder if you would all mind if I do
something unusual. Senator Wyden has come in, and he was to be
our first panelist. Senator Wyden, we're going to go vote, and
I don't want to make you wait until we get back, so maybe if--
Rollie, would you mind letting the Senator take your seat?
Mr. Schmitten. Yes, sir.
Mr. Saxton. And we'll hear Senator Wyden's testimony, and
then we'll come back to you as soon as the vote has been
completed.
You may proceed. We're going to leave here in approximately
10 minutes for our vote, so take your time, but if you could
finish up within 10 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, A SENATOR IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF OREGON
Senator Wyden. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for your
thoughtfulness, and going back to the days when I was a member
of this body, I've enjoyed working with you, and I want to
thank you for your graciousness again. And I see old friends
Congressman Farr, and Wayne, and really appreciate your coming.
I would ask unanimous consent that my full statement could be
made a part of the record, and perhaps just touch for a minute
or two on a couple of key points.
Mr. Saxton. Without objection.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I just come
today to say that I think the National Marine Fisheries Service
has worked in a very positive and constructive way with those
of us in Oregon who are trying to deal with this groundfish
crisis. And it is truly, you know, a crisis.
Terry Garcia came at my request to the south coast, met
with fishing families, met with a cross-section of industry
leaders, and they are just devastated with these reductions in
the allowable catch. And he vowed then to say that he was going
to be able to come back and show that we're making some
changes. And in fact, he has brought with the proposal that Mr.
Schmitten's talking about today something that I think is very,
very constructive. In effect, what they are proposing to do is
to use the next few months to work with fishing families, with
the fishing communities, to devise a new approach that would
allow for the first time overage, you know, fishing in excess
of the allowable limits to be sold when it gets to shore, used
and overseen by a public entity, to start looking at ways to
avoid this problem in the first place, and so that we can get
better stock assessments. Perhaps hire some of those fishers
that are out of work as observers. Look at issues relating to
gear and how it's used.
And what they envisage is essentially what we have been
talking to them about over the last few months, since Terry
Garcia came to the Oregon coast. And the most appealing part of
it to me is something Congressman Gilchrest and I always used
to talk about when we'd talk about these kinds of issues. It is
that this would not be a top-down, run-from-Washington, DC
exercise. We've decided that this would be something that would
be voluntarily. Fishing families could choose to be part of
this if they wanted to, and in the next few months, essentially
you would, through some workshops and other sessions on the
coast, allow for fishing families to essentially design this
over the next few months, use it through our regional
organization.
So I'm very hopeful that we can go forward on this. The
industry is in support of this. We've talked to a lot of people
in the commu-
nities; they're for it. Conservationists like the idea of using
this as a chance to test out some new approaches.
My view is, Mr. Chairman, and I'll really wrap up with this
last point, that this could be a national model. This could be
a national model where we could really study how to deal with
this overage question, how to make sure that we make better use
of the resource, and the most appealing part of it is, it
wouldn't be run from the Beltway. It'd be run from the region,
we'd involve the families, come back with good data on the kind
of key elements so you and others could take a look at it, and
perhaps be duplicated elsewhere.
So, I really appreciate the chance to come, particularly to
go out of order. I remember so well having to chase across the
street and make a vote, so I really appreciate the chance to
give just a couple of minutes of input this way.
Mr. Saxton. Well, Senator, thank you very much. Your
testimony is very articulate and we appreciate very much
hearing from you on this issue. I can tell from your testimony
how closely you're working with the local folks, as well as
with the regulators, Rollie and others. And so we really
appreciate the degree of enthusiasm with which you have
approached this issue.
Mr. Farr, do you have any questions at this? But I'd just
like to thank you for being here. Mr. Farr, do you have any
questions?
Mr. Farr. I'll save my questions till after we get back
from the vote, but I do want to thank the Senator for coming
over here. It's nice to see you here, we miss you in this
House, we appreciate your leadership in the Senate, and we hope
the Senate will be as user-friendly for our requests as we are
for yours.
Senator Wyden. You have reciprocity under all
circumstances, and suffice it to say this Committee, you all
are really the experts on this issue. I've learned a lot about
groundfish in the last few months, and we're going to be
working real closely with you.
Mr. Saxton. Mr. Gilchrest.
Mr. Gilchrest. I just want to say, Ron, it's good to have
you back here. We really look forward to working with you on
this and many other issues, especially how we, the human
species, are trying to figure out the complexity of the
fluctuations in other species, especially this groundfish
problem. But working with the community to set up and
anticipate problems so they're not so dramatic or drastic is a
wise idea. Good to see you again, Ron.
Senator Wyden. You're being too logical, as always, and
that's the heart of it, it's preventive strategy.
Mr. Saxton. Well, thank you very much, Senator. And we're
going to take a little break here now so that we can run across
the street, as the Senator said, and vote, and when we come
back, it will be Mr. Farr's turn to question, and Mr.
Schmitten, you can resume your seat there when we get back.
Thank you very much.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Wyden follows:]
Statement of Hon. Ron Wyden, a Senator in Congress from the State of
Oregon
Mr. Chairman, if ever there was an issue which called for
innovation and new ideas, fishery management is it. Everyone
agrees that something needs to be done to keep fish stocks from
disappearing and keep our fishing communities vital, but
nothing has ever seemed to work.
All along my state's magnificent coastline, from Newport to
Astoria, fishing communities are at a moment of serious peril.
The groundfish stocks on which they depend may have shrunk to
dangerously low levels. And the government, in trying to
protect that resource, has placed limits on allowable
groundfish catch which jeopardize livelihoods and threaten
entire communities. At the end of last year the Pacific Fishery
Management Council approved harvest guidelines which called for
a huge cut in the 1998 allowable catch of many groundfish
species. The cuts were made based on scientific stock
assessments, but the data underlying those assessments are
extremely limited. The Council said it had no choice under the
law but to reduce fishing.
Oregonians want to manage the groundfish resource wisely.
The fishing industry is an integral part of the culture of
Oregon's coastal communities as well as a major contributor to
the economy. In Lincoln County, for example, the fishing
industry provides around $61 million each year to the local
economy and 20 percent of the total wages earned.
Unfortunately, the measures being taken to protect fish
stocks have had a devastating effect on Oregon's seafood
community. The reduction in allowable catch, which for some
species is as high as 65 percent, will result in a 23 percent
decrease in all groundfish-derived contributions to Oregon's
economy. This translates into a $14 million loss of personal
income or the equivalent of about 678 jobs in Oregon. The cuts
will have a disastrous economic ripple effect in coastal
communities--from boat crew members and processing plant
workers, to boat and plant owners, to marine hardware
suppliers, to port businesses.
Most disturbing to me is the fact that the severely reduced
harvest guidelines are based on inadequate data. As you know,
harvest guidelines are determined by stock assessments, which,
in turn, are dependent on the data collected in surveys. Data
used to make stock assessments on the West Coast are considered
to be inadequate by scientists, fishermen, fishery managers,
and environmentalists. Without better data and analysis, stock
assessments and harvest guidelines will be subject to
skepticism--especially during these times of low harvest
levels.
Some of your witnesses may suggest ways to improve the
collection and analysis of data. I would like to highlight two
ideas: chartered surveys and retention of overages.
It is crucial that the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) perform annual surveys of grouch stocks so that fishery
management decisions are based on the best data. The Northwest
does not have a dedicated research vessel to perform this
important work, so surveys have traditionally been performed
only every three years. In place of a dedicated research
vessel, NMFS is starting to follow the industry's suggestion to
charter private vessels to collect data. NMFS should expand the
use of these collaborative surveys--the more experience the
agency has in conducting these surveys, the more effective the
resulting data.
Chartered surveys can be paid for by ``fish for
research''--a concept that allows fishermen to keep the fish
caught during chartered surveys as a means of partial payment
for the survey. I am encouraged by NMFS's indication that they
will be trying out ``fish for research'' this year. This
program can potentially create a mechanism to finance the
collection of data giving NMFS more data at less cost to the
taxpayer.
The other program I would like to highlight is a
``retention of overages'' plan, which would utilize some of the
fish that fishermen are forced by regulations to discard. This
idea has been raised by the industry several times in the past.
The objectives of a retention of overages plan are to reduce
the waste of fish and to increase and improve groundfish data.
Overages are marketable fish caught in excess of trip
limits. Fishermen are fined if they bring overages to port, so
they throw the fish overboard. Most of these fish die. This is
a terrible waste, especially considering the current crisis.
Fishermen have told me that they are angry they are forced to
throw ``beautiful'' fish overboard to die. I suggest that we
utilize these fish and work towards increasing our
understanding of the fishery so that we can better manage it.
A retention plan would allow fishermen to keep their
overages without being fined. A fisherman would bring his catch
to port and sell the amount of his trip limit. The overages
would be surrendered to a public entity. The entity would sell
the fish to the local processor, take the funds and grant them
for specific purposes, such as scientific research or community
assistance.
I suggest this idea be implemented as pilot project for the
remainder of this year. A working group made up of NMFS and
industry folks could meet to discuss implementation procedures
as well as come up with innovative ideas for using the funds.
If this group is established quickly, it could report to the
Pacific Fishery Management Council at the Council's next
meeting this summer.
At the end of the year, the working group could reconvene
to evaluate the effects and make recommendations on the
possibility of a year-long plan for 1999. The objective of a
more extensive plan should be to provide the data needed to
eventually reduce overages and discards in general. Currently,
fishery managers estimate the level of discards and these
estimates play a role in determining harvest guidelines. A more
extensive retention plan could even help fund an observer
program to provide accurate data regarding total catch thereby
reducing the level of uncertainty involved in setting harvest
levels.
I'd like to be clear in saying that I don't think a
retention of overages plan should be permanent. I don't want a
plan to legitimize or institutionalize overages and discards.
Rather, I'd like the plan to provide the scientific basis from
which fishery managers can work to effectively reduce discards.
What I'm advocating here today is implementation of a pilot
plan for only this year, so that we can get an idea of how well
this idea will work. Afterwards, if appropriate, we can discuss
a longer term plan.
I realize that many people have strong feelings regarding
the management of groundfish. But we are in a crisis situation.
We need to get past the finger pointing stage and start working
on solutions. I have been working closely with Terry Garcia,
the Deputy Administrator of NOAA, on West Coast fisheries
issues. Terry is a breath of fresh air. Recently, he traveled
with me to the Oregon Coast to attend two public meetings to
discuss groundfish issues. We both left those meetings deeply
impressed by the urgent needs of the fishing community. There
are critical needs which must be addressed on the West Coast
and I think Terry understands them. My suggestions are the
result of our meetings on the Oregon Coast.
In closing, I would like to say that as we discuss
groundfish management practices, we should remember that the
livelihoods of people are directly linked to management
decisions. Let's not forget the fishermen, the processors, and
all the other people linked to the seafood industry.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for calling attention to an issue
of such importance to Oregonians and to all citizens of the
West Coast. I would ask that my prepared statement be printed
in the hearing record.
[Recess.]
Mr. Saxton. If the witnesses would be so kind as to get in
their places and take their seats. When we left, we had just
concluded with Senator Wyden, and thank you very much for
understanding and for permitting the Senator to intervene in
this panel. And we were just about to move to Mr. Farr for his
questions.
Mr. Farr. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really
appreciate you having this hearing. As you recall, Congressman
Miller and myself asked you, an East Coaster, to hold a hearing
on the Pacific Coast fisheries, and I really appreciate it. And
it's also good to have you back from last week when you were
ill, when we were doing a mark-up of the Oceans Act.
Let me just paraphrase some of my concerns. I'm sort of
frustrated. I'm a public official. I'm elected, and I'm
appointed to this Committee. The Committee is the Resources
Committee. And we essentially have--the major responsibilities
are our mining Subcommittee, and those are all the mining
resources, oil and gas, and other mineral deposits. We have a
water Subcommittee which is just meeting down the hall. They
essentially have the whole issue of water and, you know, how
much is it and where is it going to go, and so much so that we
have a lot of money invested in futures of water and saline-
making water contracts and so on. And we have a fisheries
Committee. And it seems that it would mean that, of all the
resources that we have out there, this is the one that we know
the least about.
Why--and as a public official, I mean, I'm sitting here
thinking, is this going to be--is fisheries sort of an S and L
scandal, that it's where the regulators aren't really
regulating very well. Is it that we don't know where we're
headed, or is this something where we're overreacting and we're
having people sit at home on shore, where there really isn't a
problem? And see, we're caught between the two. Because we
represent the constituents who are the commercial fishermen,
and we represent the public who owns the resources, all the
fish stock out there. And I don't want to lose it.
I represent an area where I grew up with a catastrophic
loss of the fishery, and a lot of people don't realize what
happened. They know more about the northeast fisheries than
they recall of Monterey, which used to be the largest sardine
port in the world and we lost the sardines. And the entire
place closed. And it was just one city and, you know, there
wasn't the kind of programs that we have now on disaster relief
and so on. So here's the city of Monterey, just for almost 20
years, the Cannery Row just sat there. And now it's obviously a
thriving tourist venture, but what was lost in that 20 years
was just incredible productivity of people and lives.
So, here we are. We're sitting here talking about what we
know is to be a problem on the Pacific Coast. We have created a
management Council. But why--and the management Council is, I
think, it's a good--it's a combination of private and public
sector and science. Why are we so weak on the science? Why
don't we know more about this, and what we know, why aren't we
better regulating it? Why are we here worried about depleting a
fishery?
Mr. Schmitten. Mr. Farr, let me start with that. First, let
me personally thank you for your interest, even if it's concern
I know it's honest concern for the resource, and for asking for
this hearing.
Why we know so little, frankly, it goes to my solution, and
that is I think we need to move from triennial surveys, which
at one time was thought adequate. We do have a data base that
goes back into the mid-1970's, but for today's demands on these
resources, the uncertainties with the environment, the issues
that I raised with the overcapitalization, we can't afford to
rely on what was good for the 1970's and 1980's. We need annual
information. We need it every year if we're going to have
support of the industry for our data.
Mr. Farr. Well, why haven't we had that? That's the
question--I mean, is there anything broken in the law that
doesn't allow you to do your job?
Mr. Schmitten. Oh, absolutely not. Why we haven't had it is
we haven't been able to afford it.
Mr. Farr. So we haven't had enough money?
Mr. Schmitten. Let me just tell you. Last year, we lost
five million dollars out of the resource information line which
supports annual stock assessments. A portion, in fact a big
portion, of that was going to go to the West Coast. We have
identified now, since I have been here, the needs on the West
Coast. I have taken money away from all parts of the Nation to
continue to fund and buildup this program, and we've done that
to the tune now of about three million dollars. But we do need
help.
Mr. Farr. Well, have we--this is a very frank discussion
here--have we done what we need to do to really understand how
much money we're going to need to solve the problem? I mean, if
we put this on a crisis level, if it is a crisis, Congress
loves to respond to crises. That's what we do, in fact, we
usually don't respond until it gets there. And if there's a
crisis in this, and it's just a matter of inadequate resources,
with a concentrated effort and leadership by the
administration, we can do that. I mean, you've asked for
$750,000 to supplement the inadequate research funds available
for ground fisheries for this year. Is that going to be a
request next year and the year after, and the year after that?
Mr. Schmitten. Yes. That's in permanent funds that will be
in perpetuity. I think we know what we need to do, and thanks
to the industry, thanks to the Council, we have developed a
plan. We need to go to annual surveys. We need to use the
industry in conducting a lot of those surveys. This will
provide the data that we need, and we're preparing for that.
And that's forecasted in future budgets.
Mr. Farr. But if we don't have enough, OK, it's money for
scientific data. But the annual surveys, that's a money issue,
not a legal issue.
Mr. Schmitten. Yes.
Mr. Farr. In the meantime, when something's threatened, are
you really using enough of your authorized controls,
enforcement--is the enforcement adequate?
Mr. Schmitten. First, are we using authorized resources,
including enforcement and dollars. I've pledged the $400,000
that the industry asked to do the survey. I've pledged the
$750,000, taken it from all parts of the country, to continue
the stock assessments in perpetuity. We've engaged in the
enforcement side of this. We're willing to use fish for
research, as well as support Senator Wyden's concept of
avoiding waste in trip overages.
We're trying to be just as aggressive and proactive as we
possibly can.
Mr. Farr. There's one ingredient here that's affected this
fishery, which is technology. The fisherman have available to
them some of the same technology that our military has in being
able to discover why the biomass is with the temperature of
satellite data and biomass. I mean, they used to go in search
of fisheries. Now they don't leave the port until they know
where they are and they sell the fish, you know, before the
nets are even dropped in the water because they know they're
going to catch them. And they catch more than they've ever
caught.
So you have fewer boats, but they're catching a hell of a
lot more fish. That's all technology that they have, and a lot
of that's public given technology, satellite information and so
on. Knowing that they're capable of doing that, do you think
that you're doing enough in the enforcement area?
Mr. Schmitten. We're at the point where I should turn over
to the experts in the field.
Mr. Robinson. Congressman, I think one of the situations
that we find ourselves in is the level of certainty that we get
from what the science is telling us. At one time, when the fish
stocks were not under environmental stress, when the biomasses
were larger and when the capitalization and technology were not
so great, the level of uncertainty in the scientific answers
was tolerable.
Times have changed. We have had an environment for the last
decade that there's some indication that it is telling us that
what we thought were sustainable levels of harvest a decade ago
are probably not sustainable levels of harvest. They're
probably something less than that, given the environment.
Mr. Farr. And have you taken appropriate adjustments in
enforcement?
Mr. Robinson. Yes, the appropriate adjustments are taken
through a precautionary approach, a conservative approach that
the Council must take in setting the harvest quotas. When you
don't have these stress factors, you can live with the
uncertainty and you can live with setting quotas that are in a
less cautious environment. When you have all of these factors
combining to put both biological stress and technological
stress and overcapitalization stress, the need for precision is
much greater than it has been in the past. That's what we're
struggling with. How to make the science more precise so that
we know that when the Council chooses a harvest quota, that in
fact it is a safe quota. That is the charge of the Council in
terms of exercising its stewardship.
What we're struggling with is improving the precision. The
program that we began in 1995 at the Newport lab, and the
additional supplementation of that program in 1998 is designed
to reduce the uncertainty, so that the Council can be assured
that the decisions that it makes are truly precautionary and
truly conservative, and result in sustainable harvest levels
for the future.
Mr. Farr. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I know that there's only
the two of us so, the other question I have, and I know Mr.
Anderson wanted to respond, but just explain to me why your
Council does not manage the squid fishery.
Mr. Anderson. We are in the process of developing a coastal
pelagic species management plan. Primarily, the squid fishery
is taking place off the coast of California and has been
managed by California Department of Fish and Game.
Mr. Farr. So it hasn't been managed? There's no regulation,
no season, there's no--there's hours of fishing, but not limits
to fishing. Not days or----
Mr. Anderson. Once again, we are just in the process of
developing a coastal pelagic species management plan, and one
of the species that would be managed under that plan is squid.
Mr. Farr. What's it take to get a fishery under the
management Council?
Mr. Anderson. We have to develop a management plan that
complies with the requirements under Magnuson, and we have been
developing the fishery management plan in this case for coastal
pelagics. Actually, it's been in development since 1990, and so
it's been a very long and difficult process. We had a coastal
pelagic species management plan developed and actually
submitted to National Marine Fisheries Service, I believe, in
1994. And it was not approved by National Marine Fisheries
Service, and so we've gone back to the drawing table
essentially and have developed another plan, and we are in the
final stages of development of that plan, and will be
submitting it to National Marine Fisheries Service later this
year.
Mr. Farr. Are we coordinating as much as we should be with
the States? My frustration, coming from the State legislature,
all I heard about in the State legislature were fisheries that
the State managed, which mostly was salmon and swordfish. And
then we got into a problem with taking of sea urchins and
mussels, and sort of the bivalves--abalone. And then I came
here to Congress and I understand that we manage a whole--
they're all in the same place, so why do we have two different
governments managing them? Why don't we meld together what
States are trying to do and the feds are trying to do, and have
less duplication and more collaboration?
Mr. Anderson. I think we've tried very hard to avoid
duplication, frankly. I think in the case--the Council has been
selective in the species complexes that it's developed
management plans for, and we've prioritized those that have
migratory ranges to cross State borders. We've prioritized
species that predominantly reside outside three miles, in the
Federal waters, and have relied principally on the States to
manage fisheries which are located primarily in State waters.
Mr. Farr. Let me ask this question: What was the basis for
the Council's decision to ignore the recommended quota cuts for
sable fish and short spine thornyheads?
Mr. Anderson. Relative to sable fish, I do not believe that
we ignored the scientific information that we received. On
sable fish, the stock assessment models that were used to bring
the information forward ranged in a recommendation for a
harvest guideline from approximately 2,500 tons up to 7,500
tons. There were five different pieces of information that were
utilized in those models, and depending on what combination of
those five pieces of information, you got a different result
and a different recommendation for a harvest guideline. And I
believe in our decision on sable fish, we used the best
information that we received from the scientific community in
recommending the 5,200 metric tons for a harvest guideline and
allowable biological catch for this year.
Mr. Farr. And what happens if that's not adequate? I mean,
you've already heard that they're approaching overfished
condition last year, so now you have this new harvest
guideline, and you'll have new information. What will you do
then if they're still approaching being overfished?
Mr. Anderson. First of all, I don't believe the number that
the Council recommended to National Marine Fisheries on sable
fish approached the overfishing definition. I believe that the
model, and the parameters of the model, that we utilized in
setting the ABC was consistent with an F-35 approach to
managing sable fish.
The short spine thornyhead issue is a different issue, and
it was a different set of circumstances. And, with your
permission, I'd like to ask Mr. Robinson to speak to that
issue. And I would also ask that you allow me to come back and
respond to some of your earlier comments if I could, please.
Mr. Farr. Certainly. It's the chairman's charge.
Mr. Robinson. Congressman, just to elaborate on Mr.
Anderson's answer a small bit. The Council was faced with
taking a precautionary approach to setting the harvest quotas
in the face of substantial uncertainty, which the scientific
side of the Council was really unable to advise the Council on
in terms of how to best evaluate that uncertainty. There was a
lack of risk-assessment information that left the Council
trying to figure out essentially what the best conservative
approach was. The Council's response was to reduce the
sablefish quota by almost half. It took what I believe to be a
fairly big cut out of the quota, and a fairly conservative
approach.
I guess one of the reasons we're here today--and the
outcome of what we're talking about--will tell us whether that
was a big enough cut or not, and where we need to go in the
future. Fortunately, the harvest rates that we apply to these
stocks are not so great that we're going to put them in any
short-term danger. That's not going to happen. Most likely,
with additional surveys, with additional stock assessments, we
will gain more confidence in the numbers and more confident
that we're taking an appropriately conservative approach upon
the species. But we're not going to know for sure whether we're
conservative enough, or not conservative enough, until we get
more surveys and better information.
Mr. Farr. OK. I don't think any of us----
Mr. Saxton. Last question.
Mr. Farr. In this room--thank you, Mr. Chairman--any of us
in this room want, on our watch, to lose a fish stock. I mean,
that's total failure in a modern society with the information
we have. So whatever resources you need, the public wouldn't
tolerate this if it was in so many other areas. You know, the
ocean we still don't know enough about. But we stand ready. I'm
here to help you. But I think you've got to use us more, us in
Congress. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much, Mr. Farr. Let me just ask
a couple of questions and make a few comments, if I may. With
regard to the funds that you need for research, in particular
research vessels, my memory tells me that in fiscal year 1998,
we authorized and appropriated, I think it was two-and-a-half
million dollars for the design of six new research vessels. And
I believe we did so with the understanding that we would then
move forward with the administration's request in 1999 and see
their request for money for construction of those vessels. We
gave you the two-and-a-half million in 1998, and when your
request came through for NOAA funding in 1999, there was no
request for construction. Can you tell us why that is?
Mr. Schmitten. Mr. Chairman, since I've been the director,
I've been encouraging and supporting the need for replacement
vessels, even though we would reduce the overall number of nine
down to six, and augment with more industry involvement. This
is a good news/bad news story. Finally, the administration has
agreed, and they've indicated that starting in 2000--I wanted
1999, and certainly supported that, but starting in 2000--they
put approximately $160 million for vessels to be constructed in
2000, 2001, 2002, out to 20003. The very first research vessel
constructed in this Nation will go to the West Coast.
Mr. Saxton. What?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Schmitten. Yes, sir. It will be dedicated to this
problem, and it will solve both Alaska and the West Coast
issues, in that it will provide annual surveys in the entire
West Coast. The East Coast enjoys those, Mr. Chairman, for the
most part. That's why I say we should start where the problem
is. That first vessel will go to the West Coast.
Mr. Saxton. Now, if you request funding for these vessels
beginning in the year 2000, when will Mr. Farr be able to see
this vessel steaming off shore and doing research off the
California coast?
Mr. Schmitten. I believe it's a two-year construction, so
in two to three years he will have his vessel. In between
there, we will continue to augment the needed surveys between
that period of time so we don't get behind on gathering the
data.
Mr. Saxton. OK. In regard to Mr. Farr's general question
about why we know so little about fisheries, I've had those
thoughts myself. In fact, last night, Mr. Farr and I shared a
podium before a conservation group, and I think we both
addressed that question without knowing the other was going to,
and I'm not sure that we have an answer. But this situation is
a good example of more evidence that we really don't know much
about, or enough about, what we're doing.
In 1997, for example, you came here and indicated that you
thought the groundfish fishery that we're dealing with today
was healthy. And in 1998, you indicated through the process
that there ought to be a 60 percent reduction in the take in
the fishery. How do you explain what you thought in 1997 was so
incorrect as related to your position in 1998?
Dr. Methot. The situation we have with groundfish is mixed,
because of the great diversity of species we're dealing with.
We certainly have some healthy species in the groundfish
complex, and we have some that now appear to be at much lower
levels than we would desire them to be. The combination of this
mix of species, as we accumulate more information to better
track the exact status of species, has begun to tip us more
into the realization that there are a number of species that
have declined to a greater degree than we had anticipated might
occur. And the combination of these species over the last few
years has begun to make us realize that we need to pay greater
attention to the entire groundfish complex to be certain that
we do have a good fix on just where they're at, and what is the
long-term potential for these resources. This situation of
unanticipated declines has grown on us over the last four to
five years, as we look more closely at a number of species.
Mr. Anderson. Mr. Chairman? May also say something to that
question?
Mr. Saxton. Sure, please.
Mr. Anderson. Thank you. I'd urge us not to underestimate
the difficulty of assessing the biomass and the populations of
these species. We're talking about 83 species that live
anywhere from 300 to 2,000-plus feet below the surface of the
water, that we never see. And most of them are intermixed with
one another. Some of them are transboundary in nature--
yellowtail rockfish, ling cod, Pacific whiting--migrate north
into Canadian waters and are harvested there.
This is a very, very complex problem of assessing
precisely, with any degree of accuracy, the total numbers of
fish, and thereby extrapolating an acceptable amount that may
be removed through harvest. It's in its infancy, in my opinion.
Remember, we've been doing surveys every three years, and we
started in 1977. Haven't been working at this very long, and as
I indicated in my testimony, National Marine Fisheries Service
has taken some extraordinary efforts in recent years to improve
their survey techniques. And I think that's going to pay
dividends to us as we move through the next years, and we go to
an annual survey.
But this is a very difficult group of fish to manage, and
assess the total abundance, and determine what--they're long-
lived. They sometimes go decades between years when you have
good recruitment of new fish into a population. You've got some
extraordinary exception--I hope they're exceptional--ocean
conditions on the West Coast in terms of low productivity, low
upwellings, warm water, exceptionally warm water, much more
frequently in the last decade than in previous decades.
And so all of those dynamics play into the difficulty of
coming up with biomass estimates to determine annual harvest
levels that are acceptable and that will maintain healthy
populations into the future. Believe me, we are as frustrated
as you are.
Relative to sable fish, we had been managing along at about
a 7,800-ton level for seven or eight years. And then, all of a
sudden, we get an assessment that tells us that's it's
somewhere between 2,500 and 7,800 tons. We go, what's going on
here? This kind of change simply couldn't have happened in this
short a period of time. And that was the difficulty in
struggling with setting a sable fish allocation that took a
precautionary approach in making sure that we didn't
overharvest that particular species.
Mr. Saxton. Let me try to make something clear, and I think
I can speak for Mr. Farr and I both with regard to this, and if
I don't, Mr. Farr can break in and correct me. But we
oftentimes, I fear, give the impression that we don't trust
what you, as individuals, are doing. And that is a notion that
we don't mean to convey. Our queries are more in trying to find
out what it is that the system needs that it doesn't have, both
in terms of resources and process. And I think that we would
both, from our observations, come to the conclusion that
resources are not sufficient, and that process may need some
fine-tuning, or maybe some big changes.
I've had this conversation with Rollie Schmitten on
numerous occasions. Sometimes we've been quiet about it, and
sometimes we've been rather noisy about it. But it is
frustrating, and I know the people that serve on the New
England Council, I know the people that serve on the Mid-
Atlantic Council. I know that Mr. Young knows the people that
serve on your Council. I deal with the people in NMFS all the
time, and I don't think I can identify a person who's not there
for all the right reasons.
And yet, the situation that we're hear discussing today,
unfortunately, is more common than it is unusual. And so we are
hopeful that our well-intended efforts can somehow dovetail
with your well-intended efforts to get the proper funding to do
the kind of research that we need to do, and to improve the
process. That's what we're striving to do. And I thank Rollie,
who was in my office last week, I guess it was, and we were
talking about making some changes in process that sprung from
my urging and his creative thinking. And hopefully we'll be
able to move forward with some of those, which may or may not
require legislative changes. Hopefully not, because it's a lot
easier on everybody if we don't have to do it that way.
So, anyway, I just wanted to say that in conclusion, Mr.
Farr, unless you have something that can take a minute or two,
I think we'll move on to the next panel.
Mr. Farr. Yes, go on to the next panel. You know, it's
interesting, in the offshore oil and gas, we require the oil
companies to tell us where the oil and gas deposits are, and
then they file with us interest in offshore oil development.
And then we tell them where they can drill, what the conditions
are that they can drill, and for how long they can drill. I
mean, that's a public resource owned by the Federal Government
offshore. Why don't we do the same thing for fisheries? It's
essentially a question of putting the burden on the private
sector, and saying you tell us how much fishery is out there
and we'll tell you how much you can take. Rather than putting
the burden on the public sector to say, we'll tell you--you
just keep fishing until we tell you when to stop.
Mr. Schmitten. Mr. Chairman, I've often raised the very
same issue. It's the only natural resource that I can think
of--water, you require fees; grazing rights, you require fees;
and timber permits, you require fees. The fees usually go into
the management of those resources. This is the one anomaly.
Why, it's constructed in the tenets of Magnuson-Stevens, and I
think that we should allow fees to help with the management.
The Administration actually proposed that this year, and hasn't
gotten very far. I agree, part of the problem there is that we
need to work it out with the industry. Ultimately I view that
someday there will be fees that help support the management,
and allow the permits.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much for your comments, and the
information you have brought to us this morning, and for the
time and forbearance that you have demonstrated in being here
with us this morning. Thank you.
I'd now like to introduce our second panel. We have Dr.
David Sampson of Oregon State University; Mr. Gerald Gunnari of
the Coos Bay Trawlers Association; Ms. Karen Garrison of the
Natural Rsources Defense Council, and Rod Moore, an old friend,
executive director of the West Coast Seafood Processors. I'd
like to remind the witnesses about the 5-minute rule. Your
written testimony will be included in the record in its
entirety, and when you are in place and ready, Dr. Sampson, we
will begin with your 5-minute testimony.
STATEMENT OF DAVID SAMPSON, OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Sampson. Mr. Chairman, Congressmen, ladies and
gentlemen, thank you very much for inviting me to testify to
you today. My name is David Sampson. I am an Associate
Professor of Fisheries at Oregon State University. I'm also a
member of the Scientific and Statistical Committee of the
Pacific Fishery Management Council.
I'll try to describe for you briefly some of the aspects of
stock assessment and some of the problems associated with
managing West Coast groundfish. Our groundfish stocks are
managed on the basis of catch quotas that are primarily
determined from estimates of exploitable biomass and estimates
of the target harvest rate. These are the two fundamental
problems that a stock assessment tries to address. Both of
these problems are beset with uncertainties, and that's one of
the things I'd like to illustrate for you.
The process, as it works on the West Coast, involves State
agencies collecting information from the fishermen. Landings of
fish that are brought to the docks are sampled for catch-at-
age, maturity, things of that nature. And, in addition, we've
heard from the National Marine Fisheries Service of their
triennial trawl surveys that are measuring the abundance.
Together, those sources of information are fed into
something called a catch-at-age analysis, which tries to
reconstruct the size of the stock over time and where we
currently stand. This is one of the fundamental problems of
stock assessment. The information's also fed into what's known
as yield-per-recruit analysis, or spawning-biomass-per-recruit
analysis, which attempt to figure out an appropriate rate of
harvest. Those are the two fundamental problems of stock
assessment. Together, those two pieces of information are
brought forward to the managers in the form of recommendations
for catch quotas and the likely consequences of different types
of harvest policies.
We heard a little bit from the others with regard to
uncertainty associated with our stock assessments. Here's an
example with our deep-water sablefish resource. It's assessed
primarily to coincide with the triennial surveys. In 1994,
there was an assessment which basically put the spawning stock
at roughly one-third of the unexploited virgin level. And in
1994, we had reasonable catch quotas based on that assessment.
Three years later, we had a new assessment based on a few
additional years of catch history, and one additional survey.
All of a sudden, we have a very different picture of the
resource, one that, from the pessimistic view, shows the stock
brought to almost as low as 10 percent of the unexploited
level. So, part of the reason we're meeting here today was this
very sudden change in perception of this resource.
Here is another example from one of our rockfish species,
yellowtail rockfish. It was assessed in 1993 and a certain
level of harvest seemed appropriate given the size of the
stock. In 1996, three years later, we had new information from
one additional survey and additional years of catch history,
and we had a very, very different perception of the level of
depletion of this resource.
Partly as a result of complaints about the uncertainty of
this resource assessment, it was reassessed in 1997 and, in
fact, the 1997 assessment, based on basically one additional
year of information, put us back where we were in the 1993
assessment.
I think the sablefish and the yellowtail rockfish examples
illustrate some of the problems and the uncertainties
associated with trying to figure out how many fish there are in
the ocean. It's a very big ocean, it's a very difficult job to
figure out how much is out there and how much we can safely
harvest.
Mr. Saxton. May I just interrupt you for a moment?
Dr. Sampson. Certainly.
Mr. Saxton. I'm trying to interpret. I understand the point
that you're making relative to the difficulty in getting
accurate information, or in drawing conclusions therefrom. This
chart would tend to indicate that the later surveys indicated
that there was a higher population than the earlier surveys. Is
that correct?
Dr. Sampson. The 1997 assessment, which is the solid line
there, basically came to a similar conclusion as the 1993
assessment, with regard to the size of the stock and how it got
to that level. The 1996 assessment was the anomalous one, at
least with these examples. These are not that unusual. In
general, if you put together a sequence of assessments, the
numbers we're getting from the assessments are bouncing around
quite a bit. And I think that's a telling feature of stock
assessment and the level of imprecision that we just have to
live with when it comes to reconstructing what's out there.
I should have mentioned that, you should have written
copies of these same figures in the testimony that I submitted.
Mr. Saxton. We do.
Dr. Sampson. Finally, I thought I'd leave you with a
picture of what's been happening with the fishermen and the
size of the fishing fleet.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Dr. Sampson. This illustrates the growth in the number of
hours of trawling on the West Coast since the implementation of
the 200-mile law in 1976. In the early years of the fishery,
most of the fishery was concentrated in relatively shallow
water, relatively near the coast. And over time, especially
through the late 1980's and into the 1990's, there was a
dramatic increase in the amount of fishing on the West Coast,
and there was a significant expansion into deeper waters, into
areas which previously were essentially unexploited. The growth
of the sablefish fishery, the thornyheads that we've heard
about, and Dover sole--those are deep-water species which,
prior to the mid-1980's, were essentially unharvested.
So, some of what we're seeing, in my view, with the current
crisis is imprecision in our understanding of what's out there
in the ocean. But also, our Council is handicapped in its
ability to control the growth of the fishing industry itself.
Catch quotas do not limit how many boats there are. We did put
a limit on the number of boats, but it wasn't put in place
until 1994. So, some of what we're seeing today, in my opinion,
is a natural consequence of the combination of uncertainty
about the status of the stocks and overcapacity in the fishing
fleet.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Sampson may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Saxton. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Gunnari.
STATEMENT OF GERALD GUNNARI, COOS BAY TRAWLERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Gunnari. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I find it interesting
that it does stop in 1994, when we did go into limited entry. I
would like to see a current analogy of 1994 today. I think that
the increase has gone to a decrease.
I wish to thank each of you for allowing me this
opportunity to tell you about the West Coast groundfish crisis.
The trawl fleet is made up of small, independent businesses,
mosly family owned and operated. Many have been involved in the
West Coast fishing for generations, like my family. I'm a
fourth-generation West Coast fishing family. We all take pride
in supplying our Nation's tables with reliable source of fresh
fish, providing jobs for our communities--it's new money,
building our economy, and the exports of our valuable processed
products are important to the Nation.
The trawl fleet is the traditional mainstay of supplying
our Nation with a dependable source of fresh fish year-round,
so restaurants and markets can put fish on their menus. The
trawl fleet is the largest investment in supplying our Nation
with fresh fish, and it costs a lot to operate and maintain a
75-foot fishing vessel capable of fishing 40 miles offshore in
the dead of winter.
Suddenly, with this latest round of surprise cuts in
allowable landings, our West Coast businesses are in crises.
This ugly situation is rearing its head in many forms. We are
the ones with the vested interest to see there are fish for our
future. We welcome management measures that ensure this to
happen. We need regulations that conserve real fish, not paper
fish, to create landing reduction.
Irresponsible practices are now being implemented by NMFS,
such as the ling cod harvest being reduced by 97.5 percent,
which means a 75-foot vessel like mine can only supply 150
pounds of ling cod per month. The chair of the groundfish
management team told the Pacific Fisheries Management Council
that going from a 20,000-pound trip limit to a 500-pound trip
limit would not create increased discards because most of the
ling cod was from targeted ling cod trips, and only by a few
vessels.
The results? The Pacific Fisheries Management Council
illegally allocated from the people whose livelihood depends on
fishing, to a few people who might catch some for fun and at
the same time deprive our Nation's restaurants and markets of
supply to the public. And the reality? I am 46 pounds over my
monthly quota of ling cod right now, and I haven't even fished
where ling cod live. All the ling cod I catch now will go back
over the side of my boat, by law.
There's no accountability for anything NMFS does. Is Mark
Salin so far, and the GMT so far out of touch that statements
they make to the Council while creating allocations can be made
on totally false information? Is there anyone who cares or is
accountable for any of these actions?
Rick Methot's interpretation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act
should be disturbing to you as well. Having neglected to gather
enough data to determine proper harvest amounts, and then to
use uncertainty in the data to automatically reduce landings of
certain species, no matter what the condition that the stock is
in, is wrong.
This methodology is creating discards we have never had
before, and should not have now. Their current practices are
not utilizing the best science available, but only what science
they want to make available. More than 90 percent of the sports
fish is from inside 30 fathoms, close to river mouths and
shore. The only assessment of ling cod is outside 30 fathoms
into central Oregon, so now more than 50 percent of the ling
cod are suddenly shifted from an unassessed area and taken by
the sports fleet from an assessed area and traditionally caught
by commercial fishers.
We do not have conflicts with sports fishermen on the
ocean, but we now have conflicts in Council meeting rooms. At
the last PFMC meeting, the desperation of not enough fish to
pay the bills is becoming a predominant issue for many. The
organized attitudes of one gear group that started throwing mud
and dirt upon another gear group in attempts to sway the
Council to take fish from one group, who have traditionally
caught those fish, and give it to their group.
These are some tough issues to deal with. We all have to
understand fellow fishers have no other recourse than to turn
on each other. It's the only way some of them could see to
increase their own landings. We get our fish the same way they
get theirs. We earn it by working hard and investing in our
vessels and putting in time over the years. Trying to steal
someone else's fish and investment is not an acceptable
solution, but is the result of management efforts. The trawl
fleet's investments are many times greater than any of their
gear groups. The cost of operations are real, and far-reaching
effects into the Nation's economy.
The cutbacks we are facing proportionately affects our
ability to pay our bills too, destroying generations of hard
work and the very infrastructure dependent upon the fishing
community. Over the past 10 years or more, we've been doing
exactly what Rick Methot has recommended, only to find
ourselves facing the worst situation ever, and they still don't
have enough scientific data to make sound management decisions.
Now Rick says there's not enough fish for all in the business
to survive.
NMFS claims they need five new research boats at over $55
million each. The dock is full of such requests, lying idle in
Seattle now. The fishing fleet has a thousand times the data
collection capabilities right now. This money would go farther
utilizing existing resources, and the cost of these research
ships could buy out the entire West Coast fishing industry.
The West Coast fishing industry is at the crossroads now,
and the most recent slashes in landings will cost $100 million
in losses. The amount of harvest is calculated. No species is
overfished, or even close to endangered. It's down to who will
harvest the fish allowed. The burden of conservation must be
shared equally, and if PFMC has a blind eye on this issue, we
must be certain one man's dream come true isn't a nightmare for
the man with the investment and the time on the ocean.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gunnari may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Saxton. Mr. Gunnari, thank you very much for your
testimony.
We're going to move along to Ms. Garrison, the Natural
Resources Defense Council.
STATEMENT OF KAREN GARRISON, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL
Ms. Garrison. Natural Resources Defense Council. Thank you,
and it's a pleasure to be here today. We've had a wake-up call
on Pacific groundfish. It's clearly a call to do a better job
gathering and analyzing information, and that includes not just
more frequent surveys and stock assessments, but also estimates
of by-catch and assessments of habitat that may be at risk.
It's also a reminder of the critical need to apply the new
provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act where fisheries are in
crisis, and where they're considered relatively healthy, as you
pointed out these were about a year ago. The Act has
extraordinary power to transform fishery management for the
better, but the habits that get us into trouble are very
tenacious, and you've heard some of them today. You'll be asked
more than once to say you didn't mean what you said in the Act.
I know Congress never does that. What happened with groundfish
illustrates many of the reasons you passed the Act, and now
need to stick by its original intent.
For example, over the years, participants in the process
have downplayed uncertainty, rather than taking it fully into
account, as the Act's guidelines require. The fishery suffers
from overcapitalization, from high by-catch rates, from
increasing use of roller gear that's thought to be damaging to
rockfish habitat.
So improving the data is important, but more precise data
is not enough. Twice-a-year surveys didn't help the New England
groundfish. We need to be addressing these other related
problems, and I'm going to talk about several of them briefly.
First, the data. In addition to improving our information
for species of known status, we need to conduct whatever level
of stock assessment is feasible on most or all of the 68
species of unknown status, focusing more resources on trouble
spots like near-shore rockfish. This is a high-value, high-
pressure fishery headed for a boom and bust cycle if we don't
attend to it. And it's not just happening in southern
California; it's happening in Congressman Farr's district as
well.
More funds are likely to be needed to get the information
that we need, and Congress can help. NRDC and other
organizations are recommending the creation of the ocean
equivalent of the land and water conservation fund to finance
applied marine science. Your support for that would be welcome.
Second, we need a more precautionary approach to taking
account of uncertainty, because it will always be there. If we
want to avoid surprises like this one, we have to end what I
call the ``conspiracy of optimism'' in the way we interpret
data. We have to stop assuming that more precise data will
allow us to keep shaving as close as possible to the danger
zone. That means acknowledging the full extent of uncertainty,
and not using it as an excuse to reinterpret scientific advice,
as we believe the Council did for a couple of stocks last year.
We support the Council in its consideration of other
precautionary steps, like the use of more conservative harvest
targets and the creation of no-fishing reserves for groundfish,
which could serve as an insurance policy against the
possibility of being wrong. While the details of those measures
should be up to the Council and NMFS, Congressional support for
more precautionary management is essential.
Third, capacity reduction, as others have said, is a vital
step toward relieving the pressure on groundfish, reducing by-
catch, and making the fishery more viable for its participants.
To be effective, the program should retire capacity, not simply
shift it to other fisheries. Virtually all West Coast fisheries
are overcapitalized now, and some important State-managed
fisheries, (or unmanaged fish-
eries, as in the case of squid), are open enough to become easy
targets, or maybe we should say victims, for excess capacity.
The current proposal to retire permits, not vessels, fails
this and other tests of a good program. We urge Congress to
insist on a buy-back program that complies with Magnuson-
Stevens and avoids the risk that removed capacity will
resurface elsewhere.
Fourth, current high by-catch rates for the trawl fleet
intensify the pressure on vulnerable groundfish species. The
first step toward reducing it is a mandatory observer program,
with full coverage for large vessels and partial coverage for
small vessels. That program is needed now. Measures to reduce
by-catch are also critically needed, and should include
incentives or rewards for clean fishing.
Finally, protection of habitat is essential if we want to
sustain the long-term productivity and diversity of the
groundfish fishery. NMFS' initial proposal for groundfish
habitat conservation is a commendable step in the right
direction, and the Council should take it further.
In conclusion, Congress can take a number of steps that
will help avoid unwelcome surprises in the future. They include
providing funding for data collection and analysis, supporting
expanded stock assessment for groundfish, affirming the
commitment to the precautionary principle, encouraging the
development of a mandatory observer program and by-catch
reduction measures, and insisting on retiring vessels, not
permits.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Garrison may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much, Ms. Garrison.
And now, last but certainly not least, Mr. Moore.
STATEMENT OF ROD MOORE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WEST COAST SEAFOOD
PROCESSORS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to be
here, and we appreciate your interest and Mr. Farr's interest,
and Mr. Miller's interest, and Mr. Young's interest in our
poor, measly fishery out there on the West Coast. We're trying
hard, and we're glad you had this hearing today. It's already
been productive with Rollie's announcement this morning of
supporting the trip limit overage program. That's something the
industry has been pushing for. We're very pleased to see that
NMFS is supporting it, and I'm glad that this sort of was the
occasion for doing that.
And Mr. Farr, you talked a little bit about how Congress
responds to crises. Now, unlike New England, our crisis is not
no fish. Our crisis is no science. In my view, the problems
we're facing today are a direct result of 20 years of
scientific neglect, which are compounded to a certain extent by
management policies driven by paranoia over New England.
Let me read you a very quick quote. This is from a report
that was done by a scientific review panel set up by NMFS on
West Coast groundfish stock assessments from 1995.
``Due to the lack of a reliable index of abundance, many
different interpretations about the status of the stocks are
consistent with the historical data, and it is not possible to
choose among them on scientific grounds.'' In other words, we
didn't know what we're doing and we don't know what's out
there.
Dave Sampson showed you some numbers on yellowtail
rockfish, or some charts on yellowtail rockfish. I'm going to
put some numbers to that: 27,784 metric tons, and 85,263 metric
tons. Those were the low point and the high point from
different assumptions of the stock assessment in 1997 on
yellowtail rockfish.
Now, Mr. Saxton, if you were running for president, and you
hired a pollster to go out and assess the American people's
support of your candidacy, and the pollster came back and said,
well, either 27 percent of the people support you, or 85
percent of the people support you, you know what you'd do?
You'd have that pollster go work for your opponent.
Mr. Saxton. And then I probably wouldn't run.
Mr. Moore. And then you probably wouldn't run.
[Laughter.]
I'm not trying to start any rumors, but that's the sort of
thing that the Council is having to deal with. And that's what
makes it real difficult for them, and why we get into all of
these disputes at the Council level.
Then you get into management policy. Now, Karen talked
about being precautionary, and Phil mentioned the new
management policy they're looking at. Well, what that new
management policy is, is that, when you have any sort of
uncertainty, which we have all the time on West Coast
groundfish, you have to set the harvest level at a rate at
least 3 percent below the rate that provides MSY. Now, even
when you changed the law in 1996, you didn't say, never fish to
MSY. Yet some mysterious working group in the National Marine
Fisheries Service has come up with this harvest policy, which
they're trying out on us and, I suspect, on other Councils in
the near future, which says, hey, you guys are never going to
be able to get even close to there, no matter what you're
doing.
You passed the Sustainable Fisheries Act, not the Stop
Fishing Act, and somebody in Silver Spring needs to be reminded
about that.
Now, the industry has been trying to respond to all of
this. We've been trying to find innovative ways to solve the
root problem, which is getting more data. The Oregon Trawl
Commission has been conducting a pilot observer program for
several years, funded by the industry. Our processors are
embarked on a project now with a graduate student out of
Newport, Oregon, trying to demonstrate that processing workers
can be used to provide data to improve the stock assessments.
Gerald Gunnari was the first of several fishermen who went
on board the Miller Freeman and demonstrated to NMFS how their
survey gear could work a heck of a lot better. We've got a port
interview project starting. We've got an electronic logbook
project starting. All of these things are ways that we are
trying to be innovative and support getting more data, and
finding out what's out there.
Now, yes, I complain about the National Marine Fisheries
Service but, you know, we've gotten help from them too. Rollie
mentiond the $750,000 that he put into the budget this year.
Rick Methot and I have attended more meetings together, talking
about--trying to figure out ways where the industry and NMFS
can work together to try to do something, and try to do
something positive.
Unfortunately, you know, all of this takes a lot of time
and, you know, we really don't feel we should have to be here
pleading that the Nation's fisheries agency be doing more basic
research. We're committed to keep going until we get the
problem solved, or until we go broke. You know, it's taking
time to do all this stuff, and as the lights show, for us, time
is running out.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moore may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much, Rod.
Let me just pose a question for any of you who would like
to respond. I have another job here. I'm chairman of the Joint
Economic Committee, and every month we hold an employment
hearing. And sometimes we have very high rates of growth in
employment, and sometimes we have negative growth rates in
employment. In other words, we lose jobs. And we would like to,
you know, come to each monthly meeting and say that we've had a
very steady climb in employment. We never, ever, ever get that.
It's much the same pattern that you have, and, you know,
obviously, we're not going to solve that problem because part
of it has to do with real rates of employment and unemployment;
other has to do with flaws in our method of measuring
employment and unemployment. And I suspect the same principle
holds true in fisheries. So the difficulty in statistics,
gathering statistics on fisheries is partly that we have not
funded the activity well enough, partly because there are flaws
in methodology, and partly because, as we know, there are
spikes and valleys in populations, which occur naturally. And,
in addition to that, I would submit at least that there are
diminutions of populations that occur because of overfishing. I
hope that we can at least agree on all that.
And so, given the fact that we're never going to have
perfect statistics, it would seem to me that if we had a 27,000
metric ton estimate one year, and 83 million ton, or whatever
the big number was.
Mr. Gunnari. It was the same year, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Saxton. Same year. OK. It would seem to me that
somebody would have to somehow conclude that, given those sets
of circumstances, that we would have to set, begin to set
limits of catch, or limits of take, based on the full set of
parameters that we have to work with, which are far from
perfect. And from Karen Garrison's point of view, she would not
want to have the limits set too high, because if we collapse
the fishery, she would have failed to do her job. And seems to
me that Gerald Gunnari might want to have a conservative limit
on take set as well because, if he's like the fishermen, at
least in my neighborhood, he's got mortgages on his boats, and
families, and economic issues to worry about. And if the
fishery collapses, it's not good for him.
So it seems to me that we ought to be able to conclude
together that, given the statistical base that we have to work
with, which is not perfect, given the fact that we all have
economic concerns and resource concerns, and kind of pull us to
a common conclusion that we have got to set limits based on
some kind of reasonable and conservative guidelines.
Now, I would just like to begin with Dr. Sampson and work
our way across the table, and see how you all respond to that,
and see if there is some common ground perhaps. David?
Dr. Sampson. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think some of
the problem is that we all have different, in a sense, discount
rates. We all have different degrees of comfort with
uncertainty.
Fishermen are, perhaps, dealing with uncertainty in a very
fundamental way that most of us don't even contemplate. They're
putting their lives on the lines, oftentimes, when they go out
to sea. And that's a regular occurrence for them, and I suspect
that they inherently have a different willingness to take
risks, perhaps, than the rest of us. And so I think some of the
discrepancies we have, and the difficulties we have on agreeing
as to what's a reasonable policy is a reflection of a different
ability to cope with uncertainty. How you get around that
problem, I don't know. I think the Council process is involved
in debating what is a reasonable level of risk.
I think, historically, the scientific crew has not done a
very good job at making the gamble clear to the managers. If
you do this, there are certain consequences that are likely to
follow. If you take some other course of action, these are the
likely consequences. We haven't laid things out for the
decisionmakers on that basis, and I think that's a failing of
the scientific community, and we are, I think, collectively
working to remedy that. But ultimately, we don't know the
certain outcome of a particular course of events. We are going
to be making gambles with our resources. I think that's an
inherent part of fisheries management.
Mr. Saxton. Jerry?
Mr. Gunnari. Yes, I think your assessment is fairly
accurate about the increases and decreases. I've been fishing
for many years and watched bocaccios move into our area thick.
I've watched them move out of our area, watched true cod come
in and go out. Dover increase and decrease. Sable fish. All of
our stocks fluctuate greatly, and we do appreciate good
conservation measures that conserve real fish, not paper fish.
The 97.5 decrease in our ling cod this year, I don't
believe is a reasonable situation. We're not seeing this type
of decline on the grounds. In fact, we've had some pretty fair
year classes a couple of times over the past 10 years that have
not been reflected anywhere in any of the data. So I think that
there should be a balance, and the fact of using the full range
as the model outputs.
One thing that I see as a real problem in modeling is the
models can only model the catch. When you drop 97.5 percent of
the catch, of course, the model is going to say there isn't
any. And makes modeling, I think, more complex than ever,
because as the catch goes down, which it has in recent times,
the model goes down. And so it's kind of an exasperating
situation.
Mr. Saxton. Ms. Garrison?
Ms. Garrison. Yes, I also agree with your assessment, and I
agree with David's suggestion that scientists need to make the
gamble more clear. I think that you're right at mentioning that
it's a combination of factors, that we've got natural
variations in fish populations. We've got pressure on habitat.
We've got long-term climatic and ocean-temperature shifts. And
it is often the combination of these factors that throw us for
a loop.
I think in addition to being more careful about the way
that we set catch limits--and we are fine-tuning that process
all the time and, I think, getting somewhat better at it--we
need to think about things we can do outside that process that
provide insurance. And that's one of the reasons that so many
people have gotten interested in the concept of no-fishing
reserves. I think they are going to be an important part of the
process, particularly for groundfish, where there are some
species that are quite vulnerable because they're long-lived
and they're subject to by-catch. Reserves appear to be a
particularly good tool for species like that, and may be able
to allow catch levels to stay higher on short-lived fish,
because we will have some places where long-lived rockfish can
safely breed and spawn and grow large and keep reproducing at
high rates. Thank you.
Mr. Saxton. Mr. Moore?
Mr. Moore. You know, Mr. Chairman, during the many years I
had the honor of working with you on staff of the Merchant
Marine and Fisheries Committee, there were a lot of times I
heard fishermen, processors come in and say, oh, we got
problems, you got to find us more fish. And it's real easy to
do that, to come in and say, gee, you know, we're not making
any money, we're all going broke, you know, so you got to give
us more fish. Well, the Congress can't legislate fish that
aren't there, and they shouldn't even try to do something as
silly as that. Which is why, you know, none of us are here
today saying, hey, you know, you got to get us more fish.
What we're trying to do is address the root of the problem,
which is the fact that we don't know what's out there and we
don't know what's going on out there. And those are the sorts
of things that need to be done. David is absolutely right in
talking about the scientific community doing a poor job of
describing the risks of uncertainty. I've seen that happen in
the Council innumerable times with the numbers that are
presented for final approval by the Council, versus all of the
work that's gone on by the scientists and the resource managers
before that. That process we're internally trying to fix within
the Council system. That's not something you guys should be
involved in. It's something that we're all trying to do.
Yes, you've got to be precautionary, but at what point do
you allow yourselves to be precautioned out of business? And
that's the difficult problem.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much. We're going to go to Mr.
Farr now, and I would just like to say at this point that we're
going to draw to a close about a quarter after, Sam, so you
proceed at your pace. The time is yours.
Mr. Farr. Well, thank you Mr. Chairman. As you can see, I'm
a little bit more on a philosophical level today than I am on a
technical level. And one of my questions is how do we get the
industry to be, to respond more to this issue of being involved
with the science. What you're talking about is the lack of
science. My experience is that when an indusry benefits from a
resource, it puts a lot of its own money into research, and
collaboration with the government.
The point was made here that in all the other resources
that this Committee manages, like timber, water, mining,
there's a partnership. The regulatory responsibility is the
government responsibility, but there's really an area out there
where there is a partnership, and that is on trying to get the
best data we can so that we can sustain this over a long period
of time. And I think what we're in, our generation, you as
responsible leaders in your roles and we in Congress, that in
the next 10 years--and Chairman Saxton is talking about the
Joint Economic Committee. The real goal here----
Mr. Saxton. In 10 years, I'll be on my sailboat.
Mr. Farr. But, I mean, in that period, it's not whether
we'll be here in 10 years. But I think this next decade, where
we have to use our professional abilities, is to really nail
down how can you sustain an economic enterprise, not just use
it and lose it. You know, I live in the ``Salad Bowl of the
Nation''--I'm also on the Agriculture Committee, and we have a
$2.2 billion agricultural industry in one county that I
represent. And it's a county where everybody wants to live, so
it's a land use fight. I mean, we're going to bury the goose
that lays the golden egg by just paving over agriculture which
grows crops that don't grow anywhere else?
Your fisheries are the same way. I mean, these fisheries
aren't necessarily all over the planet. It's not that they can
just be picked up by somebody else. Yes, we can change our
diet, we'll eat a different fish, and that will always be
available. But there's a responsibility here by the private
sector to be there. And I agree with the statement of the young
man talking about the ling cod fisheries--I mean, we ought to
be, if there's capability of having the fishing vessels rented
for, or leased for, scientific purposes, we ought to do that. I
mean, I know in my district--in sport fishery, these guys
usually went broke during the winter time. Now they're making
more money off whale-watching than they are off sport fishing.
So, there are alternative services that can be provided.
And I, frankly, think that if we're really smart about
this, we're going to develop an ecotourism around the ocean
that we have not even yet discovered yet, and we will all
benefit from that. But, how do we bring your industry to be a
partnership with it? Because we can either go out there and do
an assessment fee, to which you'd have to agree. The
politicians will never put it on you, because, you know, it'd
be a tax, and so on. But if the industry came along and could
really believe that if you put money together in some kind of a
collection process that could be used solely for the purposes
which you've discussed today, could it be possible to do it
that way? Because I think this is an industry where you've got
to have the private sector doing a little more heavy lifting
than they are. And the public sector's got to be more
accountable to it.
Mr. Moore. Mr. Farr, if I can try to answer that question.
And, I can't resist--I've got to say, as far as the--I don't
want to disparage my colleagues in the agricultural community,
but if we had 10 percent of the Federal research support that
agriculture has got, we'd be in great shape, we'd know a heck
of a lot more about the fisheries. But, if I may, Mr. Farr,
just to answer your question, which is a very good one.
Why shouldn't the industry be more involved? The fact is we
are, we're trying to be more and more every day. I went through
some of the stuff in my testimony on things we've already done,
but, you know, we've put our own money up to try to design an
expanded logbook program and a pilot observer program,
something that, you know, in some parts of the country, is paid
for by the Federal Government.
We've put, we've used our own time and resources and effort
to put people on board the research vessels to help them
improve their research gear. We've got processing workers that
we're trying to train to do the job that right now State and
Federal workers, mostly State workers do. I've been talking
with the National Marine Fisheries Service about trying to get
some more fish-ticket data to them so they can use it in their
stock assessments. The industry's put together a fund to hire,
through an independent contractor, a scientist to do stock
assessments and run them through the peer review process.
You know, there are all of these things that we're all
trying to do out there, and sometimes, unfortunately, we've had
to drag the National Marine Fisheries Service kicking and
screaming into it. And, you know, I understand their point of
view, because it takes a lot longer for the bureaucracy to do
something and to come to a decision, and scientists are by
nature cautious, as opposed to the sort of risk-takers that
Dave Sampson talked about that are fishermen and processors.
You know, we've got to be innovative every day to stay alive
economically.
Mr. Farr. What if we had something in the line of like a
duck stamp for all fisheries? The duck stamp has generated so
much money. It's gone back into habitat restoration, so much so
that we had a hearing in this room about there's too many snow
geese around, and we ought to have a better method of taking
them.
Mr. Moore. You know, Mr. Farr, if I remember--I can't
remember the exact year. It was something like 1987 or 1988.
Chairman Young introduced a bill for a minimal fisheries fee,
it was like $15, something like that, on commercial fishing
vessels, and another one, but the same price, on sport fishing
vessels, with all of the money to be dedicated to research.
There was nobody who supported it, and that's----
Mr. Farr. Did the industry support it?
Mr. Moore. I'm trying to remember back then. Yes, we had
gotten some support. I was working for Mr. Young at the time on
Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, and we did get some
industry support out of it. We unfortunately got none from the
recreational community, and the worst case was a letter we got
from the State director of fish and game in Arizona, who was
complaining about this marine use tax being put on fishermen.
And the last time I looked, Arizona doesn't have a marine
coastline. But that was sort of the nature of the opposition
that was generated out there.
The processing sector, within the Pacific Council, is
talking right now about trying to get the Council to put a
permit requirement on groundfish processors. So we have a start
of knowing who's out there, and what they're doing. And at some
point, if the Congress changes the law and says you've got to
pay a fee to get a permit, then we expect we're going to get
charged. And if that money can be dedicated to fisheries
research, great. But right now, what we're trying to do is,
with our meager resources--none of us are rich, you know. But
we're trying to pool as much money and manpower and sweat
equity as we can to improve the data base, and work with the
Federal Government to doing that.
Mr. Farr. What's lacking to do that? Because I think
there's enough willpower here, if we get everybody in the room.
It's one of those things where you have a common agenda.
Hopefully, we can work some of that out with this oceans
conference in Monterey in June. I mean, I think we just sort of
open the door on these issues, and then we do the substantive
work, heavy lifting, next year.
But, you know, you talked about a lack of scientific data.
I'm involved with this oceans conference. I'm just learning of
all the incredible opportunities that the Navy's had. You know,
I was kind of getting a kick out of the National Marine
Fisheries talking about how they don't know anything. And yet,
right across, the building across the way, they're sitting
there in the Navy committee on the intelligence, where they say
they know everything that goes on under the ocean. Why does one
arm of the government know so much about what happens under the
ocean, and the other arm of government knows so little? I mean,
there must be some data that can be shared.
Mr. Moore. You know, Mr. Farr, if I could figure out why
one arm of the National Marine Fisheries Service knows
something about the ocean and the other arm doesn't, I'd be
satisfied at that. Yes, there's a lot of synergistic, piggy-
backing sort of things that can go on out there.
For example, the National Oceans Service has got what they
call the GLOBEC program, which is run out of the Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institute. And on the West Coast, they're
starting to look at some basic oceanographic stuff, but it's
dedicated mostly to production for salmon. And we've been
asking the question, hey, is anybody looking at that, and
seeing if you can turn it into something for groundfish as
well. Because groundfish is where the need is. That is
happening. You know, Rick Methot told me the other day that
yes, they're starting to try to see if they can use some of
that data.
There's lots of things that are going on, and one of the
things that needs to happen is somebody, somewhere needs to sit
down and look at all of these projects that are being done by
the industry, by NMFS, by other arms of NOAA, by the military,
by the universities. Put them all together, see where they are
duplicating their efforts, and perhaps they shouldn't be doing
that.
Mr. Farr. Time's running out. In your opinion, who--what--I
mean, certainly, this Committee could do that, but we don't
have the time or the resources to do it. Who does?
Mr. Moore. Could be anybody, you know. You could certainly
ask either NMFS or NOAA to do it. The Council, I know, doesn't
have the resources. The industry is talking about putting
together a private conference in July, and one of the
background things for this is to try to identify those various
things. You know, even if--the Northwest region of the National
Marine Fisheries Service has got couple of hundred people
devoted to salmon. You know, if they could let one of them lose
and say, hey, you're going to go do some stuff on groundfish,
which is going to be so simple as to call people up on the
phone and say, what kind of research are you doing? Tell me
about it. Send me a synopsis. And put it all together so we all
know what people are doing. That would be great.
Mr. Farr. Could you do me a favor on your way back to--are
you here, or in the West Coast?
Mr. Moore. I'm in Portland, sir.
Mr. Farr. On your way back to Portland, why don't you just
jot out just what you said about who should be at the table,
and we ought to do it by region. We ought to do it in the West
Coast. I'd be very interested in that. I think this is--we're
at a stage where we need to mediate between all of these
issues. This isn't just legislating or appropriating.
Mr. Moore. Great.
Mr. Farr. And I'd be glad to be involved in that.
Mr. Moore. Well, actually Mr. Farr, I'll do you one better
because I'm going to be here until May 8, so I'll get together
with your staff between now and then, and be happy to talk to
them about it, and try to get you some ideas.
Mr. Farr. OK.
Mr. Saxton. Mr. Farr, thank you very much. One final
thought from Mr. Gunnari.
Mr. Gunnari. Well, I'd just like to say that trawl fleet
did tax themselves 1 percent to get their own observer program
going, and we will have to probably abandon that this year due
to the $100 million crunch that we're having on the West Coast.
There's no money from our industry any more. We've been
totally--our abilities to pay our bills have been taken away.
Mr. Farr. Is that El Nino?
Mr. Gunnari. Negative. It is the current reductions in
landed catch.
Mr. Farr. SBA just opened up a--help for fishers.
Mr. Gunnari. Maybe they could go for an observer program
and some of these other things.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Saxton. Well, thank you very much for coming all the
way from the West Coast to be with us, in the case of at least
some of you. We appreciate it very much. I believe we have
benefited much from your testimony, and we thank you and we
look forward to working with you in the future. Thank you. The
hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:15 p.m, the hearing adjourned subject to
the call of the Chair.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
HEARING ON H.R. 3498, THE DUNGENESS CRAB CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT
ACT
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 7, 1998
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Fisheries
Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, Committee on
Resources, Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:03 a.m., in
room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Jim Saxton
(chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM SAXTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Saxton. Good morning, Ladies and Gentlemen. The
Subcommittee will come to order. The Subcommittee on Fisheries
Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans is meeting today to conduct
a hearing on H.R. 3498, the Dungeness Crab Conservation and
Management Act.
Since the 1960's, the States of Washington, Oregon, and
California have successfully managed the Dungeness crab
fishery. In the early 1980's, the States signed a Memorandum of
Understanding and later amended it to ensure the sound economic
and biological utilization of the crab fishery through
cooperative State management actions.
It wasn't until 1994 that the State management of the
fishery came into question, based on the States' lack of
management authority in the Federal Exclusive Economic Zone. A
Federal court ruling allocated to Washington State treaty
tribes 50 percent of the harvestable surplus of the shellfish
resource in their usual accustomed fishing areas. After the
ruling, concerns were raised over the ability of the States to
ensure the tribal treaty allocations in the Federal Exclusive
Economic Zone.
In 1996, Congress authorized limited interim management
authority over the Dungeness crab fishery in the Federal
Exclusive Economic Zone to the States of Washington, Oregon,
and California. The authority was made interim because Congress
believed that the Pacific Fishery Management Council, the
council with jurisdiction over the Dungeness crab fishery,
would develop and implement a fishery management plan. However,
the council recently requested that Congress expand the interim
management authority and make it permanent.
Our colleague, George Miller, introduced H.R. 3498, the
Dungeness Crab Conservation and Management Act, on March 18 of
this year with seven original cosponsors. The fundamental goal
of this legislation is to implement the Council's request and
allow the valuable fishery to remain successful in the years
ahead.
The Subcommittee is here today to discuss the merits of
H.R. 3498. I look forward to hearing from our distinguished
witnesses.
I now recognize one of the Minority Members, whichever. Mr.
Miller, I guess, would--the sponsor of this bill.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Saxton. It must be a scholarly work for you to be the
cosponsor.
Mr. Miller. It is. It's a scholarly work. It's perfection.
If you guys don't recognize it, don't speak up.
[Laughter.]
But I want to thank you very much for holding this hearing
and for the witnesses for taking their time to come and
testify. Because I am late, I will put my opening statement in
the record and look forward to the testimony of those
individuals in support of the legislation.
Mr. Saxton. Mr. Pallone, do you have a statement?
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'll put my statement in
the record, too. But let me just summarize a couple of these
things, because I know that you've mentioned already the basic
management structure. The way I understand it, the three
States, Washington, Oregon, and California, have control within
the three miles adjacent to their respective states and with
regards to the EEZ, they regulate vessels with permits from
their own States. And they have entered into this Memorandum of
Understanding.
What the bill would do would be to basically have
Washington, Oregon, and California manage the crab in the EEZ.
To some extent, my understanding is that this is a precedent by
having Congress legislate the management plan, rather than a
regional council and some questions have been raised as to why
the Federal legislation is necessary when these concerns could
be addressed by the Pacific Management Council. And I know that
supporters of the bill have asserted that the unique and
historic management of the fishery warrants this particular
type of management authority with the State.
But I'm curious to hear who would be responsible for
conducting the research and the stock assessments on the
fisheries, the States or NMFS, and I would look forward to
hearing from today's panel in, you know, helping us basically
explain why this type of unique arrangement is necessary and
should be carried forward the way the bill sets forth. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New Jersey
I would like to thank the Chairman for holding this hearing
on H.R. 3498, the Dungeness Crab Conservation and Management
Act.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, Washington, Oregon, and
California have managed the harvest of the Dungeness crab
through standardized methods of measurement for size
regulations and opening dates since the 1960's. These states
have control within the three miles adjacent to their
respective state. With regards to the EEZ (Federal Exclusive
Economic Zone), the States are permitted to regulate those ves-
sels with permits from their own state. More importantly, to
ensure that there is a consistent harvest of this stock, the
three states have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
H.R. 3498 would allow Washington, Oregon, and California to
manage the Dungeness Crab in the EEZ. I understand that this
bill would set a unique precedent, by having Congress legislate
a management plan rather than a regional council. Questions
have been raised as to why Federal legislation is necessary
when these concerns could be addressed hy the Pacific
Management Council. I know that supporters of this bill have
asserted that the unique and historic management of this
fishery warrants the transfer of management authority to the
States.
I am also curious to hear who would be responsible for
conducting the research and the stock assessment on this
fishery--the States or the National Marine Fisheries Service.
I look forward to hearing from today's panels in helping us
address this very important issue.
Mr. Saxton. Well, Mr. Miller, I note that Mr. Pallone has
some questions.
[Laughter.]
I ask unanimous consent that all Subcommittee members be
permitted to include their opening statements on the record.
Without objection, I would now like to introduce our witnesses.
[The information referred to follows:]
Mr. Saxton. On panel one is a Mr. Dave Evans, with the
National Marine Fisheries Service; Mr. Phillip Anderson, of the
Pacific Fishery Management Council; Mr. Randy Fisher,
representing the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. I
would like to remind our witnesses that oral testimony is
limited to 5 minutes. However, your written testimony will be
included in the record. OK. Bill Robinson is also with Mr.
Evans. Welcome aboard, all four of you.
I would now like to recognize Dave Evans.
STATEMENT OF DAVID EVANS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR
FISHERIES, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE; ACCOMPANIED BY
WILLIAM ROBINSON, ASSISTANT REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR FOR
SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
NORTHWEST REGION
Mr. Evans. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for inviting
us to testify before your Subcommittee today on Dungeness crab
management. I'm accompanied today, as you noted, by Dr. William
Robinson, who's the Assistant Regional Administrator for
Sustainable Fisheries in the NMFS Northwest Region.
The National Marine Fisheries Service supports the passage
of H.R. 3498, the Dungeness Crab Conservation and Management
Act, as a unique solution to an unusual set of circumstances.
Before the Federal District Court's 1994 Rafeedie decision, no
treaty fishing operated on an ocean species not managed by a
Federal fisheries management plan (FMP). In the 1996
Sustainable Fisheries Act, Congress provided interim authority
to West Coast States to regulate all vessels, regardless of the
state of origin, in Federal waters off each State in the
absence of an FMP. Congress also directed the Pacific Fishery
Management Council to develop a Federal FMP.
The Council considered the development of a Federal
fisheries management plan, but concluded that the current tri-
State management regime for Dungeness crab was managing the
fishery well and was well-suited for dealing with the tribal
treaty rights. Section 306 (a)(3)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation Act recognizes State jurisdiction to
manage vessels registered to a State when those vessels are
operating outside of the State waters, if there is no FMP for
the fishery being pursued.
In its report to Congress, the Pacific Council found that
there was a legitimate interest of the three west coast States
to continue to retain management authority that they had
exercised over the Dungeness crab fisheries for over 60 years
and to extend the interim authority granted by Congress to
allow the continued tri-State management. NMFS concurs with
this finding, with the understanding that, if any time, the
Secretary or the Council should determine the need for a
Federal Dungeness crab FMP, a Federal FMP could then be
implemented. At that time, the state authority in the EEZ that
is not provided for in the fisheries management plan would be
terminated.
NMFS believes that the current H.R. 3498 language provides
for this, but proposes clarifying this authority with language
similar to that found in 306 (a)(3)(C) in the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, to be added to the end of paragraph 306 (d) of H.R. 3498,
in that: ``The authority provided under this paragraph shall
terminate when a fishery management plan under the Act is
approved and implemented for this fishery.''
It's clear from Section 306 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act
that Congress has recognized that a State's authority extends
to its registered fishers when they are participating in a
fishery for which there is no Federal FMP. It is also clear
from this section that only rare and unusual circumstances
would support extension of a State's authority over vessels
from other States operating in the EEZ adjacent to that State's
waters. NMFS believes that this fishery's unique circumstances,
such as the fact that the fishery is pursued predominately in
State waters; the long-term cooperative State-level management
that includes limited entry programs; the fishery's tribal
treaty obligations; the current historic lack of a Federal FMP;
the small number of States with jurisdiction over the range of
the species; the clear latitudinal borders between the States;
and the specific request of the Pacific council for extension
of State authority all merit consideration of extending special
State authority over Dungeness crab, as described in the bill.
Our support for the bill was based on a careful
consideration of the exceptional nature of the management
situation of this fishery and the recommendation of the
council. It is our understanding that the bill does not
diminish the Secretary's authority to develop an FMP--a Federal
FMP for Dungeness crab, in the future. Our support for this
bill should not be interpreted as extending this approach
beyond this fishery with its unique characteristics.
We also recommend that, say within three years after this
legislation is passed, that the council make a report to
Congress that reevaluates the potential need for Federal
management and a Federal FMP.
That concludes my oral testimony this morning, Mr.
Chairman. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you might
have. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Evans may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Saxton. Mr. Anderson.
STATEMENT OF PHILIP ANDERSON, PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT
COUNCIL
Mr. Anderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning. I
appreciate this opportunity to testify before the Committee. My
name is Philip Anderson. I represent the Washington Department
of Fish and Wildlife on the Pacific Fishery Management Council
and I am here today on behalf of the council.
The council appreciates the opportunity to testify on H.R.
3498, a bill to amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fisher Conservation
and Management Act, to authorize, in the absence of a Federal
fishery management plan, the States of Washington, Oregon, and
California to regulate the Dungeness crab fishery in Federal
waters. If enacted, the bill would implement the
recommendations submitted by the council in its report of
October 1997. We request that the report be made a part of the
record of this hearing.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Anderson. The council adopted these recommendations by
a unanimous vote after considering, together with the tribes
and industry representatives, the most efficient and cost-
effective means of managing the Dungeness crab fishery off the
coast of California, Oregon, and Washington. The management
elements incorporated in the bill represent an agreement
amongst industry representatives, tribal representatives, the
State, and fish and wildlife agencies captured through the
regional council process. The regional council process was the
mechanism that we used to develop this recommendation.
The basis for the recommendation are as follows. First, it
avoids the duplication of the current management regime.
Historically, the States have managed the fishery and have the
technical expertise to continue that into the future. And that
addresses the question about where is the expertise and where
will it come from in the future to manage this fishery.
Research, biological considerations for management, and
monitoring the landings, doing test fisheries, and we also, the
State of Washington, has observers that we have go on the
fishing vessels to monitor the condition of the resource and
the catch per unit of effort. The overlay of a Federal plan
would add an unneeded cost to managing this fishery. In
addition, industry representatives would avoid the added cost
and time-burden of participating in both a State and Federal
management system.
The bill does not preempt future Federal management.
Dungeness crab are not currently managed under a Federal FMP.
If, in the future, the council determine that the management of
the Dungeness crab resource would be improved under a Federal
management plan, nothing in this legislation would prevent them
from taking such action. It does not preempt Federal authority.
It is consistent with the current cooperative management
process that produces State/tribal management plans. This year
we developed four State/tribal management plans for Dungeness
crab: one with the Makah Indian Nation, one with the Hoh Indian
Tribe, one with the Quileute Indian Tribe, and the fourth with
the Quinault Indian Nation. Federal District Court Judge Edward
Rafeedie's August 28, 1995 implementation order, in combination
with the court-approved stipulation between the State of
Washington and the Quinault Indian Nation, requires the State
and tribes to develop joint harvest management plans and/or
cooperatively manage shellfish resources within the tribes'
usual and accustomed fishing grounds and stations.
This bill would avoid the need for a duplicative Federal
process, while allowing the State of Washington to implement
and enforce equitable management measures for non-Indian
fisheries operating within the tribes' usual and accustomed
fishing areas that extend into Federal waters.
Finally, the bill would expand limitations placed on the
interim authority currently provided to the States for
Dungeness crab to include any management measure needed, with
the exception of the State limited entry laws. This would allow
us to deal with problems of overcapitalization that currently
exist in the coastal fisheries that the interim authority does
not provide. Moreover, the bill would limit participation to
fishing or processing operations licensed by either California,
Oregon, or Washington, another consideration that is not
included in the interim authority.
For these reasons, the council is recommending that it
continue to focus its efforts and fiscal resources on Federal
management plans for species, such as salmon, groundfish, and
coastal pelagics that have coastwide migration and
distribution; have international implications, such as with the
Pacific Salmon Commission and transboundary groundfish stocks
that migrate into Canadian waters; and have implications
relative to the Endangered Species Act.
The council urges the House to pass the legislation in a
timely manner. The interim authority provided the States
expires October 1, 1999. In the absence of legislation, the
council will need to begin the time-consuming task of
developing a Federal plan to avoid a lapse in the needed
management authority in the Exclusive Economic Zone. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Anderson may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Saxton. Thank you, sir. Mr. Fisher.
STATEMENT OF RANDY FISHER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PACIFIC STATES
MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION
Mr. Fisher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning. My
name is Randy Fisher. I am the executive director of the
Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. The commission was
chartered by Congress in 1947. The compact signed by the States
of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, and Idaho has the
goal of supporting policies and actions directed at the
conservation, development, and management of fishery resources
of mutual concern to the member States. Consistent with that
direction, I am here representing the commission and,
specifically, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,
the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the California
Department of Fish and Game.
Landing of Dungeness crab in the coastal fisheries of
California, Oregon, and Washington have been maintained a
cyclic pattern for nearly 50 seasons. Harvest has ranged
between 8 million and 54 million pounds, and peak approximately
every 10 years. During the most recent 10 seasons, coastwide
landings averaged 33.8 million pounds, of which 28 percent were
landed in California, 31 percent were landed in Oregon, and 41
percent were landed in Washington. The total annual ex-vessel
value of the coastwide fishery since the 1981-1982 season has
ranged between $17 and $70 million.
The total number of vessels landing in each individual
State has increased historically, but since the 1981-1982
season, the number of coastwide participants has remained
relatively stable, between 952 and 1,302 vessels. In any year,
an average of 94 percent of these vessels land in only one
State, with only 6 percent landing in two of the three States,
and less than 1 percent landing in all three States.
Dungeness crab fisheries in California, Oregon, and
Washington are managed under the regimen known as the ``3-S,''
size, sex, and season. Only male Dungeness crabs are harvested
commercially. State managers do not make pre-season forecasts
of stock abundance, and harvest levels are based on recruitment
into acceptable harvest categories.
The basic management structure has been stable over time.
All three States standardized methods of measurements in the
mid-1960's. Season opening dates have generally maintained the
same since the last 1960's.
Although the regulations governing the fisheries are
adopted by independent administrative processes in each State,
they are generally consistent. An interstate Memorandum of
Understanding, first signed in 1980, committed the State
management agencies to take mutually supportive crab management
actions.
I mention this background to illustrate the long history of
the cooperative nature of crab management between the States.
In 1990, at the request of the crab industry, the Pacific
States Marine Fisheries Commission formed the Tri-State
Dungeness Crab Committee. There are currently 19 members on
that committee, representing Dungeness crab fishermen and
processors from the Pacific Coast. The committee was designed
to have representation from the entire coast. All
recommendations of the committee are based on consensus of its
members. The committee itself is only advisory body; its
recommendations can be implemented only through the separate
regulatory procedures established in each of the member States.
In 1993, the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission was
asked to survey the crab fleet and assess the support for
limited entry among vessel owners. Based on the results of the
survey, the Tri-State Dungeness Crab Committee participants
sponsored independent crab licensing limitation efforts in
their home States. These programs became effective in 1995 and
the 1995-1996 crab season was the first in which all coastal
crab fisheries operated license limitation.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council considered and
declined to develop a fishery management plan for Dungeness
crab in the late 1970's, suggesting that the States were
adequately managing the resource. In April 1995, the State of
Washington requested that the Pacific Fishery Management
Council again consider a Fed-
eral FMP for Dungeness crab. Washington later suspended its
request pending the outcome of an attempt to amend the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
That authority allowed the States to apply regulations that
opened and closed seasons, set minimum size and crab meat
rates, and implemented treaty Indian harvest requirements,
using area closures, port limitations to all vessels fishing in
the adjacent Federal EEZ. State programs limiting entry to the
fisheries were specifically excluded from this extended
authority.
September, 1997, after a review by an ad-hoc panel and the
Tri-State Dungeness Crab Committee, the council voted
unanimously to request that the expanded Interim Authority be
made permanent. This request is not precedent-setting since
Congress and the National Marine Fisheries Service accepted
similar State management of king crab fisheries in the Gulf of
Alaska. This legislation does allow anyone who has an
appropriate permit in California, Oregon, or Washington, to
fish in the EEZ. This is a coordinated management approach that
reflects a long history of State Dungeness crab management
between California, Oregon, and Washington.
This legislation represents a negotiated settlement between
the States and is favored by the vast majority of fishermen,
processors, tribes, the Pacific Marine Fisheries Management
Commission, and the Pacific Fisheries Management Council. The
Pacific Fisheries Management Commission strongly recommends
that this legislation be passed and drafted this year. Thank
you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fisher may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much. I appreciate all of your
very fine and articulate testimony.
Let me ask you an unusual question. We--Mr. Pallone, Mr.
Miller, and I--deal here weekly, sometimes on a daily basis,
with fisheries management issues, with NMFS and the Councils,
et cetera, et cetera. And it occurs to me, as I begin to learn
about this issue, that there are two fisheries which have been
remarkably successful in terms of our conservation and
utilization efforts. One happens to be the Dungeness crab and
the other happens to be the Atlantic striped bass. And, in both
cases, in each case, the major conservation and management role
is carried out by the States rather than by those of us who are
responsible for fisheries management on the Federal level in
cooperation with NMFS, et cetera.
Is there some kind of a message here that we might take
note of? I understand that the folks from Oregon, Washington,
and California are happy. I understand the Indian tribes are
happy. I understand the crabs are all smiling.
[Laughter.]
It's a great success story, seems like. And, yet, we have a
hard time finding success stories in fishery management and
we've got one on the east coast that Mr. Pallone and I are very
fond of and we've got, apparently now, one on the west coast
that Mr. Miller's fond of and I just--Mr. Evans, is there a
message here or am I reading more into this than I should?
Mr. Evans. I'd like to suggest that you're reading a little
bit more into it than you should. But I think that there is a
message in that we do believe, and there are other fisheries
where this is the case, that the fishery ought to be managed in
the waters or under the jurisdiction where it's primarily
pursued. And, as you know, striped bass is pursued largely in
coastal waters on the east coast. Dungeness crab fishery is
pursued, principally, in State waters on the west coast.
There are a number of mechanisms around the country. They
differ in different parts of the country as to how to effect
that management. We have the Atlantic Coastal Act on the east
coast that specifically sets up a framework for cooperative
State programs to manage fisheries. We don't have an analogous
piece of legislation on the west coast, it turns out, so the
Pacific Commission operates in a slightly different fashion.
In principle, I think that managing the fisheries where
they're pursued is a sensible procedure and I don't think that
there's a message there. Sometimes the questions become a
little more complicated when they're out on the EEZ and there
are jurisdictional issues associated with it.
Mr. Anderson. Mr. Chairman, may I respond to your question
also? Thank you.
While I do represent--I work for the Washington Department
of Fish and Wildlife, I'm here on behalf of the council today.
But I want to say that, in the Pacific Fishery Management
Council forum, there is a strong partnership between National
Marine Fishery Service and the State agencies and developing
the management plans for species that are covered under Federal
fishery management plans. I think the State agencies, certainly
our State agencies, both share the responsibility with National
Marine Fishery Service or the successes as well as the failures
that may have occurred in management of the species that are
under Federal FMPs. It is a partnership. We both--we share the
responsibility for the management of those fisheries.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you. Does the management plan, this very
successful management plan, does it require--is it required in
any way to be consistent with Magnuson-Stevenson Act's national
standards? There are some 10 stated standards which are
referred to in Section 301 of the Act, called National
Standards for Fishery and Conservation Management. Is the
management plan consistent with these standards or do you have
a separate set of standards in the management plan that are
prescribed separately? Or how do you work with regard to
guidelines and standards?
Mr. Anderson. We have fishery management objectives that
are described in our State/tribal management plans for
preserving and protecting and conserving the resource. We have,
under State statute, a requirement to balance the needs of the
recreational and commercial fishing interests in this fishery
as well as other fisheries that the State manages. I'd like to
think that the national standards are standards that we need
and should have in mind in the application of all our fishery
management initiatives, whether they be under State authority
or under a Federal authority. So, while I would stop short of
saying that we look at the national standards when developing
our fishery management plan for Dungeness crab, I'm well aware
and familiar with what those standards are and, generally,
believe that our management complies with those standards.
Mr. Saxton. Let me ask you just one specific question about
the standards. A standard, which is No. 2 in this section,
reads, ``Conservation and management measures shall be based
upon the best scientific information available.'' Would you say
that you comply with that requirement?
Mr. Anderson. I am very confident that all three States
comply with that national standard in managing this fishery.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much. Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller. You want me to--just a couple of quick
questions here. Thank you very much for your testimony and for
your support of this legislation. I may have heard the same
message that the chairman heard and that was sort of, you're
all very polite, telling us to keep our nose out of your
business, but----
[Laughter.]
It seems to be working, so we'll probably take the
recommendation, as we have in this legislation. With respect to
the Indian tribes, once the take is determined and their share
of that is determined, with respect to the rest of the
operations of the fisheries, they operate the same as everyone
else in that fishery in terms of season and in terms of
whatever other restraints you have on the crab fishery? Is that
accurate or not accurate?
Mr. Anderson. If I understand your question, it's not
accurate. First of all, we do not have the technology to make a
pre-season estimate of the harvestable abundance of crab. So we
have to manage the fishery based on time and area, which
equates into opportunity. And so we de--we have devised a
management regime that have used those time, area--time and
area basically are the two mechanisms we've used to provide
equal opportunity to both the tribal and the non-treaty fishers
for accessing the harvestable numbers of crab in any given
year.
Mr. Miller. But the rules under which they then fish when
you set out the season over an area or a time, time and area,
everybody fishes in the same fashion?
Mr. Anderson. The conservation rules are the same, in terms
of the gear specifications, however we do set aside specific
areas for a portion of the time that the non-Indian fishery is
open that is for the exclusive use of the tribal fishery.
Mr. Miller. All right.
Mr. Anderson. So, in that way there's--to balance----
Mr. Miller. But that's to try to make sure that you comply
with the court decision--with the entitlement that's there in
terms of amount?
Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Mr. Anderson. That's correct.
Mr. Miller. But, with respect to conservation and all the
rest of it, the----
Mr. Anderson. The rules are the same. Yes.
Mr. Miller. [continuing] the rules are the same. OK. I
appreciate that. Given what's going on with the salmon, with
the groundfish, and the council's burdens and activities there,
you can't manage this at the same time? I mean, in terms of
what you see as your resource allocation here, this is----?
Mr. Anderson. I think that what the council is saying is
that, for species such as salmon and groundfish and coastal
pelagics, which have a lot of interjurisdictional issues
wrapped up in them, that's where we need to focus our fiscal
and----
Mr. Miller. So you're comfortable laying this off on the--
--
Mr. Anderson. [continuing] resources. And so that's why we
believe, rather than take away from those efforts and apply a
portion of those resources to managing Dungeness crab, we don't
think that's a good use of Federal dollars. We believe that the
Federal dollars that are----
Mr. Miller. OK.
Mr. Anderson. [continuing] provided to the council are
better used in those areas that have more interjurisdictional
implications.
Mr. Miller. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you, Mr. Miller. As you may have heard,
we are being called for a vote and so at this time I'll just
say that we appreciate very much your being here. And Mr.
Miller and I will go off and vote and, while we're gone, if the
second panel would like to take their places.
Let me just introduce them before we leave. We have Mr.
Nick Furman, executive director of the Oregon Dungeness Crab
Commission; Mr. Larry Thevik--is that pronounced correctly?--
representing the Washington Dungeness Crab Fishermen's
Association and the Columbia River Crab Fishermen's
Association; and Mr. Pietro Parravo--Parravano, president of
the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations; oh,
and Mr.--this guy with the funny-looking tie, there in the back
of the room--Mr. Rod Moore, executive director of the West
Coast Seafood Processors Association. Thank you. We'll hurry
back.
[Recess.]
Mr. Saxton. If the witnesses could find their--might find
their places.
Mr. Parravano, let me, first of all, apologize for not
having scoped out your name before I tried to read it. I am
sorry. It is time for us to begin. Mr. Miller will be back with
us in just a moment. I assume that you won't mind beginning
before he gets back. So if you would like to start, Mr. Furman.
STATEMENT OF NICK FURMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OREGON DUNGENESS
CRAB COMMISSION
Mr. Furman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Committee. My name is Nick Furman. I'm the executive director
of the Oregon Dungeness Crab Commission. The ODCC is a
fishermen-funded commodity commission which operates under the
umbrella of the Oregon Department of Agriculture. The
commission is comprised of seven industry members, appointed by
the ODA director, to represent the commercial crab fleets in
all of the major ports along the Oregon coast. Five seats are
held by crabbers and two positions are filled by processors.
Collectively, the commissioners represent 450 Oregon Dungeness
crab permit holders, and it on their behalf that I offer the
following.
With the exception of a brief foray into Oregon's limited
entry debate some years back, the commission has historically
stayed true to its primary mission which is to enhance the
image and profit-
ability of the Dungeness crab industry through market
development and promotion. I mention this only to underscore
how concerned the present members of the commission are over
the future of the crab fishery as it relates to the legislation
before you and how convinced they are that H.R. 3498 is in the
best interests of their constituents as well as the entire crab
industry.
The west coast Dungeness crab fishery is one of the
soundest fisheries in the nation, with an enviable track record
dating back to the late 1800's. Albeit cyclical, the stocks are
healthy and well-managed. Only mature male crabs meeting
specific size regulations are landed. Female crabs and sub-
legal males are left in the ocean to reproduce, ensuring
adequate recruitment for subsequent years. Fishing activity
ceases during the period of post-molt vulnerability in the late
summer and fall to minimize handling mortality. The harvest
method is targeted and the gear employed is selective. Bycatch,
a problem facing so many other fisheries, is not an issue with
respect to the crab fishery. In short, there are no compelling
conservation or biological reasons to alter the fishery's
present form of state management.
In 1996, Congress amended the Magnuson-Stevens Act, giving
the States of Oregon, Washington, and California interim
authority to manage the Dungeness crab fishery occurring within
the Exclusive Economic Zone adjacent to their respective State
waters. The same simple, but highly successful management
methods that have served the fishery well for decades, were
expanded into Federal waters off of each State. During that
period, the States have demonstrated the ability and
willingness to work together in solving management-related
issues associated with the fishery, with memorandums of
agreement in place to deal with specific items such as soft-
shell testing, delayed openers, and reciprocity. Regulations
are, for the most part, consistent between the three Sates.
A Tri-State Dungeness Crab Committee exists under the
auspices of the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission and
is recognized as a legitimate forum to discuss and resolve the
socioeconomic issues facing the crab industry coastwide. Recent
limited entry legislation adopted in all three States has
curtailed the access to the crab fishery by putting a cap on
the number of available permits, thereby ensuring that fleet
size will remain the same and that the ranks will not swell
beyond current numbers. In short, there are no compelling
management reasons to warrant the adoption of a Federal
fisheries management plan at this juncture.
While differences admittedly exist between the fleets and
fishermen of the three States, all agree that extended State
management within the EEZ is the best way to address those
issues by assuring that regulatory authority will be consistent
and, at the same time, sensitive to specific regional needs.
H.R. 3498 represents two years worth of negotiations by
representatives of the entire west coast crab industry, in
which all parties put aside their parochial interests in an
effort to preserve the traditional and historic nature of the
Dungeness crab fishery, while at the same time ensuring that
future considerations can be met in a responsible and cohesive
manner. It has the support of an overwhelming majority of the
fishing industry, the tribal interests, the associated State
agencies, and the Pacific Fisheries Manage-
ment Council itself, who's jurisdiction the crab fishery would
come under, should efforts to pass this legislation fail. In
short, there is virtually no opposition to this bill from any
party with a legitimate vested interest in the Dungeness crab
fishery.
In the late 1970's, the PFMC began working on an FMP for
Dungeness crab, only to abandon the effort after concluding
that it would serve no purpose at that time. Nothing has
changed. If anything, the role of State management within the
crab fishery has only improved since then, with the adoption of
limited entry programs and enhanced interstate cooperation.
Recently, the Pacific Council itself voted unanimously in favor
of a legislative response to the suggestion that it revisit the
FMP process for Dungeness crab.
FMPs are complex, cumbersome, and costly. The Dungeness
crab fishery is quite simple. It will not benefit from the data
generated to complete an FMP, nor will it be any better off
under the management authority of a fisheries council. The
money needed to develop and implement a fisheries management
plan for Dungeness crab would be far better off spent
addressing the crucial issues facing other west coast fisheries
that do need the help. In short, if it's not broken, don't fix
it.
Over the past year, the Dungeness Crab Commission has given
members of the Oregon fleet numerous opportunities to comment
on the Commission's position on this issue and its role in the
attempt to get the resulting legislation passed. Not once have
they received anything less than wholehearted support and
encouragement. Anybody familiar with our crab fleet can
appreciate how unusual that unanimity is.
The commission is convinced that H.R. 3498 is a good bill,
that it reflect the desires of the majority of the west coast
crab industry, and that the resource and those who depend on it
will be better off in the event of its successful passage. We
thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Crab
Commission and Oregon's 450 crab permit holders in support of
this legislation.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Furman may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much, Mr. Furman.
Mr. Thevik.
STATEMENT OF LARRY THEVIK, WASHINGTON DUNGENESS CRAB
FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATION/COLUMBIA RIVER CRAB FISHERMEN'S
ASSOCIATION
Mr. Thevik. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, good
morning. Is it still morning? It is. My name is Larry Thevik. I
am speaking on behalf of the Washington Dungeness Crab
Fishermen's Association and the Columbia River Crab Fishermen's
Association. I want to thank Congressman Miller and the
cosponsors who introduced H.R. 3498. I also want to thank the
Committee for inviting me to testify in support of this
legislation, authorizing the States of Washington, Oregon, and
California to regulate Dungeness crab in the Exclusive Economic
Zone. This is extremely important and welcome legislation for
crab fishers and for the coastal communities where we work and
live.
For 27 years, I have participated in a number of west coast
fisheries. Crab fishing has been my primary source of income. I
have fished for crab in Washington and Oregon. The west coast
Dungeness crab fishery occurs off the coasts of Washington,
Oregon, and California. The directed pot fishery has almost no
bycatch. The primary management tools are size, sex, and
season. Crab are not considered a highly migratory species. The
fishery is confined to the eastern one-fifth of the EEZ and to
State waters. The largest extension of the fishery into the EEZ
occurs off of Washington where the edge of the continental
shelf extends just under 40 miles westward of the shoreline.
The amount of crab caught in the EEZ varies between the States
and from year to year.
The Dungeness crab fishery has been managed by the States
for decades. The States have coordinated effort on many issues
through the Pacific States Marine Fish Commission's Tri-State
Crab Committee. In 1979, the Pacific Fisheries Management
Council considered the need for the development of a Federal
management plan for crab and decided that existing State
management met conservation and management goals. State
management has worked well.
While the States have done a good job, the underlying
problems resulting from their lack of management authority in
waters beyond three miles have intensified. Expanding fishing
effort in deeper waters, increasing harvest rates, and Federal
court orders in 1995 on tribal shellfish treaty rights have
forced a renewed look at the need for management authority in
the EEZ.
Except for each State's limited entry laws, H.R. 3498 will
provide consistent regulations and authority within three miles
and outside three miles off each State. Enforcement issues will
be clear. Safety issues and overcapitalization can be
addressed. And the burden of court-required tribal harvests can
be fairly implemented. Without consistent regulatory authority,
Washington-licensed vessels would bear the burden of tribal
allocation while vessels from other States would not be
similarly restricted.
Congress granted limited interim authority in 1996 to
provide short-term management protection while the west coast
considered a more permanent solution. We are grateful for that
relief and ask again for your help. Representatives from all
segments of the industry and regional, State, tribal, and
Federal representatives have voiced support for this
legislative solution. H.R. 3498 is not the unilateral action of
one State at the expense of another. H.R. 3498 does not
dismantle an existing Federal plan, nor does it preclude
development of a Federal management plan for crab should it
become necessary. This legislation has the unanimous support of
the Pacific Fisheries Management Council and is the result of a
considered and inclusive Federal council process to decide upon
a regional course of action. H.R. 3498 provides additional
tools necessary to manage the west coast Dungeness crab fishery
without overturning the fundamental management regimes that
have worked well in the past and can, with your help, work well
into the future.
Both the Washington Dungeness Crab Fishermen's Association
and the Columbia River Crab Fishermen's Association appreciate
your consideration of this legislation. Most Washington
crabbers rely on crab for the majority of their fishing income.
We depend on a sustainable fishery. We support effective
management to ensure resource health and economic viability.
Our organizations believe this legislation will help us
accomplish the management tasks needed for this fishery. We are
hopeful H.R. 3498 will be approved by this Committee and moved
on for timely passage. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thevik may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. Parravano.
STATEMENT OF PIETRO PARRAVANO, PRESIDENT, PACIFIC COAST
FEDERATION OF FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATIONS
Mr. Parravano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to say I
appreciate your apology. And I'd also like to say that I was
born in Princeton; I have very fond memories of living in the
beautiful city in your beautiful state.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee.
My name is Pietro Parravano and I'm president of the Pacific
Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, located in San
Francisco. We represent working men and women in the west coast
commercial fishing fleet. PCFF of A is the largest commercial
fishermen's group on the west coast and represents, among
others, the majority of California Dungeness crab fishermen.
I wish to thank you for agreeing to hold this hearing on
this legislation of great importance to us on the west and
thank Mr. Young and Mr. Miller for introducing H.R. 3498. I
have been a Dungeness crab fisherman since 1982, operating out
of the California port of Half Moon Bay. It is from the
perspective of a California commercial crab fishermen that I
present these remarks today.
It is important to briefly review the history of this
fishery and its management so that we can explain why we
support H.R. 3498. Following passage of the Fishery
Conservation and Management Act in 1976, a number of west coast
fisheries were considered for Federal FMPs, including Dungeness
crab. After the establishment of a Crab Advisory Subpanel and
over a year of consideration by the Pacific Fishery Management
Council, it was decided a Federal plan for the crab fishery was
not necessary. There were other fisheries needing more
attention, such as salmon and groundfish, and there was good
State regulation and cooperation among the States on the
management of the crab fishery. Thus, there was no compelling
need for Federal management.
Recent changes, and, undoubtedly, there will be more to
come, in the Dungeness crab fishery now warrant specific
management authority for the Dungeness crab fishery in Federal
waters. But before to a conclusion as to which crab management
plan is best, it is important to answer the following
questions.
One: Are the States capable of managing the fishery within
the EEZ? The answer is yes. The fact is that the States have
been managing their own vessels and fishermen in the past,
harvesting Dungeness crab in the EEZ. It is only the vessels
that are not registered by the State that a State has no
authority over. It is now possible, for example, for a large
vessel to come from the north, operated with 1,000 or more
traps, in the EEZ, ignore State conservation measures, and then
unload its catch in another State. This, of course, can be
remedied by delegating to the State's management authority over
this fishery in the EEZ.
Question two: Are there conflicts between the States that
require Federal management of this fishery? The answer is no.
As mentioned above, there is a long history of cooperation and
coordination by the three States in the research and management
of the Dungeness crab fishery. A Federal FMP would do nothing
to improve upon the current level of coordination and
cooperation.
Question three: Will there be confusion about the
boundaries if State jurisdiction is extended over the fishery
into the EEZ? The answer is no. The political boundaries of the
three west coast [sic] are such that it is easy to draw lines
westward establishing straightforward boundary lines, making
clear to fishermen which State authority they are under and
making clear to enforcement officials which vessels operating
within the EEZ they do and do not have jurisdiction over at any
given time.
Question four: Will a Federal fishery management plan for
crab require additional Federal expenditures? The answer is
yes. The preparation of fishery management plans costs hundreds
of thousands of dollars and most require annual updates. In
addition to the regional council costs, there are also costs
involved for the National Marine Fisheries Service
administrating an FMP. With the current lack of adequate funds
for such things as groundfish research, the restoration of
salmon habitat, where are the funds to come from for the
preparation of a Dungeness crab FMP? There is also a question
of staff time. With plans afoot for a coastal pelagic and,
perhaps, a highly migratory species FMP, where is the
additional staff for the Pacific Council and NMFS to come from?
At the same time, State management of the Dungeness crab
fishery is not costing the Federal treasury, is not costing the
Federal treasury anything. The States are picking up the cost
and much of that is being paid for by industry through landing
taxes and permit fees.
Question five: Is there precedent for delegating to States
management of a fishery within the EEZ. The answer is yes. The
State of Alaska has management authority over the crab fishery
in the EEZ in the Gulf of Alaska.
Mr. Chairman, I believe the facts are clear. There needs to
be management authority over the Dungeness crab fishery in the
Federal EEZ and it is the three States that are best suited to
take on that authority. Certainly when Congress passed the
Fishery Conservation and Management Act in 1976, what we call
now the Magnuson-Stevens Act, it did not intend to create a
one-size-fits-all type of management for our fisheries. It did
not seek to throw out a Federal system that provides for
diversity and experimentation.
We strongly urge the support of the Subcommittee and the
full House Resources Committee of H.R. 3498 and, for the sake
of the west coast Dungeness crab resource, its multi-million
dollars Dungeness crab fishery, and for persons, such as
myself, who derive income from this fishery and who enjoy
providing consumers the very best in seafood. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Parravano may be found at
end of hearing.]
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much, Mr. Parravano. Mr. Moore.
STATEMENT OF ROD MOORE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WEST COAST SEAFOOD
PROCESSORS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the second week in
a row taking an interest in West Coast fisheries issues. Glad
to see your expanded interest. It's always----
Mr. Saxton. Your ties get funnier every week.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Moore. I do this to keep you awake so my testimony
won't bore you. And also----
Mr. Saxton. I'm sure it won't bore me.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Moore. And I also want to thank Mr. Miller for taking
the lead in introducing this bill and keeping it moving and all
the hard work his staff has put into this. It's really
appreciated, as you can hear from the testimony today. This is
something that you've got a lot of people behind. And we really
appreciate the efforts that have been done on this.
Now it's not often that you get to see a bipartisan piece
of legislation that reduces bureaucracy, saves the taxpayers
money, conserves a major fishery, and is supported by all the
affected parties. Well, H.R. 3498 is one of those rare
occurrences and I hope you're going to recognize that and deal
with it appropriately.
Now there's been questions raised about why are we doing
this; why are we going through State management? And, frankly,
it's not normal for the members of my association to ask to
legislative fishery management system outside of the council.
The vice president of our association has served on the
council. One of our directors currently serves on the council.
I'm a member of several council committees as are several
others of my members.
But, as you've seen and heard, the crab situation is
unique. We've successfully conserved and managed this fishery
by State action, with the participation of the industry, and,
with this bill, we're accommodating tribal interests, we're
taking care of the final steps in management, and we think
doing something that is positive for the resource and for the
country, doing something that's going to allow the council to
get about its other business which, as we discussed last week
on groundfish, they're having enough trouble doing. Now we've
got a good system here and we would like to keep it working.
The only gap that's occurred in this success story is the
fact that, because we have a mobile fleet that moves up and
down the coast and the fact that we do need to take care of
tribal interests, we need to make sure that the State
authorities to conserve the resource fully extend out to 200
miles so that we don't have a situation where you're going to
wind up with overfishing or you're going to wind up with a
problem. And, by providing the States with the authority to go
out to 200 miles, as this bill does, we ensure that everybody
plays by the same rules and we maintain our treaty obligations
and we ensure conservation.
Mr. Pallone earlier raised questions about precedents. In
my written testimony I've laid out several examples of
precedents that have been taken both by the Congress and by
NMFS in providing similar State authority. Striped bass is
certainly one of them, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman. You
know, here you had a fishery that everything's been done by the
States and it's keeping the resource in good shape and we're,
in a way, trying to follow the same example that you've seen on
your coast. We're not trying to go around the council. The bill
says quite clearly that, if this management system doesn't
work, the council has the full authority to go in and develop a
fishery management plan. The council itself looked at the issue
and said, hey, you know, the legislative approach of extending
the State's authority is really the best way to do it.
Last week when we were here talking about groundfish, I
talked about how the industry tends to be innovative in dealing
with problems. And the same is true here. You know, we're
trying to follow an innovative approach to take care of a
unique situation and I was very, very pleased to hear this
morning that the National Marine Fisheries Service also agrees
with this.
And, you know, quite frankly, this whole system is going to
depend on us. We're part of the management system at this point
and if we screw up, it's going to be our own fault. And then
we're all going to wind up going back to the council and
saying, OK, we were wrong, we'll do it the other way. But we
don't think that's going to happen. We think we're going to do
it right, as we have been in the past, and we appreciate your
support and hope you take quick action on this bill. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Miller.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moore may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much. Just to satisfy my
curiosity, the fishery obviously is an inshore fishery as well
as an EEZ fishery, is that correct? And, obviously, the State
has the authority to manage a fishery inside three miles, and
has done so effectively. That correct?
Mr. Moore. That's correct. They also have the authority,
under the Magnuson Act, to manage their own vessels out--within
the EEZ.
Mr. Saxton. And what is the method of--is this a crab pot
fishery?
Mr. Moore. Yes, sir.
Mr. Saxton. And this species does as well in must be
relatively deep waters as it does in relatively shallow water,
is that correct?
Mr. Moore. I would defer to one of the guys who's out there
harvesting them all the time to probably answer that a little
bit better.
Mr. Thevik. They range, basically, from the shoreline and
the estuaries along our Pacific coast out to the edge of the
continental shelf, which is approximately 100 to 120 fathoms
where it breaks down into the much deeper waters.
Mr. Saxton. Are the fishing practices--it would seem as
though the inshore areas would be more easily fished than the
areas further offshore. Is that true?
Mr. Thevik. I think it's safe to say that the greatest
amount of fishing effort occurs closer to the shoreline, but
not necessarily----
Mr. Saxton. Within State waters?
Mr. Thevik. Well, it varies between States, depending on
weather conditions, time of year, how shallow it is. In the
State of Washington, three miles is only about 10 fathoms deep.
In other States, it could be 30, 40 fathoms deep. So there's a
variability between States as to how close that fishing effort,
the primary effort is, to the shoreline or how close it is to
the shelf.
Mr. Saxton. And the annual catch, with regard to the annual
catch, has it been stable?
Mr. Thevik. One of the characteristics of this fishery
seems to be--when I say that, we've been looking at it for
several decades--is it's cyclical. So, no, that the harvest
amounts, year to year, can vary considerably. I believe the
average in Washington, though, over 10 to 15 years is between 8
to 9 million pounds with a low of 2.5 million in 1985 and a
high of around 22 million, I believe, in 1989.
Mr. Saxton. And you're obviously convinced that the fishery
biomass is over the long haul been stable?
Mr. Thevik. What I'm fairly convinced of is that the
conservation measures that are built into this fishery allow
for a sustainable biomass. I wouldn't say that the biomass has
been the same over time, but the conservation measures have
been sufficient to support a sustainable fishery.
Mr. Furman. Mr. Chairman, may I comment?
Mr. Saxton. Sure.
Mr. Furman. In Oregon we have landing records that go back
to approximately 1889 for the Dungeness crab fishery and two
years ago we had our second-best harvest on record, which I
think illustrates the fact that, although it is cyclical, that
the stocks, the present stocks, are quite healthy.
Mr. Saxton. You're convinced that present stocks are in no
way endangered and that is, at least partly, due to the
management plans that you have cooperatively adopted?
Mr. Furman. Correct.
Mr. Saxton. If H.R. 3498 is not passed, how will the
industry sectors be affected?
Mr. Thevik. Well, for one, the congressional authority will
expire in 1999 and we'll be back where we were prior to the
granting of that, which means, especially in Washington,
anyway, and that's who I'm speaking for fundamentally, the
management measures that would need to be taken to accommodate
tribal allocations would not be consistently applied outside of
three miles to the fishers that fish off the coast, if they are
non-residents or non-licensed fishers by the State of
Washington. So we would be regulated to accommodate tribes;
out-of-State vessels would not. That's one of the primary
things that would happen. And we wouldn't have the management
tools to go ahead and deal with some of the other issues that
have come up over time: overcapitalization enforcement and
safety.
Mr. Saxton. And Mr. Moore?
Mr. Moore. I was just going to say that, from the
processing sector, what'll wind up happening is we'll have to
go back into the fishery management plan mode and work with the
council process, which is a long and sometimes arduous and
certainly costly process. And, unfortunately, there are times
when allocation issues wind up creeping in amongst all the good
conservation goals. Right now we've got the allocation issues
resolved. You know, we--I think all four of us were fighting
each other two years ago on some of these issues and now we're
here at the same table holding hands and saying, please do
this. We've got our issues resolved and we want to move forward
on this.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you. Would the industry support a
requirement that the States manage the Dungeness crab fishery
consistent with national standards as set forth in the
Magnuson-Stevens Act?
Mr. Moore. You asked that question or a similar question
earlier of Phil Anderson and I was looking through the national
standards. Between this bill and what the States already have
in existence--and there are various State laws and
regulations--everything except possibly the safety of life at
sea really is covered either under this bill or under the State
regulations. I think they would be concerned if you imposed a
requirement that the individual State laws would somehow have
to follow the national standard guidelines that are put out by
NMFS because you're dealing with two separate--well, in this
case, there'd be four separate sets of management entities: the
three States plus the National Marine Fisheries Service. And
the national standard guidelines as applied to fishery
management plans, as you know, Mr. Chairman, have been somewhat
contentious in their interpretation by the National Marine
Fisheries Service. So I think the States themselves would
probably have a little bit of concern saying, Hey, wait a
minute. A bunch of Federal regulations that apply to Federal
fishery management plans suddenly being imposed on our State
lawmaking process. Now we'd have a little bit of discomfort
with that.
But in terms of the----
Mr. Saxton. Sounds like it's more the principle of the
thing then it is the----
Mr. Moore. The principles are all being followed. They're
all being followed already. And, as Phil indicated, you know,
they're good principles that everybody should follow all the
time anyway.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you. Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Do the States have
different regulations on size of vessels or numbers of pots,
from State to State?
Mr. Thevik. Right now, there is no limitation that I'm
aware of on the number of pots. That's one of the next steps in
our management process.
Mr. Miller. So you can fish the number of pots that your
vessel can hold?
Mr. Thevik. Basically yes. There is a limitation on the--an
upper limit on the size of vessels that can participate in the
fishery. I believe it's 99 feet and I think that's consistent
across all three States. It is in Oregon and Washington,
anyway. I'm not sure about California.
Mr. Parravano. Yes. In California there are no trap limits.
You can fish as many traps as you want and I don't believe
there's a size vessel limit because I believe I have seen
vessels of over 110 feet.
Mr. Miller. Yes, but the--you don't think in California
there is a size limit?
Mr. Parravano. Not for vessels. I'm not aware of that.
Mr. Moore. Mr. Miller, the pot limit issue is one that
really has been considered in all three States on the part of
the industry and, you know, there are some allocation issues
between larger vessels and small vessels, obviously, that are
involved in that. But it's something that's kind of out there
and I think it's probably going to continue to come up and be
debated and each State try to work out the best waty to make
sure that you don't have a problem going on out there with the
number of pots.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Parravano, you suggest that the fishery is
changing in that respect, right? That you're seeing the entry
of larger vessels with more pots who can tank their catch.
What's that going to mean, over the long haul? I assume that's
a more capital-intensive operation.
Mr. Parravano. It is and I think we're seeing the whole
face of the fisheries change, that there are vessels that are
now being retired from their current operations due to various
conservation measures and these vessels would be capable of
getting into the crab fishery and would be operating many, many
more traps that we are not seeing in the fishery right now.
What that ultimately would do would--it would affect the
communities that support the traditional fisherman, that have
been operating for 30, 40 years out of their own home ports and
it most likely would have a negative effect on the coastal
communities that have supported traditional fisheries.
Mr. Miller. Well, that's a very real concern of mine. I
sort of view these traditional fishermen as independent
business people and small business people, in some instances,
although it seems like when you look at some of the debt it
looks like pretty big business. But currently limitations
really don't exist in terms of trying to hold onto the number
of fishers that participate in this.
Mr. Thevik. There is limited entry that has----
Mr. Miller. There's limited entry but you can gain entry
for a very large vessel and an unlimited number of pots and----
Mr. Thevik. Not in Oregon and Washington, you couldn't
license a vessel over 99 feet. You also--there are restrictions
on transfers. You can only jump up a vessel size about 10 feet
at a time in a limited number of years. And what is fundamental
to this legislation and one of our reasons to support it is
really we couldn't move ahead with any additional restrictions
without the authority to regulate consistently outside the
State. So this legislation will give us the tools to go ahead
and do some of those things.
Mr. Miller. Well, I would hope that that would be
considered. I mean, we don't have to go into all the arguments
here this morning but, obviously, to the extent to which this
can be a sustainable resource and also a sustainable economic
resource for these communities, I think we're all enriched,
speaking in the San Francisco Bay Area in Northern California,
from having the existence of these fisheries and I would hate
to think that at some point, you know, we're reduced to the
tourists looking at the boats at Fisherman's Wharf that do not
reflect what's going on out there on the high seas, where there
might be a couple of people that are left, fishing thousands of
pots at some point to the detriment of independent people who
have fished this or want to fish it in the future. But I know
the perils of this argument.
But I just think that it's important to notr that in our
State, and our local economies, fishing communities now have
greater attrac-
tion than just as fishing communities. Instead, with so many
people on the move and a growing tourism industry. They have
become a tourist attraction. But we'd rather have real fishing
communities as opposed to tourist destinations. And so I would
hope that, if this legislation does provide you the authority
to consider ways to protect fishing communities, that we
consider it sooner rather than later.
Because we all know what later means. Later means you got
this thing split into two groups and then we're into all of the
lobbying that goes on that has nothing to really do with the
merits of what you're trying to do. So I would hope that that
would happen as a result of this. Thank you.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much. We'd just like to thank
you at this point for coming all the way from the west coast to
share your thoughts with us. And you will be pleased to know
that we are tentatively thinking of a mark-up date in early
June and so we hope to do our part to move this issue forward
at a relatively early date. Thank you again for being here.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]
Statement of Hon. Don Young, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Alaska
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that you are conducting this
hearing today on this important piece of legislation.
The original Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act created eight regional fishery management
councils. These regional councils were given management and
conservation authority over marine fishery resources in the
Federal Exclusive Economic Zone. The regional councils are
responsible for developing and implementing fishery management
plans for the marine species under their jurisdiction.
While I have always been a strong advocate of the regional
councils, there are many fisheries that are not covered by a
Council-developed fishery management plan. In some instances
where the majority of the fishery is within State waters,
States have taken the conservation and management of these
fisheries upon themselves. For nearly 40 years, this has been
the case with the Dungeness crab fishery.
The States of Washington, Oregon, and California have
cooperatively managed the Dungeness crab fishery since the
1960's. This cooperative management worked well until a 1994
Federal court ruling caused concern over whether the States
could adequately address the tribal allocations in the Federal
Exclusive Economic Zone.
In 1996, Congress authorized limited and interim management
authority for the Dungeness crab in the Federal Exclusive
Economic Zone to the States of Washington, Oregon, and
California. The management authority was temporary in order to
give the Council time to develop a management plan to address
the concerns of the involved States and tribes before the
interim authority expires on October 1, 1999.
After reviewing the various management options, the Pacific
Fishery Management Council, which has jurisdiction over the
Dungeness crab fishery, unanimously requested that Congress
make the interim management authority permanent. Congressman
Miller's bill, H.R. 3498, would accomplish that goal.
H.R. 3498 would allow the States of Washington, Oregon, and
California to retain management of the Dungeness crab fishery
in the Exclusive Economic Zone as long as a Federal fishery
management plan is not developed to supersede this authority in
the future.
While I don't normally agree with Congressional attempts to
step over the Council's authority to manage fisheries, in this
case we are not taking management authority away from the
Council, because the Council retains the right to develop and
implement a fishery management plan at any time. In short, if
the need arises, the Pacific Fishery Management Council can act
to federalize this valuable fishery.
H.R. 3498 is supported by the Council and all of the
constituencies involved in the Dungeness crab fishery. I look
forward to discussing the merits of this bill and hearing from
our distinguished witnesses.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Beasley may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Saxton. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:27 p.m., the Subcommittee adjourned
subject to the call of the Chair.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
Statement of Dr. David Evans, Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce
Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to testify before
the Subcommittee today on Dungeness crab. I am Dr. David Evans,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries. I am accompanied
by William L. Robinson, Assistant Regional Administrator for
Sustainable Fisheries in NMFS' Northwest Region.
National Marine Fisheries Service Position on H.R 3498
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) supports the
passage of H.R. 3498, the Dungeness Crab Conservation and
Management Act, as a unique solution to an unusual set of
circumstances. Before the Federal District Court's 1994
Rafeedie decision, no treaty fishery operated on an ocean
species not managed by a Federal Fishery Management Plan (FMP).
In the Sustainable Fisheries Act, Congress provided interim
authority to the west coast states to regulate all vessels,
regardless of state of origin, in Federal waters off each state
in the absence of a Federal FMP. Congress also directed the
Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council or Council)
to develop a Federal FMP. The Council considered a Federal FMP,
but concluded that tribal treaty rights for Dungeness crab can
best be met and protected within the long standing tri-state
management process.
Section 306 (a)(3)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act)
recognizes State jurisdiction to manage vessels registered to a
state when those vessels are operating outside of state waters,
if there is no FMP for the fishery pursued. Further, Section
306 (a)(3)(C) provides authority to the State of Alaska to
manage vessels that are not registered with that state when
pursuing a fishery for which there was no Federal FMP in place
on August 1, 1996, and ``the Secretary and the North Pacific
Council find that there is a legitimate interest of the State
of Alaska in the conservation and management of such fishery.''
In its report to Congress, the Pacific Council found that
there was a legitimate interest of the three west coast states
to continue to retain the management authority that they had
exercised over Dungeness crab fisheries for over 60 years, and
to extend the interim authority granted by Congress to allow
continued tri-state management. NMFS concurs with this finding
with the understanding that, if at any time, and for any
reason, the Secretary or the Council should determine the need
for a Federal Dungeness crab FMP, a Federal FMP could be
implemented. At that time, state authority in the EEZ that is
not provided for in the plan would be terminated. NMFS believes
the current H.R. 3498 language provides for this, but proposes
clarifying this authority with language similar to that found
at Sec. 306(a)(3)(C) in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, to be added
to the end of paragraph 306 (d) of H.R. 3498, in that: ``The
authority provided under this paragraph shall terminate when a
fishery management plan under this Act is approved and
implemented for this fishery.''
It is clear from Section 306 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act
that Congress has recognized that a state's authority extends
to its registered fishers when they are participating in a
fishery for which there is no Federal FMP. It is also clear
from this section that only rare and unusual circumstances
would support extension of a state's authority over vessels
from other states operating in the EEZ adjacent to that state's
waters. NMFS believes that the unique circumstances of (1)
tribal treaty obligations, in combination with (2) the long-
term, cooperative state-level management that includes effort
limitation programs, (3) the current and historic lack of a
Federal FMP, (4) the small number of states with jurisdiction
over the range of the species, (5) the clear, latitudinal
borderlines between the states, and (6) the specific request of
the Pacific Council for extension of state authority, merit
consideration of extending special state authority over
Dungeness crab, as described by H.R. 3498.
Agency support for this bill was based on very careful
consideration of the exceptional nature of the management
quandaries of this fishery. Agency support is given for this
bill with the understanding that Federal management authority
may be invoked for Dungeness crab at any time, and with the
particular expectation that such authority would be invoked
should tri-state management in any way contravene the fishery
conservation and management principles of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act. Our support for this bill, however, should not be
interpreted as anything more than support for this approach, in
this fishery, with its unique characteristics.
NMFS recommends that, three years after this legislation is
passed, the Council make a Report to Congress that reevaluates
the potential need for Federal management and a Federal FMP.
Fishery Background
Evolution Towards Cooperative Management
Dungeness crab (Cancer magister) are commercially harvested
in nearshore west coast waters from south of San Francisco to
the Aleutian Islands. Dungeness crab are an intertidal and
continental shelf species, living off the ocean bottom out to
about 100 fathoms. The three west coast states--Washington,
Oregon, and California--have been setting fishing restrictions,
such as allowable crab size and fishing season since the early
20th century.
By the mid-1960s, years of management experience with
Dungeness crab fisheries had evolved into the management
principles that the three states use today--limiting harvest by
size, sex, and season. These principles essentially mean that
crabbers may only keep male crabs over a certain size (6.25
inches minimum, measuring shortest distance across the back),
and may only target Dungeness crabs during seasons set by the
states to coincide with the hardshell phase of the crab's
moulting process. Softshell crabs are generally not marketable,
and crabs that are discarded during the fishing process for
being an illegal size or sex are more likely to survive the
process of being caught and discarded during the hardshell
phase. The hardshell phase usually begins around mid-November
in California, arriving later in the northern areas, until
about mid-January when crabs off all three states are in the
hardshell phase. West coast seafood lovers know to look for
Dungeness crab in the markets and on menus during the year-end
holidays.
When the fishery management councils were formed following
the passage of the 1976 Fishery Conservation and Management
Act, the Pacific Council considered the Dungeness crab fishery
as a possible candidate for a Federal FMP. However, Council
members decided that the diverse and urgent management needs of
the salmon and groundfish fisheries would be more than enough
work for the young council to coordinate. The Dungeness crab
resource was known to be fairly stable; the size-sex-season
management principles ensured that no immature crabs would be
landed, and that those crabs that were caught and discarded
would live to replenish the crab stocks. The three states
agreed to manage Dungeness crab cooperatively, and in 1980, the
three state fishery agency directors entered into their first
Memorandum of Understanding to pledge cooperative coastwide
Dungeness crab management.
Through the ensuing years, the three states managed their
Dungeness crab fisheries with common goals and management
principles, but without a direct coordinating body. Over time,
the states added to the basic size-sex-season management with
new resource protection measures, such as escape rings on each
pot for undersized crabs. All three states also require that
pots have biodegradable escape mechanisms to ensure that if a
pot is lost during the fishing season, a portion of the pot
will quickly rot open so that the pot does not continue to
``ghost fish'' while lost on the ocean floor.
Dungeness crab fisheries in all three states had long
histories as open access fisheries. The Dungeness crab stock
tends to fluctuate over a ten year cycle, with somewhat
predictable high and low levels of larger-sized male crab
abundance. Some fishers would crab only in years of high
abundance, or in years when other fisheries were less
profitable, while other fishers would rely on Dungeness crab
for a consistent and significant portion of their annual
incomes. As west coast salmon became scarce and salmon
fisheries restrictions more limiting in the 1980s, many fishers
looked to Dungeness crab to make up for lost salmon income.
Larger and better equipped vessels became part of the Dungeness
crab fleet, and crabbers no longer kept to the traditional
pattern of fishing for and landing crab only in their home
states.
Despite these changes, the states saw no reason to add a
formal, cooperative management body to the Memorandums of
Understanding until the early 1990s. The opening of the 1989-90
season was a turning point in west coast Dungeness crab
management for both crabbers and fishery managers. Oregon
Dungeness crab season opened on December 1, 1989, to coincide
with the hardshell phase in the southern half of the state.
Washington biologists, however, had found that the northern
crab shells were hardening later into the winter, and decided
to wait to open the fishery until January 10, 1990. The tri-
state Memorandum of Understanding had no mechanisms to address
staggered season openings. Between December 1 and January 10,
Washington crabbers watched in frustration from shore as Oregon
crabbers legally caught unmarketable, softshell Dungeness crab
in Federal waters off the Washington coast. Following this
disaster, crabbers went to their state managers and pressed for
a tri-state management body to address issues of management
inconsistencies outside of the three-mile state ocean limits.
The Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission responded by
offering to convene a pilot tri-state meeting between industry
participants and state fisheries agency representatives. This
group, which later became known as the Tri-State Dungeness Crab
Committee (TDCC), ushered in a new era in cooperative state
Dungeness crab management.
State Limited Entry Programs: Tribal Treaty Rights to Shellfish
In the early 1990s, the TDCC began to discuss and study the
possibility of setting up limited entry programs for the
Dungeness crab fisheries of each of the three states. Heavy
influx of new fishers into the crab fisheries in the late 1980s
had made industry leaders realize that the fishery was
overcapitalized and that without a limited entry program, an
open access Dungeness crab fishery could easily become another
coastwide derby fishery. The TDCC asked for support from the
three state agencies for a survey of crabbers' attitudes
towards limited entry programs, with the expectation that
carefully designed programs would avoid many of the traditional
pitfalls of introducing restrictions on the number of vessels
licensed to participate in a lucrative fishery. Positive survey
results induced crabbers to begin lobbying their state
legislatures for limited entry programs. By 1995, all three
states had set license limitation strictures in place for their
Dungeness crab fisheries.
Although the limited entry programs had not solved all of
the inter-state conflicts over Dungeness crab, crabbers were
reluctant to take their management issues to the Pacific
Council because they had invested so much time and faith into
the TDCC process. However, management beyond state boundaries
became particularly problematic for Washington State in 1994,
when a determination in a sub-proceeding of U.S. v. Washington
(known as the ``Rafeedie decision'' for its presiding judge)
recognized the treaty rights of coastal Indian tribes to 50
percent of all of the harvestable shellfish in their usual and
accustomed fishing areas. For the four treaty tribes of the
outer Washington coast (Makah, Quileute, Hoh, and Quinault),
the usual and accustomed fishing areas extend out to forty
miles off the coast, fully encompassing the Dungeness crab
range for the northern two-thirds of Washington State. Properly
sharing the resource between tribal and non-tribal fisheries
became a new management challenge for the coastal treaty tribes
and Washington State, and highlighted the need for further tri-
state cooperation on state regulations beyond the three mile
zone.
Dungeness Crab in the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act
The Magnuson-Stevens Act, contains amendments from the 1996
Sustainable Fisheries Act that include an interim authority at
Section 306 to allow the States of Washington, Oregon, and
California to ``enforce State laws and regulations governing
fish harvesting and processing against any vessel operating in
the exclusive economic zone off each respective State in a
fishery for Dungeness crab (Cancer magister) for which there is
no fishery management plan implemented under the Magnuson
Fishery Conservation and Management Act.'' This provision
recognizes the unique character of the west coast Dungeness
crab fishery, which has been historically managed under state
authority, and which must respond to a recent division of crab
resources between tribal and non-tribal fishers. In this same
section, Congress invokes the Council process and asks the
Council to provide a report by December 1, 1997 to the Congress
on progress in developing an FMP for Dungeness crab.
Immediately following on the October 1996 passage of the
Sustainable Fisheries Act, the Pacific Council began to study
development of an FMP for Dungeness Crab. The Council convened
a panel of industry and state agency advisors who debated the
merits of a new FMP and whether to abandon the tri-state
management process and the new license limitation programs in
the three states. This panel provided the Council with a wide
range of possible future avenues, ranging from no FMP and no
action after the loss of the interim authority on October 1,
1999, to a full Federal FMP with no designation of management
authority to the states. The Council debated these results at
several meetings during 1997, and decided that although the
Magnuson-Stevens Act provides authority for a Council to create
a framework FMP that delegates management authority to the
states, it was reluctant to tamper with the established, well-
respected tri-state management process. To meet these two
goals, the Council's report to Congress requested that Congress
extend and expand the interim authority already described at
Section 306 of the Magnuson Act beyond 1999. H.R. 3498 and the
complementary Senate bill, S. 1726, would extend that authority
until such time that the Secretary or Council might decide that
integrated Dungeness crab management could be accomplished
better through a Federal FMP.
This concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy
to answer any questions you and the Subcommittee may have.
------
Statement of Philip Anderson, Member, Pacific Fishery Management
Council
Good morning. My name is Philip Anderson. I represent the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife on the Pacific
Fishery Management Council (Council) and I am here on behalf of
the Council today. Thank you for inviting the Council to
testify on H.R. 3498, a bill to amend the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act to authorize the states
of Washington, Oregon, and California to regulate the Dungeness
crab fishery in Federal waters.
We thank Mr. Miller, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. DeFazio, Ms.
Furse, Ms. Hooley, Mr. Riggs, Mrs. Smith and Mr. Young for
introducing this legislation. If enacted, the bill would
implement all of the recommendations submitted by the Council
in its report of October 1997. We request that the report be
made a part of the record of this hearing. The Council adopted
these recommendations by unanimous vote after considering,
together with the tribes and industry representatives, the most
efficient and cost-effective means of managing the Dungeness
crab fishery off the coasts of California, Oregon, and
Washington. The recommendations incorporated in the bill were
reached following an agreement amongst industry
representatives.
The basis for the Council's recommendation is as follows:
Avoids Duplication of Management Effort
Historically, the states have successfully managed the
fishery and have the technical expertise to continue into the
future. The overlay of a Federal plan would add an unneeded
cost to managing this fishery. In addition, industry
representatives would not have the added cost and time burden
of participating in both a state and Federal management system.
Does Not Preempt Future Federal Management
Dungeness crab are not currently managed under a Federal
management plan. If, in the future, the Council determined that
the management of the Dungeness crab resource would be improved
under a Federal management plan, nothing in this legislation
would prevent them from taking such action.
State/Tribal Management Plans
Federal District Court Judge Edward Rafeedie's August 28,
1995, implementation order, in combination with a court
approved stipulation between the state of Washington and the
Quinault Indian Nation, requires the state and tribes to
develop joint harvest management plans and/or cooperatively
manage shellfish resources within the tribes' usual and
accustomed fishing grounds and stations. This bill would remove
the need for a duplicative Federal process while allowing the
state of Washington to implement and enforce equitable
management measures for non-Indian fisheries operating within
the tribes' usual and accustomed fishing grounds and stations
that extend into Federal waters.
Expansion of Existing Interim Authority
The bill would expand the limitations placed on the interim
authority currently provided to the states for Dungeness crab
to include any management measure needed with the exception of
state limited entry laws. Moreover, the bill would limit
participation to fishing or processing operations licensed by
either California, Oregon, or Washington.
For these reasons, the Council is recommending that it continue to
focus its efforts on Federal management plans for species, such as
salmon and groundfish, that (1) have coastwide migration and
distribution, (2) have international management implications such as
the Pacific Salmon Commission and transboundary groundfish stocks, and
(3) have implications relative to the Endangered Species Act.
The Council urges the House to pass the legislation in a timely
manner. The interim authority provided the states expires October 1,
1999. In the absence of legislation, the Council will need to begin the
arduous and time-consuming task of developing a Federal plan to avoid a
lapse in the needed management authority.
______
Statement of Randy Fisher, Executive Director, Pacific States Marine
Fisheries Commission
Good Morning, my name is Randy Fisher. I am the Executive Director
of the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. The Commission was
chartered by Congress in 1947. The Compact signed by the States of
Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California and Idaho has the goal of
supporting policies and actions directed at the conservation,
development, and management of fishery resources of mutual concern to
member States through a coordinated regional approach to research,
monitoring and utilization.
Consistent with that direction, I am here representing the
Commission and, specifically, the Washington State Department of Fish
and Wildlife, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and the
California Department of Fish and Game.
Landing of Dungeness crab in the coastal fisheries of California,
Oregon, and Washington have maintained a cyclic pattern for nearly 50
seasons. Harvests have ranged between 8 million and 54 million pounds,
and peak approximately every 10 years. During the most recent 10
seasons, coastwide annual landings averaged 33.8 million pounds, of
which 28 percent were landed in California, 31 percent were landed in
Oregon, and 41 percent were landed in Washington. The total annual ex-
vessel value of the coastwide fishery since the 1981-82 season has
ranged between $17 million and $70 million.
The total number of vessels landing in each individual state has
increased historically, but since the 1981-1982 season, the number of
coastwide participants has remained relatively stable between 952 and
1,302 vessels. In any year, an average of 94 percent of these vessels
land in only one state, with only 6 percent landing in two of the three
states, and less than 1 percent land in all three states.
Dungeness crab fisheries in California, Oregon and Washington are
managed under the regimen known as ``3-S,'' i.e., size-sex-season. Only
male Dungeness crab are harvested commercially. State managers do not
make pre-season forecasts of stock abundance, and harvest levels are
based on recruitment into acceptable harvest categories.
The basic management structure has been stable over time. All three
states standardized methods of measurements in the mid-1960s. Season
opening dates have generally remained the same since the late 1960s.
Although the regulations governing the fishery are adopted by
independent administrative processes in each state, they are generally
consistent. An interstate Memorandum of Understanding first signed in
1980, committed the state management agencies to take mutually
supportive crab management actions.
I mention this background to illustrate the long history of
cooperative nature of crab management between the states.
In 1990, at the request of the crab industry, the Pacific States
Marine Fisheries Commission formed the Tri-State Dungeness Crab
Committee. There are currently 19 members on the Committee,
representing Dungeness crab fishermen and processors on the Pacific
Coast. The Committee was designed to have representation from the
entire coast. All recommendations of the Committee are based on
consensus of its members. The Committee itself is only an advisory
body, its recommendations can be implemented only through the separate
regulatory procedures established in each member state.
In 1993, the PSMFC was asked to survey the crab fleet and assess
support for limited entry among vessel owners. Based on the results of
the survey, the Tri-State Dungeness Crab Committee participants
sponsored independent crab license limitation efforts in their home
states. These programs became effective in 1995, the 1995-1996 crab
season was the first in which all coastal crab fisheries operated under
license limitations.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council considered and declined to
develop a Federal fishery management plan for Dungess crab in the late
1970s, suggesting that the states were adequately managing the
resource. In April 1995, the state of Washington requested that the
Pacific Fishery Management Council again consider a Federal FMP for
Dungeness crab. Washington later suspended its request pending the
outcome of an attempt to amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act.
That authority allowed the states to apply regulations that opened
and closed seasons, set minimum sizes and crab meat recovery rates, and
implemented treaty Indian harvest requirements using area closure or
port limitations to all vessels fishing in the adjacent Federal EEZ.
State programs limiting entry to the fishery were specifically excluded
from this extended authority. The Interim Authority is effective
through October 1, 1999.
In September of 1997, after a review by an ad-hoc panel and the
Tri-State Dungeness Crab Committee, the Council voted unanimously to
request that the current Interim Authority be made permanent.
This request is not precedent setting since Congress and the
National Marine Fisheries Service accepted similar state management of
king crab fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska. This legislation does allow
anyone who has an appropriate permit from California, Oregon, or
Washington to fish in the EEZ. This is a coordinated management
approach that reflects a long history of state Dungeness crab
management between California, Oregon and Washington.
The legislation represents a negotiated settlement between the
states and is favored by the vast majority of fishermen, processors,
tribes, the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission and the Pacific
Fishery Management Council.
The Commission strongly recommends that this legislation be passed
as drafted and enacted this year.
______
Statement of Nick Furman, Executive Director, Oregon Dungeness Crab
Commission
My name is Nick Furman and I am the Executive Director of the
Oregon Dungeness Crab Commission (ODCC). The ODCC is a fishermen-funded
Commodity Commission that operates under the umbrella of the Oregon
Department of Agriculture (ODA). The Commission is comprised of seven
industry members, appointed by the ODA Director to represent the
commercial crab fleets in all of the major ports along the Oregon
coast. Five seats are held by crabbers, and two positions are filled by
processors. Collectively, the Commissioners represent over 450 Oregon
Dungeness crab permit holders, and it is on their behalf that I offer
the following.
With the exception of a brief foray into Oregon's limited entry
debate some years back, the Commission has historically stayed true to
its primary mission which is to enhance the image and profitability of
the crab industry through market development and promotion. I mention
this only to underscore how concerned the present members of the
Commission are over the future of the crab fishery as it relates to the
legislation before you, and how convinced they are that H.R. 3498 is in
the best interests of their constituents as well as the entire crab
industry.
The West Coast Dungeness crab fishery is one of the soundest
fisheries in the nation, with an enviable track record dating back to
the late 1800's. Albeit cyclical, the stocks are healthy and well-
managed. Only mature male crabs meeting specific size regulations are
landed. Female crabs, and sub-legal males are left in the ocean to
reproduce, insuring adequate recruitment for subsequent years. Fishing
activity ceases during the period of post-molt vulnerability in the
late summer and fall to minimize handling mortality. The harvest method
is targeted and the gear employed is selective. Bycatch, a problem
facing so many other fisheries, is not an issue with respect to the
crab fishery. In short, there are no compelling conservation or
biological reasons to alter the fishery's present form of state
management.
In 1996, Congress amended the Magnuson-Stevens Act, giving the
states of Oregon, Washington and California interim authority to manage
the Dungeness crab fishery occurring within the Exclusive Economic Zone
(EEZ) adjacent to their respective state waters. The same simple, but
highly successful management methods that have served the fishery well
for decades, were expanded into Federal waters off each state. During
that period, the states have demonstrated the ability and willingness
to work together in solving management related issues associated with
the fishery, with ``memorandums of agreement'' in place to deal with
specific items such as soft-shell testing, delayed openers and
reciprocity. Regulations are, for the most part, consistent between the
three states. A ``Tri-State Dungeness Crab Committee'' exists under the
auspices of the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission and is
recognized as a legitimate forum to discuss and resolve the
socioeconomic issues facing the crab industry coast wide. Recent
limited entry legislation adopted in all three states has curtailed
access to the crab fishery by putting a cap on the number of available
permits, thereby insuring that fleet size will remain the same and that
the ranks will not swell beyond current numbers. In short there are no
compelling management reasons that warrant the adoption of a Federal
Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) at this juncture.
While differences admittedly exist between the fleets and fishermen
of the three states, all agree that extended state management within
the EEZ is the best way to address those issues by assuring that
regulatory authority will be consistent, and at the same time,
sensitive to specific regional needs. H.R. 3498 represents two years
worth of negotiation by representatives of the entire West Coast crab
industry, in which all parties agreed to put aside their parochial
interests in an effort to preserve the traditional and historic nature
of the Dungeness crab fishery, while at the same time, insuring that
future considerations can be met in a responsible and cohesive manner.
It has the support of an overwhelming majority of the fishing industry,
the tribal interests, the associated state agencies and the Pacific
Fisheries Management Council itself, who's jurisdiction the crab
fishery would come under should efforts to pass this legislation fail.
In short, there is virtually no opposition to this bill from any party
with a legitimate vested interest in the Dungeness crab fishery.
In the late 1970's, the PFMC began working on an FMP for Dungeness
crab, only to abandon the effort after concluding that it would serve
no purpose at that time. Nothing has changed. If anything, the role of
management within the crab fishery has only improved since then with
the adoption of limited entry programs and enhanced inter-state
cooperation. Recently, the Pacific Council itself voted unanimously in
favor of a legislative response to the suggestion that it revisit the
FMP process for Dungeness. FMP's are complex, cumbersome and costly.
The Dungeness crab fishery is simple. It will not benefit from the data
generated to complete an FMP, nor will it be any better off under the
management authority of a Fisheries Council. The money needed to
develop and implement a fisheries management plan for Dungeness crab
would be far better spent addressing the crucial issues facing other
West Coast fisheries that do need the help. In short, if it's not
broken, don't fix it.
Over the past year, the Dungeness Crab Commission has given members
of the Oregon crab fleet numerous opportunities to comment on the
Commission's position on this issue, and it's role in the attempt to
get the resulting legislation passed. Not once have they received
anything less than whole-hearted support and encouragement. Anyone
familiar with our crab fleet can appreciate how unusual that unanimity
is. The Commission is convinced that H.R. 3498 is a good bill, that it
reflects the desires of the majority of the West Coast crab industry,
and that the resource and those who depend on it will be better off in
the event of its successful passage. Thank you for the opportunity to
speak on behalf of the Crab Commission and Oregon's 450 crab permit
holders in support of this legislation.
______
Statement of Larry Thevik, Board Member, Washington Dungeness Crab
Fishermen's Association
My name is Larry Thevik. I am a lifetime resident of Washington
State and have been a commercial fisherman for twenty seven years.
I want to thank Congressman George Miller and the Co-sponsors who
introduced H.R. 3498. I also want to thank the Committee for inviting
me to testify in support of this legislation authorizing the States of
Washington, Oregon, and California to regulate Dungeness crab in the
EEZ.
This is extremely important and welcome legislation for crab
fishers and for the coastal communities where we work and live.
Over the years I have participated in a number of West Coast
fisheries including salmon and albacore trolling, longlining for
groundfish and halibut, pot fishing for prawns, and pot fishing for
Dungeness crab. Crabbing has been my primary source of income. I have
fished for crab in Washington and Oregon.
I am submitting this testimony on behalf of the Washington
Dungeness Crab Fishermen's Association and the Columbia River Crab
Fishermen's Association. WDCFA is based in Westport, Washington on
Grays Harbor and CRCFA is based in Ilwaco, Washington at the mouth of
the Columbia River. WDCFA and CRCFA are the largest organizations of
Washington Coastal crab fishers. The majority of Washington crabbers
depend on crab for most of their fishing income.
The West Coast Dungeness crab fishery is conducted off the Coasts
of Washington, Oregon, and California. Except for a small trawl
``bycatch'' allowed in California the fishery is conducted with pots.
The directed pot fishery has almost no ``bycatch.'' Only males of a
specified size are retained. Undersized males and all females that do
not escape from ``escape rings'' required in each pot are immediately
returned to the sea. The fishery occurs from the shoreline out to the
edge of the continental shelf. Most fishing effort occurs in depths
less than 70 fathoms. The primary management tools are size, sex, and
season. Crab are not considered a highly migratory species. The fishery
is confined to the eastern one-fifth of the EEZ and to state waters.
The largest extension of the fishery into the EEZ occurs off Washington
where the edge of the continental shelf extends just under 40 miles
westward of the shoreline. The amount of crab caught in the EEZ varies
between the States with California catching the majority of crab within
state waters while over half of the crab landings in Washington
originate from beyond the State's three mile limit.
The Dungeness crab fishery has been managed by the States for
decades. The States have coordinated effort on many issues through the
Pacific States Marine Fish Commission, (Tri-State). In the 70's the
newly created Pacific Fisheries Management Council considered the need
for the development of a Federal Management Plan for crab and deemed
that existing state management met conservation and management goals.
Although Dungeness crab is one of the least regulated fisheries on the
West Coast it has also been one of the most successful. State
management has worked well.
While the States have done a good job, the underlying problems
resulting from their lack of management authority in waters beyond
three miles have intensified. The extension of the crab fishery into
deeper waters, the expansion of vessels and gear, the passage of
limited entry in each of the three States, and Federal court rulings on
shellfish in 1994, requiring increased tribal harvest opportunities in
Washington State, have forced a renewed look at the outstanding issue
and need for management authority in the EEZ.
With the exception of each State's limited entry laws H.R. 3498
will provide consistent regulations and authority within three miles
and outside three miles off each State. Enforcement issues will be
clear. Safety issues and overcapitalization can be addressed. And the
burden of court required tribal harvests can be fairly implemented.
Without consistent regulatory authority Washington licensed vessels
would bear the burden of tribal allocation while vessels from other
states would not be similarly restricted.
Congress granted limited interim authority in order to provide
short term management protection while the West Coast considered a more
permanent solution. We are grateful for that relief and ask again for
your help. Representatives from all segments of the industry and
regional, state, tribal, and Federal representatives have voiced
support for this legislative solution. H.R. 3498 is not the unilateral
action of one state at the expense of another. H.R. 3498 does not
dismantle an existing Federal plan. H.R. 3498 does not preclude
development of an FMP for crab should it become necessary. This
legislation has the unanimous support of the PFMC and is a reasonable,
economical, and timely solution to a complex regional fishery problem.
The legislative request by the Council on behalf of the West Coast
Dungeness crab fishing industry is the result of a considered and
inclusive Federal process to decide upon a regional course of action.
H.R. 3498 provides additional tools necessary to manage the West Coast
Dungeness crab fishery without overturning the fundamental management
regimes that have worked well in the past and can with your help work
well into the future.
Both WDCFA and CRCFA appreciate your consideration of this
legislation. As fishers we depend on a sustainable fishery. We do not
support management for management's sake but we do support effective
management to ensure resource health and economic viability. WDCFA and
CRCFA believe this legislation will help us accomplish the management
tasks needed for this fishery. We are hopeful H.R. 3498 will be passed
out of this Committee for timely enactment.
______
Statement of Pietro Parravano, President, Pacific Coast Federation of
Fishermen's Associations
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. My name
is Pietro Parravano and I am the president of the Pacific Coast
Federation of Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA), which represents
working men and women in the west coast commercial fishing fleet. PCFFA
is the largest commercial fishermen's group on the U.S. west coast and
represents, among others, the majority of California's Dungeness crab
fishermen.
I wish to thank you for agreeing to hold this hearing on this
legislation of great importance to us on the west coast and thank Mr.
Young and Mr. Miller for introducing H.R. 3498. I have been a Dungeness
crab fisherman since 1982 operating out of the California port of Half
Moon Bay. It is from the perspective of a California commercial crab
fisherman that I present these remarks today.
Members may ask why is this legislation necessary? What is the
problem? Why give these three states extended authority over this
fishery? Why not put Dungeness crab under a Federal Fishery Management
Plan (FMP)? To answer these questions and for you to understand why we
support H.R 3498, it is important to briefly review the history of this
fishery and its management.
Historically most Dungeness crab fishing occurred in nearshore
ocean waters, much of it in state waters. States regulated the fishery
by seasons, size limits (including a prohibition on the take of female
crab in the commercial fishery), and specifications on gear requiring
``escape ports'' (allowing undersized crab to escape the trap) and
``destruct panels'' (cotton or other degradable material mesh in the
traps that will prevent the trap from continuing fishing if it is
lost). Because most crabbers operated out of the port (and state) where
there crab gear was located, state vessel registration and fishing
license requirements meant the states had control over most Dungeness
crab fishing, even that occurring offshore in Federal waters. Although
the fishery has been highly cyclical, all evidence points to it being
sustainable, state management of the crab fishery has been successful.
Following passage of the Fishery Conservation & Management Act in
1976, a number of west coast fisheries were considered for Federal
FMPs, including Dungeness crab. After the establishment of a Crab
Advisory Subpanel and over a year of consideration by the Pacific
Fishery Management Council, it was decided a Federal plan for the crab
fishery was not necessary. There were other fisheries needing more
attention, such as salmon and groundfish, and there was good state
regulation and cooperation among the states on the management of the
crab fishery; thus, there was no compelling need for Federal
management.
There has been a long history of active state management of
fisheries in California, Oregon and Washington. In California, where
our Department of Fish & Game is primarily funded by user fees,
including our commercial licenses, vessel registrations, permits,
stamps and landing taxes, the state has actively managed fisheries in
state waters. It has also regulated fishing in Federal waters offshore
the state where a vessel held a California commercial fishing vessel
registration (available to vessels from any state), or the person or
persons on board held a California commercial fishing license (again,
available to a person from any state). This has been true, as well, for
managing Dungeness crab.
Moreover, there has been close coordination and cooperation among
the three states on certain fisheries, including Dungeness crab,
through the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. Indeed, it has
been through the PSMFC's Tri-State Crab Committee, that the states have
coordinated on their response to the domoic acid threat and developed
limited entry programs for the crab fishery. That cooperation and
coordination between the three states' agencies and industry, through
the Tri-State Committee, continues to this day.
Recent changes in the Dungeness crab fishery, we believe, now
warrant specific management authority for the Dungeness crab fishery in
Federal waters. First, as other speakers will testify to, there has
been the court decision allocating half of the harvestable amount of
shellfish in Washington State to the treaty tribes. In order to protect
that state's non-treaty Dungeness crab fishery, the state must have the
authority to regulate beyond its state waters to assure a fair and
equitable allocation of the crab.
Second, there has been a gradual change in the harvest of Dungeness
crab. Increasingly, vessels are fishing in deeper water further
offshore, mainly in Federal waters, with more and more traps. That in
itself is not a problem where states can exercise jurisdiction over
vessels registered in those states. It is a problem, however, with
larger vessels, with no connection to the state they are fishing off,
that are able to tank their crab and travel long distances from the
place where the crab were caught to the place of delivery. It is now
possible, for example, for a large tanked vessel to come from the
north, operating with a thousand or more traps to fish in the EEZ off
Eureka, Fort Bragg, Bodega Bay or even San Francisco, ignore state
conservation regulations and then unload its catch in another state.
Given the scenario above, it may seem that it is now time for a
Federal plan for Dungeness crab. But before jumping to that conclusion,
it is important to answer the following questions:
1. Are the states capable of managing the fishery within the
EEZ? Yes. The fact is the states have been managing their own
vessels and fishermen in the past harvesting Dungeness crab in
the EEZ. It is only the vessels that are not registered by the
state that a state has no authority over. This, of course, can
be remedied by delegating to the states management authority
over this fishery in the EEZ.
2. Are there conflicts between the states that require
Federal management of this fishery? No. As mentioned above,
there is a long history of cooperation and coordination by the
three states in the research and management of the Dungeness
crab fishery. A Federal FMP would do nothing to improve upon
the current level of coordination and cooperation.
3. Will there be confusion about boundaries if state
jurisdiction is extended over this fishery into the EEZ? No.
The political boundaries of the three west coast states are
such that it is easy to draw lines westward establishing
straightforward boundary lines making clear to fishermen which
state authority they are under, and making clear to enforcement
officials which vessels operating within the EEZ that they do
and do not have jurisdiction over at any given time.
4. Will a Federal fishery management plan for crab require
additional Federal expenditures? Yes. The preparation of
fishery management plans cost hundreds of thousands of dollars
and most require annual updates. In addition to the regional
council costs, there are also costs involved for the National
Marine Fisheries Service administering an FMP. With the current
lack of adequate funds for such things as groundfish research
or restoration of salmon habitat, where are the funds to come
from for preparation of a Dungeness crab FMP? There is also a
question of staff time. With plans afoot for coastal pelagic
and, perhaps, a highly migratory species FMP, where is the
additional staff for the Pacific Council and NMFS to come from?
At the same time, state management of the Dungeness crab
fishery is not costing the Federal treasury anything. The
states are picking up the cost and much of that is being paid
for by industry through landing taxes and permit fees.
5. Is there precedent for delegating to states management of
a fishery within the EEZ? Yes. The State of Alaska has
management authority over the crab fishery in the EEZ in the
Gulf of Alaska. Giving management over the Dungeness crab
fishery in the EEZ to California, Oregon and Washington is not
without precedent elsewhere.
Mr. Chairman, I believe the facts are clear. There needs to be
management authority over the Dungeness crab fishery in the Federal EEZ
and it is the three states that are best suited to take on that
authority. Certainly when Congress passed the Fishery Conservation &
Management Act in 1976, what we now call the Magnuson-Stevens Act, it
did not intend to create a one-size-fits-all type of management for our
fisheries. It did not seek to throw out our Federal system that
provides for diversified experimentation.
We need conservation and management authority for our crab fishery
in Federal waters, but that does not mean we need Federal management
for this fishery. Admittedly, where there are conflicts between states,
or where state commissions are dominated by recreational or processing
sectors, Federal management may be the only way to protect stocks and
those whose livelihoods depend on fisheries. But here there is
cooperation between users and the agencies; the states have
demonstrated they are capable of managing the Dungeness crab fishery in
an effective and cost efficient manner.
We strongly urge the support of this Subcommittee and of the full
House Resources Committee of H.R 3498 for the sake of the west coast
Dungeness crab resource, its multi-million dollar Dungeness crab
fishery, and for persons, such as myself who derive income from this
fishery and who enjoy providing consumers the very best in seafood.
Thank you. I will be happy to answer any questions.
______
Statement of Rod Moore, Executive Director, West Coast Seafood
Processors Association
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I want to thank you for
holding this hearing on H.R. 3498, the ``Dungeness Crab Conservation
and Management Act.'' Special thanks are due to Congressman Miller for
sponsoring the bill, and to those Members from Alaska, Oregon,
Washington, and California who provided their bi-partisan co-
sponsorship.
For the record, my name is Rod Moore, I live in Portland, Oregon,
and I am the Executive Director of the West Coast Seafood Processors
Association (WCSPA). Our Association's members--who are all American-
owned, on-shore processors--operate facilities in California, Oregon,
and Washington which process the majority of Pacific groundfish,
Dungeness crab, and pink shrimp landed in those States, along with
salmon, swordfish, albacore tuna, and other species. Several of our
members operate processing facilities or vessels in Alaska, and several
are involved in transportation and distribution of seafood products.
It is not a normal occurrence for me or the members of my
Association to ask Congress to legislate a fisheries management system
which does not involve the Pacific Fishery Management Council. We
support the Council system, the Vice President of our Association is a
former Council member, and one of our directors currently serves on the
Council. I and several of our members serve--or have served--on Council
committees.
However, with west coast ocean Dungeness crab, we have a unique
situation--a fishery that has been successfully conserved and managed
by the States of California, Oregon, and Washington for decades. A
forum for management cooperation is already in place which involves
fisherman, processors, and the States, under the umbrella of the
Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. Access limitation programs
are in place in all three States. Biological studies and enforcement
are conducted by the States. Tribal treaty concerns are accommodated by
the State of Washington. In short, we are successfully conserving and
managing the resources, so we see no reason to establish a new
management system which will impose additional costs on the taxpayers.
Perhaps it would be helpful to look at the law and at other
fisheries to determine whether passing H.R. 3498 is the best way to go.
Section 302(h) of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (MSFCMA) says that Councils will establish a fishery
management plan for ``each fishery under its authority that requires
conservation and management . . .'' In practice, the Councils, the
National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Congress have treated this
requirement flexibly, tailoring actions to particular regional needs.
On the east coast, several fisheries are managed jointly by the States
through the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. In some cases,
this involves the Com-
mission setting minimum standards for conservation and leaving
particular management measures to the appropriate State authority. This
arrangement has been blessed by the Congress even though the fish
stocks involved may migrate through the waters of several States and
the exclusive economic zone.
In Alaska, the Dungeness crab fishery is managed by the State. The
king and tanner crab fisheries in the Bering Sea are managed under a
joint State-Federal fishery management plan. Those same species in the
Gulf of Alaska are managed solely by the State of Alaska. Salmon--other
than troll salmon in Southeast Alaska--is under State management, as is
Pacific herring.
On the west coast, pink shrimp, Dungeness crab, herring, and
swordfish are all under State authority.
In addition, Pacific albacore tuna and Atlantic bluefin tuna are
managed under international treaties.
How do we decide if a fishery requires conservation and management
under a fishery management plan? First, of course, we look at whether
there are appropriate restrictions on harvesting and processing to
ensure a sustained yield of the species in question. If conservation
cannot be ensured, then a fishery management plan needs to be put in
place.
Second, we need to look at the characteristics of the fishery and
the existence of other authority. Are there treaties in effect? Do the
fish travel into international waters or the waters of other countries,
so that a Federal presence is required? Can States effectively enforce
conservation rules? These are all considerations.
Third, we look at allocation among participants. While fishery
management rules cannot have allocation as their sole purpose, the need
to allocate among users--sport, commercial, domestic, foreign, tribal,
different gear types--certainly influences the decision.
And last, we look at cost. Can existing authority manage more
efficiently and with less cost, or do we need to impose a fishery
management plan?
Although none of these considerations are explicitly stated in the
law, they are in fact the reality with which we deal when deciding how
fisheries are going to be conserved and managed.
If you apply this four-part test to west coast ocean Dungeness
crab, you will find that the existing system of State management is
successful with the exception of one small gap which this legislation
covers. Crab are harvested both within State waters and the exclusive
economic zone. Because the crab fleet is mobile, it is common practice
for a fisherman from one State to fish in the exclusive economic zone
adjacent to another State and land his catch in his home State.
However, if the State off whose coast he is fishing enacts conservation
rules, this mobile fisherman can choose to ignore them as long as he is
fishing only in the exclusive economic zone. By extending State
authority for conservation purposes throughout the adjacent exclusive
economic zone, H.R. 3498 solves the problem.
This bill, like other actions of the Congress and the National
Marine Fisheries Service before it, deals with a unique situation in a
straight-forward, practical manner that recognizes the realities of an
important fishery. In the past, the Congress has provided State
authority over sections of the exclusive economic zone under section
306 of the MSFCMA. Congress has provided east coast States with
authority to manage certain fisheries through the Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission. Congress provided interim authority for
State management of Dungeness crab under the Sustainable Fisheries Act
in 1996, authority that will expire next year.
NMFS has recognized the practicality of State management on king
crab in the Gulf of Alaska. In fact, NMFS has twice turned down
attempts by the Pacific Fishery Management Council to adopt a fishery
management plan for coastal pelagic species, a fishery which--due to
its international extent--requires a Federal presence. NMFS reason for
doing so was that the fishery should more appropriately be under State
management.
H.R. 3498 is widely supported, as you can see from the witnesses
here today. Getting to this point has not been easy. The Council
conducted public hearings on the issue of Dungeness crab management,
established a committee to look at management options, asked the Tri-
State Dungeness Crab Committee to further refine options, prepared a
report to the Congress, and considered in public session what draft
legislation might look like. The result of these efforts was a
unanimous vote by the Council on a motion offered by the member
representing northwest tribes to ask Congress to consider this
legislative solution.
What happens if this bill is rejected? First, the gap in management
authority in the exclusive economic zone that I previously mentioned
will have to be addressed. The Council will have no choice but to
develop a fishery management plan. That will cost the Council and
NMFS--and ultimately, the taxpayers--some money. Given that neither the
Council nor NMFS has enough funds right now to do even basic research
on Pacific groundfish, I don't know where the money will come from.
Second, we will have to put in place a new management system under
the authority of the MSFCMA. All of the allocation fights that we have
put aside in order to develop a rational legislative solution will come
up again. NMFS will have to figure out overfishing levels, MSY, and
essential fish habitat, among other things, for a fishery that is
currently conserved by allowing the harvest of only male crab on a
minimum size during a specific season. Existing State limited entry
laws may have to be examined. We could conceivably have a separate
management scenario for the exclusive economic zone than we have for
State waters. It would be expensive and it would not be a pretty sight.
Keep in mind that H.R. 3498 does not preclude the Council from
stepping in at some point in the future if State management no longer
effectively conserves the crab resource. Under the bill, State
authority stays in effect only so long as there is no fishery
management plan. The burden will be on us, if we don't want a fishery
management plan, to ensure that State management works. We recognize
that and we are willing to accept the challenge.
Mr. Chairman, it is not often that you can pass bipartisan
legislation that reduces bureaucracy, saves the taxpayers' money,
conserves a major fishery, and which is supported by all affected
parties. With H.R. 3498, you have that opportunity. I urge you to act
quickly to move this bill through the legislative process. Thank you.
______
Statement of Rolland A. Schmitten, Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce
NOAA FISHERIES' COMMITMENT TO WEST COAST GROUNDFISH
Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to testify before
the Subcommittee today on West Coast groundfish. I am Rollie
Schmitten, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries and Director
of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). I am
accompanied by William L. Robinson, Assistant Regional
Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries in NMFS' Northwest
Region, and Dr. Richard Methot, Director of the Fisheries
Resource Analysis and Monitoring Division of NMFS' Northwest
Fisheries Science Center.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
is deeply and unequivocally committed to the sound stewardship
of ocean fisheries and the marine and coastal environment.
There are two essential building blocks to making that
commitment a reality: the strong and unwavering support of
leaders in the executive and legislative branches to that
commitment; and a sustained investment in sound science to
generate the information that will enable us to translate that
commitment into good decisions.
Our topic today is the challenging West Coast groundfish
fishery and our opportunities to improve our stewardship of it.
We at NOAA recognize that substantial improvements are needed.
We have made solid progress over the last several years to
develop the capacity to realize those improvements, and more
importantly, we continue to gear up to ensure that progress
continues.
Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NOAA Fisheries is
responsible for providing scientific information on which to
base fishery management decisions and working with the Pacific
Fisheries Management Council to structure an effective
management of that fishery. The agency's Northwest, Southwest
and Alaska Fisheries Science Centers conduct research that
provides the scientific basis for Pacific Fishery Management
Council recommendations to NOAA on harvest levels for West
Coast groundfish stocks. This information is provided via stock
assessments conducted by NOAA Fisheries, state, and university
scientists using data from surveys and state fishery monitoring
programs.
We fully acknowledge that members of the commercial fishing
industry have criticized the NOAA Fisheries' stock assessments
that led to reductions in the commercial harvest of several
important groundfish species in 1998. The fundamental
limitation on those assessments is the paucity of data upon
which they are based. Our challenge, simply put, is to improve
the quality and quantity of survey data that go into the stock
assessment. As stated in a recent National Research Council
report, NOAA Fisheries' stock assessment methods are the best
available, but, nevertheless, could benefit from improved data.
Sparse and/or difficult to calibrate data lead to high level of
uncertainty in these assessments.
NOAA Fisheries, in the last few years, has moved
aggressively to expand the West Coast groundfish program in the
Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC). In addition, we are
taking advantage of increasing opportunities to develop
cooperative data collection programs which will utilize
fishers' experience, knowledge, and time-on-the-water.
Reflecting that priority, in January 1995 the NWFSC's
groundfish program began to provide a coordinated stock
assessment program focusing on the important and valuable deep-
water species (sablefish, Dover sole, thornyheads). The program
had a budget of $1.5 million and a staff of seven, most of whom
moved from other NMFS Centers. In 1997, the program delivered
new stock assessments for these deep-water species, heightened
its dialogue with constituents to develop cooperative data
collection projects, and developed methods in conjunction with
the University of Washington to conduct trawl surveys with
local fishing vessels.
In 1998, coaxing still more from an overtaxed budget, NOAA
Fisheries added an additional $750,000 in permanent funding to
its Northwest Region for West Coast groundfish management and
research. The majority of the $750,000 will be used to support
several new staff positions and new major cooperative projects
with the commercial fishing industry and other scientists, both
of which will improve NOAA Fisheries stock assessments. Also,
NOAA provided an additional $400,000 to the NWFSC in 1998 to
continue the deep-water slope survey by chartering commercial
fishing vessels while the NOAA vessel Miller Freeman is in dry
dock. These funds, plus first-tmne use of compensation with
fish under the new ``Fish for Research'' provisions of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, will be used to prepare for and conduct
the resource survey.
Implementation of the ``Fish for Research'' provisions of
the Magnuson-Stevens Act in West Coast groundfish will set
precedents in an important new phase of fisheries management.
``Fish for Research'' will allow NOAA fisheries to compensate
fishing vessel owners who conduct chartered resource surveys
with the harvest of additional groundfish in order to offset
the cost of the survey. This will stretch the NWFSC's budget
further and allow greater amounts of scientific data to be
collected each year. We are excited about the prospects and are
pushing hard to implement ``Fish for Research'' quickly. We
will set aside a small fraction of the annual total allowable
catch to be used as compensation for vessels that are chartered
by NOAA Fisheries to conduct the scientific survey, and thereby
achieve the objective of generating additional valuable data.
We anticipate that this program will be an exciting prototype
for the management of the nation's fisheries.
NOAA Fisheries sees the West Coast groundfish research
program as a great opportunity to develop cooperative data
collection programs which will take advantage of fishers'
experience, knowledge, and time-on-the-water. This cooperative
program is critical to providing the best available scientific
information on which to base decisions on annual harvests to
achieve optimum yield while conserving the long-term health of
the stock.
BACKGROUND
What are West Coast Groundfish?
The term ``groundfish'' oversimplifies the complexity of
the biological and fishery situation. In fact, the Pacific
Fishery Management Council's Fishery Management Plan for
groundfish includes 83 species. Examples are Pacific whiting
(hake) which is an abundant migratory, schooling fish;
yelloweye rockfish which is a sedentary, nearshore reef-
oriented rockfish; and grenadiers which are bottom-dwelling,
deepwater fishes. The fishery is equally complex with catcher-
processors using midwater trawls to target on whiting; bottom
trawlers targeting flatfishes, rockfish and other species;
various hook and line and pot gears targeting sablefish and
rockfish; and recreational fisheries targeting nearshore
rockfishes.
It is convenient and useful to categorize groundfish into
five groups based upon their habitat and target fishery. These
include: (1) midwater (principally Pacific whiting); (2)
deepwater (sablefish, dover sole, 2 thornyheads, grenadiers);
(3) shelf (principally trawl-caught rockfish and lingcod); (4)
nearshore rockfish (principally other rockfish species caught
by hook and line or by recreational fishermen); and (5)
nearshore flatfish.
This diversity of species and users requires a wide range
of monitoring tools and a multi-faceted management system to
achieve management goals. Many of the groundfish species are
long-lived (50+ years). Thus, the recent 15-20 year history of
full exploitation and intensive management under the Magnuson-
Stevens Act is not much more than one generation time for many
species. We are just beginning a course of sustainable
management for the long-term.
Management System
The annual acceptable biological catch (ABC) is set for
each major species largely on the scientific advice provided in
the stock assessments. A harvest guideline (HG) is set for a
target level of landed domestic catch. Expected levels of non-
landed catch (discard) are generally subtracted from the ABC
when setting the HG. Other adjustments include set asides for
expected catch by Canada and coastal tribes.
A Limited Entry (LE) system was implemented in 1994.
Federal permits were established based on vessel catch history
during 1984-1988 period. Permits are endorsed for gear-type
(trawl, pot, longline) and for vessel length. Permits are
transferable, and permits from smaller vessels can be combined
into a permit for a larger vessel according to an established
formula.
Catch allocations are calculated to better achieve the
social and economic goals of the PFMC, in that:
a. Set asides for Treaty Indian and expected recreational catch
are deducted from the harvest guideline (where appropriate).
b. An established formula sets the allocation between the Open
Access and Limited Entry sectors.
c. Some further allocations occur within the LE sector
(shoreside vs. at sea delivery of Pacific whiting; trawl vs.
fixed gear sablefish catch).
Pacific whiting and fixed gear sablefish are managed primarily as
derbys, with relatively unconstrained fishing until the HG is attained,
then cessation of large-scale directed fishing. Other species support a
fresh fish market, and processors/marketers have strong desire for a
year-round supply. Trip limits were first instituted in 1983 to slow
the pace of the widow rockfish fishery. Today cumulative monthly vessel
landing limits are used for about 10 species in order to slow the pace
of the fishery and delay HG attainment until near the end of the year.
Unfortunately, declining ABCs and overcapitalization in the fishery
have caused these landing limits to substantially decline.
In addition, size limits, gear restrictions and area/season
closures are set to improve biological and economic yield or to reduce
adverse impacts of fishing.
Stock Assessments
Groundfish stock assessments are the technical evaluation of the
status of the fish stock and the level of yield that will come closest
to achieving maximum sustainable yield while avoiding overfishing. The
most accurate assessments include three categories of information: (1)
life history (natural mortality, growth, maturity); (2) fishery total
catch; and, (3) trends in abundance from resource surveys or fishery
catch per unit effort. These three types of information are
complementary and all are necessary. For example, bycatch studies will
improve estimates of total catch, but even perfect knowledge of total
catch is not sufficient to determine if that level of total catch is
appropriate. Conversely, no matter how accurately at-sea resource
surveys determine trends in the level of abundance, they alone will not
be able to determine if these trends are due to fishing or natural
causes.
The report of the National Research Council concluded that the
models used by the NMFS to conduct stock assessments were adequate, and
that the primary shortcoming of the assessments was the amount of
resource survey and fishery monitoring data available to include in the
models. As we engage in development of the next generation of stock
assessment models, primary goals will be characterization of the
uncertainty in assessment results, and clarity in the communication of
assessment results to fishery managers and constituents.
Resource Surveys
NOAA Fisheries has used a combination of trawl, acoustic, plankton,
and fixed gear methods to provide some survey coverage for many
groundfish species. Basically there is a triennial acoustic survey for
whiting using the NOAA vessel Miller Freeman; triennial bottom trawl
survey for shelf rockfish and lingcod using two chartered trawl
vessels; a midwater trawl survey for young rockfish off central
California using the NOAA vessel David Starr Jordan; an annual, but
sparse, bottom trawl survey for the deepwater complex using the NOAA
vessel Miller Freeman; incidental coverage for nearshore flatfish in
the shelf rockfish survey; and no coverage for nearshore rockfish. In
no case is this coverage completely adequate, and for several species
it is nearly lacking.
The adequacy of survey information depends upon several factors:
representation, calibration, length of time series, and degree of
natural biological fluctuations. Frequent (i.e. annual) surveys are
more necessary when the biology of the stock causes short-term natural
fluctuations in stock abundance, or when technical or biological
factors limit the precision of the survey. Here, precision refers to
the degree to which each survey is expected to be perfectly
representative of (i.e. proportional to) the stock's abundance. Even
precise, annual surveys are of limited value until they are calibrated
to the stock's abundance. In some cases, a technical approach can
directly measure a calibration factor to relate the survey gear's catch
to the absolute abundance of the stock. However, this technical
calibration is rarely possible. Alternatively, it is only through
patient development of a long time-series of surveys that we are able
to calibrate the survey index to the actual performance of the stock
over time. It is important to note that the level of confidence in this
calibration increases with the degree of standardization of the vessel
and the sampling method.
The survey needs just described would be best met through a
combination of chartered fishing vessels and a long-term, dedicated
fishery research vessel (FRV). The FRV will provide all weather
capability, cost effective use of scientific staff, standardized and
acoustically quiet vessel operations, and capability for simultaneous
multiple missions. The chartered fishing vessels will provide
additional days-at-sea in coordination with the FRV to achieve adequate
and timely coverage of the several groups of groundfish species.
Neither a program based solely on one FRV, nor a program based solely
on charter of local fishing vessels could meet the needs alone. In the
absence of an improved survey program, more conservative management of
the fishery will likely be necessary, and some of the potential value
of this fishery will be lost. We are starting now to increase the level
of survey effort based on chartered fishing vessels and using ``Fish
for Research'' to cover some of the costs. In the long-run, an FRV will
provide a stable, dedicated platform to conduct surveys and improve the
inter-calibration of chartered surveys.
Fishery Monitoring
Monitoring the West Coast groundfish fishery landings is
accomplished through a long standing state-Federal partnership. Funding
provided through PacFIN provides NMFS, the states, and the Pacific
States Marine Fisheries Commission with the capability to turn the
states' fish landing receipt systems into a comprehensive fish catch
database which provides weekly catch reports for major species to
fishery managers. In addition, state and commission biologists sample
the landings at each major port to provide biological data to stock
assessment scientists, and a coastwide trawl logbook program
administered by each state provides fishing effort data which figured
prominently in some recent stock assessments. A separate, but
coordinated, observer program administered by the Alaska Fisheries
Science Center monitors the at-sea catching and processing of Pacific
whiting.
As successful as this fishery monitoring program has been, major
gaps remain. Opportunities for underreporting increase as portions of
the fishery evolve to a highly geographically distributed hook-and-line
fishery. There is no routine monitoring of discards outside of those in
the at-sea whiting fishery. There is insufficient biological sampling
of the landings, and little economic information collected.
CURRENT SITUATION
Stocks in Decline
Some level of decline in stock abundance is an expected consequence
of fishing. The harvest policy typically used by the Pacific Fishery
Management Council to set the level of ABC is one that would reduce
long-term average stock abundance to about 35 percent of its average
unfished level. Current knowledge indicates that this level is a
reasonable approximation of the level that can produce maximum
sustainable yield (MSY). Application of this approach over the past 10-
20 years has been responsible for some of the decline in catch quotas
as the stocks have gone from a more abundant, lightly exploited level
to a fully exploited, less abundant level.
We recently discovered that several stocks (including sablefish,
bocaccio, canary rockfish, lingcod) unexpectedly have not stabilized at
the anticipated level of abundance and potential yield. Current
estimates of low and declining levels of abundance for these stocks
were completely unexpected by many who were confident the stock
assessment process would guide us to sustainable harvest level. Several
factors contributed to this circumstance. First, early estimates of
potential yield were less accurate. As information accumulates over
time, the estimates improve. In the long run (decades), we will be able
to better determine the appropriateness of the 35 percent target level.
Second, the current amount of survey and fishery information has now
been found to be insufficient a sufficiently high degree of accuracy in
tracking stock abundance trends. With only triennial updates in most
stock assessments, the rate of improvement was slow, and the potential
for overshooting the target abundance level was too high. Third,
without a comprehensive observer program, the level of total catch is
likely to have been underestimated, and this higher catch has
exacerbated the decline. Fourth, over the same 20 year time period, a
shift in the ocean climate has occurred. With warmer, less productive
conditions prevailing off the west coast since about 1978, some of the
reduction in the level of recruitment to these stocks could be part of
a natural cycle.
Whatever the causes of the decline and the limitations in our
ability to forecast such a decline, the best available information now
indicates that some stocks are at only 10-20 percent of their unfished
level and that reductions in catch are necessary to allow rebuilding to
safer and more productive levels. Furthermore, this situation
illustrates the need to apply more cautious harvest levels until
adequate information is available to confidently determine that a
particular level of harvest is sustainable.
Excess Fishery Capacity
The number of vessels participating in the West Coast groundfish
fishery was capped in 1994 with implementation of the Limited Entry
program. There are now 200+ trawl permits, and approximately 300
permits for either hook and line or pot gear. Even with this system in
place, the number of participants is too high to allow a year-round
fishing opportunity without severely limited bi-monthly cumulative
landing limits for individual vessels. Thus, the industry is actively
pursuing a buyback program. We are working with the industry in the
development of an industry-funded vessel buyback program.
Discarded Bycatch
A goal of the Pacific Fishery Management Council is a year-round
fishing opportunity for most sectors of the fishery. Since 1983, trip
landing limits have been used to cap per vessel landings to slow the
rate of total landings for the entire fleet in order to sustain the
year-round fishery. This system largely achieves the goal, but the
limits are economically adverse to fishers, difficult to comply with
and to enforce, and the cause of substantial levels of discard.
Estimated levels of discard range up to 20 percent for trawl-caught
sablefish, but these estimates are based on 12-year-old studies, so
contemporary measurement of discard levels is badly needed. Over time
these landing limits have been extended to nearly 30 combinations of
species/areas/gear types. Specification of most of these limits has
evolved from per trip limits to cumulative monthly and bi-monthly
limits in order to provide more flexibility to vessel operations and to
reduce discard. Even with these changes, the limits have become
increasingly complicated and restrictive as ABCs decline and the level
of capitalization by the fleet increases. This has been the impetus
behind the permit buyback initiative, and has sparked a plea for
implementation of a management system that would allow landing of trip
limit overages.
Cooperative Industry Willing to Engage in Cooperative Data Collection
The West Coast groundfish industry recognizes the shortcomings in
our stock assessment data and has been a strong proponent of
cooperative research and data collection projects. Over the past few
years, several workshops and discussion opportunities have helped to
generate specific project ideas and to bridge the cultural gap that too
often exists between the fishing and scientific communities.
Development of the groundfish program in the Northwest Fisheries
Science Center in 1995 increased the critical mass of NOAA Fisheries
staff working on West Coast groundfish, and thus helped create an
agency infrastructure to design and conduct these projects. Now the
Magnuson-Steves Act has redefined the legal landscape on which we can
develop these cooperative projects. An allocation of the total
allowable catch can now be used to compensate vessels that are
chartered to do scientific resource surveys. We look forward to using
these opportunities to partner with the groundfish constituents to
improve the quantity of stock assessment data, and thus to enable a
less conservative harvest policy.
NEW PROGRAMS IN 1998
Resource Survey with Fish for Research
A new trawl survey will be conducted in late summer 1998 to provide
additional stock assessment data for sablefish, Dover sole, and
thornyheads. This survey will utilize four chartered local-sized
fishing vessels to conduct the work, and will use the new Fish for
Research provisions of the Magnuson-Steves Act to offset some of the
direct charter costs. Such a summer survey takes advantage of better
weather for smaller vessel operations and less fish movement during the
survey. Results will be comparable, but not identical, with past and
future slope surveys conducted in the late autumn by the NOAA vessel
Miller Freeman.
Cooperative Fishery Data Collection
Enhanced fishery logbooks and at-sea biological data collection by
cooperating fishers can improve stock assessments. The enhanced logbook
project will allow collection of more detailed data from cooperating
fishers. It will provide fishers an opportunity to report on factors
that influence their fishing patterns, and the frequent interaction
with these participants will greatly improve communication between the
agency and the industry. Year-round biological sampling from a range of
fishing depths cannot be obtained from traditional shortage sampling
programs. This infor-
mation can be efficiently obtained through cooperation with the
industry, and will be important for analysis of fishery logbook data
and for interpretation of surveys that are conducted in only one
season.
Improved Stock Assessment Models
Stock assessments will be improved immediately. First, we are
implementing recommended improvements in the stock assessment model
from the National Research Council review. This will allow a clearer
presentation of uncertainty in model results which will enable better
understanding of the benefits of a precautionary management approach.
Second, we will ensure improved access to stock assessment databases
and increased frequency of stock assessment updates. In particular, we
will update in 1998 the sablefish and shortspine thornyhead assessments
and will initiate studies to provide further improvements in the
future. Third, we are improving coordination and communication of all
West Coast groundfish stock assessments to improve public understanding
and trust in the assessment process.
Electronic Fish Catch Logbook
A project funded by the Innovative Technology Committee is designed
to develop and demonstrate an electronic fish catch logbook system. The
system will allow for collection and analysis of fish catch and related
information collected by fishers. The goal is to increase the quantity
and quality of data collected, increase the uses of the data, and
better coordinate the expression of the data for more efficient and
sustainable utilization and management of the fishery resource. The
core products of the project are technology development and
demonstration. The first stage of the project involved interviews and
workshops with West Coast groundfish fishers, processors, scientists,
and managers to determine the unmet needs.
OUTSTANDING RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT NEEDS
We conclude by providing a brief recap of the major research and
management needs for West Coast groundfish. Each of these is designed
to bring us closer to our goal of fisheries managed to provide maximum
benefit to the nation with minimum risk of overfishing. Such a dual
goal cannot be achieved without good information. West Coast groundfish
can be a valuable, sustainable fishery if we can:
1. Provide adequate monitoring of trends in all groundfish
species through annual resource surveys for each of the five
major groups of groundfish. A combination of chartered fishing
vessels and a dedicated Fishery Research Vessel is the best mix
to accomplish this need.
2. Expand upon the resource surveys and oceanographic studies
to provide advance prediction of future recruitment to these
groundfish stocks.
3. Measure the contemporary level of bycatch in the
groundfish fishery.
4. Increase the accuracy of fishery monitoring through
logbooks, port sampling, and other means. Involve industry in
cooperative projects to leverage these fishery monitoring
programs.
5. Increase the level of economic information collected from
the groundfish fishery so that impact of trade-offs in
management can be more fully evaluated.
6. Improve the capabilities of stock assessment models so
that fishery managers and constituents will be more fully
informed of the potential benefits and risks of alternative
levels of harvest.
7. Implement capacity reduction programs that will improve
the economic, social, and biological situation of the West
Coast groundfish fishery.
8. Review management objectives for the fisher and develop
management programs that reduce bycatch.
9. Implement all aspects of the Magnuson-Stevens Sustainable
Fisheries Act, including provisions regarding prevention of
overfishing, bycatch, and essential fish habitat.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I again thank you for
the chance to appear here today and I welcome any questions you may
have.
------
Statement of Philip Anderson, Member, Pacific Fishery Management
Council
Good morning. My name is Philip Anderson. I represent the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife on the Pacific
Fishery Management Council (Council) and I am here on behalf of
the Council today. Thank you for inviting us to testify on the
issues of groundfish management and research.
Background
The Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) manage the groundfish fishery consistent with the
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Manage-
ment Plan which was implemented in 1982 and has been amended
ten times. The management unit consists of 83 species of
flatfish, rockfish, roundfish, sharks, skates, raffish, morids,
and grenadiers. The more important commercially harvested
species include Dover sole, sablefish, Pacific whiting, and
various species of rockfish. The amount of recreational catches
of most groundfish species is small compared to commercial
catches. Most of the commercial catch is taken by trawl,
longline, and pot gear in the limited entry fishery with trawl
gear accounting for over 90 percent of the catch. There is also
an open access fishery with relatively small catches by a large
number of vessels.
Management measures, including mesh-size restrictions and
harvest limits, for major species are established each fall for
the following fishing year. Most harvest limits are based on
stock assessments which are written by NMFS, a state agency, or
university scientists, and are based on trawl surveys conducted
by NMFS, and data from the fisheries. The trawl fisheries,
other than whiting, are managed to extend landings throughout
the year as much as possible by setting bimonthly cumulative
limits per vessel and adjusting them as necessary during the
season.
In 1994, a license limitation program was implemented for
trawl, longline, and pot gears in an effort to control the
amount of growth in the number of vessels participating in the
fishery. However, the harvest capacity still exceeds what is
needed to harvest the allowable catches. The shoreside
processing sector is also overcapitalized which creates less-
than-optimum economic conditions in the fishery and intense
competition for the fish.
In response to these conditions, the Council has discussed
additional measures to reduce fishing effort and to directly
allocate certain species among competing gear groups and
certain treaty tribes. Direct allocations have been adopted for
Pacific whiting and sablefish. Sablefish is allocated between
trawl and fixed gear fisheries, and additional measures have
been adopted for the fixed gear segment to limit capacity and
allocate the fixed gear share among participants. Recent
declines in annual harvest limits and bimonthly cumulative
limits have greatly exacerbated the situation, and allocations
are being considered for rockfish and lingcod. These measures,
however, will not solve the fundamental problem of excess
capacity.
An individual quota program for the fixed gear sablefish
fishery was developed, but was abandoned in 1994 when
Congressional sentiment in opposition became evident.
Individual quotas are now prohibited by the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson Stevens Act).
A trawl permit buyback program is being considered by the
Council, which has the potential to directly reduce capacity in
the trawl fleet. This program was developed by trawlers and
would be funded by a self-imposed tax on trawl landings if
approved by the fleet in a referendum pursuant to the new
provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Reduction of capacity
is a high priority for the Council.
1997 Stock Assessments and Decisions
Each year, assessments are conducted on five to ten
species, typically as part of a three-year rotation, and
Pacific whiting is assessed every year. Stock assessments are
prepared by staff scientists of NMFS, California Department of
Fish and Game, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Oregon State
University. In 1997, new assessments were completed for Pacific
whiting, yellowtail rockfish, lingcod, widow rockfish, Dover
sole, sablefish, and the two thornyhead rockfish species
(longspine and shortspine).
In recent years, stock assessments of West Coast groundfish
have generally been conducted with the stock synthesis model
which allows simultaneous examination of information from a
number of different fisheries and surveys. The surveys are
largely conducted by NMFS and include the following:
Triennial acoustic/mid-water trawl survey of whiting
Triennial bottom trawl survey on the continental shelf
to assess rockfish, lingcod, young sablefish, and other species
Annual bottom trawl survey of the continental slope to
assess deepwater species such as Dover sole, sablefish, and
thornyheads
Pot survey for sablefish
Except for the pot survey which was discontinued, all of these
surveys will be conducted in 1998. The trawl surveys of the shelf and
slope will be conducted using chartered commercial fishing vessels,
while the acoustic survey will use the NOM ship Miller Freeman.
The assessments for the deepwater species were reviewed by a panel
of independent experts in 1995. The panel was critical of the slope
surveys which were used as a basis for assessment of these species.
Since 1995, NMFS has made significant efforts to improve the slope
survey. Given the limited amount of funding resources available and the
technological difficulties of estimating the biomass of groundfish
species, survey and assessment results are often accompanied by a
substantial amount of uncertainty.
In 1996, the Council implemented a new stock assessment process to
improve public participation in the process, increase the level of
scientific peer review, and provide greater separation between the
scientific and management processes. This procedure was reconsidered
and expanded for the 1997 assessment cycle. In April 1997, a pre-
assessment workshop was held to review and evaluate data and identify
problems and modeling assumptions. Stock assessments were prepared by
Stock Assessment Teams (STATs) and then reviewed by three Stock
Assessment Review (STAR) Panels at three week-long workshops in July.
The STAR Panel workshops were open to the public. The Council's
Groundfish Management Team then met with the STAR Panel and STAT Team
representatives and developed recommendations to the Council for annual
harvest limits. The 1997 process was a substantial improvement over the
previous year's, but several problems were identified during its
implementation in 1997. The Council made further improvements to the
process for 1998 which addressed these problem areas.
Based on the new estimates of biomass from the 1997 stock
assessments, the recommended harvest levels were significantly reduced
for some species:
Sablefish reduced from 7,800 mt to 4,680 mt.
Dover sole reduced from 11,050 mt to 8,955 mt.
Longspine thornyhead reduced from 6,000 mt to 3,733
mt.
Widow rockfish reduced from 6,500 mt to 4,276 mt.
Lingcod reduced from 2,400 mt to 838 mt.
In addition, a substantial reduction in the harvest limit for
shortspine thornyhead was proposed by the STAR panel, but the Council
believed the assessment should be rewritten to address numerous
questions raised by both scientists and the public. The harvest levels
adopted for 1998 are very similar to the 1997 levels.
The total ex-vessel (landed) values of the species for which
harvest levels were changed in 1998 have declined from $59.8 million in
1996 to $55.4 million in 1997 (preliminary), and are projected to
decrease to $41.4 million in 1998. These substantial reductions in
revenue are occurring in an industry that is already overcapitalized
which will further aggravate its depressed economic condition.
The industry was particularly surprised and skeptical of the 1997
sablefish stock assessment. The assessment used information from the
slope surveys, pot surveys, and trawl logbooks and several different
model runs which emphasized different types of data sources which
produced a wide range of possible harvest levels. Problems have been
identified with all of the data sources, and there is a substantial
amount of uncertainty regarding sablefish abundance. Reasons for the
dramatic change in estimated biomass levels between the current and
previous assessment are not clear. Recruitment of new fish into the
population appears to have been poor since 1992, which may be caused by
environmental conditions, but may also be a result of low stock size.
Given the concerns relative to the 1997 sablefish assessment, the
Council requested a re-assessment in 1998 using the most recent survey
data and additional sources of information.
While some resource decline was expected as stocks were fished down
to levels which would provide the maximum sustainable yield (MSY), the
results of the 1997 assessments still raise a number of questions about
the adequacy of science and management. Did the previous assessments
overestimate abundance, resulting in harvests which were too high? Are
recent assessments sound? Are environmental conditions in the ocean
largely responsible? Are trip limit- induced discard rates higher than
estimated? The industry has been harvesting at the levels adopted by
the Council and implemented by NMFS, yet significant declines in
resource abundance appear to have occurred. For assessed species, the
Council has been setting harvest limits based on assessment results and
by applying the exploitation rate that is expected to achieve MSY.
Recommendations
The Council makes the following recommendations to improve research
and management of West Coast groundfish:
Increase the accuracy of stock assessments for West Coast
groundfish
Reducing uncertainty involves improving the science through
increasing the number of observations and thereby improving
accuracy. NMFS should increase the frequency and coverage of
surveys to measure adult biomass and the magnitude of the
recruitment of incoming year-classes. Surveys need to be done
annually at a minimum, and need to cover the entire range of
the species. We appreciate the commitments made by NMFS
Director Rolland Schmitten to permanently add $750,000 to the
base budget of the Northwest Fisheries Science Center for this
purpose, in addition to the $400,000 provided for 1997 only. We
also appreciate the efforts of the West Coast Senate delegation
and especially Senator Ron Wyden for requesting additional
amounts beginning in fiscal year (FY) 1999.
As an integral part of the effort to improve science, the
Council supports cooperative agency/industry research projects.
The industry has proposed a number of such projects, and NMFS
is beginning to implement some of them this year. In
particular, the ``Fish for Research'' program authorized by
recent amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act has the potential
to collect needed information at less cost, and starting this
summer, NMFS will contract with commercial vessels to conduct
the slope survey. The vessels will be reimbursed with a
combination of cash, fish caught during the survey, and fish
caught after the survey under an exempted fishing permit.
Improving science will go a long way toward establishing
credibility of the stock assessments, but it is also important
to improve the stock assessment process so that the Council
members and the stakeholders have confidence in the results.
This year, the Council and the state and Federal agencies have
committed to an improved process which was adopted by the
Council at its March 1998 meeting and is currently underway.
Be precautionary
Even with improved science, there will continue to be more
uncertainty in biomass estimates and stock assessments than
decision-makers are comfortable with. Estimating abundances of
marine fish species is challenging at best since we cannot
observe the fishery resources directly and it is difficult to
sample them. Some species of rockfish are particularly
difficult to survey and assess primarily because of their slow
growth rates, longevity, and geographic distribution. It is
entirely possible that the recent stock assessments are indeed
accurate. Other than for sablefish and shortspine thornyhead,
there was little disagreement over stock assessment results.
Given the uncertainty of the stock assessment and the
possibility of low stock sizes, it is prudent for the Council
to be precautionary in setting harvest levels on these
resources which can take decades to rebuild.
As part of the effort to amend the groundfish plan to make it
consistent with new provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the
Council is examining a more conservative harvest policy. Under
this policy, exploitation rates would be reduced as biomass
levels decrease, and rates would be adjusted downward to deal
with uncertainty. This policy, if approved, should provide for
more stable and abundant populations for the future.
Reduce effort
Fishing and processing capacity is larger than necessary to
harvest and process the available groundfish and the recent
reductions in harvest limits have exacerbated the situation.
License limitation programs and allocation regimes have not
solved this fundamental problem and additional measures are
necessary to achieve a stable and economically healthy
industry. The trawl permit buyback program being developed by
the industry is an example of a more direct way to address
excess harvest capacity. The program as drafted has caused some
concern regarding impacts to other fisheries; however, the
trawl fleet should be commended for taking the initiative to
develop this program. The Council is continuing to work with
the industry on this program and will address it again at its
June meeting.
Individual quotas are another means of addressing allocation
and effort problems. This tool is presently not available to
the Council. When the moratorium on individual quotas has
expired, I expect the Council to evaluate individual quotas for
certain fisheries such as sablefish.
Improve estimates of total fishing mortality and reduce discards
Groundfish caught in excess of cumulative vessel limits must
be discarded. These regulatory discards most likely increase as
limits decrease, but we do not know the true magnitude of
discard mortality. Assumed levels of discards are based upon
limited and outdated field studies. It is critical that we have
reliable estimates of discard mortality in order to incorporate
accurate estimates of total fishing mortality into stock
assessments as well as evaluate the impact of our management
measures upon discard levels. A comprehensive, ongoing observer
program and alternative ways of collecting this information are
being considered. One of the obstacles to establishing an
observer program is funding. Federal funding is not available
at this time and charging a fee and spreading the cost of a
program throughout the groundfish industry is not authorized by
the Magnuson-Stevens Act. These limitations have prevented the
Council from pursuing an observer program in the past.
One alternative being discussed is to require vessels to land
all catches of cumulative limit species. The fishers would not
be penalized for exceeding the limit nor would they be
compensated for the overage. Monies from overages would be
deposited in a fund to help defray the cost of research
programs. Such a program could achieve multiple objectives by
reducing waste, improving estimation of total catch, and
providing funds for needed fishery programs, but a mandatory
program requires amendment to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and it
also raises a number of concerns. The Council continues to
examine this concept.
This concludes our testimony and thank you for this opportunity.
______
Statement of Gerald Gunnari, President, Coos Bay Trawlers' Association,
Inc.
I have been asked to give testimony on the science used by the
Pacific Council to make management decisions and the adequacy of the
data used to establish quota levels on the west coast groundfish. I
thank each of you for this opportunity.
The Sustainable Fisheries Act calls for measures to reduce discards
and not to manage a complex or multi-species fishery by lowering one
species in that fishery. Doing so creates discards, not reduces it!
This is exactly what NMFS IS doing. Currently the NMFS' interpretation
of uncertainty and the precautionary approach is when you don't know
enough about a specie it is to automatically reduce the landings of
that specie no matter what condition the stock is in. This practice is
destroying the ability of the west coast fleet to be good stewards of
the ocean forcing discards we have never had in the past. Example:
Lingcod from December 31, 1997 to January, 1998 our monthly quota went
from 20,000 lbs. to 500 lbs. a 97.5 percent reduction in landings. The
commercial sector went from harvesting 95 percent of all Lingcod to
less than 50 percent. This shift made by NMFS and PFMC is undoubtably
an illegal allocation. Shifting to sports from commercial fishers means
that a seventy-five foot vessel can now only produce 150 pounds of
filets per month creating discards we never had before and denying the
public access to eat Lingcod.
On top of all this, we are not seeing the reported decline in fish
out on the ocean. There are no surveys or actual accounting of Lingcod
inside 30Fm out here, now over 50 percent of the 1998 quota is being
taken from an assessed area from an area not assessed. 98 percent of
the Lingcod caught by sport fishers is from inside 30Fm and very little
commercially caught ling is from inside 30Fm. We do not have a sport/
commercial conflict on the ocean. However, we now have one in council's
meeting rooms and it's not very pretty.
In the most recent PFMC meeting in Portland the desperation of not
enough fish to pay the bills is becoming a dominant issue for many. The
organized attitudes of one gear group throwing as much mud and dirt
upon another gear group to sway the council to take fish from one
group, who have traditionally caught those fish and give it to their
groups. These are some tough issues to have to deal with. We all have
to understand with financial pressures, fellow fishers have no other
recourse than to turn on each other. It is the only way some of them
can figure out how to increase their landings in order to survive.
We get our fish the same way they get their fish, we earn it by
working hard, investing in our vessels, and putting in time over the
years. The current situation is killing us too, but trying to steal
someone else's fish and investment is not an acceptable solution.
The trawl fishery is the mainstay of supplying our nation's fish
markets and restaurants with a steady source of fresh west coast fish
in the past and hopefully in the future. Investments and our bills are
many times greater than other gear types. It costs a lot to maintain a
vessel and crew capable of fishing forty miles off shore in the dead of
winter. These bills are real and we support many of the business in our
coastal communities. These cutbacks are proportionately affecting our
abilities to pay our bills too. It is destroying generations of hard
work and the very infrastructure dependent on fishing. We're not
attacking their business practices, they're attacking ours.
Over the past decade or more, we've been reducing catches and the
number of vessels doing what NMFS has recommended and now another
surprise cut by 40 to 60 percent and over 97.5 percent on Lingcod. It
is now to the point that we have an East Coast style disaster here, not
due to real stock abundance levels but due to poor science creating
uncertainty in data causing regulation changes. If we are catching 60
percent of 2 months trip limits of Dover Sole in 35 minutes of fishing
time or have problems with avoiding abundant Sablefish and can only
produce 150 pounds of Lingcod filets per month, it is not a stock
biomass problem.
Essential Fish Habitat seem's to be the new growing buzz word;
refuges, deep sea ocean parks, NO TAKE FISHING RESERVES, and on and on.
Sounds great but where will it end? My natural concern is: Who will it
effect?; Are they needed?; Will it concentrate effort to smaller and
smaller areas?
Important habitat must mean where the fish are. Who and how will
this information be determined? Obviously fishermen's own log books are
the easiest source to gather this information and HAS ALREADY BEEN
COLLECTED BY THE GROUPS WHO ARE PUSHING THESE IDEAS. What concern's me
is the only information being collected by officials is from the trawl
fleet. NO OTHER GEAR TYPES or EVEN THE SPORT FISHERS ARE SCRUTINIZED
FOR DATA COLLECTION. So their important fishing areas are potentially
not effected. Area closures will concentrate effort into smaller and
smaller areas creating conflicts with gear types and sport and
commercial. If commercial fishermen can no longer fish where they have
been fishing they'll have to find new spots. This is not beneficial to
the resource or the users.
Trawlers' have been fishing off our west coast over sixty years and
we go back to the same places over and over again. If we were
destroying important fish habitat, we would NOT still be fishing there.
Off shore marine sanctuaries, no fishing zones, potentially 20 square
miles to me is a very serious concern being that our information is the
only information. We have years of time and thousands of dollars
invested in developing trails and areas we fish today. Will traditional
users of a now closed area be compensated? It would be no different
than closing off city blocks from people doing business after they have
invested in their businesses there. At night, we drift sometime over
twenty miles or if we're passing through one of these areas and are
just accused of being in an area illegally the legal costs could be
financially devastating. The people who come up with these ideas are
not effected by the outcomes.
Solutions:
Better data is needed in order to reduce the
uncertainty, assessment authors should have to be involved
personally in the harvest of the species they assess.
Vessels involved in these fisheries already are
capable and willing to be included in gathering data.
Coded wire tagging with tetracycline projects is the
cheapest and, the fastest solution to the aging problem,
migration patterns and percentages of removals from a given
stock. Thorny heads and Sablefish need this now and it has been
recommended to NMFS since 1993. Local vessels are capable of
carrying out this project while fishing.
Larval studies-recruitment estimates are extremely
important we found out from this last round of cuts on
Sablefish in particular. NMFS made no observations of recruits
so they assumed that there weren't any. This is valuable
information not being done now, local vessels are capable of
this work for the best value.
Annual trawl surveys from 10 fm to 1,000 fm using
local vessels. This is the most reasonable costs for the
return.
Long Line surveys should be conducted every year.
These will pay for themselves, Alaska is doing this now.
Oceanic conditions should be monitored carefully as to
migration patterns due to environment conditions such water
temperature, etc
Fish for research to help in funding cooperative
projects.
Improve the lines of communications. Attempts by
industry to provide NMFS with coastal meetings have been
boycotted in the past by NMFS. Another attempt is underway at
this time and has been put off by NMFS. Now NMFS says it is not
needed. This is not cooperation in management and must be
rectified. Deputy Secretary Garcia assured us February 19,
1998, what is happening now will not happen. It is now April
25, 1998 our attempts to help reduce uncertainty in the data
through an industry based meeting is receiving negative support
from NMFS.
We need true outside peer reviews, The NMFS, STAR, SAT
reviews are NOT an outside peer review. The west coast seafood
industry has been forced to organize a true outside
international review panel, and are currently looking at
Sablefish and Thornyheads. LET'S MAKE SURE THESE EFFORTS ARE
NOT STOPPED AS WELL.
International exchange of ideas, methodologies and
advice is desperately needed on the west coast to help
rationally utilize our fishery resources. Work is now well
underway to put together such a meeting. The date and location
and international participants have already been arraigned and
now Dr. Richard Methot's group is trying to stop this exchange.
Why?
______
Statement of Karen Garrison, Natural Resources Defense Council
My name is Karen Garrison. I am Co-Director of the Natural
Resources Defense Council's Ocean Protection Initiative. NRDC is a
national environmental organization with about 350,000 members. We have
a long-term commitment to protecting the diversity of species and
habitats in the ocean and encouraging stewardship of living marine
resources. NRDC collaborates with the Center for Marine Conservation,
the Environmental Defense Fund, and the National Audubon Society in
much of our Pacific marine work. We appreciate the interest of the
Resources Committee in the management of Pacific Groundfish, and the
opportunity to speak here today.
Your hearing addresses questions that are critical for Pacific
groundfish, but are also broadly relevant for other fisheries around
the country. In this International Year of the Oceans, we encourage
your support for improving conservation of these important resources,
through better science and other tools. At the end of this testimony is
a ten point action agenda developed to encourage a conservation focus
for the Year of the Oceans. Several of its points offer useful guidance
for West Coast groundfish, as well as the management of ocean
activities nationwide. We will provide details on request.
A year and a half ago, most species of Pacific groundfish--the
highest value commercial fishery in the Pacific Exclusive Economic
Zone--were considered relatively healthy. That picture changed
dramatically with last year's stock assessments. Coupled with other
warning signs, such as trends toward smaller average fish size and a
halving of groundfish landings (other than Pacific whiting) over the
past two decades, the National Marine Fisheries Service's 1997 stock
assessments tell a disturbing story: nine of the fifteen most valuable
groundfish species in the region are now at a small fraction of their
historic levels. One species is still depleted despite a 20-year
``rebuilding'' effort.
This news underscores the importance of new measures required or
encouraged by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, including steps to avoid
overfishing, minimize bycatch, protect habitat, and retire excess
capacity from the fishing fleet. But it also underscores the shaky
nature of our information on groundfish. Why did some of this news come
as a sudden revelation? How can we avoid such surprises in the future?
Need for Better Data and a Precautionary Approach
Part of the answer lies in providing better survey information and
analysis. Data are limited even for the 15 groundfish species NMFS
assesses in detail. Key pieces of information, such as accurate
assessments of bycatch, are missing.
Furthermore, fully 68 of the groundfish species managed by the
Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC or Council) are of unknown
status, because we have little information about their abundance or how
they are affected by fishing. Yet fishing is allowed on these species
as if we were sure they were in good shape. Some of these stocks, like
the group called ``near shore rockfish,'' now support lucrative and
rapidly growing fisheries. In cases like this one, the combination of
lack of data and lack of management caution could be disastrous.
A proposal from NMFS' annual stock assessment workshop to conduct a
stock assessment of the near shore rockfish group in 1999 deserves
Congress' strong support, as do proposals to assess all other
groundfish at whatever level is feasible. In the meantime, steps should
be taken to limit fishing in cases where problems are indicated or
suspected.
An equally important part of the answer, however, lies in finding
less risky ways to deal with uncertainty. Our ability to understand the
abundance and reproductive rate of most ocean species will always be
subject to uncertainty. Groundfish, and particularly the reclusive
rockfish, are notoriously difficult to sample accurately. A standard
response in the past has been to put the most positive possible face on
the data, from the perspective of someone who wants the biggest
possible catch. The phrase ``conspiracy of optimism,'' coined for other
resource issues, aptly describes what happens in fisheries. When
managers and scientists routinely downplay uncertainty and interpret
data too hopefully, it should come as no surprise that groundfish
depletions were discovered only after the populations had taken a huge
dive. By then, the necessary catch cuts took a heavy toll on the
fishing community.
Sablefish provide a useful example of how easy it is for estimates
of population size to be wrong. For many years, managers set what they
thought were protective catch limits. But as more data were collected,
it became apparent that the abundance estimates, on which catch limits
are based, had been wrong for about two decades. Managers had been
protecting paper fish. The main error lay in managing as if the
information was certain, when it was not. Scientists need to be clear
about the extent of uncertainty, and managers need to be more cautious
until more infor-
mation is available. As recently as last year, however, when scientists
acknowledged uncertainty in the data and recommended cuts in catches of
two deepwater groundfish, the PFMC failed to heed their advice.
Uncertainty also exists because fish populations wax and wane under
the influence of long-term fluctuations in ocean temperatures and other
environmental conditions. The effects of these shifts are often
difficult to distinguish from the effects of fishing. But unless
management takes this uncertainty into account, the combination of
fishing and climate impacts can cause deep depletions.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act aims to reduce these kinds of risks by
instructing managers to take uncertainty into account. That shift will
not come easily. Congress' full support of the precautionary approach
implied in that provision is essential if the Councils are to avoid
painful surprises in the future.
In many parts of the world, no-fishing reserves are being used as a
means of ensuring that baseline information is available, boosting
vulnerable populations in mixed stock fisheries, and providing
insurance in the face of uncertain information. Several small reserves
in state waters on the Pacific Coast have demonstrated their value as
havens where fish can grow large and highly productive. NRDC urges your
support for the Council's use of reserves as a tool for groundfish
management and habitat protection.
Although the main focus of this hearing, and our testimony, is the
adequacy of groundfish data and assessments, the PFMC faces several
intertwined management challenges. We address those issues briefly
below.
Reducing Overcapacity
No controls were placed on entry or capitalization as American
boats took over from foreign fleets in the late 1980s and new markets
developed for groundfish species. As a result, the top problem in the
groundfish fishery today, besides the uncertainty of our knowledge
about them, is overcapitalization of the fleet. A limited-entry program
adopted in 1994 to address excess capacity has not sufficiently
decreased the number of participants or the amount of fishing power
aimed at these fish. Excess capacity can encourage high bycatch levels,
create pressure to ignore warning signs and to overfish, and make it
difficult for people in the industry to make a living.
To be effective, buy-back and gear-limiting programs aimed at
solving this problem must meet certain standards. Such programs must
prevent the replacement of the removed capacity through a moratorium on
new entrants, restrictions on vessel upgrades, and other effort control
measures, as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act (See 312.
(b)(l)(B)(i)). They should ease the economic strain on those who remain
in the fishery, but, consistent with National Standard 5 of Magnuson-
Stevens, should also serve a conservation function, relieving the
excess pressure on the resource.\1\ They should avoid intensifying the
pressure on other fisheries. And, as recommended by the Pacific Marine
Conservation Council (PMCC), an organization of commercial and
recreational fishers, marine scientists and conservationists, such
programs should have clear goals that can be evaluated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Standard 5 says conservation and management measures
shall consider efficient utilization of fishery resources, except that
no such measure shall have economic allocation as its sole purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judging by those standards, the buy-back proposal currently before
the PFMC has serious flaws. It would purchase permits, not boats,
leaving open the possibility that the retired capacity could in fact
enter other fisheries. That poses a serious problem, since virtually
all West Coast fisheries are overcapitalized. Key fisheries like squid
and crab have no entry limits, thus are targets for excess capacity.
Nor does the proposal adequately guard against vessel and gear upgrades
in the remaining fleet. Without such limits, overcapacity is likely to
recur in the groundfish fleet, and no conservation purpose will be
served. All parties should work together to make sure a Pacific
groundfish buy-back program complies with Magnuson-Stevens, setting the
right precedent as one of the first under the Act. We agree with PMCC
and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations that an
effective program must remove vessels from the fleet.
Minimizing Bycatch
Bycatch rates average about 30 percent for the Pacific groundfish
trawl fleet. Many groundfish are long-lived and can support only low
harvest rates, yet they often mix with shorter-lived species. Managers
face the challenge of devising controls that protect low productivity
species, while allowing full catch of high productivity ones. The
current high rates of bycatch intensify the pressure on vulnerable
species, while measures that reward clean fishing and reduce bycatch
rates can help relieve that pressure.
Mandatory observer programs are a first critical step toward
obtaining accurate assessments of bycatch. Such programs should provide
representative coverage of the whole fleet, while spreading the
industry share of the cost proportionally to revenue generated. To
minimize bycatch, as required by Magnuson-Stevens, the current system
that spreads fishing throughout the year may need to be modified, since
the resulting low trip limits encourage unacceptably high rates of
bycatch. Other bycatch reduction options include time and area
restrictions, gear modifications, and incentives for clean fishing. The
Council should encourage efforts like Oregon's voluntary program to
reduce bycatch of rockfish in the shrimp fishery through the use of
fish excluder devices.
Requirements that all bycatch be retained, when coupled with an
observer program, can be an incentive to reduce unintended catch. But
to avoid institutionalizing bycatch, full retention should be required,
not just retention of the marketable portion of the catch. There may be
potential to generate funds in the short-term by processing retained
bycatch, but minimizing the bycatch must be the primary goal. The focus
of the program should be on rewarding vessel operators who achieve
consistently low bycatch levels, through revocable exemptions from
observer coverage, extended fishing seasons, or other means.
Habitat Protection
Another challenge facing the Council is the need to protect
essential habitat for groundfish. Of particular concern on the West
Coast is the long-term effects of recently introduced roller gear. This
gear allows trawl nets to maneuver in formerly inaccessible rocky ocean
floor, and is believed to pose a threat to valuable rockfish habitat.
NMFS has proposed a range of measures to address these issues,
including the development of a framework fish management plan amendment
that could include the use of marine ecological reserves. We urge
Congress to support the use of innovative strategies by the Council and
NMFS to protect spawning and breeding grounds and other essential
habitat for groundfish.
Year of the Ocean Recommendations
We urge you to consider and support the steps summarized below:
1. Review America's efforts to conserve its ocean waters and
wildlife.
2. Protect and restore America's ocean waters.
3. Expand marine protected areas.
4. Protect America's coral reefs.
5. Invest in the future of America's oceans.
6. Revitalize America's marine fisheries.
7. Protect endangered marine wildlife.
8. Take stock of America's marine wildlife and ocean waters.
9. Promote ocean stewardship and education.
10. Spur international efforts to protect the oceans.
Conclusion
The declines of Pacific groundfish present West Coast fishery
managers with a major challenge. We commend the Council and NMFS for
taking the first important step toward meeting that challenge last
year, by promptly cutting catches for most of the depleted populations
and securing additional funds to improve data collection.
We urge Congress to support a number of additional steps we believe
will help avoid similar surprises in the future, and lay the groundwork
for rebuilding these fisheries. Information-related measures include:
additional funding for groundfish data collection and assessment; an
intensified effort to assess the status of groundfish stocks (of known
and unknown status); a strong commitment to the precautionary approach
in interpreting the data and applying it in management decisions; and
development of a mandatory observer program to assess bycatch levels.
Conservation measures will also be essential. They should include
the development of a buy-back proposal that removes vessels and serves
a conservation as well as an economic purpose; adoption of bycatch
minimization measures; and creation of pilot marine reserves aimed at
protecting groundfish habitat, providing baseline information, and
helping rebuild depleted fish populations. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify.
______
Statement of Chris Blackburn, Director, Alaska Groundfish Data Bank
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on West Coast Groundfish
issues. The Alaska Groundfish Data Bank (AGDB), located in Kodiak,
Alaska, represents groundfish fishermen and processors operating
primarily in the central Gulf of Alaska. A central mission of the AGDB
is improvements in stock assessment and applied fishery science.
Our comments will address issues germane to Alaska resource surveys
and stock assessments, research vessel needs, and resource utilization.
Adequate funding levels and research efforts in each of these areas are
necessary to meet requirements under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and to
provide an effective, comprehensive management program for northwest
marine resources.
Surveys and Stock Assessments
Currently, NMFS annually surveys in March one pollock spawning
biomass (the Shelikof Strait pollock spawning aggregation) in the Gulf
of Alaska using hydroacoustic technology to determine stock size.
During alternating years, NMFS expands the survey to more closely
examine biomass in a single spawning aggregation in the Western Gulf.
However, there are additional spawning aggregations in the Eastern Gulf
and the East Side of Kodiak Island, the size of which remain
unquantifiable.
The health of these additional aggregations could be determined by
expanding the survey to include one new area each year. Thus, each
aggregation would be surveyed every third year while the Shelikof
survey would continue on an annual basis. These additional surveys are
essential to developing a comprehensive understanding of pollock
biomass.
Furthermore, NMFS surveys Gulf Groundfish via a summer triennial
bottom trawl survey. Unfortunately, the survey has suffered long term
attrition under fiscal constraints, sampling fewer stations at more
inshore locations. This has resulted in surveys that are not sufficient
to monitor the populations status of pollock, cod, rockfish and other
groundfish in the near shore and deep water areas.
In the Bering Sea/Aleutians (BSA) area, NMFS currently conducts
annual summer hydroacoustic surveys on pollock spawning biomass, along
with an annual bottom trawl survey targeting crab stocks. In addition,
NMFS conducts groundfish surveys once every three years, a protocol
similar to the Gulf area. Likewise, AGDB remains concerned that
triennial surveys are not sufficient to facilitate a sound management
program. We also suggest increasing the groundfish survey periodicity
to a biennial program to improve our conservation potential.
We urge the Subcommittee to recognize the lack of stock status
information and long term implications on groundfish fisheries and take
steps necessary to address these concerns. AGDB is seeking to improve
fish stock assessment programs by increasing the frequency of the
surveys from once every three years (``triennial'') to once every two
years (``biennial''), and adding information from locations not
currently being surveyed. We believe that improved stock assessments
will reduce the potential of overfishing and, for some poorly assessed
species, increase the allowable quotas, increasing economic activities
for fishing communities throughout the GOA.
Research Vessels
NMFS employs the Research Vessel (RV) Miller Freeman for
hydroacoustic surveys in the GOA. The vessel is uniquely suited for
this type of research compared to commercial fishing vessels which lack
the appropriate equipment or design to conduct sonar surveys. Hence,
the RV Miller Freeman is a critical component of the fisheries research
program off Alaska.
Currently, the RV Miller Freeman is in need of shipyard repairs. It
is essential that funding be available to ensure this vessel, or one
with similar capabilities, is continually available to conduct the
necessary pollock surveys in the GOA. We urge the Subcommittee to
recognize the value of maintaining this vessel.
In addition, NMFS actively charters commercial fishing vessels to
conduct groundfish bottom trawl surveys in the GOA. The AGDB recognizes
NMFS' efforts in this regard and encourages this cooperative activity
as it provides employment opportunity and brings fishermen directly
into the management process. We believe NMFS should aggressively use
the competitive procurement process to supplement the West Coast
fisheries research activities.
Resource Utilization
In the past, NMFS staff in the northwest and Alaska regions were
very active in the area of utilization, devoting considerable effort
into improving fish waste systems, product stability, and increasing
the value of fish meal. However, research and development in the area
of utilization has received short shrift during the recent period of
shrinking budgets.
Ironically, utilization has become more of an issue subsequent to
the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act which is clear in
requiring reduced bycatch and efficient utilization of marine
resources. Accordingly, NMFS has issued regulations mandating increased
efficiency in the area of utilization. AGDB is concerned that reduced
Federal funding will impede the industry's ability to develop new ways
to meet increased these increased demands.
The industry has stepped in to fill the void left by NMFS and is
working proactively to address improved utilization. Recently, the
National Fisheries Institute, filed a petition with the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) to allow processors to carry just one type of
packaging for multi-species use in the formulation of surimi. If
successful, processors would increase their efficiency by using several
finfish species to make surimi, rather than using just one species and
then having to process others differently. We understand the FDA is
moving very slowly if at all, and any support the Subcommittee can
provide to move this issue along will be extremely helpful.
Furthermore, AGDB is supporting the efforts of the Fishery
Industrial Technology Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks to
improve industry's utilization of fish resources. The Center currently
has funding requests into the Department of Agriculture for several
projects designed to efficiently handle fish-byproducts and develop new
value-added products. Here again, the industry could use the help of
this Subcommittee to ensure these proposals are given due
consideration.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these critical
programs. Please do not hesitate to contact the Alaska Groundfish Data
Bank should you our the members of the Subcommittee have any questions.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8663.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8663.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8663.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8663.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8663.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8663.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8663.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8663.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8663.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8663.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8663.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8663.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8663.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8663.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8663.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8663.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8663.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8663.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8663.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8663.021