[Senate Hearing 107-992]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-992
DECLINE OF THE WEST COAST GROUNDFISH FISHERY
=======================================================================
FIELD HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JANUARY 16, 2001
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
87-847 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West TED STEVENS, Alaska
Virginia CONRAD BURNS, Montana
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts TRENT LOTT, Mississippi
JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
RON WYDEN, Oregon BILL FRIST, Tennessee
MAX CLELAND, Georgia SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
Kevin D. Kayes, Democratic Staff Director
Moses Boyd, Democratic Chief Counsel
Mark Buse, Republican Staff Director
Ann Choiniere, Republican General Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on January 16, 2001................................. 1
Statement of Senator Wyden....................................... 1
Witnesses
Bodnar, Steve, Executive Director, Coos Bay Trawlers'
Association, Inc............................................... 58
Prepared statement........................................... 62
Brown, Ralph, Groundfish Trawler and Pacific Council Member...... 67
Prepared statement........................................... 68
Coenen, Neal, Watershed Advisor to Governor Kitzhaber............ 11
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Darm, Donna, Acting Regional Administrator, Northwest Region,
National Marine Fisheries Service.............................. 6
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Eaton, Bob, Executive Director, Pacific Marine Conservation
Council........................................................ 33
Prepared statement........................................... 35
Eder, Michelle Longo, Sablefish Fisherman's Wife, Vice President
of Newport Fishermen's Wives, and Member of the Women's
Coalition for Pacific Fisheries................................ 63
Prepared statement........................................... 66
Fujita, Rodney M., Ph.D., Environmental Defense.................. 37
Prepared statement........................................... 39
Goblirsch, Ginny, Marine Extension Agent with Oregon Sea Grant,
President of Newport Fishermen's Wives, and Board Member of the
Women's Coalition for Pacific Fisheries........................ 43
Prepared statement........................................... 46
Golden, Jim, Acting Director, Marine Resources Program, Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife................................ 102
Submitted material........................................... 103
Griffith, John, Commissioner, Coos County Board of Commissioners. 92
Prepared statement........................................... 93
Hooley, Hon. Darlene, U.S. Representative from Oregon............ 5
Husing, Onno, Director, Oregon Coastal Zone Management
Association.................................................... 94
Prepared statement........................................... 95
Leach, Donna, Homemaker and Fisherman's Wife..................... 79
Leach, Tom, Commercial Fisherman................................. 79
Submitted material........................................... 81
Leipzig, Peter, Executive Director, Fishermen's Marketing
Association.................................................... 111
Lone, Jim, Chairman, Pacific Fishery Management Council.......... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Moore, Rod, Executive Director, West Coast Seafood Processors
Association.................................................... 70
Prepared statement........................................... 72
Murray, Hon. Patty, U.S. Senator from Washington, prepared
statement...................................................... 3
Robinson, William, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable
Fisheries, Northwest Region, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Accompanying Donna Darm........................................ 26
Smith, Hon. Gordon H., U.S. Senator from Oregon, prepared
statement...................................................... 4
Thompson, Terry.................................................. 110
Varanasi, Dr. Usha, Science Director, Northwest Fisheries Science
Center, National Marine Fisheries Service...................... 23
Appendix
Eder, Michele Longo, Argos, Inc., letter dated February 14, 2001,
to Hon. Ernest F. Hollings..................................... 113
DECLINE OF THE WEST COAST GROUNDFISH FISHERY
----------
TUESDAY, JANUARY 16, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transporation,
Newport, OR.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1 p.m. at the
Hatfield Marine Science Center, 2030 SE Marine Science Drive,
Hon. Ron Wyden, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON
Senator Wyden. I want to welcome all of you today to this
hearing of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Last year, when the Senate Commerce Committee approved a
buy-back bill for the southeast swordfish disaster, I
conditioned my support on the Committee helping communities in
Oregon with the groundfish disaster that this and so many of
our coastal communities are experiencing. Chairmen McCain and
Hollings promised to support my efforts, and today's hearing
delivers on that promise.
I'm very pleased, also, that Congresswoman Hooley is here
to join me. She is the Congresswoman from this area and has
been a terrific advocate for coastal communities.
I'll have a short statement, and then I want to read a
letter from my colleague, Senator Smith. Many Oregonians may
not know it, but we have some very good news in that Senator
Smith will be joining the Commerce Committee later this year.
It is very, very helpful to have him on the Committee. He
wanted to be here today, but his schedule simply wouldn't allow
him.
As all of you know, the health and well-being of Oregon's
coastal communities are to a great extent shaped by our having
a sustainable supply of groundfish. Generating this supply is
obviously easier said than done. But I believe that the
policies of the National Marine Fisheries Service are failing
the groundfish industry on the Oregon Coast. The agency's
failure to put in place common sense policies for groundfish
have been harmful to both the economic and the environmental
well-being of Oregon.
Oregon's fishing families want to fish. And, they want to
do so in a way that is sensitive to the long-term health of the
resource. They have families to raise and need to earn money to
do so. And, they are willing to fish in a way that focuses on
good stewardship of the resource. The fishing families that I
talked to on the Oregon Coast are more than willing to support
strong conservation policies. But, they are right to expect
that their government, the National Marine Fisheries Service,
specifically, will pursue policies that keep them from landing
on the bankruptcy roles.
Now is an ideal time for the National Marine Fisheries
Service to change course and to be a smarter, more efficient
partner in working with Oregon communities on the groundfish
issue. There is a new Administrator at the agency who, with a
fresh start, can pursue more sensible and creative policies
that help the families that are represented in the audience
today.
And, I'd like to suggest four areas where the
Administration can get going and going quickly. First, in June,
the U.S. Congress passed a $5 million emergency appropriation
bill, because the West Coast fisheries were in a disaster
situation. As far as I can tell, not a dime--not a dime--has
actually made it out on the ground to the community. This is
just totally unacceptable. And, I expect to hear from the
National Marine Fisheries Service this afternoon how they are
going to turn this situation around. You can't have a disaster
identified in the middle of last year and still not have the
money out on the ground today.
Second, there needs to be a significant change in which the
agency gathers the research and the scientific data that
formulates their policies. It is simply not being done with the
focus on good science that is necessary today. For example,
with respect to groundfish, data is only collected once every 3
years. It misses the near shore areas, and it doesn't utilize
fishing families. We expect to see changes at the National
Marine Fisheries Service with respect to the way they gathered
this data.
Third, I believe that the agency has been dragging its feet
on implementing a policy to deal with overages. All of you know
we have seen too often the disgraceful picture of thousands of
fish being wasted, brought on to shore and being wasted, even
though Oregon now has the dubious honor of leading the country
in hunger. This is absolutely unacceptable. In 1998, the
National Marine Fisheries Service assured me that they were
going to have a new policy so as to not waste so much of this
precious resource. It has not been implemented today, and I
expect to hear from the National Marine Fisheries Service how
they are going to go about doing it.
Finally, I want to see the National Marine Fisheries
Service get more of its people out of Washington D.C. and
Seattle where they sit behind computers, and out on the ground
helping the communities. As far as we can tell, Oregon coastal
communities have no one to consult with and get feedback about
progress, or the lack thereof. The National Marine Fisheries
Service had a significant increase in their budget in the last
year, and I want to hear today from the agency how they will
get some of their key staffers out of Washington D.C. and the
Seattle office and on the ground where they can actually work
to monitor the progress on projects that meet this
sustainability agenda.
So, there is much to do. What we're going to do, from the
standpoint of the procedures this morning, after Congresswoman
Hooley has spoken, and I've read Senator Smith's letter, our
witnesses will take about 5 minutes each for questions. Then,
we're going to have an open microphone, at the close of the
hearing, for those who aren't testifying. For those of you who
would like to speak, if you would, sign up with the staff.
They'll be in the back, Mary Gautreaux and other staff members.
The hearing record also is going to be open for 10 days, if
anybody would like to submit written testimony. We'll have
opportunities for you to do that, as well. If you're not on the
witness list, and you want to submit something in writing, we'd
like you to visit with Ms. Gautreaux in the back quickly.
Also, Senator Murray wanted to be here, because Washington
State has been very hard hit. However, she submitted a
statement for the record instead.
[The prepared statement of Senator Murray follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Patty Murray, U.S. Senator from Washington
First I would like to thank Senator Ron Wyden and the Commerce
Committee for holding today's hearing on the West Coast Groundfish
crisis. I hope the hearing will help generate new ideas and solutions
to address the declines in this fishery. As you know, this crisis has
had serious negative impacts on communities in Washington, Oregon and
California. I greatly appreciate the leadership the Senator from Oregon
has shown by calling for and hosting today's field hearing.
Last year we made some progress in addressing this crisis. I am
pleased the fiscal year 2001 budget includes $2.225 million for West
Coast observers. Working together with Senators Wyden, Gordon Smith,
Boxer and Feinstein, we secured $5 million in emergency funding to
assist families and communities dependent on the groundfish fishery. In
addition, the fiscal year 2001 omnibus spending bill includes an
exception for fixed-gear sablefish to the moratorium on individual
fishing quotas. This will allow safer, more efficient fishing for this
sector of the fishery.
At the same time, I am concerned these steps, while important, are
not enough to address the crisis at hand. Many of the small, coastal
communities with businesses and families dependent on the groundfish
fishery have already been hard hit by downturns in other natural
resource dependent industries, such as timber and the salmon fishery. I
look forward to reviewing the testimony provided at today's hearing. As
the 107th Congress progresses, I will maintain my high level of
interest in this issue and my support for solutions to provide relief.
I am also interested in longer term solutions on how to avoid such
crises in the future. Thank you.
Now before we hear from Congresswoman Hooley, let me read
you the very helpful letter and testimony sent by Senator
Smith.
``Dear Senator Wyden: Thank you for holding a field hearing
on the West Coast groundfish disaster. Although I'm unable to
be in Newport on the day of the hearing due to prior scheduling
commitments, I hope your hearing will bring more attention to
the needs of this important fishery.
Over the last 4 years, you and I have worked cooperatively
in the U.S. Senate to secure more federal resources in an
effort to provide for better long-term management of the West
Coast groundfish fishery. As you know, this has not been an
easy task. Too often, the federal obligations related to
Oregons's commercial fisheries have been overshadowed by other
national resources priorities. It is unfortunate that it has
taken a federal fishery disaster declaration to begin to bring
the needed attention and resources to the West Coast groundfish
problem.
Please submit my attached written statement on the subject
for the official Committee record. Once again, thank you for
securing this important field hearing. I look forward to
joining you on the Senate Commerce Committee in the new
Congress and renewing our efforts to assist Oregon Coast's
coastal communities while protecting and enhancing our ocean
resources for future generations.''
Without objection, we'll put Senator Smith's statement into
the record in its entirety.
[The prepared statement of Senator Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Gordon H. Smith, U.S. Senator from Oregon
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's field hearing on the
status of one of Oregon's most important fisheries, West Coast
groundfish. Like you, I am deeply concerned about the economic impacts
on Oregon's fishing-dependent towns caused by recent harvest
restrictions. As a newly appointed member of the Commerce Committee, I
hope to continue working closely with you to secure needed federal
assistance and to restore stability to Oregon's commercial fishing
industry.
Today we are here to learn more about the causes and effects of the
precipitous decline of the West Coast groundfish fishery. Experts in
the field can point to many factors that have led to an apparent
decline of certain species in the groundfish complex--from oceanic
temperature changes to overfishing in certain instances. While natural
and human activities have likely both played a part, it is the federal
government alone that must bear primary responsibility for the current
disaster. Since the Americanization years of the 1970s, the management
of our nation's fisheries has been entrusted to federal agencies.
Regrettably, in too many cases, past administrations and congresses
have left fishery managers under the Department of Commerce without the
necessary resources to gather accurate data on the fish populations and
life cycles. It is unfortunate that it takes a catastrophe, like the
one we now have in the groundfish fishery, to bring needed federal
attention to the situation.
In my estimation, a long-term solution to the problem will require
an increased federal commitment to groundfish stock assessments. NOAA
Fisheries' models would be much more credible if they were backed up by
annual, rather than triennial, groundfish surveys. Sound management
decisions cannot be made in a vacuum of accurate data. The Department
of Commerce should budget--and the Congress should appropriate--
substantial increases for data collection so that management decisions
are based on credible science. Whenever possible, NOAA should work
cooperatively with industry to gather information by chartering
industry vessels. A carefully implemented federal observer program
should add much to our knowledge as well.
In the intermediate term, we clearly need to reduce overcapacity in
the groundfish fleet. While securing federal funds for vessel and
permit buyback problems is an uphill battle in the Congress, it is not
an insurmountable challenge--provided there is broad agreement in the
industry over how to implement a buyback program. I hope that the
fishing industry will be able to overcome differences in gear type and
vessel size to reach a consensus buyback plan that would result in the
orderly exit of excess capacity out of the fleet.
In the immediate term, we must continue to address the community
assistance needs that have developed as result of the loss of revenue
from the groundfish resource. While I was pleased that we were able to
secure $5 million in emergency funds last year to help meet the urgent
socioeconomic needs of fishing-dependent towns, I know it was just a
beginning. In the new Congress, we must renew our coalition of West
Coast Senators to secure another installment of community assistance
funding. I look forward to working with state agencies and the OSU
extension service to continue their vital assistance services to
coastal communities.
Finally, there are important policy areas, such as tax reform and
IFQ programs, I believe should be carefully considered by the new
Congress as well.
Clearly, this is not a problem that developed overnight--nor is it
one that can be remedied overnight. There is much work to be done on
the part of all us--the Congress, NOAA, industry representatives,
environmentalists, and other stakeholders, to respond to this crisis
before it is too late. Not only is it our challenge to enhance and
protect the groundfish resource for future generations, we must also
ensure that a viable fishing industry--with skilled fishermen, vessel
suppliers, and seafood processors--does not disappear from Oregon's
coastal communities in the process.
With this in mind, I look forward to reviewing the testimony of all
of today's witnesses. I hope this field hearing will add to our
understanding of the problem and ultimately lead to the resolution of
this federal fishery failure.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
I'd just like to note for the record that it will be very
helpful for the people of Oregon to have Senator Smith's
influential voice on this key Committee. I'm very pleased that
he'll be joining the Committee.
Senator Wyden. So, let us turn now to Congresswoman Hooley
who, as I said earlier, again and again goes to bat for
Oregonians on the Coast.
And Congresswoman, we'll have whatever statement now that
you choose to make.
STATEMENT OF HON. DARLENE HOOLEY,
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM OREGON
Congresswoman Hooley. First of all, thank you, Senator
Wyden, for having this hearing. And you've talked about the
three issues that we've talked a lot about in this community;
and that is, you know, what do we do in research, how do we get
better jobs, how do we get help to the community, and what to
we do for overages.
Thank you so much for coming out today. And again, this
situation is an emergency situation here. It involves all the
fishing fleet on the Oregon Coast.
Over the last few years, as all of you know, there have
been significant changes in the federal government policy on
groundfish harvest. As you know, these changes have brought on
economic difficulties for families, for communities, and
ultimately for our state. The situation is serious; and the
problems we face, though, are not impossible to solve. And
that's why we're here today.
My colleague, Senator Wyden, and I have been working to
improve the economic situation of the fishing industry in
Oregon, but we have a long ways to go. I'd like to thank
Senator Wyden for the leadership he's shown on this issue.
Field hearings of a U.S. Senate Committee, such as this, are
rare. And it is a testament to his dedication that he has
convinced his colleagues that this issue is so important that
it requires a special hearing.
This hearing is a real opportunity that we must seize on
and really look at how do we work together, how do we come
together. And this is not a time--although it's real easy to
point fingers, I think it's a time that we have to look at how
do we come together on this issue and cooperatively get this
job done.
It is my hope that when we leave this hearing today we will
have a better idea of what the solutions are and how to solve
them. But because this is an official hearing of the U.S.
Senate, the words you say will be carried back to the Chamber
to effect deliberation on this issue. Your voices will be
heard, not just in this room, but in the halls of the U.S.
Congress.
I pledge to do my best to ensure that all of my colleagues
in the House of Representatives come to understand our problems
here and the action that needs to be taken in this 107th
Congress.
Thank you.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Congresswoman Hooley.
I know your schedule is tight, and we welcome you to stay
for as long as you can.
Let's have our first panel come forward, Donna Darm,
National Marine Fisheries Service; Neal Coenen, Office of
Governor Kitzhaber; and Jim Lone, Chairman of the Pacific
Fishery Management Council.
Congresswoman Hooley. While they're coming, I'd like to add
another word. I've spent a lot of time at the Coast. I was here
a couple times in November, December, and now in January. Thank
you, once again, for the wonderful weather you've brought.
We're going to get a lot of people moving here, if they come
down and see this kind of weather.
Senator Wyden. We welcome all of you.
Ms. Darm, why don't you begin. As you could--you could
tell, I obviously have strong feelings about the policies of
the National Marine Fisheries Service. And I want to just note,
before you begin, that because you are new that the concerns I
have were not raised while you were the sheriff on the job.
That's one of the reasons why I think now is an ideal time for
a shake-up and an effort to make some changes.
We welcome your testimony, and please proceed.
STATEMENT OF DONNA DARM, ACTING REGIONAL
ADMINISTRATOR, NORTHWEST REGION, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES
SERVICE
Ms. Darm. Thank you. Thank you very much, Senator. And I
appreciate you working with my schedule to make sure that I
could be here today.
My name is Donna Darm. I'm the Acting Regional
Administrator for the Northwest Region of the National Marine
Fisheries Service. And I do have a brief prepared statement
that I'd like to read, and then I'd be happy to answer any
questions.
The Pacific Coast groundfish fishery is an important
commercial and recreational fishery. Until recent years, the
over 80 species that are managed under the Fishery Management
Plan have been available to harvesters for most of the year and
filled market gaps by providing flow of product, when West
Coast fisheries were closed.
The groundfish fishery presently is in crisis. It is over
capitalized, and numerous groundfish stocks have been depleted
by a combination of natural and human factors, pushing
allowable catches down to a level that cannot sustain the
present fleet. In addition, under the Magnuson-Stevens Act,
there must be more conservative management for the seven
species that have been declared overfished. The result is even
more conservative management for fisheries that target other
healthier stocks but incidentally encounter the overfished
species. Solutions to this crisis will require a long-term
commitment to rebuilding stocks through improving both our
research and our management efforts.
Annual commercial landings of all non-whiting groundfish
peaked at 112,000 metric tons in 1982. Since 1989, those
landings have decreased every year, with the sharpest decrease
being in the most recent years. Since the 1990's, we've seen
the landings fall by another 50 percent from approximately
60,000 metric tons to 31,000 tons in 2000. Revenues have also
fallen from about $80 million to $42 million. And for 2001,
revenues will likely continue to fall, perhaps as low as $29
million, as the industry faces even more complex regulations
and quotas designed to protect those overfished species.
Nearly a year ago today, the Secretary of Commerce declared
the groundfish fishery a commercial fishery failure, due to a
fishery resource disaster. Recreational fishermen, their
communities, and support industries have also suffered from
this disaster.
The groundfish crisis highlights several fishery management
concerns. While the initial declines may have been caused by an
ocean regime shift that lowered productivity, these declines
were not detected for some time, and harvest rate policies were
based on assumptions of higher productivity. Limited scientific
understanding and inadequate resources for research and
monitoring hampered the agency's ability to provide timely
forecasts of the need to scale back on allowable catches. Each
year, harvest rates have been based on prevailing scientific
information, stock assessment models, fishery management
program goals, and Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements. At the
time, the harvest rates that were set were deemed reasonable
and responsible, given accepted scientific understanding around
the world and the productivity estimates used in other national
and international fisheries.
We don't know for certain why the West Coast groundfish
stocks appear to have lower productivity than similar stocks
elsewhere, nor do we understand completely how the health of
groundfish populations is linked to changes in the environment.
We do know that there has been a decline in the basic
productivity of the California current, since the late 1970's,
that has correlated with a major ocean regime shift and an
abnormally high number of El Nino events. It's likely that
these climate changes have contributed to the decline in
recruitment of many groundfish species, particularly rockfish,
which may have a life span of as long as fifty to a hundred
years.
In spite of the fact that Pacific Coast groundfish harvest
rates have been reduced through state and federal management
efforts, the situation remains serious today. New stock
assessments on previously unassessed groundfish species may
result in the need for further harvest restrictions. Our
challenge will be to protect and rebuild the most seriously
depleted stocks, while minimizing adverse economic and social
effects on fishing communities.
To respond to the crisis, we are: (1) increasing the
collection of scientific data and research; (2) improving
management of the fishery by reducing overcapacity and by
protecting sensitive habitat from the effects of fishing; and
(3) providing assistance to fishery participants and affected
communities through financial programs.
In fiscal year 2001, the Northwest Science Center
groundfish budget was doubled to about $4.25 million. This
increase will provide funding for the whiting pre-recruit and
slope trawl surveys that have been conducted for the past 2
years with temporary funds. In addition, funds will be used for
the transition of many West Coast groundfish survey and
assessment responsibilities from the Alaska Science Center to
the Northwest Science Center and to increase the frequency of
surveys from every 3 years to annual surveys. We're also
assessing whether more frequent and precise assessments are
needed to rebuild stocks and achieve a sustainable fishery.
The NMFS 2001 budget also includes just over $2 million for
a West Coast groundfish observer program. An observer--an
observer program will allow us to start addressing the major
shortcomings in groundfish management, lack of information on
bycatch, and total mortality in the fishery.
Senator, I see that the red light is flashing so----
Senator Wyden. Why don't you go ahead and finish, Ms. Darm.
Ms. Darm. Okay. The Council recently adopted a Strategic
Plan and concluded that the highest priority for achieving an
economically viable groundfish fishery at reduced harvest
levels is to reduce harvesting capacity to a point where it
matches the productivity of the groundfish stocks. The Plan
recommends at least a 50-percent reduction in the number of
vessels in all sectors of the groundfish fleet. In November,
the Council took a step in that direction by recommending a
permit stacking program for the limited-entry, fixed-gear
fishery.
We support the Council's efforts to reduce capacity and
will work with the Council to find creative ways to do this,
while minimizing the adverse effects on fishing communities. We
also support the Council's process for considering marine
protected areas. Protecting key habitat area further--furthers
the immediate goal of rebuilding overfished groundfish stocks
and provides longer-term benefits by maintaining fully
functioning ecosystems that contribute to the stability of
groundfish populations. Because the designation of such
reserves may be controversial, development should be initiated
by the Council with ample opportunity for public input.
In response to the disaster in the West Coast groundfish
fishery, Congress appropriated $5 million to the affected
industry and communities. These funds may be used for assessing
the economic and social effects of the commercial fishery
failure, restoring the fishery, and preventing a similar
failure in the future, as well as assisting fishing
communities.
The National Marine Fisheries Service has completed a
spending plan, in consultation with the Governors, for that $5
million. It's in review within the Department of Commerce. And
the next step will be to receive grant requests from the
states. The three states have proposed to use these funds for
industry outreach, job retraining, fishing community
diversification, and cooperative industry research.
In conclusion, Mr. Senator, I recognize that serious
problems remain, but I am cautiously optimistic about the
future of the groundfish fishery. Our first priority must be to
continue to protect overfished stocks, increase our scientific
understanding, and support efforts to remain financially
solvent during the rebuilding process.
We now know more about current climate effects on
groundfish stocks and recognize that harvest levels may remain
low for a long time, before stocks are fully rebuilt. I'm
confident that we can work collaboratively with the Council,
with the States, with Coastal Tribes, and with the public to
manage the changes in a way that takes into account the needs
of fishery participants and communities.
Thank you for the opportunity to address this today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Darm follows:]
Prepared Statement of Donna Darm, Acting Regional Administrator,
Northwest Region, National Marine Fisheries Service
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me to testify today regarding management of the Pacific Coast
groundfish fishery. I am Donna Darm, Acting Regional Administrator for
the Northwest Region, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).
The Pacific Coast groundfish fishery is an important commercial and
recreational fishery. The flow of product throughout the year from the
Pacific Coast groundfish fishery keeps many processors and fishery
participants in business throughout the year. The over 80 species
managed under the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan
(FMP), until recent years, have been available to harvesters most of
the year and have filled the gaps in the market by providing product
flow when product from other West Coast fisheries was not available.
The Pacific Coast groundfish fishery is in a crisis. The fishery is
overcapitalized and numerous groundfish stocks have been depleted by a
combination of natural and human factors, pushing their allowable
catches down to levels that cannot economically sustain the present
fleet structure. NMFS has mounting concerns that fisheries and other
human activities are exerting significant pressures on the marine
ecosystem. In addition, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires more conservative
management for the seven species that have been declared overfished.
This has resulted in additional restrictions not only for fisheries on
the overfished stocks, but also for fisheries that target on other,
healthier stocks that incidentally encounter overfished species.
Finally, natural climatic cycles in the Pacific Coast ecosystem in
which Pacific Coast groundfish live are affecting groundfish
productivity and complicating our ability to measure human impacts on
the fish populations. Solutions to this crisis will require a long-term
commitment to rebuilding the fishery through improving both research
and management.
From 1980 through 1999, annual commercial landings of all non-
whiting groundfish peaked at 112,000 metric tons (mt) in 1982, but from
1989 on, landings have decreased every year with the sharpest decreases
being the most recent. Since the mid-1990's we have seen landings fall
by 50 percent from approximately 60,000 mt to 31,000 tons in 2000. Ex-
vessel revenues have similarly declined from over $80 million to $42
million. Projections for 2001 indicate that revenues will continue to
fall, perhaps to as low as $29 million, depending on the ability of the
industry to fish under a complicated set of regulations and quotas
designed to protect overfished species. To put this figure in
perspective, we estimate that at least $10 million in revenue is
necessary to keep 55 trawl vessels in business. As a result of these
trends, nearly one year ago today, the Secretary of Commerce
(Secretary) declared a commercial fishery failure due to a fishery
resource disaster under Section 312(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The
declaration of a commercial fishery disaster cleared the way for
Congress to appropriate $5.0 million in disaster assistance funds for
those commercial groundfish fishery participants whose fishing
activities and incomes have suffered. Nor has the commercial fishery
been the only sector to suffer from this disaster. Recreational
fishermen, their communities and support industries have been severely
affected as well.
The groundfish crisis has highlighted a number of fishery
management concerns. While initial declines may have been caused by an
ocean regime shift that lowered productivity, these declines were not
detected for some time and harvest rate policies were based on
assumptions of higher levels of productivity. Limited scientific
understanding and inadequate resources for research and monitoring
limited the agency's ability to provide timely forecasts of the need to
scale back allowable catches. Each year harvest rates were based on
prevailing scientific information and stock assessment models, FMP
goals, and Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements. At the time, harvest
rates were deemed reasonable and responsible given the accepted
scientific understanding around the world and the productivity
estimates used in other national and international fisheries.
We do not know for certain why the West Coast groundfish stocks
appear to have lower productivity than similar stocks elsewhere nor do
we understand completely how the health of groundfish populations is
linked to changes in the California current. We do know that starting
in the late 1970's there has been a decline in the basic productivity
of the California current that is correlated with a major ocean regime
shift. During this period there have also been an abnormally high
number of El Nino events. It is likely that these changes have
contributed to the decline in recruitment of many groundfish species,
particularly long-lived rockfish which may live as long as 50 to 100
years. In retrospect, this incomplete understanding led to harvest
levels that were not adequately conservative.
In spite of the fact that Pacific Coast groundfish harvest has been
reduced through state and federal management efforts, the situation
remains serious. New stock assessments on previously unassessed
groundfish species are likely to result in the need for further harvest
restrictions given what we now know about stock productivity and other
factors. Our challenge will be to protect and rebuild those stocks most
seriously depleted, while minimizing to the extent possible adverse
economic and social impacts on fishing communities.
We are undertaking three types of actions in response to the crisis
in the groundfish fishery: (1) increasing the collection of scientific
data and research; (2) improving management of the fishery by reducing
overcapacity and protecting sensitive habitat from the effects of
fishing; (3) and providing assistance to fishery participants and
affected communities through financial programs.
A key element in restoring stocks for a sustainable fishery,
protecting the marine environment, and evaluating the social and
economic impacts of potential management actions is a comprehensive
research program that provides the needed scientific information and
advice in support of fishery management decisions. Research and
monitoring for Pacific Coast groundfish currently is done through
complementary efforts of the three West Coast NMFS Fisheries Science
Centers, the three coastal state fishery agencies, the Pacific States
Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC), and several academic institutions.
NMFS and PSMFC federally-funded research and monitoring efforts that
totaled nearly $6 million in 1999. This funding level allows us to
determine the status of about 6 stocks each year, and stock assessments
have been competed for 26 of the 82 groundfish species under federal
management. Sixteen of these assessments are adequate enough to allow
determination of the species' status. Of these 16 stocks 7 have been
determined to be overfished, requiring the Pacific Fishery Management
Council (Council) to submit rebuilding plans that meet the Magnuson-
Stevens Act rebuilding requirements. The ``unknown'' status of the
majority of groundfish stocks leaves a significant possibility that
others may be overfished as well.
The Northwest Fisheries Science Center (Northwest Science Center)
has lead responsibility for coordinating West Coast groundfish
research. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2001, the Northwest Science Center
groundfish budget was doubled to about $4.25 million. This increase
will provide funding for the whiting pre-recruit and slope trawl
surveys which have been conducted for the past two years using
temporary funds. In addition, funds will be used to support the
transition of many West Coast groundfish survey and assessment
responsibilities from the Alaska Fisheries Science Center to the
Northwest Science Center. The transition should provide for improved
integration with existing West Coast NMFS groundfish programs in a
manner that will achieve significant efficiencies and allow us to
expand those activities. In addition, we are assessing whether more
frequent and precise assessments are necessary to rebuild stocks and
achieve a sustainable fishery.
For the first time, the NMFS FY2001 budget includes just over $2
million for a West Coast groundfish observer program. This increase
will provide resources to begin to address one of the major
shortcomings of the groundfish management process--the lack of
information on bycatch and total mortality of groundfish in the
fishery. In cooperation with PSMFC, the Council, and the 3 coastal
states we are moving quickly to develop a statistically sound at-sea
monitoring program and to deploy observers to collect needed bycatch
information. We will also seek opportunities to make other improvements
in our fishery data collection, including implementation of electronic
logbooks.
The Council recently adopted a Strategic Plan and concluded that
the highest priority for achieving an economically viable groundfish
fishery at reduced harvest levels is to reduce harvesting capacity to a
point where the harvesting capacity matches the productivity of the
groundfish stocks. The Plan recommends a reduction of at least 50
percent in the number of vessels in all sectors of the groundfish
fleet, including limited entry trawl and fixed-gear and open access
vessels. In November, the Council took an initial step in that
direction by recommending a permit stacking program for the limited
entry fixed-gear fishery. NMFS supports the Council Plan and will work
with the Council to find creative ways to reduce harvest capacity while
minimizing adverse impacts on fishing communities. NMFS supports the
Council's process to consider use of marine reserves, or marine
protected areas. Protecting key habitat areas furthers the immediate
goal of rebuilding overfished groundfish stocks and provides longer
term benefits by maintaining fully functioning ecosystems that
contribute to the stability of groundfish populations. Because the
designation of such reserves may be controversial, development should
be initiated by the Council and provide for open public input.
In response to the disaster in the West Coast groundfish fishery,
Congress appropriated $5.0 million in federal assistance to the
affected industry and communities. Oregon and California each will
receive 35 percent of these funds and Washington will disperse the
remaining 30 percent. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act such funds may be
used for assessing the economic and social effects of the commercial
fishery failure, restoring the fishery and preventing a similar failure
in the future, and assisting fishing communities. The Secretary also
must determine that funded activities will not expand the size or scope
of the commercial fishery failure. Finally, the law requires that the
federal share of the cost of any funded activity may not exceed 75
percent of the cost of that activity.
Each state has made a similar proposal to use the funds for
industry outreach, job retraining, and cooperative industry research.
We have summarized these proposed activities into a West Coast
groundfish spending plan that will be sent to Congress as required
under the supplemental appropriations law, and we are currently working
with the states on how best they can meet the 25 percent matching
requirement.
In conclusion, I recognize that serious problems remain, but am
cautiously optimistic about the future of the groundfish fishery. We
must continue to protect overfished fish stocks, increase our
scientific understanding, and support efforts to restructure the
fishery and fleet that allow the participants and support industries to
remain financially solvent during the rebuilding process. We now know
more about current climate effects on the groundfish stocks and
recognize that harvest levels may remain at low levels for a long time
before stocks are fully rebuilt, and that alone will cause significant
changes in the structure of the fishery. However, we can work
collaboratively with the Council, States, Coastal tribes and the
fishing industry to manage that change in a way that takes into account
the needs of fishery participants and fishing communities.
Thank you for the opportunity to address this very important West
Coast fishery.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, and we will have some questions
in a moment.
Mr. Coenen?
Mr. Coenen. Yes. Senator Wyden----
Senator Wyden. Why don't you pull that----
Mr. Coenen. I'm sorry.
Senator Wyden. Pull that toward you.
STATEMENT OF NEAL COENEN, WATERSHED ADVISOR TO
GOVERNOR KITZHABER
Mr. Coenen. Senator Wyden, Congresswoman Hooley, thank you
for coming to Newport today to obtain information on the
deepening groundfish crisis along the West Coast. This will
bring added attention to the crisis and provide a needed
opportunity for a wide range of fishery participants and the
public to voice their concerns.
For the record, my name is Neal Coenen, and my current
position is Watershed Adviser to Governor Kitzhaber, who
supports these remarks. Formerly, I was the Marine Program
Manager for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife for 12
years.
Because of the expertise and perspective of the invited and
expected witnesses today to speak before you, I will not try to
describe specific causes or even specific management measures
needed to address the crisis. Rather, I would like to speak to
the sense of urgency needed to manage the crisis and Oregon's
federal funding priorities to do so.
I think it fair to say that the urgency of directly
affected participants is not widely shared outside fishery
management circles. Perhaps that is so because this fishery
failure and disaster came on progressively and not with the
drama of, say, a hurricane or a flood.
Progressively, incentives have been created to expand the
fishery but not modified to limit excesses. Perversely,
research on the West Coast was never adequately funded, meaning
management risks were high but poorly understood. In part due
to the New England cod fishery collapse, Congress enacted the
nation's fishery Law in 1996 calling for sustainable fisheries.
However, insufficient attention, it may be argued, was given to
how, in a timely and progressive way, sustainable fisheries may
be brought about before disasters.
In the context of the West Coast fishery failure, the need
for urgency is that if corrective measures are not developed
promptly and implemented, the transition process will be longer
and more painful for people than necessary. Outcomes will occur
by default, not purposeful design. Sadly, Congress and
management agencies may only then be able to conclude that
disaster response was poorly managed and executed.
To be sure, many current participants will not find a place
in a smaller, future, sustainable fishery. However, survivors
need desperately to have some idea now that the future will
become structured and expectations shaped in the next 2 to 4
years, not a decade or more. Fortunately, the Pacific Fishery
Management Council has developed a Strategic Plan to work
specifically with the fleet to manage the transition. Make no
mistake, however, that this job will be easy or inexpensive.
As to the resources needed, Oregon has several general
priorities to consider as basic starting points. Our first
priority is the Oregon Groundfish Disaster Outreach Program.
With the existing emergency appropriation of $5 million for
disaster relief, Oregon's share will provide $1.75 million in
federal funds in direct aid for people training to exit the
fishery.
We seek to expand the Oregon program to $6 million for each
of 4 years under the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act, where
match is not required. The State of Oregon faces a $700 million
budget shortfall projected for the 2001/2003 biennium. We have
proposed to maintain our general fund groundfish research
commitment--this Governor's current budget proposal to the
Legislature--over this period. But we would not be able to
support the match required for an adequate Oregon Assistance
Program of $6 million.
Our second set of priorities really exists as a group with
no absolute rank order of priority, at the moment. They're
really a package for discussion and a starting point.
One critical one is assistance for the Pacific Fishery
Management Council and its support. We're suggesting $500,000.
One of the most significant practical realities for needed
change is for the Council to immediately carry out its
Strategic Plan. Management measures often take several years to
complete. The Council needs added resources for the foreseeable
future, if progress is to be made, developing several
management measures each year, in addition to routine
functions.
Second, is an Observer Program, $5 million. Presently, we
understand $2 million is funding the start of this program. The
original request was $4 million. Several years of data will be
needed before confidence can be placed on usable results.
Inadequate funding, a slow start, and decreased fishery
coverage is not cost effective in the long run. It simply drags
out the uncertainty. We request a $5 million added annual
commitment for a total program of $7 million. Within this each
coastal state should receive $1 million to ensure an adequate
program and to add a complimentary focus for each state on near
shore fisheries management and research.
Three, industry has and will continue to work on capacity
reduction programs. An important point is that some level of
significant federal funding will most certainly be needed to
create momentum, so that a variety of market mechanisms, fees--
ITQs, for example--may truly produce desired reductions in
capacity.
Finally, Number 4, fisheries research, $12 million. A
starting point would be $12 million to implement the National
Marine Fishery Service Strategic Research Plan for the West
Coast groundfish fisheries. While not the final word on
research needs, the Plan details the extent of the work
required. The sooner an adequate effort is created, the sooner
information will flow to improve fishery assessment, recover
stocks, and create confidence in sustainable management.
Finally, Senator Wyden, thank you again for conducting this
field hearing. Governor Kitzhaber's Office looks forward to
working with you and all members of Oregon's delegation, as
well as appropriate Congressional Committees, to address the
groundfish crisis.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Coenen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Neal Coenen, Watershed Advisor to
Governor Kitzhaber
Senator Wyden, and Members of the Committee, thank you for coming
to Newport today to obtain information on the deepening groundfish
fishery crisis along the West Coast.
This will bring added attention to the crisis and provide a needed
opportunity for a wide range of fishery participants and the public to
voice their concerns.
For the record, my name is Neal Coenen, and my current position is
Watershed Advisor to Governor Kitzhaber, who supports these remarks.
Formerly, I was the Marine Program Manager with the Oregon Department
of Fish and Wildlife for twelve years.
Because of the expertise and perspective of the invited witnesses,
I will not try to describe specific causes or even specific management
measures needed to address the crisis. Rather, I would like to speak to
the sense of urgency needed to manage the crisis, and Oregon's federal
funding priorities to do so.
I think it fair to say that the urgency of directly affected
participants is not widely shared outside of fishery management
circles. Perhaps that is so because this fishery failure and disaster
came on progressively and not with the drama of say a hurricane or
flood.
Progressively, incentives have been created to expand the fishery
but not modified to limit excesses. Perversely, research on the West
Coast was never adequately funded, meaning management risks were high
but poorly understood. In part, due to the New England cod fishery
collapse, Congress amended the nation's fishery law in 1996 calling for
sustainable fisheries. However, insufficient attention, it may be
argued, was given to how, in a timely and progressive way, sustainable
fisheries might be brought about . . . before disasters.
In the context of the West Coast groundfish fishery failure, the
need for urgency is that if corrective measures are not developed
promptly and implemented, the transition process will be longer and
more painful for people than necessary. Outcomes will occur by default
not purposeful design. Sadly, Congress and management agencies may only
then be able to conclude that the disaster response was poorly planned
and executed.
To be sure, many current participants will not find a place in a
future, smaller, sustainable fishery. However, survivors need
desperately to have some idea now that the future will become
structured and expectations shaped in the next two to four years . . .
not a decade or more. Fortunately, the Pacific Fishery Management
Council has developed a strategic plan for what specifically will need
to be done to manage the transition. Make no mistake, however, that
this job will be easy or inexpensive.
As to the resources needed, Oregon has several general priorities
to consider as basic starting points.
Groundfish Disaster Outreach Program
With the existing emergency appropriation of $5 million for
disaster relief, Oregon will provide $1.75 million in federal funds in
direct aid for people training to exit the fishery.
We seek to expand the Oregon program to $6 million for each of four
years under the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act where match is not
required. The State of Oregon faces a $700 million budget shortfall
projected for the 2001-2003 biennium. We have proposed to maintain our
general fund groundfish research commitment over this period, but we
would not be able to support the match required for an adequate Oregon
assistance ($6 million) program.
Management and Research Priorities
Our second group of priorities include:
1. Pacific Fishery Management Council Support $500,000
One of the most significant, practical realities of needed
change is for the Council to move immediately to carry out its
strategic plan. Management measures often take several years to
complete. The Council needs added resources for the foreseeable
future if progress is to be made developing several management
measures each year in addition to routine functions.
2. Observer Program $5 million
Presently, we understand, $2 million is funding the start of
this program; the original request was $4 million. Several
years of data will be needed before confidence can be placed on
usable results. Inadequate funding, a slow start and decreased
fishery coverage is not cost effective in the long run. It
simply drags out the uncertainty. We request a $5 million added
annual commitment for a total program of $7 million. Each
coastal state should receive $1 million to ensure an adequate
program and to add a complimentary focus on near shore
fisheries research and management.
3. Industry has and will continue to work on Capacity
reduction programs. An important point is that some level of
significant federal funding will most certainly be needed to
create momentum so that a variety of market mechanisms (fees
and ITQs, for example) may truly produce desired reductions in
capacity.
4. Fisheries Research $12 million
A starting point would be $12 million to implement the NMFS
Strategic Research Plan for West Coast Groundfish Fisheries.
While not the final word on research needs, the plan details
the extent of the work required. The sooner an adequate effort
is created, the sooner information will flow to improve fishery
assessments, recover stocks and create confidence in
sustainable management.
Finally, Senator Wyden, thank you again for conducting this field
hearing. Governor Kitzhaber's office looks forward to working with you
and all members of Oregon's delegation, as well as appropriate
congressional committees to address the groundfish crisis.
Senator Wyden. Thank you very much. And I also want to
recognize that the Governor is not just the state's leader in
this area. He has been one of the country's leaders with
respect to taking on the question of sustainable fisheries. We
appreciate your efforts and your representing him here today.
Mr. Coenen. Thank you.
Senator Wyden. Mr. Lone?
STATEMENT OF JIM LONE, CHAIRMAN, PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT
COUNCIL
Mr. Lone. Thank you, Senator, and Representative Hooley.
My name is Jim Lone. I'm the Chairman of Pacific Fishery
Management Council. Thank you for this opportunity to offer
comments related to the West Coast groundfish fishery.
This is a challenging time for fishery management on the
West Coast. Several important groundfish stocks are in trouble.
By federal definition, seven species have been designated to be
in an overfished condition, with lengthy rebuilding timeframes
ranging from 10 to 95 years.
Three other major species have been determined to be
significantly below a healthy population status, which is 40
percent of original biomass. And I've appended a one-page
attachment that identifies those seven species that were
overfished and the three that are determined to be unhealthy.
In the year 2000, the Pacific Council notified the
Governors of the three West Coast states of a potential
disaster in the groundfish fishing industry, and the U.S.
Secretary of Commerce declared a commercial fishery failure in
the West Coast groundfish fishery. In response, Congress
appropriated $5 million in disaster relief. The most likely
cause of this crisis is the combined effects of the change in
the ocean environment, inadequate scientific data collection
and analysis, and a national policy that encouraged capital
infusion into the fishing industry.
Problems in the groundfish fishery have far-reaching
impacts. Collateral local businesses also suffer consequences.
Many small, local fishing businesses are in danger of failing
this year or in the near future, and the national seafood
supply is negatively affected. It is likely these negative
impacts will continue for the foreseeable future. While
economic estimates of total impacts are not currently
available, it is safe to say the total is enormous.
What can and should be done about this serious problem? The
Council's groundfish Strategic Plan offers the best hope for
improving the fishery and preventing harm in the individuals
and communities dependent on the resource. In 1999, the Council
initiated development of a Strategic Plan to guide management
of the West Coast groundfish fishery. This Plan was formulated
to address current and future issues and concerns in the
fishery. At its September 2000 meeting, after a series of
public meetings, the Council adopted the Strategic Plan and
approved a process for implementation of the Plan. I've also
attached a document that identifies the various public hearings
and processes that the Plan took, during its development.
The Plan is intended to provide guidance for groundfish
management in the year 2000 and beyond. It is intended to be a
resource for Council efforts to rebuild depleted stocks and
maintain healthy stocks. As a major feature, it provides
guidance to reduce the size of the fishing fleet to a level
that is both biologically sustainable for the resource and
economically sustainable for the fishing community. The Plan
also calls for conservative fishing policies, establishment of
marine reserves, and better science.
Overcapacity within the groundfish fleet is a paramount
issue challenging the West Coast fishing industry and this
Council. For years, national policy encouraged industry growth
and development. As we Americanized the groundfish fishery, we
did not recognize quickly enough we had achieved that goal.
The Pacific Council initiated steps to inhibit growth in
the fishery by establishing a groundfish license limitation
program in 1994. We also took steps toward better management of
the sablefish fishery by developing an individual fishing
quota, IFQ program. We delayed action on that program in
response to strong signals from Congress. With the 1996
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act, we lost the ability to implement an IFQ
program.
We are disappointed to see an extension of the moratorium
on IFQ programs but are very encouraged and thankful for your
efforts to provide an exemption for permit stacking in the West
Coast sablefish fishery. We ask that you now help by supporting
buyback programs and capacity reduction tools.
The Strategic Plan's vision for the future of the
groundfish fishery assumes the Plan's recommended actions will
be fully funded and implemented. While the funding need is
significant, the benefits from implementation of the Plan
warrant this expense. We have not calculated the total amount
needed for full implementation of the Plan and are exploring
cooperative arrangements. However, it is certain additional
congressional appropriations will be needed. We will be happy
to provide a total estimate in the near future. At this time,
we concur with the estimates of $500,000 in each of the next 3
years needed specifically for the Council to implement the
Plan. Additional amounts will also be needed to fund West Coast
research and data needs.
And I've attached two letters that went back to D.C., one
in 1998 regarding the year 2001 financial requirements for the
Science Centers, the Regions, and the Council, and a similar
letter that went back just this week to D.C. specifying our
needs for 2003/2004.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The information referred to has been retained in the Committee
files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Council recognizes the transition to the future
envisioned in the Plan will require major changes to the
structure and operation of the fishery, which will certainly
have short-term adverse effects on current participants and
local communities. However, there is a darker vision, which
could easily occur if we are not able to strategically alter
the course of current management; that is, we could continue
attempting to manage an overcapitalized fleet in the face of
declining resource abundance and the necessity to meet stock
rebuilding mandates. This will most certainly result in even
shorter fishing seasons, smaller trip limits, higher discard
rates, and the continuous inability to accurately account for
fishery-related mortalities.
Many people now actively fishing will not be able to meet
their basic financial responsibilities and will be forced from
the fishery by a governed economic demise or outright
bankruptcy. Impacts to coastal communities dependent on
groundfish fisheries will be disastrous. The Council and
participating agencies will be overwhelmed by the need to
implement short-term fixes to long-term problems, with little
or no chance to focus on the underlying problems of the fishery
or to development of a long-term management strategy. The
Council's Strategic Plan sets a course for steering clear of
this squall.
In summary, Senator Wyden, the Pacific Council faces a
severe groundfish fishery problem in the near term, with 7
species requiring rebuilding over the next 10 to 95 years and
several other stocks hovering at threshold levels. Because
depleted species are mixed with healthy stocks, all groundfish
fisheries will be impacted by management measures aimed at
rebuilding depleted stocks. We firmly believe the Groundfish
Strategic Plan will, over the long term, help to rationalize
the groundfish fishery by addressing the major groundfish
issues.
As I noted earlier, to implement the Groundfish Strategic
Plan, we will likely need legislation and financial support to
help reduce the number of fishing vessels that harvest fish off
the West Coast and to collect the necessary--excuse me--and to
collect the necessary data for competent management.
We appreciate the efforts and attention Congress has given
to improve or guide our management, most notably your current
efforts to allow implementation of permit stacking in our fixed
gear sablefish fishery. We know there are many other interests
throughout the Nation competing for your attention and funding,
and we hope our comments to you today have been helpful. I will
try to be responsive to any other information or any points you
may need.
Thank you again for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lone follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jim Lone, Chairman, Pacific Fishery Management
Council
My name is Jim Lone. I am chairman of the Pacific Fishery
Management Council (Pacific Council). Thank you for this opportunity to
offer comments related to the West Coast groundfish fishery.
This is a challenging time for fishery management on the West
Coast. Several important groundfish stocks are in trouble.\1\ By
federal definition, seven species have been designated to be in an
overfished condition, with lengthy rebuilding timeframes ranging from
10 to 95 years. Three other major species have been determined to be
significantly below (i.e., 60 percent below) healthy population status.
In 2000, the Pacific Council notified the governors of the three West
Coast states of a potential disaster in the groundfish fishing
industry, and the U.S. Secretary of Commerce declared a commercial
fishery failure in the West Coast groundfish fishery. In response,
Congress appropriated $5 million in disaster relief. The most likely
cause of this crisis is the combined effects of a change in the ocean
environment, inadequate scientific data collection and analysis, and a
national policy that encouraged capital infusion into the fishing
industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Table 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Problems in the groundfish fishery have far reaching impacts:
collateral local businesses also suffer consequences; many small local
fishing businesses are in danger of failing this year, or in the near
future; and the national seafood supply is negatively affected. It is
likely these negative impacts will continue for the foreseeable future.
While economic estimates of total impacts are not currently available,
it is safe to say the total is enormous.
What can and should be done about this serious problem? The
Council's Groundfish Strategic Plan offers the best hope for improving
the fishery and preventing harm to the individuals and communities
dependent on the resource.
In 1999, the Council initiated development of a strategic plan to
guide management of the West Coast groundfish fishery. This strategic
plan was formulated to address current and future issues and concerns
in the fishery. At its September 2000 meeting, after a series of public
meetings,\2\ the Council adopted the Strategic Plan and approved a
process for implementation of the plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Table 2. Strategic Plan Process Timeline and Schedule
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The plan is intended to provide guidance for groundfish management
in 2001 and beyond. It is intended to be a resource for Council efforts
to rebuild depleted stocks and maintain healthy stocks. As a major
feature, it provides guidance to reduce the size of the fishing fleet
to a level that is both biologically sustainable for the resource and
economically sustainable for the fishing community. The plan also calls
for conservative fishing policies, establishment of marine reserves,
and better science.
Overcapacity within the groundfish fleet is the paramount issue
challenging the West Coast fishing industry, and this Council. For
years, national policy encouraged industry growth and development as we
``Americanized'' the groundfish fishery. We didn't recognize quickly
enough we had achieved that goal. The Pacific Council initiated steps
to inhibit growth in the fishery by establishing a groundfish license
limitation program that took effect in 1994. We also took steps toward
better management of the sablefish fishery by developing an individual
fishing quota (IFQ) program. We delayed action on the IFQ program in
response to strong signals from Congress. With the 1996 reauthorization
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, we
lost the ability to implement an IFQ program. We are disappointed to
see an extension of the moratorium on IFQ programs, but are encouraged
and thankful for your efforts to provide an exemption for permit
stacking in the West Coast sablefish fishery. We ask that you now help
by supporting buyback programs and capacity reduction tools.
The Strategic Plan's vision for the future of the groundfish
fishery assumes the plan's recommended actions will be fully funded and
implemented. While the funding need is significant, the benefits from
implementation of the Strategic Plan warrant this expense. We have not
yet calculated the total amount needed for full implementation of the
plan, and are exploring cooperative arrangements. However, it is
certain additional Congressional appropriations will be needed. We will
be happy to provide a total estimate in the near future. At this time,
we concur with estimates of $500,000 in each of the next three years
needed specifically for the Council to implement the plan. Additional
amounts will also be needed to fund West Coast research and data
needs.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The following letters document recent and future Council
funding needs:
(1) Letter of January 15, 2001 from Dr. Donald O. McIsaac,
Executive Director, Pacific Fishery Management Council, to Ms. Penny
Dalton and Dr. William Hogarth, NMFS.
(2) Letter of December 22, 1998 from Mr. Lawrence D. Six, Executive
Director, Pacific Fishery Management Council, to Dr. William Hogarth
and Mr. Will Stelle, NMFS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Council recognizes the transition to the future envisioned in
the plan will require major changes in the structure and operation of
the fishery, which will certainly have short-term, adverse effects on
current participants and local communities. However, there is a darker
vision, which could easily occur if we are not able to strategically
alter the course of current management. That is, we could continue
attempting to manage an overcapitalized fleet in the face of declining
resource abundance and the necessity to meet stock rebuilding mandates.
This will most certainly result in even shorter fishing seasons,
smaller trip limits, higher discard rates, and the continuous inability
to accurately account for fishery-related mortalities. Many people now
actively fishing will not be able to meet their basic financial
responsibilities and will be forced from the fishery by a governed
economic demise or outright bankruptcy; impacts to coastal communities
dependent on groundfish fisheries will be disastrous. The Pacific
Council and participating agencies will be overwhelmed by the need to
implement short-term fixes to long-term problems with little or no
chance to focus on the underlying problems of the fishery or to develop
a long-term management strategy. The Pacific Council's Strategic Plan
sets a course for steering clear of this squall.
In summary, Senators, the Pacific Council faces a severe groundfish
fishery problem in the near term, with seven species requiring
rebuilding over the next 10 to 95 years and several other stocks
hovering at threshold levels. Because depleted species are mixed with
healthy stocks, all groundfish fisheries will be impacted by management
measures aimed at rebuilding depleted stocks. We firmly believe the
Groundfish Strategic Plan will, over the long term, help to rationalize
the groundfish fishery by addressing the major groundfish issues and
helping move the fisheries toward recovery and prosperity.
As I noted earlier, to implement the Groundfish Strategic Plan, we
will likely need legislation and financial support to help reduce the
number of fishing vessels that harvest fish off the West Coast and to
collect the necessary data for competent management. We appreciate the
efforts and attention Congress has given to improve and guide our
management, most notably, your current efforts to allow implementation
of permit stacking in our fixed gear sablefish fishery. We know there
are many other interests throughout the nation competing for your
attention and funding. We hope our comments to you today have been
helpful, and we will try to be responsive to any other information or
input you may need. Thank you again for this opportunity. I will be
happy to answer any questions you may have.
Table 1. Groundfish Stocks--Overfished or Depressed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Status Rebuilding Timeframe
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lingcod Overfished* (designated 1999) 10 years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bocaccio Overfished (designated 1999) 38 years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Ocean Perch Overfished (designated 1999) 47 years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canary Rockfish Overfished (designated 2000) 37 years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cowcod Overfished (designated 2000) 95 years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Darkblotched Rockfish Overfished (designated 2001) To Be Determined
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Widow Rockfish Overfished (designated 2001) To Be Determined
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shortspined Thornyhead Below Target Biomass** Not Applicable
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sablefish Below Target Biomass Not Applicable
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Whiting Below Target Biomass Not Applicable
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Stocks below 25% of virgin biomass.
** Stocks below 40% of virgin biomass.
Senator Wyden. That's very helpful. Let me thank you as
well, Jim.
I know the microphone is aggravating folks. I wonder if,
because the acoustics in here are pretty good, we turn this off
if people in the audience are going to be able to hear.
Unidentified Audience Member: You're okay.
Senator Wyden. Can you hear?
Unidentified Audience Member: Yeah.
Senator Wyden. Let's give it a try. Myself and
Congresswoman Hooley will try to boom it up a little bit,
because I know the back draft is hard to follow.
Ms. Darm, as you know, in June of last year, the Congress
passed $5 million in emergency appropriations, because the West
Coast fisheries were in a disaster. Yet, as of today, as far as
I can tell, 7 months later, not one single dime has gotten out
to these communities that the federal government has said are
constituted a disaster.
Now, this is just completely unacceptable to me, and I'm
not clear from your testimony. Are you saying it's the
Governors' fault, that the Governors didn't send you some kind
of application?
I mean, we have been talking to the agency constantly. This
was defined as a disaster. What is it going to take to get this
money out? If you want to say it's the Governors' fault, I'd
sure like to have you state that on the record. Because I can
tell you it's not the fault of Oregon's Governor.
Ms. Darm. No, Senator, I didn't mean to imply that it was
the Governors' fault or anyone's fault, for that matter.
We did develop a spending plan, in coordination with the
Governors of all of the coastal states. And that spending plan
is now complete. The next step then will be to receive the
grant proposals from the states.
While we were in the process of developing the spending
plan, we also worked closely with the states. And Neal may be
able to supplement this some. I'm not sure if you've been
involved in developing those grant proposals.
But we have been working with the states on the grant
proposals, what sorts of projects ought to be proposed, as well
as how to deal with this requirement for matching funds.
Because as Neal mentioned in his testimony, some of the states,
particularly Oregon, are really strapped for funds, and so we
have been trying to work out whether in-kind contributions, for
example, can suffice for the matching funds.
And I don't know if--Neal, if you want to add something----
Senator Wyden. Well, before we go into that, when will the
money actually get out on the ground to the small communities?
In fact, my staff was recently told it was going to get out
this month. Now what you've described sounds like this is going
to be like the marquis at the old movie house, where it says
``Coming Soon,'' and it just never seems to quite get there. If
this is a disaster, we've got to get the money out to people.
Ms. Darm. Assuming that we get the proposals and we're able
to process them, May is probably the soonest that we could
expect to see money actually distributed.
Senator Wyden. So, it's going to take a year? I mean,
Congress passed this disaster appropriation in June of last
year. And, you're telling me on the Oregon Coast it's going to
be a year to get that money, even a small amount, to people on
the ground? Do you think this is acceptable? Is this an
acceptable way for NMFS to do business?
Ms. Darm. Well, Senator, I'm not--I'm not familiar with all
of the details----
Senator Wyden. I'm just curious.
Ms. Darm.--what's going on in the planning but----
Senator Wyden. This is just a question of, I think, common
sense. You are the point person for our Region. Is it
acceptable to you that it takes a year to get this money out to
the communities that are hard-hit? We call it a disaster. The
federal government didn't say this is a garden-variety kind of,
you know, let's now fund the committee on acoustics and
ventilation.
I mean, the U.S. Congress said it was a disaster. Just tell
me, yes or no, is it acceptable to you that it takes a year to
get that money out?
Ms. Darm. A year does seem like a long time.
Unidentified Audience Member: Evasive.
Senator Wyden. It certainly does to me.
We will follow this up with you. Because I can guarantee
you I have heard from communities--I know we've been in contact
with the state--that they have been trying to get this money
for some time. I have not heard that now we're waiting for
grant applications and the like.
But this is one of the areas in which I think NMFS has got
to change course. Your agency had a doubling of its budget
recently. So, on one hand, for the agency there is a doubling
of funds; and for the people in these coastal communities,
after Congress moves to get out disaster appropriations, you
told us it's a year to get a dime on the ground. You just can't
defend that in the communities that we represent. You just
can't.
So I hope that we'll see some changes.
Unidentified Audience Member: Can I raise an objection?
Senator Wyden. No. This is a Senate hearing. We're going to
take your comments at the end.
Let me, if I might, go to this question of research.
Because I think that you said something encouraging.
I had not heard before that you all would move the surveys
to every year. And, as you know, the fishing families are very
concerned about this issue. Recently, I had one of the
fishermen tell me that in 1995 the population survey for
yellowtail rockfish showed fewer than ever before. But then in
1998, NMFS found four times as many fish. And what the fishing
family said is, ``Look, the Atlantic stocks get surveyed
constantly. They get surveyed pretty much every year.''
And if I heard you correctly--and I had not heard this
before--this is going to be a change in the NMFS policy. Are
you announcing today that groundfish stocks will, from this
point on, be surveyed every year?
Ms. Darm. I could ask Dr. Varanasi to speak on it more
specifically. It's not a change in policy. It's a change in the
funding that's available to us to actually conduct the survey--
--
Senator Wyden. You haven't been doing it in the past.
Ms. Darm. We haven't had the funding to do more than the
triennial surveys. Beginning this year, we will be able to do
annual surveys. We received additional funding this year for
those surveys.
Senator Wyden. How about the other changes in methodology,
like looking at near shore areas and making sure that the
fishing families are involved? These changes have been
expressed to us, as well, as changes that are important in
research.
Ms. Darm. Would you mind if I asked Dr. Varanasi to join me
at the table and answer the more specific questions?
Senator Wyden. Doctor, why don't you come on forward, and
we'll get you a microphone.
Doctor, why don't you identify yourself for the record and
your position at the agency.
STATEMENT OF DR. USHA VARANASI, SCIENCE DIRECTOR, NORTHWEST
FISHERIES SCIENCE CENTER, NATIONAL
MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Dr. Varanasi. I am Dr. Usha Varanasi. I am Science Director
for the Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine
Fisheries Service, NOAA.
The question was how are we going to increase data
collection and the surveys. This year we are going to get more
funding. There is the increase that was in the appropriation
but also National Marine Fisheries Service is reprogramming
some of our funds, giving us some more funding, so that we
could slowly start--or I shouldn't say reprogramming. I'm being
a scientist. Sometimes I may not use the right word. They are
reallocating some of our funding from the headquarter funds to
do this work in the Northwest and the Southwest for integrating
the surveys.
So what we will be doing is we--we will continue our slope
survey that we started with the--working with the charters that
we had the last 2 years from the contract funds now to base
funds. But we will have people dedicated for every year for the
West Coast groundfish surveys. Because they will be now
consolidated and done from the Northwest Fisheries Science
Center. That allows us now to be starting every year.
Senator Wyden. So will the methodology be changed so as to
look, for example, at the near shore areas and involve more of
the fishing families, as well?
Dr. Varanasi. We are going to try everything possible to
increase and improve the methodology and--and try to work--
first, what we are going to do is to do the surveys that we are
doing right now already, on a regular basis. And then we will
also be looking at all of the species that we need to work on.
So there will be increased effort throughout the West Coast.
Congresswoman Hooley. I just want to do a followup question
for either one of you. And that is as we talk about increasing
these to every year and doing a better job of research, there's
been a lot of people that--I mean, they fish every single day.
They've been fishing here for years and years and years. Their
families fished here, their fathers, their grandfathers. They
know a lot about the area. They've also said, you know, ``We're
willing to use our boats, if people want to come out on our
boats, if they want to come do research or observe.''
How much do you talk with--as you do this research--and I
understand what you do is very scientific. But the people that
go out and fish all the time and their families have been
fishing for decades and decades. They have pretty good
knowledge of what happens out there.
How much do you talk to them?
Dr. Varanasi. We talk to them. We have a scientist project.
We need to increase. Definitely we need to increase. But we
have begun working--over the last 2 or 3 years, we have tried
to increase operating research. We have tried to use some of
the vessels----
Congresswoman Hooley. So you actually----
Dr. Varanasi. We will have electronic logbook----
Congresswoman Hooley. Excuse me for just a moment.
So NMFS actually puts people out in the field, and you sit
down and talk with these fishing families?
Dr. Varanasi. Not regularly. That is some--some of these
things are going to be--now that we have a research plan that's
outlined, as well as how to incorporate working together, we
are hoping that with this new funding that we can do a number
of these things.
Congresswoman Hooley. Will you be doing that?
Dr. Varanasi. Part of it we will be doing some of the
port--working with the port biologists and the fishing
families. We will try. And--and we will be--just what I'm
saying is we are going to increase surveys, and we are going to
increase the outreach and working with people.
Congresswoman Hooley. And I know that science is different.
But I would encourage you to talk to these families that have
been fishing for years. And there are not only captains, but
there are also people that have the large fishing vessels, as
well as the smaller fishing vessels. I think they have an
enormous amount of information that might be helpful in your
research.
Senator Wyden. Ms. Darm, understand that the fishing
families tell us that there's nobody on the ground from the
agency to consult with, which is why I wanted to emphasize I
want you to get some of those folks out from behind the
computers in Washington and Seattle and out in Coos Bay and
Newport and in the community.
I appreciate your concern here. But understand, Ms. Darm,
that the words ``try'' and ``hope'' and the like, when the
people of this community have watched again and again this
agency not deliver, doesn't provide a whole lot of solace. As I
listen to you about the research changes, I hope that you will
pursue the research changes in a more efficient and expeditious
way than you have pursued getting the disaster money out.
Because we're looking now at a year to get the disaster money
out. I was actually encouraged by your saying that you were
going to do those surveys every year. Then, by the time
Congresswoman Hooley had asked her very good questions, it was
not clear to me at all what exactly is going to be done.
So, I hope that the Senate Commerce Committee will not have
to come back on the research question here in 6, 8 months and
ask again has it, in fact, changed. In 6 or 8 months,
concerning this research issue, I'll say, ``You got double the
amount of money.'' I've got to see that these research changes
are being put in place, or get some people at NMFS who will do
it; and just be that blunt about it.
Congresswoman Hooley, I have some additional questions for
Ms. Darm, but I know your schedule is tight. I think what I
would like to do is let you ask questions.
We have some Senate rules here to follow with respect to
Congresswoman Hooley's participation.
Congresswoman, why don't you write out questions that you
would have. I think all of you know that Congresswoman Hooley
and I work very closely on these matters. I want folks on the
Coast to know we really appreciate her leadership, and we'll
comply with the Senate rules, as well.
Ms. Darm, the question of overages, another area where
there is substantial frustration, certainly on the part of this
Senator, and on the part of this community, as well. The
overage question is a fisheries version of the tobacco subsidy.
It is just outrageous. What we have is this resource, regarded
as precious, coming to shore and essentially being trashed.
I have been trying since 1998 to bring NMFS kicking and
screaming into setting up a program to make sure that that
resource, consistent with sensible conservation policies,
wasn't wasted. In fact, the most recent communication we had
is--the Pacific Council had approved the pilot plan and thought
that there was going to be finally a process for getting under
way. In the middle of last year, we got a letter from NMFS
saying why that was unacceptable to the agency and still
allowing for the waste of this resource in such a flagrant kind
of way.
What can you all tell us now about what you're going to do
on the issue of overages, so that we don't continue to waste
such a dramatic amount of the resource? I think that the agency
owes the people on the Coast a straight response on this issue
and when the program is going to get off the ground.
Ms. Darm. This is an issue I have heard something about,
and I understand that we have had continuous conversations
about it. I know it's something that you have been very
interested in.
My understanding of the concerns with getting an overage
program into place immediately are that, first of all, 100
percent observer coverage would be ideal to have, if we were to
institute this sort of an overage policy. We do have--I'm happy
to say we do have $2 million this year--and I think Neal
mentioned, as well, in his testimony--for an observer program.
Even that level of funding will only put observers on about 10
percent of the vessels. So we are a long way yet from a hundred
percent observer coverage.
The other thing that is certainly getting the attention of
the agency and the Council both, at this point, is rebuilding
the overfished stocks. And at the moment, at least, that is
our--that is our main priority, which is not to say that
getting an overage policy in place or program in place is not
also important. But our primary focus or primary priority, at
this point, is to rebuild the overfished stocks.
Finally, given the severely reduced limits, fishing limits,
that are in place presently, the catch of all fish has been
reduced dramatically, including the overage catches. So it's
not as pressing of a problem, at this time.
I realize that whole answer doesn't really address your
continued concern about it. I'm afraid I don't have a really
good answer for you, in terms of when we might be able to have
some sort of a policy implemented in this regard.
Senator Wyden. In the summer of 1998, the agency came to
the Oregon Coast and committed to having a policy to reduce
overages. You come here now, more than 2 years later, and you
tell the Senate Committee that you've heard something about it.
That's what you just told us.
How many more years is it going to take the agency to do
what the agency pledged to do more than 2 years ago? 4 years? 6
years? Never?
Ms. Darm. Well, I think everyone is committed to reducing
bycatch and reducing overages. There are certainly many ways of
getting at that. And it's often the case that what seems like a
good idea and something that you should pursue and go forward
with, when you actually try to flesh it out and develop it more
fully, doesn't seem like it may be the best way to accomplish
it or the highest priority, on further reflection after further
developing the idea.
Senator Wyden. Congresswoman Hooley asks the very useful
question whether you can use the numbers you now have to make
some assumptions regarding overages.
Do you need everything imaginable, everything in your dream
budget to start an overage program? I think it's a very good
question.
Ms. Darm. I'm sorry, numbers in terms of observers?
Senator Wyden. You have some data, apparently, that asserts
that overages are going down. I can tell you that the people of
Oregon constantly see pictures of bycatch and overages with
vast amounts of fish being brought to shore and trashed, in a
state where we now lead the country in hunger.
So Congresswoman Hooley asks the question about whether it
would be possible to use the existing data, which you seem to
think is good enough to be able to tell us that overages are
going down, to set in place a real overage reduction program.
Ms. Darm. Mr. Senator, I've asked Mr. Robinson to join me
at the table, because this may be getting into more--I'm not--
I'm still not sure exactly that I--that I understand the
question but----
Senator Wyden. Ms. Darm, you have said overages are going
down.
Ms. Darm. Catch overall is going down.
Senator Wyden. So that is obviously based on some data.
Why not, as Congresswoman Hooley has asked, use that data
to set in place what the agency committed to do in 1998? Isn't
it possible to extrapolate from that data?
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM ROBINSON, ASSISTANT REGIONAL
ADMINISTRATOR, SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES, NORTHWEST REGION,
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE,
ACCOMPANYING DONNA DARM
Mr. Robinson. Senator and Congresswoman, my name is Bill
Robinson. I'm the Assistant Regional Administrator for
Sustainable Fisheries for the Northwest Region of the National
Marine Fisheries Service.
We have to be quite honest. Very little data on the
quantity of fish that are discarded----
Senator Wyden. Was Ms. Darm right when she said the
overages are going down?
Mr. Robinson. Ms. Darm was right in saying that the catches
are going down. We won't know whether the bycatch is going down
or up, until we're able to get an adequate level of observer
coverage in the fishery to tell us.
Right now, the fishery is being managed on some estimates
of bycatch that come from some very old studies and some--from
some data from some newer studies, an enhanced data collection
program that was run in cooperation with the Oregon Trawl
Commission.
But to get to your question about policies, what's happened
is since 1998, through the Sustainable Fisheries Act, Magnuson
Act Amendments, we have had seven species that have already
been declared overfished, with a commitment for the Council to
develop rebuilding plans for each of those species.
The difficult part of the rebuilding plans--and what the
Council and the agency have been wrestling with for the last 2
or 3 years--is how to implement those rebuilding plans, the
types of regulations that will rebuild the stocks, yet minimize
the impact on the fishing community. That, to be quite honest
with you, has subsumed almost all of the resources of both the
Pacific Fishing Management Council and the National Marine
Fisheries Service here on the West Coast, developing those
rebuilding plans and developing the management measures to
implement those in such a way that they'll both rebuild the
stocks and allow the viability of the fishery to continue.
Those management measures, many of them are designed to
reduce bycatch and reduce overages. For example, the--we have--
or the Council has recommended we implement differential trip
limits, where fishermen using bycatch-friendly gear can hunt
higher limits. Certainly, a full retention program of some
sort, in terms of reducing wastage, would be something that
would be beneficial to develop and have. But at this point, it
wouldn't provide either the money to fund research, because the
limits are so low, and it wouldn't provide data on overages.
Because we wouldn't have enough observer coverage in order to
know that fishermen are truly keeping all of their bycatch or
all of their overages. But principally----
Senator Wyden. Can I ask you a question on this?
In 1998, I was given a commitment by the agency to move
forward with the program that allowed the sale of overages and
the profits used to fund research. The Pacific Council approved
a pilot project to get under way. NMFS still is not willing to
go forward with the pilot project or anything else.
Why not?
Mr. Robinson. Senator, the bottom line has been that we
have essentially diverted our resources to work on overfished
stocks and rebuilding plants and reducing capacity. The Council
determined those two areas to be the highest priority, and
that's where all our resources have gone.
Senator Wyden. So we've just dropped the overages issue.
When the agency makes a commitment to communities and decides
to change its mind, that's that?
Mr. Robinson. In the Council, we have an above-the-line and
below-the-line set of work priorities. Basically, in terms of
what was above the line is what gets worked on are those issues
of greatest impact and those required to comply with the
statute.
It doesn't mean that the Council or the agency didn't
desire to work on other issues. But those issues fell below the
line in the sense that there were not enough resources to do
everything above the line and everything below the line as
well.
Senator Wyden. Well, this is all very interesting. But, the
fact is the agency committed, in 1998, to do something about
this issue. The Council agreed on a pilot project, and I think
that this is just foot dragging.
You know, Ms. Darm, if you want to get back to me within 30
days on a specific plan to do what the agency said they would
do, we can discuss it. If not, I'm going to push to get some
folks down at NMFS who are going to do it. I think when you
make a commitment to people, it's got to be adhered to; or I
guess why would they trust their government?
This is a serious problem. People see it constantly. It
goes right to the heart of the credibility of government. You
ask people to conserve, and yet they see these pictures of what
amounts to just flagrant waste. Government comes to them and
tells them that something is going to be done to change it, and
nothing is done.
So, I guess you're saying that it's Okay to do business
this way. But, I will tell you that as a Member of the
Committee with jurisdiction over your agency, I'm going to do
everything I can to change business as usual at NMFS. It's not
acceptable to take 11 months, to get out money for a disaster.
It's not acceptable to tell us that you will try to do various
things in the research area when your budget has been doubled,
as we have noted here. And frankly, I can hardly make hide nor
hair about what you all plan to do on the overages and bycatch
issue, other than as little as possible, in spite of the fact
that the agency made a commitment more than 2 years ago.
So, I have only one other area, and that's this question of
getting people out on the ground. What I'm told by fishing
families in the coastal communities is that they have nobody to
talk to with respect to feedback on a particular project; that
they're working on a sustainability project, and there is no
one there to turn to. Is that right? Are they factually wrong
about that? Are there people in these communities that they can
work with? And, if so, name them, because I think that people
here would be just delighted to know who they can work with.
Ms. Darm. We have a groundfish staff in the Northwest
Region that's four people. Those people are located in Seattle.
We do have staff at the Science Center who are located here, of
course. But we do not have the staff who are located in the
coastal communities.
Senator Wyden. Do you think that's a good way of doing
business?
Ms. Darm. I'd love to have people out in the communities,
but we don't have the resources or the staff to do that.
Senator Wyden. Wouldn't it make sense to have at least a
part of their time devoted to being out in the communities?
Ms. Darm. Oh, absolutely, yes. Yes, most definitely.
Senator Wyden. And maybe some of the people from Washington
D.C. and some of the people from Seattle? Would you commit to
doing that today?
Ms. Darm. I'm looking at Bill, because these are people who
report to him. And they work for him. And he is saying yes.
Senator Wyden. Yes to what?
Ms. Darm. Yes, we'd agree to having people out here.
Senator Wyden. Once a year? Once every 6 months? I mean,
this is a little bit like the old assessment from Adlai
Stevenson when he didn't know whether to laugh or cry. We've
got to get some changes here. There's a world of economic hurt
out there in these communities. Congress doubled your budget,
and what you're telling us is, as I've outlined before, is not
something that gives these families a lot to take home and say,
``Our government is responding to our concerns.''
Are they going to come once a month? Once a year? Once
every 6 months? What could you tell us, in terms of helping
people on the ground? These are people who want to work with
the agency. They want to get some feedback on what they're
doing and what's working and what's not.
Mr. Robinson. Senator, we certainly would like to interact
with members of the fishing community in those communities.
Because we have a small staff and a large regulatory workload,
it's been difficult to do so. But I think we would like to do
that and would respond affirmatively to requests to come to the
fishing communities, perhaps once or twice a year, and make
ourselves available to interact, and more often than that, as
our regulatory duties would allow us to do. It's something we
have not done enough, and I think all of us realize that.
Senator Wyden. Well, I don't think one or two times a year
is going to cut it. I mean, these are people who believe that
their government ought to be out on the ground working with
them and not in these regional and beltway offices. I had 13
town hall meetings over the last 2 weeks, because people think
I ought to be on the ground. That's what Congresswoman Hooley
has been doing.
I'm going to move on and ask some other questions. I am not
going to just allow business as usual at this agency. This is
not good enough. This is not good enough for all these families
that are hurting this way. You don't reflect the kind of
urgency and responsiveness and commitment that these families
deserve and have a right to expect. So we'll move on. But
suffice it to say, we're going to have extensive followup on
these matters.
Mr. Coenen, some questions for you, the first being the
question of individual fishing quotas. As you know, we'll be
dealing with the Magnuson Stevens Act in the Committee, and I
know you all at the state are taking a look at that.
What would be your position on that?
Mr. Coenen. Yes, Senator Wyden. I think there's probably
unanimity at the Council level--and having been on the Council
when I was with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife--
that individual transferrable quotas or individual fishing
quotas--and there's been a moratorium since 1996, although it's
just expired--are potentially a very useful and needed tool in
the overall toolkit the Council has available to it to work
with.
Individual fishing quotas are not well understood by the
public. And there is limited U.S. experience. I think there are
four programs, sablefish and halibut in the North Council, and
I believe a couple on the East Coast involving clams and
wreckfish. They're much more--they have been much more used
internationally in New Zealand, Australia, etc. They have
advantages, because they have a certain market-based aspect.
They will resolve race-for-fish problems, safety problems,
capacity problems, etc.
But I think it's fair to say as well there are a lot of
legitimate concerns about how they are shaped. You have to
consider the definition of the privilege that goes with the
quota. There is the qualification criteria upon initial
issuance. Transferrability and accumulation of shares become
issues because of the equity concerns, the distribution of
these rights, and even the available fish for landing and
supporting the on-shore infrastructure.
The Council is not unfamiliar with the pros and cons,
having developed an IQ for sablefish, at one point, that became
so cumbersome and conflicted, in terms of support, that it
essentially died of its own weight. And part of that is the
responsibility of an industry and management that could not
come to a consensus on its shape.
Nonetheless, I think the Council is looking, at this
point--and I think the State of Oregon would support the
Council--that it is a needed tool. The Congress asked the
National Academy of Sciences to review IQs, and a report has
come forth, I think, back to the Congress, which will be useful
in reauthorization discussion. It makes a series of, I think,
very substantive and practical recommendations for sideboards.
The group that conducted the report held hearings around the
country. They heard a lot of the pros and the cons. And one
thing they did hear clearly from industry, managers,
environmental groups is that a cookie-cutter approach, a one-
style-fits-all would not work. There are eight councils and a
multitude of different fisheries. The Council needs the tool
and needs to adapt it to specific situations where it's
appropriate.
Senator Wyden. The other one, Mr. Coenen, that we wanted to
explore was the question of surveys of groundfishing state-
wise. As you know, the fish, of course, don't respect the
boundary between state and federal waters. And, I was
interested in any ideas you might have in which you could work
cooperatively with NMFS and others to expedite getting quality
research on states-wise.
Mr. Coenen. Thank you, Senator. And that's a very good
question.
At a general level, I think this issue of fisheries work in
either the territorial seat, the state jurisdiction, or just
near shore--however that might be defined--is one that will
come up over and over again, simply because the groundfish
management job covering both state and federal waters is simply
too large, and there will never be sufficient budget, I think,
as a practical matter, to do the whole thing to the last
degree. And so partly, the Council itself in its Strategic Plan
has anticipated that an evolving relationship, a closer-
working, cooperative relationship, between industry both
recreational and commercial, the states and the Council and the
National Marine Fisheries Service needs to evolve with a
particular focus on essentially beginning to delegate more
research and management activity, not necessarily a delegation
of authority, but with funding assistance to the states.
Now with specific regard to survey work, the NMFS triennial
trawl survey and the periodic shelf surveys have had problems,
because they have not come into some of the shallower waters.
The wide variety of west coast rockfish species, in particular,
are distributed both north to south, and from near shore
shallow areas to very deep areas on the continental slope. In
Oregon the perhaps ten or twelve rockfish species that you
might characterize as being predominantly inside forty fathoms
(near shore and state jurisdiction), the areas typically not
federally surveyed are ones that recreational and some
commercial fisheries in particular rely on. And in Oregon, at
least, we have only one fish of ten or twelve near shore that
have ever had a quantified assessment. So the work is clearly
needed.
The State of Oregon, Representative Thompson, last session
was critical in getting the $528,000 in general funds--this is
not license fee revenues--added to the Department of Fish and
Wildlife's budget. These funds support research projects that
are being targeted on some of these species, as well as some
shelf species. And--and my reference in testimony to the
Governor maintaining that priority essentially is the State of
Oregon's contribution to jump-starting particularly, some of
this needed near shore work.
Also in testimony I suggested an additional million dollars
appropriated directly to each of the three states would allow
them not only to participate in the observer program, but to
ramp up in particular near shore research activity. This near
shore research, is not a task I think that large federal
vessels are going to come inside to shallow waters and do. You
need smaller research vessels, the vessels the fishing families
of Oregon own and operate.
So that's just an approximate outline of what the State of
Oregon is doing. It is a priority. We believe it will get
increased attention and will be built on relationships of
coordinated research.
Senator Wyden. I think those are constructive suggestions.
Mr. Lone, you all at the Council, at least your Strategic
Plan this summer, is calling for an elimination of fifty
percent of the vessels currently in the fishery. In the fall,
the Council approved the Plan for groundfish and certainly some
changes in that.
Were the fishing communities notified and allowed to
participate in the formulation of the Plan?
Mr. Lone. Well, Senator----
Senator Wyden. Pull that microphone toward you.
Mr. Lone. As I mentioned earlier, we began the process
about September 1999 with a Council meeting in Sacramento. At
that time, the facilitator that we hired, the firm we hired to
assist us, met with all the--our various panels and management
teams and Council members and entire Council family, including
the general public. And then each time throughout the year that
we had a Council meeting where the Plan was on the Council's
agenda for either action or update, there was public testimony
allowed.
In addition to that, we used our newsletter, the Web site,
interviews with some local newspapers here in Oregon to try to
get that word out; and recognizing that we can never get the
word out to everybody, but I think we did a decent job; sort of
culminating, then, at the time the Plan was adopted by the
Council, where we went down prior to that, the month prior to
that, to all three states and had public meetings; and then
finally, when the Plan was adopted, the public evening session
that week and then some more public comment during the day so--
of the adoption.
So my sense was that we certainly tried to get the word out
to have the public participate in that process. And during the
Strategic Plan implementation committee meetings that were held
in Gladstone, there were members of the public that attended
those, too.
Senator Wyden. We'll put you in contact with some folks
from Coos Bay who were not all too pleased with the process.
Mr. Lone. And we have one of the representatives from Coos
Bay here in the audience who has been a participant all the way
through. So I would be interested to hear about the others that
weren't.
Senator Wyden. Now, the Plan calls for buyout of 50 percent
of the participants in the groundfish. Needless to say, I think
all parties would say this would take a significant amount of
funds from the federal government. As I think you know, the
General Accounting Office put out a report this summer
stipulating their view that federal buyout programs are
ineffective, especially in what they describe as industries
with latent capacity, which are essentially individuals that
own permits but aren't actively fishing. Now, my understanding
is that at present there are a fair number of people on the
West Coast who have groundfish permits but aren't using them,
because they think the harvest levels are too low to bother.
What is your sense of how you would deal with this so-
called latent capacity issue, while trying to keep the price
tag affordable? The reason I ask is that the Congress is going
to insist on having this kind of information. Certainly, there
aren't as many of us from the coastal states as we would like.
And buyback proposals, by anybody's calculations, are pretty
contentious, and people are going to look at the price tags.
So if you would, please--you may want to get back to me for
the record on this, as well. This is an important issue.
Because for Congress to vote the funds on the buyback question,
there's going to have to be a thoughtful response to what the
General Accounting Office found.
So if you would, take a crack at it here and feel free to
amplify for the record on it. Because this is an important
issue for the Congress.
Mr. Lone. Okay. Well, my crack at it, Senator, would be
that we did meet last week for the first time on our Strategic
Plan Implementation Oversight Committee. You may be aware that
what that process envisions is that members of the general
public then will be involved in that process in implementation
committees that deal with certain priorities.
Part of the meeting last week was devoted to identifying
the need for a package to go back to Congress that would spell
out the kind of details that you've asked. So we are going to
be quick putting that together in written form with adequate
detail to provide that kind of information.
Certainly, as the Council has deliberated this over the
last year or so, we understand that the latent capacity and its
impact on buyback and all that kind of stuff is real critical
to having a buyback program be successful. So we will get that
to you.
Senator Wyden. Well, it's critical--apart from the issues
you mentioned, it's critical right at the outset for us to
generate the bipartisan support that we need in the Congress.
Senator Smith and I will certainly be working on it on a
bipartisan basis as part of our working agenda. And
Congresswoman Hooley has consistently advocated for these
fishing families. But, colleagues who don't represent coastal
areas are going to be asking to see annual reports. We need you
to get out--my mom always calls it the sharp pencil. You need
to get out the sharp pencil and get us those numbers as soon as
you can.
Mr. Lone. We'll do that.
Senator Wyden. I know Congresswoman Hooley has to go to
other meetings in her district. I want her to know how much I
appreciate her coming and feel badly about the constraints of
the Senate rules in terms of questions. But we appreciate your
leadership, and we'll be calling on it often.
We'll--unless any of you would like to add anything
further--do any of the panel members have anything further?
We'll excuse you, at this time, and we'll bring forward Bob
Eaton, Rod Fujita, and Ginny Goblirsch.
[Whereupon, there was a break in the proceedings.]
Senator Wyden. The Committee will come to order.
We have a lengthy agenda to continue with. We welcome Bob
Eaton, Pacific Marine Conservation Council, Rod Fujita, from
Environmental Defense, and Ginny Goblirsch, Coordinator of the
Groundfish Disaster Outreach Program.
We thank all of you for your patience. Obviously, there are
a lot of questions to ask the panel and try to move things
along.
Mr. Eaton, please go ahead.
STATEMENT OF BOB EATON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
PACIFIC MARINE CONSERVATION COUNCIL
Mr. Eaton. Thank you, Senator. I'm very thankful for your
initiative in getting this hearing going here today. Thank you
very much. And we appreciate Congresswoman Hooley's
participation today and her commitment to these issues.
At the risk of the precedent that was just set at going
first and the grilling that the first person may take, I'm
going to give this a shot anyway. My name is Bob Eaton. I'm the
Executive Director of the Pacific Marine Conservation Council.
We're located in Astoria, Oregon. We work in Oregon,
Washington, and California on an agenda of sustainable
groundfish fisheries. And we work with a growing group of
commercial and recreational fishing men and women, marine
scientists, and environmentalists in this agenda that is
supportive of sustainable fishing and coastal economies.
As you know, we don't have any throw-away industries, on
the Coast and very little opportunity to backfill economically,
if we do lose one. So the fishing industry is important to many
and all of us.
Yes, there is a crisis. And I don't want to mention crisis
again just to continue the drama, but to sort of supplement the
theme that you've created here, Senator, about the urgency of
action in all of this. We are in a crisis, and we do need to
have action that is dependable and timely.
But let me frame this just a bit by saying there are
different ways of looking at this crisis. Economically, we've
got a situation where the dollars earned by fishermen over the
last 10 years have reduced--the last 5 years have reduced by
almost 50 percent. That's a pretty dramatic change.
We also have some biological and management crises, as
well. For instance, of the 83 species of federally managed
groundfish caught off the coast of Washington, Oregon, and
California, about 68 of those are listed as status unknown,
which means that about 75 percent of the species managed we
don't know much about. Of the 71 identified species of rockfish
on the West Coast, the Council manages 55 of those. And of
those, 47 are listed as status unknown or almost 85 percent. So
there's a long way we have to go regarding the knowledge about
these fish that we are ``managing.''
When it comes to the management side of this thing, our
current scheme is to ratchet down trip limits. And that
probably exacerbates the problem you brought to our attention
today, and that is with discards and overages. Because the
fishing gears have not changed dramatically, there continues to
be large catches. Fishermen are doing a great job of attempting
to change their fishing behavior and where they fish and how
they fish, but there is much more yet that needs to be done.
So there are some bright spots, as mentioned. Going to
annual surveys is a definite bright spot. The $2.3 million in
the budget for fiscal year 2001 for an observer program is a
bright spot. The Council's Strategic Plan, ``Transition to
Sustainability,'' is a bright spot. We just need to have some
momentum going now to get there.
And ultimately, what this all boils down to is dollars. The
fishing industry, whether it's commercial or recreational, is a
public/private partnership. And quite honestly, from my
perspective, the public and private investment in these
fisheries over the years has been insufficient. And it's a pay-
me-now-or-pay-me-later situation. The fact that we now have a
minimum of seven fish on rebuilding plans, another three or
four are potentials, says to me that the bill is coming due
here. And if we don't pay that, there's no way we can get to
the sustainability that the Council's plan envisions.
You've asked today what Congress could do to help, and I
want to cut right to that, if I may, and say that first of all
our organization, Pacific Marine Conservation Council fully
supports any and all efforts to assist with coastal
communities. And we encourage Congress to work with the states
in developing a plan that begins to meet those needs.
We also will support a buyback that removes the vessels,
and removes the permits. We think that is a plus and is very
important. And I know that the industry is working on a plan
there. I don't know all the details. But I would encourage
Congress to work with them on that.
We feel that the observer program is only half funded, at
this point, even though Congress has provided some funding. We
would recommend another two-and-a-half-million dollars be
included in supplemental appropriations to provide an observer
program that will actually give us the coverage that's
necessary on the West Coast.
We also want to support the idea that Neal Coenen brought
forward; and that is that an additional million dollars for
each of the three states be added, so they can begin to do the
work on near shore fisheries. The Council's Plan envisions that
the states will take over the management on their shore. But
they can't do that without some resources.
An observer program is an integral part of all of this. And
if I may, Senator, I want to read from a statement that was
made by the Pacific Council's Groundfish Management Team at its
meeting in November. It says, ``The Groundfish Management Team
continues to remind the Council that lacking a comprehensive
observer program or a verified full retention program, our
estimates of total fishing mortality remain highly uncertain.
Absent a tool to measure changes in fish mortality that result
from management changes, the GMT has no resource, other than to
review trawl log books, which contain no discard information,
and then make guesstimates as to what extent measures, such as
gear modification or changes in fishing behavior, have altered
observed bycatch logbook rates. Moreover, for the non-trawl
sector, the GMT has no logbook program or other information to
gauge the bycatch consequences of the Council's management
measures. The GMT strongly supports the rapid development of an
observer program that will provide information on total
mortality in the groundfish fisheries.'' Critical issue, very
high on our agenda, and I hope it can be on yours as well.
The last thing I want to say is that there is no way that
the Pacific Council is in a position right now to implement its
Strategic Plan, as good as it is, as visionary as it is and as
far as it moves beyond the comfort level of a lot of people. We
fully support an additional $500,000 per year for 3 years for
the Council, so it can hire the additional staff necessary to
begin implementing this plan; otherwise, it's going to go on
the shelf. It's going to be a nice piece of work, and we're all
going to be sitting here in 3 years having the same discussion
all over again.
So Senator, thank you very much for being here and for
allowing us to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Eaton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bob Eaton, Executive Director, Pacific Marine
Conservation Council
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, for the
opportunity to testify on West Coast groundfish issues. My name is Bob
Eaton. I am the Executive Director of Pacific Marine Conservation
Council, or PMCC. PMCC is a nonprofit, public benefit organization
working with commercial and recreational fishermen, scientists and
conservationists to conserve and sustain West Coast groundfish and the
coastal communities that depend upon them. PMCC's mission is dual and
focuses on maintaining the health of the resource as well as the
economies of coastal communities. It is this mission, combined with
concerns for the state of the groundfish resource, the maintenance of
fleet diversity, and the sustainability of the groundfish fishery, that
is the catalyst for this testimony.
Background
The West Coast groundfish fishery is in a crisis. One year ago, the
Secretary of Commerce issued a disaster declaration for this fishery.
The current situation is incrementally worse. At least five species of
groundfish have declined to levels where rebuilding plans are required;
this month, two more species, dark-blotched and widow rockfish, are
expected to be designated as over-fished.
Exacerbating the process of rebuilding these weak stocks is the
fact that they are often found where harvest of healthy stocks occurs,
and the over-fished species are caught as bycatch. However, we lack
reliable data regarding total mortality of these fish, because we
currently have no mechanism to measure it. Fishery managers are
compelled to impose trip limits and other restrictions on groundfish
landings, lacking the necessary total mortality information.
Coastal communities are reeling under the economic hardship
resultant from groundfish stock declines and management responses. The
disaster declaration is, unfortunately, deserved. Fisherman, fishing
families and local businesses are all suffering. Some areas have
already lost all or part of the infrastructure that supports the
fishing industry. PMCC joins these communities in aspiring to the
vision of sustainable fisheries.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council is moving to implement their
precedent setting five-year strategic plan for groundfish, titled
``Transition to Sustainability.'' This thoughtfully-prepared transition
envisions substantial capacity reduction, use of marine reserves as a
management tool, exploring incentives to encourage less destructive and
more selective gear types, and immediately implementing an observer
program.
The Observer Program
The cornerstone of possible recovery for the groundfish fishery is
a mandatory at-sea observer program. Fishermen and scientists often
disagree over the health of a particular species, but neither has the
complete data to substantiate their case. Without an observer program,
managers must continue to use approximations which, if overly
conservative, result in unnecessary limitations on fishing efforts.
Conversely, if fish populations are over-estimated, this inadequate
data could result in allowing overexploitation--to the long-term
detriment of the resource and our fishing communities.
Current estimates of bycatch rates in West Coast groundfish
fisheries are largely based on a study done in the mid-1980s. Making
critical decisions based on outdated information is a disservice to the
resource and the fishermen. From 1995-1998 a very limited observer
program operated with voluntary cooperation from relatively few trawl
vessel operators. However, the Enhanced Data Collection Project did not
provide for random placement of observers. This fact and the voluntary
nature of the program essentially rendered the results to be less
statistically robust and applicable than a mandatory program would be.
We've learned from extensive data collecting efforts in other
fishery-dependent regions that an effective observer program must
include these basic elements:
The observer program and placement of observers must be
mandatory.
Coverage must be coast-wide.
Observation of all gear types must be included, although
coverage need not be 100 percent in order to be statistically
valid.
Observers must be well-trained technicians with no conflict-
of-interest.
Data must be consistently collected over a period of years
and used in a timely manner.
Congress deserves congratulations for taking the affirmative step
last month of appropriating $2.275 million to begin a West Coast
observer program. These funds will help develop the structure and
finance a rudimentary first year program. PMCC asks that another $2.5
million be provided to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
through 2001 Supplemental Appropriations--earmarked for the West Coast
observer program. This is the requisite beginning to getting the data
needed for sound management. In addition we ask that $1 million each be
provided to the states of Oregon, Washington and California to allow
for observers and data gathering in near-shore and state-managed
fisheries, recognizing that fish don't distinguish between state and
federal waters.
For fiscal year 2002, we ask that Congress appropriate $5 million
for continuing the federally managed observer program. This is the
right step to take to help move towards sustainable fisheries.
The need to secure and protect adequate funding for West Coast
observers is so vital to the effort to achieve sustainable fisheries
that the $2.5 million 2001 Supplemental (plus $3 million for the
states) and the $5 million for fiscal year 2002 should be stand-alone
lines in the funding requests.
The observer program is a high priority for the Pacific Council. At
the November, 2000, Council meeting a PFMC Groundfish Management Team
Report began: ``The GMT continues to remind the Council that lacking a
comprehensive observer program, or a verified full retention program,
our estimates of total fishing mortality remain highly uncertain.
Absent a tool to measure changes in fish mortality that result from
management changes, the GMT has no recourse other than to review trawl
logbooks (which contain no discard information) and then make
``guesstimates'' as to what extent measures such as gear modification
or changes in fishing behavior have altered observed logbook bycatch
rates. Moreover, for the nontrawl sector, the GMT has no logbook
program or other information to gauge the bycatch consequences of the
Council's management measures. The GMT strongly supports the rapid
development of an observer program that will provide information on
total mortality in the groundfish fisheries.''
Other Important Issues
While the number one priority that I emphasize in this testimony is
the need to adequately fund an observer program, I want to be clear
that Pacific Marine Conservation Council fully supports funding for
community relief. Many individuals within the fishing communities
urgently need support and retraining as soon as possible. PMCC urges
Congress to work with the states to provide adequate funds.
Other research activities beyond observer data collection are
needed to move this fishery to recovery. Basic information is not yet
available for most of the 83 federally managed groundfish species on
the West Coast. We urge Congress to appropriate funds for NMFS to use
to fund groundfish research through both the Southwest and Northwest
Fisheries Science Centers, to conduct additional at-sea surveys and
expand cooperative research efforts with the fishing industry. In fact,
these cooperative projects are an excellent way to involve fishermen in
data gathering while simultaneously providing some economic relief.
PMCC realizes the urgent need to support the Pacific Fishery
Management Council, and encourages Congress to supplement the Council's
budget with $500,000 for staff and resources to help implement their
strategic plan.
Finally, in the coming session, the Commerce Committee may have the
opportunity to consider reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act. PMCC encourages the Committee to
include language authorizing the Pacific Fishery Management Council to
institute fee systems, should they choose, to enable industry
participation for support of observer programs.
I look forward to assisting you and your staff as changes are made
to sustain our fisheries. I am prepared to offer any information you
may need and I welcome your questions. Thank you once again for this
opportunity to share my thoughts and the views of my organization.
Respectfully submitted,
Senator Wyden. Thank you, very helpful.
Let us move now to Dr. Fujita.
Dr. Fujita. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Wyden. Nice to see you again.
STATEMENT OF RODNEY M. FUJITA, PH.D.,
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE
Dr. Fujita. Nice to be here. Thanks for this opportunity to
testify.
I'm Rod Fujita, for the record, with Environmental Defense.
I did my post-doctoral training here at the Hatfield Marine
Science Center. I have been working on improving groundfish
management for about 9 years now.
In your letter, Senator, you asked us to respond to your
question of what caused this fishery disaster. And from my
perspective, it was inadequate science, risk-prone management,
and poor ocean productivity acting together. There's not enough
money to survey fish populations thoroughly enough. As a
result, stock assessment scientists had to rely heavily on less
reliable data, such as catch statistics and logbook records,
just as Bob said. The most basic fishing statistic of all,
total fishing mortality, remains unknown to this day, because
no observers have been on the boats. All this added up to
uncertainty about how many fish were actually out there in the
ocean.
The right way to deal with uncertainty is to be cautious
with the resource. In 1990, the Council adopted a harvest
policy that was thought to be conservative at time, but really
it wasn't. This policy called for fishing at a constant rate
that would eventually reduce the spawner-to-recruit ratio to
about 35 percent of original levels. Morever, the Council did
not adequately acknowledge concerns that reducing the absolute
numbers of fish might lead to a decrease in young fish and a
further decline in spawning, rather than leading to maximum
sustainable yield, as predicted by theory.
The Council didn't modify this harvest policy even when new
studies published in 1993 indicated that it was too aggressive.
The fishing industry, with few exceptions, emphasized how
uncertain the stock levels were and argued that precautionary
cuts in allowable catch would result in unjustifiable, short-
term economic impacts. Environmentalists, along with some
scientists and fisherman, took a longer view, urging the
Council to establish marine reserves to buffer against
uncertainty, to adopt a more conservative harvest policy, and
to make the precautionary cuts. The industry's arguments proved
more persuasive, in most cases.
In 1997, the Council finally adopted a more conservative
harvest policy, at least for rockfish. But by then, at least
five major stocks had fallen to less than twenty percent of
their estimated unfished levels and were already exhibiting
poor reproduction. Low ocean productivity probably exacerbated
these declines. However, the fact that large populations of
rockfish and other groundfish persisted throughout this period
in de facto and regulatory marine reserves, where no fishing
was allowed, indicates to me that fishing was probably the
major cause of these declines.
To put the groundfish fishery on a sustainable path,
several steps ought to be taken, in my view. First, the federal
government should provide more financial assistance to the
communities and fishermen displaced by the failed policies of
the past. Although many fishing industry representatives argued
against the more conservative policies that would have averted
this fishery disaster, it's the government's responsibility to
protect the public trust. Thus, the government should be held
accountable for this management failure. I also support Neal
Coenen's request for funding, including more money to support
the Council's Strategic Plan process for disaster relief and
for enhanced research.
The second priority, I think, should be to reduce fishing
capacity as soon as possible, ideally by implementing a
transferrable individual fishing quota program that comparts
with national standards for equity, conservation, and social
impact. As was mentioned before, the National Research Council
recently issued a report requested by Congress on IFQs. This
report recommends that Congress lift the moratorium on IFQ
programs. Alternatively, Congress should authorize sufficient
funds to buy a specific number of the existing groundfish
vessels, not just the permits, to take care of the latent
fishing capacity problem.
Third, implement marine reserves in which all fishing is
banned as soon as possible. Fish abundance and size are much
higher in nearly all of the dozens of reserves that have been
studied, including those that have been established on the West
Coast, compared to fishing grounds. Reproductive capacity of
rockfish and ling cod, many of which have been classified as
overfished in recent years, has been documented to be twenty to
fifty times higher in no-take marine reserves than in fished
areas. This is probably because fish in the reserves can grow
older, larger, and more productive than fish outside the
reserves.
Fourth, improve the scientific basis of fisheries
management. Stock assessment scientists do the best they can,
with very limited and often misleading data. Increased peer
review will not solve the root problem. It's helpful, but it
will not solve the root problem. We really need to increase the
amount of data collected independently of the fishery. Surveys
using underwater cameras and videos--some of those studies have
been done out of this marine research station--may prove to be
the most cost-effective way to obtain this sort of fishery-
independent data.
Finally, I think we need to reform the management system.
Reforming the management system may be the most difficult
reform of all, but it is perhaps the most important. Some
Council members and NMFS officials took courageous stands in
favor of precautionary management. But it seems unreasonable to
expect people who represent the fishing industry to
consistently support long-term sustainability and ecosystem
protection in the face of pressure from constituents to avoid
short-term economic impacts, which are very real and which
often accompany these policies. More scientists,
conservationists, and consumer advocates should sit on the
Council. NMFS should more rigorously implement the
precautionary approach and provide objective, apolitical
oversight over the Council's recommendations.
Thank you very much for considering my testimony.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Fujita follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rodney M. Fujita, Ph.D., Environmental Defense
Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I am a marine ecologist
and senior scientist with Environmental Defense. Environmental Defense
is a national non-governmental organization with over 300,000 members.
We use science, law, and economics to craft durable and sensible
solutions to environmental problems. I have been working to improve the
management of west coast groundfisheries for about 9 years. In addition
to my research and writing on the subject, I have served on the Pacific
Fishery Management Council's Groundfish Advisory Panel, Habitat
Steering Committee, Alternative Groundfish Management Committee, and
Marine Reserve Committee.
Summary
My view is that inadequate science and risk-prone management caused
the west coast groundfish disaster. Stock assessment scientists could
not produce reliable stock assessments because inadequate funding
resulted in patchy sampling of fish biomass. As a result, scientists
had to rely heavily on fishery-dependent data such as catch statistics,
which are known to be misleading. In addition, the most basic fishery
statistic of all, total fishing mortality, remains unknown to this day
due to the lack of an observer program and reliable logbook records.
Scientists advising the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) and
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) failed to make the large
amount of uncertainty associated with stock assessments and the theory
of Maximum Sustainable Yield clear to managers, choosing instead to
offer multiple alternative models.
While some Council members called for precautionary management, too
often the Council, as a whole, simply chose the models which supported
status-quo catch levels, or, when cuts were called for, chose
intermediate reductions in allowable catch. They sought to minimize
short-term economic losses more often than they chose to err on the
side of conservation. This tendency was reinforced by a management
system that was captured, by and large, by the fishing industry. The
fishing industry, with a few exceptions, emphasized the uncertainty
inherent in stock assessments and opposed precautionary cuts in
allowable catch, arguing that such cuts would result in unjustifiable
short-term economic impacts. Environmentalists, along with some
scientists and fishermen, took a longer view, warning that the PFMC's
harvest policy was too aggressive given the uncertainty surrounding
stock assessments. They urged the PFMC to establish marine reserves to
buffer against uncertainty, adopt a more conservative harvest policy,
and to make precautionary cuts when it became clear that many
groundfish species were not as productive as once thought. However,
these recommendations were generally ignored until recently.
The solution is to reduce fishing capacity (ideally with an
Individual Fishing Quota program), establish marine reserves where no
fishing would be allowed, provide financial assistance to fishermen
displaced by management policies, improve the scientific basis for
management, and reform the management structure and process.
Diagnosis of a Fishery Disaster
The west coast is the world center for rockfish diversity and was
home to very large populations of many kinds of groundfish. They were
mostly left alone prior to the 1960's, but fishermen started to catch
more of them as the salmon fisheries declined. In the 1970's,
groundfish landings began to exceed salmon landings. The groundfish
fishery became very large and valuable.
However, this fishery was based on fishing down large populations.
Fishery scientists assumed that groundfish reproduction would increase
as these populations were thinned out, reducing competition between
fish for mates, food, habitat, and other ecological essentials. So they
recommended that managers allow fishermen to harvest them at a constant
rate, regardless of how abundant the populations were.
The PFMC's scientists recommended a fixed harvest rate that would
reduce the reproductive output of groundfish stocks to about 35% of
their original levels, with the expectation that this would eventually
result in maximum sustainable yield from thinned out populations. No
minimum biomass threshold was recommended.
Managers readily adopted this recommendation, despite great
uncertainty about stock abundance and productivity. This uncertainty
resulted mainly from the lack of systematic and reliable methods for
estimating or predicting either of the two main quantities needed to
set an allowable catch limit: the number or biomass of fish, and the
actual number or weight of fish killed by fishing. Fish biomass was and
is difficult to estimate because under-funded research efforts resulted
in patchy and infrequent sampling. Furthermore, sampling gear may miss
a lot of fish that live in rocky habitats, because it tends to snag in
such habitats. Total fishing mortality, the most basic of all fishery
statistics, remains unknown due to the lack of an observer program and
reliable logbook records. Fishing mortality is hard to predict or
control because it often depends on weather and markets. These
uncertainties were compounded by natural variability in ocean
productivity.
Many environmentalists and scientists called for more conservative
harvest rates. In fact, William Clark, the scientist who originally
recommended the 35% level in a 1991 paper, later amended his
recommendation to a more conservative 40% in a 1993 paper. However, the
PFMC adopted the 35% policy in 1990 and reaffirmed this choice for most
groundfish in 1997, four years after Clark published his amended
analysis. To the PFMC's credit, they did adopt a more conservative
harvest rate for rockfish in 1997, based on the emerging consensus that
these fishes were particularly vulnerable to fishing due to their long
lives and sporadic reproduction. But by then, several stocks had
declined to very low levels, precipitating drastic cuts in allowable
catch.
There are indications in PFMC's publications that the Council was
aware of the dangers of adopting the 35% policy. The main danger was
that fishing at that rate could reduce average spawner biomass to
unsustainably low levels, because fishing down the stock could result
in reduced recruitment, which in turn could lead to less spawners--a
vicious cycle of depletion. Environmentalists and some scientists
certainly made their concerns clear. However, arguments for more
precautionary management were often answered by arguments from the
fishing industry that management was already too precautionary and that
further cuts in allowable harvest would harm fishermen. The industry's
arguments proved more persuasive.
Unfortunately, it turned out that those calling for more
precautionary management were right. The large populations of
groundfish that existed prior to the fishery were probably necessary to
sustain these species in a highly variable ocean environment. So,
fishing them down to a fraction of their original levels was not a good
idea. Furthermore, most of the reproductive capacity of these
populations was probably concentrated in the older fish, which in many
cases are not much larger than fish with much lower reproductive
capacity. The fishery could not discriminate between these two size
classes, by and large, so the most reproductively valuable elements of
the groundfish populations were depleted. This probably reduced
recruitment in turn, leading to a downward spiral exacerbated by
generally poor ocean productivity off the west coast since about 1977,
and further exacerbated by El Nino events that appeared to get longer
and more intense in the 1980's and 1990's.
This poor science and incautious management occurred against a
backdrop of a heavily overcapitalized groundfish fleet. The fleet
became overcapitalized partly in response to government subsidies, but
also in response to the management regime itself. The abundant
groundfish stocks attracted fishermen while the salmon fishery was
collapsing. Open access to the groundfishery encouraged investment in
more and bigger vessels. The implementation of allowable catch limits
resulted in shorter seasons, creating an incentive to invest in still
larger and more efficient vessels and gear. In such a fishery, there is
little incentive to leave fish in the water for conservation purposes,
since those fish will be caught by the next fishermen who comes along.
The incentive is to engage in a ``fish arms race'' to win the
competition for fish. As groundfish populations declined, the fishing
industry could or would not adjust quickly enough. It has been
estimated that the fleet had the capacity to harvest several times the
allowable catch by the late 1990's. Thus, fishermen were right in
arguing that cuts in allowable catches would hurt economically.
Payments on vessels and gear purchased while fishing was good had to be
made whether the fish were abundant or rare.
Some environmentalists, scientists, and fishermen advocated the use
of transferable Individual Fishing Quotas (IFQs) for harvest privileges
to turn these incentives around. By dividing the allowable catch into
transferable percentage shares, IFQ programs convert fishermen from
resource users into investors in a healthy fish population, since their
share values increase as the resource prospers. IFQs are especially
effective at ending destructive and wasteful races for fish, and at
bringing investment into alignment with allowable catch levels. IFQs
also allow the industry a way to more quickly adjust to changes in fish
abundance by buying and selling shares.
The tragedy of the west coast groundfishery disaster is that it
could have been avoided. The PFMC could have adopted a conservative
harvest policy based on the precautionary approach, but it often chose
to acquiesce to industry demands for less conservative policy choices.
It could have instituted weak stock management for the multispecies
groundfish fishery, shutting the fishery down when allowable catch
limits for the least productive stock was reached. However, this was
deemed too costly. It could have established marine reserves, where no
fishing is allowed, to protect fish populations from uncertain stock
assessments and management errors, but it did not.
Solutions
First, the federal government should provide financial
assistance to fishermen displaced by the failed policies of the
past and by policies intended to help rebuild the fishery, such
as reduced catch quotas and marine reserves.
Although many fishing industry representatives argued against the
more conservative policies that would have averted the disaster, it is
the government's responsibility to protect the public's larger
interests. Thus, the government should be held accountable for this
management failure.
Fishing capacity should be reduced immediately, ideally by
implementing an IFQ program.
The National Research Council recently issued a report requested by
Congress on IFQs. This report recommends that Congress lift the
moratorium on IFQ programs. The PFMC has already put considerable
resources into developing an IFQ program for fixed gear sablefish. If
an IFQ program is not adopted, the federal government should authorize
sufficient funds to buy a significant number of the existing groundfish
vessels, not just their fishing permits. Excessive fishing capacity not
only reduces profits, it also creates a strong incentive to argue for
less conservative policies.
Marine reserves in which all fishing is banned should be
implemented as soon as possible.
Marine reserves demonstrably allow depleted fish species to recover
more rapidly than in fished areas. A recent scholarly survey of 89
scientific papers on marine reserves revealed that 90% of the reserves
studied had more fish biomass compared with fished areas. Fish biomass
within reserves was on average three times higher. Fish were also
significantly larger in 83% of the reserves than in fished areas. These
larger fish tend to have much more reproductive capacity than younger,
smaller fish characteristic of fished areas. For example, one female
Pacific ocean perch (Sebastes alutus) that is about 9 inches long
generates 10,000 eggs, while one that is twice as long generates
300,000 eggs (30 times more). Therefore, one would expect that a fish
protected within a marine reserve would yield much greater reproductive
``bang for the buck'' than a fish protected with fishery management
(e.g., lower catch rates).
Improve the scientific basis of fisheries management
The PFMC's response to uncertain stock assessments was to add
another level of review to scrutinize the stock assessments. This did
not address the root problem, however. Stock assessment scientists do
the best they can with very limited and often misleading data. The
interpretation of such limited data is often brilliant, but the fact
remains that the data are limited in both quantity and quality.
The way to reduce uncertainty in stock assessments is to increase
the amount of fishery-independent data. The new observer program will
help, but the observers can only count fish that are hauled to the
surface during a fishing trip. Surveys of fish abundance that do not
depend on the fishery at all are needed, because catch rates can remain
high even as fish populations decline, due to the skill of fishermen at
finding remaining fish aggregations. Existing fish surveys by NMFS need
improvement, because they may miss a lot of rockfish species living in
high relief rocky habitats that are relatively inaccessible to the
sampling gear. They should also be done more frequently and over wider
areas. Surveys using underwater cameras and video may be the most cost-
effective way to obtain fishery-independent data.
Equally important, the theoretical basis for fishery management
must be improved. The theory of maximum sustainable yield (MSY) has
failed for many groundfish species. This theory posits the existence of
a curvilinear relationship between spawner biomass and recruitment.
Harvest policy recommendations based on the theory are very sensitive
to the shape of this curve. However, actual data are highly variable.
Hence, curves must be fitted to the data statistically, opening the
door to uncertainty and various interpretations. This results in
unreliable estimates of the catch rates and biomass levels expected to
produce MSY. More effort should be directed at understanding the causes
of variability in recruitment, including the influence of environmental
conditions and ecological interactions. Fish populations cannot be
modeled as if only spawner biomass mattered.
Reform the management system
Reforming the management system may be the most difficult reform of
all, but may be the most important. Some Council members took
courageous stands in favor of precautionary management. But it seems
unreasonable to expect people who represent the fishing industry to
consistently support long-term sustainability and ecosystem protection,
in the face of pressure to avoid short-term economic impacts that often
accompany such policies.
The make-up of the Pacific Fishery Management Council should better
reflect the diversity of groups interested in the fisheries it manages,
and in the ecosystems its policies affect. More scientists,
conservationists, and consumer advocates should sit on the Council.
NMFS should more rigorously implement the precautionary approach, and
provide objective, apolitical oversight over the Council's
recommendations.
Senator Wyden. Dr. Fujita, thank you. And I--I just--I want
to let Ms. Goblirsch testify. I just want to note, given the
fact that you just said it, and I say this appreciating a lot
of the good work that Environmental Defense does. As you know,
we work extensively with them. I know an awful lot of fishing
families--an awful lot of people in the fishing industry--who
have a tremendous commitment to sustainability and to
conservation. I just want it understood that a lot of them are
doing it, because they're in it; because they want to have an
approach for the long term that works, for the long term that
works for both the viable natural resource and for economic
needs. And, I just want to note for the record there are a lot
of those folks out there, and I have been talking to them.
Ms. Goblirsch, welcome. I really appreciate having you here
today. You're on the front lines and help the families in all
this economic hurt. And it is certainly needed.
So you can proceed.
STATEMENT OF GINNY GOBLIRSCH, MARINE EXTENSION AGENT WITH
OREGON SEA GRANT, PRESIDENT OF
NEWPORT FISHERMEN'S WIVES, AND BOARD MEMBER OF THE WOMEN'S
COALITION FOR PACIFIC FISHERIES
Ms. Goblirsch. Thank you, Senator Wyden. We appreciate you
being with us today.
My name is Ginny Goblirsch, for the record. I am an Oregon
Sea Grant Marine Extension Agent and have been with Sea Grant
for the past 24 years. I'm also a partner in our family fishing
business. My husband is a long-time Oregon commercial
fisherman. I'm active in our community and currently serve as
the President of Newport Fishermen's Wives and on the board of
the Women's Coalition for Pacific Fisheries.
I would like to ask that my more-detailed written testimony
be included as part of the testimony----
Senator Wyden. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Goblirsch. And so I've abbreviated what I've submitted.
I have been asked today to address community assistance
needs during this groundfish crisis. As you know, the economic
consequences of the cuts in allowable harvest are being felt
throughout our communities, from fishing vessels, fish plants,
ports, support services, charter boats, and the community at
large. The change and uncertainty facing our industry now is
unprecedented and will likely be even more traumatic than the
salmon crisis.
We are in a very difficult transition period. The fishing
industry of the future will be very different than the industry
of today. On the West Coast and in Oregon, most fishing vessels
and their crew are small, family owned businesses. Most
families and businesses operate without the traditional safety
nets that benefit most other workers: Workers comp, retirement,
minimum wage, health care, and most recently in Oregon,
unemployment. But without these safety nets, a crisis such as
this becomes even more difficult for industry families. Those
who feel the most immediate and direct impact are vessel,
plant, and support service workers, as the majority of their
work is connected to groundfish.
Oregon has created a safety net of sorts for people who
find they want or must leave the industry. In fact, I would say
the State of Oregon has done an outstanding job in supporting
this industry and looking ahead to provide assistance, from the
Governor's Office to state agencies. They're really ahead of
the ball on this one.
The Groundfish Disaster Outreach Program got under way last
spring. It is to provide a way for the fishing industry to
better connect with existing job retraining programs and other
community services. I want to emphasize here that what we're
doing is connecting industry members with programs that are
already funded and already in place that benefit displaced and
other workers. And traditionally, the fishing industry folks
aren't used to working with some of these agencies. So we're
helping to make that transition, helping the agencies
understand this new client base for them.
This program, the Groundfish Disaster Outreach Program, is
based upon what we've learned from years of working with
industry families and communities. Oregon Sea Grant is
providing the leadership, in association with the Oregon
Department of Community Colleges and Work Force Development,
Oregon Economic and Community Development, and the Oregon
Employment Department, Fishermen's Wives. Others closely
associated with the industry serve as outreach peers and
industry advocates. Currently, a fisherman's wife serves as the
program coordinator. And that's not me. That's Connie. She's
here today.
Community services available are not always adequate or
delivered equally coast-wide, nor is this an easy process for
those seeking services. You have to want to make a change in
your life and be motivated to do so to be successful. And those
are the people we really want to work with.
We are making progress in addressing barriers that have
excluded the fishing industry from these services in the past.
Fifty industry people, including some fishermen's wives, are
currently seeking or receiving re-employment services of some
kind or another. What we've found, however, is that the major
barrier to fishermen and others in the industry who are
interested in transitioning out of the industry through job
retraining is a lack of income during training. Because most
are considered self-employed, few fishermen or their wives are
covered by state unemployment.
Oregon's spending plan for the Community Assistance Funds
appropriated by Congress--thanks to your efforts--addresses
this barrier by establishing a transition income fund. No
agency will take overhead expenses out of these funds. All
funds go directly to people who need it.
I also want to underline please followup on finding out
where they are. A question was asked earlier about--did Oregon
file the proper paperwork. We did the spending plan and, in
fact,--got it in very quickly----
Senator Wyden. You're talking about the disaster money.
Ms. Goblirsch. The what?
Senator Wyden. You're talking about the disaster money.
Ms. Goblirsch. Yes, the disaster, the one point--I mean
part of the $5 million.
Oregon submitted a spending plan late in October. And we
asked, at that time, if Oregon had to wait for the other two
states, because we already had an outreach program in place.
And NMFS was going to find out whether we had to be all
together, before we could move forward. But anyway----
Senator Wyden. Did they get back to you on that?
Ms. Goblirsch. No.
Senator Wyden. So you actually had discussions with them
about getting Oregon's share of the disaster money, and Oregon
was ready to go. They said they would get back to you, and you
haven't heard anything.
Ms. Goblirsch. We--yeah. We submitted a written spending
plan, in addition to the discussions on how Oregon would
administer the funds.
Senator Wyden. If you would get me a copy of the written
spending plan, I will submit that for the record. Because, of
course, that runs contrary to what we heard NMFS say earlier.
And I appreciate your telling me that.
Ms. Goblirsch. Thank you--one of the reasons--one of the
many reasons we look forward to your visit today.
As you know, the Pacific Fishery Management Council
released its Strategic Plan for groundfish last summer. That
Plan calls for reducing the overall number of commercial
groundfish vessels by at least 50 percent. As this unfolds,
either in a planned, orderly way or through rolling bankruptcy,
the ability to connect displaced fishery workers with community
support services will be even more important.
So as we look to next year and the following years, we
expect that at least tripling Oregon's Community Assistance
Funds for transition income will be needed. Again, I would like
to emphasize that this is basic assistance, which makes
community services already in place go a lot further to help
displaced workers. We would like to continue to work with you
and your staff to address these needs.
But providing transition income support is only one part of
how community assistance plans work. It's important to combine
this with other approaches, such as fleet restructuring or
buybacks and collaborative research. Both fleet restructuring
and collaborative research will benefit by having--by
partnering with the Groundfish Disaster Outreach Program, as
again we will be able to leverage training funds and other
necessary funding opportunities through other agencies to help
industry workers either participate in collaborative research
or, as part of the fleet restructuring, exit the industry. I
have more remarks on that in my written comments.
Senator Wyden. Okay.
Ms. Goblirsch. During an industry downturn such as this,
stress on families becomes intense. The potential for family
breakups and worse increases without access to good family
counselling. During the salmon crisis in 1994, the only access
to family counselling here in Newport was by dialing 911 to get
into the county emergency medical health system.
We prefer to offer counselling long before a 911 situation
arises. One of the reasons this industry does not have access
to counselling is the high cost of these services. Usually,
these costs are covered in a good health insurance plan. Over
the years, several industry organizations have attempted to put
together and administer a group health plan for at least a
portion of the industry. The latest effort was by the Women's
Coalition for Pacific Fisheries. We spent almost 4 years in
data gathering, planning, and coordination for a group health
plan for the entire West Coast fishing industry.
This plan was unveiled in the fall of 2000 and was carried
by the only major carrier capable of administering such a plan
on the West Coast, Regence Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Other
industry associations helped the coalition with significant
financial contributions to get the plan off the ground. Sea
Grant also provided a lot of funding for some of the data
gathering, as did the Pacific States Marine Fisheries
Commission.
However, Blue Cross notified us that they were pulling out
of the plan the Friday before Christmas, 2 months after they
offered the plan up to the industry. The official reason given
was that we did not have enough people enrolled in the plan to
continue. But there was much more to it than that. We learned a
lot about the business of health care, turf battles between
various Blue Cross providers, competing costs of various plans
within the same company, and health care politics.
There's much more to this than I could talk about here on
stage, but I encourage you, Senator Wyden, to continue your
efforts to address the need for affordable health care for all
citizens of the United States. We do appreciate your efforts.
Had the Coalition been successful, two of the needs of the
industry would have been covered, health care and counselling.
This is something the industry tried to do for itself, did not
ask for federal funding or assistance, and ran right into
insurmountable barriers. We'd be pleased to provide you further
details on it.
Senator Wyden. Okay.
Ms. Goblirsch. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Goblirsh and material
pertaining to the aforementioned spending plan follow:]
Prepared Statement of Ginny Goblirsch, Marine Extension Agent with
Oregon Sea Grant, President of Newport Fishermen's Wives, and Board
Member of the Women's Coalition for Pacific Fisheries
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, my name is Ginny Goblirsch.
I have been with Oregon Sea Grant for the past 24 years, serving as a
marine Extension Agent for the past 14 years. I have lived and worked
in Newport, Oregon that entire time. I am also a partner in our family
fishing business. My husband is a long time Oregon commercial
fisherman. My work with the fishing industry is in the area of
outreach, training and education. I'm involved in many facets of the
industry from gear, technology and management to family and community
issues and safety. In recent years, much of my effort has been in the
areas of fishing family and community issues, and fishing vessel
safety. I am active in our community. I serve on the Newport Chamber of
Commerce Board of Directors and the Oregon Coast Community College
Small Business Development Center Board of Directors. I am currently
the President of Newport Fishermen's Wives and serve on the board for
the Women's Coalition for Pacific Fisheries, a coast-wide (West Coast),
multi-gear fishing industry support organization.
I have been asked to address the potential short- and long-term
solutions to aid fishing communities while the fishery recovers and to
make comments on associated needs.
Background
Groundfish have been the backbone of our fishing industry for some
20 years. The economic consequences of the cuts in available harvest
are being felt throughout our communities--from fishing vessels, fish
plants, ports, support services and charterboats to the community at
large. The change and uncertainty facing the entire fishing industry
now is unprecedented and will likely be even more traumatic than the
salmon crisis.
The groundfish quota cutbacks over the last several years have
resulted in families and businesses using up their savings, deferring
maintenance on vessels (and at home), delaying payment of bills and
taxes and otherwise trying to just hold on. Some of these families/
businesses have no reserves left. This means that the changes now
occurring in the industry are even more difficult to absorb, causing a
great deal of family stress. These situations tear families apart.
No amount of aid will take the place of a business, a lifestyle and
a livelihood that has defined and supported our coastal communities
since the coast was first settled. The transition now occurring is and
will be very hard on many families. These families and businesses
operate without the traditional safety nets that benefit most workers
in our society--worker's compensation, retirement, minimum wage, health
care benefits, and, most recently, unemployment.
The degree to which families and businesses depend on income from
the groundfish fishery will directly impact their ability to transition
through this period successfully. Those who will suffer the most
immediate and direct impacts are family fishing businesses and fish
processing plant workers where the majority of their work is connected
to the groundfish fishery.
Unfortunately, this situation is reminiscent of what happened to
the farm families impacted by the farm crisis in the Midwest in the
1980's. Obviously, financial problems were enormously difficult for
these families and many delayed taking action and making decisions--
about staying in or leaving their industry--until all their options had
run out and they had no choice. Farmers felt humiliated. They had lost
control of their lives and their ability to make decisions. They were
strong willed, independent people, much like fishermen. They felt self-
condemnation for their inability to take charge of their lives. Family
and financial advisors, familiar with the industry, would have been
very helpful for these families. Many families were too close to their
own problems to be able to make good decisions early on. We believe we
can and should learn from these farm families, the Government's
response, and take some innovative approaches.
We did just that in 1994 when Oregon Sea Grant provided funding for
a unique peer outreach project called the Fishing Families Project
(Project). We thought of the Project as ``support centers without
walls.'' The Project worked directly with fishing families in Oregon's
port communities to provide practical information on ways to deal with
the economic, personal and social stresses that are a part of the
``normal, cyclical nature'' of the commercial fishing industry. An
important component of this project was the Fishing Family
Coordinators. They were fishing family members who lived in coastal
ports and, together with Oregon Sea Grant personnel, were able to
identify and direct Project activities that directly addressed needs
and interests of fishing families. These needs included budgeting in a
cyclic industry; debt consolidation/taxes; diversification/business
management; fishing marriage/absentee partner; coping skills/stress/
anger management; grants/direct aid; health insurance and communication
skills.
The Project also worked directly with community resource providers
and agencies to enhance their understanding of the fishing community,
needs of fishing families, and focused attention on the barriers
fishing families encountered when attempting to obtain existing
services. Concurrently, the Project brought information to fishing
industry families about existing resources available in their
communities to help with their business and family needs. The Project
also conducted research on the importance of fishing community networks
and provided fishing business and family members with training in
forming or strengthening effective support networks.
Community-Driven, Short-Term Solutions
The success of the Project's outreach model led to discussions in
1998 with State-level community resource providers about how to
incorporate this peer outreach methodology into fishery-related
disaster relief plans. A team of state and local partners worked
collaboratively for a year to create a possible approach. With the
support of the team, the Community Services Consortium in Newport
initiated a small pilot program in January 1999 where an ``Outreach
Peer'' would reach out to those in the industry who were ready to
transition out of the industry due to the ever-increasing groundfish
cutbacks. Due to this pilot's success, by fall of 1999, we finalized a
coast -wide pilot program in response to the anticipated West Coast
groundfish disaster. Beginning in the spring of 2000, the ``Groundfish
Disaster Outreach Program'' (GDOP) connected existing training
resources and community programs to those impacted by the groundfish
crisis. The GDOP is administered by the Oregon Sea Grant Extension
Program with funding support from the Oregon Economic and Community
Development Department, Oregon Dept. of Community Colleges and
Workforce Development (WIA), and Oregon Sea Grant Extension. An
Advisory Committee, with members from State and local Workforce
Investment Act (WIA) service delivery areas, Oregon Economic and
Community Development, Oregon Employment Department (OED), Oregon Sea
Grant Extension and the GDOP Program Coordinator, provides guidance to
the GDOP. The GDOP has been operating successfully now for 8 months.
Industry members who find they either want to or have to transition
out of the groundfish fishing industry--and want help in making the
transition--can turn to the GDOP for that assistance. The purpose of
the GDOP is to create, deliver and evaluate a peer outreach program
that assists people in accessing support, resources and training and
assists community resource providers in effective outreach through
improved communication to this population who are in need of support.
In May 2000, the Governor of the State of Oregon convened a meeting
of State agency heads as well as community and industry leaders. The
purpose of this meeting was to brief agencies on the groundfish crisis;
to assess the crisis and make recommendations as to how each state
agency can best participate in the GDOP through directing their
services to help those needing assistance; and to identify barriers to
services. The GDOP hosted follow-up port meetings with local service
providers to brief them on the crisis, address industry barriers to
services and identify how to link support services that they provide
with the GDOP and the fishing community.
The GDOP has a coast-wide (Oregon) Coordinator. The Coordinator is
a fisherman's wife and family business partner. She works with people
in groundfish fishing businesses who want to transition into the future
industry as well as with those who want to transition out of the
industry.
There are Six GDOP Outreach Peers who are closely associated with
the fishing industry and in the process of transitioning out of the
industry themselves. Each Outreach Peer works part-time in one of seven
regions along the coast informing and mentoring people in groundfish
fishing businesses who want to transition out of the industry. They
provide information about community support options for those wishing
to remain in the commercial fishing industry of the future.
The Outreach Peers mentor fishermen, fishermen's wives, processing
plant workers, and others directly associated with the groundfish
industry that want to leave the industry. The concept is to direct them
to the assistance they need, and is available, be it personal or family
support, re-employment counseling, or job retraining (as administered
through WIA). In the short time period the GDOP has been operating,
over 100 fishing family business members have been directly contacted,
58 have been referred to agencies/resources and 29 are now enrolled in
services.
This is a community-driven program that seeks to connect services
to a new audience for many of the community support agencies. We strive
to get the most out of existing services and to see to it that these
services meet, as much as possible, the needs of the fishing industry.
The services available are not always adequate or delivered equally
coast-wide. We are making progress in addressing the many barriers that
have excluded the fishing industry from these services in the past.
However, THE major barrier to fishermen, and others in the fishing
community who are interested in transitioning out of the industry via
job retraining is the lack of income during training. Because most are
considered self-employed, few fishermen/wives are covered by state
unemployment and there exist no other sources of income for them while
in training. Because of this unfortunate situation, the State of Oregon
submitted a Spending Plan for FY 2000 Emergency Appropriations for
Oregon's share of the $5 million specifically earmarked for community
assistance. To date, we have had no response from NMFS regarding when
the funds will be released. The spending plan establishes a transition
income (TI) fund for individuals to use to cover living expenses while
transitioning out of the industry. TI will only be available for
applicants who have developed an approved re-employment or retraining
plan for their future in non-fishery related employment.
Target Audience for Transition Income
It is challenging to accurately determine the number of people who
might seek or need services because of the unusual rolling nature of
this crisis and the various mechanisms people might or might not have
to cope. This is not a plant closure where a set number of people know
they will be unemployed on a given date.
We do have data on the numbers of commercial fishing vessels in the
State of Oregon having permits for groundfish or participating in the
open access fishery. We also have data on other permits those vessels/
owners have which can, in some cases, help to mitigate the impact of
the crisis. We estimate that 108 commercial fishing vessels/businesses
are at high risk of bankruptcy (permits limited to groundfish only) and
another 79 vessels/businesses are at moderate risk (depending on their
success in other fisheries). This represents 40 percent of the
groundfish fleet in the State of Oregon and an estimated 400 people.
Since not all will seek or need services but others in the industry
will, our best guess at this time is that the GDOP needs to be
responsive to the needs of 400 Oregon applicants. The numbers could go
much higher if fish plant closures occur. The numbers could go lower if
conditions permit success in other fisheries in which some of these
businesses might also be involved.
Our target audience for transition income in FY 2001 is 220
(roughly half of the 400 applicants that have no access to other
income/assistance). We are estimating that 35 percent of these
applicants will be single; 65 percent will have families.
We expect that once the funds finally do arrive in Oregon, they
will very quickly be dispersed. The Oregon Employment Department has
agreed to disburse the funds directly to fishermen and other groundfish
workers with no agency overhead taken out. That means ALL funds go
directly to help industry individuals.
Long-Term Needs and Solutions
As we look to community assistance needs for FY 01/02, we expect
that tripling Oregon's community assistance amount for TI assistance to
industry individuals displaced by the groundfish crisis is needed. We
would respectfully request $6 million dollars to help support the GDOP
and directly aid industry individuals who must/want to transition out
of the fishing industry.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council released a draft of its
Strategic Plan for Groundfish in July of 2000. That plan calls for
reducing the overall number of commercial groundfish vessels by at
least 50 percent. The ability to continue to connect displaced fishery
workers with community support services via the GDOP will be absolutely
critical.
In anticipation of the West Coast groundfish disaster declaration,
a three-state committee was formed to recommend industry and community
needs. This Committee met throughout 1999 with leadership provided by
Oregon Coastal Zone Management Association. The recommendations of this
Committee covered three major areas: 1) family and community
assistance, 2) research, and 3) fleet restructuring. These three areas
are interlinked and all are needed for the smoothest possible
transition to the future of our industry.
A good plan and funding for fleet restructuring/downsizing is an
important component of providing a path for a smooth transition to the
future of our industry. This would tie directly into the GDOP by
providing assistance to those who find themselves part of the group
either forced out or who willingly choose to leave the industry.
Knowing that such a plan is in place would be very helpful to fishing
families and businesses planning for their futures. As was illustrated
with the farm crisis, people need good information with which to plan
their futures or they are left to hang on, possibly until they have no
resources left. This leaves people feeling like failures and bankrupt.
This also places added pressures on already struggling community
support programs. The ability of people to make good decisions early on
about the course of their future is imperative for a smoother
transition and is beneficial to local communities.
Family and community assistance would derive huge benefits from
collaborative research. Not only is this a way to get the data that is
critical to proper management of the groundfish industry, it also
employs fishermen and their vessels. An expanded research program could
potentially tie in with the GDOP with training opportunities leveraged
by the GDOP to utilize existing Department of Labor training funds to
obtain master's/mates licenses, small business development training and
other necessary facets of transitioning a strictly commercial fishing
business into one which continues to commercially fish but also is
hired for research and charter projects. A program like this is getting
underway on the East Coast and should be considered for the West Coast.
In many of Oregon's coastal communities, access to personal,
family, and financial counseling is limited. And, where it does exist,
people are still unable to take advantage of it because of the high
cost of such services. During an industry downturn such as this, stress
on families becomes intense. Without access to good family counseling,
the potential for family breakups and worse increases. During the
salmon crisis in 1994, the only access to family counseling here in
Newport was by dialing 911 to get into the county emergency mental
health system. We'd prefer to offer counseling long before a 911
situation arises. Lessons learned from the farm and salmon crisis
illustrate the importance of access to good family and financial
counseling.
Because the industry has not had the benefit of group health
insurance, many families cannot afford private counseling. They either
do without any health care insurance or are inadequately covered.
Recent research by Oregon Sea Grant indicates that 31 percent of
fishing families are uninsured (this is almost three times the State
average). And, although Oregon is fortunate to have the Oregon Health
Plan and FIHAP, many fishing families do not qualify. For those who are
insured, most have only major medical.
Over the years, several industry organizations have attempted to
put together and administer a group plan for at least a portion of the
industry. The latest effort was by the Women's Coalition for Pacific
Fisheries (WCPF). WCPF spent almost 4 years in data gathering, planning
and coordination for a group health plan for the entire West Coast
fishing industry. This plan was unveiled in the fall of 2000 and was
carried by the only major carrier capable of administering such a plan
on the West Coast--Regence Blue Cross Blue Shield. However, Blue Cross
notified WCPF that they were pulling out of the health plan the Friday
before Christmas. The official reason given was that we did not have
enough people enrolled in the plan to continue but there was much more
to it than that. WCPF learned a lot about the business of health care,
turf battles between various Blue Cross providers, competing costs of
various plans, and health care politics. There is much more to this
than can be provided here but I encourage you, Senator Wyden, to
continue your effort to address the need for affordable health care for
all citizens of the United States. Had the WCPF plan been successful,
two of the needs of industry would have been covered--health care and
counseling. This is something industry tried to do for itself, did not
ask for federal funding or assistance and ran right into insurmountable
barriers. WCPF would be pleased to provide any and all information we
can about this case to you.
The farm crisis, the timber crisis and now the fisheries crisis
have all shown that with appropriate support, people can successfully
transition to the future.
Thank you.
______
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Portland, OR, September 22, 2000
Dr. Stephen Freese,
National Marine Fisheries Service,
Seattle, WA.
Dear Steve:
With the assistance of Oregon Sea Grant Extension Specialists
Flaxen Conway and Ginny Goblirsch, we have prepared the enclosed
request and spending plan for the FY 2000 emergency appropriation in
response to the West Coast groundfish fishery disaster.
As you are aware, the conservation measures and commensurate
reductions in groundfish harvest opportunities in 1999 continued in
2000, and the latest stock assessments indicate further reductions will
be necessary in 2001. The Pacific Fisheries Management Council's draft
Strategic Plan for groundfish calls for at least a 50 percent reduction
in fleet capacity to scale fishing back to match future expected
harvests now that the fishery has gone through an extensive fishing
down process. In recent years, many individuals and families have
already had to make hard choices out of economic necessity and
desperation. Council members and state fishery managers expect these
conditions to persist during the foreseeable future.
Federal appropriations for disaster relief are needed as soon as
possible to assist those transitioning out of the industry. The
$1,750,000.00 of federal funds will help provide the necessary support
in direct benefits to qualified candidates to help them with the steps
of the difficult process of leaving one's livelihood, retraining, and
transitioning to other jobs. The Department has identified appropriate
match dollars and is prepared to commit its share of the $583,333.00
needed. Details of the different state match sources will be outlined
in Oregon's full grant proposal. Additional matching funds will also be
available from Oregon Economic and Community Development Department,
Oregon Sea Grant Extension, and Oregon Coastal Zone Management
Association.
I want to thank you in advance for consideration of this proposal
for disaster relief. I look forward to working with you to implement
this much-needed program.
Sincerely,
James W. Greer,
Director.
cc: Roy Hemmingway
Doris Penwell
Flaxen Conway
Ginny Goblirsch
Neal Coenen
Jim Golden
______
Spending Plan For FY 2000 Emergency Appropriation In Response to the
Disaster in the West Coast Groundfish Fishery
State of Oregon
Situation
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), on behalf of the
Secretary of Commerce, declared a commercial fishery failure in the
Pacific Coast Groundfish fishery on January 19, 2000.
Congress appropriated funding of $5,000,000 in response to the
disaster in the West Coast groundfish fishery. The states were
specifically directed to use the funds to: 1) pay compensation to
individuals who have suffered a direct negative impact from the West
Coast groundfish fisheries disaster; 2) provide direct sustaining aid
to such fishermen; and 3) provide assistance to communities that are
dependent on the West Coast groundfish fisheries and have suffered
losses from such disaster.
Congress directed that the states of California, Oregon and
Washington divide the funds between the three states in proportion to
the impact of the disaster in each state. Discussions were held with
the three State Fish and Wildlife Directors at the August 28-30, 2000
meeting of the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission and, with
input from industry and congressional representatives, the states
agreed to allocate the funds as follows: 35 percent each to California
and Oregon, and 30 percent to Washington. This represents a sum of
$1,750,000.00 to Oregon. A 25 percent ($583,333.00) matching amount
from Oregon is required to receive these funds.
Oregon's point of contact for its disaster aid program is James
Greer, Director, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. The funds are
to be administered by the National Marine Fisheries Service in
cooperation with the Oregon Economic and Community Development
Department and/or Oregon Employment Department, and Oregon Sea Grant
Extension.
Background
In anticipation of the West Coast groundfish disaster declaration,
a three-state committee was formed to recommend industry and community
needs. This committee met throughout 1999 with leadership provided by
Oregon Coastal Zone Management Association. Further assistance was
provided by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and Oregon Sea Grant
Extension. The recommendations of this committee covered three major
areas: 1) family and community assistance; 2) research and 3) fleet
restructuring.
The experience and expertise brought to this group by Oregon Sea
Grant Extension addressed the family and community assistance portion
of the recommendations. Since 1994, Oregon Sea Grant has provided
funding for a unique peer outreach project called the Fishing Families
Project (Project). The Project worked directly with fishing families in
Oregon's port communities to provide practical information on ways to
deal with the economic, personal and social stresses that are a part of
the commercial fishing industry. An important component of this project
was the Fishing Family Coordinators. They were fishermen's wives who
lived in coastal ports and, together with Sea Grant personnel, were
able to identify and direct project activities that directly addressed
needs and interests of fishing families. Needs identified by the
families included budgeting in a cyclic industry; debt consolidation/
taxes; diversification/business management; fishing marriage/absentee
partner; coping skills/stress/anger management; grants/direct aid;
health insurance and communication skills. The Project also worked
directly with community resource providers and agencies to enhance
their understanding of the needs of fishing families and address
barriers fishing families met when attempting to obtain services.
Additionally, the Project brought information to fishing industry
families about resources available in their communities to help with
their business and family needs. The Project also provided family
members with training in forming or strengthening effective support
networks. This training bolstered three Oregon fishermen's wives
organizations and helped to form the region-wide, multi-gear, multi-
fisheries network called the Women's Coalition for Pacific Fisheries.
The success of the Project's outreach model led to discussions in
1998 with community resource providers about how to incorporate peer
outreach into fishery-related disaster relief plans. A team of state
and local partners worked collaboratively to come up with a possible
approach. With the support of the team, the Community Services
Consortium in Newport initiated a small pilot program in January 1999.
In fall of 1999, the plan was finalized for a coast wide pilot program
in response to the anticipated West Coast groundfish disaster.
Beginning in April 2000, the state of Oregon provided funding for a 7-
month, coast-wide pilot program called ``Groundfish Disaster Outreach
Program'' (GDOP), a continuing program that promotes existing training
resources and community programs. The GDOP is administered by the
Oregon Sea Grant Extension Program with funding support from the Oregon
Economic and Community Development Department, Oregon Rapid Response
Program, and Oregon Sea Grant Extension.
Innovative Response
The purpose of the GDOP is to create, deliver and evaluate a peer
outreach program that assists people in accessing support, resources
and training and assists community resource providers in effective
outreach through improved communication to this population who are in
need of support. The audience includes people in the groundfish fishing
business including fishermen, business partners (wives), fish plant
workers, industry support service workers (gear stores, fuel docks,
etc.), charterboat workers and local, state and federal resource
providers.
The leadership team of Flaxen Conway, OSU Department of Sociology,
and Ginny Goblirsch, Marine Extension agent (and fisherman's wife),
both with Oregon Sea Grant Extension, will continue to direct the GDOP.
In addition, GDOP employs a full time Program Coordinator, Connie
Kennedy. The GDOP Coordinator, a fisherman's wife, works with people in
groundfish fishing businesses who want to transition into the future
industry as well as with those who want to transition out of the
industry. Six GDOP Outreach Peers (much like the Fishing Family
Coordinators, closely associated with the fishing industry and in the
transition process themselves) work part-time in seven regions along
the coast informing and mentoring people in groundfish fishing
businesses who want to transition, out of the industry. They also
provide information about community support options for those remaining
in the industry. An Advisory Committee, with members from the Oregon
Rapid Response Program, local Workforce Investment Act (WIA) service
delivery areas, Oregon Economic and Community Development, Oregon
Employment Department (OED), Oregon Sea Grant Extension and the GDOP
Program Coordinator, provides guidance to the GDOP.
In May 2000, the Governor convened a meeting of state agency heads
as well as community and industry leaders. The purpose of this meeting
was to brief agencies on the groundfish crisis; to assess the crisis
and make recommendations as to how each state agency can best direct
their services to help those needing assistance; and to identify
barriers to services. The GDOP has also hosted port meetings with local
service providers to brief them on the crisis, address industry
barriers to services and identify support services available. The
outreach peers mentor fishermen, fishermen's wives, processing plant
workers, and others directly associated with the groundfish industry
that want to leave the industry. A key service is job-training programs
for dislocated workers administered through WIA. In the short time
period the GDOP has been operating, 97-odd industry members have been
directly contacted, 52 were referred to agencies/resources, and 29 are
now enrolled in services.
The State of Oregon proposes to support the continuation of the
successful Groundfish Disaster Outreach Program past the pilot ending
date of October 31, 2000. In this way, the state will not be creating a
new program and development expenses will be kept to a minimum. Except
for the Program Coordinator salary, all funds will go directly to
people impacted by the disaster. The state supports that no
administrative costs be incurred for this FY 2000 Emergency
Appropriation.
Lessons Learned and Future Needs
Three key things we've learned are substantiated by the success of
the program. First, we have learned that working collaboratively to
create this program has resulted in a response that is innovative and
community-driven. Second, we've learned that THE major barrier to
fishermen and others interested in transitioning out of the industry
via job training is the lack of income during training. Most are
considered self-employed, few fishermen/wives are covered by state
unemployment and there exist no other sources of income for them while
in training. Third, we've learned that peer outreach works.
State funding for the Outreach Coordinator ends on October 31,
2000. We believe that the Oregon Rapid Response Program will continue
to provide funding for the outreach peers for as long as they can and
they see benefits to their programs. Oregon Sea Grant Extension will
continue to support GDOP project leaders Conway and Goblirsch.
Because of the previous successes with peer outreach through the
Fishing Families Project and the pilot GDOP, the State of Oregon
proposes to use Oregon's share of the disaster assistance funds to: 1)
continue supporting the GDOP (not start a new program) through funding
the Program Coordinator, and 2) provide transition income (TI) to
industry members who want to transition out of the industry and who
have accessed resources to help them develop a WIA/OED training plan
for their future.
Target Audience for Transition Income
As previously stated, the target audience for the GDOP includes
anyone directly associated with the groundfish industry that has
suffered significant impacts (loss of revenue) as a result of the
groundfish crisis. This includes commercial fishing businesses (vessel
owners, operators and crew); their business partners (wives); fish
plants (owners, managers and workers); charterboats (owners, operators
and crew); and all support services (workers in gear stores, fuel docks
and the like).
How many people are we talking about here? Because of the unusual
rolling nature of this crisis and the various mechanisms people might
or might not have to cope, it is impossible to accurately determine the
number of people who might seek/need services. This is not a plant
closure where a set number of people know they will be unemployed at a
specific time. We do, however, have data on the numbers of commercial
fishing vessels in the State of Oregon having permits for groundfish or
participating in the open access fishery. We also have data on other
permits those vessels/owners have which can, in some cases, help to
mitigate the impact of the crisis. Therefore, we estimate that 108
commercial fishing vessels/businesses are at high risk of bankruptcy
and another 79 vessels/businesses are at moderate risk (depending on
their success in other fisheries). This represents 40 percent of the
groundfish fleet in the State of Oregon and an estimated 400 people.
Since not all will seek or need services but others in the industry
will, our best guess at this time is that the GDOP needs to be
responsive to the needs of 400 applicants. The numbers could go much
higher if fish plant closures occur. The numbers could go lower if
conditions permit success in other fisheries in which some of these
businesses might also be involved.
Our target audience for transition income is 220 (roughly half of
the 400 applicants that have no access to other income/assistance). We
are estimating that 35 percent of these applicants will be single; 65
percent will have families.
Spending Plan
GDOP Program Coordinator
$66,000.00 is needed to support the full-time Program Coordinator
for 12 months. Included in this amount are salary and associated
expenses (such as travel, phone, fax, email, postage and mailing) for a
12-month period. The Program Coordinator would continue the work as
previously described.
Funding would flow from NMFS directly to Oregon Sea Grant Extension
in the amount of $66,000.00 for a 12-month period. No administrative
costs (overhead) will be incurred during this period.
Transition Income
$1,684,000.00 would be used to establish a fund for transition
income (TI) for individuals (a type of individual TI account) to cover
living expenses for those transitioning out of the industry. TI will
only be available for applicants who have developed a WIA/OED training
plan for their future in non-fishery related employment. Criteria for
this TI assistance distribution process and the assistance are:
Design a process that is flexible and readily changed when
improvements can be identified.
NMFS disbursements should be made at least quarterly ($421,000 per
quarter with the first allocation up front) so that the entities that
administer this program do not have to use state funds and process
reimbursement requests.
Qualified applicants must certify that they are part of the
groundfish industry either as a fisherman, business partner (wife),
fish plant worker, charter boat worker, or support service worker and
have been negatively impacted by the groundfish crisis. TI assistance
will be limited to 6 months to 9 months or less per applicant depending
on the job-training plan established.
TI assistance will be based on a simple income verification
process. For example, our recommendation is that an applicant with a
family could receive $1,500/month if they had no other access to
support (unemployment insurance). If the applicant has access to other
support (unemployment under $1500/month) their TI allotment would be
only the difference bringing them up to $1,500/month. For a single/non-
married applicant, the allotment would be $1,000/month (with the same
situation regarding access to other support). The recipients would be
responsible for self-certifying their continued participation in the
training plan and their need for this TI (through calling in and/or
filling out forms on a bi-weekly or monthly basis).
Final qualifying criteria and program administration arrangements
will be specified in the State of Oregon grant application to NMFS.
Funding will flow from NMFS directly to the Oregon Employment
Department or to the Oregon Employment Department via the Oregon
Economic and Community Development Department in the amount of
$1,684,000.00. No administrative costs (overhead) will be incurred
during this period.
State Matching Contributions
Since the commercial fishery failure in the Pacific Coast
groundfish was declared on January 19, 2000, the State of Oregon has
provided (and will continue to provide) a combination of in-kind and
state direct matching funds in the amount of $583,333.00.
Suggestions for State Match:
The State of Oregon will document in its grant application to NMFS
both in-kind and, possibly, direct matching funds. Here, the state has
a number of options it will pursue:
1. Program, Support Development and Fishery Research Contributions
If expenditures since January 19, 2000 are allowed, the state can
document up to $83,000.00 of in-kind expenditures developing a disaster
relief response related to direct assistance and income support. In
addition, the state can document approximately $124,000.00 in funding
explicitly reviewed and appropriated by the Oregon legislature for
groundfish research in response to the disaster. These funds for
research have already been reviewed in a Groundfish Research Plan
submitted to the Department's legislative oversight committee and
approved for projects initiated for the Spring and Fall of 2000, and
the Spring of 2001.
These projects focus on the areas of maturity by catch, gear and
genetic studies designed to improve stock assessments. The amount
identified includes only the amounts expected to be paid directly to
fishermen for at-sea contract charters and do not include the
Department's personnel services or overhead costs. These costs, if
allowed, would represent an additional $247,000.00 in direct matching
expenditures. The total above represents a matching amount of
$454,000.00.
The state can also document $35,000.00 of direct matching funds
for the GDOP Program Coordinator salary and expenses from May 1, 2000
until October 31, 2000 from the Oregon Economic and Community
Development Department.
2. Expected In-Kind Contributions
Other in-kind contributions following grant approval are expected
throughout calendar year 2001 in amounts similar to program development
costs (i.e. $83,000.00).
3. Emergency Appropriations Board Direct Allocation
The state's third option for match is to approach the
legislature's Emergency Appropriations Board for a direct allocation.
In this event, the direct payments for those individuals transitioning
out of the groundfish fishery would extend Oregon's proposed program.
Suggestions for Timeline
The Pacific Fishery Management Council has just announced further
harvest reductions expected for the fishing year beginning January 1,
2001. The State of Oregon's objective is to bring this assistance
program online at that time. Our goals and timeline are as follows:
1. October 15, 2000 or before: Appropriation Committee release of funds to NMFS.
2. October 15, 2000 to November 30, 2000: State of Oregon grant
application process to NMFS (with Oregon documentation).
3. December 30, 2000: NMFS grant approval.
4. January 15, 2001: Start Oregon program delivery.
Findings for Supplemental Appropriations Guidance and MSA S.312 (a)
Compliance
Authorized Appropriations Purposes in Bill and Report Language
The State of Oregon's proposed spending plan will provide direct
compensation to individuals and families for lost income resulting from
significantly reduced fishing opportunities. The state's program
intends to sustain this aid over a period of time needed and suitable
to obtain job training for alternative occupations outside the fishing
industry.
In the event of additional, larger appropriations, the state's
program could be expanded to compensate for the other types of losses
and community assistance programs such as job development.
MSA Section 312(a) requires that disaster assistance prevent a future
fishery failure and assist a community or restore the fishery
and assist a community.
The State of Oregon program seeks to prevent a future fishery
failure and assist a community. The usual declining fishery cycle often
results in fishers waiting for an upturn in one fishery by shifting to
other fisheries or related activity. While this may have worked in the
past, present circumstances indicate no flexibility exists in other
major West Coast fisheries (salmon, crab, and shrimp). Therefore, the
state's program seeks to permanently remove fishers from the industry.
This will result in less competition for the limited remaining jobs in
fisheries and prevent future conflict and failure.
In addition, the community of individuals and families dependent on
the fishing industry will be aided directly through training for
alternative occupations. The community at large will also benefit
directly and indirectly by having displaced workers prepare to continue
as productive employed members of the community.
Senator Wyden. Ms. Goblirsch, thank you very much. You're
an excellent advocate for the families, and we really
appreciate that.
Senator Wyden. Mr. Eaton, a couple questions for you, first
on this observer issue. My understanding is that there are some
differences of opinion between how the big boats and the small
boats look at this issue. The larger boats have some concerns
about having to have to pick up some of the costs for the
observers, and some of the smaller boats not having the same
responsibilities with respect to observers.
What do you think the ramifications of this are? Is this
going to hinder the ability to get good data to not have folks
on these small boats? And, I gather you probably can't get
another body on some of these small boats, just in a physical
sense.
Mr. Eaton. Thank you, Senator. That's a good question. My
understanding is that there are national standards that are
established for observers and the vessels that they will go out
on. And I think it is true that in most cases the larger
vessels wind up taking the most observers.
On our coast here, the larger vessels probably also catch
the most fish. For instance, I've seen a number which indicated
that trawl vessels, which are going to be the largest on our
coast, catch 90 percent of the fish, or something like that. So
you know, practically speaking, there probably ought to be more
observer emphasis placed on this.
In 2000, last year, there was a U.S./Canada observer
conference held in St. Johns, Newfoundland. Our organization
attended that. We were the only non-profit organization from
the West Coast. We were the only conservation group from
anywhere in the United States to attend that conference. And we
were specifically invited to be there.
Over 3 days we learned an awful lot about observers. One of
the things was that in terms of implementing an observer
program that reaches through all of the fleets, the vessel size
does not have to be a limiting factor; there are models around
the world that can be used to observe smaller vessels where you
can't actually put somebody on board.
The other thing I might add is that we were asked to make a
presentation about the observer program on the West Coast. And
our presentation was basically, ``We want a program, but we
don't got one.'' There were other countries at the conference
smaller, third-world countries whose fleets were 100 percent
observed. And they could not believe that we on the West Coast,
with a fishery that was forty years old and as important as our
fishery is, did not have an observer program in place. They
couldn't believe it. So we've got a long ways to go.
Senator Wyden. I thank you. I thank you for your testimony,
and this is helpful. I obviously want to be fair to both the
big boats and the small boats, in terms of funding this and
structuring. We'll be asking for your input on it.
Mr. Fujita, a number of the fishermen have told me that by
modifying their trawl here, there are areas of the ocean that
are not fished and are essentially marine reserves right now.
This is at least how they would define it.
In your judgment, are these areas significant in size, and
would it be possible to create new reserves to incorporate them
and recognize some of what the fishing families are doing now
and accommodate some fishing elsewhere?
Dr. Fujita. Thank you, Senator. I can't comment on the
significance of the size of these de facto reserves. I
understand from fishermen that they have been successful. The
trawl footrope regulation has apparently been successful at
keeping trawl gear out of those rocky areas. And those are
areas that are important biologically. I don't know how big
they are. But I would advocate incorporating those areas into a
marine reserve system. Certainly it makes sense from an
economic point of view, if they're already being avoided. And
biologically, it makes sense, because they probably incorporate
very productive habitats.
Senator Wyden. I would just like to have recognition for
what the fishing families are doing now. It seems to me your
ideas are certainly worth exploring. I think you've heard me
throughout this hearing say that I want us to figure out a way
to have a sustainable fishery that's sensitive both to
environmental and economic needs, which is obviously easier
said than done. But, it seems to me that when the fishing
families are making headway, through modification of gear and
those kinds of approaches, it ought to be recognized in some
kind of way.
The World Wildlife Fund is involved in gathering various
places around the world in vessel buyout programs and efforts
to be part of again an industry environmental coalition to find
the funds for these programs. Where does your organization
stand with respect to buyback and helping with the trawlers and
others to build this kind of a coalition?
Dr. Fujita. Well, Environmental Defense, in general, favors
market-based approaches to reduce fishing capacity. If you
consider buyback programs and ITQs as different ways to
approach essentially the same problem, reduced fishing
capacity, we prefer to see ITQs with standards put in place. We
think they're more efficient.
But we recognize that given the ITQ moratorium, buyback of
the trawl fleet would be faster, if the funds could be made
available. I think that if they're properly constructed with
some conservation-oriented sideboards and also address the
latent capacity and reduce the number of actual fishing
vessels, not just the permits, we would be supportive and would
join in the coalition to push the proposal.
Senator Wyden. We'll be working frequently with you. You
can be sure of that.
Ms. Goblirsch, you were here when the National Marine
Fisheries Services said that they might be able to get the
disaster assistance to all these families in 11 months, 11
months time. You know Congress passed the legislation, and I
gather that you all sent them applications quite some time ago.
What's your reaction to what you heard from NMFS today?
Ms. Goblirsch. I'm shocked. We actually naively thought
perhaps we'd see the funds as--by mid-November or certainly--or
the end of November. Because we had funding in place, state
funding in place, to continue on that went so long.
A lot of this is timing. The funds available from the other
agencies have their own fiscal year. So in order to be the most
beneficial to the most people all at the same time, timing is
critical. And we're getting way out of kilter here. The longer
this goes on, the more difficult it's going to be.
But to say disaster relief funds take a year to reach the
site of the disaster is pretty bizarre, I think.
Senator Wyden. Well, I can tell you I'll be following this
up with Senator Smith right away. I want you to know, as you
leave here today, that we are just going to go after this in
every way possible. It just seems to me to send the worse
possible message that here is an agency that has its budget
doubled by the U.S. Congress and now will come on in and
basically say they will try to get disaster assistance out in
about a year.
I was not aware of the fact that you all sent application
materials in November. Of course, we were led to believe
earlier in this hearing that that wasn't the case; that we were
still awaiting grant applications.
Ms. Goblirsch. We got on it right away.
Senator Wyden. Pardon me?
Ms. Goblirsch. We got on it right away, as soon as we heard
back from your office that they had been appropriated.
Senator Wyden. I just want you to know that we are going to
be very aggressive in staying after this. We are going to
liberate those dollars----
Ms. Goblirsch. Thank you.
Senator Wyden.--for where they were intended to go. And
that's to families that are hurting.
I also want you to know I'm going to followup on this
health care issue. Health care has been sort of my special
passion since my days as Director of Oregon Gray Panthers.
My understanding is that in that case, in the example that
you were talking about, there was never any money allocated
from the government to assist in this. You were just trying to
get a private plan using essentially the group, in order to
make sure they had some bargaining power and some leverage.
Ms. Goblirsch. Representing 50,000 families on the West
Coast and Alaska, yes.
Senator Wyden. Because I think as you're aware--and they're
still working out some of the developmental details--Senator
Kennedy was actually able to get some funds for fishing
families in New England. They haven't gotten the Plan yet,
because of some bureaucratic problems, but it seems to me that
what you're asking for should again, utilizing the marketplace
kinds of principals, be something doable. And, I'll follow that
up.
Ms. Goblirsch. We did think a little bit about asking for
some assistance. But what was happening with groundfish and all
the needs, funding needs, we didn't want to come in and ask for
more money. And we felt that given a fair plan, that we could
be successful. What we had the most problem with was basically
the politics of the companies.
Senator Wyden. What is your sense about why Blue Cross and
Regence pulled out at the end?
Ms. Goblirsch. You know, I'd really rather not testify to
that on stage, because we're still in some negotiations with
them.
Senator Wyden. Why don't I offer up that----
Ms. Goblirsch. I think it needs to be addressed again.
Senator Wyden.--if you want a United States Senator to help
spur the discussion----
Ms. Goblirsch. That's why I brought it up.
Senator Wyden. I hereby volunteer.
Ms. Goblirsch. Thank you.
Senator Wyden. All right. The last question that I have for
you, Ms. Goblirsch, involves a policy issue. Apparently, in New
England some of the fishing families have been successful in
qualifying cooperatively as researching an emerging industry,
which has made them eligible for assistance.
Are you interested in trying to do the same sort of thing
on the Oregon Coast?
Ms. Goblirsch. My colleague, Flaxen Conway, and I were in a
telephone discussion with David Bergeron, who is with the
Massachusetts Fisherman's Partnership, and we talked to him
last week. He was talking about collaborative research funds
that are coming into the East Coast or the Northeast, where
fishermen have to be involved in 75 percent of the research.
And because they have been able to define collaborative
research--get this--as an emerging industry, they could
leverage Department of Labor funds to provide training to crews
to do the research or to get masters or mates licenses, in
running a small business, to diversify the fishing business to
something that other--that commercial fishes but also does
research and charters. And so yeah, emerging business.
Senator Wyden. We will get on that----
Ms. Goblirsch. So we thought there was potential on the
West Coast to do something similar.
Senator Wyden.--with you as well. My understanding was that
it was moving forward on the East Coast, and I think we ought
to take a look at it.
Unless you all have anything further, we'll excuse you now.
Thank you all.
The third panel, Steve Bodnar, Coos Bay Trawlers; Michelle
Longo Eder, who is a lawyer and from a private fishing family;
Ralph Brown, groundfish trawler; and Rod Moore, seafood
processor.
Senator Wyden. Welcome all of you, and thank you for your
patience. I'm going to adhere to the time rules, so I can get
questions for the audience. We'll look forward to talking to
all of you.
STATEMENT OF STEVE BODNAR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COOS BAY
TRAWLERS' ASSOCIATION, INC.
Mr. Bodnar. My name is Steve Bodnar. I represent the Coos
Bay Trawler's Association. And this is my anecdotal testimony
today. And I present it that way, because usually anything that
fishermen say is anecdotal.
Perhaps this is the never-ending question, because--the
question of what caused the decline. It's a never-ending
question, because it depends on one's own perspective. First,
addressing the official term environmental groups had submitted
into the Magnuson-Stevens verbiage, ``overfishing,'' points to
the harvesters as the culprits of the depleted stocks. However,
the Magnuson-Stevens Act now requires overfishing terms to be
used any time the stock--a stock is depleted, no matter what
the cause.
The government's and managers' willingness to blame the
fishermen and appease the environmental groups leads the
industry to believe that Congress is so gullible that it is
willing to hold no managers accountable for fishery
mismanagement. Fishermen have only done what the law and the
managers have allowed us to do for over 20 years. The fishermen
of this nation feel that the partnership created to free our
waters of foreign fleets has backfired in our faces, and the
government has set us adrift to fend our ourselves.
The managers are the real culprits of the fishery demise,
because they are not held accountable for decisions. What would
the public's perception be today if the official term that was
put in the Magnuson-Stevens Act was mismanaged species for any
depleted stock?
Another perception conveyed by the budget structure that
affects how fishermen feel about management and--and their
scientists is the fact that the majority of--a major part of
the National Marine Fishery Service's budget is derived from
Saltonstall-Kennedy funds, which comes from tariffs on imported
fish. Instead, their money should come from the successful
management of U.S. fisheries and not imported fish at all. The
perception fishermen have is that National Marine Fisheries
Service deliberately lowers quotas to increase the imports to
increase their budget.
The level of science that managers use to determine harvest
levels could fit into a thimble; and yet, they call it the best
science available. The science community is as scattered as the
fishing fleet itself. Oceanographers rarely talk to the
biologists and visa versa.
If the science is to be believable, then the fishermen need
to be an integral part of the data collection system. Most
managers in science believe that fishermen cannot be trusted to
gather the data, whether they do it all alone or while there's
an agency personnel on board. Data gathering used for fishery
evaluation is mostly done by non-fishermen, agency personnel,
where very small samples are taken and extrapolated to paint a
picture of the entire ocean. The data is then manipulated with
computer synthesis, and the final results of the evaluation
studies are presented as gospel by people that rarely, if ever,
go out to sea. The results are often on the other end of the
spectrum of what fishermen see every day on the ocean. So
fishermen have a hard time believing what they hear, rather
than what they see.
Ocean conditions may have had a hand in the declining fish.
Warming oceans and shifts in the warm spot locations change the
upwelling and currents. Fish move when conditions warrant it,
and they cannot be found in their usually places. Just because
fish aren't where they were last year doesn't mean the fish
have disappeared off the earth. They have just moved and left
no forwarding address.
Impacts, every entity that fishes is impacted by the
managers' decisions. Sports fishermen as well as commercial
fishermen are impacted. The coastal communities are also
impacted in every way imaginable. Fishermen may have brought in
$20 million to a community just 6 years ago. But today, that
same community may only realize $5 million. That kind of money
removed from small communities has very hard impact on, not
only on community government, but also on schools, families,
and most of the lives of the community, whether they fish or
not.
Short- and long-term solutions. The infrastructures of the
communities are melting away. Processors, watching the quotas
get lower and lower, have virtually removed the latent
processing capacity from each community. Successful processors
have lowered the price of fish, which has forced the small
processors out of business. The more powerful processors buy
out the now defunct plants, gut them, and close the doors
forever. Jobs are lost and never replaced.
The structures are left to rot as they--rot as they refuse
to sell; because if they do sell it, they only increase their
own competition. With the competition gone, lower prices are
offered for the fishermen for their product. And when we try to
resist the lowering of prices, we are told by the processors
the processor can't pay more, because the imported fish sells
for less, and there is plenty of imported fish coming into this
country.
U.S. fish have to compete with foreign--with countries that
subsidize their own fish efforts and with countries that have
very little to no environmental regulations. The government
needs to provide incentives to discourage imported fish of
undermining the American fish-based economy.
Our fishing--our fishery managers--managers have to change
their relationship with fishermen. We need to be true partners
in fishing management. We need to communicate with each other.
We need to brainstorm together. We need to work together to
improve the renewable resource. And we need to move beyond who
is to blame and how--to how we can fix the system.
The frustration level has reached such a high level that
managers are starting to bail out of the system, and fishermen
are going broke and being forced out of business. Scientists
and managers say they don't have enough information available
about the whole fleet's fishing practices. They proclaim that
there are holes in data or data they don't have a clue about. A
law that requires all commercial fishermen to keep logbooks on
all fishing trips. However, only the trawl fleet is forced to
keep these records. All fishermen should be required to keep
logbooks.
Some of the holes in the data are data fishermen could
record in their logbooks to help provide missing information.
But, you know, Senator, we have never been asked to keep
discard data. The managers' answer is not mandatory logbooks
for everyone with the required recorded data but an
elaborative, expensive observer program.
If the entire fleet were to require to have the new
electronic logbooks operational on our books, then the managers
would have 100 percent fleet coverage of logbook information
real time and, if utilized properly, would provide a vast
amount of data that the managers don't currently have, which
could remove some of the uncertainty in our fishery management.
We programs that would train fishermen and their families
for new careers. We need to encourage replacement industries to
move into these communities to take advantage of these
displaced workers. We need tax relief for these--to these
communities, so that they can take charge of the revitalization
of their industrial areas that provide good family wage jobs.
We want to thank you for working on amendments to the
Capital Construction Fund, which was the first step to help
some that feel that they are captured in the industry and can't
get out. One thing that can be done that is not a solution, but
rather a reaction to management, and that is to reduce the
fleet to a level that is more consistent with the harvest
level.
To most of us, the most important thing that needs to be
done to ward off bankruptcy of fishing businesses is to help
reduce the fleet through a buyback program. While the states
need to cap the open-access fishery, all the fleet need to do--
all the fleets need to be reduced. There is not enough fish to
allocate the entire buyout, so some form of federal assistance
is needed.
About discards, the fishing industry has worked with you
and brought forth a 20 percent rollover. We'd like to call this
a soft trip limit. And I think that a soft trip limit should be
implemented immediately with a 20 percent rollover, so that we
can reduce the discards, which is--which we can't go along
with. There's no overage program right now, because they cannot
believe a fisherman would bring in some of their catch or
proclaim their catch; and so the only way that an overage
program will be allowed to go through with this Council is if
an observer is on board, which is kind of absurd.
Senator I have been working with Sonitrol, working with a
surveillance camera that we are going to fund and put on a
fishing vessel to see if a surveillance camera that's non-
tamperable with 960 hours of record time can be used to look at
the discard problem without putting expensive observer on
board.
Right now, for prevention and future, money must be made
for the groundfish research that utilizes the true partnership
of the science and fishermen. And we need to conduct a fleet
buyback program.
And I have a question that I can't find an answer for. I
was wondering what's the ratio between fishermen and managers
currently? And if we have an observer program, how is that
going to change? I think that the Nation would probably be
astounded by the ratio of managers to fishermen. And I
certainly would like to know what that is.
I've also written a proposal to a private funding company
for a ride-along program. Because we feel that it is important
to get the scientists out or the managers out from behind their
computers and on to more fishing vessels. We need to have the
managers have greater acceptance for what fishermen say,
instead of writing everything off that we have to offer as
anecdotal.
And about the Strategic Plan, you've made comment about
that. Sure, there was plenty of public meetings up and down the
Coast. And I've attended every Strategic Plan meeting there
was. And if I couldn't make it, my boss went. And I must say
that even though the hearings were there, they certainly
limited the kind of input that they accepted. They heard, but
they would not accept, no matter how often I got in their face.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bodnar follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steve Bodnar, Executive Director, Coos Bay
Trawlers' Association, Inc.
What were the causes of the decline?
Perhaps this is a never ending question because the causes are many
and dependent on one's own perspective. First, addressing the official
term environmental groups had submitted into the Magnuson-Stevens Act
verbiage, OVERFISHING, points to the harvesters as the culprits of
depleted stocks. However, the Magnuson-Stevens Act now requires the
overfishing term to be used any time a stock is depleted, no matter
what the cause. The government's and managers' willingness to blame the
fishermen and appease the environmental groups leads the industry to
believe that congress is so gullible that it is willing to hold no
managers accountable for fishery management. FISHERMEN HAVE ONLY DONE
WHAT THE LAW AND MANAGERS HAVE ALLOWED THEM TO DO FOR OVER TWENTY
YEARS. The fishermen of this nation feel that the partnership created
to free our waters of foreign fleets has backfired in our faces and the
government has set us adrift to fend for ourselves. The managers are
the real culprit of our fishery demise because they are not held
accountable for their decisions.
Another perception conveyed by the budget structure that effects
how the fishermen feel about management and their scientists is the
fact that a major part of NMFS's budget is derived from Saltonstall/
Kennedy funds which comes from tariffs on imported fish. Instead, their
money should come from the successful management of US fisheries not
imported fish. The perception fishermen have is that the NMFS
deliberately lowers quotas to increase imports.
The level of science that managers use to determine harvest levels
could fit into a thimble, and yet they call it the best science
available. The science community is as scattered as the fishing fleet
itself. Oceanographers rarely talk to the biologist and visa versa. If
the science is to be believable then the fishermen need to be an
integral part of the data collection system. Most managers and
scientist believe that fishermen can not be trusted to gather the data
whether they do it alone or with an agency personnel. Data gathered and
used for fishery evaluation is mostly done by non-fishermen agency
personnel where very small samples are taken and extrapolated to paint
a picture of the entire ocean. The data is then manipulated with
computer syntheses and the final results of these evaluation studies
are presented as gospel by people that rarely, if ever, go out to sea.
These results are often at the other end of the spectrum of what
fishermen see everyday out on the ocean so fishermen have a hard time
believing what they hear rather than what they see.
Ocean conditions may also have had a hand in the decline of fish.
Warming oceans and shifts in the warm spot locations changed the up-
wellings and currents. Fish move when conditions warrant it and can not
be found in their usual places. Just because fish aren't where they
were last year, doesn't mean the fish have disappeared off the earth,
they just moved and left no forwarding address.
Impacts
Every entity that fishes is impacted by the managers decisions.
Sport fishermen as well as the commercial fishermen are impacted. The
coastal communities are also impacted in every way imaginable.
Fishermen may have brought in 60 million dollars to a community just
six years ago, but today that same community may only realize 20
million dollars. That kind of money removed from small communities has
a very hard impact not only on the community government but also on
schools, families and most that live in the community whether they fish
or not.
Short/Long term solutions
The infrastructures of the communities are melting away.
Processors, watching the quotas getting lower and lower, have virtually
removed the latent processing capacity from each community. Successful
processors have lowered the price of fish which has forced smaller
processors out of business. The more powerful processors buy out the
now defunct plants, gut them and close the doors for ever. Jobs are
lost and never replaced. The structure are left to rot as they refuse
to sell because if they do they just increase their competition. With
the competition gone, lower prices are offered to the fishermen for
their products. When we try to resist the lowering of prices we are
told the processors can't pay more because imported fish sells for less
and there is plenty of imported fish coming into this country. U.S.
exported fish have to compete with countries that subsidize their own
fish efforts and with countries that have very little environmental
regulations. The government needs to provide incentives to discourage
imported fish of undermining the American fish-based economy.
Our fishery managers have to change their relationship with the
fishermen. We need to be true partners in fishery management. We need
to communicate with each other, we need to brainstorm together, we need
to work together to improve this renewable resource. We need to move
beyond who is to blame to how can we fix the system. The frustration
level has reached such a high level that managers are starting to bail-
out of the system and fishermen are going broke and being forced out of
business.
We need programs that would re-train fishermen and their families
for new careers. We need to encourage replacement industries to move to
these communities to take advantage of these displace workers. We need
tax relief to these communities so they can take charge of the
revitalization of their industrial areas that provide good family wage
jobs.
We want to thank you for working on amendments to the Capitol
Construction Fund which was the first step to help bring some relief to
some that feel they are captured in the industry and can't get out.
One thing that can be done that is not a solution but rather a
reaction to management measures, is to reduce the fleet to a level that
is more consistent with the harvest level. To most of us this is the
most important thing that needs to be done to ward off bankruptcy of
fishing business is to help reduce the fleet through a buy-back
program. While the states need to cap the open access fishery, all of
the fleet needs to be reduce. There is not enough fish to allocate the
entire buy-out so some form of federal assistance will be needed.
Future Prevention
Money must be made available for groundfish research that utilizes
a true partnership with the scientist and fishermen.
Senator Wyden. Well, I thank you. You make a number of
points. I'll have some questions for all of you.
Clearly, it just defies common sense to not have asked you
to voluntarily go out and collect overage data. If you just
listen to some of this, it just takes your breath away that
it's just so obvious. Some of your people could do it, and some
of your people couldn't. Some of the data would be good, and
some of the data would not be so good. But, at least there
would be an effort to try some fresh approaches; same thing
with things like these surveillance systems. Again, I don't
want to advocate that the federal government go out and spend
vast sums of money on something without documentation, but they
ought to be working with all of you to test some of these kinds
of ideas out.
Your testimony is very good, and I think you heard me ask
in some detail about this question of putting people on the
ground. I don't think it's acceptable to say that once or twice
a year you're going to send somebody to local communities, and
the rest of the time everybody is going to be at a laptop in
Seattle.
So, we'll work closely with you. Excellent testimony and I
agree with many of the points that you've made.
Michelle Longo Eder has been helpful to the Committee and
this Senator on a number of occasions.
Welcome.
STATEMENT OF MICHELLE LONGO EDER, SABLEFISH
FISHERMAN'S WIFE, VICE PRESIDENT OF NEWPORT FISHERMEN'S WIVES,
AND MEMBER OF THE WOMEN'S COALITION FOR PACIFIC FISHERIES
Ms. Longo Eder. Thank you, Senator Wyden.
For the record, my name is Michelle Longo Eder. And I'm a
fisherman's wife, as well as a practicing attorney representing
commercial fishing businesses. I serve as Vice President of
Newport Fishermen's Wives, and I'm a member of the Women's
Coalition for Pacific Fisheries.
Before I get into the bulk of my testimony, Senator, I
would first like to thank you for your efforts in obtaining an
exception to the extension of the moratorium on individual
fishing quotas for fixed-year sablefish on the West Coast.
Fishermen in Oregon, Washington, and California owe you a debt
of gratitude for your efforts as to obtaining an exception to
allow stacking and to also make an exception so that the season
length, previously 9 days over the last couple of years, will
be able to be extended. That will help safety. That will help
quality. It will help price. And it will enable--with the
declining quotas, it will enable fishing businesses to combine
some of these permits to reduce negative impacts on other
groundfish for which there can be bycatch in some of these
fisheries. And it will also allow us to economically combine
some of these permits to make it financially a little bit
better for some of the fisheries. And for that, we thank you.
You made a commitment to help this fishery. The Pacific Council
made a commitment to help this fishery, as well. And we are
very appreciative.
The sad news, though, is that National Marine Fisheries
Service has indicated to us that it may have trouble
implementing stacking for this upcoming season. And I know
they're going to make their best efforts to do so. They have
told us that because of problems with the Paperwork Reduction
Act that they may not be able to implement all of it for 2001.
That is a discouraging message to us. I know that there are
Council members and others constituents who are going to meet
with National Marine Fisheries Service this week. And hopefully
whatever roadblocks there are are going to be removed, so that
we can get the relief in this fishery this year that we
desperately need.
In a second issue in regard to charter work, we have a
couple of vessels, a small one, a 40-foot, and little bit
bigger one, a 66-foot vessels. Both of these vessels have
previously participated in doing research, both with the State
of Oregon and their scientists, as well as some charter work
with the federal government.
However, that research and those opportunities are few and
far between. And although there are many individuals who are
pursuing research programs that can be of value to both the
fishing industry and the resource as a whole, we don't think
there are enough of them. And we would support and encourage
your efforts in encouraging National Marine Fisheries Service
to respond to industry efforts for collaborative research.
Having said that, the bulk of my testimony, Senator, will
relate to capital construction fund issues. My husband, Bob
Eder, and I own two vessels that are engaged in the groundfish
fisheries on the West Coast, as well as shrimping and crab. We
employ seven crew. Sablefish is one of the 83 groundfish
species that is managed by the Pacific Council. And we use
species-specific baited traps. Habitat-kind and resource-
friendly in the deployment of this gear, there is virtually no
bycatch of other species. And we also fish for pink shrimp with
trawl gear, impacting the groundfish resource, as a result of
the bycatch of species other than shrimp. My husband also
fishes with traps for Dungeness crab.
Bob has been a commercial fisherman for over 25 years. It's
been his entire career. Our two sons, now 20 and 18, though
pursuing their further education, have fished since they were
young boys. Fishing is an indelible part of our family, our
culture, and our community. We don't intend to stop.
Given that reality, I would like to direct my comments to
ways in which the federal government can assist fishing
businesses and the groundfish resource in the face of declining
stock assessments.
Our first priority would be to amend the Merchant Marine
Code and the Internal Revenue Code to first allow fishermen to
rollover funds from capital construction fund accounts into
retirement accounts; second, allow fishermen to use capital
construction funds to purchase limited entry-permits and/or
individual fishing quotas or to fund buyback plans; and then
third, allow fishermen who choose to remove their vessels and
permits from the fishery to withdraw their funds from the CCF
accounts without payment of penalty for non-qualified
withdrawals.
Why is this important? The capital construction fund was
created in 1970 to allow vessel owners to defer income tax on
profits from vessel operations, if the money is set aside in a
special account that would be used to purchase or reconstruct a
vessel. This program has had a significant effect on
capitalization in the fishing industry.
According to a report in July 1999 of the Federal Fisheries
Investment Task Force, as of 1995, the last year for which data
was available from NMFS, over $1.82 billion had been deposited
into the program and about $1.58 billion withdrawn. There were
3,500 active CCF agreements, and the net balances were about
$250 million.
These balances and the strict requirements for withdrawals
create too much pressure to make new capital investments in
fisheries at a time when the fishing industry is generally
perceived to have excess fishing capacity. Congress could help
by first removing those penalties for non-qualified withdrawals
for those who choose to retire vessels and permits from the
fishery.
Second, by providing more flexibility in the use of these
accounts, such as rollovers into IRAs; and third, allowing
those who choose to stay in fishing a mechanism to fund market-
based solutions, such as individual quotas and buyback plans,
in order to support fleet reduction.
In no way am I suggesting a termination of the Capital
Construction Fund program. Fishing is a capital intensive
business and requires a large amount of funds be available for
reconstruction when necessary. Often, the capital requirements
may exceed a given year's profits. Dangers inherent in fishing
make it crucial that vessel owners be able to make necessary
changes to their vessels, regardless of the success or failure
of a particular year. Vessels can require large, non-
discretionary capital expenditures at unpredictable times.
Banks aren't always friendly, and they are never fast. Failure
to promptly make the necessary adjustments to the vessel can
jeopardize not only the existence of the business, but the
safety of the crew as well.
The CCF program has provided a means of meeting the unique
needs of the fishing industry for the last 30 years. It's now
time to make some adjustments to the program that will allow
fishermen to end their careers and to remove capacity from the
fishery, if that is their choice, but to also provide
flexibility to those who remain.
During the last session of Congress, you, Senator,
introduced a bill that would have allowed both the rollover of
CCF funds into retirement accounts without penalty and would
have allowed fishermen to withdraw their funds, if they removed
their vessel and permits from the fishery.
This session, I'd like to ask you to go one step further:
Add to the bill language that will allow fishermen to use the
funds for permit purchases, quota purchases, and buyback
programs.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Longo Eder follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michelle Longo Eder, Sablefish Fisherman's Wife,
Vice President of Newport Fishermen's Wives, and Member of the Women's
Coalition for Pacific Fisheries
Mr. Chairman, Senator Wyden and Members of the Committee:
I am a fisherman's wife, as well as a practicing attorney
representing commercial fishing businesses. I serve as Vice President
of Newport Fishermen's Wives and am a member of the Women's Coalition
for Pacific Fisheries.
My husband, Bob Eder, and I own two vessels, 66 ft and 40 ft in
length, that are engaged in the groundfish fisheries on the West Coast.
We employ seven crew members and in 2000, had a crew payroll in excess
of $400,000.00.
We fish for sablefish, one of the 83 groundfish species managed by
the Pacific Fishery Management Council, using species-specific baited
traps. Habitat-kind and resource friendly, in the deployment of this
gear, there is virtually no bycatch of other species. We also fish for
pink shrimp with trawl gear, impacting the groundfish resource as a
result of the bycatch of species other than shrimp. My husband also
fishes with traps for Dungeness crab.
Bob has been a commercial fisherman for over 25 years. It has been
his entire career. Our two sons, now 20 and 18, though pursuing their
further education, have fished since they were young boys. Fishing is
an indelible part of our family, our culture and our community. We
don't intend to stop. Given that reality, I would like to direct my
comments to ways in which the federal government can assist fishing
businesses and the groundfish resource in the face of declining stock
assessments.
Amend the Merchant Marine Code and the Internal Revenue Code to:
1) Allow fishermen to rollover funds from Capital Construction
Fund accounts into Retirement accounts;
2) Allow fishermen to use Capital Construction Funds to purchase
limited entry permits and/or individual fishing quotas or to fund
buyback plans
3) Allow fishermen who choose to remove their vessels and permits
from the fishery to withdraw their funds from the accounts, without
payment of penalty for a non qualified withdrawal;
Why is this important? The Capital Construction Fund was created in
1970 to allow vessel owners to defer income tax on profits from vessel
operations if the money was set aside in a special account that would
be used to purchase or reconstruct a vessel. This program has had a
significant effect on capitalization in the fishing industry.
According to a report in July 1999 of the Federal Fisheries
Investment Task Force, as of 1995, the last year for which data was
available from NMFS, over 1.82 billion had been deposited in the
program and about 1.58 billion withdrawn. There were 3,500 active CCF
agreements, and the net balances were about 250 million dollars.
These balances, and the strict requirements for withdrawals, create
too much pressure to make new capital investments in fisheries at a
time when the fishing industry is generally perceived to have excess
fishing capacity. Congress can help by first removing those penalties
for non qualified withdrawals for those who choose to retire vessels
and permits from the fishery; secondly, by providing more flexibility
in the use of these accounts, such as rollovers into retirement
accounts; and third, allowing those who choose to stay in fishing a
mechanism to fund market based solutions to fleet reduction.
In no way am I suggesting a termination of the Capital Construction
Fund program. Fishing is a capital intensive business and it requires
large amounts of funds to be available for reconstruction when
necessary. Often the capital requirements may exceed a given year's
profits. Dangers inherent in fishing make it crucial that vessel owners
be able to make necessary changes to their vessels regardless of the
success or failure of a particular year. Vessels can require large non-
discretionary capital expenditures at unpredictable times. Banks aren't
always friendly, and they are never fast. Failure to promptly make the
necessary adjustments to the vessel can jeopardize not only the
existence of the business, but the safety of the crew as well.
The CCF program has provided a means of meeting the unique needs of
the fishing industry for the last 30 years. It's now time to make some
adjustments to the program that will allow fishermen to end their
careers and remove capacity from the fishery, if that is their choice,
but to also provide flexibility to those who remain.
During the last session of Congress, Senator Wyden introduced a
bill that would have allowed both the rollover of CCF Funds to
retirement accounts without penalty, and would have allowed fishermen
to withdraw their funds if they removed the vessel and the permits from
the fishery. This session, I'd like to ask you to go one step further-
add to the bill language that will allow fishermen to use the funds for
permit purchases, quota purchases, and buyback programs. Then pass it.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
Senator Wyden. Let us do this in the interest of time. I
will make a commitment to you to look at that.
Ms. Longo Eder. Thank you.
Senator Wyden. Mr. Brown--again, I'm going to have to limit
you and Mr. Moore, just because I want to give the folks in the
audience a chance to speak. In fact, I think what I'm going to
do with this panel is waive questions, as well, to give time
for the audience.
STATEMENT OF RALPH BROWN, GROUNDFISH TRAWLER AND
PACIFIC COUNCIL MEMBER
Mr. Brown. Thank you. I'm Ralph Brown. I currently own two
trawlers. And I have been a member of the Pacific Fishing
Management Program for about 4 years. It's been observed that
the problems with the groundfish started at about the time I
got on the Council. That means I'm to blame. So if you want to
know what happened, that's apparently what happened. So if me
getting off it would help, I'll certainly volunteer to be part
of that solution. It hasn't been fun.
Earlier I read over my written testimony. It's just
absolutely inadequate. And I'm going to try to supplement that
a little bit.
A year ago, a group of us got together to try to figure out
what to do over the short term with this groundfish fishery. We
came up with essentially a three-legged approach. The first
would be improve research. The second would be community
assistance. And the third is fleet reduction. It's absolutely
imperative.
Just before I came up, I downloaded from the Pacific
Fishery Management Council's site an economic--a summary of the
economic subcommittee's scientific and statistical committee
report on overcapitalization on the groundfish issue. I'd like
to read two statements that I think are actually in a
memorandum that was included with the report. The first,
``Overcapitalization is the single most serious problem facing
the groundfish fishery.'' The second statement, ``Problems
associated with overcapacity will not be resolved by waiting
for vessels to leave the fishery.''
The reason for that last statement have to do with the
latent capacity we dealt with earlier. And I don't think it's a
secret to most of you that I'm a proponent of a buyback
proposal that would not only buy groundfish permits, but buy
vessels, groundfish permits, and any associated state permits
that might go with that.
I'm not going to go into great detail on what the elements
of the program are. I am asking for your help in trying to get
this implemented. I will address the one question you asked
earlier, ``Why do I think this program will work, when other
buyback programs haven't worked around the country?'' And the
primary reason is simply the degree of capacity we're taking
out compared to other programs around the country.
The main program that people use for examples is what
happened on the East Coast, where the buyback program really
didn't have much impact. But we need to look at the absolute
numbers. You'll hear from the program people that they took out
20 percent of the active capacity. But keep in mind that they
say 20 percent of the active capacity. What they ignore is the
1,500 other permits down there waiting to come in. The
difference in this program we have--we don't have 2000 permits
out there. We have a total of 500 permits, roughly, in the
groundfish fishery here. And our proposal is actually take two-
thirds of those permits out, two-thirds, not half.
The degree of reduction is so much greater than any other
proposal, any other program, that we are taking the latent
capacity out with it. We're also, in our program, preventing
spill-over into other fisheries, which was contentious in a
previous program that we had.
Why one third rather than one half as the Council Strategic
Plan? The Council Strategic Plan basically said it takes about
half to get to where we are now. We think we need to look ahead
at some things that are coming down the road that we think are
likely to happen that will further reduce the amount of
available resource for the fleet. And we need to plan for
those.
So we started with the half, and we reduced it by an
additional 20 percent to account for the need for reserves
(Marine Reserves) that we think will happen. We've reduced the
other amount to account for the fleet funding observers. We
reduced an additional amount to account for the fleet funding
part of the science program. And we reduced an additional
amount in order to simply return some dollars to the U.S.
Treasury. When you get finished with all that, you end up with
a third.
We fully believe that eventually this fleet is going to
have to basically fund its own management, or it's not going to
be a net gain to--the fishery will not be a net gain to the
United States. It will be a net loss. And we have to become a
net gain. I'll stop at this point.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ralph Brown, Groundfish Trawler and Pacific
Council Member
Good Afternoon Members of the Committee,
I am Ralph Brown, from Brookings, Oregon. I have been involved with
the fishing industry since I was a child, and I currently own two
trawlers that fish out of the Port of Brookings-Harbor. I have also
been a member of the Pacific Fishery Management Council for the past
four years.
Like every one involved with the groundfish fishery, I have spent a
great amount of time thinking about our problems and I am not really
sure that I know what happened.
Because we know that what we did do hasn't worked, we need to be
open to other kinds of management measures and avoid the temptation to
do ``more of the same. I have several ideas for approaches that we
might try, but in the interest of time I will not go into them and
instead focus on the one program that I think could accomplish the most
at the least cost.
We need to reduce this fleet. Capacity reduction was first
identified as the councils top priority in 1994. Our strategic plan
identified capacity reduction as the top priority. Last week our
strategic plan implementation team met for the first time and once
again recommended that capacity reduction be the highest priority
issue. In fact, capacity reduction has been named the number one
priority in nearly every fishery in the world, and yet it is the one
aspect of management that this council has little ability to address.
We need your help on this.
Specifically, I am asking for your help in getting a fleet buy-back
proposal implemented.
We propose that the groundfish fleet be reduced to one third of its
current size by purchasing the vessels and all associated permits,
including permits for state managed fisheries. We propose that the
funding for this program be share between the federal government and
the industry with half coming from each. The federal government would
need, additionally, to provide a loan to the industry that would be
paid back over time in order for the program to be implemented quickly.
The industry portion of the program would be split among the
beneficiaries of the program. The primarily beneficiaries are the
pacific groundfish, pacific pink shrimp, and dungeness crab fisheries.
While the specific amounts that each would be required to pay could
still be subject to negotiations, the general theme is that each would
pay relative to the benefit received.
At this time we estimate the cost of the program at around 50
million dollars but we need to do much more analysis to better pinpoint
the true cost.
We know that buy-back proposals have not been very successful in
some areas of the country. The primary reason for this is that they
have not been large enough to remove enough of the capacity in a
fishery to achieve the intended benefit. We believe that this program
is.
In the past the trawl fleet had proposed that an industry funded
buy-back be established that would have only removed groundfish
permits. Opponents to that proposal pointed out that since vessels
would not be removed they would go into other fisheries. We have not
only addressed that issue, but are actually proposing that other fleets
be reduced along with the groundfish fleet.
We are asking for the government to help fund part of this program
because frankly, the industry doesn't have the ability to do it alone
given the current state of the fishery.
We first publicly presented this proposal in November at the
Pacific Fishery Management Council Meeting. We have tried to get it to
every segment of the fishery along the coast. The comments that we have
received back have been overwhelmingly supportive. Many of these
comments were from people that opposed our last buy-back proposal. We
literally have only heard of one negative comment.
In the interest of time I won't discuss the benefits that we
believe could be derived from this program but I do want to shortly
address the cost. We believe that this could be the cheapest thing that
the government could do to fix problems in the fishing industry. I will
use one example to demonstrate.
Senator Wyden was able to secure funding for an observer program
last year in the amount of 2.5 million dollars. This is a program that
we all agree that we need and we thank him for this. If that is all we
do however, after ten years we will have spent 25 million dollars and
still have the need for federal assistance for observers, as we will
have done nothing to make the fleet more able to bear the cost of
observers. If instead we spend the 25 million on fleet reduction, we
can make the fleet profitable enough that they shoulder the cost of
observers and therefore get fleet reduction and observers both.
We have actually tried to plan a level of fleet reduction such that
the fleet would have the ability to shoulder more of the cost of
management than just the observer program but I think that this example
is enough to demonstrate the cost effectiveness of the program.
In closing I know that this was an extremely short presentation of
a big idea, and I would be happy to answer any questions. I would be
extremely happy to work with your staff members to make this happen,
and once again ask for your help on this.
Thank you
STATEMENT OF ROD MOORE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
WEST COAST SEAFOOD PROCESSORS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Senator. For the record, my name is
Rod Moore. I'm Executive Director of the West Coast Seafood
Processors Association. Our members process the majority of the
groundfish, Dungeness crab, pink shrimp, sardines and squid
that are landed on the West Coast.
We talk a lot about disaster. What are we talking about?
There's two parts to it, really. Part one is that we don't know
how many fish are out there, and we don't even have the tools
to figure out how many fish are out there.
Part two is the suite of economic and social effects that
occur from precautionary management that's adopted in response
to the fact that we don't know how many fish are out there. So
it's a two-part problem, and it's going to require a whole
multitude of solutions, many of which we've heard today. That's
one of the things about being last. A lot of people have
already said things that you were going to put in your
testimony. By the way, for the record, I do have some written
testimony for the record, Senator----
Senator Wyden. Without objection, it will be entered in its
entirety.
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Senator.
Reduced harvests not only affect fishermen, they also
affect seafood processors, my members, who are integral part of
the communities in which they operate. Workers are laid off.
Capital investments are kept idle. Utility usage--lights water,
power--reduced, which could be great since the Governor is
calling for energy conservation, but I don't think he means
this way.
But that exacerbates the pricing structure problems for
local utility companies and residential customers. Thinking
about groundfish processing, you have to keep in mind that the
same plants that process groundfish also process crab, shrimp,
and other species. If those processors disappear, it will not
only be the groundfish fleet that has no place to go. It'll be
the crab fleet and the shrimp fleet. Groundfish is the keystone
that holds the West Coast fishing communities together. Take it
away and everything collapses.
So what do we do? Well, I have a few suggestions that I'll
summarize here briefly. First of all, we have to spend more
effort on understanding ocean environmental processes. There's
a lot of talk about regime shifts and things going on in the
ocean and so forth and so on. We're not paying a whole lot of
attention to it. It's about time--especially in regard to
Pacific groundfish--that we start looking at some of those
things and seeing if by looking at ocean productivity we can
have better predictions on what's going to happen in the future
and adjust our harvest levels accordingly.
We need to get serious about collaborative research between
the industry and the National Marine Fisheries Service. Last
August, on behalf of several industry groups, I presented
proposals asked for by the National Marine Fisheries Service
and the Northwest Fisheries Science Center. After talking to
them about it for quite awhile, they sent it on to Silver
Spring. It's now disappeared into a black hole. How do you
expect the industry to have any respect for collaborative
research and the National Marine Fisheries Service, if they get
this kind of attention? It's similar to what we're facing with
the disaster relief fund that you covered earlier.
We need to rectify the tremendous imbalance between
spending on salmon recovery and spending on groundfish
conservation and management. I don't want to impugn those
interested in salmon, but a nearly 1,000:1 ratio of spending on
salmon recovery versus spending on groundfish conservation and
management is somewhat embarrassing. As one of my members put
it, with the amount we're spending on salmon recovery in the
Columbia and Snake systems we could dig a whole new river, free
of dams, pollution, and so forth, and recover the salmon.
Congress and the new Administration need to kind of get their
priorities straightened out on this.
We already talked about getting the money for disaster
relief, and I appreciate the comments that you made and your
pointed questioning of Ms. Darm, in terms of making sure we get
the money for disaster relief, Senator. We appreciate it.
We need to improve data collection. On the good news front,
the Northwest Fisheries Science Center should be commended for
pursuing efforts to develop electronic logbooks and recording
systems. The Center has also taken steps to improve collection
and analysis of economic and social data, an area in which this
region is lacking. Unfortunately, those efforts will be for
naught, unless follow-through funding is made available.
There are other--however, there are other data collection
problems that need to be fixed, and most of these are at the
state level, so I won't go into them here. They're covered in
my written testimony.
We need to fix the law so it reflects reality. You can't
simultaneously recover two or more species of fish that compete
for the same ecological niche. You can't recover a stock to
levels that are no longer supported by existing carrying
capacity. You can't precisely calculate MSY and establish it as
a constantly fixed point with no allowance for natural
fluctuation. Unfortunately, that's what the law and the
implementing regulations expect us to do.
Our Association, along with several other groups, including
commercial and recreational interests around the country,
developed some proposed changes to the Magnuson-Stevens Act
which addressed these problems; they are attached to my
testimony. And I would like to point out, in reference to Rod
Fujita's remarks, that of the 14 members of the Pacific Fishery
Management Council, there's one working commercial fisherman,
one working processor, and two working charter operators. So
this strange influence that the industry seems to have over the
Council process kind of baffles me.
On the issue of individual quotas, we need to address them,
but we need to recognize the investments made by processors and
keep them economically viable. We appreciate, as Michelle said,
your efforts on fixed gear sablefish. Unfortunately, I know
your efforts on the processor side of that were unsuccessful,
due to objections from some of your other colleagues that
didn't get straightened out until the last minute. But we
appreciate your work on this, Senator. We need to look at both
sides of the equation, both the harvesting side and the
processing side.
And finally, Senator, I know this is an issue that you're
familiar with, because you and Senator Smith have helped us in
the past. This is the issue of the discriminatory tariff that
the European Union imposes on pink shrimp. I know you've tried
very hard to work with the existing U.S. trade representative.
We now have a new one coming on board. And perhaps during his
confirmation hearing he might be asked about this. We'd
appreciate that.
Thank you, Senator. I'll save the rest.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moore follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rod Moore, Executive Director, West Coast Seafood
Processors Association
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, my name is Rod Moore. I am
the executive director of the West Coast Seafood Processors
Association. WCSPA represents seafood processors and associated
businesses in Oregon, Washington, and California. Collectively, our
members process the majority of the Pacific groundfish, Dungeness crab,
pink shrimp, squid, and sardines landed in those states. I also
currently serve as the chair of the Pacific Fishery Management
Council's Groundfish Advisory Subpanel and as Industry Vice-Chair of
the Department of Commerce's Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee
(MAFAC).
When looking at the groundfish ``disaster'' on the west coast,
there is a natural tendency to compare it to events that occurred in
the northeastern United States over the past several years. There are
similarities: the social and economic effects are certainly the same
and the remedies sound familiar. However, the underlying problems that
caused the ``disaster'' are somewhat different.
New England has been blessed with a strong scientific
establishment, a wealth of historic data on fish populations and
environmental conditions, and support--albeit recent--for cooperative
research (there are advantages to being close to Washington, D.C.). On
the west coast, however, we have been in the scientific Dark Ages,
still using witchcraft to try to predict what is happening in a complex
ecosystem. It is time for the Renaissance to begin.
Of the 82 species of Pacific groundfish managed under the Pacific
Fishery Management Council's groundfish fishery management plan, we
have stock assessments on fewer than 25 percent. Most of those
assessments are conducted once every three years; for some species,
there has been only one assessment and for most, none. Our fisheries
surveys have been conducted every three years and most of those did not
cover the entire coast. In fact, the area south of Point Conception in
California has never been surveyed to the best of my recollection.
While efforts have been made recently to conduct annual surveys, the
results of those annual efforts are still not fully utilized, as there
is a need to reconcile different survey methods, gear, and vessels
used.
The result is that we are making management decisions based on
conditions that existed in the ocean five to ten years ago.
Just to give an example, the allowable harvest levels for Dover
sole in 2001 are based on a stock assessment done in 1998, which in
turn used data from 1997 and before. Now, compound this with the
occurrence of El Nino and La Nina events and what appears to be a shift
in ocean environmental regimes, and the result is that we don't really
have the slightest idea of what we are doing.
Of course, the management response to this tremendous uncertainty
is to use a precautionary approach, to be conservative in response to a
lack of good information. In practical terms, reduce harvest levels.
And, to further confuse the problem, add in a decision by the
Council to change its basic harvest policy in terms of how MSY is
calculated and statutory changes which were both written and
implemented in a way that defies logic and you have a true recipe for
``disaster.''
What's even more amazing is that this ``disaster'' occurred in a
fishery that has been subject to fairly strict management and in which
harvest levels were set based on the recommendations of the scientists
themselves. Here is where there is a major divergence from the
situation in New England, which for many years had no upper bounds on
its harvest levels, no catch reporting, and little enforcement and
where--some contend--scientific advice was ignored. On the west coast,
we tried to do things right.
So what are the practical effects of what's gone on? Reduced
harvests means lower income for vessels and the communities in which
those vessels are based. It means vessels will attempt to find other
fisheries in which to participate, risking a domino effect of
overcapitalization. It means social and economic burdens that others
can better describe than can I.
Reduced harvests also affect seafood processors; my members, who
are an integral part of the communities in which they operate. Workers
are laid off; capital investments are kept idle. Utility usage--lights,
water, and power--is reduced, exacerbating pricing structure problems
for local utility companies and their residential consumers.
Our Association took an informal survey of our members, asking them
to compare certain economic yardsticks between 1997 and 2000. The
complete results are not yet available, but the information we have so
far is both interesting and chilling:
a 7 percent reduction in the number of filleting stations
available;
a 44 percent reduction in the number of available filleting
stations used;
a 20 percent increase in the average cost to produce
finished groundfish product;
a 34 percent reduction in the number of skilled employees;
and
a 14 percent reduction in the number of unskilled employees.
And, while this is looking only at groundfish processing, you need
to keep in mind that the same plants that process groundfish also
process crab, shrimp, and other species. If those plants disappear, it
will not only be the groundfish fleet that has no place to go, it will
be the crab fleet and the shrimp fleet as well. Groundfish is the
keystone that holds the west coast fishing community together. Take it
away, and everything collapses.
So what do we do to try and improve conditions? There are so many
things that can and should be done, it's hard to know where to begin.
Some of the problems can be addressed by NMFS, some by the Congress,
some by the States, and some by the industry. I will try to list them
here:
1. LExpend more effort on understanding ocean environmental
processes.
NOAA has a long term research effort to examine ocean conditions
and their effect on fish productivity, known as GLOBEC. On the east
coast, GLOBEC is looking at groundfish; in Alaska, GLOBEC is looking at
groundfish; and on the west coast? GLOBEC is looking at salmon. Now,
there is certainly need to look at the effect of ocean productivity on
salmon, but to tally ignore Pacific groundfish? This makes no sense
whatsoever. Perhaps we could actually save a few taxpayer dollars if we
combined Pacific groundfish into the mix.
2. Get serious about collaborative research between the industry
and NMFS.
Last summer, a professor from Oregon State University hosted an
international meeting on collaborative research. At the meeting, I
volunteered on behalf of the Oregon seafood industry to propose a
process by which NMFS and the industry could evaluate collaborative
research projects so that we could all be comfortable that projects
being proposed were necessary, cost effective, and would not waste
scarce research dollars. That proposal was submitted to NMFS on August
1, 2000. To date, we have received some favorable initial response from
the Northwest Fisheries Science Center, but other than that--nothing.
As far as we know, the proposal--and again, this was a proposal simply
to establish a review process--is languishing somewhere in the bowels
of Silver Spring. Mr. Chairman, how can the industry expect to have any
confidence in working with NMFS if we get treated like this? Many of us
have volunteered time, money, and labor to see if we can get some more
useful data. We get lots of praise for doing so, but little ever gets
done. It's time for NMFS to be serious about collaborative research;
they can't afford not to be.
3. Rectify the tremendous imbalance between spending on salmon
recovery and spending on groundfish conservation and management.
I've already given you the horror stories on lack of data; some of
you have heard it before. I don't mean to impugn those interested in
salmon, but a nearly 1000:1 ratio of spending on salmon recovery versus
spending on groundfish conservation and management is embarrassing. As
one of my members put it, for the amount we're spending on salmon
recovery in the Columbia/Snake system, we could dig a whole new river,
free of dams, pollution, etc. It is only in the last few years that we
have seen even meager increases in the groundfish research budget,
thanks to the work of the Oregon delegation. The Congress and the new
administration need to get their priorities straightened out.
4. Show us the money.
In FY 2000, $5 million was appropriated in emergency funding for
groundfish disaster relief. We have yet to see a penny of it. If this
were a flood or a hurricane or a tornado, Oregon, Washington, &
California would be swarming with bureaucrats from FEMA, SBA, and who
knows where else. Instead, we are met with deafening science while real
people needs go unmet.
5. Improve data collection.
On the ``good news'' front, the Northwest Fisheries Science Center
should be commended for pursuing efforts to develop electronic logbooks
and reporting systems. The Center is also taking steps to improve its
collection and analysis of economic and social data, an area in which
this region is lacking. Unfortunately, those efforts will be for naught
unless follow-through funding is made available.
On the ``bad news'' front, it is time to start fixing data
collection problems. I am tired of getting calls from my member plants
asking why there are seven data samplers hanging around to collect
salmon data, but no one ever comes around to collect groundfish data.
I'm tired of hearing from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
that ``we've got federal money for salmon data collection but none for
groundfish.'' And I'm very tired of listening to discussions before the
Groundfish Management Team and the Council every year on how the
recreational catch data is unreliable and ``we can't do any in-season
management'' of the recreational fishery. Recreational fishermen are as
concerned as commercial fishermen about sound conservation and
management. NMFS, the States, the Council, and the Pacific Marine
Fisheries Commission need a concerted effort to get their act together.
6. Fix the law so it reflects reality
This suggestion is in two parts: biological and economic. From the
biological perspective, the entire complex of overfishing/rebuilding
provisions needs to be modified. You can't simultaneously ``recover''
two or more species that compete for the same ecological niche. You
can't ``recover'' a stock to levels that are no longer supported by
existing carrying capacity. You can't precisely calculate MSY and
establish it as a constant, fixed point, with no allowance for natural
fluctuation. Yet that's what the law and the implementing regulations
expect us to do. Our Association, along with several other groups of
commercial and recreational interests around the country, developed
some proposed changes to the Magnuson-Stevens Act which address these
problems. They are included as an attachment to my testimony.
On the economic side, you will hear from representatives of the
harvesting sector on the need for and suggestions on how to accomplish
a vessel and permit buyback program. While that will help resolve some
of the problems facing the harvesting sector, it does nothing to
address the other half of the fisheries equation--the processing
sector.
At some point, this committee needs to address the long term issue
of an individual quota (IQ) system. An essential part of any IQ system
will be a need to recognize the investments made by processors and to
keep them economically viable. This can be done in a number of ways:
the ``two-pie'' proposal advocated by the Bering Sea crab fleet; a
means of establishing cooperatives such as was provided for the Alaskan
pollock fleet under the American Fisheries Act; creating a closed class
of processors such as we suggested in conjunction with the fixed gear
sablefish fishery on the west coast. All of these ideas must be on the
table. Simply providing for the economic welfare of the fishing fleet
while leaving the processing sector in economic disarray is not going
to solve the problem.
7. Get serious on free trade
One of the few alternatives available to groundfish trawl vessels
is the pink shrimp fishery. The shrimp found off our coast--Pandalus
jordani--compete in the marketplace with other cold water shrimp--
Pandalus borealis--caught in Canada and Scandinavia. We used to have a
competitive market in Europe for our shrimp. However, after certain
Scandinavian countries joined the European Union, we found that their
shrimp could enter Europe at a duty rate of 7 percent, while our shrimp
enters at a duty rate of 20 percent. To make matters worse, eastern
Canada has enjoyed several successive years of high shrimp harvests.
While Canada was initially able to take advantage of a special
exception for a certain amount of their shrimp to enter Europe at a
reduced duty, that quota is now being filled by Iceland and Greenland,
leaving Canadians no choice but to put their shrimp in the U.S. market.
Thus, the discriminatory tariff practices of the European Union
threaten not only one, but two markets available for west coast pink
shrimp. Perhaps when the new U.S. Trade Representative comes before the
Senate for confirmation, the urgency of resolving the European shrimp
issue could be stressed.
I hope this testimony and these suggestions will be helpful to the
Committee. I would be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
______
Changes to the Magnuson-Stevens Act Proposed by the Seafood Coalition
Best Scientific Information Available
Section 3 (16 U.S.C. 1802) is amended by inserting a new paragraph
(_) as follows:
``(_) The term `best scientific information available' means
information that--
``(A) is directly related to the specific issue under
consideration;
``(B) is based on a sufficient statistical sample such that any
conclusions drawn are reasonably supported and not mere speculation;
``(C) is consistent with information that has been peer-reviewed
and published in applicable and appropriate scientific publications;
``(D) has been collected within a time frame that is reasonably
related to the specific issue under consideration;
``(E) is consistent with information that is available from other
reliable sources;
``(F) has been collected and presented in a manner that is not
calculated to favor any particular point of view; and
``(G) may consider, but is not based exclusively on, anecdotal
information collected from the harvesting and processing of fish.
``Information that does not meet this definition shall not provide
the basis for fishery management decisions and shall not be accorded
deference during judicial review.''
Peer Review
Section 302(g) (16 U.S.C. 1852(g)) is amended by adding the
following--
``(6) Each Council shall establish one or more scientific review
committees to conduct peer reviews of all stock assessments prepared
for fisheries under the Council's jurisdiction. Committees established
under this paragraph shall, at a minimum, consist of at least one
member from each of the committees established under paragraphs (1) and
(3) of this subsection, one member who is not affiliated with the
authors of the stock assessments under review, and such other members
as the Council considers appropriate.''
Section 302(h) (16 U.S.C. 1852(h)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (5);
(2) by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (7); and
(3) by inserting the following--
``(6) conduct a peer review of any stock assessment prepared for a
fishery under its jurisdiction, utilizing the committee established
under subsection (g)(6); and''
Essential Fish Habitat
Section 3 (16 U.S.C. 1802) is amended by inserting a new paragraph
(--) as follows:
``(_) The term ``habitat areas of particular concern' means an
area that is a discrete vulnerable subunit of essential fish habitat
that is required for a stock to sustain itself and which is designated
through a specified set of national criteria which includes, at a
minimum, a requirement that designation be based on information
regarding habitat-specific density of that fish stock, and growth,
reproduction, and survival rates of that stock within the designated
area.''
Section 303(a)(7) (16 U.S.C.(a)(7)) is amended to read as follows:
``(7) describe and identify essential fish habitat and habitat
areas of particular concern for the fishery based on the guidelines
established by the Secretary under section 305(b)(1)(A), minimize to
the extent practicable adverse effects on habitat areas of particular
concern caused by fishing which prevent a stock of fish from sustaining
itself on a continuing basis, and identify other actions to encourage
the conservation and enhancement of such habitat.''
Section 305(b)(1) (16 U.S.C. (b)(1)) is amended by inserting ``and
habitat areas of particular concern'' following ``essential fish
habitat'' each time it appears in subparagraphs (A) and (B).
Overfishing/Rebuilding
Section 3 (16 U.S.C. 1802) is amended--
(1) by amending paragraph (29) to read as follows:
``(29) The terms `overfishing' and `overfished' mean a rate or
level of harvest that jeopardizes the ability of a stock of fish to
produce maximum sustainable yield on a continuing basis.''; and (2) by
inserting the following:
``(_) The term `carrying capacity' means the maximum
population level of a stock of fish that the current state of
the environment will support while allowing for the removal of
surplus production.''
``(_) The term `maximum sustainable yield' means the largest
annual catch or yield in terms of weight of fish caught by both
commercial and recreational fishermen that can be continuously
taken from a stock under existing carrying capacity, and which
is adjusted as carrying capacity changes.''
``(_) The term `surplus production' means the biomass of fish
that can be removed from a stock of fish without harming the
stock's ability to sustain itself.''
Section 304(e) (16 U.S.C. 1854(e)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking ``(1)'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``(1)(A)'';
(B) by striking ``fisheries'' each time it appears and
inserting in lieu thereof ``stocks of fish'';
(C) by amending the last sentence to read as follows--
``A stock of fish shall be classified as approaching a
condition of being overfished if, based on the best scientific
information available and other appropriate factors, the
Secretary estimates that the stock of fish will become
overfished within two years.''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following--
``(B) If the Secretary determines that insufficient
information is available on which to conclude that a stock of
fish is approaching a condition of being overfished, the
Secretary shall immediately notify the appropriate Council and
within six months of such notification implement a cooperative
research program designed to provide the information needed to
determine whether or not the stock of fish is approaching a
condition of being overfished.'';
(2) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows--
``(2) If the Secretary determines at any time that a stock of
fish is overfished, the Secretary shall immediately notify the
appropriate Council and request that action be taken to end
overfishing and to implement conservation and management
measures to rebuild the stock of fish. In the case of a fishery
which harvests more than one stock of fish, such conservation
and management measures shall not require that fishing be
reduced for those stocks of fish which are not overfished. The
Secretary shall publish each notice under this paragraph in the
Federal Register.'';
(3) in paragraph (3)--
(A) by striking ``Within one year'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``Within three years''; and
(B) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``to end overfishing'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``to address overfishing'';
(4) in paragraph (4)--
(A) by striking ``For a fishery that is overfished'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``For a fishery involving a stock of
fish that is overfished''; and
(B) by amending subparagraph (A) to read as follows--
``(A) specify a time period for addressing overfishing and
rebuilding the overfished stock or stocks in the fishery that
is as short as possible, taking into account the status,
biology, and carrying capacity of any overfished stocks, the
best scientific information available, the needs of fishing
communities, recommendations by international organizations in
which the United States participates, and the interaction of
the overfished stock or stocks within the marine ecosystem;'';
(5) in paragraph (5)--
(A) by striking ``within the one-year period'' and inserting
in lieu thereof ``within the three year period'';
(B) by striking ``that a fishery is overfished'' and inserting
in lieu thereof ``that one or more stocks of fish in a fishery
are overfished''; and
(C) by striking ``regulations to stop overfishing'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``regulations to address
overfishing'';
(6) in the second sentence of paragraph (6), by striking ``to stop
overfishing of a fishery'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``to address
overfishing of a stock or stocks of fish in a fishery'';
(7) in paragraph (7)--
(A) in the first sentence by inserting ``and the best
scientific information available related to the fishery
management plan, plan amendment, or regulations'' before ``at
routine intervals'';
(B) in the second sentence by striking ``ending overfishing''
and inserting in lieu thereof ``addressing overfishing,
sufficient data collection,'';
(C) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
(D) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (B) and
inserting ``; or''; and
(E) by adding a new subparagraph as follows--
``(C) design and implement a cooperative program to collect
the best scientific information available for such fish
stocks.''.
Fish as Food
Section 2(a) (16 U.S.C. 1801(a)) is amended by adding the
following:
``(11) Fish are an important natural renewable resource of
food and fisheries have played a traditional and essential role
in providing high quality protein for human use.
``(12) Fish are an important source of essential nutrients,
particularly Omega-3 fatty acids, and there is agreement among
medical scientists that some of the world's most serious
diseases can be attenuated by increased fish consumption.''
Section 2(b) (16 U.S.C. 1801(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (6);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (7) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(8) To promote fisheries conservation and management that
will enhance our nation's food supply, income, and economic
growth.''
Section 2(c) (16 U.S.C. 1801(c)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (6);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (7) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(8) that conservation and management measures shall
contribute to the food supply, economy, and health of the
Nation.''
Observers
Section 303(a) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (13);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (14) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding the following--
``(15) to the extent that observers are deployed on board
United States fishing vessels or in United States fish
processing plants under the provisions of a fishery management
plan or regulations implementing a fishery management plan,
comply with the goals and objectives required under subsection
(e).''
Section 303 is further amended by adding the following--
``(e) OBSERVER PROGRAMS.--
``(1) Prior to establishing a program under this Act which
utilizes observers deployed on United States fishing vessels or
in United States fish processing plants, the Council with
jurisdiction over the fishery (or in the case of a highly
migratory species fishery, the Secretary) in which the
observers will be deployed shall establish a set of goals and
objectives and an implementation schedule for the program and a
statistically reliable method for achieving the goals and
objectives.
``(2) The goals and objectives required under paragraph (1)
shall ensure equity among the various harvesting and processing
sectors in the fishery; shall ensure that the costs of the
program are appropriately shared by all beneficiaries,
including participants in other fisheries; and shall ensure
that those fishing vessels and processing plants where
observers are deployed are not put at a disadvantage with
respect to other harvesters or processors in that fishery or in
other fisheries.
``(3) No observer program may be established until the
provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) are met.''
Cumulative Impacts
Section 301(a)(8) (16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(8)) is amended to read as
follows--
``(8) Conservation and management measures shall, consistent with
the conservation requirements of this Act (including the prevention of
overfishing and rebuilding of overfished stocks), take into account the
importance of fishery resources to fishing communities, and the
cumulative economic and social impact of fishery conservation and
management measures on such communities, in order to (A) provide for
the sustained participation of such communities, and (B) to the extent
practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on such communities.''
Optimum Yield Cap
Section 3(28(B) (16 U.S.C. 1802(28)(B)) is amended by striking
``reduced'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``modified''.
Effect on Fishing
Section 305(b)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1855(b)(2)) is amended--
(1) by striking the period at the end of the subparagraph and
inserting ``; or'';
(2) by inserting ``(A)'' following ``any action''; and
(3) by adding the following--
``(B) authorized, funded, permitted, or undertaken, or proposed to
be authorized, funded, permitted, or undertaken, by such agency that
may adversely affect the catching, taking, harvesting, or processing of
fish in any fishery managed under this Act.''
Senator Wyden. Very helpful. What I'm going to do for this
panel, because I want to give our open mike period an
opportunity, is we'll have some questions for you all in
writing, Okay? There are a number of areas I wanted to ask you
about. This is excellent testimony that I'd like to ask
questions about.
We'll excuse you, unless you would like to add anything
further.
Mr. Moore. Thank you for coming, Senator Wyden.
Senator Wyden. I want to repeat essentially opportunities
for folks to participate. The hearing record is going to be
open for 10 days. If anyone wants to submit written testimony,
it should be sent to the Senate congressional Committee in
Washington D.C. For e-mail purposes--I know many e-mail to me
regularly--I want this to go to the Committee,
[email protected]. We'll have that available
for the folks as well for e-mail.
And, let us say we've now got eight folks signed up for the
open mike period. Let's try to have folks take just a minute or
two, again the chance to amplify as well, in terms of written
comments. But, I do want to allow some time.
We've got Donna Leach and Tom Leach signed up. Did you both
want to testify?
Mr. Leach. Yes.
STATEMENT OF DONNA LEACH, HOMEMAKER AND FISHERMAN'S WIFE
Ms. Leach. I've written you numerous times. I've contacted
your office and talked to your members. I've also talked to
Senator DeFazio. And I don't know if he gave you a copy of this
pertaining to the meeting I had requested----
Senator Wyden. Right.
Ms. Leach. He's still working on it. Emily Jenkins, I sent
her copies of the petitions. I also gave your office copies of
the petitions asking for NMFS' Stock Assessment Scientists to
be fired, due to their negligence.
I do not feel that there is a lack of fish. There is a lack
of science. You've also agreed with me on this matter. The
people of America asked, when we were at a meeting, for a
survey to be done at no cost to the government. And instead of
getting a yes, I was told by Usha she had to talk to Rick
Methot. At that meeting, Rick Methot told me he did not think
it could be done. I contacted him later from our property in
Eastern Oregon. He told us it could not be done. Then I come
home to Coos Bay. Usha tells me that they made an effort, but
none of the boats that volunteered were ever asked to do that
survey. And the government hired a gentleman named Bob Shone
who is supposed to be a liaison between the people and National
Marine Fisheries and NOAA.
The people of America right now ask that this Committee not
give another dime to National Marine Fisheries, Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife, NMFS, any of them, until NMFS'
scientists come and go out on the commercial fishery boats on a
month-to-month basis for practical, realistic data--no more
playing games, no more wasting tax dollars. They have wasted
our time for over twenty-some years. They have wasted the
government's time. And it's time it ends. You have sat here and
listened to them. How many years does it take them to
accomplish something? Would you wait to balance your checkbook
for over a year? I don't think so.
My husband had a heart attack. Would I go to a plumber, or
would I go to the very best? These people are supposed to be
qualified to do this job. You hired people that are not
qualified and should be fired? And I, as a servant--and I do
have petitions right here with me from the people of America--
fire these people and get people that will do the job. Do not
give them another dime.
Senator Wyden. Mr. Leach, do you want to followup?
Mr. Leach. Yes.
Senator Wyden. Did you want to speak, sir?
STATEMENT OF TOM LEACH, COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN
Mr. Leach. Yes. Senator, I want to thank you for coming,
thank you for inviting us. And when I saw you about a week ago,
I believe it was at Coos Bay, and you said how do we take care
of my problem. You're doing it. I thank you.
And I got some stuff I kind of want to rebuttal here. Of
course our metric tons, our landings, are falling from what the
National Marine Fisheries said, because over the last 10 years
they've cut our harvest guidelines. They've cut our optimum
yield. How could it stay where it was? And ever since they
started cutting and cutting our discards have increased. That's
a total shame.
On the observers, Steve touched on it, but I want to
retouch on it again. I heard $5 million. I'd like to have that
contract. I don't know if that was for 1 year or whatever. But
for about $4,000 we can get these videos put on the boats, like
he testified to. If you take that times two hundred boats,
that's $800,000. I don't know what it would cost--it couldn't
cost a million dollars to have somebody sit at a desk and watch
the hour--you know, the hour meter thing like they talked
about. Because I suppose the average tow is six, 7 hours long.
And you've got an hour's time on the deck. And if you took that
times 200 boats, which there's about 200 boats fishing, it
shouldn't take that long.
We want to do the research. We've been doing it the last 3
years--well, 2 years, excuse me--well, actually the last 3
years. The scientists that's on our boats, government
scientists, say the data is better. They're getting more
accurate data. Why that would be I don't know. But the
scientists themselves want to go on our boat. They don't want
to go on the Miller-Freeman. And we can have four boats per day
for the price that that Miller-Freeman costs us each day. We
can have four boats to do that same survey the Miller-Freeman
does. So don't give them any more money for that Miller-
Freeman.
It was brought up here that--that they let us talk to them
at the meetings and all this. That's a bunch of baloney,
because I have been going for 5 years. They don't let us talk.
They don't even listen to us at the meetings when we're there.
I have been called a liar, and I have been told that I needed a
PAC before they would even think of listening to me. And I have
40 years experience, and I know damn well I know more what's
out there than they do. I want to read a little part that I'm
going to give you for total testimony here.
Senator Wyden. The only thing I'd say, Mr. Leach, is we've
got another six people we have to get in. So, if I could maybe
read that, I think you've said that real well.
Mr. Leach. You don't want to hear about the discard thing?
Senator Wyden. Why don't you touch on it real briefly.
Mr. Leach. Well, Okay. I'll skip over this here.
If there's such a shortage, why did I catch 2 months
complex--2 months--in 61 hours towing time, 61 hours towing
time for 2 months complex. And they have a shortage of fish.
And out of that I threw away 1,000 pounds of shore spine, which
the government says there is none out there. And it's the same
thing with the black cod. We only bring in the mediums and
large. We don't keep any smalls or extra smalls. And it goes
right on down the list.
The last thing is that I hope that the buyback program does
go through. But I think it's going to be way more costly than
what anybody images. Because if you're going to get rid of the
top producers, it's going to cost you millions, not a million
but millions.
Senator Wyden. Thank you. And, it was good to talk with you
all in Coos Bay last week as well.
[Material provided by Donna and Tom Leach follows:]
Material of Tom Leach, Commercial Fisherman and Donna Leach, Homemaker
October 3, 2000
Donna Leach,
Coos Bay, OR.
Dear Donna:
Thank you for forwarding me the petitions regarding fisheries
management. I was disappointed to hear from my staff that you did not
want to meet with senior National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
officials to discuss the decline of the groundfish fishery. As I
indicated at the Coos Bay town hall meeting, NMFS needs to better
understand how inadequate stock assessments affect fishers and their
families along the West Coast and you have the data and personal
experience to make a good case.
In addition to trying to facilitate a meeting between you and
senior NMFS officials, I have also contacted House Committee on
Resource Chairman Don Young to request a hearing on the management of
the groundfish fishery. Unfortunately, in the rush towards adjournment,
it is unlikely that a hearing can be scheduled in the next three weeks.
In the absence of a hearing, if you continue to want to bring your
concerns before Congress and Senior Commerce Department officials, I
will attempt to arrange meetings with appropriate Members of Congress
and Administration officials. However, I hope you will reconsider
meeting with senior NMFS officials in the Northwest.
Sincerely,
Peter DeFazio,
Member of Congress.
______
Press Release
To: The World Newspaper
Attention: Kathy Erickson, Editor
Date: Dec. 12, 2000
Re: Fake data forces closure to West Coast fishery
From: Tom/Donna Leach
Tom Leach, a 40 year veteran of fishing, claims that ``the U.S.
government is forcing us to shut down our West Coast fishery,'' he
announced at a recent community meeting. ``Plain and simple, the
government encouraged us to build bigger boats, to overspend, and
overcapitalize 20 years ago. Now they are cutting us back by another 25
percent.''
Leach, who owns the Jamie-K, and fishes out of Coos Bay, Oregon
says'' Dr. Rick Methot made the model and he's putting incorrect data
into it. He's employed by a government agency, the National Marine
Fishery Service, and he has free rein over everything we do.
The Magnuson-Stevenson Act calls for Economic Impact Studies to be
done before quota's are cut. However, no such studies have been done,
prior to past quota cuts. Why? If the National Marine Fishery Service
were a private business, it would be liable for law suits for not
following the law. Why are they exempt?
``Six Years ago, in Sept. of 1994, our fishery hired Nancy Douglas,
a consultant, to advise us on what we should do to protect our ocean
resources. We were concerned about the proper data being used to
evaluate the status of our current fish stock off the coast of Oregon,
Washington, and California. Douglas advised us to request a Task Force
to review the way that Stock assessments are done. She sent letters to
President Clinton, Vice President Gore and others. With the help of
Congressman Pete DeFazio, Senator Mark Hatfield and Representative
Elizabeth Furse, we obtained the Task Force Review; and we won it.''
Six Scientists from around the World went over everything with Dr.
Methot, and the National Marine Fishery Service. They told Methot to
throw his Model away, because it doesn't work. They suggested using the
fishermans Log Books, and talk to the fishermen. 6 months later, in
Feb. of 1995, Dr. Methot announced ``We don't have anything else to
use, and that's what we're going to use anyway'', and that is what we
are doing.'' said Leach.
I asked Dr. Methot about where he gets his net mortality. He
replied ``oh, it's just a known Fact''. We've done studies ourselves
with Black Cod, and we can have them up on deck for 15 minutes, then
place them in water and go back 2 days later and they are still alive.
______
For: Tom Leach
By: Nancy Douglas
Date: 12/12/00
I want to thank Mayor Verger and the representatives that are here.
My name is Tom Leach, and I have a problem. What I want to know is,
I guess, is ``How can you help us? That's what I want to know. I don't
know who to turn to.'
Are there any loggers here? It's just like when you were run out of
the woods because of the spotted owl. We are under the same thing. We
are getting shut out on bad data. Plain and simple.
Loggers, Remember how you had to clean the streams years ago? Now
they're getting paid for putting logs back in. Now they are forcing us
to go to an 8 inch footrope, and we'd like to go back to a 14 inch
footrope, before we tear up the bottom of the ocean.
The same thing with the salmon. Another government mistake. The
government used to see to it that ODFW used to put in 50 million fish a
year in the hatcheries. Private aqua-culture came along and said to the
senators and ODFW, ``Look at how much money we can save you.'' ``We'll
put in the 50 million fish a year'' and they did. But they tampered
with the genetics of the fish, consequently they were coming back in
two years instead of three. They were also undersized, and too small
for our commercial fishing industry. We've never had a natural wild
stock of silvers, it's been hatchery fish, and it always has been.
The Magnuson-Stevenson Act calls for economic impact studies before
quota's are cut, however no such studies have been conducted prior to
past quota cuts. Why? If the National Marine Fishery Service were a
private business, it would be liable for law suits for not following
the law. Why are they exempt?
I am concerned about the proper management of our fisheries. I feel
that the industry needs to be involved at all levels of management to
insure that the stock assessment process is accurate and sound. We
fishermen need to be involved at all levels of future planning. I feel
that a year-round fishery s needed for us, the fish companies, and the
people.
Now we'll get back to the background on the data. The Miller
Freeman is a 215 foot vessel that is used by the government to conduct
research. They went out and made tows, and they didn't catch anything,
because their tows were all mudded down. This went on for several
years, so they said ``there is no fish'', because they couldn't catch
anything. So they put a fisherman on board the boat. Gerald Gunnari
went, and he wasn't out there for very long, and he showed them all the
mistakes they were making! He told them all the stuff that he felt
needed changing, and they actually went out and caught fish!
They said ``That's great''. The next year Jimmy Burns went out, but
I think he worked more on the speed they needed to do, before they
could catch fish, and they caught fish! They said ``well, I guess the
fish were always there, but we'll just pretend that they were always
there now.'' So, now the data went from no fish to there were always
fish there.
We mark our wires, so we know where the gear is. I found more stuff
that is wrong but we wont get into that, but anyhow all their data has
been bad before we got two fishermen To go out on their boat.
Six years ago, Nancy Douglas was hired, as a consultant, to help us
save our fishery. It was her suggestion to write letters to President
Clinton and others, asking for a task force to review the way that
stocks were being done. We were very concerned about the data that was
being used to determine the status of our current fish stock, off the
coast of Oregon, Washington and California. With the assistance of Pete
DeFazio, Senator Mark Hatfield, and Representative Elizabeth Furse, we
got the review we asked for.
We got 5 scientists from around the world, none of ours, and we
went over all the stuff with Rick Methot. When they got it all done,
they told Rick to ``throw your models away, because it doesn't work,
and it doesn't fit. Use the fishermen's log books, use the fishermans
data and talk to them.''
Six months later Rick Methot said ``Well, we don't have anything
else to use, and so that's what we're going to use anyway''. That's
what there doing.
Prior to 1992 Dover Thorny Heads Sable Fish (DTS) were wide open.
In 1993 we were cut to 90,000 pounds. In 1994 we were cut to 60,000
pounds, a 33 percent cut. In 1995 we were cut to 50,000 pounds, a 15
percent cut from the previous year. In 1996 we were cut to 30,000
pounds, a 40 percent cut from the previous year. In 1997 there were no
cuts. In 1998 we were cut by 18,500 pounds, 40 percent cut from the
previous year. The total was 128 percent cut in the last 5 years.
The most meaningful true conservation measures in effect today were
imposed by the commercial fishers as: increasing mesh size in our trawl
gear, insuring the escapement of juveniles and small adult fish
insuring a sustainable fishery for our future; increased our footrope
size allowing more escapement of small fish under our trawl gear, being
more selective in the larger fish on the bottom, reducing our discards.
These measures make our operations less efficient but more
conservation-oriented for the future. We are the ones with vested
interest in having fish for the future. Managers/regulators have no
vested interest whether there are fish or not.
Interpretation seeming to be torqued to lower harvest levels below
profit levels for the west coast harvesters.
Inflexibility resulting in zero fishing mortality is not in the
West Coast's best interest. 10 Year rebuilding schedule is unrealistic
for some species.
How they arrived at these numbers was through going through their
interpretation of the Magnuson Act. This meant that we had to regulate
this on the conservative side. So they would take a figure, like 3,000
metric tons, that would be high and 2,000 tons would be low, and you'd
think that it would be fine.
Then the first committee, a statistical one, said ``well, let's
take that 2,500 figure and we'll cut it by 10 percent, so we'll be
safe. Then they would pass it up to the next committee, and the next
committee would say the same thing. FOUR committees later it would go
through, to bite the dust. They cut between 3,000 and 2,000 and each
one of those 4 would take another bob off from that, for being
conservative. I think that they have over-conservatized it all the way
back to the precautionary side.
Well, a little more on the data background. I've offered me boat to
them and they refused. I've asked them to go with me, and they've
refused. John Broac, said he was going with me, (he's the Dover author/
scientist), but he never showed up. I've offered to tag black cod for
them, at no cost, and they never brought the tags.
I've fished in this one place for 25 years, now there's four boats
fishing in the same place, and there's just as many fish there now as
there was then.
Now I will get into some actual facts about data. I went out this
time for our two month complex, 61 hours towing time. I had most of my
two month complex. And I threw away over 1,000 pounds of sort spine
thornyheads in the 61 hours. I'm only allowed to sell 1,000 pounds of
them, and I did.
I don't rockfish, I never have. I could catch a lot of rockfish now
too, I think they're allowing us to catch 4,000 pounds too.
The last few years we haven't been bringing any black cod in that
are small. We bring in a dollar a pound fish on the big ones, and 80
cents for the medium ones. That's not the right figure, but we throw
away the 40 cent ones. So what did the scientists say? ``Gee, there are
no recruits, no small ones!''
I have gone to the meetings for 4 and a half years, and I tell
them, and tell them, But what do they say? ``You don't have a PHD, and
we won't talk with you.'' It just seems that to me common sense would
tell them, (and who ever is out there to listen to us), that if there
was a shortage of fish out there, we would have to spend more that just
61 hours to catch our DTS, our two month complex.
On the short spine, that's the one we're regulated on. Everything
is supposedly a factor on the DTS. We don't know how far out there that
they go, their out there for 28 miles to 30 miles, and they are still
there. They may go from here to China. Nobody knows, or from here to
Japan. We've never found and end to them. Why they've got us regulated
on that, I just don't know.
Rumor is, according to the last 2 years, that scientists have been
going out on our vessels and they said there were an awesome level of
trends and increases already. They have seen it, but I'm not going to
say that for a fact. I don't know. I wasn't there, but at least it's
not going DOWN.
The way that they do their study for their data is they don't pick
a spot, and they keep going to that one spot. What they do is they pick
a different spot each year, and they say that this is where you are
going to tow. We tell them that ``Fish don't even live there.'' It's
like going into the middle of Los Angeles and looking for a herd of
Elk. Well, that's the way they do their research, no wonder it hasn't
been going very well.
Now, next years cut. We're going to get cut by another 25 percent,
that's their proposal right now. 50 percent On short spine hardheads.
It's unbelievable. 61 Hours towing time for the two month complex, and
they are going to cut us some more.
I guess the conclusion is that the government wants to replace us.
The government encouraged us to build bigger boats, to over-spend and
to over-capitalize. Let's get rid of the foreign fleet and you guys can
catch them all. They encouraged that 20 years ago. We got rid of the
foreign fleet alright, and now we're getting rid of ourselves.
My thoughts are we need your help. We need you to tell the
government that you created this problem, and now we need the buy-back
program for industry. If that's your goal, and we need to get rid of 50
percent of the boats.
I want to know, who do we need to see, and who do we need to talk
to? How do we get this thing stopped?
I have told Rick Methot that his model is truly probably one of the
best models in the world. His first equation is Q. It stands for
quantity, and he doesn't have a clue. (Where do we find fish?)
The other one is Net Mortality. I asked him ``where do you get your
net mortality, Rick?''
``Oh, it's just a known fact'' he said. Maybe it is, I don't know.
I don't have any idea of how they came up with it. We've done studies
on it ourselves. Black Cod, you can have them up on deck 15 minutes,
and put them in a pot, and put them back in the water and go back two
days later, and they are still alive. What is the net mortality? There
are so many holes in his model it's just pathetic.
I want you to ask congress to not fund Rick Methot's request for
seven Research Vessels. The Miller Freeman couldn't catch a fish, and
they bragged about that. They had the finest gear in the world. I told
them that ``without a doubt, they did, but they just don't know how to
catch fish with it.''
Don't give Methot any money for his research vessels. Let US DO the
research.
I wish they'd get rid of that 8 inch footrope . . . that is a real
killer, we're killing babies, Juveniles, their killing everything out
there. My partners tell me ``don't say that Leach''. We want to go back
to the 14 inch footrope.
That's all I have. If you have any questions, I'll be more than
happy to answer them for you. Thank you.
______
Fact Sheet
Quota Cut History
Net Changes
Prior to 1992 Dover Thorny Heads Sable fish (DTS) wide open
1993 cut to 90,000 pounds
1994 cut to 60,000 pounds = 33% cut
1995 cut to 50,000 pounds = 15% cut from previous year
1996 cut to 30,000 pounds = 40% cut from previous year
1997 no cut
1998 cut 18,500 pounds = 40% cut from previous year
Total 128% cut in last five years
The most meaningful true conservation measures in effect today were
imposed by the commercial fishers such as; increasing mesh size in our
trawl gear insuring the escapement of juveniles and small adult fish,
insuring a sustainable fisheries for our future; increased our footrope
size allowing more escapement of small fish under our trawl gear, being
more selective in the larger fish on the bottom, reducing discards.
These measures make our operations less efficient but more conservation
oriented for the future. We are the ones with vested interest in having
fish for the future. Managers/regulators have no vested interest
whether there are fish or not.
Interpretation seeming to be torqued to lower harvest levels below
profit levels for the West Coast harvesters.
Inflexibility resulting in zero fishing mortality is not in the
West Coast's best interest.
10 year rebuilding schedule is unrealistic for some species.
Staffers wrote up the changes, don't believe history, would not
support inversion. (Change Magnuson-Stevens Act) it's torqued
interpretations identify?
Was written to prove overfishing in order to ``rid our fishing
grounds of foreign vessels over 100 to 300 feet long. They are no
longer fishing 24 hours a day out here. Somewhere this system has got
to turn the corner and start supporting our own domestic fishers get
some reality in fish management.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act calls for a study of economic impact
before quotas are cut, however no such studies have been conducted
prior to past quota cuts. Why? If the NMFS was a private business it
would be liable for law suits for not following the law. Why are they
exempt?
______
Coos Bay Trawlers Association, Inc.
Coos Bay, OR., July 1, 1997
Dear Councilors and Guest:
I am concerned about the proper management of our fisheries. I feel
that the industry needs to be involved at all levels of management to
insure that the stock assessment gathering processes are accurate and
sound. We fishermen need to be involved in future planning.
I feel that a year-round fishery is needed for us, fish companies
and the people.
Right now we are looking at 2 and possibly 3 month closures. The
down fall of the closure would be the loss of jobs and the revenues
from the fresh fish market.
Since 1987, we have taken drastic cuts in harvest levels and a
limited entry of permits has come into effect. Some of our boats have
sold our drag permits and have left our fishery.
We have voluntarily reduced our efforts and increased our
efficiency to increase our conservation tactics. We have increased our
net size to 4\1/2\ inch, employed roller gear instead of 8 inch disc,
no double double cod ends, no chaffing gear which allows small fish to
escape.
Currently we are on a F35 which means 35 percent of the females are
never caught and the ODFW are pushing to F40.
Two years ago, we had five independent scientist from around the
world do a external review of our survey methodology and they found
that it was worst than we imagined. They recommended that the model be
thrown away, use fishermen input, logbooks and get sound stock data.
The survey vessel, Miller Freemen, which has conducted the surveys
for many years prior to 1993, never caught much. We got a fishermen on
the vessel and in two trips he got their gear to fishing. Now they are
catching fish. It hasn't changed any of the data yet.
Some say that there is a shortage of fish. If there is such a
shortage, why are the larger vessels fishing only 6 to 8 days per month
and the smaller vessel are fishing 8 to 10 days a month to get their
quotas.
There are some regulators that believe their education level out
weighs the fishermen actual experience.
In closing, each dollar we earn generates 8 fold back to the
community. You can help us by advising your political contacts in
fishing matters to help establish a better understanding of our
industry.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
______
To: All Groundfish Management Team members.
In 1997, industry lost 3,061 metric tons of DTS; 6,749.505 pounds
at a value of $1,422,903.45 due to small trip limits set by management!
In 1997, at the September PFMC meeting. I showed the Council how we
were going to be short on the harvest guideline and gave them a plan to
compensate for the shortfall. The Council took no action!
In 1998, industry lost 4,295 metric tons; 9,470,475 pounds at a
value of $4,400,512.00. In June at the PFMC meeting, I told them ee
would be short again on the HG. They thanked me but took no action
until it was too late in the year and we lost again.
I hope the GMT and the PFMC does its job a lot better this year.
Are you going to listen to industry this year (1999) and do better? Or
are you going to continue to take money out of our pockets anyway you
can?
The last two years, I have lost approximately $29,116.00 on the DTS
alone. In 1997, we left 3,137 MT, minus 76 MT of over fished
shortspines hardheads, equals 3,061 MT = 6,749,505 pounds DTS; we left
2,110,185 pounds on Dover @ .31 per = $654,157.35; we left 4,381,335
pounds on Longspines @ .60 per = $2,628.801.00; we over fished
shortspines by 167,580 pounds @ $ 1.00 per = $167,580.00; we left
421,155 pounds of Sable @ $1.20 = $505,866.00.
In 1998 we left 1,637 MT of Rockfish, we fished 409 MT of
unspecified rockfish which equals 1,228 MT = 2,707,740 pounds @ .32 per
= $866.476.80
We left 3,067 MT of the DTS HG
Dover 980 MT = 2,160,900 pounds @ .31 per =$669,879.00
Longspines 1,859 MT = 4,079,250 pounds @ .60 per = $2,247,550
Shortspines 4 MT = 8,820 pounds @ $1.00 per $8,820.00
Sable 233MT= 513,765 pounds @ $1.20=$6l6,518.00
3,067 MT = 6,762,735 pounds = $3,534.035.20
______
Coos Bay, OR, December 6, 1996
TO: National Marine Fishery Service
Dear Gentlemen:
I am the owner and operator of the FV Jamie K, a 60 foot vessel. I
have been a commercial fisherman on the West Coast for 39 years, since
1957.
I am concerned about the proper management of our fishery. I feel
that industry needs to be involved at all levels, to insure that the
stock assessment gathering process's are accurate and sound. We
fishermen need to be involved in future planning as well.
I feel that a year-around fishery is needed, for us, the fish
companies, and the people of the USA--so they can continue eating fresh
seafood.
I have some thoughts and observations that I would like to share
with you about our West Coast Trawl fishery. Please give careful
consideration to the following:
1. Net Size:
My net size is called a 350, and it's 74.5 feet. The head
rope is 56.6 feet.
The average vessel in this port is 74 feet in length, and
they tow a 401. Their footropes average 85 feet, with head
ropes of 64 feet.
Our foot ropes are loose and roll over the grounds. We do
not use rock-hopper footropes on the average.
We used to use 5 to 7 inch disc footropes arid smaller cod
ends. Now we use 14 inch roller gear and a 4\1/2\ inch (mesh
size) cod ends. We lose a lot of fish at the stern of the boat
(I wonder if this isn't a mistake on the net mortality rate
v.s. fish size)?
I feel that net mortality is important. I think we should go
back to the smaller cod ends, because I keep losing legal size
fish--the mesh size is too big! I feel this would insure the
accuracy of the net mortality.
Fact: The weighbacks are 2 to 3 percent on Dover. It used to
be 8 to 10 percent.
With these problems, how can you judge accurately the net
mortality?
2. The Miller Freeman:
I would like to volunteer to go on the next survey please. I
feel that my experience could be valuable to the industry, and
the surveys. Please consider me as a candidate for the trip,
and let me know ASAP if I am accepted, so I can plan my future
schedule accordingly.
At 10 a.m. on Nov. 14, 1996, I passed the Miller Freeman
vessel towing at about 175 to 180 fathoms. called them and
asked what they were catching. He said ``mud and dog sharks . .
. Lots of mud and lots of dog sharks''. I told him that this is
all they would catch inside of 200 fathoms. (Obviously the crew
does not have the knowledge to know where the fish are).
The following day, Nov. 15, 1996, I observed the Miller
Freeman in 450 fathoms. At least they did move to another area!
I presume they were going after Black Cod.
It is interesting to me that 3 weeks earlier, the fishing
conditions would have been ideal. All of us fishermen know that
every year at this time the `dogs' move through this area, in
great schools.
I think that the surveys should be conducted from June to
September, so catching dog sharks won't happen. Most fisherman
know that the months of April/May and October/November the fish
are in transition (they are moving).
Tow by tow the ocean changes.
3. Yellow Tail Rockfish:
If there is such a shortage of Yellow Tail Rock Fish in the
Astoria fishery, why do some of our Rock Fish boats run to
Astoria to catch their Rockfish quota in only one day? There is
so much Yellow Tail Rockfish in the Astoria fishery, you can't
keep out of them.
4. Halibut Bycatch:
In the future we need to keep the dead halibut bycatch so it
can be donated to the food bank. This is now a standard
practice in Alaska.
5. Halibut:
We are catching more Halibut now than ever. As an example,
we used to catch one or 2 a trip, and now we get them almost
every tow.
6. Discards:
ODF & W records show that I had a total of 5,719 total
discards of Black Cod. I had a total of 154 pounds of Long
Spine and Thorny Heads, and 8.4 pounds of Dover.
Out of the 5,719 pounds of Black Cod, my logbook shows that
2,605 pounds were alive and thrown overboard. 2,015 Pounds had
to be discarded, due to the quota. 605 Pounds I had to throw
overboard because of price negotiation problems.
My net discards of 494 pounds was all that I feel were
actually discarded. This is not bad for five and a half months
of fishing!
7. Observers:
I think we need to keep the observer program. I had an
observer on board for five and a half months. I think it's the
only way to go.
I do not like keeping an `enhanced logbook' because we
fishermen have been called liars for years. If you don't have
trust in us, why should we keep them?
8. Logbooks:
Please look at the enclosed logbook papers. I have kept
records since 1963 of every fish I have ever caught.
Pay special attention, please, to areas that I have
highlighted in yellow marker (on the following dates): 5/3/96,
5/13/96, 5/17/96, 11/14/96, and 11/16/96. Rick Methot, I am
sorry about the remarks I wrote on 5/13/96, but I was very
angry that I had to leave 2 to 3,000 dollars worth of fish
behind, per tow, due to shortages.
If there is such a shortage in the fisheries, why do I catch
my DTS in 8 to 10 days fishing per month? The larger boats out
of this port catch their DTS in a shorter amount of time.
(Their nets are bigger).
I feel that this conference is a positive move, and the fact that
minutes are going to be kept of it is important. Are you also going to
tape all segments? It might be a good idea to have the minutes
available, in their entirety, so that they can be sent to the fishermen
upon request. Also, certain portions of the tapes would probably be
very helpful for people who have not been able to attend. When you send
out the minutes, it might also be a good time to include a
questionnaire, so that you can gather some more feedback from the
people who did not attend, and also the ones that did.
I feel we need to get information out to fishermen in a timely
manner so that they understand what is being discussed about the future
of our fishery. This conference if vital and important, and I am glad
to be in attendance.
Please send me minutes of the meetings.
By the way, why are we meeting in Portland, instead of Coos Bay,
Newport or Brookings? Where do the fishermen live and fish out of?
Portland? I don't think so.
Sincerely,
Tom Leach,
FV JAMIE K.
______
Coos Bay, OR.
Mr. Tom Leach,
F/V Jamie K,
679 Kellogg Blvd.
Dear Senator Smith:
Thank you for coming to address our concerns of the Oregon
Fisheries. Our biggest problem is the ``poorest at best'' stock biomass
data of our fisheries.
The Hard Head lady, Jean Rogers, doesn't have enough data to give a
good picture of the biomass. She said time and time again during the
Stat and Star panel meetings that she assumes and guesses at this and
that. Quotas cut, Long spine 30 percent and Short spine 60 percent Yet
they cut our harvest guidelines for the year.
The Black Cod man, Paul Crone, says he doesn't have enough data for
good biomass stock assessment. (Quota cut 40 percent)
The Dover Sole man, Jon Brojack, says at our present rate, our
spawning biomass is increasing by 1 percent per year and an increase of
9 percent in the past few years. (Quota cut of 19 percent)
At the Star panel meeting, Allen McCall (chairman) said they never
had enough data to make a judgment on any D.T.S.
They cut the Widow rockfish by 34 percent; yet the boats only fish
about 20 hours per month to catch the old quota of 30,000 pounds. The
same goes for my fishing on the D.T.S. I used to fish 8 to 10 days per
month. The bigger boats only fish 5 to 8 days per month. Now it will be
less.
The fastest way to turn this around would be to increase the Hake
quotas by at least 50 percent or more. The bigger boats would be off
the Groundfish at least two more months with almost four months total.
That would save a lot. A big help would be to give the shore base
plants 50 percent of the quota. The fish plants would build new
facilities and hire more people.
The Hake are the world's best shrimp eaters and our shrimp industry
would come back good again. That could be six months more of the boats
off the Groundfish.
The shrimpers had problems last year trying to keep out of all ages
of Hake. We have changed our net mesh to a larger size and made the
foot rope larger. We are not as efficient as we use to be on flat fish.
After 40 years of experience in the fishing industry, I truly wish
we would be listened to and have as much impact as the Ph. D's do.
I have had an observer on board for six months, have kept an
expanded logbook since the start and have kept logs since before 1963.
Also, I have had a ODF&W biologist on board for a trip last year and he
said, ``Boy, there is more fish out here than we thought and less
discards then we thought.''
The government is causing us to discard more fish now. My son on
his boat and I on my boat have fished the same area now since the 70's
and the fishing is better now than back when we started.
I would like to point out the fact that the biologists don't see
any small Black Cod landed so they think there are no black cod left.
We don't keep 0 to 3 pound black cod, we have to discard fish so we
only keep the larger size of the fish. In fact, we don't even fish
where we could fill the boat with Black Cod. Last year I threw away
4000 to 5000 pound tows of 1 to 2 pound Black Cod.
Short spines have the same problem. Yet, Jean Rogers and Paul
Crones say there are none, so we get cut on the quota. I am sorry but
this action is not right.
I think we are gaining on the data side of the issue. We have
expanded logbooks, some on-board observers, got the R/V Miller Freeman
catching fish now, have participated in some surveys and hope to do
more in the future and now we are getting three boats from each port to
meet with biologists and scientists every three months to give them
better data and to just talk about conditions and other things.
What we need from you is to try to stop further cuts to quotas for
at least five years so we can get data into the model. I know there are
more fish out there then the regulators believe there is. I am not
guessing or assuming, I know because I work out on the ocean and I know
what I see.
Please consider the Hake idea very seriously.
Thank you,
Tom Leach,
FV JAMIE K.
______
F/V Jamie K
Coos Bay, OR, May 5, 1998
Mr. Tom Leach,
679 Kellogg Blvd.
To whomever is concerned:
Enclosed is a copy of my first trip of the Dover, Thorny head and
Sablefish for the month of May. The enclosures are the regular and the
enhanced logbooks. I have had an observer on board for six months and
have kept an expanded log for 2\1/2\ years.
What I am showing you is when the fishermen tell you that there are
more fish out there than your Ph. D's. Doctors and Scientists say, the
fishermen are more reliable. We can show you by our log's a very
different picture than the one that the ``experts'' paint.
I am going to explain tow by tow my discards on the Sablefish (BC)
and Thorny heads (HH).
Tow #1
We towed for 10 hours and 10 minutes in the depths of 310 fathoms
average for 1035 pounds BC and 880 pounds of HH. We didn't keep any BC
under 3 pounds. We discarded 260 pounds of BC. We didn't keep any HH
under 9 inches. We discarded 80 pounds of HH.
Tow #2
Eleven hours 10 minutes tow, average depth of 295 fathoms. Caught
2120 pounds of BC. Didn't keep any fish under 5 pounds on this tow and
for the rest of the trip. The reason we did this is because we would
have been throwing BC over the side so we made more money on the larger
fish. We caught 1470 pounds of HH which most were short spine hard
heads (SSHH). We discarded 120 pounds under 9 inches for market
conditions. On this one tow we had 2/3 of the month's quota on BC and
almost of the SSHH.
So where is the shortage of the BC and SSHH?
As you can see by the expanded log on tow 3 we discarded 109 BC
weighting 381 pounds at an average depth of 330 fathoms. We moved in
and out for depth trying not to catch big tows of BC and SSHH. If you
follow the tows in the regular log and the expanded log you can see the
area, the time, the depth average, the catch, discards and weather
conditions. We discarded 8531 pounds of BC for the trip and 645 pounds
of HH.
I have kept logs from 1963 on amounts of fish I have caught and
weather conditions. I plan on giving you a trip by trip description
from now on when I'm fishing for the D.T.S. When I am after Petrale,
English, Rex and etc. I will probably not bother you.
I am pleased that industry is getting invoked in the surveys.
Please give us some credibility at the meeting when we tell you how we
see things! Don't say all you fishermen are liars or when
you have Ph. D's you can talk to us. I have over 40 years in the
industry. I started commercial fishing in 1957.
The BC are all over the ocean, even into Canada which they are
happy with us being on the small limits. More fish for them.
If you don't understand this letter or log data, please call us at
541-888-5796.
I would like to have Rich Methot, Jean Rogers and Paul Corne come
on my boat for one day to see what I say is the gospel truth.
Thank you,
Tom Leach
______
Newport, OR, September 2, 1998
Mark Saelens, Mark Freeman,
2040 SE Marine Science Dr.
The best available data from Pacfin (ORCA)
To the PFMC on the Total Groundfish Landed Catch January through
July, 1998
Dear Marks:
Please review:
DOVER SOLE
Total 4054 (mt) delivered HG = 8955 (mt)
579 (mt) per month times 12 = 6948 (mt) for year = 2007 (mt) short
for the year = 22 percent under HG for the year. We need an increase of
215 percent per month to harvest the available HG available to us
(21,500 lbs per month) for the last three months.
579 mt per month x 9 = 5211 mt est. caught
8955(mt)-5211(mt) = 3744(mt) left for last three months
3744/3=1248=215% = 21,500 pounds per month
SABLEFISH
Total 917 mt delivered HG = 2282 mt
313 mt per month x 12 months = 1572 mt for the year
710 mt short for the year = 22% under HG for the year
We need an increase of 280 percent per month to harvest the
available HG available to us. 8400 pounds per month for the last three
months
131 mt per month x 9 = 1179 mt estimate caught
2282mt -1179mt = ll03mt left for last three months
1103mt/3months= 367mt = 280% =8,400 pounds
LONGSPINE THORNYHEADS
Total 1175mt delivered 4123 HG
168 mt per month x 12 months = 216 mt for the year
2107 mt short for the year = 58l% under HG for the year
We need an increase of 581% per month to catch the HG for the
year. 25,850 per month for the last three months.
168mt per month x 9 months= 1512 estimated catch
4123mt-1512mt = 2611 mt last three months
2611mt/3 months = 870 mt = 51% = 25850 pounds per month
SHORTSPINE THORNYHEADS
Total 629 mt delivered 1193 mt HG
90mt per month x 12 months = 1080 mt for the year
118 mt short for the year = 10% under the HG for the year
We need to increase of 141% per month to catch the HG for the year
2820 pounds per month for the last three months
90mt per month x 9 months =810 mt estimated catch
1193mt-810mt = 383 mt last three months
383mt/3 months = 127 mt = 141%= 2820 pounds per month
WIDOW ROCKFISH
All gear= 1882 HG 4276
18827 = 269x9 = 2421
4276- 2421 = 1855/3=618 mt per month = 229% increase in all
fisheries
YELLOWTAIL
All gear 1654.8mt HG =3118
1654/7 = 236x9 2124
3115-2124=994/3=331 per month= 140% increase
CANARY
All gear 898.6 HG= 968
898.6/7= l28x9= 1152
968-l152= -184/3= -61 = -47%
1. As you are charged to see that the harvest guidelines are to be
followed and not overfished, it seems you would see to it that we
(industry) would have limits set high enough to be able to catch the HG
when you have set the limit too low for us to reach the HG and fish
will not be harvested and left in the ocean.
2. Things would not be quite so bad for industry if we could at
least catch the HG of each specie after all the cuts that have been
handed down to us over the last 5 years.
Boats tuna fishing in the months of August and September and in
December, some trawl boats go crabbing. We could easily catch the LS
out in the deep without many problems on the SS limits.
3. Last year we left 72,771,924 pounds of harvestable fish on the
table. This year, we will leave 4942 mt DTS if the limits are not
increased. We need to increase the limits in 1999 so we don't have this
same problem again. We also had this problem last year.
4. Out of 16553 mt DTS we left 4952 mt; we left 29.9 percent of
the HG because of the low limits.
______
Coos Bay, OR, August 21, 2000
Hon. Peter DeFazio,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressmen DeFazio:
I am writing on behalf of my town, its economy and its resources.
There has been a major issue in your state since the 1980s. Everyone
has put in time dealing with the problem caused by government agencies.
That problem is a factor that could destroy Oregon's economy,
businesses and life as well as people.
This matter is in regard to Dr. Richard Methot and his model
builder and how data points are used or not used depending on the
desired outcome the government wants to push. This is also about how
industry has been treated by these agencies while they manage the
fisheries. Time is running short as are budgets and tempers.
What did congress set as actual scientific data with regards to
assessments and the collection data to manage the economy of the ocean?
We need to spell out what is legal scientific data and what is required
research to correctly manage our ocean's natural resources. It has
become apparent that without guidance from a higher authority, NMFS
will continue to use science that is unaccountable to manage our
fisheries which has lead us into the disaster we now face.
Congress delegated agencies that were to include public and
industry. But when you try to be a part of the process, you're degraded
and called liars and told to shut up, or to get a PH D and then they
will talk to you. Did congress factor the years of experience and
knowledge some of these industry people have and the vital, long-term
oceanic information they possess? Or did congress leave it up to NOAA,
NMFS and the Councils to figure out what data and in what quantities
were needed to manage this resource correctly?
What is industry's role in fishery data and management? Why hasn't
congress forced the use of long-term fishermen knowledge to be used in
connection with scientific data to manage our fisheries? Why are our
fishery data gathered and managed by people who spend maybe an hour a
year on a fishing boat instead of gathering some knowledge of the ocean
from people that spend hundreds of hours at sea every year? Fishermen
have far more understanding and knowledge of the ocean then the fifty
people on these committees because they are true stakeholders in the
management of this natural resource. There has been a constant
``bashing'' of the industry during meetings, in newspaper and
television reports, by environmental groups via their web sites,
government agency web sites and even congress with bills like 4046
which you co-sponsored. Is congress willing to wipe out a historical
industry that has been here since before Jesus?
Why has this accountable science been allowed to go on without
congress stepping forward to find out what was wrong with management
practices and how to aid the industry in their effort to educate the
managers for the betterment of everyone? The managing agencies have
wrecked havoc for too long. The time is now for congress to step up to
bat and set some parameters for science to follow. As elected
officials, its your duty to represent the people. Those you represent
want congress to see 2 representatives from and for commercial industry
and one mayor so they may explain how budgets will be massively
affected and towns destroyed due to the deliberate attempt by Rick
Methot and his model builder to control the ocean.
Efforts to get Rick out on a boat at no cost for the purpose of
data collection and observation has failed for over 5 years now. I have
made the offer to Rick myself and so have others. Rick's goal is to
have congress allocate funds to build a fleet of research vessels. He
resents industry input into the management process and his intent is
apparent. The scientists say they can not find a way to incorporate
industry data into the management process. Mv dogs are treated better
then these agencies treat the industry and the public. I don't own a
boat but I attend meetings and see how things are done, hear the lies
about data and how it is used or not used. Even Bob Schoning who was
supposed to bring industry and agencies together favors the agencies
and misleads industry about their data.
Oregon can't afford to loose 50 percent more boats based on poor
and mishandled surveys and data for which the peer review declares to
be no good. Did congress read this vital document? If no, then why
haven't they? And if they did, why didn't they stop the fraudulent
surveys and come to industry and allow them to prove the real status of
stocks and quality of life in the ocean?
It is quite clear that these agencies have had no reason to do a
good job as long as they collect their pay and congress doesn't
question too much about the ocean. But we, as a whole, feels it is time
congress heard the truth as industry has made many attempts to try and
control the damage done under these government agencies.
So in conclusion Congressmen DeFazio, we ask you to let your fellow
congress people that the people from your state demand to be heard
before these meetings go any further. Because the data is biased,
untrue and full of lies for one reason and because of one man, Rick
Methot. The reason to gain fame and manage a fleet of vessels from
congressional allocations.
It time the tables are turned and industry is allowed to prove to
congress and America its regard for the ocean and its stocks. This is
not an unfair request. After all, Mr. Methot has had more then his time
to mislead America and congress. People want their turn at bat to show
America they did not destroy the ocean or its economic future.
So we assume you will do your duty to those who elected you and who
trust you to defend the honor of your state and restore hope to its
communities and the working class. Congress needs to know the major
factors effecting the economic loss of the west coast fishing fleet.
I would like to invite you to our town hail meeting on Friday
August 25 from 1 PM to 6 PM because we consider this meeting vital to
out existence in the future.
Sincerely,
Donna Leach
Thank you on behalf of my Mayor JoAnne Verger, my town and the
working class.
______
Mr. Chairman and Committee Members:
My name is Steve Davis and I operate the F/V Sea Blazer out of the
Columbia River.
I have been involved in the fishing industry all of my life--since
sitting on the anchor coil behind the mast of a 36' double ender while
my stepfather gaffed salmon from the cockpit. During this time most of
the management that I have seen has been mismanagement, from the near
total elimination of some fisheries to darn near starvation seasons or
limits on others, which is what you are and have been doing to the
trawl fleet for the past 10-15 years.
The lack of correct and current data has lead to imposing limits
and restrictions which are causing more and more waste of good product.
Fish and shellfish are not and never have been anchored to one spot,
they have fins and tails to move around with. What is in one area one
year may not be there the next, a lot of them come and go to different
areas and have cycles of moving. Myself and I'm sure my fellow
fisherman have seen this. We are required by law to keep logs but I see
no evidence of their use, we are out on the ocean and see what is going
on and it is a ridiculous waste.
I do not understand how you as a committee and the GMT, with no
PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE in the Industry feel you can govern and regulate
those of us who do. We are working harder trying not to catch fish now
than when we could!
We (the fishermen) individually and as a group have more than
enough years experience to be considered EXPERTS OR PROFESSIONALS in
our field, but since degrees are not given for our years of involvement
our voices and knowledge seem to go unheard. I feel it is time for you
to quit sitting at computers trying to make up formulas that are not
even based on factual information and start LISTENING to what's being
said by the people who are actively involved in this industry.
Senator Wyden. Let's go now to Mr. John Griffith.
STATEMENT OF JOHN GRIFFITH, COMMISSIONER,
COOS COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Senator Wyden, for holding this
hearing on the Oregon Coast. My name is John Griffith. I'm a
Coos County Commissioner. The other members of the Coos County
Board of Commissioners are here. I've seen some others County
Commissioners here before at this hearing today.
The reason I think the County government is very interested
in this is that these are Oregon Coast families. They're part
of our economy. And as it was mentioned, we don't have any
throw-away economies.
This was brought up, the comments I want to make, somewhat
today. It was touched on. But I'd like to go into a little bit
more. I ask today that you consider my request that the
incoming Presidential Administration create an executive order
to nullify Executive Order 13158 by the current Presidential
Administration.
Executive Order 13158 establishes Marine Protected Areas
and a network of MPAs. In my opinion and in those of the
scientists I'm aware of who has given them, there's no science
exists to create a network of MPAs, as envisioned by Executive
Order 13158. Not enough is known about the ocean or the
effectiveness of the MPAs to create a network of them.
Furthermore, although there is limited evidence that marine bio
increases in MPAs, there is only speculative circumstantial
inference that MPAs increase marine bio outside of the marine
protected areas.
Oregon has many areas now that are not fished with bottom-
encountering trawl gear. The entire territorial sea of Oregon
is a de facto MPA. Several hard bottom areas also run fish by
trawl gear, adding many more square miles to that category.
Additionally, Oregon currently has five--there's a few more--
but five cable corridors that these five are off-limits to
trawl gear for one mile on both sides of the cable out past the
edge of the current fishing capability. An unknown number of
cables would probably cross current fishing grounds in the
future, adding to the off-limits square mileage. Furthermore,
with the new minimum size foot ropes on trawl gear, many
thousands of square miles of bottom off the Oregon Coast has
become off-limits to bottom trawl fishing, which you noted in
your questions to Rod Fujita.
The desire of zealous preservationist groups and of the
foundations that finance them in establishing MPAs off Oregon
is not genuine for the protection of ocean resources, as they
claim it is. Given that we have thousands of square miles of de
facto protection areas off Oregon, their desire to designate
MPAs by leaps and bounds can only be to give them leverage in
bringing litigation against legitimate issues of marine
environment. By having designated MPAs, they can cite any and
all uses in the MPA and outside of it that they don't like as
having a possibly deleterious effect on the MPA and move a
court to shut down those uses.
With ever-growing restrictions on our commercial and sport
fishing and the negative results they have on our economy and
our communities that depend at least in part on fishing, I call
on Congress and the new Presidential Administration to relieve
us of the burden of poorly contrived, unscientific, and
politically motivated Executive Order 13158.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Griffith follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Griffith, Commissioner, Coos County Board of
Commissioners
Committee members:
My name is John Griffith. I am a Coos County, Oregon, commissioner
and an ocean person. My comments are my own, and are not necessarily
agreeable or disagreeable to the other two members of the Coos County
Board of Commissioners.
I ask today that you consider my request that the incoming
Presidential Administration create an executive order to nullify
Executive Order 13158 by the current Presidential Administration.
Executive Order 13158 establishes Marine Protected Areas and a network
of MPAs.
In my opinion and in those of every scientist I am aware of that
has given one, no science exists to create a network of MPAs as
envisioned by Executive Order 13158. Not enough is known about the
ocean, or the effectiveness of MPAs to create a network of them as
envisioned by Executive Order 13158. Furthermore, although there is
limited evidence that marine biota increases in MPAs, there is only
speculative, circumstantial inference that MPAs increase marine biota
outside of MPAs.
Oregon has many areas now that are not fished with bottom-
encountering trawl gear. The entire Territorial Sea of Oregon is a de
facto MPA. Several hard bottom areas also are unfished by trawl gear,
adding many more square miles to that category. Additionally, Oregon
currently has five undersea cable corridors that are off-limits to
trawl gear for one mile on each side of the cable, out past the edge of
current fishing capability. An unknown number of cables will probably
cross current fishing grounds in the future, adding to the off-limits
square mileage.
Furthermore, with the new minimum size of footropes on trawl gear,
many thousands of square miles of the marine bottom off Oregon has
become off-limits to bottom-trawl fishing.
The desire of zealous preservation groups, and of the foundations
that finance them, in establishing MPAs off Oregon is not genuine for
the protection of ocean resources, as they claim it is. Given that we
have thousands of square miles of de facto protection areas off Oregon,
their desire to designate MPAs by metes and bounds can only be to give
them leverage in bringing litigation against legitimate uses of the
marine environment.
By having designated MPAs, they can cite any and all uses in the
MPA and surrounding the MPA that they don't like as having a possibly
deleterious effect on the MPA, and move a court to shut down those
uses.
With ever growing restrictions on our commercial and sport fishing
industry, and the negative results they have on our economy and our
communities that depend, at least in part, on fishing, I call on
Congress and the new Presidential Administration to relieve us of the
burden of the poorly contrived, unscientific, and politically motivated
Executive Order 13158.
Thank you for your consideration, and for holding this field
hearing on the Oregon coast.
John Griffith
Senator Wyden. All right. Thank you very much, John. We
will look at your ideas there.
Mr. Peter Huhtala, is he here? All right. Onno Husing.
STATEMENT OF ONNO HUSING, DIRECTOR,
OREGON COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
Mr. Husing. Thank you, Senator. Again, Onno Husing,
Director of the Oregon Coastal Zone Management Association.
For the record, I remember sitting with you on this stage 2
years ago listening to the some of the commitments, not seeing
they've been followed through; interesting to learn there's
things above the line and below the line. I ask you to look a
little more into that. We see it at the state level, too,
things get above the line and below the line.
The folks--you mentioned the folks from GAO came out here,
and they're going to ask hard questions. Your colleagues are
going to ask you hard questions about fleet restructuring. When
the GAO guys came out here, we had--in Newport--put them in a
room with a bunch of folks, and we talked about some of the
challenges of fleet restructuring. And it wasn't the most
coherent discussion. I think a lot of us were just hammering
these ideas back and forth. And at the end of the day, I saw
them leaving the room, and I smiled, and I waived at them. And
I said, ``Oh, don't worry. You'll figure this out.'' And the
two of them looked at me and said, ``No. You'll figure it
out.'' And they didn't quite understand what we really wanted
to do in those days.
I think what Ralph Brown said is that every one of these
programs need to be evaluated on their own merit and what we're
trying to do to look at specific circumstances. But if you walk
away from here, one message I have is that everything becomes
easier with fewer boats in the fleet. It's not much more
complicated than that. Trying to get absolute numbers on
exactly how many boats, how much money, how it's going to work
all in advance I think is placing too great a burden on us.
In this case, we need to get in the ballpark of lowering
the number of boats, so that market forces can then pick up and
take up the slack after that. I don't think you would hold
that--knowing every single detail in advance, we wouldn't ask
Proctor and Gamble to know exactly whether everyone's going to
buy the last tube of toothpaste before they came out with a new
product. And we shouldn't hold people to too high a standard on
this fleet restructuring. Give us some money. We've got some
brains and energy in this industry. We can figure out a way to
make it work on the ground. But we don't want to invest too
little. And if we do, then it would be a waste.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Husing follows:]
Prepared Statement of Onno Husing, Director, Oregon Coastal Zone
Management Association
I want to thank the Senate Commerce Committee for holding this
hearing today in Newport, Oregon regarding the ``groundfish crisis'' on
the West Coast. By holding this hearing on the Oregon Coast, the
Members of the Senate Commerce Committee can get a first hand look at
the challenges facing fishing families and businesses here in Oregon.
Please know many fishing families and businesses are also impacted in
Washington State and California. It means a lot to us that you crossed
the continent to be with us today.
The past few years have been trying times for many people in the
West Coast fishing industry. Individuals holding federal groundfish
harvest permits have seen their harvest rates for groundfish plummet 10
percent or 15 percent each year for almost five years in a row. After
several years of this crisis, federal fishery managers still can't tell
us when the cuts in groundfish are going to end.
These cutbacks have taken an enormous toll on many families and
businesses in coastal Oregon. We have seen people and businesses go
broke. We've seen people leave the industry. Others struggle to stay on
in the industry, steadily depleting their business and family
resources, waiting to see how things are going to shake out. Some fish
plants have already closed. There's another group of folks in the West
Coast fishing industry that are doing better during this groundfish
crisis because they hold not just groundfish permits but other fishing
permits, such as Pacific Whiting, Pacific Shrimp or Dungeness Crab, or,
they have access to fisheries in Alaska. Still, the impacts of the
groundfish cutbacks continue to ripple throughout the entire fishing
industry.
In Oregon, we've run out of new, major commercial fishing industry
opportunities. In the past, if one fishery failed (or was steeply
curtailed by the government), fishermen developed new fisheries. That's
not the case today. The problem is simple. There is far too much
harvest capacity in the West Coast groundfish fleet due to the sharp
federal cutbacks in West Coast groundfish quotas.
I submit the challenge before us today is finding a way to downsize
the West Coast fishing industry in the most rational and humane manner.
I believe the federal government must partner with West Coast fishing
communities to help us make it through this tough, historic transition.
In my opinion, a federally funded fleet reduction program, in whole or
in part, is the only realistic way to restructure the West Coast
fishing industry and mitigate economic hardship in coastal communities.
At present, many people are ``trapped in the fishing industry''.
Why are they trapped? Well, for many years, people in the West Coast
fishing industry used their boats and permits as retirement plans. In
the past, you could always sell these assets--the vessels and the
federal and state fishing permits--or, have someone else to work the
boats. Prior to the groundfish crisis (about five years ago) individual
limited entry groundfish permits sold for approximately $250,000. And,
fishing vessels routinely sold for $500,000 to $750,000. Now, because
of the over capacity, groundfish permits have lost most of their value
and permits are a direct consequence of new, federal fishery management
policies codified under the 1996 Amendments to the Magnuson Stevens
Fishery Act. Because the market for boats and permits on the West Coast
has been virtually demolished by these new federal fishery policies,
market forces alone can't rescue the industry.
In November 1999, after a ``Fish Summit'' with Senator Gordon Smith
and other officials in Charleston, Oregon, a number of representatives
of West Coast fishery organizations asked the Oregon Coastal Zone
Management Association (OCZMA) to help organize a three-state fishing
industry working group to formulate a Groundfish Disaster Plan to help
fishing families make it through the groundfish crisis. This working
group, made up of very diverse interests, including members of the
conservation community, put aside their differences and developed three
major planks of a Groundfish Disaster Program platform:
Community Assistance (to help individuals and families that
wish to leave the fishing industry access retraining dollars
and other community resources;
Enhanced Fisheries Research (to finally get some better data
on West Coast groundfish and other fisheries);
Fleet Restructuring (to help the fishing industry rationally
downsize so the size of the fleet matches the available
resources).
And, since early 2000, the Pacific Fishery Management Council
(PFMC), has finally initiated a serious Strategic Planning exercise to
start addressing the short and long term issues facing the West Coast
fishing industry. Many of the people in our Three State Working Group
participated in the PFMC's strategic planning effort. The PFMC's plan,
however, remains quite conceptual in nature. A lot of hard work needs
to be done to fill in the details of that Strategic Plan.
During this past year, Congress took some good first steps to
address the groundfish crisis. First, the $5 million in the FY 2000
Emergency Supplemental budget. Second, an additional $2.275 million for
observer coverage in the FY 2001 budget. For these actions, we are
deeply grateful. However, the work is far from complete. Again, here we
are, almost five years into this West Coast groundfish crisis, and no
one in the federal government can tell people in the fishing industry
how much lower groundfish harvests are going to go. People in coastal
communities feel like there's a cloud of uncertainty hanging over their
heads, year in and year out. The profound uncertainty makes business
planning next to impossible and leaves people feeling embittered.
I urge the members of the Senate Commerce Committee to work with us
on a fleet restructuring plan that will put the West Coast fishing
industry on a new footing. We should have learned from painful
experiences with the downsizing in the timber industry in the West that
we need to help the economic and social refugees of new federal
conservation policies. It is the fair and smart thing to do. By working
together, we can help coastal communities and coastal families adjust
to these profound changes in federal policy.
The members of the Senate Commerce Committee should know there's a
good future ahead for the fishing industry on the West Coast. It will
be a different West Coast fishery--a fishery that is smaller and much
more in tune with the conservation needs of the fishery resource. With
the help of Congress, we can all arrive safely on that other shore.
Attachments
Respectfully submitted by,
Onno Husing,
Director, OCZMA.
______
Senator Wyden. Very good. Jim Golden.
STATEMENT OF JIM GOLDEN, ACTING DIRECTOR, MARINE
RESOURCES PROGRAM, OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
Mr. Golden. Senator Wyden, thank you for coming and
listening today. My name is Jim Golden. I'm the Acting Director
of the Marine Resources Program here in Newport. I'm trying to
fill Neal Coenen's shoes since his appointment to the
Governor's Office.
I think that perhaps Ralph Brown may have said it earlier
today. I had to step out briefly. But in a discussion earlier
this morning with Ralph, the solution rests on a three-legged
stool here. And I had liked his term that--because there are
three important elements.
The information, the science needed to conserve and manage
resources and species in their habitats is needed, and we need
more of it. And I think that was heard in ample testimony
today. I think the effort reduction to match the resource that
we have is another key leg of the stool. We've heard that
today. And the social and economic support for those
transitioning out of the groundfish fisheries is also needed.
And we--we've heard that several times today.
With respect to No. 1, I think we do have some good
partnerships with OSU, with Sea Grant, with the National Marine
Fisheries Service, and with the fishing industry to partner
together to improve the science needed to protect and manage
our resources. I just want to say that we're committed to
improving that collaboration and those partnerships, and we
look forward to National Marine Fisheries Service working with
the industry and developing new partnerships, also in their
planing and coordination of their research with state- and
industry-funded research activities.
With respect to No. 2, we support--and I support all of the
comments that Neal made today with respect to effort reduction.
And we also laud the industry's efforts to try to accomplish
this on their own and with support from others and from
government.
I have one issue with respect to No. 3. I recently started
working with Ginny and Flaxen and others on the groundfish on
disaster relief project. We do need approval of the state match
that's associated with research projects, new research
projects, and efforts that are addressing the groundfish
crisis. It's not just--there's three legs on the stool. One of
them is in information. And I believe that we've tried to
justify on a couple of occasions with National Marine Fisheries
Services how these funds are being directed toward addressing
the groundfish crisis and the needs for assessment. We think it
makes real good sense to use those efforts in in-kind match
with the federal dollars that we need. And I'll--just for your
record today, I'll provide you with the copies of the spending
plan and the two letters that we've written to Dr. Stephen
Freese, the National Marine Fisheries Service, encouraging them
to give us some kind of a sign that this is Okay to do and that
we can move ahead with the details of the spending plan.
Again, thank you for coming today and listening to us.
[Material provided by Mr. Golden follows:]
Material Provided by Jim Golden, Acting Director, Marine Resources
Program, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Portland, OR, September 22, 2000
Dr. Stephen Freese,
National Marine Fisheries Service,
Seattle, WA.
Dear Steve:
With the assistance of Oregon Sea Grant Extension Specialists
Flaxen Conway and Ginny Goblirsch, we have prepared the enclosed
request and spending plan for the FY 2000 emergency appropriation in
response to the West Coast groundfish fishery disaster.
As you are aware, the conservation measures and commensurate
reductions in groundfish harvest opportunities in 1999 continued in
2000, and the latest stock assessments indicate further reductions will
be necessary in 2001. The Pacific Fisheries Management Council's draft
Strategic Plan for groundfish calls for at least a 50 percent reduction
in fleet capacity to scale fishing back to match future expected
harvests now that the fishery has gone through an extensive fishing
down process. In recent years, many individuals and families have
already had to make hard choices out of economic necessity and
desperation. Council members and state fishery managers expect these
conditions to persist during the foreseeable future.
Federal appropriations for disaster relief are needed as soon as
possible to assist those transitioning out of the industry. The
$1,750,000.00 of federal funds will help provide the necessary support
in direct benefits to qualified candidates to help them with the steps
of the difficult process of leaving one's livelihood, retraining, and
transitioning to other jobs. The Department has identified appropriate
match dollars and is prepared to commit its share of the $583,333.00
needed. Details of the different state match sources will be outlined
in Oregon's full grant proposal. Additional matching funds will also be
available from Oregon Economic and Community Development Department,
Oregon Sea Grant Extension, and Oregon Coastal Zone Management
Association.
I want to thank you in advance for consideration of this proposal
for disaster relief. I look forward to working with you to implement
this much-needed program.
Sincerely,
James W. Greer,
Director.
cc: Roy Hemmingway
Doris Penwell
Flaxen Conway
Ginny Goblirsch
Neal Coenen
Jim Golden
______
Spending Plan For FY 2000 Emergency Appropriation In Response to the
Disaster in the West Coast Groundfish Fishery
State of Oregon
Situation
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), on behalf of the
Secretary of Commerce, declared a commercial fishery failure in the
Pacific Coast Groundfish fishery on January 19, 2000.
Congress appropriated funding of $5,000,000 in response to the
disaster in the West Coast groundfish fishery. The states were
specifically directed to use the funds to: 1) pay compensation to
individuals who have suffered a direct negative impact from the West
Coast groundfish fisheries disaster; 2) provide direct sustaining aid
to such fishermen; and 3) provide assistance to communities that are
dependent on the West Coast groundfish fisheries and have suffered
losses from such disaster.
Congress directed that the states of California, Oregon and
Washington divide the funds between the three states in proportion to
the impact of the disaster in each state. Discussions were held with
the three State Fish and Wildlife Directors at the August 28-30, 2000
meeting of the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission and, with
input from industry and congressional representatives, the states
agreed to allocate the funds as follows: 35 percent each to California
and Oregon, and 30 percent to Washington. This represents a sum of
$1,750,000.00 to Oregon. A 25 percent ($583,333.00) matching amount
from Oregon is required to receive these funds.
Oregon's point of contact for its disaster aid program is James
Greer, Director, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. The funds are
to be administered by the National Marine Fisheries Service in
cooperation with the Oregon Economic and Community Development
Department and/or Oregon Employment Department, and Oregon Sea Grant
Extension.
Background
In anticipation of the West Coast groundfish disaster declaration,
a three-state committee was formed to recommend industry and community
needs. This committee met throughout 1999 with leadership provided by
Oregon Coastal Zone Management Association. Further assistance was
provided by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and Oregon Sea Grant
Extension. The recommendations of this committee covered three major
areas: 1) family and community assistance; 2) research and 3) fleet
restructuring.
The experience and expertise brought to this group by Oregon Sea
Grant Extension addressed the family and community assistance portion
of the recommendations. Since 1994, Oregon Sea Grant has provided
funding for a unique peer outreach project called the Fishing Families
Project (Project). The Project worked directly with fishing families in
Oregon's port communities to provide practical information on ways to
deal with the economic, personal and social stresses that are a part of
the commercial fishing industry. An important component of this project
was the Fishing Family Coordinators. They were fishermen's wives who
lived in coastal ports and, together with Sea Grant personnel, were
able to identify and direct project activities that directly addressed
needs and interests of fishing families. Needs identified by the
families included budgeting in a cyclic industry; debt consolidation/
taxes; diversification/business management; fishing marriage/absentee
partner; coping skills/stress/anger management; grants/direct aid;
health insurance and communication skills. The Project also worked
directly with community resource providers and agencies to enhance
their understanding of the needs of fishing families and address
barriers fishing families met when attempting to obtain services.
Additionally, the Project brought information to fishing industry
families about resources available in their communities to help with
their business and family needs. The Project also provided family
members with training in forming or strengthening effective support
networks. This training bolstered three Oregon fishermen's wives
organizations and helped to form the region-wide, multi-gear, multi-
fisheries network called the Women's Coalition for Pacific Fisheries.
The success of the Project's outreach model led to discussions in
1998 with community resource providers about how to incorporate peer
outreach into fishery-related disaster relief plans. A team of state
and local partners worked collaboratively to come up with a possible
approach. With the support of the team, the Community Services
Consortium in Newport initiated a small pilot program in January 1999.
In fall of 1999, the plan was finalized for a coast wide pilot program
in response to the anticipated West Coast groundfish disaster.
Beginning in April 2000, the state of Oregon provided funding for a 7-
month, coast-wide pilot program called ``Groundfish Disaster Outreach
Program'' (GDOP), a continuing program that promotes existing training
resources and community programs. The GDOP is administered by the
Oregon Sea Grant Extension Program with funding support from the Oregon
Economic and Community Development Department, Oregon Rapid Response
Program, and Oregon Sea Grant Extension.
Innovative Response
The purpose of the GDOP is to create, deliver and evaluate a peer
outreach program that assists people in accessing support, resources
and training and assists community resource providers in effective
outreach through improved communication to this population who are in
need of support. The audience includes people in the groundfish fishing
business including fishermen, business partners (wives), fish plant
workers, industry support service workers (gear stores, fuel docks,
etc.), charterboat workers and local, state and federal resource
providers.
The leadership team of Flaxen Conway, OSU Department of Sociology,
and Ginny Goblirsch, Marine Extension agent (and fisherman's wife),
both with Oregon Sea Grant Extension, will continue to direct the GDOP.
In addition, GDOP employs a full time Program Coordinator, Connie
Kennedy. The GDOP Coordinator, a fisherman's wife, works with people in
groundfish fishing businesses who want to transition into the future
industry as well as with those who want to transition out of the
industry. Six GDOP Outreach Peers (much like the Fishing Family
Coordinators, closely associated with the fishing industry and in the
transition process themselves) work part-time in seven regions along
the coast informing and mentoring people in groundfish fishing
businesses who want to transition, out of the industry. They also
provide information about community support options for those remaining
in the industry. An Advisory Committee, with members from the Oregon
Rapid Response Program, local Workforce Investment Act (WIA) service
delivery areas, Oregon Economic and Community Development, Oregon
Employment Department (OED), Oregon Sea Grant Extension and the GDOP
Program Coordinator, provides guidance to the GDOP.
In May 2000, the Governor convened a meeting of state agency heads
as well as community and industry leaders. The purpose of this meeting
was to brief agencies on the groundfish crisis; to assess the crisis
and make recommendations as to how each state agency can best direct
their services to help those needing assistance; and to identify
barriers to services. The GDOP has also hosted port meetings with local
service providers to brief them on the crisis, address industry
barriers to services and identify support services available. The
outreach peers mentor fishermen, fishermen's wives, processing plant
workers, and others directly associated with the groundfish industry
that want to leave the industry. A key service is job-training programs
for dislocated workers administered through WIA. In the short time
period the GDOP has been operating, 97-odd industry members have been
directly contacted, 52 were referred to agencies/resources, and 29 are
now enrolled in services.
The State of Oregon proposes to support the continuation of the
successful Groundfish Disaster Outreach Program past the pilot ending
date of October 31, 2000. In this way, the state will not be creating a
new program and development expenses will be kept to a minimum. Except
for the Program Coordinator salary, all funds will go directly to
people impacted by the disaster. The state supports that no
administrative costs be incurred for this FY 2000 Emergency
Appropriation.
Lessons Learned and Future Needs
Three key things we've learned are substantiated by the success of
the program. First, we have learned that working collaboratively to
create this program has resulted in a response that is innovative and
community-driven. Second, we've learned that THE major barrier to
fishermen and others interested in transitioning out of the industry
via job training is the lack of income during training. Most are
considered self-employed, few fishermen/wives are covered by state
unemployment and there exist no other sources of income for them while
in training. Third, we've learned that peer outreach works.
State funding for the Outreach Coordinator ends on October 31,
2000. We believe that the Oregon Rapid Response Program will continue
to provide funding for the outreach peers for as long as they can and
they see benefits to their programs. Oregon Sea Grant Extension will
continue to support GDOP project leaders Conway and Goblirsch.
Because of the previous successes with peer outreach through the
Fishing Families Project and the pilot GDOP, the State of Oregon
proposes to use Oregon's share of the disaster assistance funds to: 1)
continue supporting the GDOP (not start a new program) through funding
the Program Coordinator, and 2) provide transition income (TI) to
industry members who want to transition out of the industry and who
have accessed resources to help them develop a WIA/OED training plan
for their future.
Target Audience for Transition Income
As previously stated, the target audience for the GDOP includes
anyone directly associated with the groundfish industry that has
suffered significant impacts (loss of revenue) as a result of the
groundfish crisis. This includes commercial fishing businesses (vessel
owners, operators and crew); their business partners (wives); fish
plants (owners, managers and workers); charterboats (owners, operators
and crew); and all support services (workers in gear stores, fuel docks
and the like).
How many people are we talking about here? Because of the unusual
rolling nature of this crisis and the various mechanisms people might
or might not have to cope, it is impossible to accurately determine the
number of people who might seek/need services. This is not a plant
closure where a set number of people know they will be unemployed at a
specific time. We do, however, have data on the numbers of commercial
fishing vessels in the State of Oregon having permits for groundfish or
participating in the open access fishery. We also have data on other
permits those vessels/owners have which can, in some cases, help to
mitigate the impact of the crisis. Therefore, we estimate that 108
commercial fishing vessels/businesses are at high risk of bankruptcy
and another 79 vessels/businesses are at moderate risk (depending on
their success in other fisheries). This represents 40 percent of the
groundfish fleet in the State of Oregon and an estimated 400 people.
Since not all will seek or need services but others in the industry
will, our best guess at this time is that the GDOP needs to be
responsive to the needs of 400 applicants. The numbers could go much
higher if fish plant closures occur. The numbers could go lower if
conditions permit success in other fisheries in which some of these
businesses might also be involved.
Our target audience for transition income is 220 (roughly half of
the 400 applicants that have no access to other income/assistance). We
are estimating that 35 percent of these applicants will be single; 65
percent will have families.
Spending Plan
GDOP Program Coordinator
$66,000.00 is needed to support the full-time Program Coordinator
for 12 months. Included in this amount are salary and associated
expenses (such as travel, phone, fax, email, postage and mailing) for a
12-month period. The Program Coordinator would continue the work as
previously described.
Funding would flow from NMFS directly to Oregon Sea Grant Extension
in the amount of $66,000.00 for a 12-month period. No administrative
costs (overhead) will be incurred during this period.
Transition Income
$1,684,000.00 would be used to establish a fund for transition
income (TI) for individuals (a type of individual TI account) to cover
living expenses for those transitioning out of the industry. TI will
only be available for applicants who have developed a WIA/OED training
plan for their future in non-fishery related employment. Criteria for
this TI assistance distribution process and the assistance are:
Design a process that is flexible and readily changed when
improvements can be identified.
NMFS disbursements should be made at least quarterly ($421,000 per
quarter with the first allocation up front) so that the entities that
administer this program do not have to use state funds and process
reimbursement requests.
Qualified applicants must certify that they are part of the
groundfish industry either as a fisherman, business partner (wife),
fish plant worker, charter boat worker, or support service worker and
have been negatively impacted by the groundfish crisis. TI assistance
will be limited to 6 months to 9 months or less per applicant depending
on the job-training plan established.
TI assistance will be based on a simple income verification
process. For example, our recommendation is that an applicant with a
family could receive $1,500/month if they had no other access to
support (unemployment insurance). If the applicant has access to other
support (unemployment under $1500/month) their TI allotment would be
only the difference bringing them up to $1,500/month. For a single/non-
married applicant, the allotment would be $1,000/month (with the same
situation regarding access to other support). The recipients would be
responsible for self-certifying their continued participation in the
training plan and their need for this TI (through calling in and/or
filling out forms on a bi-weekly or monthly basis).
Final qualifying criteria and program administration arrangements
will be specified in the State of Oregon grant application to NMFS.
Funding will flow from NMFS directly to the Oregon Employment
Department or to the Oregon Employment Department via the Oregon
Economic and Community Development Department in the amount of
$1,684,000.00. No administrative costs (overhead) will be incurred
during this period.
State Matching Contributions
Since the commercial fishery failure in the Pacific Coast
groundfish was declared on January 19, 2000, the State of Oregon has
provided (and will continue to provide) a combination of in-kind and
state direct matching funds in the amount of $583,333.00.
Suggestions for State Match:
The State of Oregon will document in its grant application to NMFS
both in-kind and, possibly, direct matching funds. Here, the state has
a number of options it will pursue:
1. Program, Support Development and Fishery Research Contributions
If expenditures since January 19, 2000 are allowed, the state can
document up to $83,000.00 of in-kind expenditures developing a disaster
relief response related to direct assistance and income support. In
addition, the state can document approximately $124,000.00 in funding
explicitly reviewed and appropriated by the Oregon legislature for
groundfish research in response to the disaster. These funds for
research have already been reviewed in a Groundfish Research Plan
submitted to the Department's legislative oversight committee and
approved for projects initiated for the Spring and Fall of 2000, and
the Spring of 2001.
These projects focus on the areas of maturity by catch, gear and
genetic studies designed to improve stock assessments. The amount
identified includes only the amounts expected to be paid directly to
fishermen for at-sea contract charters and do not include the
Department's personnel services or overhead costs. These costs, if
allowed, would represent an additional $247,000.00 in direct matching
expenditures. The total above represents a matching amount of
$454,000.00.
The state can also document $35,000.00 of direct matching funds
for the GDOP Program Coordinator salary and expenses from May 1, 2000
until October 31, 2000 from the Oregon Economic and Community
Development Department.
2. Expected In-Kind Contributions
Other in-kind contributions following grant approval are expected
throughout calendar year 2001 in amounts similar to program development
costs (i.e. $83,000.00).
3. Emergency Appropriations Board Direct Allocation
The state's third option for match is to approach the
legislature's Emergency Appropriations Board for a direct allocation.
In this event, the direct payments for those individuals transitioning
out of the groundfish fishery would extend Oregon's proposed program.
Suggestions for Timeline
The Pacific Fishery Management Council has just announced further
harvest reductions expected for the fishing year beginning January 1,
2001. The State of Oregon's objective is to bring this assistance
program online at that time. Our goals and timeline are as follows:
1. October 15, 2000 or before: Appropriation Committee release of
funds to NMFS.
2. October 15, 2000 to November 30, 2000: State of Oregon grant
application process to NMFS (with Oregon documentation).
3. December 30, 2000: NMFS grant approval.
4. January 15, 2001: Start Oregon program delivery.
Findings for Supplemental Appropriations Guidance and MSA S.312 (a)
Compliance
Authorized Appropriations Purposes in Bill and Report Language
The State of Oregon's proposed spending plan will provide direct
compensation to individuals and families for lost income resulting from
significantly reduced fishing opportunities. The state's program
intends to sustain this aid over a period of time needed and suitable
to obtain job training for alternative occupations outside the fishing
industry.
In the event of additional, larger appropriations, the state's
program could be expanded to compensate for the other types of losses
and community assistance programs such as job development.
MSA Section 312(a) requires that disaster assistance prevent a future
fishery failure and assist a community or restore the fishery
and assist a community.
The State of Oregon program seeks to prevent a future fishery
failure and assist a community. The usual declining fishery cycle often
results in fishers waiting for an upturn in one fishery by shifting to
other fisheries or related activity. While this may have worked in the
past, present circumstances indicate no flexibility exists in other
major West Coast fisheries (salmon, crab, and shrimp). Therefore, the
state's program seeks to permanently remove fishers from the industry.
This will result in less competition for the limited remaining jobs in
fisheries and prevent future conflict and failure.
In addition, the community of individuals and families dependent on
the fishing industry will be aided directly through training for
alternative occupations. The community at large will also benefit
directly and indirectly by having displaced workers prepare to continue
as productive employed members of the community.
______
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Newport, OR, January 8, 2001
Dr. Stephen Freese,
National Marine Fisheries Service,
Seattle, WA.
Dear Steve:
Thank you for reviewing the spending plan we submitted to you for
the FY 2000 emergency appropriation in response to the West Coast
groundfish fishery disaster. It is my understanding clarification and
further justification is needed in order for National Marine Fisheries
Service to accept the proposed $583,333 state match. Specifically, we
understand you need documentation on how the match funds were used as a
part of a total program to address the groundfish disaster.
National Marine Fisheries Service, on behalf of the Secretary of
Commerce, declared a commercial fishery failure in the Pacific Coast
Groundfish Fishery on January 19, 2000. NMFS also recognized this
disaster was years in the making. The Pacific Fishery Management
Council recommended reductions in harvest along with other conservation
measures to address significant resource declines during the 1997-2000
Council meetings. The State of Oregon also recognized the fishery to be
in a state of crisis as well and began to take steps to address fishery
and resource concerns.
In our view, the Pacific Fishery Management Council's Groundfish
Fishery Strategic Plan and Research and Data Needs Assessment'' provide
much of the overall framework for addressing the groundfish crisis.
These plans speak to the need to reduce the fleet size, provide for
fishery transition, and improve information used in managing the
resource. Groundfish research planned and executed by the Department
addresses the need for improving science used in groundfish management
and is responsive to the Council/NMFS Research Program. Most of ODFW's
projects involving groundfish are reviewed for scientific merit and
approved by National Marine Fisheries Service when they are of the
scale requiring Letters of Acknowledgement.
In the arguments that follow, we begin with an initial response to
the groundfish crisis by a Legislative Emergency board, the legislative
intent of SB 5511, proceed to the Department's reports before Oregon
Legislature tracking committees, and end with the Department's plan to
address the groundfish crisis.
State Funding for the Groundfish Disaster
Oregon Legislative Emergency Board--January 1998 provided S
120,000 to enhance research work on commercial groundfish
fisheries in response to the groundfish crisis (attachment 1)*.
During the 1999-2001 biennial budget building process, we
requested $1,021,000 to improve groundfish stock assessments
and fishery monitoring in response to the groundfish crisis.
This package would have funded at-sea and dockside fishery
services for commercial fishing activity. The legislative
subcommittee eliminated the package (Budget Note--attachment
2)*.
Representative Thompson [a commercial fisherman] worked to
restore the package by explaining its need to fellow
legislators. SB 5511 was an omnibus appropriations bill
containing $500,000 in state General Fund support for
groundfish research. Additional Budget notes were added to
track the groundfish crisis, vis-a-vis commercial fish fund and
research directed toward improving information needed to manage
our groundfish resources (Budget Note--attachment 3* and SB
5511 budget details, attachment 4)*.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The attachments referred to were not available at the time this
hearing went to press.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reports to Legislature
The budget notes were attached to our 1999-2001 approved
budget by the Legislature resulted in recent reports to the
Legislature. A legislative subcommittee directed the Department
to focus the funding for additional Marine Resource Program
efforts on at-sea and dockside monitoring and research toward
supporting analysis and stock assessment work in coordination
with the National Marine Fisheries Service, Oregon State
University, and the commercial fishing industry. In addition,
we were directed to report before the Subcommittee and
Legislative Emergency Board on commercial fish fund revenue
projections, need for additional limitation, and on use of
funds as related to the groundfish industry.
We reported before the Subcommittee, January 2000 and
October 2000, and the Emergency Board November 2000. In our
January report, we described a detailed spending plan for
groundfish monitoring and research (attachment 5). In November,
we appraised the Emergency Board of the need for additional,
funding limitation for Groundfish Disaster Assistance using the
state and federal funds outlined in the spending plan submitted
to NMFS.
Marine Resources Program Action Plan
The action plan presented before our Department's Resource
Management Team June of 2000 states:
``It is Marine Resource Program's (MRP) goal to increase the
quality and quantity of stock assessments and biological
information through improved at-sea and dockside sampling
programs and through carefully designed research projects.''
The projects identified for in-kind match find most of their
funding from the SB 5511 appropriations bill which provided new
General Fund dollars for groundfish related monitoring and
research. Projects thus identified and described in the plan
were new or expand existing capability, address the groundfish
crisis, and involve the commercial fishing industry.
Steve, our agency requests consideration of all related state
funded activities addressing the groundfish disaster including new
research directed at improving information used to manage groundfish
resources as match for federal disaster relief dollars outlined in the
spending plan. We will document qualifying expenditures of funds during
the pre-award period you mentioned and those since January l9th, and
will continue to document state fund expenditures directed at the
development and implementation of a disaster relief plan, again
including new research. Our agency has been responding to this problem
for over three years. While we could not anticipate that a disaster
would be declared in January of 2000, we certainly knew there was a
crisis in the making as NMFS has pointed out.
We will be happy to review details of proposed state match with you
and look forward to a favorable decision from your agency.
Sincerely,
Jim Golden
Director (acting)
Senator Wyden. Thank you. Very helpful.
Terry Thompson?
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much, Senator Wyden.
STATEMENT OF TERRY THOMPSON
First of all, I think you need to take credit for the fact
that in the marine survey business we wouldn't be where we are
without your help. And your staff has done a spectacular job
briefing you on the problems of this industry.
There is three things that I'd like to touch on that
weren't touched by previous speakers. First is we have a lack
of baseline data in oceanography. That can be done by
supplement of weather buoys with oceanographic information that
can be taken from the subsurface that can create a baseline
data on this coast. It would be relatively inexpensive. It's a
matter, though, of somebody in Congress making that push.
The second area is targeted surveys. One of the problems I
see as a fisherman is that we haven't gone out--and we've done
a flat survey of the bottom. And if you were to take this stage
and say this is the fish you're going to survey and the fish
like to live on your table, we have a problem. What we've done
is gone out and surveyed, through National Marine Fisheries
surveys, all the flat areas. We have to go back and target
these areas for specific species, canary rockfish, and ling
cod. That will show that we have a larger stock than we have.
The fishermen keep coming in and saying there's a stock
availability. And our surveys aren't showing it. We have to
change our survey techniques or establish new a new survey
techniques in that area.
Acoustic surveys will help. That requires money. That's an
area that I hope National Marine Fisheries Service receives the
money.
Third, the area that I want to do what other people have
said is the area of buyback; that's where we should be spending
our money. We need to develop this buyback and move it forward.
There is one other suggestion for the National Marine Fisheries
Service that I would like to see moved forward. And that's a
closer collaboration with Canada, because many of our species
have crossed the boundary up there. And with your direction in
that area, I think that we can work out some of our problems.
Thank you.
Senator Wyden. Terry, thank you very much. Very helpful.
Mr. Leipzig?
STATEMENT OF PETER LEIPZIG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
FISHERMEN'S MARKETING ASSOCIATION
Mr. Leipzig. Good afternoon, Senator.
For the record, my name is Pete Leipzig. I'm the Executive
Director of the Fishermen's Marketing Association. And I
represent groundfish and shrimp trawl fishermen in Washington,
Oregon, and California.
You heard a lot about the groundfish disaster here today
and over the last number of months. You've also heard that
there is rebuilding plans for some of these species that have
been declared to be overfished. What hasn't really been
mentioned, though, is that some of those rebuilding plans are
going to be taking a very long time, ten to a hundred years, in
some cases. Canary rockfish, there's roughly a fifty-year
rebuilding at a constant harvest. That means for the next fifty
years the quota will be the same as it is this year. That means
that what we have this year is basically what we're going to
see for the next fifty years.
So our disaster should not be thought of in terms of just
some sort of transient problem that we hope will improve and
will be going away. It's going to be here forever for most of
us. It's going to be long--go on long beyond our--our
livelihood in this business.
I have been viewed by some as somewhat as the poster child
for the issue of fleet buyback and restructuring. So it's no
surprise that I would speak to you today about urging you to
consider some legislation on the federal level to move such a
program forward. I have been active, along with others in the
industry, to try to develop a consensus within the fleet--not
just groundfish, but the other fisheries--that everybody can
agree to, so there is no controversy associated with the
proposal. That proposal has been circulated with congressional
staff. And whether they have shared that with you, I do not
know. But I would hope that you would have the opportunity to
talk with them and to give consideration to carrying such
legislation.
Ralph Brown did mention the GAO report. I won't mention
that. The issue of ITQs, I just want to point out that it's
very, very compatible with buyback. And as Onno Husing
mentioned, with a smaller fleet many other activities become
much, much simpler. An ITQ system will be controversial with
the initial allocation of shares. If we have a smaller fleet,
the level of controversy surrounding that is going to be
minimized.
And last--and I don't want to degrade your concern with the
amount of time that it's taken for the delay in receiving the
disaster funds, but I think I can one-up you on this one. In
1996----
Senator Wyden. I'm not sure the people of our state benefit
from competition of----
Mr. Leipzig. Well, just to share with this----
Senator Wyden. I'd be glad to sacrifice----
Mr. Leipzig. In 1996, the Congress passed the Sustainable
Fisheries Act, which contained a provision, 312B, which was for
industry-funded buyback programs. And it took three-and-a-half
years for the National Marine Fisheries Service to get that
published.
Senator Wyden. Very good.
Mr. Leipzig. Thank you.
Senator Wyden. Thank you. We have been at it for just a
little over 3 hours--3 hours and 15 minutes, I guess. It's been
extraordinarily helpful. I want to set the record clear on a
couple of points.
First, a special thanks to Senators Hollings and Senator
McCain. This is a full Senate Commerce Committee hearing. In a
50/50 U.S. Senate, that cooperation is absolutely essential.
The people of Oregon should be very appreciative of both
Senator Hollings and Senator McCain for their help.
I want to repeat the e-mail address to the Committee,
[email protected]. I want to thank Ms.
Spring, who is here from the Democratic staff of the Committee;
Stephanie Bailenson, who is here from the Republican staff.
Three people from my office, Adrienne Froelich, who has has
done extraordinarily good work in the fishing industry, is here
behind me. Jason Daughn is here, who works on the Coast, and
Mary Gautreaux, who works in the Eugene office.
So suffice it to say, we have a lot to do here, folks, and
we've gotten a lot of constructive suggestions. I will tell
you, at the end of the day, it seems to me that folks on the
Oregon Coast have a right to expect that the federal government
will be a better, a more efficient, and more responsive
partner, in terms of tackling these issues. I think everybody
understands that these problems didn't develop by osmosis, nor
did they develop over night. What is essential is that we work
together, and that the federal government be a good partner.
We heard some very troubling accounts today, and I'm going
to work with Senator Smith on a bipartisan basis to tackle
these issues. It's a great plus for Oregon that he'll be
joining the Committee. The record will stay open for another 10
days for folks to give their comments in writing. I thank
everybody for taking time from their schedule. The Senate
Commerce Committee is adjourned.
(Whereupon, the hearing was concluded at 4:16 p.m.)
APPENDIX
Argos, Inc.
Newport, OR, February 14, 2001
Hon. Ernest F. Hollings,
Chairman,
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hollings:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify at the field hearing held
on January 16, 2001 in Newport, Oregon. I appreciate the Committee's
interest in these issues.
I have been asked to respond to additional questions that were
raised at or subsequent to the hearing. I hope that the following will
be useful to you, and in the event that I can offer additional
information, please contact me.
1. Capital Construction Fund. Is it outdated? Should it be
eliminated? Any disadvantages to keeping the program? As a
family who has used the fund in the past, how would eliminating
the program affect our business?
The CCF program is outdated, but it should not be eliminated. If a
goal of federal fisheries policy is to reduce capitalization in the
fisheries, Congress needs to change the rules for use of the CCF
accounts to allow use of the funds for what would currently be non-
qualified withdrawals: rollovers into IRA accounts, purchase of
individual quotas, or use in buyback programs.
Still, CCF funds currently serve a valid purpose, one that many
fishers will still want to access. Those who remain in the fisheries
need make deposits to those accounts in order to fund vessel
reconstruction projects, many of which relate to the safety of aging
vessels , as much as increased capacity. Congress should understand
that on the West Coast, virtually every fishery, both state and
federal, is regulated by limited entry permits, which are endorsed with
vessel length limits, and further restricted by length limits in the
event of transfer. While length of a vessel alone does not necessarily
serve to restrict capacity, without the appropriate length permits,
fishers are not increasing vessel capacity.
If the program were to be eliminated, our business could be
negatively affected. At present, we may want to reconstruct our vessel
to add a bulbous bow, which will provide a safer ride and greater
stability in the extremely rough winter seas. In addition, we want to
reconstruct the configuration of our fish hold. During crab season,
crabs are held live in circulating sea water in the hold while at sea.
If CCF funds were eliminated, and we were no longer able to use those
funds for vessel reconstruction, we would be forced to try and borrow
from a bank at high rates of interest, making it less likely the
vessel's stability could be improved, or at the very least, increasing
the cost to the fisherman.
In sum, we'd like to see the CCF still exist, but for those who
wish to leave the fishery, give them the flexibility to do so, and
provide incentives as well.
2. Permit Stacking in West Coast Fisheries. Voluntary?
Mandatory? Effect on Small Businesses?
To answer this question in a way that will be of assistance
to the Committee, it will be necessary to provide some
background.
In the fixed gear sablefishery, there are currently 163 permits.
There are 33 pot permits and 130 longline permits. There are 26 Tier 1
permits; 43 Tier 2 permits and 94 Tier 3 permits. Vessel length is not
correlated to the poundage allocated to the permit; indeed, some of the
smaller vessels have permits with the greatest poundage and the largest
vessels have the least. There is a 68 foot longline vessel with a Tier
3 , or ``bottom tier'' permit; there is a 40 ft pot vessel with a Tier
1 or ``top tier'' permit. It is tentatively estimated that in 2001 the
poundage assigned to each tier will be reduced to a range of 57,000 lbs
for a top tier to 15,000 lbs of fish for a bottom tier. As you can see,
we are talking about a very small fishery.
With voluntary stacking, the Council is implementing a program that
will allow only up to 3 permits to be stacked on a vessel. The permits
may also be unstacked, providing for free market transfers of permits.
Permit holders may sell their permits for use on other vessels, or may
lease them, generating income , or may buy or lease permits to add to
their vessel's capacity. Permit owners will be required to be on board
the vessel fishing.
To address your concern about ``small boats,'' please be aware that
this is already a ``small boat fishery.'' A majority of the 164 vessels
are 40-60 feet in length. Because the majority of the permits are in
the bottom tier, ( and hence, least expensive) and because there is a
limit on how many permits can be stacked on a vessel, preventing
excessive consolidation, there is ample opportunity for vessels to
access the fishery.
The Pacific Council has no plan to mandate or require stacking in
the fixed gear sablefish fishery. Although this will be the first year
for stacking, and the results are yet to be seen, it is anticipated
that many of the permits will stack, thereby condensing the fleet. It
is highly likely that the Council's intended results, a reduction in
the fixed gear fleet, minimizing interaction by the longline fleet with
other groundfish species that are overfished, and funded solely by
industry itself, will occur.
In regard to the trawl fishery, the Pacific Council, in its Long
Range Strategic Plan, made mention of mandatory stacking in order to
reduce capacity in that fleet. I believe there are over 240 vessels in
that fleet. Trawl gear catches a variety of species, including some
that are healthy stocks and some that have been declared overfished.
The vessels all have the same trip limits and tend to be a somewhat
larger boat fishery, ranging in size from 50 ft to 100 ft. The trawl
fishery and the Pacific Council are considering a number of methods to
reduce effort in this fleet. The main thrust of the fleet's plan is a
buyback program to remove vessels and all of a vessels' permits, both
state and federal, from the fishery. It is to be funded by both
taxpayer dollars and a tax on vessel landings. It is controversial for
a number of reasons:
1) It seeks to include the fixed gear sablefishery in the
program. As a fixed gear sablefisher, who is already
participating in an industry funded fleet reduction, I don't
want to pay for trawl buyback.
2) It seeks to tax the landings of state crab and shrimp
fishermen on the West Coast , who also have groundfish permits,
to pay for a program that removes only trawl vessels and their
permits. As a crab and shrimp fisherman, I don't want to pay
for trawl buyback.
I believe that is in the context of the trawl fleet that the
Council has discussed mandatory stacking of permits, in the event that
buyback does not have fleet support or cannot be funded. In addition,
the costs associated with it are astronomical. There are estimates of
$50 million floating around, $25 million to be paid by the taxpayers
and $25 million by fishermen. I don't support the use of taxpayer
dollars to bail out this industry, and I don't support the imposition
of a tax on earnings of some fishermen to buy others out.
I hope I have addressed adequately the questions you have raised.
If I can be of further assistance, please don't hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
Michele Longo Eder