[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT SUCCESSES IN ALASKA AND THE REAUTHORIZATION OF
THE MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARINGS
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Wednesday, July 6, 2005 in Ketchikan, Alaska, and
Friday, July 8, 2005 in Kodiak, Alaska
__________
Serial No. 109-23
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
22-445 WASHINGTON : 2005
_________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free
(866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail:
Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Elton Gallegly, California Samoa
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Ken Calvert, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Vice Chair Islands
George P. Radanovich, California Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Grace F. Napolitano, California
Carolina Tom Udall, New Mexico
Chris Cannon, Utah Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Jim Costa, California
Greg Walden, Oregon Charlie Melancon, Louisiana
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Dan Boren, Oklahoma
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona George Miller, California
Jeff Flake, Arizona Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Rick Renzi, Arizona Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico Jay Inslee, Washington
Henry Brown, Jr., South Carolina Mark Udall, Colorado
Thelma Drake, Virginia Dennis Cardoza, California
Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico Stephanie Herseth, South Dakota
Cathy McMorris, Washington
Bobby Jindal, Louisiana
Louie Gohmert, Texas
Marilyn N. Musgrave, Colorado
Vacancy
Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland, Chairman
FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Samoa
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Carolina Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Thelma Drake, Virginia Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
Bobby Jindal, Louisiana Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia,
Marilyn N. Musgrave, Colorado ex officio
Richard W. Pombo, California, ex
officio
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on Wednesday, July 6, 2005.......................... 1
Statement of Members:
Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland...................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 1
Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Alaska.................................................. 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Bedford, David, Deputy Commissioner, Alaska Department of
Fish and Game.............................................. 16
Prepared statement of.................................... 18
Behnken, Linda, Executive Director, Alaska Longline
Fishermen's Association.................................... 58
Prepared statement of.................................... 60
Crome, Cora, United Fishermen of Alaska...................... 43
Prepared statement of.................................... 44
Kelley, Dale, Executive Director, Alaska Trollers Association 51
Prepared statement of.................................... 54
Madsen, Stephanie, Chair, North Pacific Fishery Management
Council.................................................... 24
Prepared statement of.................................... 26
Norosz, Kristine M., Director of Government Affairs, Icicle
Seafoods, Inc.............................................. 46
Prepared statement of.................................... 47
Olson, Rear Admiral James C., Commander, District 17, U.S.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security............... 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 12
Salveson, Sue, Chief, Assistant Regional Administrator for
Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce..................................... 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Woodby, Douglas, Ph.D., Fisheries Scientist, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, and Member, Scientific and
Statistical Committee, North Pacific Fishery Management
Council.................................................... 32
Prepared statement of.................................... 34
Additional materials supplied:
Pautzke, Dr. Clarence, Executive Director, North Pacific
Research Board, Statement submitted for the record......... 71
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on Friday, July 8, 2005............................. 75
Statement of Members:
Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland...................................... 75
Prepared statement of.................................... 76
Statement of Witnesses:
Asicksik, Eugene, President and CEO, Norton Sound Economic
Development Corporation.................................... 163
Prepared statement of.................................... 166
Benton, David, Executive Director, Marine Conservation
Alliance................................................... 109
Prepared statement of.................................... 112
Bonney, Julie, Executive Director, Alaska Groundfish Data
Bank....................................................... 116
Prepared statement of.................................... 118
Childers, Dorothy, Executive Director, Alaska Marine
Conservation Council....................................... 132
Prepared statement of.................................... 135
Duffy, Kevin C., Executive Director, At-Sea Processors
Association................................................ 157
Prepared statement of.................................... 160
Fields, Duncan, Technical Advisor, Gulf of Alaska Coastal
Communities Coalition...................................... 126
Prepared statement of.................................... 128
Floyd, Hon. Carolyn L., Mayor, City of Kodiak................ 77
Prepared statement of.................................... 79
Kelty, Frank, Natural Resource Analyst, City of Unalaska..... 148
Prepared statement of.................................... 150
Madsen, Stephanie, Chair, North Pacific Fishery Management
Council.................................................... 92
Prepared statement of.................................... 95
Reed, Glenn E., President, Pacific Seafood Processors
Association................................................ 153
Prepared statement of.................................... 156
Salveson, Sue, Assistant Regional Administrator for
Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce..................................... 86
Prepared statement of.................................... 87
Selby, Hon. Jerome, Mayor, Kodiak Island Borough............. 81
Prepared statement of.................................... 84
Smith, Thorn, Executive Director, North Pacific Longline
Association................................................ 176
Prepared statement of.................................... 180
Stinson, Jay E., President, Alaska Draggers Association...... 121
Prepared statement of.................................... 122
Thomson, Arni, Executive Director, Alaska Crab Coalition..... 168
Prepared statement of.................................... 170
Additional materials supplied:
Central Bering Sea Fishermen's Association, Statement
submitted for the record................................... 189
OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING ON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT SUCCESSES IN ALASKA AND
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND
MANAGEMENT ACT
----------
Wednesday, July 6, 2005
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans
Committee on Resources
Ketchikan, Alaska
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call at 11:00 a.m., at
the Ted Ferry Civic Center, 888 Venetia Avenue, Ketchikan,
Alaska, Hon. Wayne T. Gilchrest, Chairman of the Subcommittee,
presiding.
Members present: Gilchrest and Young.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. WAYNE T. GILCHREST, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Mr. Gilchrest. The hearing of the Subcommittee on Fisheries
and Oceans will come to order. I have a prepared--a very well
prepared statement, and I'll ask unanimous consent that it be
submitted for the record.
Mr. Young. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilchrest follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Wayne Gilchrest, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans
I'd like to thank Chairman Young for his invitation to come to
Alaska to hear from his constituents about the fisheries management
successes and how we can take the lessons that have been learned here
to other parts of the country.
This Subcommittee has been working on the reauthorization of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act for a number
of years and I hope we will reauthorize the Act within the next year. I
plan on working very closely with Chairman Young and with my Senate
counterparts, including Senators Stevens and Murkowski.
As we have heard testimony on the Magnuson-Stevens Act, we have
heard a lot about how well managed the Alaskan fisheries are. We have
met with all the Councils and have heard from a number of constituent
groups that we should look at how the fisheries are managed in Alaska.
While I realize no fishery management system is perfect, I would like
to see what lessons we can learn here and I appreciate all of you being
here today.
I understand that this is probably not the best time to be here,
especially with all of the fisheries that are open right now, but
unfortunately, this was the only time we could get away from Washington
for this amount of time until this winter and I hope we will be further
along on the reauthorization by then. For those fishermen that could
not be here, I apologize and I hope we will still hear from you when
you get back.
I thank those of you who could be here today.
I have also been told by Mr. Young that fisheries are different
here in Southeast than in other parts of the state. That is one of the
reasons we wanted to hold two field hearings this week--so that we can
see and understand the differences, but also see how the management has
worked despite these differences.
I am pleased to be here and hope this will just be the beginning of
a dialog on important fishery management issues and how we can best
make the Magnuson-Stevens Act work even better--for the fishery
resources, the fishermen, and the fishing communities.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you. And I would like to welcome all
of you here today. We look forward to your testimony. We are in
the process over the next so many months of reauthorizing the
Magnuson-Stevens-Young Act. And we are moving around the
country actually, to gather information about how each of the
Council's deals with myriad of issues dealing with fisheries.
From science to total allowable catch, to by catch, to observer
programs, to industry and public involvement. To the working
relationships of the Federal, state fisheries community,
environmental community, and so on. And we would like this
morning to--and we will listen to your input on how the Act is
working. How you see the Council's involvement with the
Magnuson Act, and how that should change or have minor
adjustments, or stay the same.
And what we want to do over the course of the next many
months, the next hearing we have will be in Maine.
Mr. Young. Kodiak.
Mr. Gilchrest. Oh, I'm sorry. The next meeting we have will
be in Kodiak in a couple of days. The next meeting after Alaska
will be in New England. And we like to take a look and
understand the safety issues, especially with the Coast Guard.
The economic viability issues with the industry. And the
ecological integrity issues dealing with science and the input
from the industry and the public. So we look forward to your
testimony.
And one last comment I'd like to make before I yield to
the--my good friend Mr. Young is that it seems that the North
Pacific Council, while we understand these issues are volatile
wherever you go. And they are certainly that way in Alaska. But
what you've done to integrate is the different systems in your
Council to do deal with these issues is quite extraordinary.
And we'd like to take a look at that and see how that can, in a
flexible way be adapted to other Council's around the country.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank you
for taking your holiday, 4th of July break to come to Alaska.
Especially to come to Southeast. It was my idea and you
followed through with it that we actually have different
fisheries in the State of Alaska, and Southeast is totally
different from Bering Sea, and of course the Gulf. And I think
it's important that we recognize that and the hearing was
taking place here is because of that difference. I requested by
actually by the industry down here. I do appreciate you coming
and--Mr. Gilchrest is a individual that I have great respect
for. He does not vote with me all the time. I sometimes lecture
him on that, but he has his own mind. But he does take the
time--and why I admire him to go and look and to see what other
areas of the United States are doing. He's done this with
timber, been in districts in California, and of course in the
fisheries. Extremely interested in the oceans. He is now the
head of a new task force. Hopefully we can work it in to a full
committee standing on the oceans. Not in conflict with the
Stevens-Magnuson Act, you notice that it's Stevens-Magnuson
Act. Left my name out, but I'm not going to call it the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. But in reality we believe that the oceans
play a major role in the land mass of this globe. And how
they're being affected, is it man or is it natural, or whatever
is occurring, that's part of this new program. But this hearing
is about the Chairman has mentioned about what's good about the
Act, because we have to renew it. What's wrong with the Act,
what can we do to improve it. If you have suggestions we're
here to listen, more than anything else to what you have to
pose. Mr. Chairman, I thank you again and I think we ought to
proceed with the witnesses.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]
Statement for The Honorable Don Young, Congressman for All Alaska
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for coming to Alaska. The waters
off Alaska provide for more than half of the entire production of
seafood in the United States. We have a number of very important
fisheries and the management of those fisheries is of utmost importance
to the people of this state.
Fisheries management in Alaska has not always been the success
story that you hear about today. One of the reasons that Alaska wanted
to become a state was to get the Federal government out of salmon
management.
We now have a State-managed salmon fishery that allows our
fishermen to continue to land a high quality, healthy product that can
put any farm-raised salmon to shame. Unfortunately, the product we have
can only be harvested for a short period of time every year and this
leaves our markets vulnerable to imported salmon products for the rest
of the year.
Mr. Chairman, salmon isn't the only fishery here in Alaska, but it
is an important one. A number of other fisheries are managed by the
North Pacific Fishery Management Council. The Council system was one of
the great ideas that was included in the Magnuson Act (which now honors
Senator Stevens as well as former Senator Magnuson).
This system is a transparent process that allows the stakeholders
to participate in the management of their own fishery resources. It
also allows a regional approach to management so that different regions
can deal with their problems in innovative ways.
I won't say that the Council system is perfect and I won't say that
we don't have fights over fish here in Alaska. But I will say that this
system works better than any other I've seen.
I know you are here to get a better understanding of how we manage
fish in Alaska and I appreciate you taking the time to come to my great
state. I hope you will hear some good suggestions on how to reauthorize
the Magnuson-Stevens Act while maintaining the Council system and the
regional flexibility that is so important.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Young. And our witnesses this
morning are Ms. Sue Salveson, Admiral Olson, Mr. Bedford, Ms.
Madsen, and Dr. Woodby. Thank you all for coming. We look
forward to your testimony. We're going to start with Ms. Sue
Salveson.
STATEMENT OF SUE SALVESON, SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES DIVISION,
ALASKA REGION, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Ms. Salveson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, I
wish I were a doctor, but I'm not. I'm just a Ms., Ms. Sue
Salveson.
Mr. Gilchrest. Ms. Sue Salveson.
Ms. Salveson. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
Congressman Young, for the opportunity to testify before you on
your Fishery Management Program here in Alaska. And the
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. I am Sue Salveson,
Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries here
in Alaska Region of the National Marine Fisheries Service.
The waters off Alaska support a variety of fisheries. These
fisheries are one of the most important industries in Alaska
and provide nearly half of all private sector jobs. Off Alaska
this management is undertaken in partnership with the North
Pacific Fishery Management Council. And other state and Federal
management agencies. We have achieved management successes in
Alaska that we can learn from. As we move forward with
reauthorizing the Magnuson-Stevens Act. I would like to focus
on a few key areas today. Those are ecosystem approaches to
fisheries management, market-based management systems, and the
use of the best available scientific information.
The U.S. Ocean Action Plan endorses and ecosystem approach
to management. In 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act,
particularly provisions relating to by catch and essential
habitat laid the ground work for ecosystem approaches to
fisheries. The North Pacific Management Program includes gear
and season specific closures totally approximately 150,000
square nautical miles to protect habitat and protected species
stocks. Habitat protection will be expanded significantly when
NMFS's implements extensive new closed areas in the Aleutian
Islands and Gulf of Alaska recently endorsed by the Council.
Because we still have much to learn, an ecosystem approach
must be implemented incrementally. Our approach in the North
Pacific includes single species management and exploitation
models to establish target and nontarget species harvest quotas
that conserve stocks. But scientists have developed, and
current are testing whole ecosystem models to assess fishing
impacts on patterns of energy flow in large marine ecosystems.
The U.S. Ocean Action Plan also promotes a partnership
under which we will work with Regional Fishery Management
Councils to promote greater use of market-based systems for
fisheries management. The Alaska dedicated access privilege
programs developed for Alaska groundfish, pacific halibut,
sablefish, and crab fisheries are examples of DAP programs that
can be used to develop these approaches nationwide. In
partnership with the North Pacific Council we implemented the
IFQ program for pacific halibut in 1995. Subsequently we have
provided coastal communities the opportunity to provide--to
purchase quota share or IFQ to enhance fishery-based revenues
generated by local residents. We also are in the midst of
implementing a sophisticated crab rationalization program that
includes harvester and processor quota shares, community
quotas, and fishing cooperatives.
Any national guidelines promoting these programs should
provide flexibility to Regional Fishery Management Council's
and to NMFS to tailor these programs to the specific needs of
regional fisheries. While the Alaska programs have been
successful and provide important lessons for the rest of the
nation, they may not be applicable to specific regional,
social, economic, and fishery conditions in other parts of the
country.
The U.S. Ocean Action Plan also commits NOAA to establish
guidelines to develop and apply scientific advice for fisheries
management decisions. Scientific information and advice are
integral to the resource management decisions undertaken by
NMFS, in partnership with the Regional Fishery Management
Council's. Ongoing success of the North Pacific Management
Programs will continue to rely on a science-based and
precautionary policy direction historically embraced by the
North Pacific Council. This responsiveness is reflected in four
fundamental components of our decisionmaking process. The
first, the promotion of a strong research program. Second,
acceptance of the best available science as a foundation for
establishing a conservative fishery, harvest quotas, and for
conservation measures to protect protected species. Third, and
extensive in season catch monitoring program. And fourth, a
transparent public process.
In addition we believe the structure and breath of
experience on the North Pacific Council's Scientific and
Statistical Committee provides a basis for peer reviewed,
science-based management of the North Pacific resource. The
North Pacific Council's reliance on it's SSC is an important
consideration in the successful management of these resources
and serves as a good example of how to use science-based
decisionmaking to manage our nations natural resources.
Fisheries observers deployed on fishing vessels and
processors are an additional source of important information.
The North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program is the largest in
the nation, with over 36,000 observer days per year. Although
coverage is extensive we are studying ways to improve the
coverage and effectiveness of our fisheries observers in this
and other observer programs nationwide. Comprehensive catch
monitoring programs insure compliance with North Pacific
fishery restrictions. Incorporating existing technology such as
Vessel Monitoring Systems and leveraging strong enforcement
partnerships are becoming more and more important to mitigate
the greater number of resources needed to manage and enforce
new fishery programs.
Mr. Chairman, Congressman Young thank you for the
opportunity to discuss the North Pacific Fishery Management
Programs, as we undertake reauthorization of the Magnuson Act.
I would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Ms. Salveson.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Salveson follows:]
Statement of Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator for
Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, for the
opportunity to testify before you on our fishery management program
here in Alaska and the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). I am Sue
Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries,
Alaska Region, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within the Department of
Commerce. My testimony today will focus on how we work with our
partners in Alaska to successfully manage our fisheries and how this
experience may serve as a model for managing our nation's fisheries and
other ocean resources into the future.
The current process for managing our nation's marine fishery
resources has been in place since 1977, when the Fishery Conservation
and Management Act of 1976 was first implemented. The Sustainable
Fisheries Act of 1996 implemented several new provisions specific to
the North Pacific and underscored many of the management measures
already in place or under development there. The Fishery Management
Council process results in transparent, deliberative decision making
based on best available science.
The North Pacific is a highly productive ecosystem with no depleted
or overfished groundfish stocks. Our area exemplifies how the
management process can accommodate both national and regional interests
in responsible stewardship of marine resources. Our success is driven
by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council's tenet to adhere to
the underlying science provided by NMFS, the State of Alaska,
universities, and other independent scientists. Our success is also due
in part to relatively focused interjurisdictional issues involving only
a single state (Alaska), which reduces complexity in the decision-
making process.
Background on Alaskan Fisheries
With over 47,000 miles of coastline and 336,000 square miles of
fishable continental shelf area, the waters off Alaska support a
variety of fisheries. Fisheries are one of the most important
industries in Alaska and provide nearly half of all private-sector
jobs. Over 10,000 people are involved in groundfish fishing and
processing alone; thousands more work in salmon, crab, scallop,
halibut, and other fisheries. Vessels range from skiffs used for
halibut fishing with hook-and-line or jig gear, to 600-foot motherships
and 400-foot catcher processors involved in the midwater trawl fishing
for pollock.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act authorizes federal management of fisheries
in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Off Alaska, this management is
undertaken in partnership with the North Pacific Fishery Management
Council and other state and federal management agencies. The North
Pacific Council has developed five fishery management plans to manage
the groundfish (Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands; Gulf of Alaska), crab,
scallop and salmon fisheries off Alaska. Much of the management of the
crab, scallop, and salmon fisheries is deferred to the State of Alaska
with federal oversight, including the authority to set and enforce
harvest limits to avoid overfished stocks. Development and
implementation of allocation programs or dedicated access privilege
programs are retained as a federal function in partnership with the
North Pacific Council. The Council also develops allocation programs
for the Pacific halibut fishery in partnership with NMFS and the
International Pacific Halibut Commission.
The primary target groundfish species off Alaska are pollock,
Pacific cod, flatfish, Atka mackerel, sablefish, and rockfish. In the
Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands, the maximum annual removals limit has
been capped at 2 million metric tons, or 4.4 billion pounds, since
1984. This cap is an example of the North Pacific's precautionary
approach to management. Although this cap could be set higher--given
the existing groundfish abundance of over 3 million metric tons--the
annual harvest limits are capped at this lower level to account for
species interactions within the ecosystem and to provide a buffer for
scientific uncertainty in setting catch quota levels.
Fishery management decisions originate with recommendations
provided by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. The Council's
11 voting members represent state and federal fisheries agencies,
industry, fishing communities, and four nonvoting members represent the
U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of
State, and the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. The Council
receives advice at each meeting from a 20-member Advisory Panel,
representing user groups, environmentalists, recreational fishermen,
and consumer groups. A 15-member Scientific and Statistical Committee
composed of highly respected scientists reviews all information and
analyses and provides advice to the Council.
The North Pacific Council conducts a transparent public process by
incorporating diverse views into its decision making, and ensuring open
public debate regarding the best paths to follow when making difficult
decisions. The North Pacific Council accepts public comment at all
meetings on all issues addressed, and the Plan Teams, Advisory Panel,
and Scientific and Statistical Committee also receive issue-specific
public testimony. In addition, the Council appoints working committees
with representation from industry sectors, environmental organizations,
and other constituents to provide recommendations on specific issues.
These committees often rely on management expertise and scientific
input from NMFS and other management agency staff and scientists. This
committee process is critical to the Council's development of fishery
management measures and provides an additional level of stakeholder
input on all decisions.
NMFS maintains effective partnerships with the North Pacific
Council, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, International Pacific
Halibut Commission, Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Coast Guard. These partnerships
help us ensure that management decisions are based on sound science and
can be effectively monitored and enforced.
NMFS is considering a wide range of potential amendments to the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, and plans to prepare a formal package of
Amendments. We have learned many things from our experiences here in
Alaska that can help us achieve similar management successes in other
areas of the country as we move forward with reauthorizing the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. I would like to focus on a few key areas today--
ecosystem approaches to fisheries management; market-based management
systems (specifically, dedicated access privilege (DAP) programs); and
use of the best available scientific information.
Ecosystem Approaches to Fisheries Management
The U.S. Ocean Action Plan endorses an ecosystem approach to
management. The plan states that ``the Administration will continue to
work toward an ecosystem-based approach in making decisions relating to
water, land, and resource management in ways that do not erode local
and State authorities and are flexible to address local conditions.''
The 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act--particularly the
provisions relating to bycatch and essential fish habitat--laid the
groundwork for Ecosystem Approaches to Fisheries (EAF). NOAA has
identified three large marine ecosystems off Alaska: the Arctic, the
Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands, and the Gulf of Alaska. The North
Pacific Fishery Management Council is advancing fishery management to
address principles of EAF, which focus on ecosystem considerations in
fishery management decisions as well as in the broad context of entire
ecosystems and the relative role of all activities occurring within
them.
Because not all necessary scientific information is ever available,
an ecosystem approach must be implemented incrementally. Our approach
in the North Pacific includes single species management and
exploitation models used to establish target and nontarget species
harvest quotas that conserve the stocks. For example, quotas currently
are managed through an extensive in-season catch monitoring program
that documents total catch relative to established quotas; when quotas
are reached, fisheries are closed. But scientists have developed and
currently are testing whole ecosystem models to assess fishing impacts
on patterns of energy flow in large marine ecosystems. These models
provide descriptions of the food web and may be useful in evaluating
ecosystem-level harvest limits.
The North Pacific management program includes gear and season-
specific closures totaling approximately 150,000 nm2 to protect habitat
and protected species stocks. These areas have been closed to fishing
to minimize fishery interactions with Steller sea lions, reduce impacts
on sensitive habitat important to crab, or to eliminate fishing gear
impacts in areas with deep-water coral concentrations. The North
Pacific Council, in consultation with NMFS scientists and managers,
closed certain areas to the pollock, Pacific cod, and Atka mackerel
fisheries to minimize impacts on Steller sea lions; refinements to
Steller sea lion protection measures are ongoing. A comprehensive
seabird bycatch reduction program has been implemented that includes
education, outreach, and mandatory seabird avoidance measures.
Bycatch controls always have been a facet of the fishery management
plans for the Alaska fisheries. They originally focused on fully
utilized species taken incidentally in the groundfish fisheries, such
as halibut, salmon, crab, and herring. However, the Council is now
expanding its focus to address management of non-target species taken
incidentally in the groundfish fisheries (e.g., sculpins and other
species taken in fisheries but not retained for sale). Since the mid-
1990s, measures to address overall discard amounts and increase
utilization of catch in the groundfish fisheries resulted in a dramatic
reduction in discard rates, from 17 percent in 1993 to less than 7
percent by 2002.
Habitat protection will be expanded significantly when NMFS
completes the rulemaking process within the next year to implement
extensive new closed areas in the Aleutian Islands and Gulf of Alaska
recently endorsed by the Council to protect Essential Fish Habitat
(EFH). The Council's EFH action is noteworthy for several reasons.
The scale is unprecedented. The new EFH measures include
nearly 300,000 square nautical miles of areas closed to bottom
trawling, some of which will be closed to other bottom-tending mobile
gear and fixed gear.
The Council adopted these new closures as a precaution.
The best available information indicates that fishing in Alaska has no
more than minimal adverse effects on EFH, but NMFS' analysis noted
considerable scientific uncertainty. The Council chose to protect
relatively undisturbed habitats to guard against potential problems for
sustainable fisheries in the future.
These closures have broad support from both the fishing
industry and environmental groups, demonstrating again that compromise
and consensus can be achieved through the Council process.
The Council adopted a site-specific approach for
identifying Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs) within EFH. Our
experience in Alaska suggests that HAPCs are a useful tool for
prioritizing especially valuable and/or vulnerable portions of EFH for
conservation and management.
Although progress has been made toward an integrated ecosystem
approach to management in the North Pacific, much work remains to fully
understand biological, climate, and habitat interactions. New studies
are required to move forward with ecosystem approaches. NMFS scientists
are poised to pursue research that would provide new information to
better enable managers to integrate ecosystem approaches to fishery
management. This work will focus on developing spatially explicit
resource assessment models for predicting recruitment, abundance, and
species interactions by region and by season. These expanded programs
will help us evaluate resource responses to harvest at local scales,
assess the impact of fishing on the foraging success of seabirds and
marine mammals, and improve the information upon which management
decisions are based. Efforts to identify the scientific, social,
economic, and policy issues associated with an adaptive, incremental
approach to ecosystem management will also greatly enhance our ability
to manage fisheries.
Pilot programs may help assess information needs for EAF and the
associated costs. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council is
considering a pilot program in the Aleutian Islands area that would
test the use of a Fishery Ecosystem Plan to inform Council decision
making under the existing fishery management plans. NMFS, the Council,
and the State of Alaska are also discussing the possibility of an
ecosystem council or other form of regional collaboration to integrate
considerations from various ocean uses (e.g., fisheries, marine
transportation, and oil and gas development).
Market-Based Management Systems
The U.S. Ocean Action Plan also promotes a partnership under which
we will ``work with regional fishery management councils to promote
greater use of market-based systems for fisheries management.'' The DAP
programs can mitigate overfishing and overcapacity, as well as
contribute to the economic well-being of the marine fishery sector. The
Alaska programs--specifically those developed for Alaskan groundfish,
Pacific halibut, sablefish, and crab fisheries--are examples of DAP
programs that can be used to develop these approaches nationwide.
NOAA has committed to develop, in consultation with the regional
fishery management councils and interested parties, national standards
and guidelines for the implementation of individual fishing quota (IFQ)
programs. These guidelines will draw on the 1999 congressionally
mandated report by the National Research Council, Sharing the Fish:
Toward a National Policy on Individual Fishing Quotas, as well as the
ongoing discussions on standards and requirements for DAPs.
In partnership with the North Pacific Council, we implemented the
IFQ program for Pacific halibut and sablefish in 1995. Recently, we
provided coastal communities the opportunity to purchase quota share or
IFQ to enhance fishery-based revenues generated by local residents.
Fishing cooperatives have successfully rationalized the Bering Sea
pollock fishery under the American Fisheries Act. We are in the midst
of implementing a sophisticated Alaska crab rationalization program
that includes harvester and processor quota shares, community quotas,
and fishing cooperatives. The North Pacific Council is considering a
Gulf of Alaska groundfish rationalization plan that would also include
a number of distinct DAP programs. The direct allocations of groundfish
and crab to the Western Alaska Community Development Program has proven
very successful in generating revenue for western Alaska coastal
communities and providing for a sustainable fishery-based economy.
During the past several years, we have worked closely with the U.S.
General Accountability Office in its studies of various IFQ-related
issues. This collaboration, as well as experience here in Alaska and
elsewhere, has helped us refine our views on how to develop and
administer these programs. Any national guidelines promoting DAP
programs should provide flexibility to regional fishery management
councils and to NMFS to tailor these programs to the specific needs of
the regional fisheries. While the Alaskan programs have been
successful, and provide important lessons for the rest of the nation,
they may not be applicable to specific regional, social, economic, and
fishery conditions in other parts of the country. These programs must
balance the program's complexity and cost with its overall objectives.
Existing Magnuson-Stevens Act authority for cost-recovery programs can
result in insufficient revenue for sustained management and enforcement
of complex DAP programs. We are considering ways to ensure that
sufficient revenue is available to manage the DAP programs
appropriately.
Best Available Scientific Information and Other Data
The U.S. Ocean Action Plan also commits NOAA to ``establish
guidelines and procedures for the development and application of
scientific advice for fisheries management decisions.'' The
Administration supports the use of independent peer-reviewed science in
resource management decisions. We are considering several Magnuson-
Stevens Act amendment proposals relating to the collection and use of
best available scientific information. Scientific information and
advice is integral to the resource management decisions undertaken by
NMFS in partnership with the regional fishery management councils.
Ongoing success of the North Pacific management programs will
continue to rely on the science-based and precautionary policy
directions historically embraced by the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council. This responsiveness is reflected in four
fundamental components of our decision making process:
1. Promotion of a strong research program;
2. Acceptance of the best available science as a foundation for
establishing conservative fishery harvest quotas and for conservation
measures necessary to protect listed species or their critical habitat
under the Endangered Species Act;
3. An extensive in-season catch monitoring program that relies on
timely observer data, accurate catch weight measurements for at-sea and
shoreside processors, and an electronic catch reporting system that
ensures we will not exceed established quotas; and
4. A transparent public process.
NMFS also is working to improve our marine resource survey
capability and our capacity to develop stock assessments. In 2001, the
National Task Force for Improving Fish Stock Assessments, composed of
senior stock assessment scientists from each NMFS science center,
issued the Marine Fisheries Stock Assessment Improvement Plan. This
report continues to serve as NMFS' principal roadmap for enhancing and
modernizing programs for data collection, data management, stock
assessments, and supporting scientific research. The stock assessments
on which annual quotas for North Pacific groundfish, crab, and halibut
are based rely on extensive stock assessment surveys and sophisticated
stock assessment models used by NMFS, the State of Alaska, academia,
and International Halibut Commission scientists.
Observers deployed on-board fishing or processing vessels and at
shoreside processing facilities are an additional source of important
information. For NMFS and the public to have confidence in this
information, it must be of high quality and free from bias. The North
Pacific groundfish observer program is the largest in the nation with
over 36,000 observer days per year. Costs of observer deployment for
the North Pacific fisheries are borne by the industry and currently
total about $13 million annually; an additional $3 million in federal
funding is required each year to support the costs of administering the
observer program and the data collected by observers. Although coverage
is extensive, we are studying ways to improve the coverage and
effectiveness of our on-board and shoreside fisheries observers in this
and other observer programs.
We are considering proposals that would give the regional
management councils and NMFS broader authority to collect social and
economic data, including cost and revenue data. Collecting this
information from shoreside fish processors, under appropriate
confidentiality standards, would allow us to conduct more meaningful
social and economic analyses of the potential impacts of fishery
regulations. This information will enable NMFS and the regional fishery
management councils to conduct better regulatory assessments, in
particular those concerning the impacts of proposed measures on fishing
communities, small business enterprises, and processors. This
information also will allow NMFS and the councils to assess the effects
of programs that have been implemented and determine whether
refinements or adjustments should be made to address unintended impacts
on various sectors or constituencies. The North Pacific Fishery
Management Council used this approach to develop an economic data
collection program for Bering Sea/Aleutian Island crab harvesters and
processors as part of its comprehensive rationalization program for
this fishery. Implementation of this program required special
legislation.
To properly incorporate the best available science into our
management process, the Councils need to rely on our Scientific and
Statistical Committees (SSC) to review all biological and socioeconomic
information used in decision making. We believe the structure and
breadth of expertise on the North Pacific Fishery Management Council's
SSC allows science-based decision making to govern the management of
our nation's natural resources. NMFS will continue to play a key role
in providing the best possible scientific information, and supports the
use of peer-reviewed science in resource management decisions.
Enforcement Issues
At-sea and shoreside catch monitoring programs are in place to
ensure that fishery restrictions are honored. These programs include
timely reporting of total catch by species, and vessel monitoring
system (VMS) requirements in some fisheries to monitor closed or
restricted areas. VMS is an excellent enforcement tool because it
provides remote monitoring of vessel positions in relation to
regulatory areas and maritime boundary lines. We rely on the
complementary enforcement efforts of NOAA, state enforcement agencies,
and the U.S. Coast Guard, both in the fishing grounds and dockside.
We are considering a number of amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens
Act to enhance the effectiveness of fisheries law enforcement. In
Alaska, tools such as broader application of VMS and cooperative state-
federal enforcement programs are used to achieve enforcement,
management, and safety objectives. Incorporating existing technology
and leveraging strong enforcement partnerships are becoming more and
more important to mitigate the greater number of resources needed to
enforce new fisheries regulations.
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the North
Pacific fishery management programs as we undertake reauthorization of
the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Alaska is fortunate to have large areas of
relatively pristine habitat that support bountiful and sustainable fish
harvests. That said, management of the North Pacific has benefited from
adherence to the best available science in developing prudent and
precautionary approaches to the management of marine resources. Our
emerging focus on ecosystem approaches to fisheries management and
dedicated access privilege programs will rely on research and sound
science to support increasingly complex conservation and management
programs. In addition, we want to continue our work with all
stakeholder groups to achieve a collaborative consensus-building forum.
Such partnerships will become increasingly important as new interests,
perspectives, and knowledge are incorporated into an ecosystem approach
to management.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Admiral Olson.
STATEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL JAMES OLSON,
COMMANDER OF THE SEVENTEENTH COAST GUARD DISTRICT
Admiral Olson. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Congressman
Young. I am Rear Admiral Jim Olson, Commander of the
Seventeenth Coast Guard District. Thank you for the opportunity
to appear before you today as the Coast Guard's----
Mr. Gilchrest. Admiral, can I interrupt you? Can you hear
in the back?
[Inaudible reply.]
Mr. Gilchrest. What's happened to the mikes? Are they on?
[Inaudible reply.]
Mr. Gilchrest. OK. Or pull a little closer, because I don't
think they can hear you back there. I hear--I look, people
going like this, so that's the first clue I had.
Admiral Olson. Yes, sir. I am Rear Admiral Jim Olson,
Commander of the Seventeenth Coast Guard District. Thank you
for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the
Coast Guard's fisheries enforcement role in Alaska in support
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
I'd like to start by providing you with a snap shot of
Coast Guard operation in Alaska today. In the Bering Sea the
Cutter ALEX HALEY is patrolling the US/Russian Maritime
Boundary Line. Cutter ACHUSNET is refueling in Dutch Harbor and
will soon be patrolling the Gulf of Alaska. And the Cutter
JARVIS is in the North Pacific participating in multi-national
illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing operations. Two
patrol boats are underway in Homeland Security missions, and
one is conducting halibut IFQ enforcement. There are also a
number of aircraft flights today in support from cutters--that
support the cutters. One will embark on a National Marine
Fisheries service agent from Kodiak.
The Coast Guard is firmly committed to providing at-sea
enforcement in support of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. We
recognize that the health of our fisheries is of considerable
national importance, and as the District Commander responsible
for Coast Guard operations in Alaska, I am keenly aware of the
significance of fisheries to the residents of this state.
Effective fisheries enforcement means preventing illegal
encroachments on the U.S. EEZ, and insuring compliance with
both domestic fisheries regulations and relevant international
fishery agreements.
My job is to implement this national Coast Guard policy in
Alaska. To protect the EEZ, we patrol our maritime boundaries
with both Russia and Canada. These are my top fishery law
enforcement priorities and incursions in both of these areas
have trended downward in recent years.
Our domestic fisheries have seen major changes in the past
decade. Regulatory regimes are increasingly complex, closed
areas have expanded and in an order of magnitude. And a
movement toward rationalization continues to lengthen fishing
seasons. These factors all placed increased demands on
enforcement resources. Coast Guard supports rationalization
programs, as they provide safer working conditions. However,
they also require increased enforcement efforts.
We also patrol areas outside our EEZ to monitor compliance
with international fishery agreements such as Central Bering
Sea Pollock Convention and the North Pacific Anadromous Fish
Commission.
Another important component of our fisheries program is
safety. Commercial fishing is the deadliest occupation in the
nation. In D17 we have a robust prevention, enforcement, and
response programs. As a result, long-term trends show a
decrease in casualties. Essentially the Coast Guard ensures
vessels are fishing when, where, and how they're allowed by
domestic and international law. This takes an active patrol
presence by our largest and most capable cutters and aircraft.
This is becoming more of a challenge as our cutters continue to
experience increased mechanical failures. However, a number of
initiatives are underway to improve our effectiveness.
Strong partnerships, the use of technology, and world class
fisheries training program, new maritime security assets, and
most importantly integrated Deepwater system will greatly
contribute to our fisheries mission here in Alaska. Coast Guard
enjoys and values the excellent relationships with the North
Pacific Fisheries Management Council, the National Marine
Fisheries Service, the State of Alaska, and the fishing
industry. We have also developed solid working relationships
with our international Pacific Rim partners. To leverage
technology we are promoting the expanded use of the VMS to
better monitor compliance with the ever growing regulations and
closed areas. And our fisheries training center in Kodiak has
been key to enforcing the increasingly complex management
programs. Our greatest gains will come from new capability
provided by the Maritime Safety and Security Teams, and more so
Deepwater.
MSST Anchorage was commissioned late last year and has
already begun to conduct security missions throughout the
state, such as cruise ship escorts in Southeast Alaska, and
security patrols in Valdez. Thus, freeing our patrol boats to
perform more fisheries enforcement. However, most at sea Alaska
fisheries enforcement is conducted by Deepwater assets. Major
cutters and aircraft are the centerpiece of our presence in the
North Pacific and the Bering Sea. But continue to face severe
readiness challenges. The two oldest cutters in fleet are both
homeported in Alaska and slated for decommissioning in the not
to distant future. The scheduled replacement of these cutters
is in jeopardy if Deepwater funding is reduced.
The Coast Guard greatly appreciates your support over the
years and asks you to support the President's current Deepwater
funding request. With respect to the Magnuson-Stevens
reauthorization, fisheries management in Alaska is a success
story. Fish stocks are healthy and there is a commitment to the
resource from managers, industry, and enforcement. This is in
and of itself fosters compliance, and therefore facilities our
job.
Our role on the Council is to provide expert advice on at
sea enforcement and vessel safety. Nevertheless we can and do
influence regulations, we value this role and take this
responsibility seriously. Coast Guard efforts would benefit
from an expanded use of VMS for national security purposes
currently restricted by confidentially provisions in the Act.
This will greatly improve our maritime domain awareness.
In closing, the Coast Guard has always been a welcome
partner at the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council, and
our recommendations are carefully considered. We care committed
to maintaining this partnership into the future, and thank you
for the opportunity to discuss this important issue with you
today. I'd be happy to answer any of your questions.
[The prepared statement of Rear Admiral Olson follows:]
Statement of Rear Admiral James C. Olson, Commander, Seventeenth Coast
Guard District, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the
subcommittee. I am Rear Admiral James Olson, Commander of the
Seventeenth Coast Guard District. Thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today to discuss the Coast Guard's fisheries
enforcement role in Alaska in support of the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries
Conservation and Management Act.
The Coast Guard is firmly committed to providing at-sea enforcement
in support of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and national goals for living
marine resource conservation and management. The Coast Guard recognizes
that the economic and biological health of our fisheries is of
considerable national importance, and as the District Commander
responsible for Coast Guard operations in Alaska, I am keenly aware of
the significance of fisheries to the residents of Alaska. Alaskan
fisheries provide a livelihood for a large commercial harvesting
industry, subsistence for Alaskans, a product for consumption by the
American public, and recreational opportunities for countless Alaskans
and visitors alike. The Magnuson-Stevens Act embodies the principle
that we all have a collective responsibility to exercise good
stewardship over these valuable resources and that the various
stakeholders should be part of the process that seeks to achieve that
stewardship. The Coast Guard is committed to support these management
goals by providing effective enforcement and by participating in the
process every step of the way.
Coast Guard Living Marine Resource Enforcement
The Coast Guard's long-range mission is, ``To provide effective and
professional enforcement to advance national goals for the conservation
and management of living marine resources and their environment.'' To
accomplish this, we have established three objectives:
Prevent illegal encroachments of the U.S. Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ) and internal waters by foreign fishing vessels.
Ensure compliance with domestic living marine resource
laws and regulations within the U.S. EEZ by U.S. fishers.
Ensure compliance with international agreements for the
management of living marine resources.
As the operational commander responsible for all Coast Guard
operations in Alaska, my job is to turn the national Coast Guard policy
outlined above into at-sea enforcement that takes into account the
regional characteristics of fisheries. To prevent illegal encroachments
of the U.S. EEZ, Coast Guard cutters and aircraft in Alaska patrol both
the U.S./Russian Maritime Boundary in the Bering Sea and the U.S./
Canadian Maritime Boundary in Dixon Entrance. These are my top fishery
law enforcement priorities, and incursions in both these areas have
trended downward in recent years. We attribute this to a number of
factors including a robust enforcement presence, strong partnerships
with our counterparts in Russia and Canada, as well as declining fish
stocks in the Russian and Canadian EEZs near U.S. maritime borders. The
threats on both borders have seasonal changes and activity may vary
from year to year, but protecting the sovereignty of Alaska's maritime
boundaries requires significant resources and a near full time Coast
Guard presence during peak activity periods that may last several
months. Of the two boundaries, the U.S./Russian Maritime Boundary is
more resource intensive to enforce due to its remote location, extreme
weather conditions, and high level of activity which starts in mid-May
and can continue through December.
Domestic fisheries in Alaska are where the Coast Guard exerts most
of its effort in support of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. In the past
decade, Alaskan fisheries have seen major changes. Regulatory regimes
continue to grow increasingly complex, closed areas have expanded by
over an order of magnitude encompassing hundreds of thousands of square
miles, and a movement toward rationalization continues to lengthen
fishing seasons, while also reducing the number of search and rescue
missions. These factors all place changing demands on fisheries
enforcement and require new approaches.
Regulations in the North Pacific are vast and complex. There are
over 300 federal time, area, and species openings and closings per
year. Vast portions of the EEZ in Alaska are closed for habitat
conservation, protected species, or by-catch management. These areas
are most often in or adjacent to historical fishing grounds requiring
close monitoring. This includes a recent proposal to close 279,000
square miles in the Aleutian Islands. The Coast Guard is essentially
required to ensure vessels are fishing when, where and how they are
permitted to by law. This takes an active patrol presence by our
largest and most capable cutters and aircraft.
Nearly every fishery in Alaska is either currently rationalized or
is on the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) agenda to be
rationalized within the next five years. The Coast Guard supports these
rationalization programs as they provide safer working conditions,
afford fishermen more latitude in when they fish, and thus avoid harsh
weather conditions. However, rationalized fisheries have different
requirements for enforcement than traditionally managed fisheries. For
example, in the first rationalized fishery in Alaska, and the largest
Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) program in the world, the halibut/
sablefish IFQ fishery expanded from a few days to an eight month long
season. While the number of Search and Rescue cases has dropped
dramatically, these particular fisheries require a much longer
enforcement season.
Coast Guard Cutters and aircraft also patrol areas outside the U.S.
EEZ to monitor compliance with international agreements for the
management of marine resources. Important examples include the Central
Bering Sea (``Donut Hole'') Pollock Convention and the North Pacific
Ocean in support of the United Nations' worldwide moratorium on large-
scale high seas pelagic drift net (HSDN) fishing. The Coast Guard works
closely with the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission (NPAFC) to
coordinate international enforcement efforts in a threat area covering
over one million square miles. The Coast Guard in Alaska also
participates in the North Pacific Heads of the Coast Guard forum that
has a working group dedicated to high seas fishery enforcement issues
around the Pacific Rim.
This period of growth in our fisheries enforcement mission in the
post 9/11 operating environment requires a balance of cutters and
aircraft to meet myriad mission demands with aging legacy assets. Some
of the challenges of the aging fleet are that our cutters continue to
experience more and more lost operational days due to mechanical
failures. However, there are a number of long and short-range
initiatives underway to improve our effectiveness and mitigate the
reduced hours dedicated to fisheries enforcement.
Strong partnerships with other agencies, the use of technology, a
world-class fisheries training program, new maritime security assets,
and most importantly the development and implementation Integrated
Deepwater System will greatly contribute to our effectiveness in
Alaskan fisheries enforcement.
Strong Partnerships: Effective living marine resource management
and enforcement requires a team effort. In Alaska, the Coast Guard
enjoys and values excellent relationships with the NPFMC, National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, the United States Attorney, the State of Alaska, and
the fishing industry. We have also developed solid working
relationships with our Pacific Rim partners in Russia, Japan, South
Korea, China, and Canada to help thwart illegal fishing on the high
seas. This summer, the USCGC JARVIS is participating in a multilateral
effort involving all these countries to combat illegal, unreported and
unregulated (IUU) fishing in the North Pacific. This operation will
also set the stage for multilateral cooperation in other mission areas
such as migrant interdiction, counter narcotics, and maritime security.
Use of Technology: To better leverage existing technology, the
Coast Guard is promoting the expanded use of VMS in Alaska fisheries.
This will allow us to better monitor compliance with the ever-growing
regulatory regimes and expansive closed areas. VMS can also benefit
resource managers and has been used a number of times in SAR cases. As
new sweeping fishery management programs are being developed, new tools
for enforcement need to be developed as well. Existing technologies
such as VMS, electronic logbooks and video monitoring all have
potential applications as fishery enforcement tools that can help
mitigate some of the enforcement challenge of complex fishery
regulations that occur over an enormous space in Alaska. A good example
is the VMS provisions required under the new crab rationalization
program. Crab rationalization will likely take what has recently been a
one-week fishery and expand it to several months and distribute fishing
effort over a much larger area. VMS will be a critical component in
helping to ensure the safety of its participants, and to ensure
compliance with this extremely valuable fishery.
Fisheries Training: The Coast Guard's North Pacific Regional
Fisheries Training Center (NPRFTC) in Kodiak has been a key component
in training Coast Guard boarding officers in these increasingly complex
regulations. At the start of each major cutter patrol, the Center
provides just-in-time training in the specific fisheries the cutter
will enforce throughout their patrol. NPRFTC also deploys instructors
with the cutters to reinforce the training provided and to assist with
actual boardings. Imperative to the great success of the Training
Center is the ongoing enthusiastic participation of the fishing
industry, NMFS, and other federal/state partners in the training
process.
New Maritime Security Assets: What will have the greatest impact on
our ability to continue to provide effective enforcement in Alaska
fisheries is the new capability that comes with the Maritime Safety and
Security Teams (MSST) and most significantly, the Integrated Deepwater
System. MSST Anchorage was commissioned earlier this year and has
already begun to execute a number of Ports Waterways and Coastal
Security missions throughout the State; missions previously
accomplished by our cutters and small boats. For example, to date, the
MSST has conducted over 50 cruise ship escorts, provided several weeks
of harbor patrols in Valdez, and provided security for a military out
load in Anchorage. This has allowed my patrol boats to focus more
effort on fisheries enforcement.
Deepwater: at-sea fisheries enforcement is conducted by the Coast
Guard Deepwater assets. The Deepwater program will modernize our aging
and obsolete legacy cutters, aircraft, and C4ISR systems, greatly
increasing the Coast Guard's Deepwater mission performance and
awareness within the maritime domain. Deepwater has never been more
relevant for conducting Coast Guard operations, and in this case the
fisheries enforcement in a vast and often harsh environment. Despite
notable successes, of which there are many, there are areas of concern
that warrant continued focus and attention. Most notably is the
continuing readiness struggle of our Deepwater fleet. Our major cutters
and aircraft are the centerpiece of our maritime presence in the North
Pacific and Central Bering Sea. These assets are continuing to face
severe maintenance and readiness challenges that, when combined with an
increased post-9/11 operations tempo, impair the Coast Guard's ability
to ensure effective enforcement presence in all areas of concern. Any
reduction in Deepwater funding will result in operational capacity
going away faster than it can be replaced. The two oldest cutters in
the fleet are both home ported in Alaska and are slated to be
decommissioned in the not-too-distant future and replaced with new
Deepwater cutters. The scheduled replacement of these cutters is in
jeopardy if Deepwater funding is reduced below the President's
requested levels. Without the requested funding, the acquisition and
thus current and future Coast Guard readiness and ability to perform
at-sea fisheries enforcement is put at substantial risk. The Coast
Guard greatly appreciates your support over the years and asks for your
continued support of The President's Deepwater funding request of $966M
in Fiscal Year 2006.
Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization
The fisheries management system is working well in Alaska.
Federally managed stocks in Alaska are healthy and there is a
commitment to the resource from managers, industry and enforcement
agencies alike. The open public process and culture of science and
conservation that exists in the North Pacific guides the decisions of
the Council. This in and of itself fosters compliance, and therefore,
facilitates the job of the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard routinely
provides comment throughout the development of management measures and
regulations regarding both enforcement and safety, but remains neutral
to allocation issues and specific conservation and economic objectives.
Our role in the Council process is to provide expert advice on the
operational realities of at-sea law enforcement and vessel safety
during the development of various management measures and alternatives.
Nevertheless, the Coast Guard can and does influence the development of
regulations. Our participation as a non-voting member on the regional
councils is the starting point of effective enforcement. We value this
role and take this responsibility very seriously.
The Administration is considering a number of amendments to the
Magnuson-Stevens Act to enhance the effectiveness of fisheries law
enforcement. In Alaska, tools such as broader application of VMS and
cooperative state-federal enforcement programs are used to achieve
enforcement, management, and safety objectives. Incorporating existing
technology and leveraging strong enforcement partnerships are becoming
more and more important as the requirements for fisheries enforcement
change in response to changes in fisheries regulations and other law
enforcement demands.
Closing
Federal fisheries management, through the work of the North Pacific
Council, is a collective success story. The Coast Guard has always been
a welcome partner at the NPFMC and our recommendations regarding
enforcement and safety are always carefully considered. Fishery
management in the North Pacific continues to be successful because the
three core components of sound management, use of the best available
science and effective enforcement are part and parcel of every
management measure. We look forward to and are committed to maintaining
this effective partnership into the future.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this important issue with
you today. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Admiral Olson. The sound from the
microphones is at maximum right now. So I would just ask the
witnesses, if the could to speak directly into the microphones
so those in the rear can hear a little more clearly. Thank you,
Admiral Olson. Mr. Bedford.
STATEMENT OF DAVID BEDFORD, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES,
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
Mr. Bedford. Good morning Mr. Chairman and Congressman
Young. For the record, my name is David Bedford. I serve as
Deputy Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
I also serve as the Commissioner for the State of Alaska on the
Pacific Salmon Commission. I want to welcome you to Alaska and
thank you for the opportunity to provide some comments on
Alaska's stewardship of its bountiful fishery resources. The
Alaskan approach to fishery management is grounded on
obligations set in the State Constitution, requiring management
of fish and wildlife to provide for sustained yield and
reserving fish and wildlife for the common use of the people.
Management responsibility is divided between the Department of
Fish and Game and a seven-member Board of Fisheries. The Board
is charged with developing management plans that provide for
resource conservation and allocate harvest among sport,
personal use, commercial, and subsistence fisheries. The
department is charged with conducting research, monitoring
resource status, and with managing harvest consistent with the
management plans developed by the board.
Federal waters fisheries are subject to regulation under
the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries and Conversation Management Act.
With the North Pacific Fishery Management Council responsible
for developing fishery management plans. NOAA Fisheries is the
principal management agency, but the management of many Federal
waters fisheries is delegated in substantial measure to the
State of Alaska.
The major turning points in the development of Alaska's
fishery management were marked by events that increased local
control. Prior to statehood Alaska's salmon fishery were
managed by Federal agencies in Washington, D.C. Federal
management of salmon was an unqualified failure. In 1953
President Dwight Eisenhower declared a disaster in Alaska
because salmon runs had declined precipitously. With statehood
Alaska replaced distant disengaged Federal management with
direct local hands on control. As a consequence Alaska's salmon
runs were restored.
The other significant turning point came in 1976 with the
passage of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. With the creation of the
North Pacific Fisheries Management Council, and consequent
local control under Magnuson-Stevens, the Council instituted a
management program with conservation and long term
sustainability at the heart of that program.
Alaskan fisheries management is successful because it's
based on a long term perspective seeking to conserve fishery
resources for use both today and by succeeding generations.
Alaska relies on a number of strategies. Management decisions
provide first for resource conservation, and then for human
use. In that fashion we provide for use across generations.
Management is based on science, management is adaptive, it uses
current information. Harvest allocation and resource management
are held distinct. The public has a meaningful role in
allocation of management decisions. One important distinction
between management under the Magnuson Act and the state
management program is the effect of litigation on fisheries
management. While the state has comprehensive statutes
governing the regulatory process, it is rare that the
implementation of a management plan is delayed by litigation.
In contrast the Council's regulatory process is often
interrupted by litigation. Generally with claims asserting a
procedural violation of the National Environmental Policy. This
is unfortunate since the public process that the Council
follows and the rigorous science that grounds Council actions
satisfies the policies that underline NEPA and covers most of
the substance of that Act as well.
The success in maintaining abundant resources and viable
fisheries in Alaska leads to the conclusion that Magnuson-
Stevens is, in many regards effective as written. Some
provisions of Magnuson-Stevens Act are particularly important
if we expect to continue this record of success. In particular
the Council structure should be kept as is. With the Governor's
making recommendations for Council appointments and the seats
designated by statute left unchanged. There are also some
amendments to the Act which would improve management.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act, NEPA, and the Administrative
Procedures Act all influence fisheries planning and program
development. And sometimes create long delays in permitting and
decisionmaking. This can be addressed by amending the Magnuson-
Stevens Act to deem Fisheries Management Plans to be the
functional equivalent of the NEPA document. The Act should also
be modified to authorize dedicated access privileges. The North
Pacific Management Council has implemented successful fishery
management programs, including Individual Fishing Quotas,
cooperatives, and community development quotas. This should be
in the toolbox for the Council's in the future.
There should be a change in the definition of over fishing
to acknowledge natural impacts. Currently there is not codified
term for natural population declines. So the terms over fished
and over fishing are used in all instances in which that
occurs, regardless of cause.
Perhaps the greatest challenge that the State of Alaska
will face is preserving the active role that our state plays in
fisheries management. As Congress considers reauthorization,
the establishment of a national oceans policy and other
relevant fishery related legislation. The State of Alaska's
greatest challenge and highest priority will be to insure that
Congress acknowledges our state's jurisdiction, considers our
state's unique characteristics, recognizes our management
successes, incorporates local knowledge in the management
process, and fosters firm Federal, state partnerships. The
driving force behind Alaska statehood was the opportunity to
gain sovereign control over the management of our fisheries
resources. The exercise of this sovereignty is responsible for
the sustainability and success of our fisheries. As we discuss
fishery policy at a national level, local control of the
fisheries and fisheries resources is something that the state
will seek to maintain. Thank you very much for the opportunity
to speak. I'd be glad to answer any questions you have.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Bedford.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bedford follows:]
Statement of David Bedford, Deputy Commissioner,
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Introduction
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. For the record, my name is David
Bedford. I serve as Deputy Commissioner of the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game focusing on fishery issues. I also serve as the
Commissioner for the State of Alaska on the Pacific Salmon Commission,
the body responsible for developing conservation and harvest sharing
agreements for Pacific Salmon under a treaty between the United States
and Canada. I am appearing on behalf of Governor Murkowski. He
appreciates your invitation but was called away on other pressing
business and asked that I appear on his behalf.
I want to welcome you and the members of the Committee to Alaska
and thank you for the opportunity to offer comments to the Committee on
Alaska's stewardship of its bountiful fishery resources. Alaska's
people depend on our fisheries as a source of livelihood, recreation
and nutrition. Alaskans take advantage of our fishery resources in
subsistence, commercial, sport and personal use fisheries. Over half of
the total harvest of fish in the United States is taken from the waters
off Alaska. Our fisheries support half of the jobs in Alaska fully or
in part.
I intend to address the questions raised by the committee in its
letter inviting Governor Murkowski to testify. Management in Alaska is
divided between state and federal waters. It is my understanding that
the Committee has invited other witnesses who will speak directly to
federal management under Magnuson Stevens so I will focus my comments
on management under the state system.
I. Fishery Management in Alaska.
Fishery management in Alaska is divided between federal waters
fisheries and state waters fisheries with different bodies of law,
management agencies, and regulatory authorities engaged in each.
Alaskan fishery management is grounded on obligations set in the
state constitution requiring management of fish and wildlife to provide
for sustained yield and reserving fish and wildlife for the common use
of the people. Thus, the constitution sets the standard for
conservation of the resource with the objective of allowing for human
use of that resource in perpetuity. To meet these basic obligations
Alaska's founders divided management responsibility between the
Department of Fish and Game and a seven member Board of Fisheries. In
broad-brush strokes, the Board is charged with developing management
plans that provide for resource conservation and allocate harvestable
surplus among users. The department is charged with conducting
research, monitoring resource status to generate the information
necessary to support development of management plans and with managing
harvest consistent with those management plans.
The state's management program embraces an array of human uses
including sport, personal use, commercial and customary and traditional
subsistence fisheries. Subsistence, which accounts for a small
percentage of the total harvest, is accorded a priority under state
law. After providing for the subsistence opportunities, the Board of
Fisheries allocates the remaining harvestable surplus among the other
fisheries.
The state manages a wide variety of fisheries with management plans
in each region of the state that address specific fisheries for
identified species. For example, the Alaska Administrative Code has
nine management plans for the harvest of finfish in subsistence
fisheries with the first applying to Kotzebue in Western Alaska and
proceeding across the state to Southeast Alaska where we currently sit.
Elsewhere, the code contains twelve management plans for the commercial
harvest of salmon in the Bristol Bay region. Each area has a set of
management plans that fit its unique set of fisheries and may cover
salmon, herring, crab, black cod, rockfish, ling cod and a variety of
other species.
Federal waters fisheries are subject to regulation under the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act with the North
Pacific Fishery Management Council responsible for developing fishery
management plans. NOAA Fisheries is the principle management agency but
the management of many federal waters fisheries is delegated in
substantial measure to the State of Alaska. This is not surprising
since fish move freely between state and federal waters and the state
had a fully developed management program for many of the species of
concern to the Council and NOAA when the Magnuson-Stevens Act was
adopted. The Council and Alaska Board of Fisheries collaborate in
development of fishery management plans when the stocks and fisheries
overlap their respective jurisdictions.
II. Major turning points in the development of fisheries management in
Alaska.
The major turning points in the development of Alaska's fishery
management were marked by events that increased local control. Prior to
Statehood, in 1959, salmon fisheries were managed by federal agencies
in Washington D.C. With statehood, Alaska gained local control of
fishery management, replacing federal management with the state agency
and Board of Fisheries. In 1976, with the passage of the Magnuson Act,
the United States began to take control of fisheries in federal waters
from 3 to 200 miles off shore and vested regulatory authority in the
North Pacific Fishery Management Council, a body with a majority from
Alaska.
Federal management of salmon in Alaska was an unqualified failure.
Under federal management, fishery seasons were set prior to the
beginning of the fishery with little resource monitoring or in-season
control of the fisheries. In 1953, President Dwight Eisenhower declared
a disaster in Alaska because salmon runs had declined precipitously and
at statehood in 1959 the total harvest had fallen to 25 million fish,
the lowest catch since 1900.
The crisis in the salmon fishery was one of the principle driving
forces behind Alaska's efforts to secure statehood. Bill Egan,
President of the Alaska Constitutional Convention put it succinctly in
a message to the Delegates of the Convention, February 5, 1956:
It is my very firm conviction that, in the immediate years
following the advent of statehood to Alaska, our fisheries
conservation problem will be solved. With local control of our
fisheries, the annual pack of salmon taken from territorial
waters will quickly take an upturn because conservation
policies would then be laid down by Alaskans intimately
familiar with the problem. ``the solving of the problem of
perpetuation of our great fisheries resource can only be
accomplished with the right to fully govern ourselves.
With statehood, Alaska replaced distant, disengaged federal
management with direct, local, hands-on control. Area management
biologists were empowered to open and close fisheries based on the data
collected during the fishery. Instead of establishing fishing periods
at the beginning of the year, openings were modified weekly or even
daily.
While this approach introduced day-to-day uncertainty for fishermen
and fish processors, it gave substantial assurance that conservation
goals would be met thereby improving prospects for harvests in future
years. With local control, sustained yield came first. As one
management biologist put it, ``If you put too many salmon in the river
and short changed the fishermen's harvest you could expect some pointed
criticism. But if you put too many fish in the fishermen's nets and
shortchanged the escapement you could expect to lose your job.''
By the early 1980's, the salmon runs were restored and the 1990's
saw a series of record harvests.
The other significant turning point came with the implementation of
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) in
1976. The MSA was intended to extend the United States' control over
submerged lands and marine resources out to 200 miles off shore. MSA
Americanized the offshore fisheries, which at the time, were controlled
by foreign fishing fleets. It also established the fishery management
councils, which created a substantial level of local control over the
developing federal waters fisheries.
Prior to the MSA, the foreign fleets had every reason to maximize
harvest and no reason to support long-term conservation since harvests
were not limited and any fish forgone by one vessel would likely be
hauled in by someone else.
As Ted Stevens observed:
As a young Senator, I once went to Kodiak... and flew up to the
Pribilofs. As we flew up there we counted 90 factory trawlers
that were fishing out there during the winter. This was right
about the time of the Russian Christmas. We were appalled. I
sent them back to make some photographs of the decks of those
trawlers. There was everything on the decks from ocean mammals
to all types and species of fish. Many of the trawlers had a
hole in the center of the deck. They just shoved everything
in--there was a big grinder inside and everything that went
down the hole was ground up into meal. Being appalled about
that I went back and talked to my friend, Warren Magnuson, and
that was the beginning of the 200-mile limit legislation.
Testimony of U.S. Senator Ted Stevens, U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy, Alaska Regional Meeting, Anchorage, Alaska,
August 21, 2002
With the creation of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council
and the consequent local control under MSA, the council instituted a
management program similar in many ways to that employed by the State
of Alaska with conservation and long-term sustainability at the heart
of its management program.
III. Strengths of Alaskan fisheries management.
Alaskan fishery management is successful because it is based on a
long-term perspective, seeking to conserve fishery resources for use
both today and by succeeding generations. Alaska relies on a number of
strategies in its management to achieve these ends:
The resource comes first. To assure long-term use and
sustained yield, management must begin by setting conservation
objectives and control harvest to ensure that these objectives are met.
Management is based on science. Fishery resources are
studied to determine life history, long-term conservation requirements
and harvests are set based on the resource that is surplus.
Where possible, management is adaptive and uses current
information. Alaskan managers monitor the fishery harvests and respond
with fishery openings and closures or other modifications as new
information becomes available. If there is no source of current
information the harvest is set at conservative levels.
Harvest allocation and resource management are distinct.
The managers responsible for monitoring the fishery resource and making
decisions on when and where the public can harvest must make objective
decisions based on science and dictated by the status of the resource.
Decisions on allocating the available harvest users should be and is
decided by another body, the Board of Fisheries.
The public has a meaningful role in allocation and
management decisions. The resource allocation process conducted by the
Alaska Board of Fisheries is open to the public with the issues debated
and decisions made in public session. In addition, the Department of
Fish and Game has established a number of advisory groups to help
develop strategies to implement fishery management plans. Meaningful
public involvement in resource management engenders support for
resource conservation and helps in the development of harvest plans
that increase efficient use.
The management of federal waters fisheries is parallel in many
regards. Harvests are established based on the best available science
with caution increasing as the certainty of the data decreases.
Furthermore, the activities of the council are kept distinct from that
of scientific advisors with the council limiting harvests to levels
below the maximum determined acceptable by the Scientific and
Statistical Committee. As with state fisheries, management of the
federal waters fisheries relies on in season catch monitoring with the
fisheries closed as harvest levels are reached.
A single important distinction between management under MSA and the
state management program is the effect of litigation on fishery
management. While the state has comprehensive statutes governing the
regulatory process relatively few decisions of the Board of Fisheries
are overturned in state court and it is rare that implementation of a
management plan is delayed by litigation. In contrast the Council's
regulatory process is often interrupted by litigation, generally a
claim asserting a procedural violation of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). This is unfortunate since the public process that
the Council follows and the rigorous science that grounds Council
actions satisfies the policies that underlie NEPA and covers most of
the substance of the Act.
IV. Progress toward ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries management.
The state management program takes ecosystem considerations into
account both in the science underlying management and in the regulatory
process. For example, the department generally manages salmon stocks
for a biological escapement goal, that is, the number of salmon
returning to a river that is necessary to provide for maximum sustained
yield. Biological escapement goals, when calculated, take a holistic
view toward identifying the escapement level, on average, that will, in
perpetuity, provide these yields, given all other mortality to the
stock, the ecological role of the stock and its function within the
various ecosystems in which it is involved.
While ecosystem management is a new and developing approach to
fishery management, quite frankly the ecosystem factors of greatest
impact in Alaska are large-scale environmental changes over which we
have little influence and to which we can only react. For example, the
cyclical changes in weather and water temperatures of the Pacific
Decadal Oscillation have very substantial effects on the abundance and
distribution of marine populations with consequent impacts on
opportunities for human use.
At the federal level, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council
currently includes many ecosystem considerations in the development of
fishery management plans. I understand that the Council has constituted
a committee that is assessing how ecosystem management might be better
incorporated into existing management process and is looking at
developing a Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the Aleutians Islands.
V. Lessons from the North Pacific for the reauthorization of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act.
The success in maintaining abundant resources and viable fisheries
in Alaska leads to the conclusion that Magnuson- Stevens is, in many
regards, effective as written. Some provisions of MSA are particularly
important if we expect to continue this record of success:
The Council structure should be kept as is, with the
governors making recommendations for council appointments and the seats
designated by statute left unchanged. Local knowledge and local control
of the fisheries is one of the keys to the success of management at
both the federal and state levels.
Science is the firmament on which management stands.
Therefore, the Act should maintain the use of credible science with a
clear separation between resource assessment and allocation by
utilizing an independent Scientific and Statistical Committee.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council has proved
to be an effective steward of the marine resources. Consequently, the
Act when reauthorized, should continue to support the council process
by:
1. Maintaining current authority of the Council to address
cold water corals/fisheries interaction issues through fishery
management plans and Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) provisions.
2. Maintaining current authority of the Council to regulate
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) through Fishery management plans.
3. Maintain ``rollovers'' of Fisheries Management Plans if
they are not approved by NOAA Fisheries in a timely manner once
approved by the Regional Fishery Management Councils.
While the Act, as written, has in general permitted effective
management of fisheries in the North Pacific, there are some amendments
to the Act which would improve management:
Reconcile MSA, NEPA, APA, etc. in the interest of a more
efficient process.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act, NEPA, and the Administrative Procedure
Act (APA) all influence fishery management planning and program
development, sometimes creating long delays in permitting and decision-
making. These delays are unnecessary and cost the government, the
fishing industry, and coastal communities time and money. The MSA could
include the best parts of NEPA and the APA--such as ensuring public
participation and thorough environmental and economic analyses--while
removing many of the cumbersome requirements.
What it means to Alaska: Alaska's fishing industry is its largest
private sector employer and produces over half of the nation's seafood
harvests. The economy of many Alaska coastal communities is dependent
upon fisheries. A streamlined regulatory process helps assure the
timely and responsive fisheries management that the Alaskan fishing
industry and dependent coastal communities require to maximize
fisheries value.
Amendment: Insert language into MSA deeming Fishery Management
Plans (FMP) to be the functional equivalent of a NEPA document. To
achieve this functional equivalency, Congress may choose to require an
FMP include:
a. a description and assessment of alternatives;
b. an evaluation of the relationship between local short-term
uses of the fishery resources and the maintenance and
enhancement of long-term productivity;
c. an assessment of significant impacts on non-targeted
species;
d. an assessment of significant adverse effects to the marine
ecosystem which cannot be avoided should the proposal be
implemented;
e. an assessment of significant social and economic effects,
including those to coastal communities; and
f. a public participation requirement that is fulfilled
through oral and written public testimony to the Regional
Fishery Management Councils (RFMCs).
Assure an appropriate definition for an ecosystem-based
approach to fisheries management.
Ecosystem approaches to management are the new trend in marine
management. If ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries management is
added to the MSA, it must be appropriate to implement, scientifically
defensible, and recognize human uses as essential. Therefore, socio-
economic data must be an integral component of an ecosystem-based
approach to management. Ecosystem variables must be explicitly defined,
new funding made available so that base programs are not sacrificed,
and research priorities made clear.
What it means to Alaska: The State of Alaska and the North Pacific
FMC already manage resources with the ecosystem in mind, as Alaska's
sustainable fisheries demonstrate. Proposed changes to law such as,
compelling RFMCs to consider matters that aren't scientifically
defensible or fiscally feasible, or that fail to account for human
uses, threaten Alaska's current sustainable fisheries management
regimes.
Amendment: Provide a definition of an ecosystem-based approach to
fishery management that recognizes human uses as a vital ecosystem
component, evolves with new science, and expands to sufficiently
support the approach. Since the number of factors that might be
involved in ecosystem approaches to management would be numerous, MSA
should specify the factors that RFMCs must consider or establish a
process in which the RFMCs make that determination. If the RFMC
identified the factors, the Science and Statistical Committee should be
identified as the source of expert advice in statute.
Authorize Dedicated Access Privileges (DAPs) for use by
RFMCs.
The NPFMC has implemented several successful fishery management
programs that allow fishermen to fish with DAPs--including Individual
Fishing Quotas (IFQs), cooperatives, and community development quotas
(CDQs). Every RFMC should have the opportunity to develop and utilize
DAP programs in the future, if they feel it appropriate for their
fisheries. If use fees are implemented as part of DAPs management, a
share of such fees should be allocated to states to assist with their
share of research, data, management, and enforcement costs.
What it means to Alaska: The race for fish has intensified in
Alaskan fisheries; as a result, fishermen are more efficient and fleets
are overcapitalized. Fast-paced, compressed fisheries encourage
productivity over safety for fisheries participants, restrain bycatch
reduction, reduce attention to habitat concerns, and hinder use of
quality handling practices that provide for product and market
diversity and increased value. Alaska's experience with IFQs and
cooperative management demonstrates that share-based fishery management
effectively addresses these problems. DAPs are a tool that must remain
in the RFMC management toolbox.
Amendment: DAPs should be authorized for use by RFMCs and replace
``IFQ'' throughout MSA.
Change the definition of ``overfishing'' to acknowledge
natural impacts.
Shifts in water temperature, degradation in habitat, pollution, or
disease can cause fish populations to drop below harvestable levels.
Currently, there is no codified term for natural population declines,
so the terms ``overfished'' and ``overfishing'' are used. Using these
terms unfairly places the blame on fishermen, when fishing is not the
cause of a population decline.
What it means to Alaska: In Alaska, while there is little habitat
degradation or pollution, there is widespread evidence of climatic
changes that have affected the distribution and abundance of marine
resources. In order to avoid unnecessary and undesirable economic and
regulatory consequences, it is important that when stocks of groundfish
and shellfish are at lower levels of abundance, as a result of changes
in the natural environment, they are not mislabeled as ``overfished''.
Amendment: The terms ``overfishing'' and ``overfished'' should
refer only to the effects of fishing harvests and pressure, not to the
effects of habitat degradation, pollution, or natural environmental of
climatic changes.
Support federal funding of VMS deployment requirements, as
necessary.
Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) can monitor, among other things,
vessel location, when a boat is fishing, and surface water temperature.
Tracking vessels by satellite can facilitate search, rescue and
enforcement efforts. However, VMS should not be required, but used as
necessary, practicable, and feasible. When VMS is used, state and
federal agencies should jointly determine the appropriateness of its
use and share VMS data, something not currently occurring. VMS data is
not protected from the Freedom of Information Act and therefore,
confidentiality is of concern. When VMS is required, capital costs
should be borne by the federal government.
What it means to Alaska: Alaska's fisheries are prosecuted by a
very diverse fleet, ranging in size from under 30' to the largest
factory trawler. A one-size fits all approach to VMS requirements is
inappropriate given this diversity.
Amendment: Congress should require a cost/benefit analysis to
determine the feasibility of VMS use for its potential conservation,
enforcement, and safety benefits, as well as a cumulative impacts
examination as to existing, overlapping, and redundant requirements for
commercial fishing vessels. Data-sharing agreements between state and
federal agencies should be developed, while considering individual
confidentiality.
Prevent Data Quality Act infringement on RFMC use of science
for management.
The Data Quality Act has recently come to our attention. While we
have not yet had the opportunity to fully explore this Act, we do
believe that, that as written, it has the potential to have significant
ramifications on the RFMC process and could result in major delays in
management actions, as well as a defacto de-regionalization result.
Amendment: Given the uncertainty that this Act interjects into the
RFMC process, we recommend that inclusion of language in MSA which
stipulates that a properly constituted Scientific and Statistical
Committee could serve as the peer review panel for influential and
highly influential data and analyses related to management of the
fisheries in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone.
VII. Sources and levels of funding for fisheries management and
scientific activities.
Alaska manages fisheries in both state and federal waters and is
subject to commitments entered into by the United States under
international fishery treaties. Furthermore, the state receives grants
under entitlement programs available to all the states for the
development and management of sport fisheries. Consequently, Alaska's
fishery management program is supported by both state and federal
funds.
Overall, the state will provide approximately $36 million for
fishery management in Fiscal Year 2005. The federal contribution to
management of commercial fisheries will be approximately $14 million.
Additional federal resources are available for fisheries research
through the Alaska-Yukon-Kuskokwim Sustainable Salmon Initiative and
the North Pacific Research Board.
VIII. What new challenges do you foresee?
In general, Alaska's fisheries face the same challenges as any
other fishery ranging from changes in weather to changes in water
temperatures. As I mentioned previously, these factors have the
potential to affect marine populations, and as a consequence, are
likely to impact human use opportunities.
But perhaps the greatest challenge that the State of Alaska will
face, is preserving the active role that our state plays in fisheries
management. As Congress considers MSA reauthorization, the
establishment of a national oceans policy, and other relevant
fisheries-related legislation, the State of Alaska's greatest challenge
and highest priority will be to ensure that Congress (1) acknowledges
our state's jurisdiction, (2) considers our state's unique
characteristics, (3) recognizes our management successes; (4)
incorporates local knowledge in the management process; and (5) fosters
strong federal-state partnerships.
The driving force behind Alaska's statehood was the opportunity to
gain sovereignty over the management of our fisheries resources. The
exercise of this sovereignty is responsible for the sustainability and
success of our fisheries. As we discuss fisheries policy at a national
level, it is this sovereignty and local control of the fisheries and
fishery resources that the state will seek to maintain.
We also face the challenges created by ever-increasing
globalization of the economy. In the past, markets were regional. Now,
they are global. Improvements in technology, communication, and
transportation have changed the socio-economic landscape of our world.
While these changes present new opportunities, they also present new
challenges.
Take, for example, the proliferation of finfish farming around the
world. Today, farmed salmon raised in Chile compete directly in market
places around the world with wild Alaska salmon. Farmed salmon has
provided a cheaper alternative to wild Alaska salmon, and as a result,
has depressed salmon prices around the globe. In recent years, Alaskan
fishermen and the State of Alaska have been working diligently to
promote the benefits of eating wild Alaskan salmon. And, our promotion
efforts are yielding impressive results. Still, the realities of this
global marketplace are presenting some unprecedented challenges.
Finally, we face the difficult challenge of balancing economic and
social interests associated with fisheries. One need only look to the
debate over crab fishery rationalization in the Bering Sea or
groundfish fishery rationalization in the Gulf of Alaska to understand
how difficult slowing ``the race for fish'' can be. In many of these
cases, fisheries that used to last for weeks are now executed in days
thanks to better technology and gear. But these improvements, and the
speed of the fisheries, have impacts on the health of our fishery
resources.
As the State of Alaska attempts to slow ``the race for fish,''
public debates over rationalization and cooperative structures are
ensuing. As responsible managers of our state's fishery resources, we
face the difficult tasks of finding a way to sustain our fisheries,
increasing the value of our catch, and providing economic benefits to
the state, our local communities, and individual fishermen. Balancing
these interests will not be easy and will take time, but I'm confident
that Alaskans are up to the challenge.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Ms. Madsen?
STATEMENT OF STEPHANIE MADSEN,
NORTH PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
Ms. Madsen. Thank you. Good morning, my name is Stephanie
Madsen. And I'm the Chair of the North Pacific Fishing
Management Council. Welcome to Alaska, Mr. Chairman, and
welcome home Congressman Young. Thank you for the opportunity
to offer comments to the Subcommittee this morning. On
fisheries management successes in Alaska and the
reauthorization of the Stevens-Magnuson Fisheries Conversation
Act.
First, let me say that the North Pacific Fishery Management
Council believes strongly that the current system of managing
our fisheries, as envisioned by the Magnuson-Stevens Act can
and is working effectively. When carried out properly the
council process has all the ingredient of responsible
stewardship of our marine resources. It is based on science. It
is deliberative and transparent. And it representative of all
user groups, and the general public. We believe we have a very
successful model in the North Pacific which demonstrates that
the basic tools for successful and sustainable management
exists within the current MSA. However, we recognize that a
number of changes are being contemplated and we hope our input
and our examples will be informative to the development of
appropriate amendments to the act.
My written testimony provides comments in all the areas of
interest expressed in your invitation. I thank the committee
for allowing the Council to appear here as well as in Kodiak on
Friday. I would like to use my time this morning to address the
members interest in the process of fisheries management in
Alaska. And our ecosystem-based management work. In Kodiak I
will provide information on our programs, as well as lessons we
would like to share from the North Pacific for reauthorization.
Successful management program for Alaska's offshore fisheries
has been developed in the North Pacific Council through it's
partnerships with NOAA Fisheries. And working closely with
ADF&G, the International Pacific Halibut Commission, Pacific
States Fisheries Marine Commission, and of course the United
States Coast Guard.
Another key to successful management is incorporating
diverse views and to decisionmaking. Through a transparent
public process. Meetings are open and public testimony, both
written and oral are taken on every issue prior to
deliberations and final decisions. The foundation for success
has been a long standing precautionary approach embraced in the
North Pacific. Supported by an underpinning of sound science.
And reliance on that science. And by a fishing industry
supporting a priority toward long term sustainability. Strict
annual catch limits for every groundfish fishery are set using
a rigorous process that has been in place for almost 30 years.
Which insures that annual quotas are set at conservative,
sustainable levels.
Beginning with the scientific data from regular abundant
surveys, stock assessment scientists recommend acceptable
biological catch. Our ABC's, these are reviewed by the Councils
Groundfish Plan Teams. Further reviewed by the Councils SSC
prior to the Council setting the total allowable catch, our
TAC's. Which is always set at or below the ABC, and far below
the designated over fishing level.
We believe scientific advice is critical to the successful
management process and should be an integral part of the
council process rather than separate aspect of the overall
decisionmaking process. These quotas are closely monitored to
insure accurate accounting on a real time basis. At the core of
the monitoring system is a comprehensive, industry funded,
onboard observer program. Coupled with requirement for total
weight measurement of most fish harvested. Enforcement of
fishery regulations is accomplished as you've heard today by
complementary efforts of NOAA and the state enforcement
agencies and the U.S. Coast Guard, both one the grounds and
dockside.
Notwithstanding this success, the Council and NOAA
Fisheries continue to develop new and innovative approaches to
address issues such as by catch, protecting habitat, over
capacity, and further development of ecosystem oriented
management approaches. In 2004 the Council and NOAA Fisheries
completed a comprehensive assessment of it's overall management
programs through approval of a Programmatic Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement, which we call our PSEIS. This
process included adoption of revised goals and objective for
the groundfish FMP's, which further strengthen the
precautionary ecosystem-based approach to management. Specific
measures have been take to minimize potential impact for marine
mammals, seabirds, and other components of the Alaska marine
ecosystem.
MSA currently allows for an ecosystem-based approach to
fisheries management. And then incorporating ecosystem
considerations into management can be strengthened with
increased research funding and enhanced collaborative efforts.
As you will hear, Mr. Chairman, in the next few days management
of fisheries off Alaska is by all accounts a success story of
biologic and economic sustainability. The importance of
fisheries to Alaska coastal communities demand it. In summary,
I believe our overall management process illustrates that the
current MSA contains the necessary tools for successful,
sustainable fisheries management. Strengthening the existing
tools or imposing requirements to use the existing tools may be
necessary in the reauthorization process. Thank you again for
the opportunity to comment on the issues. We stand ready to
help in any way we can as you further--as you are further
shaping important changes to the Act, and to respond to those
changes when they are finalized.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Ms. Madsen.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Madsen follows:]
Statement of Stephanie Madsen, Chair,
North Pacific Fishery Management Council
Good morning. My name is Stephanie Madsen, and I am the Chair of
the North Pacific Fishery Management Council based in Anchorage,
Alaska. Thank you for the opportunity to offer comments to the
Subcommittee on fisheries management successes in Alaska and
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act. We believe we have a very successful model in the North
Pacific, and we believe that the basic tools for successful and
sustainable management exist within the current Magnuson-Stevens Act.
However, we recognize that a number of changes are being contemplated
and we hope that our input, and our examples, will be informative to
development of appropriate amendments to that Act.
Fisheries Management in the North Pacific
The successful management program for Alaska's offshore fisheries
has been developed by the North Pacific Council, through its
partnership with NOAA Fisheries and close working relationship with
other state and federal agencies, including the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game (ADF&G), the International Pacific Halibut Commission,
the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, and the United States
Coast Guard.
The North Pacific Fishery Management primarily manages groundfish
in the Gulf of Alaska, Bering Sea, and Aleutian Islands. Groundfish
include cod, pollock, flatfish, Atka mackerel, sablefish, and rockfish
species harvested by trawl, longline, jig, and pot gear. The Council
also makes allocation decisions for halibut, in concert with the
International Pacific Halibut Commission which manages biological
aspects of the resource for U.S.-Canada waters. Other large Alaska
fisheries such as salmon, crab, scallops and herring are managed
jointly with the State of Alaska.
The Council has eleven voting members representing state and
federal fisheries agencies, and fishery participants. Six are from
Alaska, three are from Washington, one from Oregon, and one
representative from NOAA Fisheries. The Council's four non-voting
members represent the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Department of State, and the Pacific States Marine Fisheries
Commission. The Council receives advice at each meeting from a 20
member Advisory Panel (representing commercial fishing and processing
industry sectors, environmentalists, recreational fishermen, and
consumer groups), and from a 15 member Scientific and Statistical
Committee (SSC) of highly respected scientists who review all
information and analyses considered by the Council.
Decisions must conform with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the National
Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal
Protection Act, Regulatory Flexibility Act, and other applicable law
including several executive orders. Regulatory changes may take a year
or longer to develop, analyze, and implement, particularly if complex
or contentious. All Council decisions are forwarded as recommendations
to the Secretary of Commerce, for review and approval.
One of the keys to successful fishery management is incorporating
diverse views into decision making through a transparent public
process. Council meetings are open, and public testimony--both written
and oral--is taken on each and every issue prior to deliberations and
final decisions. Public comments are also taken at all Advisory Panel
and Scientific and Statistical Committee meetings.
Importance of Alaska Fisheries
Fisheries are one of the most important industries in Alaska,
culturally and economically, providing nearly half of all private
sector jobs, and second only to the oil industry in providing revenue
to the state. Over 10,000 people are involved in groundfish fishing and
processing alone; thousands more work in the salmon, crab, scallop, and
other fisheries. In addition, thousands of people work in other
fisheries and fishing support industries, such as sport fishing guides,
gear and fuel suppliers, restaurants, hotels, airlines, and others.
With over 47,000 miles of coastline, and 336,000 square miles of
fishable continental shelf area, the waters off Alaska support a
variety of fisheries. Approximately 1,400 vessels participate in the
groundfish and crab fisheries directly managed by the Council, ranging
from small 20 foot skiffs fishing for near-shore halibut, to a 200+
foot catcher/processors prosecuting midwater pollock fisheries in the
open waters of the Bering Sea. The majority of the fleet, however,
consists of mid-size vessels, anywhere from 40 to 150 feet in length.
These vessels are engaged in longline fisheries for halibut, sablefish,
and cod; trawl fisheries for cod, pollock, and flatfish species; and
pot fisheries for cod and crab. Recreational fisheries for halibut and
salmon are an important part of the fisheries off Alaska.
These fisheries are worth nearly $1 billion ex-vessel annually
(amount paid to fishermen at delivery, prior to value-added
processing). The groundfish fisheries account for a majority of the
overall value, but the halibut, salmon, and shellfish (crab) fisheries
also contribute substantially. Additionally, the Council's community
development quota (CDQ) program allocates from 7.5% to 10% of all
groundfish and crab quotas to six CDQ groups consisting of 66 western
Alaska coastal communities. Through partnerships with other industry
groups, and through direct involvement in fisheries and development of
fisheries related infrastructures, this program allows these remote
coastal communities to continue and enhance their participation in
Alaska fisheries.
Major Turning Points in Alaska Fisheries
Passage of the Magnuson-Stevens Act in 1976 marked a new era in
U.S. fisheries management. Foreign fisheries in the EEZ off Alaska were
rapidly phased out through joint-ventures, with the fisheries fully
prosecuted by domestic fisheries (``Americanized'') by 1990. Management
efforts in the early 1990's focused on limiting effort of the
burgeoning domestic groundfish fleet. By 1992, the fleet had grown to
over 2,200 vessels, including about 110 trawl catcher processors
(factory trawlers). The symptoms of overcapacity intensified; the
``race for fish'' resulted in shorter fishing seasons and allocation
disputes among various fishing and processing interests.
To address the overcapacity problem, the Council, working together
with the NOAA Fisheries Alaska Regional office, aggressively pursued
capacity limitations in all managed fisheries. An Individual Fishing
Quota program for halibut and sablefish fisheries was adopted in 1992,
and fully implemented in 1995. A moratorium on new vessel entry for
groundfish and crab fisheries was implemented in 1996, with a more
restrictive license limitation program in place by 2000. In 1998, the
American Fisheries Act was passed by Congress and implemented by the
Council and NOAA Fisheries the following year. The Act limited access
to the Bering Sea pollock fisheries only to qualifying vessels and
processors, eliminated a number of large catcher processor vessels from
the fleet, and established a system of fishery cooperatives that allows
for individual catch and bycatch accountability. Lower bycatch and
significantly higher product recovery rates have resulted under the
pollock cooperative system. In 1999, the Council adopted a very
restrictive limited entry program for the scallop fishery. In 2003, the
Council completed its work on an individual fishing and processing
quota system for the Bering Sea crab fisheries (crab rationalization),
consistent with Congressional legislation. Current Council initiatives
include development of further rationalization programs for Bering Sea
non-pollock groundfish fisheries, and development of some form of
rationalization program for Gulf of Alaska groundfish fisheries.
Measures implemented in the 1990's also were designed to limit
impacts on target and bycatch species, marine mammals and seabirds, and
habitat, and provide opportunities for disadvantaged coastal
communities along the Bering Sea. A comprehensive domestic groundfish
observer program, funded by participating vessels, was instituted in
1990 to provide the basis for controlling catch within allowable levels
and monitoring removals of both target and bycatch species. Closure
areas and bycatch limits were established for chinook and chum salmon
taken in Bering Sea trawl fisheries. Additional year-round trawl
closure areas were established to reduce bycatch and protect habitat
for Bering Sea crab stocks. To reduce bycatch and discards of Alaska
groundfish, mandatory retention of all pollock and cod was required
beginning in 1998. Retention requirements are soon to be implemented
for Bering Sea flatfish fisheries, and further reductions in bycatch
and discard amounts (currently about 7%) are expected.
In 1990, Steller sea lions were listed as threatened under the
Endangered Species Act, and numerous measures were implemented over the
following decade to minimize potential interactions with fisheries and
potential competition for prey. These measures included incidental take
limits, 3 nm no entry buffer zones, 10 nm no trawl zones around
rookeries, 20 nm no pollock fishing zones, seasonal and spatial
dispersal of pollock and mackerel fisheries, and a prohibition on the
harvest of forage fish. In 2001, a comprehensive suite of protection
measures was implemented through Council recommendation which closed
over 58,000 square miles of ocean to fishing for certain species, or in
some cases to all fishing activities, to reduce fish removals and
fishing activities in Steller sea lion critical habitat areas
throughout the Gulf of Alaska, Bering Sea, and Aleutian Islands.
What Makes Alaska Different?
Management of fisheries off Alaska is, by all accounts, a success
story of biological and economic sustainability. The foundation for
success has been the long-standing, precautionary approach embraced in
the North Pacific, supported by an underpinning of sound science and a
reliance on that science, and by a fishing industry supporting a
priority toward long-term sustainability. Strict catch quotas for all
managed species, coupled with an effective monitoring program,
represent the forefront of the conservative management approach in the
North Pacific. Since 1976, groundfish harvests have been maintained in
the range of 3 to 5 billion pounds annually, and no groundfish stocks
are overfished. Vast areas of the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska are
closed to trawling, or in some cases to all fishing, to protect
habitat, minimize bycatch, or minimize interactions with protected
species such as Steller sea lions.
The Council's precautionary management approach is to apply
judicious and responsible fisheries management practices, based on
sound scientific research and analysis, proactively rather than
reactively, to ensure the sustainability of fishery resources and
associated ecosystems for the benefit of future, as well as current
generations. The basic tenets of this approach include public
participation, reliance on scientific research and advice, conservative
catch quotas, comprehensive monitoring and enforcement, limits on
bycatch of non-target species, marine protected areas, measures to
protect marine mammals and seabirds, and other measures.
Strict annual catch limits for every groundfish fishery are the
foundation of the sustainable fisheries management approach in the
North Pacific. A rigorous process in place for almost 30 years ensures
that annual quotas are set at conservative, sustainable levels.
Beginning with scientific data from regular groundfish abundance
surveys, stock assessment scientists recommend acceptable biological
catch (ABC) levels for each species. These are reviewed by the
Council's Groundfish Plan Teams, then further reviewed by the Council's
Scientific and Statistical Committee, prior to the Council's setting of
the Total Allowable Catch (TAC), which is always set at or below the
ABC, and far below the designated overfishing level.
As an additional precautionary measure, the Bering Sea and Aleutian
Islands quotas, for all groundfish combined, are capped at a maximum of
2 million metric tons (mt) annually, regardless of the maximum
recommended ABC levels. For example, ABCs for the past several years
have ranged from 3 to 4 million mt, yet TACs were reduced to stay
within the 2 million mt cap. The Gulf of Alaska has a similar overall
TAC cap. Catch of all species, whether targeted or taken as bycatch,
whether retained or discarded, count toward the annual catch limits,
and fisheries are closed when these limits are reached. This is one of
the fundamental aspects of responsible management in the North Pacific
groundfish fisheries.
These catch quotas are closely monitored to ensure accurate
accounting on a real-time basis. At the core of the monitoring system
is a comprehensive, industry-funded, on-board observer program, coupled
with requirements for total weight measurement of most fish harvested.
Except for small vessels less than 60 feet, all vessels fishing for
groundfish in federal waters are required to carry observers, at their
own expense, for at least a portion of their fishing time. The largest
vessels, those over 125 feet, are generally required to carry observers
100% of the time, with multiple observers required on catcher/
processors and in certain fisheries. Scales to weigh catch are also
required on many of the larger vessels. Most shoreside processing
plants are also required to have observers at all times, and to weigh
all fish landed at each processing location. Observers estimate total
catch weight, catch composition, and discards, and collect biological
information critical to stock assessment. In excess of 36,000 observer
days, by over 500 observers, are logged in these fisheries each year.
In the North Pacific's largest fishery, for walleye pollock, nearly 85%
of the total catch is measured and sampled by observers, with 99% of
the catcher/processor (factory trawler) harvest sampled by observers.
Used in conjunction with reporting and weighing requirements, the
information collected by observers provides the foundation for in-
season management and for tracking species-specific catch and bycatch
amounts.
The Council and NOAA Fisheries are currently developing amendments
to the fishery management plans that are designed to better ensure
ongoing collection and quality observer data. These amendments will
examine alternative funding mechanisms (for example, a fee-based
program instead of direct payment by vessels required to carry
observers), and alternative service delivery models, all designed to
allow fisheries managers to more effectively determine specific
observer deployments by fishery and by vessel. Technological
innovations, such as digital (video) observer applications, are also
being evaluated by the Council and NOAA to potentially supplement
onboard observers.
Enforcement of fishery regulations is accomplished by complementary
efforts of NOAA and State enforcement agencies, and the U.S. Coast
Guard, both on the grounds and dockside. As part of their patrol
activities, the Coast Guard enforces a complex array of domestic
regulations and international treaties, including enforcement of the
maritime boundary and high seas driftnet violations. The Coast Guard
also maintains its priority mission of search and rescue, a critical
mission in all U.S. waters, particular in the volatile Bering Sea. NOAA
Enforcement also conducts patrols and investigations throughout coastal
Alaska to enforce fisheries regulations and total catch limits.
The North Pacific region also enjoys one of the strongest science
support structures of any region. The Alaska Fisheries Science Center
conducts annual stock assessments in the North Pacific, and provides
the information upon which annual catch quotas are set. The
comprehensive North Pacific groundfish observer program also is managed
through the Science Center, and biological and economic analyses of
proposed actions often involve Science Center personnel. The Alaska
Department of Fish and Game also administers an observer program for
the crab fisheries, and provides stock assessment information and in-
season management for the crab fisheries, as well as the scallop
fisheries and some rockfish species.
Notwithstanding this success, the Council and NOAA Fisheries
continue to develop new and innovative approaches to address issues
such as bycatch, protecting habitat, overcapacity, and further
development of ecosystem-oriented management approaches. In 2004 the
Council and NOAA Fisheries completed a comprehensive assessment of its
overall management programs through approval of a programmatic
supplemental environmental impact statement (PSEIS). This process
included adoption of revised goals and objectives for the groundfish
FMPs, which further strengthen the precautionary, ecosystem-based
approach to management.
Progress Towards Ecosystem-Based Management
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council has a long track
record of making precautionary fishery management decisions, and has
continued developing its ecosystem-based approach. The approach is
built upon four goals: 1) maintain biodiversity consistent with natural
evolutionary and ecological processes, including dynamic change and
variability; 2) maintain and restore habitats essential for fish and
prey; 3) maintain system sustainability and sustainable yields for
human consumption and non-extractive uses; and 4) maintain the concept
that humans are part of the ecosystem.
The existing Alaska Groundfish FMPs contain many components of
fishery ecosystem plans, or an ecosystem approach to management.
Specific measures have been taken to minimize potential impacts to
marine mammals, seabirds, and other components of the Alaska marine
ecosystem. Major measures include limits on total removals from the
system, a prohibition on directed fishing for forage fish species,
seabird deterrent devices to minimize incidental bycatch of seabirds, a
variety of measures to protect Steller sea lions from disturbance and
potential competition with prey, and quasi marine reserves to conserve
benthic biodiversity. However, recent recommendations from the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy, and NOAA's own internal initiatives,
underscore the need to even more explicitly incorporate ecosystem
considerations in management of all U.S. fisheries.
In February 2005, the Council took significant action to identify
and conserve essential fish habitat (EFH) from potential adverse
effects of fishing. A 2,500+ page scientific analysis was prepared to
evaluate the total impacts of fishing on EFH, and evaluate alternatives
to describe and conserve EFH from fishing impacts. Although the
analysis concluded that fisheries do have long term effects on habitat,
these impacts were considered minimal and would not have detrimental
effects on fish populations or their habitats. Nevertheless, continuing
with its long history of precautionary, ecosystem-based management
policy, the Council adopted several new and significant measures to
conserve EFH. Specifically, to protect deep-water corals, the Council
took action to prohibit all bottom trawling in the Aleutian Islands,
except in small discrete ``open'' areas. Over 95% of the Aleutian
Islands management area will be closed to bottom trawling (277,100 nm2)
and about 4% (12,423 nm2) will remain open. Additional bottom trawl
closures were created in the Gulf of Alaska. Further, on the Alaska
seamounts, and in areas with especially high density coral and sponge
habitat, the Council voted to close these areas to all bottom contact
fishing gear (longlines, pots, trawls, etc.). As a result, these areas
will essentially be considered ``marine reserves''. While pelagic
fishing would be allowed in these areas, none is anticipated, so
resource extraction will be nil in the areas.
The North Pacific Council, through its newly constituted Ecosystem
Committee, is actively pursuing additional avenues to further and more
explicitly implement an ecosystem approach to management, both at a
fisheries-specific level (EAF), and at a broader level addressing non-
fishing considerations (EAM). Given the unique environment and
management context of the Aleutian Islands ecosystem, the Council is
planning to use this area as a test case for development of a separate
Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP), and for development of an Ecosystem-
Approach to Management (EAM) using a regional ecosystem council model
(or other coordinating body) to discuss and exchange information on
fishery and non-fishery activities. The Aleutian Islands FEP is in the
developmental stages and we anticipate a draft later this year. Details
of the FEP, including possible designation of an Aleutian Island Plan
Team, are still being developed at this time. Council staff is also
involved with a NOAA internal working group to draft national
guidelines for implementing the ecosystem approach to fisheries. The
Councils support the development of such guidelines, as a guiding
strategic document for the FMPs, rather than explicit statutory
requirements at this time. The Council is also in discussions with
other State and Federal agencies regarding the larger ecosystem
coordination issues, and is planning to hold a workshop with the State
of Alaska and NOAA Fisheries later this year to determine how best to
coordinate the broader ecosystem approach.
How is Science Integrated?
The Council has an active Scientific and Statistical Committee
(SSC) that reviews all analytical documents prepared for each
management change. The SSC consists of biologists, economists, and
social scientists from academia and federal and state agencies. The SSC
meets five times per year, concurrent with and at the same location as
the Council meetings. In addition to providing comments to analysts,
the SSC makes recommendations to the Council on the adequacy of
analytical documents relative to the best available scientific
information, including biological, economic, and social impact
analyses. The SSC also reviews development of models and other
analytical approaches for understanding impacts of fishery measures.
Further, the SSC provides recommendations on priority areas for
research.
The scientific review process used by the Council is multi-tiered
and robust. For example, stock assessments and acceptable biological
catch limits undergo a thorough internal review by the Alaska Fisheries
Science Center. Each year, a couple of these assessment models are
further reviewed by the Center for Independent Experts. Once completed
by NOAA Fisheries scientists, the assessments are scientifically
reviewed by the Plan Teams, consisting of federal, state, and
university scientists. The SSC has final scientific review authority
for the assessments. The Council then approves the Stock Assessment and
Fishery Evaluation Report for public distribution, and adopts the SSC's
recommendations for Acceptable Biological Catch limits (ABCs). Total
Allowable Catch levels (TACs) are then established by the Council with
the SSC recommended ABCs as an upper bound. Because this process has
worked so successfully, we have not made any additional changes to the
existing scientific review process.
The Council also coordinates with the recently formed North Pacific
Research Board (NPRB) and other governmental and academic research
organizations to identify priority areas for funding of proposed
research activities. Through direct membership and participation on the
NPRB, and through annual reviews of funded research, the Council
maintains a close working relationship with the scientific research
community and is regularly apprised of pertinent scientific
information.
Regional Issues and Challenges
The Council's basic precautionary approach to management cuts
across all FMPs and geographic regions under our jurisdiction. The
comprehensive goals and objectives (recently revised in the PSEIS
process) pertain to both the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands and the Gulf
of Alaska FMPs. While these basic tenants apply to all areas we manage,
there are some regional differences and specific regional challenges
that are currently being addressed by the Council.
The Bering Sea fisheries can be characterized as more industrial in
nature than fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska, and are dominated in
volume and value by the enormous pollock resource. While the pollock
fishery is operating under a fully rationalized system established by
the American Fisheries Act and the Council, other groundfish fisheries
are in need of further rationalization programs, beyond the basic
limited entry programs currently in place. Cod fisheries are a
significant resource for a number of user groups and the Council is in
the process of re-evaluating the current allocations among gear types,
and considering even more discrete allocations to more narrowly defined
user (gear) groups. The Council is addressing bycatch and discard
issues by imposing minimum groundfish retention standards, and in
conjunction with that initiative is developing a program of fishery
cooperatives for the non-AFA catcher processors (the head and gut or
H&G fleet) which we expect to approve later this year. The Council will
also be considering further measures with regard to essential fish
habitat and habitat areas of particular concern in the Bering Sea, in
addition to the measures recently approved for the Gulf of Alaska and
Aleutian Islands areas.
ulf of Alaska groundfish fisheries are characterized by more
numerous, smaller vessels, lower overall resource abundance, direct
ties to a greater number of coastal communities, and a greater number
of user groups/constituencies (gear groups, coastal communities, sport
fisheries, etc). Fisheries in the Southeast area of Alaska are
primarily fixed gear (longlining for halibut and sablefish, or salmon
troll fisheries), and state water salmon fisheries. This area, along
with areas in the Central Gulf of Alaska, also has an important
recreational fishery component, primarily for salmon and halibut.
Management of the guided sport fishery for halibut (charter boat
fishery) is under Council jurisdiction and we have approved both a
guideline harvest level (GHL) program for that fishery, and a charter
boat IFQ program which, if approved by the Secretary, would incorporate
this fishery into the existing IFQ program for halibut. Halibut is also
critical to subsistence users and the Council and NOAA have approved
and implemented regulations recognizing and protecting subsistence use
of the halibut resource.
The most significant program currently under development by the
Council, and one of the most challenging, is focused on a comprehensive
rationalization of the Gulf of Alaska groundfish fisheries, which would
apply primarily to Central and Western Gulf fisheries. Recognizing the
operational and economic benefits of Bering Sea rationalization
programs, and coupled with the logistical challenges posed by the
numerous Steller sea lion restrictive measures in the Gulf of Alaska,
the Council is attempting to develop some type of quota-based,
cooperative style program for Gulf fisheries. Working closely with the
State of Alaska and the State Board of Fisheries, this is an ambitious
program with numerous competing constituencies and overlapping
jurisdictions with regard to state waters inside three miles.
Completion of the environmental impact statement (EIS) required for
this program will not occur until sometime in 2006, with actual
implementation not likely until at least 2008.
Lessons for Reauthorization
The subcommittee has expressed interest in what lessons can be
learned from the management approach in the North Pacific, and how
those lessons might inform reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
In summary, I believe our overall management program illustrates that
the current Magnuson-Stevens Act contains the necessary tools for
successful, sustainable fisheries management. Strengthening the
existing tools, or imposing requirements to use the existing tools, may
be necessary in the reauthorization process but it does not appear that
significant new requirements are necessary at this time. Below I
provide a brief summary related to some of the primary reauthorization
issues.
Ecosystem approach to management: Regarding ecosystem approaches to
fisheries management, we believe that we have long been using an
ecosystem approach to fisheries management, as are many of the other
regional Councils, but that a more explicit recognition and application
of this approach may be warranted. We believe that development of
national guidelines is appropriate, which would then be used as
strategic guidance (rather than as regulatory requirements) for
implementation of specific regulatory programs through the existing
FMPs. We believe that extreme caution should be exercised with regard
to specific statutory requirements for fishery ecosystem plans, until
we have some experience with voluntary, pilot projects regarding
fishery ecosystem plans, and some experience with collaborative efforts
on the broader EAM front. The North Pacific has long embraced this
approach and is working hard to more explicitly incorporate that
approach in our management programs.
Improving science in management: Regarding the integration of
science and management, we believe that the North Pacific model clearly
illustrates (1) the importance of closely linking science and
management; (2) the ability of the existing SSC structure and process
to provide the nexus between science and management by the regional
Councils; and, (3) the flaw in the argument to somehow separate science
and management (allocation) decisions. We believe that the integration
of science in management works very well in the North Pacific, and we
are very concerned that changes could be imposed on that process, in
order to address other regional problems. We also believe that any
potential new requirements for ``independent peer review'' of data and
analyses needs to be considered carefully, given the additional cost
and time implications and given the ability of the current SSC process
(or similar existing processes) to provide quality, objective peer
review of the majority of information used by the Council and NOAA
Fisheries.
IFQs or other DAP programs: Regarding individual quota programs, or
other dedicated access privileges (DAP) such as fishery cooperatives,
we believe that multiple programs currently operational in the North
Pacific (or pending such as Bering Sea crab) illustrate the benefits of
``rationalized'' fisheries. We also believe that these programs reflect
the differences among fisheries and regions, and underscore the need
for maximum flexibility in designing these programs. In the halibut and
sablefish IFQ program, in place since 1995, the Council included
numerous provisions in the program design, such as restrictions on
transfers across vessel categories and restrictive share caps, in order
to maintain the important social and community fabric of those
fisheries. The pollock fishery cooperative system, and to some degree
the crab IFQ/IPQ program, are designed to reflect the more industrial
nature of those fisheries, though in the case of the crab IFQ/IPQ
program there are still, for example, regional delivery provisions
which were designed to protect existing community involvement in those
fisheries. Programs currently under development, such as the Gulf of
Alaska rationalization program, will require a different set of
provisions to address the specific regional, social, economic, and
fishery conditions.
Reconciling statutes: The development of fishery management
programs, and the review and approval process, is overly complicated,
takes way too long, and often is not user-friendly to the public and to
the fishing industry. This is primarily due to the number of often
redundant and overlapping statutory requirements, including the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, the National Marine Sanctuary Act, the Endangered Species Act, the
Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and numerous
additional Acts and Executive Orders. In the North Pacific, our close
working relationship with NOAA Fisheries Alaska Region and Science
Center has been crucial to our ability to successfully implement our
core management measures, as well as many innovative, cutting-edge
management programs. And that close coordination has allowed us to do
so, for the most part, while still addressing the myriad statutes and
executive orders that apply to fisheries management actions. However,
while the Councils and NOAA Fisheries have made substantial progress
over the past few years in terms of ``streamlining'' this regulatory
process, and reducing litigation, we strongly believe that there needs
to be some Congressional action to clarify and reconcile the competing
statutes. Our ability to design, analyze, and implement complicated DAP
programs in particular is hindered by the redundant applications of
several statutes.
Particularly, the application of NEPA to fishery plan and
regulation development, and to some degree the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, are impeding our ability to develop realistic, practical
management solutions in a timely manner. For example, specific
provisions could be made to the Magnuson-Stevens Act which would
capture the underlying intent of basic NEPA provisions, and reinstate
the Magnuson-Stevens Act as the primary Act governing fisheries
management, with the necessary environmental and conservation
protections built directly into the Act. Specific recommendations in
this regard have been developed by the eight regional councils and
include requirements for considering a range of alternatives,
requirements for cumulative impact assessment, and additional
requirements for public review and input.
Mr. Chairman, there are a number of other issues we could discuss
today, but I believe that I have covered the basic management approach
used in the North Pacific, and covered the primary issues we see in the
upcoming Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization. I thank you again for
the opportunity to comment on these issues, and further apprise you of
our management approach and specific issues here in the North Pacific.
We stand ready to help in any way we can as you are further shaping
important changes to the Act, and to respond to those changes when they
are finalized.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Dr. Woodby.
STATEMENT OF DOUG WOODBY, SCIENTIFIC AND STATISTICAL COMMITTEE,
NORTH PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
Dr. Woodby. Yes, thank you for the opportunity to speak
here today. My name is Doug Woodby, and I'm the Chief Marine
Fisheries Scientist for the State of Alaska Fish and Game,
Commercial Fisheries Division. I also have an appointment to
the Scientific and Statistical Committee of the North Pacific
Fishery Management Council. And it's in relation to my
appointment on that committee that I'm speaking here today. I
like to focus on three questions that were presented to me in
my invitation.
How is science integrated into management? Why is Alaska
fisheries management considered better or different than
management in other parts of the country? And what lessons can
we learn from the North Pacific reauthorization of the MSA?
In regards to integration of science into management, I'm
going to focus the peer review process. As you know the MSA
requires that each Council establish an SSC. And there purpose
is to assist in evaluating in scientific information for
management. Now that requirements been interpreted fairly
broadly by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. Such
that all information used in their decisionmaking, having
either a biological or socioeconomic basis is passed through
the SSC. And in that way the SSC acts as a peer review body for
the Council. And there are two types of scientific information
the regularly come before the SSC. First is the annual stock
assessments for each of the managed fisheries species. And the
other are environmental assessments, regulatory impact reviews,
and other required analysis for regulatory actions.
As regards to stock assessments, the purpose of these is to
provide an estimate of the biomass that's available for
harvest. And the best science process that invoked here is a
three step peer review. And it begins with the stock assessment
authors. Who are typically well regarded scientists with the
Alaska Fisheries Science Center, or in some cases with other
agencies, such as the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Each
year the authors prepare their stock assessment reports, called
SAFE Reports. And those are first reviewed internally. That's
step one.
The second step is for those stock assessment reports to go
before the plan teams. And we have four plan teams in the North
Pacific. Two for groundfish, and one for crabs, and one for
scallops. The plan teams review those SAFE's in public arena.
And after modifications are made to those SAFE Reports, they're
passed on to the SSC, for another final public review.
There are 15 members on the SSC and they represent diverse
backgrounds, including the agencies and academia. And those
members when they review these stock assessments they pay close
attention to the quality of the data, the analytical methods,
and the conclusions that are drawn as to what an allowable
harvest would be. The SSC will either agree with those
recommendations or make changes as appropriate. And forward
those recommended acceptable biological catch levels to the
Council for there action. The SSC will also make specific
comments directed at the SAFE Reports that the authors can use
in improving them the next year.
Now why does this process work? Well I believe it works
because it's in a public forum, and it's significant feedback
for the scientists who prepared those reports. For all the
authors the SAFE Reports represent their latest and best work.
And there is significant professional pride in incorporating
the best methods and using the best data. And have their SAFE
Reports received without undo criticism by the SSC.
In regards to why Alaska's fisheries management is better
or different than in other regions of the country. I'm going to
point out what I feel are three notable features that other
witness here have spoken to. The first is the overall catch
limit for groundfish. The second is the observer program. And
the third is how the SSC integrates best science.
In terms of the overall catch limits for groundfish, we
have a maximum of two million metric tons in the Bering Sea and
the Aleutian Islands area. And in the Gulf of Alaska we have an
800 thousand metric ton cap. And these are established as a
precautionary measure. That incorporate ecosystem
considerations and environmental variability. The observer
program has already been spoken to. It's extensive and it's
very important for providing data for management decisions. And
most importantly it gives us a total catch. Not just a target
catch but the non-target catch. And that, as mentioned is
industry sponsored. In terms of SSC and best science I'm just
going to point our four features that makes it work for us in
the SSC. The Council relies on the SSC to act as their peer
review body. Empowering us to do so. The members of the SSC
cover a broad suite of expertise, including economics, ecology,
socioeconomic, and anthropology, as well as the more usual
expertise of fishery biology and population dynamics. We meet
at the same time as the Council. So that public that's involved
in the Council meeting can also be involved in our meeting. And
there's very quick turn around for our recommendations to the
Council. Allowing feedback between the two.
And, finally, the Council has never exceeded an acceptable
biological catch limit that's been recommended by the SSC. And
in fact the total allowable catch is restricted to be less than
our acceptable biological catch in our groundfish FMP's.
Finally, just one lesson in regards to the reauthorization to
of MSA. I believe the SSC provides the necessary independent
scientific review for most of the work that comes before us. In
some cases, very highly controversial subjects, external review
is needed. And that's what the Council does. The SSC members
serve in there position because of the empowerment that they're
given by the Council. They know that there recommendations are
take seriously. And they feel like they're having a positive
effect on conservation fishery resources in the North Pacific.
So, members value their positions and they work very hard to
make the process work. The SSC has noted in it's minutes that
if there were to be another process that diminished the peer
review of the SSC that the impact of that peer review--that
some of the prominent scientists would probably choose not to
serve on the SSC. And that might be true in other Council's as
well. Thank you, and that completes my testimony.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Dr. Woodby.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Woodby follows:]
Statement of Dr. Douglas Woodby, Ph.D.,
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today.
My name is Doug Woodby and I am employed as a Fisheries Scientist
by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game in Juneau. My
responsibilities include oversight of the research activities for
marine commercial fisheries managed by the State of Alaska. Those
fisheries include crab, shrimp, groundfish, and herring. I am also a
member of the Scientific and Statistical Committee (the SSC) of the
North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC), and it is in relation
to my appointment to the SSC that I am testifying here today.
I will focus on three of the questions posed in my letter of
invitation to this hearing:
1) How is science integrated into management?
2) Why is Alaska fisheries management considered better/different
than management in other parts of the country?
3) What lessons can we learn from the North Pacific for the
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act?
Integration of Science into Management
National Standard 2 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act (MSA) requires that the best available scientific
information be used in conservation and management decisions made by
the councils. The MSA also requires that each council establish an SSC
to assist in evaluating scientific information for management. This
requirement has been interpreted broadly by the NPFMC, such that all
information used in their decision making, having either a biological
or socioeconomic basis, is passed through the SSC. In this way the SSC
acts as a peer-review body for the NPFMC.
There are two types of scientific information that regularly come
before the SSC: 1) annual stock assessments for each of the managed
species, and 2) Environmental Assessments or other analyses required
for regulatory actions or changes, including allocation changes.
Stock Assessments
The purpose of the stock assessments is to provide an estimate of
the biomass for each managed species and to recommend an acceptable
biological catch limit. The ``best science'' process is a three step
peer review beginning with the stock assessment authors, who are
typically well regarded scientists with the Alaska Fishery Science
Center, and in a few cases with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
Every year, these authors prepare Stock Assessment and Fishery
Evaluation reports (SAFE reports) that are often based on rigorous and
complex mathematical methods for estimating population sizes.
SAFE reports are first reviewed internally by the management agency
(the Alaska Fishery Science Center for groundfish SAFEs) and then
forwarded to the plan teams. The NPFMC has four plan teams comprised of
federal, state, and academic fishery scientists and economists: two for
groundfish (Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands) and one
each for crabs and scallops. The plan team review of SAFE documents is
public, and after review, the revised SAFE reports are presented to the
SSC for a final public review. The chair of the SSC apportions the
review assignments among the 15 SSC members so that each member can
focus their review on one or several species, usually in their area of
expertise. The SSC pays close attention to the quality of the data, the
analytical methods used to estimate biomass and Acceptable Biological
Catch (ABC) limits, and the validity of the conclusions. The SSC will
either agree with the assessments, or will recommend changes where
appropriate, and forward the recommended ABC limits on to the Council.
The SSC also makes specific comments directed at improving the SAFE
reports, and this provides important feedback to the stock assessment
authors who address each comment in the following year's SAFE report.
Why does this process provide the best science for management? The
review of scientific work by the plan teams and the SSC in a public
forum is a significant feedback to the scientists and agencies that
prepared the assessments. For most of these authors, the SAFE reports
represent their latest and best work. There is significant professional
pride in incorporating the best methods and using the best data
appropriately, and having the SAFE received without undue criticism by
the SSC.
Environmental Assessments and Other Analyses
The SSC also reviews analyses (including EAs, RIRs, and IRFAs), of
the effects of proposed regulatory actions. These reviews encompass the
integrity of economic and social considerations, as well as biological
factors that are taken into account in assessing potential impacts.
These analyses often appear several times in front of the SSC, usually
over the course of several Council meetings. The SSC provides comments
for improvements, and in the end makes recommendation as to whether an
analysis has met the ``best scientific information'' standard and is
ready for release to the public for review.
In a few cases, independent reviews by scientists outside of the
SSC are sought for complex and controversial scientific issues, such as
the relationship between fisheries and populations of endangered
Steller Sea Lions, and the effects of fishing on essential fish
habitat, conducted by the National Research Council and the Council of
Independent Experts, respectively. These reviews have been expensive
and time-consuming, but were valuable in providing perspectives and
conclusions that would have been an inordinately consuming task for the
SSC.
Alaska's Fisheries Management: Better or Different?
The NPFMC has a laudable record in providing sustainable fisheries
that have generated significant economic activity. Three of the notable
features of management in the North Pacific are the overall catch
limits for groundfish, the observer program, and the how the SSC is
used to integrate best science into management.
Overall Catch Limits
Groundfish catches in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands are
capped at a maximum of 2 million metric tons (mt) each year, even
though the sum of the annual ABC levels may be much larger. The same is
true for the Gulf of Alaska, where the cap is 800,000 mt. These caps
were established as a precautionary measure and include bycatch. In
effect, the caps are simple management measures that recognize the
importance of allowing surplus production to remain in the ecosystem
for non-human uses, such as predation and decomposition.
Observer Program
To ensure that catches, including bycatch, stay within Total
Allowable Catch (TAC) limits, an extensive onboard observer program was
put in place in 1990. The result was an industry-funded program where
virtually all large vessels over 125 feet carry observers all the time
when fishing, and vessels between 60 and 125 feet carry observers 30%
of the time. Each year, there are upwards of 36 to 37 thousand observer
days at sea monitoring weights and sampling catches. Observer data is
important for management decisions to close fisheries as they approach
catch limits, and is a rich source of information on catch location and
bycatch of non-target species.
SSC and Best Science
There are various degrees of differences among the eight regional
councils in how they conduct their scientific review processes
1. Several of the positive aspects of the SSC structure and
process in the North Pacific are shared by other regional councils, so
it would be unfair to say that the North Pacific process for
integrating science is necessarily better. However; it is possible to
list some of the positive aspects, some shared with other councils, and
perhaps these might serve as a model for all councils:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Witherell, D. 2005. Use of scientific review by the regional
fishery management councils: the existing process and recommendations
for improvement. A draft paper presented at the ``Managing Our Nation's
Fisheries II'' conference, Washington, D.C., March 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) The NPFMC relies on the SSC to act as the peer review body for
all stock assessments and required analyses based on scientific and
economic information.
2) Members of the SSC in the North Pacific cover a broad suite of
expertise, including economics, ecology, socioeconomics and
anthropology, as well as the more usual expertise in fishery biology
and population dynamics.
3) The SSC meets at the same time as the NPFMC at the same
location. This provides the public with the opportunity to participate
in both meetings, and to allow quick turnaround for recommendations by
the SSC to the Council.
4) The NPFMC has never exceeded an ABC recommended by the SSC. In
fact, TAC is restricted to being less than the ABC for groundfish as
specified by amendments to the council's two groundfish fishery
management plans.
Reauthorization of the MSA: Lessons from the North Pacific
I will highlight just one lesson, and that is that the SSC provides
the necessary independent scientific peer review of stock assessments
and analyses for the NPFMC, as supplemented by occasional reviews by
other entities. Hence, there is no clear need for developing an
alternative peer review process, although some improvements might be
made.
The NPFMC's deference to the recommendations of the SSC has
engendered a respect for the SSC process, empowering the SSC to base
recommendations on best available science, uninfluenced by allocation
issues. SSC members know that their recommendations have a strongly
positive impact on the conservation of fishery resources in the North
Pacific, and for this reason, members value their appointment to the
committee and expend considerable intellectual energy to achieve a
successful process. If an alternate peer review process was established
that diminished the role of the SSC, prominent scientists might choose
not to continue their public service on the SSC.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Young.
Mr. Young. I'm somewhat pleased, I think you all did a
great job. You all kept it within six minutes. I want to thank
you for that. That's hard to do and it may be a short period of
time. What I'm hearing here is most people are pretty satisfied
with the Act as it's written. Is that correct? Mr. Bedford you
did offer some suggestions. And I would suggest that you have
those in writing and they're submitted to the Chairman.
One thing, and this is outside, no one mentioned it. Maybe
Ms. Salveson can address this. There's a great conflict going
in Alaska over farmed fish at sea. Would you like to comment on
it? Because I am maddeningly opposed to it. The affect upon on
fish or anadromous fish. And the job that you've done in
managing our other fish, other than anadromous fish is
outstanding. And I'm concerned that if you were to implement
what's being proposed by the Administration that it would
interfere with not only with the natural management of our
bottom fish. And the affect upon the market, and effect upon
the economics of Magnuson Act would be devastating. So if you'd
like to address that I'd be fine.
Ms. Salveson. Congressman Young, in general, the
Administration, NOAA Fisheries is supportive of the President's
Bill, the Aquiculture Bill. However, we are also more than
cognizant of the concerns that have been addressed by the State
of Alaska, economic concerns, potential effects on fisheries,
and we believe that if the Bill is passed that it would require
rulemaking to actually implement. And it is through that
rulemaking process, and outreach initiatives by NOAA Fisheries
with the state and impacted stakeholders that we would hope to
accommodate those concerns that have been expressed. And that
would--that accommodation would occur through rulemaking. And
there's not a one size fits all, with respect to how that Bill
may be applied throughout the nation. And we would anticipate
working with the state and impacted industry to resolve those
issues to the extent we can through the rulemaking process.
Mr. Young. Well I appreciate that. I have made this
statement before, I'm a little concerned about rulemaking. I'd
rather make it legislative law. Because I've seen how rules
have been changed after the law's been passed. A classic
example is my TSA law, which we passed. Which is a pretty good
Bill if you read it. But how it was implemented through
regulation and rules is a disaster. And so we will be looking
at it very closely and making sure that we write something that
the consideration of the state will be deeply considered in
legislation. Not necessarily rulemaking. Admiral, Deepwater you
can be rest assured that we're going to get that we're going to
get that money restored. We cannot not continue doing what
we've charged you to do with a system that's wore out. And as
you know--as you're well aware of that some of the in's and
out's of why the money was cut back in the Appropriation Bill.
Supposedly because there wasn't a report filed on how the money
is being spent on Deepwater. But, for those in the audience
that don't understand it Deepwater is a larger amount of fleet,
new fleet that will actually do what you're charged with. And I
can assure you too, and I'm going to ask you one question. Have
you seen any interest from higher up in Homeland Security of
diluting the mission that you're charged with in Alaska?
Admiral Olson. No, sir, we have not.
Mr. Young. OK. If that was to occur the first thing you do
is you pick up the telephone.
Admiral Olson. Absolutely.
Mr. Young. Because I have told the President of the United
States, when they formed the Homeland Security Agency that the
Coast Guard is to be left alone. As far as their mission that
we've charged you with. Which is frankly navigation aids,
search and rescue, fish interdiction, traffic interdiction, and
the rest of it. As you know the mission in Alaska's probably
the largest in the United States. And I don't want to see it
diluted, or turned just for security purposes. Because there
are other missions equally important. Have you seen any
increase or is it been a decrease of foreign intrusion into our
economic zone in the last year and a half or year?
Admiral Olson. Congressman Young, Mr. Chairman we have seen
a steady decline over the last several years in foreign
incursion.
Mr. Young. Are you working with Russia on this?
Admiral Olson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Young. Or how is this working?
Admiral Olson. We work very closely with both the Russians,
and our Canadian partners. We have--I have personally have met
in the last year twice with Canadian counterparts and twice
with our Russian counterparts. General Puthoff on the Russian
side, Russian Boarder Guard. They provide us information, we
exchange information, we get their Vessel Management System,
their VMS data. We get information directly from them via e-
mails and daily telephone calls. We work with them all the
time, sir.
Mr. Young. Without causing any problems, do we have any one
country that is a bigger offender in the economic zone,
fisheries wise?
Admiral Olson. Not that I'm aware, sir.
Mr. Young. Would it be--seem like--it used to be China.
They've sort of backed off on--Korea's backed off on it.
Admiral Olson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Young. OK, good. Go ahead, you got any questions? I've
run out of time right now.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Young. Mr. Bedford mentioned
earlier the Magnuson process to determine a scientifically-
based, economically sound Fishery Management Plan. And then you
also mentioned the NEPA process and a number of other Federal
regulations that enter into the picture to come up with a
Fisheries Management Plan. I would really like anyone on the
panel to comment on the NEPA process, the Administrative
Procedures Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Act. And can Magnuson with
it's national standards and it's process replace the NEPA
process? Or how can that be integrated together. Do this would
stir the pot, boil some water I'm sure with volatile debate.
NMFS recently said that they could front load the process of
bringing everybody together. Sounds like that's what you
already do here at the North Pacific. But if you could make a
comment, as we go through the reauthorization how should we
deal with the NEPA process? And is there something that we can
do to adjust it so a Fisheries Management Plan is done in a
more timely fashion? Who wants to start with that?
Mr. Bedford. From my perspective the National Environmental
Policy Act was designed to insure--to provide first off for
public involvement in important decisions that were reached by
Federal agencies. But also to insure that all of the potential
impacts of those decisions were carefully evaluated prior to
the time the decisions were reached. It is therefore largely a
procedural mechanism, rather than being a substantive
undertaking.
The Council already engages in a very deep study of every
decision that they're going to arrive AT. And a very open
public process. And you've heard testimony here that not only
do you have the opportunity to testify to the Council to
suggest to ways to take actions--modify actions that are under
consideration. But also to participate in the scientific and
statistical teams review of things, as well. So there's plenty
of opportunity for the public to be engaged. In looking at this
most of what NEPA really drives at is included in the current
process. But in the reauthorization of the Act there might be
specific things that you could employ as a checklist to make
sure that the process used by the Council covered all of the
bases that you need it to. And satisfy the policies underlying
NEPA. And what we would suggest there is that the development
of the Fisheries Management Plan should include description and
assessment alternatives, parallel to what NEPA does. An
evaluation of the relationship between local short term uses of
fishery resources, and the maintenance that it has for long
term productivity. An assessment of significant impacts on non-
target species. An assessment of significant adverse effects on
the marine ecosystem which is----
Mr. Gilchrest. Is that in your testimony, Mr. Bedford what
you're giving me right now?
Mr. Bedford. It's in the written testimony, if you want to
review it there.
Mr. Gilchrest. Sure.
Mr. Bedford. That would be fine. But in any event, so we go
through a number of things that--in actual point of fact, these
are for the most part already included in the Fisheries
Management Plan process.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
Ms. Madsen. May I just add, as Mr. Bedford's pointed out
NEPA is a process. And we believe, especially the Regional
Fisheries Management Chairs have recommended in their comments
some specific language that we believe may address some of the
concerns. Cumulative impacts, a requirement for a cumulative
impact assessment in our FMP's. Additionally, a range of
reasonable alternatives. Right now, you know we could be sued
because our breath of alternatives isn't sufficient. But
actuality you just may be coming up with alternatives to try to
fit that bookend. So we believe that requiring a range of
reasonable alternatives would not be inappropriate. And the
Council chairs have actually submitted a language that we
believe may be incorporated in Magnuson-Stevens to accommodate
the process of NEPA.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you. Ms. Salveson.
Ms. Salveson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think Mr. Bedford
and Ms. Stephanie articulated well that NEPA issues. I'd also
like to highlight that the Administration is considering other
proposals to Magnuson Act that would ameliorate some of the
concerns regarding the Administrative Procedures Act. How do we
make efficiencies in providing for public review and comment,
and input, yet still allow for effective rulemaking when we
need to. And so we're looking at a possible frame working type
options and some efficiencies of how to enact emergency
rulemaking when the issue arise to do so. So I think both on
NEPA issues, APA, and even the Endangered Species Act, I think
in this Council, the North Pacific Council, NMFS interface we
have strived to integrate early on in the process endangered
species issues. Somewhat a pre-consultation type process. So,
decisionmaking at the Council level is fully informed and does
not occur subsequent to a Council action.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much.
Mr. Young. And there's one thing that bother me. How many
times on the Council, and when you recommend--how many suits
have been filed against you?
Ms. Madsen. Well, I know we had an EFA lawsuit, which was a
national lawsuit that involved several of the Councils. We were
taken to court on our mitigation measures on the biological
opinion on stellar sea lions. And part of that resulted in our
programmatic--the need for a programmatic--our PSEIS, which was
a 7000 page poster child for NEPA quite frankly, Mr. Chairman.
So I believe those are the three--those were the big ones.
Right now we are litigation free at the moment. We've resolved
all of our outstanding issues and hope we won't have any in
the.....
Mr. Young. What I'm trying to get to, is there any language
that could be written into the Act that would include the--I
call them suits that impede the Council's efforts to try to
manage the fisheries? If you follow what I'm saying.
Ms. Madsen. Yes.
Mr. Young. There are certain groups who don't want to have
fisheries, let's fact it. I'm mean I've said this publicly. We
have a group now back east that says you can't catch fish with
a hook. Because it hurts the fish, you can't hear them cry. So
we must use a more humane way to catch fish. I'm trying to
figure that out. Dynamite's pretty good by the way. So, I'm
just saying that are those groups, but the Council to manage
with the state--and by the way I think that they're working
very close together. And with the Federal agencies. The Council
managed--if they're doing the right thing, I think there should
be a lawsuit that can stop the management. So have you got any
ideas I'd like to look at?
Ms. Madsen. Well, Congressman Young, Mr. Chairman, I think
in the North Pacific we have been sued primarily on process.
And they have been able to use the National Environmental
Policy Act to get us hooked on process. It hasn't been the
substance of our decisions that have caused the litigation in
the North Pacific. So I think that if we can reconcile that
kind of opportunity for litigation by making clear that if we
follow the Magnuson-Stevens process, that that is sufficient
for at least NEPA. And somewhat APA, although that has less
than the string that they have been able to pull, that unravels
a lot of our actions.
So, we believe that if we can hopefully fix the NEPA issue
and incorporate that, not to circumvent the process. We
understand that there's a process and we quite frankly have
benefited from going through some of the process. But, it's a
burden and we can react in a timely fashion----
Mr. Young. But, and again if you've got ideas for language
gladly submit it to the committee. Because I think that's one
of the reasons that I wanted you to be successful. Last, Dr.
Woodby and Ms. Salveson both referred to science. In which I'm
very supportive of. The one thing that bothers me is the term
best of science available. If there's no science that's been
upgraded, you have to use the old science. I'd prefer, and I
will try to put into the Bill, it's going to be termed best
science. If you follow what I'm saying, because there are
certain individuals that say the science is not available. This
is what we've done 25 years ago and that what you use to make
the rules by. They may be outdated because the science is not
up--you have not kept it up. So, I'd like to use the term best
science. Because then it has to be the best science. Not what's
available because if you haven't done anything, and you make
rules on the science that 25 years old or 20 years old that's
not fair to the management process, you know. I have no other
questions.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Don. I had a question on that as
well. Each of you, I think has mentioned the term cautionary
approach. And it sounds from all of you that using that
concept, precautionary approach is an acceptable process when
there is uncertainty. So that there is a sustainable fishery.
And I don't here that in a lot of other places around the
country. When you have that as a fundamental premise of your
fisheries, the concept of a precautionary approach. When you
come up with--when the scientists come up with an acceptable
biological catch. That's given to the Council's to come up with
total allowable catch? How difficult is that? How difficult is
it to get good science to come up with an acceptable biological
catch. And then how difficult is that for the scientists, and
how difficult is it for the Council to then come up with a
total allowable catch using the precautionary approach and
never exceeding ABC? That just seems pretty stunning for you
guys to be able to do that.
Ms. Madsen. Mr. Chairman, I guess we have luxury in the
North Pacific to have very good science. Our, the Alaska
Science Center is well respected. We've had a great
relationship with them. I think the open and transparent
process that the science center--people trust the science. And
they're willing to live by it. My experience, the little that I
have around the other parts of the country, I'm not sure that
they have the confidence in their science that we do here. But
we have a strong science center, we have a strong SSC----
Mr. Gilchrest. Is there some way--Woods Hole in New
England?
Ms. Madsen. Uh-huh (Affirmative).
Mr. Gilchrest. One of the premiere oceanographic
institutions in the world, you still have really major problems
with New England. And the science. And I think part of your
answer was that the science, SSC meets with the Council's. So,
is it the structure that you have here that maybe some other
Council's don't have? The interface, the exchange of
information from on person to another that has evolved into
this accepting science. Science with credibility, the
scientists respecting the people on the Council's?
Ms. Madsen. Mr. Chairman, I think one of the unique facets
of the North Pacific is that we do have in the Bering Sea and
Gulf of Alaska, but I'll focus on the Bering Sea. We have an
absolute limit, a cap for harvest at 2 million metric tons.
That now is in statute. I think under the 2004 Appropriations
Act, Consolidated Appropriations Act. So, the science will come
forward and lay out the best available--the best science on
status of stocks. The abundance, biomass, an acceptable
biological catch. Generally that amount will be far in excess
of 2 million metric tons. Right now the ABC is about 3 million
metric tons in the Bering Sea. But we are capped, in terms of
an allowable harvest at 2 million metric tons. So, the
science----
Mr. Gilchrest. That's OK with the Council.
Ms. Madsen. We did it. It was one of the first actions that
my predecessors put in place.
Mr. Gilchrest. Wow.
Ms. Madsen. So, Mr. Chairman I think a lot of the challenge
from the Council is to take the best science on status of
stocks. And then within that 2 million metric ton cap,
determine how to allocate the allowable harvest among the
different user groups and different fisheries. And that is
ongoing challenge that the Council will have. Particularly as
long as ABC does exceed that cap.
Mr. Gilchrest. Admiral, VMS has been fairly beneficial in a
lot of ways, both for conservation, for fisheries enforcement
and for safety. Is there any move afoot to have an
international agreement for vessels to have VMS onboard? With
the Russians or the Canadians or the Chinese? And has that ever
been mentioned at an IMO meeting for, you know enforcement
purposes or safety purposes.
Admiral Olson. Mr. Chairman, not that I'm aware of. Not in
that context. There are other international security
initiatives. But from the VMS side for fisheries enforcement
that's individual states that have done that. The best--as much
as I'm aware of.
Mr. Gilchrest. Well thank you all very much. We would like
to continue our conversation as the months proceed to gain more
information so that we reauthorize the Magnuson Act, it is--it
creates a framework upon which--and I think you've set the
example up here in Alaska. Where initiative, ingenuity, and
intellect can all work together to come up with a good plan.
Mr. Young. And I can tell you one thing--all of you watch
this very closely. And now with modern computers, you can just
about figure out what we're doing all the time. And if you see
something that's going to be offensive or something that can be
improved upon, you know contact the Chairman. Dave Whaley who
is our Chief of Staff on this issue, and we'll try and
incorporate it. Knowing full good and well that we're under the
spot light up here and we want to use this as an example. We
want to make sure that we are allowed to an economic fishery
and a sustainable yield. And not only here but across the
Nation as a whole. And I do appreciate all of your testimony
and comment and input. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gilchrest. Our next panel will be Ms. Cora Crome,
Representative, United Fishermen of Alaska. Ms. Kris Norosz,
Government Affairs, Icicle Seafoods, Incorporated. Ms. Dale
Kelley, Executive Director, Alaska Trollers Association. And
Ms. Linda Behnken, Executive Director, Alaska Longline
Fishermen's Association. Ladies, welcome.
Mr. Young. Look at this panel. There's not a man in the
whole group.
Mr. Gilchrest. Alaska is ahead of her time. By a long shot.
Ladies, thank you very much for coming. We appreciate your
effort to prepare for this hearing. And we look forward to your
testimony. Ms. Crome, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF CORA CROME,
UNITED FISHERMEN OF ALASKA
Ms. Crome. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
Congressman Young. I really appreciate the opportunity. My name
is Cora Crome. I'm here today on behalf of United Fishermen of
Alaska, which is a statewide coalition of commercial fishermen
and commercial fishing groups. Who participate in state and
federally managed fisheries in Alaska. And we are a large part
of the industry that's regulated by the North Pacific Council,
so I really appreciate the opportunity to talk to you today
about our involvement in that process. I also serve as
Executive Director or Petersburg Vessel Owners Association,
which is a commercial fishing group based here in southeast.
First, let me say that we believe really strongly that the
Council process is a good one. That's it's effective and that
it's the best avenue that we have for public participation in
the decisionmaking process. So we're strong supporters of the
council process and we would like to see most elements of it
stay in place when the Magnuson-Stevens Act is reauthorized.
And especially the process that is currently laid out in the
Act for Appointment, and service on those Council's. In Alaska
that has been very effective. We have individuals serving on
the Council's who are some of the most dedicated and
knowledgeable people that you could ever hope to have. They're
agency representatives, state representatives, community
processors and fishermen. And it's so important to the process
that you have those people who are directly involved in the
industry sitting at the table when decisions are made. Because
that is where the dedication and knowledge comes from, is from
people who are so close to the industry. And so I just wanted
to make that point to you because I think it's been a topic of
considerable debate over the past couple of years as the
council process has been examined by different groups. But from
the perspective of the industry that's one of the keys to
success here in the North Pacific. That we are actively
involved in the process, both through the Council and on their
advisory panel.
And, as you've heard a lot about, we really have a strong
Scientific and Statistical Committee. The Council always takes
their advice, sets good quotas. We have a wonderful observer
program. One of the most comprehensive, probably the most
comprehensive in the nation. And that makes sure that all the
catch is accounted for, and so those quotas are met, but
they're not exceeded. And, as a result, we're fortunate we have
health stocks and we have and industry that provides 10 of
thousands of jobs all over the Pacific Northwest.
And another thing that has been very important for the
Council is the ability to implement rationalization programs in
some of the fisheries. We have goals of conservation, of safety
of lives at sea, of reducing by catch, of quality products, and
value for our products, and economic stability that can only be
met through rationalization programs. So, we would suggest that
as the Magnuson-Stevens Act is reauthorized that specific
language be included to allow the Council's the flexibility to
develop rationalization programs to meet regional needs, and to
meet the needs of the fisheries that they regulate. So that
they can achieve the goals that are important. The
conservation, the by catch goals. The reduction of by catch is
one of the main benefits of rationalization programs, as well
as safety. And we have several rationalization programs in the
North Pacific that I believe could be good models for other
fisheries. And we're in the process of developing additional
ones as well. And in addition I would also make the
recommendation an attempt be made to reconcile the statutes,
the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NEPA, and the Administrative
Procedures Act. We've really experienced some frustration. It's
very difficult to respond quickly to pressing fishery
management needs when you have--you governed by statues that
seem to require such delays, simply by there very nature. That
you're almost unable to respond as quickly as you would like to
the best science that you have in front of you. And so we've
found that to be a frustration with the council process and
certainly would appreciate any help that you could give us with
reconciling those statutes as this moves forward.
Again, I really appreciate the opportunity to address you
today. And I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thanks.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Ms. Crome.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Crome follows:]
Statement of Cora Crome on behalf of United Fishermen of Alaska
Good morning. My name is Cora Crome and I represent United
Fishermen of Alaska. UFA is an umbrella organization representing 35
commercial fishing groups and over 10,000 individual fishermen who
participate in fisheries throughout Alaska. I am also the executive
director of Petersburg Vessel Owners Association and sit on the
advisory panel to the North Pacific Council. Thank you for the
opportunity to offer comments to the Subcommittee regarding
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act.
First, let me say that the United Fishermen of Alaska believe
strongly that the current system for managing fisheries and fisheries
resources off Alaska is effective and successful. Coordination and
cooperation between federal and state agencies, industry, and
scientists have resulted in healthy stocks, safer fisheries, and an
industry that provides tens of thousands of jobs in the Pacific
Northwest. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy identified the North
Pacific as a potential model for the rest of the country. As a
representative of the industry regulated by the North Pacific Council,
I appreciate the opportunity to provide our insight on what has made
this process so successful, as well as our recommendations to further
improve this outstanding process in the future.
Council Appointments and Public Participation--The United Fishermen
of Alaska believe that the current appointment process outlined in the
Act should be maintained. The dedicated individuals who serve on the
Council are an adequate and appropriate representation of the affected
interests. In addition, we believe that all authorities that currently
lie with the regional councils should remain with there. Members of the
public currently have the ability to attend meetings held throughout
the affected area and interact with those making fishery management
decisions. We believe that the public meetings held by the Council in
Alaska, Washington, and Oregon provide substantial opportunity for
public involvement. In addition, the Council seriously considers the
advice of its advisory panel, which is made up of industry, community,
and environmental representatives. This public participation would be
severely compromised if the current process were changed to transfer
decision making to either Washington D.C. or to an additional body such
as an ecosystem council.
Scientific Advice and the Precautionary Principle--The Council's
reliance on a strong scientific and statistical committee for review of
all biological and socio-economic information is the single most
important part of responsible management. Annual catches of our fish
stocks are controlled by strict harvest limits. The Council establishes
annual harvest limits for each stock that never exceed the biologically
safe and precautionary harvest level recommended by the scientists on
the Plan Teams or Scientific and Statistical Committee. Our scientists
recommend harvest levels using a tiered approach. The less we know
about the dynamics and condition of a stock, the more conservative the
harvest rate. Fisheries are closely monitored and closed when the
harvest limits are reached. The application of conservative catch
limits has resulted in sustainable catches and healthy stocks.
Observer Program and Inseason Catch Monitoring--Our comprehensive
observer program and inseason monitoring program ensure that the
conservative catch limits recommended by scientists and set by the
Council are achieved and not exceeded. Observers are required on all
vessels longer than 60 feet as well as at most processors. Fishery
managers at NMFS use information provided by industry and the observer
program to manage quotas. The combination of timely reporting and
observer information allows managers to monitor catch levels and
restrict fisheries so that catch limits are not exceeded. Although our
observer program is widely recognized as one of the best and most
comprehensive in the nation, we are currently working to restructure
the program to provide for even better information gathering.
Rationalization of Fisheries to Achieve Conservation and Safety--
The North Pacific Council has instituted a number of effort limitation
and fishery rationalization programs. The Bering Sea pollock fishery,
the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ program and the new Bering Sea/Aleutian
Islands Crab Rationalization program are examples of fisheries that
operate in a fully rationalized manner. The Council is currently
working to develop rationalization programs for other fisheries in the
Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska. The United Fishermen of Alaska believe
that IFQs, dedicated access privileges, or similar limited entry/
rationalization programs must be at the disposal of the Councils in
order to achieve conservation and safety goals. Rationalization
programs have been shown to improve safety and efficiency and reduce
bycatch. When properly designed and implemented, they lead to increased
product value and quality. The Magnuson-Stevens Act should provide
flexibility to the Councils to tailor rationalization programs to
specific fisheries. Councils should have clear authority to design
programs that promote safety, conservation, quality, and economic
stability.
Reconciling Statutes--The United Fishermen of Alaska believe
strongly that the current mix of statutes which govern the fisheries
management process needs to be reconciled, and that the Magnuson-
Stevens Act needs to be reaffirmed as the guiding Act in this process.
Currently, all Council actions must adhere to a number of Acts and
Executive Orders including the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Administrative
Procedures Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Endangered Species
Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The requirements
for social and economic analysis, scientific review, and public comment
specified in the Magnuson-Stevens Act are substantially the same as
under NEPA; however, the timeline and administrative process under the
two Acts often conflict, and NEPA has become the defining act for
processing and review of management actions. The process requirements
under NEPA have led to delays and litigation, regardless of the
validity of the underlying science or the conservation benefits of the
proposed action. Litigation is seriously impeding the Council's ability
to take timely management actions based on the best scientific
information. Council staff and NMFS personnel devote thousands of hours
to meeting litigation-driven requirements, compromising their ability
to focus time and resources on real management and conservation issues
United Fishermen of Alaska would like to request that Congress
assist in resolving the conflicts between these statutes in order to
clarify and streamline the regulatory process and reduce the exposure
of the Councils and NMFS to litigation. We believe this can be done by
clarifying that the Magnuson-Stevens Act is the governing statute for
actions taken by the Council and NMFS, given that the process and
requirements for fisheries management as outlined under MSA satisfies
the intent of NEPA relative to analysis, public participation, and
environmental conservation.
Funding--The United Fishermen of Alaska further recommend that
Congress consider the ability of both NMFS and the Councils to fulfill
their mission at current funding levels, especially when considering
any new mandates. While research and monitoring programs are expensive,
they are invaluable to preserving the health or our fisheries
resources.
In conclusion, we would like to express our appreciation for this
opportunity to comment on the successes of fisheries management in the
North Pacific as well as our recommendations for ways the process could
be improved. It is our hope that these comments will be helpful to you
in your continued work on reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Ms. Norosz.
STATEMENT OF KRIS NOROSZ,
ICICLE SEAFOODS, INCORPORATED
Ms. Norosz. Thank you, Chairman Gilchrest, Congressman
Young. It's a pleasure to be here. I'm Kris Norosz representing
Icicle Seafoods. We're a privately held corporation founded in
Petersburg, Alaska. We recently celebrated our 40th anniversary
and proud to say that we are still owned by employees,
fishermen and families of our founders, many of whom still
reside in Petersburg. I appreciate the opportunity to testify
before you today. And I think it's really important for you to
understand that what occurs in the Bering Sea and the Gulf of
Alaska have a direct bearing on operations in inside waters of
Southeast Alaska and vice versa. We purchase and process a
diverse range of species caught throughout the state and
Federal waters off the coast of Alaska. From southeast, here in
Ketchikan all the way up to Norton Sound in the northwest part
of the state. And integrated program is a key feature to our
success. Therefore, any decision that adversely affects our
business in the Bering Sea has a direct impact on our
operations in the gulf and in southeast. These impacts will
also affect the communities we operate in, our employees and
the fishermen who sell to us.
The Bering Sea, Aleutian Island crab rationalization has
recently been adopted and is soon to be implemented. Had this
program not included processors, this would have likely forced
us to cease purchasing herring in some remote areas of Alaska
and reduce our purchases of salmon. This would not only have
affected us, but the communities we operate in, and the
fishermen that sell to us. Instead the crab rationalization
program recognized the historical participation and investments
of harvesters, processors, and communities. And has provided
protections for all three sectors. This allows for healthier
transition, greatly reduces negative impacts, and still
provides all the benefits for rationalized fishery. Clearly
decisions in one area have rippling effects in others. And
every sector of the industry needs to be heard, considered, and
protected when possible. We're of the opinion that the
Magnuson-Stevens Act is principally sound and can work well
with proper implementation. And I believe the North Pacific
Council is a shining example. The Council operates in an open
public process with lots of opportunity for public involvement
through working committees formed around specific issues, and
public testimony before the advisory panel, the SSC, and the
Council. The Advisory Panel and the SSC meet during every
Council meeting. And start a couple of days prior to the
Council in order to have their recommendations ready prior the
Council taking up the issue.
I believe the process has greatly aided the Council in it's
decisionmaking, and resulted in better workable solutions to
difficult and complex issues. I think the authority needs
retained at the Council level for appointment to these
committees.
We have a strong atmosphere of cooperation between the
agencies and stakeholders. I'm not sure if this is unique to
our region or not. Recognizing that good fisheries management
need to be science driven, closely monitored, and strictly
enforced. We have multiple Federal and state agencies working
closely together with the Council to insure that happens. We
also have a high degree of cooperation on proactive actions
that have been undertaken by industry stakeholders to address
problems in the fishery. For instance, the American Fisheries
Act, Catcher Vessel Cooperatives in the Bering Sea pollock
fishery have created and adopted a voluntary industry funded
program to reduce salmon by catch with twice daily reporting to
a central data bank. Hot spots are noted, the information is
decimated to the fleet, and vessels are required to move away
from areas of high by catch.
The Marine Conservation Alliance is a group that formed in
the last few years. And they work diligently in the council
process to bring diverse and often competing interests together
to resolve resource issues in a manner that protects the marine
environment and minimizes the impacts on fishing communities.
Their efforts include marine debris cleanup and support of
applied cooperative research products. Industry members over
the past five years have contributed over five million dollars
to dozens of marine research projects at universities and
colleges in Alaska.
Clearly, there are lessons to be learned in the North
Pacific. To employ a through science-based process to insure
that annual catch limits are set at conservative and
sustainable levels for every target fishery. To adopt in a
precautionary approach to deal with an uncertainty. Listen to
the scientists, set the tax at or below ABC, monitor all catch
and by catch whether it's retained or discarded. Utilize and
observer program for catch and by catch accountability, close
fisheries when caps or quotas are reached. Utilize the Advisory
Panels and SSC's at every Council meeting. Insure the
deliberate on the issues and advise the Council prior to action
being taken. Promote stakeholder and public involvement, and
foster good working relationships between scientists, agency
staffs, industry stakeholders, coastal communities, the public,
and the Councils.
In conclusion, I think successful fishery management in the
North Pacific is proof that the Magnuson-Stevens Act, when
properly applied serves as an excellent model for regional
decisionmaking that provides for the wise use and
sustainability of the fishery resources. It accommodates both
national and regional interests and provides creditable
guidance for responsible decisionmaking. The Act clearly a
successful partnership that provides the necessary framework
for successful fisheries management and conscientious
stewardship of the resource. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Ms. Norosz.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Norosz follows:]
Statement of Kristine M. Norosz on Behalf of Icicle Seafoods, Inc.
Congressman Gilchrest, Young, and members of the Subcommittee,
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am Kristine
Norosz, Government Affairs director for Icicle Seafoods, Inc. Icicle
Seafoods is a privately held Alaska corporation founded in 1965 in
Petersburg, Alaska. We recently celebrated our 40th anniversary and are
proud to say that we are still owned by employees, fishermen and the
families of our founders, many of whom still reside in Petersburg.
Since starting with a single salmon cannery in Petersburg, we have
considerably expanded our operations to include multiple locations in
Alaska where we purchase and process salmon, crab, cod, halibut,
herring, sablefish and pollock. We purchase fish from southeast Alaska
up to Norton Sound in northwest Alaska. Our processing operations are
located in Petersburg, Seward, Homer, Egegik, Dillingham, Dutch Harbor,
Unalaska Island, and St. Paul. We operate four floating processing
vessels that operate in remote areas in Alaska. Though we own a small
number of catcher vessels, over 85% of our business is a result of
purchases from independent fishermen in Alaska.
With operations throughout the vast coastal regions of Alaska and
purchases of both federally and state managed fisheries, we are very
interested in the management and long term sustainability of the
fisheries and the policies with which they are governed. As one of our
founders, Gordon Jensen, said...``Icicle has a long history of working
toward the sustainability of Alaska's exceptional resources. We see it
as a shared responsibility, and one that we take very seriously.''
To put things into perspective, it is helpful to realize that
approximately half of the Nation's annual landings of fish come from
waters off Alaska. With a value of over $1 billion per year, Alaska's
fisheries provide the economic engine for many coastal communities. The
seafood industry is the number one private employer in the State of
Alaska and plays a vital role in the State's economy. Good stewardship
of the fishery resources is of great importance to us and future
generations.
I appreciate your desire to hear from Alaska stakeholders and
realize that one of the reasons I was asked to testify today was to
bring a Southeast perspective to these discussions. It is important to
understand that what occurs in the Bering Sea or the Gulf of Alaska has
a direct bearing on our operations in the inside waters of Southeast
Alaska and vice versa. Therefore, it is difficult to bring solely a
Southeast perspective to these discussions. We purchase and process a
diverse range of species caught throughout the state and federal waters
off the coast of Alaska. An integrated program is a key feature to our
success. Therefore, any decision that adversely affects our business in
the Bering Sea has a direct impact on our operations in the Gulf and in
Southeast. These impacts will also affect the communities we operate
in, our employees and the fishermen who sell to us.
When the halibut and sablefish fisheries were rationalized through
an IFQ program, the history and investment made by processors was not
recognized with the inclusion of any protections. The impact was felt
throughout our operations. Rationalizing only one sector devalues the
sector that isn't rationalized. It is disruptive to the business. Had
the Bering Sea/Aleutian Island Crab Rationalization program not
included processors, this would have likely forced us to cease
purchasing herring in some remote areas of Alaska and reduce our
purchases of salmon. This would not only have affected us but also the
communities we operate in (through a decline in employment, taxes, and
local purchases) and the fishermen who sell to us. Instead, the crab
rationalization program recognizes the historical participation and
investments of harvesters, processors and communities and provides
protections for all three sectors of the industry. This allows for a
healthier transition, greatly reduces negative impacts, and still
provides all the benefits of a rationalized fishery. Clearly, decisions
in one area have rippling effects in others and every sector of the
industry needs to be heard, considered, and protected when possible.
We are of the opinion the Magnuson-Steven Fishery Conservation and
Management Act is principally sound and can work well with proper
implementation. I believe the North Pacific Council is a shining
example of the successes that can be achieved under the existing Act.
The North Pacific Council operates in an open public process with
lots of opportunity for public involvement through working committees
formed around specific issues, and public testimony before the Advisory
Panel (AP), the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) and the
Council. The Council's deliberations are conducted in public and
everyone has ample opportunity to approach the members individually
outside the meeting, or address them as a body during their meetings,
to air their opinions prior to decisions being made.
The Advisory Panel and the SSC meet during every Council meeting
and start a couple of days ahead of the Council in order to have their
recommendations ready prior to the Council taking up a specific issue.
The Advisory Panel and the SSC members are selected by the Council and
are a diverse group of people with knowledge and expertise that aids
the discussion and analytical process. The AP and SSC chairs present
the written reports from the meetings of their respective bodies,
present oral comments and answer questions from the Council prior to
the Council hearing public testimony and taking action on the issues.
We believe the Council should retain the authority to make appointments
to the AP and SSC.
As a former member of the Advisory Panel, a member of various
Council committees, and long time participant at Council meetings, I
believe this reliable public process, particularly at the SSC and AP,
has fostered good relationships between the industry, communities,
scientists, and the agency staffs. This in turn has resulted in a
better understanding of the issues, good discourse and an opportunity
for collaboration between the various groups. Issues are more fully
fleshed out and understood by everyone prior to the issue coming before
the Council. It often presents an opportunity for folks to come to
agreement on a solution or to create some innovative alternatives for
the Council to consider. There is no doubt in my mind this has greatly
aided the Council in its decision making and resulted in better
workable solutions to difficult and complex issues.
The North Pacific Council employs a thorough science-based process
to ensure that annual catch limits are set at conservative and
sustainable level for every target fishery. NOAA scientists use a
variety of sources to aid them in their determination of stock
abundance. This includes data collected from regular independent
groundfish surveys along with annual fishery catch and bycatch data.
This data is coupled with sophisticated stock assessment models to
determine species abundance and appropriate conservative harvest rates
for every major groundfish species. Once this is completed, the
Council's Groundfish Plan Teams review these recommended allowable
biological catch levels for each stock. These receive further review by
the Council's SSC before the Council sets their annual specifications
for the upcoming fishing year. Without fail, Total Allowable Catch
(TAC) limits are always set at or below the Allowable Biological Catch
(ABC) limits set by the SSC, and well below the designated overfishing
level.
As an additional precautionary measure, the combined Bering Sea and
Aleutian Islands groundfish quotas are capped at a maximum of 2 million
metric tons annually, regardless of the maximum recommended ABC levels.
For example, in 2004 the ABCs totaled over 3.5 million metric tons, yet
the TACs were reduced to stay within the 2 million metric ton cap. The
catch was well under the cap. This cap has been maintained for over two
decades as a safety measure to protect against stock assessment
uncertainty and potential ecosystem effects. Groundfish harvest rates
have been in the 3 to 5 billion pound range for the last three decades
and no groundfish stocks are considered overfished.
Catch limits alone have little meaning if the harvest of targeted
species and bycatch are not closely monitored and enforced. In the
North Pacific, we use a combination of strict reporting requirements,
observer coverage, and real time in-season catch monitoring to ensure
that annual catch and bycatch limits are not exceeded. The catch of all
species is monitored and counted toward the limit. This includes target
species and species taken as bycatch, whether retained or discarded.
Fishery managers also use this data to monitor seasonal and area
apportionments, close areas or fisheries if bycatch limits for
prohibited species are reached, and monitor the take of any ESA listed
mammals or seabirds.
A critical component of the monitoring system is an industry funded
comprehensive observer program that occurs on-board and at processing
plants. Observers are required in many onshore processing plants,
offshore catcher-processors and catcher vessels. With the exception of
vessels less than 60 feet in length, all vessels fishing for groundfish
in federal waters are required to carry observers, at their own
expense, for at least a portion of their fishing time. Depending on
vessel length, it may be 30% to 100% of the time. Besides collecting
catch data for in-season quota monitoring, observers also collect data
for stock assessment, species composition, length, and age structure.
Cooperative Efforts:
I am not familiar enough with the other regions to know if the
cooperative effort between agencies in the North Pacific is unique or
not. I can tell you that it appears to be working quite well here. The
Council shares management responsibilities for some species with the
Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game (salmon, crab, scallops, and herring) and
the International Pacific Halibut Commission. Recognizing that good
fisheries management needs to be science driven, closely monitored and
strictly enforced, we have multiple federal and state agencies working
closely together with the Council to ensure that happens. It includes
NOAA Fisheries along with their Alaska Fisheries Science Center and
North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program, the International Pacific
Halibut Commission, the Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game and the Alaska
Board of Fisheries, the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, the
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Coast Guard. The boards and
commissions I have listed include industry and community stakeholders.
You can find representatives of all these groups, along with
stakeholders, working together on various Council committees and
advisory groups to other international commissions like the North
Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission. There is an incredible amount of
interaction, information exchange, and collaboration between the
agencies, boards, commissions, and stakeholders.
I can't leave the subject of cooperative efforts without mentioning
the high degree of proactive work undertaken by industry stakeholders
to address problems in the fisheries as they arise. Here are a few
examples I would like to share with you:
The American Fisheries Act catcher vessel cooperatives in
the Bering Sea pollock fishery have created and adopted a voluntary
industry funded program to reduce salmon bycatch with twice daily
reporting to a central data bank. Hot spots are noted, the information
is disseminated to the fleet, and vessels are then required to move
away from areas of high bycatch.
The Marine Conservation Alliance (MCA) is a diverse group
comprised of fishing associations, communities, Community Development
Quota groups, harvesters, processors and support sector businesses
operating in the North Pacific. They have worked diligently in the
Council process to bring diverse interests together to resolve resource
issues in a manner that protects the marine environment and minimizes
the impacts on the fishing community. Their efforts include marine
debris clean-up and support of applied cooperative research projects.
The North Pacific Longline Association (NPLA) has been
successful in their efforts to research and adopt seabird avoidance
measures to protect endangered short-tailed albatrosses. The NPLA
prepared draft regulations for consideration by the Council who then
voted to implement the regulations by emergency rule.
Industry members, over the past five years, have
contributed over $5 million to sponsor dozens of marine research
projects at the University of Alaska, Alaska Pacific University and
Sheldon Jackson College.
Progress Toward Ecosystem-Based Approaches to Fishery Management:
The North Pacific Council has adopted an array of measures for an
ecosystem-based management approach. Recognizing the limited amount of
relevant scientific information currently available to fully understand
all the impacts of harvesting fish on the entire ecosystem, the Council
has adopted a precautionary approach in its management decisions as a
means to minimize unexpected impacts. This has led the Council to take
a conservative approach in setting annual catch limits and the reason
it has set a 2 million metric ton cap for total catch in the Bering
Sea/Aleutian Island fisheries, regardless of how large the biomass may
get. Fisheries are closed when limits are reached, all catch and
bycatch (whether retained or discarded) are counted toward the TAC, an
industry funded observer program monitors catch and bycatch, and the
TAC is always set below ABC. Predator/prey relationships are also
considered and a prohibition on directed fishing for important forage
fish species is in place.
In addition, for the last decade, the groundfish plan teams have
authored an Ecosystem Considerations section to supplement the annual
Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) report. This important
section of the SAFE document includes an annual assessment of the
ecosystem, a review of ecosystem oriented management literature,
updates on current ecosystem research, new information on the status of
marine mammals and seabirds as well as other components of the North
Pacific ecosystem.
The Council has adopted strong habitat protection measures that
have closed productive fishing grounds on either a permanent or
seasonal basis. Fishery closures comprise of time, area and gear type
to protect critical life stages of various species, seafloor habitat,
minimize bycatch, and minimize interactions with protected species. In
excess of 330,000 square nautical miles have been closed to bottom
trawling or otherwise restricted to protect habitat.
There is no doubt that there is much to be learned and understood
about marine ecosystems and the interrelationships of the many forces
at play. However, management authority for an ecosystem-based
management approach needs to stay in the hands of the regional
management councils. The U.S. EEZ is extremely large with many diverse
and unique areas. What works best in one area or fishery may not in
another. Managers need to be cognizant of prevailing conditions and new
information. Therefore, a regional approach, left in the hands of the
regional fishery management councils, offers the best opportunity for
timely adaptive management that is well suited for the circumstances at
hand.
Lessons to be Learned from the North Pacific:
1. Adopt a precautionary approach to deal with uncertainty.
2. Set TACs at or below ABC.
3. Monitor all catch and bycatch, whether retained or discarded.
4. Utilize the advisory panels and SSCs at every meeting of the
Council. Ensure they deliberate on the issues and advise the Council
prior to action being taken.
5. Utilize observer programs for catch and bycatch accountability,
and other data collection.
6. Promote industry and public involvement.
7. Foster good working relationships between scientists, agency
staffs, industry stakeholders, coastal communities, the public, and the
councils.
Conclusion:
Successful fisheries management in the North Pacific is proof the
national standards and goals of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act, when properly applied, serve as an
excellent model for regional decision making that provides for the wise
use and sustainability of the fisheries resources in the U.S. EEZ. Half
of the Nation's annual landings of fish come from waters off Alaska and
assessments of all the groundfish stocks conclude they are healthy and
sustainable. The North Pacific region has shown the Act works when
closely followed. It accommodates national and regional interests and
provides critical guidance for responsible decision making. The
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act is a
successful partnership program that provides the necessary framework
for successful fisheries management and conscientious stewardship of
the marine resources.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Ms. Kelley?
STATEMENT OF DALE KELLEY,
ALASKA TROLLERS ASSOCIATION
Ms. Kelley. Good morning, and welcome to Ketchikan.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
Ms. Kelley. My name is Dale Kelley. I am the Executive
Director of the Alaska Trollers Association, and our office is
located in Juneau. Since 1925, ATA has represented hook and
line salmon fishermen who operate in both state and Federal
waters off the coast of Southeast Alaska. Small family
operations target premium quality Chinook and Coho. The fish
are caught one at a time, and cleaned and iced or flash frozen
onboard. Most of our product is distributed to white tablecloth
restaurants and smokeries around the world. Here in southeast
there are only 33 communities. Only three have road access.
Ketchikan isn't one. This makes commercial fishing extremely
important to our region. About one of every 40 people works on
a troll boat. Fishing and support jobs span everything from
fishermen and processing workers to fishery scientists, gear,
and service providers. The troll fleet is the largest in the
state, 85 percent resident and 40 percent of our permit holders
live in rural communities. And, by the way Ketchikan may seem
small by lower 48 standards, but it's actually our fourth
largest community and not considered rural.
The troll fleet is unique in any number of ways. Ours in
the only salmon fleet in Alaska that fishes in the EEZ. For
many years the Council jointly managed our fisheries with the
Alaska Board of Fisheries. But recognizing the strength of
Alaska's management program delegated it's management it's
management authority in 1991. So ADF&G manages our fishery is
pertinent to the council process. Now the Council steps in only
when a Federal management body is needed to review specific
issues like the Endangered Species Act. Trollers are the only
Alaska salmon fishermen managed under the ESA, even though no
Alaska salmon stocks are listed under the Act. We bear this
unfortunate distinction because we harvest a small number of
fall run salmon from the Snake River. The ESA mandates
involvement of a Federal regulatory body. So we sometimes
address the Council on this matter. While the Council's not
directly involved in managing the troll fishery, ATA remains
interested in the laws that govern it's activities and our
operations. Many in the fleet are diversified into other
Council fisheries. And we remain concerned about habitat and
other initiatives bedded in that arena. As with any regulatory
process there's often a wide range of opinions and positions.
ATA doesn't always agree with the Council's decisions, but we
greatly value it's existence. We recognize the Council is
fulfilling a very important purpose with respect to transparent
management of our public resource. We recognize it as a
national leader in fisheries management.
I would specifically ask to discuss with you our fishery
and it's relationship to management. So how is fishery
management in Alaska different? Well I find that Congressman
Young maybe surprised to learn that dynamite is not official
fishing gear in this state. Because in this state fish always
come first. Alaska's constitution mandates sustainable
fisheries, so Alaska was caring for habitat and managing it's
fisheries in a cautious manner long before anyone coined the
term precautionary approach. The regulatory process is public
and dynamic. Our management plans are publicly reviewed and
modified as needed to accommodate changed circumstances.
Conservation and allocation decisions are kept separate. The
Board of Fisheries allocates fish, but Fish and Games primary
responsibility is conservation. The lines of authority are
clearly drawn, and this is a very important point of our
management system. Governors and legislatures, though they
tried at times do not make fishery management decisions in
Alaska. And in fact the Commissioner of Fish and Game doesn't
actually manage the fisheries. But relies on professional front
line biologists to manage them. Science-based management
decisions are make using current and historical data along with
in season observations. Fisheries managers are empowered to
override Board of Fish Management Plans and close fisheries,
when necessary for conservation. This data driven, responsive,
fish friendly management is probably the most significant
difference between ADF&G and many other management agencies
around the country.
ADF&G and other Alaska agencies work closely with
fishermen. We regularly meet to coordinate on common policy
goals. Fish and Game and fishermen work together to design
common sense regulations that benefit both the resource and
industry. And the prime example for our fleet is our spring
troll fishery. Where each year we've began coordinating port
meetings, Fish and Game and I, and we inform fishermen--we just
give them the current information, but also work to
reconfigure, if necessary any of the more than 30 distinct
spring fishing areas. So it's very cooperative, open process
between our organizations.
ATA is in daily contact with managers to share vital
fishing information. To help Fish and Game more quickly access
run strength we share information from fishermen on the
grounds. And as a volunteer I conduct aerial boat counts for
ADF&G to help estimate effort and catch rates. ATA once ran a
logbook program and this year we will work with NOAA to examine
the food source data collected by trollers in hopes of helping
scientists studying Steller sea lions. Alaska's management
program is strong because managers work for the resource and
with users. This situation didn't develop overnight. And while
it's not perfect our system seems to have matured nicely into
one of cooperation between Alaska's agencies and fishermen.
Unfortunately our experience is not consistent with what you
hear from fishermen and scientists across the nation.
We have just a few points of concern within the Magnuson-
Stevens reauthorization process. The Council membership, we
believe should be knowledgeable and reflect the affected public
and state governments. And I couldn't say it any better than
Cora had emphasized a few minutes ago. Fishery policy and
management should be prescriptive and adaptive recognizing
differences between regions, fleets, and circumstances. What
works in North Carolina isn't going to work here in Alaska. And
we're a little tired of fending that off during these
reauthorization processes. Marine protected areas should not be
legislated. We believe the Council should use them only if
necessary to achieve specific goals and objectives, and after
extensive public process. The Council's must recognize local
knowledge in their decisions and strive to balance uses.
Decentralizing management decisions to minimize political
pressure and improve reaction time should lead to more nimble
and responsive management programs. Key terms such as over
fishing need to be reevaluated and/or developed. Enhanced
research and data collection to avoid duplicity, which
protecting confidential data is essential. Cooperative projects
with fishermen and their organizations should be encouraged.
Vessel Monitoring Systems should require reasonable
justification as to the actual need for and intended use of
data collected. Confidentially and privacy matters must be
addressed and industry costs mitigated. Particularly in the
smaller boat fleets.
Dedicated access privileges must be carefully crafted and
consider individual fishing histories and impacts on fishermen
and small communities. Control of the public resource,
ownership and consolidation of the seafood industry are
important issues demanding stringent standards to safeguard
U.S. fishermen in coastal communities. Potential impacts of
offshore aquiculture must be scrutinized and carefully dealt
with.
New legislation would exempt fish farmers from Magnuson-
Stevens Act. While some provisions of the Act might not be
applicable to aquiculture, many of the national standards seem
appropriate and fitting. It would be unfortunate to continue
improving fishery management in the EEZ only to see
conservation and U.S. economics successes undermined by new
activities that could affect not only the seafood industry, but
coastal communities and others who utilize the oceans.
In conclusion, not long ago I had dinner with a lively
group of East Coast fishermen in Portuguese Fishermen's Hall in
New Bedford, Mass. A lobsterman from Maine flopped down beside
me and told me everything he know about Alaska fisheries in one
statement. He said that the Alaska fleet is made up of huge
factory trollers that ply the coastline taking copious amounts
of fish and destroying the Pacific Ocean. So, of course I had
to share with him my impression of East Coast fisheries. That
their management is so dysfunctional that no one really knows
how many boats are fishing where or when, for what species,
with what gear. And they're very close to catching the last
fish in the Atlantic Ocean. As we talked we quickly discovered
how little we actually knew about each others fisheries and
regional concerns. And I certainly felt my horizons expand as I
listened and learned. If Americans are lucky those changed with
reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens and other important
fisheries law will take time, as you are to gain a broader
understanding of the U.S. fisheries and dependent communities.
We should all draw on the success and failure of others as we
work to further refine and improve our nations fish and habitat
policies. Working together we can insure the sustainability and
productivity of the oceans for our children and the nation.
Mr. Young. Thank you, Dale.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Ms. Kelley. We'll have
to have you come and testify over when we go to Portland,
Maine.
Ms. Kelley. I'd love to.
Mr. Gilchrest. Ms. Behnken.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kelley follows:]
Statement of Dale Kelley, Executive Director,
Alaska Trollers Association
Good morning and welcome to Ketchikan! I greatly appreciate you
taking time to personally travel to Alaska to learn about our fisheries
and hear our concerns.
I am Dale Kelley, executive director of the Alaska Trollers
Association. Our office is located in Juneau.
When invited to testify at this hearing, I was asked to discuss--
our fishery and its relationship to management--what is our unique
management experience and why is Alaska different? To answer those
questions, it's important to look beyond the Council process and focus
more directly on our fisheries and communities, along with what's right
and working with our state waters fishery--and why. Therefore, my
comments will attempt to give you a sense of what our region is like;
what our fleet does; how our fishery fits into the Council process; our
perspectives on the Alaska management experience; and, a heads-up on
some of our members' concerns.
Since 1925, ATA has represented hook and line salmon fishermen who
operate in both state and federal waters off Southeast Alaska. The
typical crew size on a troll vessel is a skipper and one deckhand,
although there are also many family-run operations. Our principal
target species are chinook and coho and the product is premium quality.
Fish are caught one at a time and cleaned and iced or flash-frozen
while still onboard the vessel. Most troll-caught fish are bound for
white table cloth restaurants and smokeries around the world.
There are approximately 15,000 salmon producing rivers in Alaska
with over 2,500 in this region alone. Freshwater and marine habitat in
Alaska is largely intact and most species of fish and shellfish are
healthy throughout the state. Alaska salmon have been highly abundant
for the last two decades and our processors are granted use of the
Marine Stewardship Council's sustainable label.
Alaska is extremely fish dependent and most coastal communities
host a diverse fishing fleet. When you consider the seafood industry,
the guided sportfishing industry, resident anglers, and subsistence
users, the pursuit of wild fish is clearly one of the most important
contributors to our local economy and social well-being. The taxes and
fees collected from the seafood sector by the state far exceed every
industry but oil, which makes seafood production important to all
Alaskans.
There are 33 communities here in Southeast but only three are
accessible by road. Commercial fishing is extremely important to our
jobs base. Fishing and support jobs span everything from fishermen and
processing workers to fishery scientists, gear suppliers, and service
providers. The troll fleet is the largest in the state and about one of
every 40 people in this region works on a troll vessel. Roughly 85% of
the permit holders are resident and over 40% of them live in rural
communities. Incidentally, while small by Lower 48 standards, Ketchikan
is not considered rural--with little over 14,000 souls, this is the 4th
largest city in Alaska. If you look outside right now you'll see three
cruise ships in the harbor. Passengers onboard those vessels equal
nearly half the year-round population of Ketchikan. Alaska might be
called the Great Land, but it's made up of a lot of small towns.
The troll fleet is unique in that ours is the only salmon fleet in
Alaska that fishes the EEZ. As a result, a fishery management plan
(FMP) was drafted by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council
(Council). For many years, the Council jointly regulated our fishery
with the Alaska Board of Fisheries (Board), but, recognizing the
strength of Alaska's management program, delegated its authority to the
state in 1991. Therefore, how the state manages the troll fishery is
pertinent to the MSA.
The Council still steps in when a federal management body is needed
to review specific issues, such as the Endangered Species Act. Trollers
are the only Alaska salmon fishermen managed under the ESA, even though
none of state's salmon stocks are listed. Trollers bear this
unfortunate distinction because they harvest a small number of fall-run
Chinook salmon from the Snake River. Beyond the current program to
conserve salmon stocks, there is nothing our fleet can directly do to
rebuild Snake River Fall Chinook. This fact has been recognized by both
the Council and the Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC), the body that
implements the US/Canada Salmon Treaty (Treaty). In 1999, a ten year
Treaty agreement was struck and Alaska was able to secure a Section 7
permit to fish under the ESA for the life of that agreement. Before
that, the state applied for a permit to fish under the ESA, NOAA
reviewed and ruled on our management plan, and the Council put the
matter in front of the public. There was often considerable acrimony
between NOAA, the state, and fishermen during this process, but the
long term Treaty agreement and associated ESA permit put an end to
that. Hopefully, a similar arrangement will be possible in the future,
as it would streamline the ESA process for all.
While the Council is no longer directly involved in managing the
troll fishery, ATA remains interested in laws and policies that govern
its activities or could affect operations. Our members are concerned
about habitat and other initiatives vetted in that arena, and many in
the fleet participate in other Council fisheries.
As with any regulatory process, there is often a wide range of
opinions and positions. ATA does not always agree with the Council's
decisions, but we greatly value its existence. We recognize the Council
as fulfilling a very important purpose with respect to transparent
management of a public resource. As you know, Alaska's Council has an
outstanding reputation as a national leader in federal fisheries
management, and is typically on the forefront of designing systems
intended to protect and sustain marine resources.
So, why does fisheries management in Alaska work--how is it
different?
Well, given his earlier comments, Congressman Young might be
surprised to learn that dynamite is not legal fishing gear around
here...
In this state, fish have always come first.
Following a couple of failed ballot attempts, Alaska
joined the union when federally permitted fish traps threatened to kill
off salmon.
Alaska's Constitution bans fish traps and mandates
sustainable fisheries.
Alaska was caring for habitat and managing its fisheries
in a cautious manner long before anyone coined the term ``precautionary
approach''.
The state and its people are affected and engaged.
Fishing is the number one employer and, in some way,
every town in Alaska relies on commercial fishing.
The regulatory process is public and dynamic.
Alaska Board of Fisheries (Board) is a lay board that
conducts lengthy public meetings in each region no less than once every
three years. Special meetings are held for unanticipated needs, but it
is extremely rare to secure such a meeting for anything but
conservation.
Anyone can submit a proposal and participate in the
meetings. It is not unusual to see a thousand proposals submitted to
the Board in any given year.
The Board is supported by local Advisory Committees who
actively seek out the opinions and concerns of their communities, and
pass those recommendations on to the Board.
Management plans are publicly reviewed and modified as
needed to accommodate changed circumstances.
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) can alter
these plans in-season, if conservation warrants.
Conservation and allocation decisions are kept separate.
Alaska Board of Fisheries is responsible for allocation.
ADFG's primary responsibility is conservation.
Lines of authority are clearly drawn
Though some have tried, Governors and Legislators do not
make fishery management decisions.
The Commissioner of Fish and Game relies on professional
front-line biologists to manage fisheries on a day-to-day basis.
Science-based management decisions are made using current and
historical data and in-season observations. Fishery managers
are empowered to override Board of Fish management plans and
close fisheries when necessary for conservation.
This data-driven, responsive, fish friendly management
process is probably the most significant difference between
ADFG and many other management agencies around the country.
ADFG and other Alaska agencies work with fishermen to better manage
resources
We regularly meet with ADFG commissioners and staff to
coordinate on common goals for state, federal, and international
fishery policy.
ADFG and fishermen work together to design common sense
regulations that benefit the resource and industry.
A prime example is the spring troll fishery. ADFG and ATA
host joint meetings in many ports, to share information with
the fleet and seek input for shaping over 30 distinct
management areas.
ATA is in daily contact with managers to share vital
fishery information.
To help ADFG more quickly assess run strength, ATA shares
real-time information from fishermen on the grounds. As a
volunteer, I conduct aerial boat counts for ADFG to help
estimate effort and catch rates.
For many years ATA ran a fleet logbook program with oversight
from ADFG and NOAA. This year we will work with NOAA to examine
food source data collected by trollers, in hopes of helping
scientists studying stellar sea lions.
ATA works with the agencies to improve habitat for fish
and wildlife
ATA is a contractor working with USFWS, Ducks Unlimited, and
AK Department of Transportation to improve fish passage on
Prince of Wales Island.
In sum, Alaska's management program is strong and effective because
managers work FOR the resource, and WITH the users. This situation
didn't develop overnight. And, while it's not perfect, the current
system seems to have matured nicely into one of cooperation between
Alaska's agencies and fishermen.
Unfortunately, our experience is inconsistent with what I hear from
many fishermen and scientists around the nation. In my opinion, the
federal system overall could be well served by following the example
set by Alaska when it comes to partnering with industry and securing
science based, responsive management programs.
Industry Challenges
The committee also requested information about what challenges we
anticipate in the foreseeable future. Like any industry, we have a few.
Conserving and maintaining access to the resource
Securing adequate funds for research, management, and
enforcement.
Habitat protection
Integrating and/or fending off new approaches to
conservation and management (e.g. what's already working versus which
trendy concept or term has true meaning and application?).
Ensuring business friendly regulation: Safeguards the
resource/Practical and orderly
Food safety and product quality
New product form development
Marketing
Transportation
Environmental and Trade Policy
Fish farming and its impacts
Select MSA Issues of Concern to ATA
The following will highlight a few of ATA's MSA concerns. It's
early in the reauthorization process and we will no doubt share more
detailed comments with you and other congressional committees as the
issues emerge and narrow.
Fishery policy and management should be prescriptive, adaptive and
recognize the differences between regions, fleets, and circumstances.
Marine Protected Areas should not be legislated. The Councils
should use them only if necessary to achieve specific goals and
objectives, and only after extensive public review. As a practical
matter, Alaska already uses various forms of MPA by way of fisheries
closures, and time/area restrictions. If more formal MPA's are deemed
appropriate, basic policies and structural sideboards should be
developed by those who best know the resources and use pattern of the
areas in question. The Councils must recognize local knowledge and
strive to balance uses. Development of Local Area Management Plans
(LAMPS) is creating some good process for protecting areas, while still
providing for harvest.
Decentralizing management decisions, to minimize political pressure
and improve reaction time, should lead to more nimble and responsive
management programs. When Congress and the agencies make decisions from
afar, significant lag times occur which can harm both the resource and
harvesters.
Key terms such as ``overfishing'', ``sport fishing'', and ``fishing
community'' should be re-evaluated and/or developed. For instance, the
way the term ``overfishing'' is applied sometimes unfairly punishes
fishermen by failing to consider all sources of mortality. Fishing
isn't always the only, or the biggest, culprit behind stock declines.
Reduced abundance can stem from habitat destruction, pollution, or
natural causes like water temperature and current, or the cyclical
nature of a species (e.g. halibut or pink salmon).
There is a need to enhance research and data collection, while
avoiding duplicity and protecting confidential data. Cooperative
projects with fishermen and their organizations should be encouraged
and may provide cost savings.
Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) should require reasonable
justification as to the actual need for, and intended use of,
information collected and also consider the appropriateness of
utilizing these systems on various fleets. Small boat operators should
not be held to same requirements as large. Many of our fishermen live
aboard their boats all or part of the year and every boat day isn't
necessarily spent fishing. Confidentiality and privacy matters must be
addressed and fishermen engaged to help find appropriate and practical
solutions to these issues when VMS is warranted. If VMS is required,
the cost to industry should be mitigated with financial assistance or
providing equipment at no cost. Other means of securing this
information should also be explored.
Dedicated Access Privileges must be carefully crafted, grounded in
common sense, and consider individual fishing histories and impacts on
fishermen and communities. Creative programs that contemplate an
affordable means for future generations to enter the fishery will be
especially important for mitigating the social cost of such programs,
particularly in small communities. If IFQ programs are implemented,
then all commercial and guided operators harvesting the quota species
should be included, so as to not unfairly restrict one group while the
other continues to increase its harvest share. This is a live issue in
Alaska, where some in the guided sportfishing community are attempting
to resist implementation of an IFQ system for their fishery, at the
expense of existing commercial IFQ holders.
Control of the public resource, ownership and consolidation of the
seafood industry are important issues demanding stringent standards to
safeguard U.S. fishermen and coastal communities.
Potential impacts of offshore aquaculture must be scrutinized and
carefully dealt with. Recently introduced legislation would exempt fish
farmers from the MSA. While some provisions of the MSA might not be
well-suited to aquaculture, many of the national standards seem fitting
and appropriate. It would be unfortunate to continue improving fishery
management in the EEZ, only to see conservation and U.S. economic
successes undermined by new activities that could affect not only the
seafood industry, but coastal communities and others who utilize the
oceans.
In Conclusion...
Not long ago I had dinner with a lively group of East Coast
fishermen at a Portuguese fishermen's hall in New Bedford, Mass. A
lobsterman from Maine plopped down beside me and told me everything he
knew about Alaska fisheries in one statement...the Alaska fleet is made
up of huge factory trawlers that ply the coastline taking copious
amounts of fish and destroying the Pacific Ocean. So, of course, I
shared with him my impression of East Coast fisheries...that their
management is so dysfunctional that no one really knows how many boats
are fishing where or when, for which species, with what gear--and that
they are very close to catching the last fish in the Atlantic Ocean. As
we talked, we discovered how little we actually knew about each other's
fisheries and regional concerns. I certainly felt my horizons expand as
I listened and learned.
If Americans are lucky, those charged with reauthorization of
Magnuson-Stevens and other important fisheries law will take the time,
as you are today, to gain a broader understanding of U.S. fisheries and
dependent communities. We should all draw on the successes and failures
of others as we work to further refine and improve our nation's fish
and habitat policies. Working together, we can ensure the
sustainability and productivity of the oceans for our children and the
nation.
Thank you.
______
STATEMENT OF LINDA BEHNKEN,
ALASKA LONGLINE FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATION
Ms. Behnken. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Did I pronounce that right?
Ms. Behnken. You did actually. Which is rare, people don't
usually get that. Thank you.
My name is Linda Behnken. I am Director of the Alaska
Longline Fishermen's Association, testifying today on behalf of
ALFA's membership. Thank you for this opportunity to testify
and for traveling to Alaska to hear our concerns. By way of
introduction, I have fished commercially since 1982, I've owned
and operated a 34 foot combination troll/longline vessel since
1991. I served on the North Pacific Fishery Management Council
from 1992 to 2001, and have been ALFA's Director since 1991.
With my testimony, I would like to provide you with some
background on ALFA's membership. The fisheries in which ALFA
members participate, and the strengths and weaknesses of the
IFQ program under which those fisheries are managed. I will end
by offering some recommendation on the establishment of
Magnuson-Stevens Act standards for future dedicated access
programs. And the importance of designing such programs to
enhance opportunities for independent community-based
fishermen. ALFA's membership is comprised of deckhands and
vessel owners who work and operate longline vessels in the
North Pacific. Most ALFA members reside in the coastal
communities of Southeast Alaska. Our membership includes owners
of vessels ranging in size for open skiffs to 80 foot halibut
schooners. But the majority operate vessels under 60 feet.
Members primarily target sablefish and halibut, but many also
troll, seine, gillnet, or tender salmon during the summer
months. Alaska's sablefish, halibut fleet has now fished under
an IFQ program for 10 years. The program has achieved
conservation, safety, and market objectives. Gear loss, by
catch, and dead loss have all been reduced, as have accidents
at sea. The fleet has enjoyed excellent ex-vessel prices, and
sold more fish on the fresh market than anyone predicted.
Thanks to competition and innovation in the processing sector.
Let me remind you that there are no processing who share in
these fisheries--processing shares in these fisheries. Which
has allowed new and creative buyers to enter the business. For
most perspectives the IFQ program has been unqualified success.
With the advantage of hindsight I can now see how the program
design could have been improved to insure the stability of the
IFQ fisheries. And to achieve long term socioeconomic
objectives. In my written testimony I addressed both of these
issues. Today I would like to focus on the latter. Achieving
long term socioeconomic objection under dedicated access
programs. In establishing the sablefish, halibut IFQ program
the North Pacific Council stated their intent to maintain the
existing characteristics of the fleet. Including fleet
diversity, primarily owner operated vessels, and an entry level
affordable and assessable to coastal community-based residents.
Although fleet diversity has been largely maintained through
vessel size classes and the fleet is still primarily owner
operated. Concessions made to first generation quota share
recipients has provided a loop hole for de facto leasing. And
issuance of quota share in perpetuity has had unforeseen
affects on second generation access. The price of quota has
risen above what can be considered an affordable entry level.
Particularly to those needing financing to purchase shares. By
way of example halibut shares currently sell for $18 to $22
dollars per pound. Although the ex-vessel price averages
approximately $3 dollars per pounds. Out of which a person has
to pay crew expenses, maintain their vessel.
As a result, coastal community residents that did not
receive an initial allocation or buy shares soon after
implementation of the IFQ program are finding it difficult to
find access to these fisheries. Over time program changes may
further raise the cost of entry by allowing additional
consolidation and absentee ownership. In sum the socioeconomic
objectives defined for the program prior to implementation are
eroding. A process that is jeopardizing second generation
participation in the IFQ fisheries by coastal community-based
fishermen.
These effects clearly underline the importance of initially
establishing clear and measurable objectives, and scheduling
periodic reviews that allow program modifications or allocation
adjustments to insure the program objectives are being
achieved. All future dedicated access programs should include
these three elements. Had the North Pacific Council been
required to take these steps the Council would have a clear
blueprint for the program. And could now provide incentives or
disincentives to trends to insure those goals were met.
Modifications to the program could be made to lower the cost of
entry to the halibut/sablefish program, actively discourage
absentee ownership, and safeguard fleet diversity. For example
the Council could limit the duration of shares or establish
partial auctions to lower the entry level. Or provide
allocation-based disincentives to absentee ownership of shares.
To hasten the transition to the owner operated fleet initially
envisioned by the Council. Without these clear objectives and
the opportunity for modifications, pressure from well vested
IFQ holders will likely shift programs over time toward
absentee ownership, fleet consolidation, and high capital
costs. It may preclude the involvement of coastal community-
based residents.
With few alternative employment opportunities, coastal
communities simply cannot afford to loose access to local
resources. Across the nation, and indeed around the world
coastal communities are in trouble. Largely due to the loss of
access to marine resources. Immediate action is needed to
maintain an affordable entry level and to halt the trend toward
absentee ownership that reduces fishermen to the status of
share croppers. Standards for future dedicated access programs
must be added to the Magnuson-Stevens Act to maintain access
opportunities for independent community-based fishermen. These
should include specific and measurable objectives defining the
biological, social, and economic goals of the program. Schedule
periodic review to insure consistency with biological, social,
and economic goals of the program, with the opportunity to
modify programs and allocations in order to achieve objectives.
Maintaining active participation in harvesting operations by
those holding dedicated access privileges. Provide an entry
level affordable to the coastal community fishermen. Maintain
competitive markets, encourage innovation in the processing
sector, and establish effective limits on consolidation.
In conclusion, when designing the halibut/sablefish IFQ
program, the North Pacific Council articulated a vision for the
fisheries that included biological and socioeconomic
objectives. However the Council was not required to establish
measurable objectives against which the program would be
periodically evaluated. Nor did the Council have the
opportunity to modify those allocations to insure that the
objectives were met. With the sablefish, halibut program has
been highly successful for a biological and marketing
perspective, the combination of unseen affects and program
amendments threaten to erode socioeconomic objectives. In the
absence of Magnuson-Stevens Act standards for dedicated access
programs, the socioeconomic affects will be difficult to
address. The North Pacific Council, as well as Council's for
other parts of the Nation paid far less attention to second
generation access, and socioeconomic affects with other
dedicated access programs. Then were considered when drafting
the sablefish, halibut program.
As more and more fisheries move toward dedicated access
programs, access opportunities for coastal communities must be
safeguarded or many coastal fishing communities will disappear.
Experience indicates that national guidelines are needed to
guide regional council's in the development of these programs.
ALTA recommends the establishment of Magnuson-Stevens Act
standards that include the items outlined above. Only then will
the vitality of our nations fishing in coastal communities be
restored. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Behnken follows:]
Statement of Linda Behnken, Executive Director,
Alaska Longline Fishermen's Association
My name is Linda Behnken. I am the of the Alaska Longline
Fishermen's Association (ALFA) and am testifying today on behalf of
ALFA's membership. Let me start by thanking you for this opportunity to
address the subcommittee, and for the time you have taken to travel to
Alaska and listen to our comments.
Introduction
By way of introduction: I have fished commercially since 1982, and
have owned and operated a 34 foot combination troll/longline vessel
since 1991. I served on the North Pacific Fishery Management Council
from 1992-2001. I have been the director of the Alaska Longline
Fishermen's Association (ALFA) since 1991. I hold a Master's degree in
resource management from Yale University.
With my testimony, I would like to provide you with some background
on ALFA's membership, the fisheries in which ALFA members participate,
and the strengths and weaknesses of the IFQ management program that
governs those fisheries. I will end by offering some recommendations on
the establishment of Magnuson-Stevens Act standards for future
dedicated access programs, and the importance of designing such
programs to enhance opportunities for independent, community-based
fishermen.
ALFA's membership
ALFA's membership is comprised of deckhands and vessel owners who
work and operate longline vessels in the North Pacific. Most ALFA
members reside in the coastal communities of Southeast Alaska, although
the membership also includes some residents of Washington and Oregon.
Our membership includes owners of vessels ranging in size from open
skiffs to 80 foot halibut schooners, but the majority operate vessels
under 60 feet. Members primarily target sablefish and halibut, and many
also troll, seine or tender salmon during the summer months.
The halibut/sablefish IFQ program
As you are aware, the sablefish and halibut fisheries off Alaska
are managed under an IFQ program. ALFA actively participated in
development of the sablefish/halibut IFQ program, repeatedly reminding
the Council that the program must address conservation and safety
issues while maintaining the existing characteristics of the fleet,
preventing excessive consolidation, providing an affordable entry level
and ensuring competitive markets. ALFA joined with other Alaska-based
groups to demand the fleet remain primarily owner-operated, with quota
shares held by vessel operators. We made clear that our support for an
IFQ program was contingent upon provisions precluding absentee-
ownership and corporate control of the fisheries or the longline
markets. We successfully championed an amendment called the Block
Proposal that further limited consolidation and enhanced entry level
opportunities. In the end, the IFQ program contained the key elements
needed to earn ALFA's support and we worked hard to promote adoption
and, finally, implementation of the program in 1995.
Evaluating the IFQ program
Alaska's sablefish/halibut fleet has now fished under the IFQ
program for 10 years. Without reservation, I will tell you the program
has achieved conservation, safety and market objectives. Gear loss,
bycatch, and deadloss have all been reduced, as have accidents at sea.
The fleet has enjoyed excellent ex-vessel prices and sold more fish on
the fresh market than anyone predicted, thanks to competition and
innovation in the processing sector. Let me remind you there are no
processor shares in these fisheries, which has allowed new and creative
buyers to enter the business. (To diverge for just a moment: ALFA
recognizes the absolute importance of competitive markets and limits on
vertical integration and firmly opposes processor shares in any form.)
From most perspectives, the IFQ program has been an unqualified
success.
With the advantage of hindsight, I can now see how the program
design could have been improved to ensure the stability of the IFQ
fisheries and to better achieve socioeconomic objectives. I would like
to focus on two design improvements. These are: preventing the growth
in a related sector from undermining the stability of an IFQ program--
in our case this translates to including the halibut charter fleet in
the IFQ program; and, establishing clear program objectives against
which the program will be evaluated and allocations can be adjusted on
a regular basis.
Maintaining the stability of an IFQ program- Early in the process
of designing the commercial halibut IFQ program, the North Pacific
Fishery Management Council considered including the halibut charter
sector in the initial IFQ allocation. The Council did not pursue this
option. While initially including the charter fleet in the commercial
IFQ program may not have been optimal, preventing the charter sector
from eroding the stability of the commercial IFQ program has definitely
proved to be essential.
Growth in the charter halibut harvest results in a direct
reallocation of quota from the commercial to the charter sector; hence
the unchecked halibut charter harvest is currently threatening to de-
stabilize the commercial IFQ program. Commercial fishermen working to
pay off loans on quota shares cannot afford the deduction associated
with the reallocation, especially during years of declining halibut
abundance as is currently predicted for Alaska. Growth in the charter
sector is also causing localized depletion near towns, which in turn
disadvantages subsistence and non-guided sport fishermen. In sum,
placing most, but not all halibut businesses under the market-based IFQ
system has allowed one sector to grow unchecked while IFQ holders pay
the cost of conservation and face an unjust reallocation of shares, and
non-guided sport and subsistence harvesters face dwindling
opportunities.
In response to these and other problems associated with growth in
the halibut charter sector, the North Pacific Council adopted an IFQ
program for the halibut charter fleet in 2001. The Proposed Rule to
implement the program is scheduled for review this summer. The Council
spent eight years reviewing options and 8,000 public comments before
selecting the charter IFQ program as the best solution to identified
problems associated with growth in the halibut charter harvest. Had the
charter fleet been included in the initial allocation or included soon
after implementation of the commercial IFQ program, the current crisis
of uncompensated reallocation from commercial to charter fishermen and
localized depletion near many coastal communities could have been
avoided. Clearly allowing one sector to grow unchecked at the expense
of those investing in an IFQ program creates an untenable situation and
should be considered when designing future IFQ programs.
Establishing specific measurable program objectives and scheduling
regular evaluation to ensure program objectives are achieved: In
establishing the sablefish/halibut IFQ program, the North Pacific
Council stated their intent to maintain the existing characteristics of
the fleet, including fleet diversity, primarily owner-operated
community-based vessels, and an affordable entry level accessible to
coastal community residents. Although fleet diversity has been largely
maintained through vessel size classes and the fleet is still primarily
owner-operated, concessions made to first generation quota holders have
provided a loop-hole for de facto leasing, and issuance of QS in
perpetuity has had unforeseen effects on 2nd generation access. The
price of quota has risen above what is currently considered a
reasonable investment or an affordable entry level for those needing
financing to purchase shares. (By way of example: halibut shares
currently sell for $18-22 per pound, yet the ex-vessel price for
halibut averages $3 per pound). As a result, coastal community
residents that did not receive an initial allocation or buy shares soon
after implementation of the IFQ program cannot currently afford access
to the fisheries. Over time, program changes may further raise the cost
of entry by allowing additional consolidation and absentee-ownership.
In sum, the objectives defined for the program prior to implementation
are eroding, a process that is jeopardizing second generation
participation in the IFQ fisheries by coastal community-based
independent fishermen.
These effects clearly underline the importance of initially
establishing clear and measurable management objectives and scheduling
periodic reviews that allow program modifications or allocation
adjustments to ensure that program objectives are being achieved. All
future dedicated access programs should include these three elements.
Had the North Pacific Council taken these steps, the Council would have
a clear blue-print for the program and would have the opportunity to
provide disincentives to trends inconsistent with program goals.
Modification to the program could now be made to lower the cost of
entry to the halibut/sablefish program, actively discourage absentee
ownership, and safeguard fleet diversity. For example, the Council
could limit the duration of shares or establish partial auctions to
lower the entry-level, or provide allocation-based disincentives to
absentee ownership of shares to hasten the transition to the owner-
operated fleet initially envisioned by the Council. Without these clear
objectives and the opportunity for modifications, pressure from well-
vested IFQ holders will likely shift programs over time toward absentee
ownership, fleet consolidation and high capital costs that may preclude
the involvement of coastal community-based fishermen, deepening the gap
between the ``have'' and the ``have nots.'' With few alternative
employment opportunities, coastal communities simply cannot afford to
lose access to local marine resources.
Magnuson-Stevens standards for future dedicated access programs
Across the Nation, and indeed around the world, coastal communities
are in trouble, largely due to the loss of access to local marine
resources. While the halibut/sablefish program is rightly identified as
the program designed with the most careful eye toward safeguarding
community involvement, some critical components are missing--namely,
including all related sectors under an effective management program and
the establishment of specific management objectives against which the
program can be regularly evaluated and allocations modified to ensure
objectives are being met. The absence of these components could
jeopardize the stability of the program and the access of future
coastal community-based residents to the halibut/sablefish resource off
Alaska. Given the limited employment options in coastal communities,
access to coastal resources is of paramount importance to coastal
residents. Immediate action is needed to maintain an affordable entry
level and halt the trend toward absentee ownership that reduces
fishermen to the status of share-croppers. Standards for future
dedicated access programs must be added to the Magnuson Stevens Act to
maintain access opportunities for independent, community-based
fishermen. These should include:
Specific and measurable objectives defining the
biological, social and economic goals of the program;
Scheduled periodic review to ensure consistency with
biological, social, and economic goals of the program with the
opportunity to modify programs and allocations in order to achieve
objectives;
Maintain active participation in harvesting operations by
those holding dedicated access privileges (i.e., prevent absentee
ownership)
Provide entry level opportunities affordable to
independent, coastal community-based fishermen;
Maintain competitive markets that encourage innovation in
the processing sector;
Establish effective limits on consolidation.
Conclusion
In designing the halibut/sablefish IFQ program, the North Pacific
Fishery Management Council articulated a vision for the fisheries that
included biological and socioeconomic objectives. However, the Council
did not establish measurable objectives against which the program would
be periodically evaluated and modified to ensure those objectives were
being met. The Council also failed to recognize the threat to the
stability of the IFQ program posed by the halibut charter sector. While
the sablefish/halibut IFQ program has been an unqualified success from
a biological and economic perspective, growth in the halibut charter
sector threatens to undermine program stability and the combination of
unforeseen effects and program amendments threatens to erode
socioeconomic objectives. The halibut charter IFQ program currently
under legal review will re-establish program stability, preventing the
current reallocation of shares from commercial to charter fishermen. In
the absence of Magnuson-Stevens Act standards for dedicated access
programs, the socioeconomic effects will be difficult to address.
The North Pacific Council, as well as Councils from other parts of
the Nation, paid far less attention to second generation access and
socioeconomic effects with other dedicated access programs then were
considered in crafting the sablefish/halibut program. As more and more
fisheries move toward dedicated access programs, access opportunities
for coastal communities must be safeguarded or many coastal communities
will disappear. Experience indicates that national guidelines are
needed to guide regional councils in the development of future
dedicated access programs. ALFA recommends the establishment of
Magnuson-Stevens Act standards for future dedicated access programs
that include the items outlined above. Only then will the vitality of
the Nation's coastal fishing communities be restored.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Attachments: Need for halibut charter IFQ in Alaska
A call to action for sustainable and diverse coastal fishing
communities
[NOTE: Attachments to Ms. Behnken's statement have been retained in
the Committee's official files.]
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much.
Mr. Young. Good job. Are you suggesting like--that the
standards be written into law that directs the Council and
doesn't give them the flexibility.
Ms. Behnken. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Young, no I believe
the Council's need flexibility in how they design the programs.
And most programs need to be designed to meet specifics of the
region and the fisheries that they're addressing. But I do
think every program needs to have--be directed by standards.
That require the establishment of specific objectives and that
the programs then be reviewed on a periodic basis to insure
that those objectives are being met. And if they're not being
met that there be an opportunity to modify the programs to
insure that those objectives are met.
Mr. Young. You're asking us to put this in the Magnuson
Act--the standards.
Ms. Behnken. The requirement for specific objectives. And
measures to safeguard access opportunities for coastal
communities.
Mr. Young. Now you keep talking about the second generation
and the afford ability of entering the fishery. Are you talking
about increasing the amount of boats in that area.
Ms. Behnken. No, no. What I would be referring to there is
people who buy shares as other people sell those shares. So the
people who are buying in. So anybody other than initial
recipients.
Mr. Young. If I have a quota share of halibut or sablefish
and I sell that, there's a chance of what we call a
consolidation or monopoly being created. Can that happen if one
sells, another sells, another sells, and that precludes the
community from being--participating in the fishery?
Ms. Behnken. That could happen under IFQ program. The
halibut/sablefish program was written in such a why to limit
the consolidation that can occur.
Mr. Young. Right now, it can or cannot occur?
Ms. Behnken. It cannot occur under the sablefish, halibut
program.
Mr. Young. That's good.
Ms. Behnken. That is good.
Mr. Young. I understand.
Ms. Behnken. And I guess what I'm saying is there were a
lot of objectives that were clearly stated by the Council when
the program was initially written. Some of those objectives are
being jeopardized at this point, and some amendments are being
made. Our concern is that over time, changes to the program,
some of the unseen affects may make it difficult for people who
live in the communities to afford access to those resources.
And that we're not alone, in fact I would say Alaska and the
sablefish, halibut program is the one that did it best. Looking
at dedicated access programs in other parts of the nation, in
Canada the effects on communities have been far more profound.
And the communities need to be considered and that access
opportunities need to be up front and center in peoples
consideration in forming any future dedicated access programs.
Mr. Young. Ms Kelley, how is the Canadian Treaty with
salmon, you mentioned the Snake River. How is that working out
as far as the quota on troll caught kings.
Ms. Kelley. I'm happy to report we're enjoying the biggest
quota year ever. The fish are very abundant and it's being
reflected in our current Treaty Agreement that's now abundance
based. So, our quota in Alaska now relies on just a certain set
of stocks and goes up and down based on the health of those
stocks.
Mr. Young. Now you mentioned that the Department of Fish
and Game in the state, and you fish in the economic zone down
here. So, that cooperation between the state and the Council's
is working out well.
Ms. Kelley. I believe so. Usually--I think the Council
still has a Management Plan. And they take a look at it every
so often and update the information in it. But, since the early
'90's they have delegated their management authority to the
state. And there are a couple of terms that if the state does
not comply with the U.S., Canada Salmon Treaty, if there's no
a--if we violate the provisions of that Act then the Council
will step in. Or if we are--our fisheries are being managed in
such a way as to not be sustainable then they could step in.
Mr. Young. And that has not happened.
Ms. Kelley. No. Not at all.
Mr. Young. Now what about the Snake River fish? What do we
do about them.
Ms. Kelley. Well Snake River fish are a problem for a
number of reasons. They really have very little habitat. And
until you restore the Snake River habitat, there's really not
going to be a Snake River run of fish. So, that's--dams have
obstructed the majority of the Snake River.
Mr. Young. But I was saying though how--why should you be
penalized if you're managing fish here in a proper fashion.
Because one Snake River fish gets into our deal that's sort of
like, you know a rotten apple in a whole barrel.
Ms. Kelley. Well it's been very frustrating. And I think
it's hard for our association--it's been quite a struggle.
Because we feel like that ESA has been dealt in a very punitive
matter through NOAA Fisheries, quite honestly. Obviously a
different process than what you're dealing with here with
Council's that.....
Mr. Young. Do you have suggested language that can relieve
that problem.
Ms. Kelley. Simplistically, the language would be just to
hold those accountable--most accountable that are having the
greatest impact on the resource. You know everything gets--the
burden of salmon issues in the Columbia River typically gets
thrown over to the harvesting sector. And quite honestly about
95 percent of the mortality occurring on Snake River fall
Chinook is occurring at the dams. So, it's not really for us--
we hear that money--that the hydro-operators ply money at the
problem. But, there's some real issues there. And actually we
can get into FERC re-licensing and how that might help with
fish passage if you like, but it's a----
Mr. Young. I can tell you don't get into the idea of
tearing those dams up. Because that would shut down the entire
northwest.
Ms. Kelley. That's--I think depending on which dams--
there's a variety of opinions about dams. But I can tell you in
your--in DC as FERC re-licensing comes up, shorter term
licensing on some of those fish passage structures might
actually make it an incentive for people to do the R&D to
develop structures. I mean right now it's all lumped into the
big 40 or 50 year plan. And, you know who wants to develop
something that may never be even tested. So, there may be other
options, but really salmon tend to need wild and natural
rivers.
Mr. Gilchrest. That might be an issue in the conference, I
guess with the Energy Bill for the hydro dams.
Ms. Kelley. Well those dams are all up for re-licensing
now, as I'm sure you're aware.
Mr. Gilchrest. Right. We can----
Ms. Kelley. So the whole process is on the table, so----
Mr. Gilchrest. Well we'll take this input back with us. See
what we can do. I wanted to come back to Ms. Behnken and your
comment about the standards. Your recommendation is to put
standards into the Magnuson Act so that standards that would
set about goals for people involved in these IFQ's. And I just
want to get a couple of things in my mind straight. One of your
goals is that IFQ's should only be sold to an owner operator.
Ms. Behnken. Mr. Chairman, no. I'm sorry that I must not
have been very clear. What we would like to see is that there
be standards in Magnuson Act to guide Council's in developing
dedicated access programs. And that those standards insure that
second generation--people how buy into quota share programs
over time, that those are people--people who can afford to buy
in are people who live in our coastal communities. So, in other
words we don't loose that access over time.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see. So, there would be some--so the
second generation would be able to afford----
Ms. Behnken. Right.
Mr. Gilchrest.--the purchase--and IFQ. Now as everybody's
seen--it seems that the rationalization programs work pretty
well up here. And you're continuing to pursue those. Does
anybody else want to make a comment on those potential
rationalization programs, owner operators having access to it.
Local coastal communities having access to it. And there being,
you know affordable entry into these programs.
Ms. Norosz. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess I'd like
to comment that I think Alaska's had a long history in trying
to rationalize it's fisheries. Whether you're talking about
limited entry for the state managed fisheries. Or whether
you're talking about dedicated access privilege programs in the
Federal fisheries. And since we've been talking about halibut
and sablefish programs here, I guess I was very much involved
in the development of that program. But I would like to say
that there--that there were stakeholders in that fishery that
who's contributions and investments weren't recognized. And
that was of processors and of communities. And there are no
protections in that program for those two sectors. Since then
we've developed other programs through the American Fisheries
Act, and with the Bering Sea, Aleutian Island Crab
Rationalization Program that we've built upon past programs.
We've learned from our mistakes. We've learned from seeing how
these other programs have panned out. We've have the advantage
of some history passing, and seeing what some to the unforeseen
consequences are. And I think we've built upon those mistakes.
And as I mentioned previously, I think with the Crab
Rationalization Program that we have recognized the
contributions of all three sectors. We've built in protective
measures for the communities and processors. And set up a
situation where we can have cooperative fisheries. And think
that everyone is going to benefit as a result.
Mr. Gilchrest. Good. Thank you. Ms. Kelley.
Ms. Kelley. Yeah. Thank you. I kind of feel stuck in the
middle on this particular thing. Because I can definitely
appreciate the points that both Kris and Linda have made. There
are a lot of issues with respect to who loses with any type of
rationalization program. Because with any kind of change
there's always going to be somebody that was effected. Our
fleet has an historical--has historically harvested halibut.
Very common for trollers to be both trollers and longliners.
And when the IFQ program came down. Our organization actually
stood down and allowed these other groups that were longline
specific groups to deal with the terms. Because it really
divided our fleet. And I think--what Linda's saying I just
wanted to echo that. And it is in my written comments as well.
Is these affordable programs are really important, but not only
to the second generation who wants to feel like there's some
hope in the industry and you can afford to buy in--your stake
into the commercial fishing industry. But also to the first
generation owners who are hoping to sell, at some point there
IFQ shares. I mean if you've got a boat and a bunch of Q's that
you cannot sell to anybody, it's not very helpful to your
business operation either.
So, I've watched this for quite some time as the cost has
grown many people who are engaged in the fishery that are
trollers right now had to buy into the program. They either
didn't get enough share or hadn't fished the base period years.
We saw a lot of people that took some time to pencil out their
investment. But I think--I do worry as we head into the next
generation about whether or not these fishing communities will
sustain. Just whether or not there will be enough interest if
young people can't afford to buy in.
Mr. Young. How do you equalize that out though and afford
to buy in? If I own some IFQ's, it's like a limited permit for
anadromous fish or salmon. I don't own enough--much IFQ's and
Cora decided she wanted to pay me $25 dollars for a IFQ for one
unit. And that precluded Dale from getting them, because she
had more money than you did. How do you adjust that. I mean I'm
naturally going to be selfish and take the $25 dollars, you
know.
Ms. Kelley. I think Linda's put a lot of time and effort
into that so she probably--her group is probably put a great
deal of though into, you know the next generation and how you
might accomplish that. Which actually, if you dealt with
communities and local--you could probably deal with the whole
community structure with the right format. I'm not the expert
on that. But, yeah it is very--it's market driven. And it's
very confounding because typically there's going to be somebody
that's going to be able to afford to pay and somebody who's
not. So----
Mr. Young. I agree with what you're trying to do. I want
the community to survive. I want the fish to be able to get
into the next generation. But, I mean human nature, you know I
would rather see the IFQ's not be sellable. And I'm really get
in trouble. And have them returned back to the community, and
let the community, you know distribute the IFQ's to somebody in
the community. That won't sell. I'm going to tell you that
every fisherman in the room, their ears went up when I said
that. But I just don't know how you can do it without some way
of not compensating the owner of the IFQ. Linda, go ahead.
Ms. Behnken. If I could answer that. We have given a lot of
thought to this. And one is in the very structure of how you
write the IFQ program. With the sablefish, halibut program we
did the block proposal. Which gives people small increments of
shares that can't be consolidate into bigger amounts. To keep
that affordable we did vessel size classes, that the shares can
only be fished on small boats, sell for less per pound. Those
things have all helped. And there were all very important. And
definitely get at the entry level.
I think the last piece of that that we didn't consider, and
is not part of our program was the opportunity to modify
programs on a five to ten year basis. And this is been
addressed in sharing the fish, the NRC study that was
commissioned on IFQ's. It's been used in other parts of the
world as a way to be able to modify programs so that objectives
are achieved. Also as a way to keep down costs. If you go to a
bank and you say I have these shares. And I have them in
perpetuity. The amount--the value of those shares is much
higher than if you say I have these shares. They may be
modified some degree--maybe 15, 20 percent of what I hold. In
seven, five, seven, ten years, when they are reviewed. The
value then comes down. And they're valuable enough for people
to use that investment, you know as a, you know justification
for improvements to their vessel, safety, whatever.
But they don't, but they bring down the value somewhat.
They control the value somewhat. That we think it would
function, and has functioned in other places to keep those
shares somewhat accessible. No one wants to talk about sum
setting an IFQ program. No one wants to put in that much work
on a program and think about in seven years it ends. And that's
not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is an
opportunity in a five to ten year timeframe to modify a
program.
So, you may say at some point that we haven't quite
achieved this objective of facilitating--say a gear type has
come along. And it can harvest the fish with less impact to the
resource. And you say we're going to offer this incentive. If
you will switch to this other gear type you will get 100
percent of your quota for--after five years. If you don't
switch, you'll get 90 percent. And that 10 percent's going to
be reallocated.
Mr. Young. OK. Just go back. This is going to be difficult,
as you know. Because in the New England states they hate IFQ's.
So, we're writing a national bill. That's something--we may
have to have some exemptions for Alaska. I mean, what precludes
the Council from doing what you're suggesting right now? Why
does it have to be in the law?
Ms. Behnken. Nothing precludes them, but I can say at this
point, and in any dedicated access program. Overtime the
pressure on the Council will be from people who are well vested
in the program. And my members are well vested in the program.
But they continue to have concern about what the fishery will
look like in 15 years.
The people who are second generation, potentially second
generation, the new people coming along, the deckhands coming
along. They aren't going to be at the Council meetings
testifying saying, what about me? You know, in 20 years I'd
like to buy shares. Or in 10 years I'd like to be able to
afford to buy shares. The people who are at Council meetings
and pushing for changes, and pushing for amendments are the
people who are well vested. Who would like to be able to have
more flexibility, maximize the value of their shares. So over
time, and this has been seen around the world also. The trend
is always for programs to go more toward absentee ownership and
more toward flexibility for the quota share holders, more
toward consolidation.
And that's why I feel like if you leave it to the regional
Councils, you know what we call the little people, the people
in coastal communities, their concerns are not going to be
safeguarded. And that's why I would ask that Congress take that
step to safeguard second generation and to safeguard coastal
communities.
Mr. Young. Well I appreciate that, and appreciate the
input. I have one last thing on the rationalization and the--we
have an instance on the crab rationalization, just been
implemented.
What happens when a person fishes on a ship for--or boats--
four boats in 24 years as a captain? But he doesn't own the
boat. Now the owner of the boat, although absentee may
sometimes be, maybe in Seattle. He gets the full crab
rationalization. But the skipper gets very little, percentage
is very small. He is precluded from ever getting into the
fleet----
Ms. Behnken. Exactly.
Mr. Young.--because the rationalization went to the owner
of the vessel. Was there any thought--I don't know, I should
have asked the Council this. But any thought about maybe making
a fair deal? Although the guy has the record of the amount of
fish--of crab that was caught over those 24 years. He's now--he
still has to work as a deckhand really, as a captain maybe. But
he can't get into the fisheries, he gets a very small
percentage of the crab.
There's got to be some fairness in this as far as the crew
and the captains where they can in fact invest into a vessel--
purchase a vessel or something like that. I don't know how to
solve that problem. But that's been brought to my attention in
the last day really. How do--anybody got any suggestions on
that, or can it be done?
Ms. Behnken. I think you solve it, Mr. Chairman and
Congressman Young, in the same way. By addressing the
opportunity for keeping an affordable entry level for second
generation. If you allow those shares to go up in value to the
extent that it's--you're buying a processing plant, or you're
buying a multi-million operation. No, it's not going to be
someone who lives in Ketchikan, Alaska. Or someone who lives in
a small community. I mean especially our native communities.
If you look at the trend of limited access in Alaska, it's
been out of the communities for the ownership of the shares.
Particularly for those that go up to a level--Bristol Bay,
where I see IFQ's going now for sablefish halibut.
So, I think you address the concerns of skippers, you
address the concerns of deckhands, you address the concerns of
coastal communities all by focusing on how do we keep this
program affordable to second generation people. And I believe
holding on to that opportunity to modify programs is really
critical to that.
Mr. Young. Cora, you had something to say.
Ms. Norosz. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Congressman Young. Just
speaking from experience in the halibut and sablefish IFQ
program, one of the ways that we made it accessible to skippers
and crew is that on every landing you make there's an
assessment. And a portion of that, a percentage of money that
we derive from these fish goes into a pot that is a long term,
low interest loan program for people who have time at sea and
want to buy into the fishery. So the people who have the quota
shares are paying into a pot to finance opportunities for the
next generation. That's what we do in the IFQ halibut and
sablefish program.
We also made an amendment a few years ago now to allow
coastal communities to purchase shares. That they can
distribute to their local fishermen. To insure that communities
remain involved in the IFQ program.
Mr. Young. Now Cora, when you say ``we,'' who did that?
Ms. Norosz. Excuse me, I'm sorry. It wasn't we, it was the
North Pacific Fishery Management Council.
Mr. Young. So they've been involved in it.
Ms. Norosz. Yes, absolutely. The Council did exactly what
Ms. Behnken is suggesting. They looked at the program, they
decided that one of the goals that they wanted, which was to
keep the participation in the coastal communities of Alaska,
was perhaps not being met as well as they would like. And so
they developed an amendment to the program that allowed
communities to purchase shares to be fished by local residents.
I guess that I would submit that in the halibut and
sablefish IFQ program we do go back every few years. We take a
call for proposals from the industry, we look at what
modifications might be made to the program. And we--or excuse
me they, the North Pacific Council acts on those if they feel
that they're appropriate, and that they would meet the policy
goals of that Council.
Another program that I'm sure you're familiar with that
has--that addresses your question about the Bering Sea and
Aleutian Islands crab fishery is the CDQ program. A portion of
that quota is allocated to coastal communities and to the
people that live in those communities.
Mr. Young. And that brings up--I noticed no one ever
mentioned the CDQ. Because you don't have any CDQ's south of
the Aleutian chain. It is successful up there. I'm going to
tell you one of the best success stories we have. People get
confused, IFQ's and CDQ's and CDQ's affect the community. IFQ's
affect the individual. That's why it's ``I'' and one is ``C.''
But it has been a very successful program. Although there's
some people complaining about it right now. Because they say,
you know the shares are being accumulated and assimilated by
large corporations. I don't believe that necessarily true. But
that's the accusation that's been in the paper, et cetera, et
cetera. But it has helped those communities out tremendously to
keep them alive. We've got people now into the fisheries which
were not in the fisheries before.
We have a small halibut fleet. We have a great one in Nome,
and one in Unakleet, we have one, you know one--Bethel, it's
been a great success in Bethel. And we have really a community
activity where people can get in it instead of being--looking--
sitting on shore and looking at the water. And seeing someone
out of Seattle fishing the fleet. You know that's what a
reality is. Go ahead, ma'am.
Ms. Norosz. If I could just add one thing. I guess, you
know that we're talking a lot about the fisheries and the
communities. But we have to remember that a fishery isn't made
up of just harvesters. The industry has other sectors,
including the processing sector and the communities, who've
invested a lot of money in infrastructure to allow these
fisheries to occur. And we all have to have our investments and
our historical participation considered when moving into any
kind of rationalization program.
If you don't allow for some community protections and for
the business that occur in those communities, then you're going
to end up having a lot fewer communities. And it think we've
witnessed that in some instances in Alaska. Where communities
are really hurting because they haven't had access to the
product, and the business in those communities have felt the
hurt. With the halibut and IFQ--halibut and sablefish IFQ
program a lot of that was dictated on who had access to air
transportation, to get fresh fish to market. Or who was on a
road system.
Like I said earlier, I think that we've learned from our
mistakes. I think we have built upon our successes. And I think
that the recently adopted Crab Rationalization is taking in all
the consideration of all those sectors. And that's the path we
need to continue on. I don't think we need national standards
to allow that to happen. And I think that the decisions need to
stay with the regional Councils.
Mr. Young. I see we have a little bit of difference on the
panel. That's exciting. But we'll take--Mr. Chairman, with your
discretion we will take a lot of this in to our process as we
write this legislation. I will say on my behalf, that I'm very
proud of what Alaska's done. And I will tell you one of the
reasons I said--impressed--one of the reasons it has been
successful is you've never seen my fingerprints on anything the
Council does.
Because one of the problems we have, I know, back east is
that the Congressmen and the Senators get involved in Council
decisions. That doesn't work. Because I do have requests all
the time, you got to have them change this. I'm not going to do
that. The Council is functioning, they're using science,
they're using public input, they're using the exposure, very
transparent in everything they do.
And I think that's the way it should be done. And I'm not
going to mess around with what they're doing. Because once you
get the politics into it, from my level then your system falls
apart.
I want to thank you ladies, and Mr. Chairman. I don't have
any other comments, you got anything else?
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Young. I want to thank the
witnesses. We will use your oral and written testimonies to
adjust, fine tune, calibrate the reauthorization of the
Magnuson Act. And you have been a significant contributor to
that effort.
I want to thank Mr. Young for inviting me up here, another
trip to Alaska is always nice.
I'd also want to make a comment about the timing of this
hearing. And a number of fishermen who are out on the high
seas. If we didn't do it now, it probably wouldn't have
happened until next November. And it's possible to do it again
next November. But we needed to get early input into this
process.
Ladies, thank you very much for your testimony. Thank you,
Mr. Young.
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Gilchrest.
Mr. Gilchrest. Hearing adjourned.
[Whereupon, the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
[A statement submitted for the record by Dr. Clarence
Pautzke, Executive Director, North Pacific Research Board,
follows:]
Statement of Dr. Clarence Pautzke, Executive Director,
North Pacific Research Board
Good morning. My name is Clarence Pautzke. I am the Executive
Director of the North Pacific Research Board based in Anchorage,
Alaska. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, focusing on science-related issues and the challenges that
lay ahead.
Momentum is building for ecosystem-based management
There has been much talk lately of the need to make ecosystem-based
management the standard for the regional fishery management councils.
Momentum to pursue this new paradigm is coming from several different
directions:
The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy in 2004 adopted a
guiding principle (#4 of 13) and a recommendation (4-3) calling for
ecosystem-based management.
The Pew Oceans Commission in 2003 promoted ecosystem-
based management.
A major advisory panel at the Managing Our Nation's
Fisheries Conference this March urged fishery managers to account for
ecosystem interactions to the best of their ability.
NOAA has adopted a set of ecosystem principles to
integrate its internal science activities and provide consistent goals
in its marine and coastal management activities.
Most legislative initiatives offered to date have a
provision for ecosystem-based management.
There have been numerous other reports, conferences, and
colloquia on ecosystem-based management, all pointing to the need for
it.
North Pacific Council already is implementing ecosystem-based
management
We are very fortunate that the North Pacific Fishery Management
Council (Council) already has been very proactive in protecting
individual fish species and complexes from overfishing, and has enacted
significant measures to limit impacts of fisheries on bycatch species,
marine mammals, seabirds, and habitat, all of which have been
documented in publications and testimony, and lauded by the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy in its 2004 report. The Council's
precautionary approach rests on four main goals: maintaining
biodiversity, protecting essential fish habitat, managing fish stocks
for long-term sustainability, and recognizing humans as part of the
ecosystem. The Council requires considerable ecosystems information in
its annual stock assessment documents, has an ecosystems committee, and
is pursuing development of a fishery ecosystem plan for the Aleutian
Islands. These initiatives demonstrate that the North Pacific Council
is now following the path of ecosystem-based management and most likely
will meet the challenge for such management regardless of how it may be
clarified in future guidelines written into the MSA or developed by
NMFS.
Marine ecosystems information is relatively poor and additional
research is needed
In the rush to embrace this new management directive, we must keep
clearly in mind the cautionary notes sounded by the U.S. Ocean
Commission and many others: we are relatively information-poor when it
comes to knowledge of marine ecosystems. Yes, we can pass legislation
requiring ecosystems consideration; develop guidelines on how to go
about it; establish ecosystems councils and committees; and even draft
fishery ecosystems plans. But if there is no concerted effort to
provide sustained funding for research on ecosystem structure and
functions, then we may be setting the bar so high that regional
fisheries councils may not be able to clear it. This could leave the
councils and NMFS exposed to a serious rash of lawsuits and prolonged
litigation, regardless of how sincere and laudable their intentions are
to move toward ecosystem-based management.
Consider that over the past 5-6 years, there has been over $120
million spent on Steller sea lion research and impacts of fisheries,
and yet we still cannot clearly discern what caused their decline.
Consider that even for the well-managed Alaska fisheries, of 196 fish
stocks identified by NMFS in their annual stock status report to
Congress (for 2003), the status of overfishing or being overfished is
unknown for 60% and 83% of the stocks, respectively. Nationally, there
is insufficient information to determine status for 500-600 stocks of
over 900 fish stocks.
The need to provide accurate stock assessments will not be reduced
in any way by the move toward ecosystem management. In fact, more
research will be needed to continue to assess the status of fished
species and improve their accuracy. Ecosystems information needs will
compound that burden and require long-term funding commitments by
Congress and the Administration.
North Pacific Research Board is responding to pressing information
needs
We are very fortunate in Alaska to have a leg up in addressing new
ecosystems mandates. Significant funding has been provided over the
past decade to conduct ecosystems research on the Bering Sea, Aleutians
and Gulf of Alaska and the Council works closely with NOAA and State of
Alaska scientists to provide stock status information. There is
confidence in that advice, due to the strength of the scientists
involved. The Council annually defines its research priorities based on
recommendations of its Scientific and Statistical Committee and in the
past, has sent them to the NOAA-Alaska Fisheries Science Center and
other federal entities that support research off Alaska.
The North Pacific Research Board (Board) now is available to
address fishery and ecosystems research needs. It was created by
Congress in 1997 to recommend marine research to the U.S. Secretary of
Commerce, who makes final funding decisions. Research is funded by 20
percent of the interest earned by the Environmental Improvement and
Restoration Fund (EIRF) also created in the enabling legislation. Funds
are to be used to conduct research activities on or relating to the
fisheries or marine ecosystems in the north Pacific Ocean, Bering Sea,
and Arctic Ocean (including any lesser related bodies of water) with
priority on cooperative research efforts designed to address pressing
fishery management issues or marine ecosystem information needs. The
Board's mission is to build a clear understanding of the marine
ecosystems off Alaska that enables effective management and sustainable
use of marine resources.
Since being organized in 2001, the Board has funded 94 projects for
over $17 million as shown in the attachment. The projects span all
aspects of marine research including projects related to salmon and
other fish species, habitat, marine mammals, seabirds, general ocean
and ecosystems studies and six projects targeted on enhancing education
and outreach as well as synthesis of knowledge on various topics such
as the Arctic Ocean and Gulf of Alaska marine ecosystems.
The Board's science plan will be published next month. It was
drafted with guidance from the National Research Council and will
provide meritorious research to shed light on causes of variability in
fish stocks and other ecosystem components, and the influence of human
activities. The dichotomous themes of addressing more immediate
pressing fishery management issues and longer-term marine ecosystem
information needs are threaded through the science plan and each one of
its sections on research needs by ecosystem component.
The science plan will be implemented through annual requests for
proposals, drafted with valuable scientific advice provided by a high
level science panel of top researchers from across the nation and
Canada. Stakeholder insight is provided by an advisory panel
representing Alaska and the Pacific Northwest. All proposals are given
thorough anonymous review by technical experts as well as the science
panel. All proposals are competitively chosen. Competition is intense
with only about 1 in 4 proposals being funded.
The Council and Board have strongly linkages. Many members
participate in both bodies and share a mutual interest in ecosystem-
based management. The Board is establishing an annual cycle of
partnering with the Council to identify research priorities and intends
that its research results flow directly into SAFE documents, especially
the ecosystems considerations chapter. It is moving to shore up our
understanding of the rich ecosystems off Alaska by developing
integrated research programs for each of Alaska's large marine
ecosystems, starting this year with the Bering Sea and Aleutians where
most of the fish landings occur. This integrated program involves
experts from the Board and all federal, state and academic institutions
with a significant role in research on the broader marine ecosystem. It
will serve as a template for the other marine regions off Alaska and
generate new information which should be very useful to resource
managers as they pursue ecosystem-based management.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we have a rather unique situation up here in Alaska.
We have been blessed with considerable funding for stock assessments
and ecosystems research. The North Pacific Council, using the best
scientific information available over the years, has done an exemplary
job of sustainable management, which the U.S. Ocean Commission fully
recognized. The Council also is pursuing ecosystem-based management.
Full implementation of this new directive will require continued
leadership, commitment, and knowledge generated through sound science.
Ecosystem-based management is a laudable goal and should be pursued
vigorously. There is, however, a risk that the bar will be set so high
that fishery managers will be exposed to considerable litigation. We
must strive to provide the best science available to support true
ecosystem-based management and there must be a commitment from Congress
and the Administration to support such research.
The North Pacific Research Board stands ready to help meet that
challenge and do all it can to shed light on the structure and
processes occurring within the marine ecosystems off Alaska, with the
goal of providing a clear understanding of their variability that
enables sustainable fisheries management.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
* * *
OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING ON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT SUCCESSES IN ALASKA AND
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND
MANAGEMENT ACT
----------
Friday, July 8, 2005
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans
Committee on Resources
Kodiak, Alaska
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11 a.m., at the
Kodiak High School, Commons Room, 917 Rezanof Drive, Kodiak,
Alaska, Hon. Wayne T. Gilchrest [Chairman of the Subcommittee]
presiding.
Present: Representative Gilchrest.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. WAYNE T. GILCHREST, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Mr. Gilchrest. The hearing will come to order. This is the
Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans of the Committee on
Resources in the House of Representatives. I am the Chair of
the Subcommittee. Richard Pombo is the Chairman of the full
Resources Committee. Don Young sits on both committees. And as
you probably all know very well, Congressman Young is the
Chairman of the Transportation Committee.
We are here in Kodiak, and we've recently had a hearing in
Ketchikan, to glean information in the process of reauthorizing
the Magnuson-Stevens Act. There are a number of provisions that
we are taking a look at. Many of them will be discussed here
this morning, and we will receive testimony for those areas of
the Magnuson Act that we think need to be looked at, need to be
tweaked, or need to be changed.
The fundamentals from our perspective on the Act are
safety, economic viability, and fairness to those who directly
participate in the industry and conservation and an
understanding of the ecology of the oceans. We want to deal
with as many facts as we can, but when we go back to Washington
to reauthorize this Act, I'm confident that we will reauthorize
the Act in this session of Congress and work well with Senator
Stevens and the other Senators.
So it is our objective and goal to reauthorize the Magnuson
Act in this Congress. We keep in mind though that all of the
various differences, not only between New England, the Mid-
Atlantic, the South Atlantic, the Gulf, the Pacific, the North
Pacific, but the differences between the different areas of the
North Pacific and how they deal with Ketchikan or the Bering
Sea or the Gulf of Alaska, these are all very different
fisheries.
So we in Washington will not be directly involved in some
of those decisions in those fisheries, but what we want to do
is to create standards and objectives and goals for Magnuson
that the individual councils can take and apply. We also feel
that the council system works very well. We also feel that the
kind of changes that need to be taking place in management over
what might happen in a few months or over what might happen in
a few years, the councils are in a position to evolve and know
best for a lot of those kinds of decisions.
So we will be creating a framework that will do what we can
to ensure safety, economic viability, fairness to the fisheries
and those who participate in them, and the ecological integrity
of the oceans that we have jurisdiction over.
We would like to have been here when all the boats were in
the city, but we were in session last week. We will be in
session next week. We will likely be in session--there's a
potential that we'll be in session through November. So we had
a window of opportunity. Congressman Young asked that we would
come up here, and so we are here. But the record for this
hearing will be left open for 60 days. We will have a number of
hearings throughout the country and in Washington, and we will
continue to want to have access to the kind of information that
each of you in this room and those out on boats or other places
can continue to provide.
We look forward to the testimony today. We want to thank
all of the witnesses for their effort in developing that
testimony and for coming here this morning, and for the
participation of everybody in the room. And once again, I
understand that the food table is open throughout the course of
the hearing, and so please help yourself.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilchrest follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Wayne Gilchrest, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans
I'd like to thank Chairman Young for his invitation to come to
Alaska to hear from his constituents about the fisheries management
successes and how we can take the lessons that have been learned here
to other parts of the country.
This Subcommittee has been working on the reauthorization of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act for a number
of years and I hope we will reauthorize the Act within the next year. I
plan on working very closely with Chairman Young and with my Senate
counterparts, including Senators Stevens and Murkowski.
As we have heard testimony on the Magnuson-Stevens Act, we have
heard a lot about how well managed the Alaskan fisheries are. We have
met with all the Councils and have heard from a number of constituent
groups that we should look at how the fisheries are managed in Alaska.
While I realize no fishery management system is perfect, I would like
to see what lessons we can learn here and I appreciate all of you being
here today.
We held a hearing two days ago in Ketchikan and heard a lot about
fisheries management in Alaska and especially about fisheries
management in Southeast Alaska. Today, we will hear about management in
the Gulf of Alaska and in the Bering Sea. These are three very
different ecosystems that require different management styles. I am
interested to hear more about these different management styles and how
the flexibility in the Magnuson-Stevens Act has allowed this to occur.
While I have already met some of you and heard about the North
Pacific Council's activities, I am here to learn more about how we can
improve the Magnuson-Stevens Act to make it work even better.
I want to thank Chairman Young for his invitation to come to Alaska
and hope this will not be the last time this Subcommittee comes here
for hearings.
______
Mr. Gilchrest.Our first panel is The Honorable Carolyn
Floyd, Mayor, City of Kodiak, thank you very much; The
Honorable Jerome Selby, Mayor, Kodiak Island Borough, welcome;
Ms. Sue Salveson, National Marine Fisheries Service, welcome;
and, Ms. Stephanie Madsen, North Pacific Fishery Management
Council Chair. Thank you all very much for coming this morning.
Ms. Floyd, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF CAROLYN FLOYD, MAYOR,
CITY OF KODIAK
Ms. Floyd. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
Subcommittee who are here or not here. And I have with me, Joe
Sullivan, who is our fisheries consultant for the City of
Kodiak, sitting beside me.
I am Carolyn Floyd, the Mayor of the City of Kodiak, and I
appreciate the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee
on Fisheries and Oceans concerning North Pacific Federal
fishery management issues affecting the City of Kodiak,
understanding that you are considering reauthorization of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act.
As an initial matter, I would like to officially welcome
you to our city. We are justifiably proud of its character as
one of the leading fishery communities in Alaska and the United
States.
As background for my comments, I believe it is important
for the Subcommittee to appreciate the character of Kodiak's
fishing community. Kodiak has a long heritage of active
engagement in every aspect of the fishing industry, from
harvesting, processing and marketing through management and
research. In Alaska, we are one of the very few communities
with a large resident workforce that is actively employed in
every one of these areas.
Kodiak fishermen are engaged in a wide array of fisheries,
from the local jig cod fishery through Bering Sea pollock and
crab. Our processors produce a wide array of products for both
domestic and foreign markets. We cherish that diversity, and
are convinced that it is an essential part of who we are as a
community, as well as being essential for our long-term
survival.
Also, one of Kodiak's important values, in fisheries as
well as many other walks of life, is competition. Our community
promotes competition among fishermen, processors, seafood
marketers, and product developers, as we believe competition
leads to innovation that preserves our ability to compete in
world seafood markets, and, frankly, because it works.
We appreciate the potential benefits that can flow from
fishery rationalization. We understand that rationalization can
improve product recovery rates, facilitate production of higher
quality and higher value products, improve bycatch management,
and reduce pressure on sensitive fish habitat.
However, we are concerned that rationalization can have
adverse effects on fishing communities. By its very nature,
rationalization restrains competition. Defining the pool of
participants that receives fishing privileges creates winners
and losers as a consequence of fishery policy choices and
management procedures rather than fishing success. That step
alone can fundamentally alter the health and stability of a
fishing community.
Rationalization can fundamentally change landing patterns,
shifting deliveries from communities close to fishing grounds
with higher transportation and utility costs to communities
further from the grounds with infrastructure advantages. While
this may benefit harvesters and consumers, it can have a
serious impact on the community losing processor employment
opportunities. The City of Kodiak has spent millions of dollars
on infrastructure that supports our fishing industry; from
doubling the capacity of the public water system to investment
in the largest working harbors in the State of Alaska.
If rationalization awards fishing privileges to the initial
qualifying generation without making provisions for subsequent
generations, it can gentrify a fishery, and impair the vitality
and diversity of the community that depends on it.
If rationalization creates fishing privileges that the
holder can use to produce income without being actively engaged
in the fishery, it can facilitate the migration of both people
and capital from fishing communities, and can seriously
disadvantage non-owner skippers and crew members.
Much has been said about the need for rationalization
systems to take into account the interests of not only
harvesters, but also processors. Kodiak, more than many other
Alaskan fishing communities, recognizes the important place a
healthy processing sector holds in our community as our
processing work force is largely composed of year-round
residents who are an important part of our culture and our
economy.
However, it is also important to note that processor
protection is not synonymous with community protection.
Processor protection restrains competition, which depresses ex-
vessel prices, and thus can adversely affect all those who
depend directly or indirectly on the harvesting sector for
their livelihoods. Processor protections also raise issues
related to those raised by fishing privileges, i.e., processor
protections create winners and losers as a matter of fishery
policy and management procedure rather than through innovation
and efficiency, and they can gentrify the processing sector by
creating barriers to new processor entry.
As the Bering Sea crab rationalization program so amply
illustrates, processor shares also raise a host of complicated
market economic and antitrust issues. We question whether the
Federal fishery management system has the resources to
adequately comprehend these issues or the capability to
successfully address them. We note that Congress responded to
the controversy associated with the halibut and sablefish IFQ
program by imposing a moratorium on further IFQ programs until
the National Academy of the Sciences had completed a program
review and Congress had an opportunity to evaluate the results.
The legislation that mandated implementation of the Bering
Sea crab rationalization program includes a prohibition on
processor shares in any other fishery. We believe that
prohibition should remain in place at least until the Bering
Sea crab rationalization program has been fully reviewed and
evaluated.
We ask that the Subcommittee take these considerations into
account during the Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization
process. While we believe rationalization has substantial
benefits to offer, we also believe rationalization systems
should be designed to counteract their negative effects. We
encourage the Subcommittee to develop and promote
rationalization program standards that preserve opportunities
for new entry into rationalized fisheries for fishermen who do
not have substantial capital to invest, promote active
engagement rather than passive rent collection, and preserve
healthy competition among the processors.
We also encourage the Subcommittee to review the community
protection measures being considered by fishery management
councils for their effectiveness and compliance with National
Standard 8. We believe that measures that provide community
protection while preserving a reasonable level of competition,
such as regional landing restrictions, should be explicitly
authorized under National Standard 8. We support regional
fishery management councils, created by the Magnuson-Stevens
Act as a much better decisionmaking process for Federal
fisheries than centralized Federal agency decisionmaking.
We also believe further discussion of methods under which
communities could directly hold and use fishing privileges to
mitigate rationalization impacts is warranted. While we are
somewhat skeptical regarding the appropriateness of communities
being directly engaged in the fishing business, we also
understand that community fishing quotas may, under some
circumstances, be the best means for mitigating rationalization
impacts.
However, we firmly believe that in any community fishing
quota allocation or purchase component of a rationalization
program, sustaining the participation of communities that have
been substantially engaged in and dependent upon a fishery,
should have priority over enhancing the participation of
communities that have a more attenuated relationship to the
fishery.
In closing, I would like to thank the Subcommittee for
traveling to Kodiak, and for providing an opportunity for me
and others in our community to testify before you. We encourage
you to spend a little of your time here exploring our
community, which I understand you have done, and hope your trip
here is a pleasure as well as informative. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Mayor Floyd. And if the
fog stays, we'll stay.
Ms. Floyd. We will--sometimes we arrange that.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Floyd follows:]
Statement of Carolyn Floyd, Mayor, City of Kodiak
Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. I am
Carolyn Floyd, the Mayor of the City of Kodiak. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans
concerning North Pacific federal fishery management issues affecting
the City of Kodiak, understanding that you are considering
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
As an initial matter, I would like to officially welcome you to our
city. We are justifiably proud of its character as one of the leading
fishery communities in Alaska and the United States.
As background to my comments, I believe it is important for the
Subcommittee to appreciate the character of Kodiak's fishing community.
Kodiak has a long heritage of active engagement in every aspect of
the fishing industry, from harvesting, processing and marketing through
management and research. In Alaska, we are one of the few communities
with a large resident workforce that is actively employed in every one
of these areas. Kodiak's fishermen are engaged in a wide array of
fisheries, from the local jig cod fishery through Bering Sea pollock
and crab. Our processors produce a wide array of products for both
domestic and foreign markets. We cherish that diversity, and are
convinced that it is an essential part of who we are as a community, as
well as being essential for our long-term survival.
Also, one of Kodiak's important values, in fisheries as well as
many other walks of life, is competition. Our community promotes
competition among fishermen, processors, seafood marketers and product
developers, as we believe competition leads to innovation that
preserves our ability to compete in world seafood markets, and,
frankly, because it works.
We appreciate the potential benefits that can flow from fishery
rationalization. We understand that rationalization can improve product
recovery rates, facilitate production of higher quality and higher
value products, improve bycatch management, and reduce pressure on
sensitive fish habitat.
However, we are concerned that rationalization can have adverse
effects on fishing communities. By its very nature, rationalization
restrains competition. Defining the pool of participants that receives
fishing privileges creates winners and losers as a consequence of
fishery policy choices and management procedures, rather than fishing
success. That step alone can fundamentally alter the health and
stability of a fishing community.
Rationalization can fundamentally change landing patterns, shifting
deliveries from communities close to fishing grounds with higher
transportation and utility costs to communities further from the
grounds with infrastructure advantages. While this may benefit
harvesters and consumers, it can have a serious impact on the community
losing processor employment opportunities. The City of Kodiak has spent
millions of dollars on infrastructure that supports our fishing
industry; from doubling the capacity of the public water system to
investment in the largest, working harbors in the State of Alaska.
If rationalization awards fishing privileges to the initial
qualifying generation without making provisions for subsequent
generations, it can gentrify a fishery, and impair the vitality and
diversity of the community that depends on it.
If rationalization creates fishing privileges that the holder can
use to produce income without being actively engaged in the fishery, it
can facilitate the migration of both people and capital from fishing
communities, and can seriously disadvantage non-owner skippers and
crewmembers.
Much has been said about the need for rationalization systems to
take into account the interests of not only harvesters, but also
processors. Kodiak, more than many other Alaskan fishing communities,
recognizes the important place a healthy processing sector holds in our
community, as our processing work force is largely composed of year
round residents who are an important part of our culture and our
economy.
However, it is also important to note that processor protection is
not synonymous with community protection. Processor protection
restrains competition, which depresses ex-vessel prices, and thus can
adversely affect all those who depend directly or indirectly on the
harvesting sector for their livelihoods. Processor protections also
raise issues related to those raised by fishing privileges, i.e.,
processor protections create winners and losers as a matter of fishery
policy and management procedure, rather than through innovation and
efficiency, and they can gentrify the processing sector by creating
barriers to new processor entry.
As the Bering Sea crab rationalization program so amply
illustrates, processor shares also raise a host of complicated market
economics and antitrust issues. We question whether the federal fishery
management system has the resources to adequately comprehend these
issues, or the capability to successfully address them. We note that
Congress responded to the controversy associated with the halibut and
sablefish IFQ program by imposing a moratorium on further IFQ programs
until the National Academy of the Sciences had completed a program
review, and Congress had an opportunity to evaluate the results. The
legislation that mandated implementation of the Bering Sea crab
rationalization program includes a prohibition on processor shares in
any other fishery. We believe that prohibition should remain in place
at least until the Bering Sea crab rationalization program has been
fully reviewed and evaluated.
We ask that the Subcommittee take these considerations into account
during the Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization process. While we
believe rationalization has substantial benefits to offer, we also
believe rationalization systems should be designed to counteract their
negative effects. We encourage the Subcommittee to develop and promote
rationalization program standards that preserve opportunities for new
entry into rationalized fisheries for fishermen who do not have
substantial capital to invest, promote active engagement rather than
passive rent collection, and preserve healthy competition among
processors.
We also encourage the Subcommittee to review the community
protection measures being considered by fishery management councils for
their effectiveness and compliance with National Standard 8. We believe
that measures that provide community protection while preserving a
reasonable level of competition, such as regional landing restrictions,
should be explicitly authorized under National Standard 8. We support
regional fishery management councils, created by the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, as a much better decision-making process for federal fisheries,
than centralized federal agency decision-making.
We also believe further discussion of methods under which
communities could directly hold and use fishing privileges to mitigate
rationalization impacts is warranted. While we are somewhat skeptical
regarding the appropriateness of communities being directly engaged in
the fishing business, we also understand that community fishing quotas
may, under some circumstances, be the best means for mitigating
rationalization impacts. However, we firmly believe that in any
community fishing quota allocation or purchase component of a
rationalization program, sustaining the participation of communities
that have been substantially engaged in and dependent upon a fishery
should have priority over enhancing the participation of communities
that have a more attenuated relationship to the fishery.
In closing, I would like to thank the Subcommittee for traveling to
Kodiak, and for providing an opportunity for me and others in our
community to testify before you. We encourage you to spend a little of
your time here exploring our community, and hope your trip here is a
pleasure as well as informative. Thank you.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Mayor Selby.
STATEMENT OF JEROME SELBY, MAYOR,
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
Mr. Selby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
Subcommittee. My name is Jerome Selby. I'm mayor of the Kodiak
Island Borough. Again, first, I'd like to thank you folks for
coming here to have this hearing. It's really special for us as
a community to know that you folks would take and make the
effort to come here and actually hear from people on the
grounds, if you will. Because we feel like that's really key to
understanding and making good decisions, is to really see
what's going on first hand. So we really do appreciate you
coming here today.
You had asked for us to provide information on fisheries
management successes in Alaska and the reauthorization of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act.
Fisheries management is a success story in Alaska. And this
Act is one of the greatest economic successes in the history of
Alaska. Twenty-five years ago most of the bottomfish around
Kodiak Island were harvested in Alaska waters by foreign
vessels which could be seen fishing just offshore out here. You
could actually see them from Cape Chiniak. There was no
economic benefit to Alaska or the U.S. From this resource. It
was caught offshore and taken away, never touched the U.S. Now,
25 years later, this resource is all caught and processed by
American fishermen and represents a substantial part of
Alaska's economy.
Fisheries are second only to oil in the Alaskan economy, so
that's how important it is to the State of Alaska. And it's
even more substantial for us here in Kodiak. About 65 percent
of the human consumed fish products in the United States comes
from Alaska, so it's also important to the U.S. Economy and
food for Americans.
For Kodiak Island, the impact of this Act is even more
significant. The seafood industry provides over 60 percent of
the Kodiak base industry employment and nearly 70 percent of
the base industry payroll. When you add the U.S. Coast Guard,
which is primarily here because of the fisheries, these numbers
go to over 80 percent, actually more like 85 and almost to 90
percent of our base economy.
Fishing is our economic base. It's very clear when you take
a look at Kodiak in total. It provides over 1700 annual jobs,
and Kodiak is one of the top three ports of the United States
processing an average of 300 million pounds of seafood worth an
ex-vessel value of $90 million a year, and that's between 1997
and the year 2000. Groundfish, which are managed under the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, accounted for 70 percent of the volume
and 44 percent of the value. So it's a big piece of what we're
talking about.
It's obvious that this Act determines the economic health
of Kodiak Island more than any other single State of Alaska or
Federal law. So it's big for our community. Our schools,
businesses, and entire social structure are heavily dependent
upon this reauthorization.
The North Pacific Fisheries Management Council does an
outstanding job of applying the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Council
in our view is an outstanding fisheries management success
story in Alaska. The Council has managed the resource in a
conservative way that has assured healthy fish stocks while
providing a strong sustainable catch for the fishing industry.
This has happened as a result of the use of good scientific
information, good input from the industry, input from the
coastal communities, and good management decisions that were
intentionally applied on the conservative side. And by that I
mean if a scientific information was sketchy or missing, the
Council didn't guess or hope for the best, but reduced the
allowable catch to assure healthy sustained fishery would be in
place.
The one area that can improve the management of this vital
resource of bottomfish in Alaska waters is increased research
that provides the needed scientific information to base the
management decisions upon. This is critical because improved
research allows better management decisions which allows then
for the maximal catch for the fishing industry, which is our
economic base. So good scientific research and good science
results in the fishing industry being able to catch as many
fish as possible while still assured that we have a good
healthy fish stock.
So that's why science is a critical piece of this whole
picture and is probably the most underfunded part of the whole
effort. And so that's why we would urge you folks to, in the
process of reauthorization, to take a look at beefing up the
research side of things which helps the Council then make good
decisions and results in more catch for the industry.
One thing that we would ask is that these researchers need
to be based in Kodiak where they can interact with the industry
which is a valuable source of information for the research as
well. So it's very valuable when the scientific effort is here
and they can interact. A lot of times, the fishing industry
sees things going on out there in the ocean and they bring it
back and interact with the researchers; that's critical.
The Kodiak Island Borough has urged cooperative research
efforts to be conducted for many years. I personally have urged
the Fish & Game Department of Alaska and NOAA personnel to fund
and conduct joint complementary research efforts while mayor
from 1983 to 1998, and now again beginning in 2004. I have
witnessed and been involved in both the research and the
council process for many years; both are success stories.
In order to facilitate the cooperative research efforts,
the Kodiak Island Borough built the Kodiak Fisheries Research
Center over on Near Island, and, hopefully, while you're here,
you have a chance to go over and take a look at that facility
if you haven't already. It was built in 1997. It's about a $22-
million facility. Space is leased to the National Marine
Fisheries Service research staff, the Alaska Department of Fish
& Game, and the University of Alaska School of Ocean Fisheries.
This circulating sea water research facility has a sea
water research lab shared by these three agencies as well as a
dry lab and necropsy area where marine mammals can be examined.
This facility working in conjunction with the new research
vessel, the OSCAR DYSON, which is home-ported in Kodiak,
provides the capacity to coordinate and conduct the very best
possible research in the North Pacific. Fisheries and marine
mammals both can be studied. But we need more scientists and
increased effort to really understand what's going on in the
ocean around us.
Kodiak Island Borough is now starting the design to
construct another building next to the research facility that
will house the Alaska Department of Fish & Game research and
management staff. We feel the proximity will foster more
cooperation in the research and management between state and
Federal fisheries personnel.
Kodiak Island waters are the estuary for 12 species of
bottomfish, 4 species of salmon, 3 species of crab, and
numerous other marine resources including marine mammals. These
are some of the richest waters in the world and an ideal area
to conduct research. We need to increase that effort. This is
the one change again that I would urge you to include in the
reauthorization process.
In terms of the management processes in the North Pacific,
they are outstanding and should be encouraged to continue.
Regional councils are the strength of the management system. By
having the meetings in Anchorage, all of the interest groups in
Alaska can participate and be included in the process. This
assures that important information is brought forward from the
scientists, the State of Alaska, communities, the fishing
industry, and the others for the Council to consider.
This process includes everyone and the Council meetings are
a convention of all fishing interests in Alaska, if you will.
And as a result, no other process would be as effective and
decisions would not be as good. The regional council process
assures healthy fish stocks and support from the industry.
Without the regional council, there would be little opportunity
for industry and local government to participate. We'd be
excluded.
If we had to fly to Washington, D.C., very little
opportunity for input. Decisions without local input we feel
would be unacceptable decisions, and decisions made in that
sort of a vacuum would probably not be as good decisions. So
please keep the regional council process pretty much intact,
and it works well here in Alaska.
The current major issues, this was the final item that you
requested a little bit of information in your letter of current
issues for the North Pacific region, for us particularly here
are the rationalization of the Gulf of Alaska fishery, and I'm
going to harp again on the need for increased research.
We have confidence that the council process currently
underway will result in a good rationalization program. Kodiak
Island Borough is on record with some concerns identified in
the attached Resolution, which I've provided, and I'm not going
to go into that, but just so that you folks can see that we're
actively involved and very thoughtfully involved in how to help
structure the rationalization program so that it works for the
community, the industry, and for the management side of the
fishery as well. So there's been a lot of thought put into
what's contained in that resolution.
With regard to research, we would urge you to make
provision for increased research efforts in Alaska. With
increased research, the council process will only get better
and see fisheries management in the North Pacific result in a
healthy ecosystem that continues to feed our nation for many
years to come. And that's obviously also in our best interest
because it means the Kodiak Island Borough will be a robust
community with a healthy economy, good school system, and a
thriving U.S. Coast Guard Base for many years to come.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify and for
coming to Kodiak.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mayor Selby.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Selby follows:]
Statement of Jerome Selby, Mayor, Kodiak Island Borough
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Jerome
Selby and I am the Mayor of the Kodiak Island Borough. I am testifying
on behalf of the Kodiak Island Borough.
First, I want to thank you for coming to Kodiak to hold this
hearing on Fisheries Management successes in Alaska and the
Reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act. Fisheries management is a success story in Alaska and
this Act is one of the greatest economic successes in the history of
Alaska. Twenty-five years ago, most of the bottom fish were harvested
in Alaskan waters by foreign vessels which could be seen fishing just
offshore. There was no economic benefit to Alaska from this resource.
Now this resource is all caught and processed by American fishermen and
represents a substantial part of Alaska's economy. Fisheries are second
only to oil in the Alaska economy. About 65 percent of the human
consumed fish products in the U.S. come from Alaska.
For Kodiak Island, the impact of this Act is even more significant.
The seafood industry provides over 60% of Kodiak's base industry
employment and nearly 70 percent of base industry payroll. When you add
the U.S. Coast Guard, which is primarily here because of the fisheries,
these numbers go over 80 percent. Fishing is our economic base. It
provides over 1700 annual jobs. Kodiak is one of the top three ports in
the U.S., processing an average of 300 million pounds of seafood worth
an ex-vessel value of $90 million a year between 1997 and 2000. Ground
fish, which are managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, accounted for
70 percent of the volume and 44 percent of the value. It is obvious
that this Act determines the economic health of Kodiak Island more than
any other State of Alaska or Federal law. Our schools, businesses, and
entire social structure are heavily dependent upon this
reauthorization.
The North Pacific Fisheries Management Council does an outstanding
job of applying the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Council is an outstanding
fisheries management success story in Alaska. The Council has managed
the resource in a conservative way that has assured healthy fish stocks
while providing a strong sustainable catch for the fishing industry.
This has happened as a result of the use of scientific information,
good input from the industry, input from the coastal communities, and
good management decisions that were intentionally applied on the
conservative side. If scientific information is sketchy or missing, the
Council didn't ``guess'' and ``hope for the best'' but reduced the
allowable catch. The one area that can improve the management of this
vital resource of bottom fish in Alaskan waters is increased research
that provides the needed scientific information to base the management
decisions upon. These researchers need to be based in Kodiak where they
can interact with the fishing industry which is a valuable source of
information.
The Kodiak Island Borough has urged cooperative research efforts be
conducted for many years. I personally have urged the ADF&G and the
NOAA personnel to fund and conduct joint and complementary research
efforts while mayor from 1983 to 1998 and now again beginning in 2004.
I have witnessed and been involved in both the research and the Council
process for many years and both are success stories. In order to
facilitate the cooperative research effort, the Kodiak Island Borough
built the Kodiak Fisheries Research Center in 1997 and leases space to
the National Marine Fisheries Service research staff, the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, and the University of Alaska School of
Ocean Fisheries. This circulating seawater research facility has a
seawater research lab shared by these agencies as well as the dry lab
and necropsy areas. This facility, working in conjunction with the new
research vessel, the Oscar Dyson, home ported in Kodiak provides the
capacity to coordinate and conduct the very best possible research in
North Pacific fisheries and marine mammal resources. But we need more
scientists and increased effort to really understand what is going on
in the ocean around us. The Kodiak Island Borough is now starting the
design to construct another building next to the research facility that
will house Alaska Department of Fish and Game research and management
staff. We feel the proximity will foster more cooperation in research
and management between state and federal fisheries personnel. Kodiak
Island waters are the estuary for twelve species of bottom fish, four
species of salmon, three species of crab, and numerous other marine
resources including marine mammals. These are some of the richest
waters in the world and an ideal area to conduct research. We need to
increase the research effort. This is the one change I would urge you
to include in the reauthorization process.
The management processes in the North Pacific are outstanding and
should be encouraged to continue. Regional councils are the strength of
the management system. By having the meetings in Anchorage, all of the
interest groups in Alaska can participate and be included in the
process. This assures that important information is brought forward
from the scientists, State of Alaska, communities, the fishing
industry, and others for the council to consider. This process includes
everyone and the Council meetings are a convention of all fishing
interests in Alaska. No other process would be as effective and the
decisions would not be as good. The regional Council process assures
healthy fish stocks and support of the industry. Without the regional
council, there would be little opportunity for industry and local
government to participate. Decisions without local input would be
unacceptable decisions. Decisions made in a vacuum are generally not
good decisions. Please keep the regional council process.
The current major issues for the North Pacific Region are the
rationalization of the Gulf of Alaska fishery and the need for
increased research. We have confidence that the Council process
currently underway will result in a good rationalization program. The
Kodiak Island Borough is on record with some concerns identified in the
attached resolution and we will continue to participate in the process.
With regard to the research, we would urge you to make provision for
increased research effort in Alaska. With increased research, the
council process will only get better and see fisheries management in
the North Pacific result in a healthy ecosystem that continues to feed
our nation for many years to come. This also means that the Kodiak
Island Borough will be a robust community with a healthy economy, a
good school system, and a thriving U.S. Coast Guard base for many years
to come.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Ms. Salveson.
STATEMENT OF SUE SALVESON, ASSISTANT REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR FOR
SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Ms. Salveson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for the opportunity again to testify before you on
our fishery management program here in Alaska and
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. I am Sue Salveson,
assistant regional administrator for sustainable fisheries in
the Alaska region of the National Marine Fisheries Service.
The waters off Alaska support a variety of fisheries. These
fisheries are one of the most important industries in Alaska
and provide nearly half of all private sector jobs as well as
support gross revenues in processed product value alone that
exceed $1.5 billion annually. The management of these fisheries
is undertaken in partnership with the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council and other state and Federal management
agencies.
The North Pacific Council conducts a transparent public
process during the development of fishery management policy by
incorporating diverse views into its decisionmaking and
ensuring open public debate regarding the best path to follow
when making difficult decisions. The North Pacific Council
accepts public comment at all meetings on all issues addressed,
and its plan teams, advisory panel, and science and statistical
committee also receive issue-specific public testimony. An
additional level of stakeholder input is provided by the
Council's working committees with representation from industry
sectors, environmental groups, and other constituents.
We have achieved management successes in Alaska that we can
learn from as we move forward with reauthorizing the Magnuson-
Stevens Act. I again would like to focus on the following key
areas: Ecosystem approaches to fisheries management, market-
based management systems, and use of peer-reviewed science as a
basis for natural resource management decisions.
The U.S. Ocean Action Plan endorses an ecosystem approach
to management. The 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act
laid the groundwork for ecosystem approaches to fisheries. The
North Pacific management program currently includes extensive
restrictions to protect habitat and protected species stocks.
Habitat protection will be expanded significantly in the North
Pacific once NOAA Fisheries completes the rulemaking process
within the next year to implement new closed areas that
recently were endorsed by the North Pacific Council to further
protect essential fish habitat.
NOAA Fisheries has identified three large marine ecosystems
off Alaska: The Arctic, the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands,
and the Gulf of Alaska. But because we still have much to
learn, an ecosystem approach must be implemented incrementally.
Scientists have developed and currently are testing whole
ecosystem models to assess fishing impacts on patterns of
energy flow in large marine ecosystems.
Collaborative efforts by our scientists, the North Pacific
Council, the State, and other stakeholders to identify the
scientific, social, economic, and policy issues associated with
an adaptive incremental approach to ecosystem management will
also enhance our ability to manage fisheries.
The U.S. Ocean Action Plan also promotes a partnership
under which we will work with regional fishery management
councils to promote greater use of market-based systems for
fisheries management.
The Alaska Dedicated Access Privilege programs implemented
for Alaska groundfish, Pacific halibut, sablefish, and crab
fisheries are examples of DAP programs that can be used to
develop these approaches nationwide. The direct allocations of
groundfish, halibut and crab to the Western Alaska CDQ program
has proven very successful in generating revenue for coastal
communities and providing for a sustainable fishery-based
economy.
The Alaska Crab Rationalization program is the most recent
and sophisticated DAP program and includes harvester and
processor quota shares, community quotas, and fishing
cooperatives. Any national guidelines promoting these programs
should provide flexibility to regional fishery management
councils and to NMFS to tailor these programs to the specific
needs of regional fisheries.
Ongoing success of the North Pacific management programs
will continue to rely on the science-based and precautionary
policy directions historically embraced by the North Pacific
Council. This precautionary strategy is a risk-averse approach
for management of North Pacific resources in light of
uncertainty or incomplete scientific information.
This responsiveness is reflected in four fundamental
components of our decisionmaking process. First, promotion of a
strong research program. Second, acceptance of the best
available science as a foundation for establishing conservative
fishery harvest quotas and for conservation measures to protect
listed species. Third, an extensive in-season catch monitoring
program, and, fourth, a transparent public process.
As I mentioned to you in Ketchikan, the North Pacific
Council's reliance on its scientific and statistical committee
is an important consideration in the successful management of
North Pacific resources and serves as a good example in how to
use science-based decisionmaking to manage our nation's natural
resources. The North Pacific groundfish observer program
provides an additional source of important information. This
program is by far the largest and most expensive in the Nation
with costs predominantly borne by the industry. We are studying
ways to improve the observer coverage and effectiveness of our
fisheries observers in this and other observer programs
nationwide.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to
discuss the North Pacific Fishery Management programs as we
undertake reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Ms. Salveson.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Salveson follows:]
Statement of Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator for
Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, for the
opportunity to testify before you on our fishery management program
here in Alaska and the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). I am Sue
Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries,
Alaska Region, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within the Department of
Commerce. My testimony today will focus on how we work with our
partners in Alaska to successfully manage our fisheries and how this
experience may serve as a model for managing our nation's fisheries and
other ocean resources into the future.
The current process for managing our nation's marine fishery
resources has been in place since 1977, when the Fishery Conservation
and Management Act of 1976 was first implemented. The Sustainable
Fisheries Act of 1996 implemented several new provisions specific to
the North Pacific and underscored many of the management measures
already in place or under development there. The Fishery Management
Council process results in transparent, deliberative decision making
based on best available science.
The North Pacific is a highly productive ecosystem with no depleted
or overfished groundfish stocks. Our area exemplifies how the
management process can accommodate both national and regional interests
in responsible stewardship of marine resources. Our success is driven
by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council's tenet to adhere to
the underlying science provided by NMFS, the State of Alaska,
universities, and other independent scientists. Our success is also due
in part to relatively focused interjurisdictional issues involving only
a single state (Alaska), which reduces complexity in the decision-
making process.
Background on Alaskan Fisheries
With over 47,000 miles of coastline and 336,000 square miles of
fishable continental shelf area, the waters off Alaska support a
variety of fisheries. Fisheries are one of the most important
industries in Alaska and provide nearly half of all private-sector
jobs. Over 10,000 people are involved in groundfish fishing and
processing alone; thousands more work in salmon, crab, scallop,
halibut, and other fisheries. Vessels range from skiffs used for
halibut fishing with hook-and-line or jig gear, to 600-foot motherships
and 400-foot catcher processors involved in the midwater trawl fishing
for pollock.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act authorizes federal management of fisheries
in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Off Alaska, this management is
undertaken in partnership with the North Pacific Fishery Management
Council and other state and federal management agencies. The North
Pacific Council has developed five fishery management plans to manage
the groundfish (Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands; Gulf of Alaska), crab,
scallop and salmon fisheries off Alaska. Much of the management of the
crab, scallop, and salmon fisheries is deferred to the State of Alaska
with federal oversight, including the authority to set and enforce
harvest limits to avoid overfished stocks. Development and
implementation of allocation programs or dedicated access privilege
programs are retained as a federal function in partnership with the
North Pacific Council. The Council also develops allocation programs
for the Pacific halibut fishery in partnership with NMFS and the
International Pacific Halibut Commission.
The primary target groundfish species off Alaska are pollock,
Pacific cod, flatfish, Atka mackerel, sablefish, and rockfish. In the
Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands, the maximum annual removals limit has
been capped at 2 million metric tons, or 4.4 billion pounds, since
1984. This cap is an example of the North Pacific's precautionary
approach to management. Although this cap could be set higher--given
the existing groundfish abundance of over 3 million metric tons--the
annual harvest limits are capped at this lower level to account for
species interactions within the ecosystem and to provide a buffer for
scientific uncertainty in setting catch quota levels.
Fishery management decisions originate with recommendations
provided by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. The Council's
11 voting members represent state and federal fisheries agencies,
industry, fishing communities, and four nonvoting members represent the
U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of
State, and the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. The Council
receives advice at each meeting from a 20-member Advisory Panel,
representing user groups, environmentalists, recreational fishermen,
and consumer groups. A 15-member Scientific and Statistical Committee
composed of highly respected scientists reviews all information and
analyses and provides advice to the Council.
The North Pacific Council conducts a transparent public process by
incorporating diverse views into its decision making, and ensuring open
public debate regarding the best paths to follow when making difficult
decisions. The North Pacific Council accepts public comment at all
meetings on all issues addressed, and the Plan Teams, Advisory Panel,
and Scientific and Statistical Committee also receive issue-specific
public testimony. In addition, the Council appoints working committees
with representation from industry sectors, environmental organizations,
and other constituents to provide recommendations on specific issues.
These committees often rely on management expertise and scientific
input from NMFS and other management agency staff and scientists. This
committee process is critical to the Council's development of fishery
management measures and provides an additional level of stakeholder
input on all decisions.
NMFS maintains effective partnerships with the North Pacific
Council, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, International Pacific
Halibut Commission, Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Coast Guard. These partnerships
help us ensure that management decisions are based on sound science and
can be effectively monitored and enforced.
NMFS is considering a wide range of potential amendments to the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, and plans to prepare a formal package of
Amendments. We have learned many things from our experiences here in
Alaska that can help us achieve similar management successes in other
areas of the country as we move forward with reauthorizing the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. I would like to focus on a few key areas today--
ecosystem approaches to fisheries management; market-based management
systems (specifically, dedicated access privilege (DAP) programs); and
use of the best available scientific information.
Ecosystem Approaches to Fisheries Management
The U.S. Ocean Action Plan endorses an ecosystem approach to
management. The plan states that ``the Administration will continue to
work toward an ecosystem-based approach in making decisions relating to
water, land, and resource management in ways that do not erode local
and State authorities and are flexible to address local conditions.''
The 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act--particularly the
provisions relating to bycatch and essential fish habitat--laid the
groundwork for Ecosystem Approaches to Fisheries (EAF). NOAA has
identified three large marine ecosystems off Alaska: the Arctic, the
Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands, and the Gulf of Alaska. The North
Pacific Fishery Management Council is advancing fishery management to
address principles of EAF, which focus on ecosystem considerations in
fishery management decisions as well as in the broad context of entire
ecosystems and the relative role of all activities occurring within
them.
Because not all necessary scientific information is ever available,
an ecosystem approach must be implemented incrementally. Our approach
in the North Pacific includes single species management and
exploitation models used to establish target and nontarget species
harvest quotas that conserve the stocks. For example, quotas currently
are managed through an extensive in-season catch monitoring program
that documents total catch relative to established quotas; when quotas
are reached, fisheries are closed. But scientists have developed and
currently are testing whole ecosystem models to assess fishing impacts
on patterns of energy flow in large marine ecosystems. These models
provide descriptions of the food web and may be useful in evaluating
ecosystem-level harvest limits.
The North Pacific management program includes gear and season-
specific closures totaling approximately 150,000 nm2 to protect habitat
and protected species stocks. These areas have been closed to fishing
to minimize fishery interactions with Steller sea lions, reduce impacts
on sensitive habitat important to crab, or to eliminate fishing gear
impacts in areas with deep-water coral concentrations. The North
Pacific Council, in consultation with NMFS scientists and managers,
closed certain areas to the pollock, Pacific cod, and Atka mackerel
fisheries to minimize impacts on Steller sea lions; refinements to
Steller sea lion protection measures are ongoing. A comprehensive
seabird bycatch reduction program has been implemented that includes
education, outreach, and mandatory seabird avoidance measures.
Bycatch controls always have been a facet of the fishery management
plans for the Alaska fisheries. They originally focused on fully
utilized species taken incidentally in the groundfish fisheries, such
as halibut, salmon, crab, and herring. However, the Council is now
expanding its focus to address management of non-target species taken
incidentally in the groundfish fisheries (e.g., sculpins and other
species taken in fisheries but not retained for sale). Since the mid-
1990s, measures to address overall discard amounts and increase
utilization of catch in the groundfish fisheries resulted in a dramatic
reduction in discard rates, from 17 percent in 1993 to less than 7
percent by 2002.
Habitat protection will be expanded significantly when NMFS
completes the rulemaking process within the next year to implement
extensive new closed areas in the Aleutian Islands and Gulf of Alaska
recently endorsed by the Council to protect Essential Fish Habitat
(EFH). The Council's EFH action is noteworthy for several reasons.
The scale is unprecedented. The new EFH measures include
nearly 300,000 square nautical miles of areas closed to bottom
trawling, some of which will be closed to other bottom-tending mobile
gear and fixed gear.
The Council adopted these new closures as a precaution.
The best available information indicates that fishing in Alaska has no
more than minimal adverse effects on EFH, but NMFS' analysis noted
considerable scientific uncertainty. The Council chose to protect
relatively undisturbed habitats to guard against potential problems for
sustainable fisheries in the future.
These closures have broad support from both the fishing
industry and environmental groups, demonstrating again that compromise
and consensus can be achieved through the Council process.
The Council adopted a site-specific approach for
identifying Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs) within EFH. Our
experience in Alaska suggests that HAPCs are a useful tool for
prioritizing especially valuable and/or vulnerable portions of EFH for
conservation and management.
Although progress has been made toward an integrated ecosystem
approach to management in the North Pacific, much work remains to fully
understand biological, climate, and habitat interactions. New studies
are required to move forward with ecosystem approaches. NMFS scientists
are poised to pursue research that would provide new information to
better enable managers to integrate ecosystem approaches to fishery
management. This work will focus on developing spatially explicit
resource assessment models for predicting recruitment, abundance, and
species interactions by region and by season. These expanded programs
will help us evaluate resource responses to harvest at local scales,
assess the impact of fishing on the foraging success of seabirds and
marine mammals, and improve the information upon which management
decisions are based. Efforts to identify the scientific, social,
economic, and policy issues associated with an adaptive, incremental
approach to ecosystem management will also greatly enhance our ability
to manage fisheries.
Pilot programs may help assess information needs for EAF and the
associated costs. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council is
considering a pilot program in the Aleutian Islands area that would
test the use of a Fishery Ecosystem Plan to inform Council decision
making under the existing fishery management plans. NMFS, the Council,
and the State of Alaska are also discussing the possibility of an
ecosystem council or other form of regional collaboration to integrate
considerations from various ocean uses (e.g., fisheries, marine
transportation, and oil and gas development).
Market-Based Management Systems
The U.S. Ocean Action Plan also promotes a partnership under which
we will ``work with regional fishery management councils to promote
greater use of market-based systems for fisheries management.'' The DAP
programs can mitigate overfishing and overcapacity, as well as
contribute to the economic well-being of the marine fishery sector. The
Alaska programs--specifically those developed for Alaskan groundfish,
Pacific halibut, sablefish, and crab fisheries--are examples of DAP
programs that can be used to develop these approaches nationwide.
NOAA has committed to develop, in consultation with the regional
fishery management councils and interested parties, national standards
and guidelines for the implementation of individual fishing quota (IFQ)
programs. These guidelines will draw on the 1999 congressionally
mandated report by the National Research Council, Sharing the Fish:
Toward a National Policy on Individual Fishing Quotas, as well as the
ongoing discussions on standards and requirements for DAPs.
In partnership with the North Pacific Council, we implemented the
IFQ program for Pacific halibut and sablefish in 1995. Recently, we
provided coastal communities the opportunity to purchase quota share or
IFQ to enhance fishery-based revenues generated by local residents.
Fishing cooperatives have successfully rationalized the Bering Sea
pollock fishery under the American Fisheries Act. We are in the midst
of implementing a sophisticated Alaska crab rationalization program
that includes harvester and processor quota shares, community quotas,
and fishing cooperatives. The North Pacific Council is considering a
Gulf of Alaska groundfish rationalization plan that would also include
a number of distinct DAP programs. The direct allocations of groundfish
and crab to the Western Alaska Community Development Program has proven
very successful in generating revenue for western Alaska coastal
communities and providing for a sustainable fishery-based economy.
During the past several years, we have worked closely with the U.S.
General Accountability Office in its studies of various IFQ-related
issues. This collaboration, as well as experience here in Alaska and
elsewhere, has helped us refine our views on how to develop and
administer these programs. Any national guidelines promoting DAP
programs should provide flexibility to regional fishery management
councils and to NMFS to tailor these programs to the specific needs of
the regional fisheries. While the Alaskan programs have been
successful, and provide important lessons for the rest of the nation,
they may not be applicable to specific regional, social, economic, and
fishery conditions in other parts of the country. These programs must
balance the program's complexity and cost with its overall objectives.
Existing Magnuson-Stevens Act authority for cost-recovery programs can
result in insufficient revenue for sustained management and enforcement
of complex DAP programs. We are considering ways to ensure that
sufficient revenue is available to manage the DAP programs
appropriately.
Best Available Scientific Information and Other Data
The U.S. Ocean Action Plan also commits NOAA to ``establish
guidelines and procedures for the development and application of
scientific advice for fisheries management decisions.'' The
Administration supports the use of independent peer-reviewed science in
resource management decisions. We are considering several Magnuson-
Stevens Act amendment proposals relating to the collection and use of
best available scientific information. Scientific information and
advice is integral to the resource management decisions undertaken by
NMFS in partnership with the regional fishery management councils.
Ongoing success of the North Pacific management programs will
continue to rely on the science-based and precautionary policy
directions historically embraced by the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council. This responsiveness is reflected in four
fundamental components of our decision making process:
1. Promotion of a strong research program;
2. Acceptance of the best available science as a foundation for
establishing conservative fishery harvest quotas and for conservation
measures necessary to protect listed species or their critical habitat
under the Endangered Species Act;
3. An extensive in-season catch monitoring program that relies on
timely observer data, accurate catch weight measurements for at-sea and
shoreside processors, and an electronic catch reporting system that
ensures we will not exceed established quotas; and
4. A transparent public process.
NMFS also is working to improve our marine resource survey
capability and our capacity to develop stock assessments. In 2001, the
National Task Force for Improving Fish Stock Assessments, composed of
senior stock assessment scientists from each NMFS science center,
issued the Marine Fisheries Stock Assessment Improvement Plan. This
report continues to serve as NMFS' principal roadmap for enhancing and
modernizing programs for data collection, data management, stock
assessments, and supporting scientific research. The stock assessments
on which annual quotas for North Pacific groundfish, crab, and halibut
are based rely on extensive stock assessment surveys and sophisticated
stock assessment models used by NMFS, the State of Alaska, academia,
and International Halibut Commission scientists.
Observers deployed on-board fishing or processing vessels and at
shoreside processing facilities are an additional source of important
information. For NMFS and the public to have confidence in this
information, it must be of high quality and free from bias. The North
Pacific groundfish observer program is the largest in the nation with
over 36,000 observer days per year. Costs of observer deployment for
the North Pacific fisheries are borne by the industry and currently
total about $13 million annually; an additional $3 million in federal
funding is required each year to support the costs of administering the
observer program and the data collected by observers. Although coverage
is extensive, we are studying ways to improve the coverage and
effectiveness of our on-board and shoreside fisheries observers in this
and other observer programs.
We are considering proposals that would give the regional
management councils and NMFS broader authority to collect social and
economic data, including cost and revenue data. Collecting this
information from shoreside fish processors, under appropriate
confidentiality standards, would allow us to conduct more meaningful
social and economic analyses of the potential impacts of fishery
regulations. This information will enable NMFS and the regional fishery
management councils to conduct better regulatory assessments, in
particular those concerning the impacts of proposed measures on fishing
communities, small business enterprises, and processors. This
information also will allow NMFS and the councils to assess the effects
of programs that have been implemented and determine whether
refinements or adjustments should be made to address unintended impacts
on various sectors or constituencies. The North Pacific Fishery
Management Council used this approach to develop an economic data
collection program for Bering Sea/Aleutian Island crab harvesters and
processors as part of its comprehensive rationalization program for
this fishery. Implementation of this program required special
legislation.
To properly incorporate the best available science into our
management process, the Councils need to rely on our Scientific and
Statistical Committees (SSC) to review all biological and socioeconomic
information used in decision making. We believe the structure and
breadth of expertise on the North Pacific Fishery Management Council's
SSC allows science-based decision making to govern the management of
our nation's natural resources. NMFS will continue to play a key role
in providing the best possible scientific information, and supports the
use of peer-reviewed science in resource management decisions.
Enforcement Issues
At-sea and shoreside catch monitoring programs are in place to
ensure that fishery restrictions are honored. These programs include
timely reporting of total catch by species, and vessel monitoring
system (VMS) requirements in some fisheries to monitor closed or
restricted areas. VMS is an excellent enforcement tool because it
provides remote monitoring of vessel positions in relation to
regulatory areas and maritime boundary lines. We rely on the
complementary enforcement efforts of NOAA, state enforcement agencies,
and the U.S. Coast Guard, both in the fishing grounds and dockside.
We are considering a number of amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens
Act to enhance the effectiveness of fisheries law enforcement. In
Alaska, tools such as broader application of VMS and cooperative state-
federal enforcement programs are used to achieve enforcement,
management, and safety objectives. Incorporating existing technology
and leveraging strong enforcement partnerships are becoming more and
more important to mitigate the greater number of resources needed to
enforce new fisheries regulations.
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the North
Pacific fishery management programs as we undertake reauthorization of
the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Alaska is fortunate to have large areas of
relatively pristine habitat that support bountiful and sustainable fish
harvests. That said, management of the North Pacific has benefited from
adherence to the best available science in developing prudent and
precautionary approaches to the management of marine resources. Our
emerging focus on ecosystem approaches to fisheries management and
dedicated access privilege programs will rely on research and sound
science to support increasingly complex conservation and management
programs. In addition, we want to continue our work with all
stakeholder groups to achieve a collaborative consensus-building forum.
Such partnerships will become increasingly important as new interests,
perspectives, and knowledge are incorporated into an ecosystem approach
to management.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Ms. Madsen.
STATEMENT OF STEPHANIE MADSEN, CHAIR,
NORTH PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
Ms. Madsen. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to the
Emerald Island.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
Ms. Madsen. And I have to say that it's--I'm glad to be
back. It holds a special place in my heart. Both my husband and
both my children were born here, and it's good to come back and
see old friends. So it's a special spot, and I'm sure you've
picked that up.
For the record, Mr. Chairman, my name is Stephanie Madsen,
and I'm the Chair of the North Pacific Fishery Management
Council. I had the pleasure to address you in Ketchikan, and we
talked mostly in Ketchikan about the process that we use. Today
I'd like to talk a little bit about the programs that we've
been using, and then also address your request for lessons
learned in the North Pacific in a more specific way.
The Council's basic precautionary approach to management
that we discussed in Ketchikan cuts across all FMPs, the
fishery management plans, and geographic regions under our
jurisdiction. The comprehensive goals and objectives that I
spoke to in our programmatic SEIS pertain both to the Bering
Sea Aleutian Islands and the Gulf of Alaska FMPs. But while
these basic tenets apply to all the areas that we manage, there
are some regional differences and specific regional challenges
that are currently being addressed by the Council.
The Bering Sea fisheries, which you'll hear more about this
morning can be characterized as more industrial in nature than
in the Gulf of Alaska and are dominated in volume and value by
the enormous pollock resource. While the pollock fishery is
operating under a fully rationalized system established by the
American Fisheries Act and the Council, the other groundfish
fisheries are in need of further rationalization programs.
The Council is also addressing bycatch and discards issues
in the Bering Sea by imposing minimum groundfish retention
standards in conjunction with an initiative in developing a
program of fishery cooperatives for the non-AFA catcher-
processors that we expect to and hope to approve later this
year.
The Council will also be considering further measures with
regard to essential fish habitat in areas of particular concern
in the Bering Sea in addition to the measures that we've
recently approved for the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands
areas. In the Gulf of Alaska groundfish fisheries could be
characterized as more numerous smaller vessels, lower overall
resource abundance, direct ties to greater number of coastal
communities than in the Bering Sea, and a greater number of
user groups and constituents which you are going to hear from
this morning.
The most significant program currently under development by
the Council as you have heard, Mr. Chairman, and one of the
most challenging is focused on a comprehensive rationalization
of the Gulf of Alaska groundfish fisheries, which would apply
primarily to the central and western Gulf fisheries.
Recognizing the operational economic benefits of the Bering Sea
rationalization programs and coupled with the logistical
challenges that we have that are posed by the numerous Steller
sea lion restrictive measures in the Gulf of Alaska, the
Council is attempting to develop some type of quota-based
cooperative style program for the Gulf fisheries.
Working closely with the State of Alaska and the State
Board of Fisheries, this is an ambitious program with numerous
competing constituencies and overlapping jurisdictions with
regard to state waters inside three miles. In my written
testimony we have time lines that I'm not going to repeat on
the record because I hope that we can stay with them.
Mr. Chairman, you are going to hear, I think, this morning
and as you tour Alaska and experience first hand the challenges
that the North Pacific Council faces when trying to balance the
need to protect the resource, the need to address the
consolidation that is currently happening without a
rationalization program, and how we address the constituencies
of the coastal communities, of the skippers and crew,
processors, harvesters, providing for entry-level fisheries so
that we can look forward in years ahead and make sure that we
have a vision of what we would like those fisheries to look
like in 10, 15 years.
Those are all challenges, Mr. Chairman, that you are going
to hear this morning, that the Council has to face on a regular
basis. And as with your job, it's not easy. We listen and we
hope and rely heavily on our transparent public process for
people to come forward with creative ideas. And I think that's
why the North Pacific sometimes is in the seats of controversy
because we have pushed the envelope and looked at creative ways
to address our differences.
I think also, Mr. Chairman, in your tours around Alaska you
are going to see that even within our region we need a maximum
flexibility to design programs that are specific to those
fisheries, to those dependent communities and to the different
participants that exist in the different fisheries. So even
within our region, we need maximum flexibility, and I think
you'll hear that nationwide.
Mr. Chairman, I would move on to some of the lessons that
we've learned. But before, I'm going to repeat something that
you've heard me say and I believe that our overall management
program illustrates that the current Magnuson-Stevens Act
contains the necessary tools for successful, sustainable
fisheries management. Strengthening the existing tools, or
imposing requirements to use those tools may be necessary in
the reauthorization process, but it does not appear from our
perspective that significant new requirements are necessary at
this time.
In my written comments, there is much more detail, Mr.
Chairman. I see my red light is on, but just to highlight some
of the lessons that we have--would like to pass along.
Ecosystem approach to management. We believe that extreme
caution should be exercised with regard to specific statutory
requirements for a fishery ecosystem plans. Until we have some
experience with voluntary pilot projects regarding fishery
ecosystem plans and some experience with collaborative efforts
on the broader ecosystem approach to management front, the
North Pacific as you have heard over and over has long embraced
this approach and is working hard to more explicitly
incorporate that approach into our management programs.
Improving science and management. We believe that the
integration of science and management works very well in the
North Pacific, and we are very concerned that changes could be
imposed on that process in order to address other regional
problems. IFQs or other DAP programs, I think you'll hear a lot
about that. I think the message from the North Pacific is that
we need all the tools in the toolbox to address the uniqueness
and the differences in our fisheries and regions.
Reconciling statutes. We believe that our development of
fishery management programs and the review and approval process
is overly complicated. It takes way too long, as you might hear
today, and often it's not user-friendly to the public or to the
fishing industry. This is primarily due to a number of often
redundant and overlapping statutory requirements.
It is our partnerships and our close working relationship
with NOAA and the Science Center that has been crucial to our
ability to successfully implement our core management measures.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to close there and thank you again
for the opportunity to comment on these issues. Again, I'll
remind you that we stand ready to help you in further shaping
any amendments that you see that are important to the Act and
respond to those changes when they are finalized. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Ms. Madsen.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Madsen follows:]
Statement of Stephanie Madsen, Chair,
North Pacific Fishery Management Council
Good morning. My name is Stephanie Madsen, and I am the Chair of
the North Pacific Fishery Management Council based in Anchorage,
Alaska. Thank you for the opportunity to offer comments to the
Subcommittee on fisheries management successes in Alaska and
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act. We believe we have a very successful model in the North
Pacific, and we believe that the basic tools for successful and
sustainable management exist within the current Magnuson-Stevens Act.
However, we recognize that a number of changes are being contemplated
and we hope that our input, and our examples, will be informative to
development of appropriate amendments to that Act.
Fisheries Management in the North Pacific
The successful management program for Alaska's offshore fisheries
has been developed by the North Pacific Council, through its
partnership with NOAA Fisheries and close working relationship with
other state and federal agencies, including the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game (ADF&G), the International Pacific Halibut Commission,
the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, and the United States
Coast Guard.
The North Pacific Fishery Management primarily manages groundfish
in the Gulf of Alaska, Bering Sea, and Aleutian Islands. Groundfish
include cod, pollock, flatfish, Atka mackerel, sablefish, and rockfish
species harvested by trawl, longline, jig, and pot gear. The Council
also makes allocation decisions for halibut, in concert with the
International Pacific Halibut Commission which manages biological
aspects of the resource for U.S.-Canada waters. Other large Alaska
fisheries such as salmon, crab, scallops and herring are managed
jointly with the State of Alaska.
The Council has eleven voting members representing state and
federal fisheries agencies, and fishery participants. Six are from
Alaska, three are from Washington, one from Oregon, and one
representative from NOAA Fisheries. The Council's four non-voting
members represent the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Department of State, and the Pacific States Marine Fisheries
Commission. The Council receives advice at each meeting from a 20
member Advisory Panel (representing commercial fishing and processing
industry sectors, environmentalists, recreational fishermen, and
consumer groups), and from a 15 member Scientific and Statistical
Committee (SSC) of highly respected scientists who review all
information and analyses considered by the Council.
Decisions must conform with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the National
Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal
Protection Act, Regulatory Flexibility Act, and other applicable law
including several executive orders. Regulatory changes may take a year
or longer to develop, analyze, and implement, particularly if complex
or contentious. All Council decisions are forwarded as recommendations
to the Secretary of Commerce, for review and approval.
One of the keys to successful fishery management is incorporating
diverse views into decision making through a transparent public
process. Council meetings are open, and public testimony--both written
and oral--is taken on each and every issue prior to deliberations and
final decisions. Public comments are also taken at all Advisory Panel
and Scientific and Statistical Committee meetings.
Importance of Alaska Fisheries
Fisheries are one of the most important industries in Alaska,
culturally and economically, providing nearly half of all private
sector jobs, and second only to the oil industry in providing revenue
to the state. Over 10,000 people are involved in groundfish fishing and
processing alone; thousands more work in the salmon, crab, scallop, and
other fisheries. In addition, thousands of people work in other
fisheries and fishing support industries, such as sport fishing guides,
gear and fuel suppliers, restaurants, hotels, airlines, and others.
With over 47,000 miles of coastline, and 336,000 square miles of
fishable continental shelf area, the waters off Alaska support a
variety of fisheries. Approximately 1,400 vessels participate in the
groundfish and crab fisheries directly managed by the Council, ranging
from small 20 foot skiffs fishing for near-shore halibut, to a 200+
foot catcher/processors prosecuting midwater pollock fisheries in the
open waters of the Bering Sea. The majority of the fleet, however,
consists of mid-size vessels, anywhere from 40 to 150 feet in length.
These vessels are engaged in longline fisheries for halibut, sablefish,
and cod; trawl fisheries for cod, pollock, and flatfish species; and
pot fisheries for cod and crab. Recreational fisheries for halibut and
salmon are an important part of the fisheries off Alaska.
These fisheries are worth nearly $1 billion ex-vessel annually
(amount paid to fishermen at delivery, prior to value-added
processing). The groundfish fisheries account for a majority of the
overall value, but the halibut, salmon, and shellfish (crab) fisheries
also contribute substantially. Additionally, the Council's community
development quota (CDQ) program allocates from 7.5% to 10% of all
groundfish and crab quotas to six CDQ groups consisting of 66 western
Alaska coastal communities. Through partnerships with other industry
groups, and through direct involvement in fisheries and development of
fisheries related infrastructures, this program allows these remote
coastal communities to continue and enhance their participation in
Alaska fisheries.
Major Turning Points in Alaska Fisheries
Passage of the Magnuson-Stevens Act in 1976 marked a new era in
U.S. fisheries management. Foreign fisheries in the EEZ off Alaska were
rapidly phased out through joint-ventures, with the fisheries fully
prosecuted by domestic fisheries (``Americanized'') by 1990. Management
efforts in the early 1990's focused on limiting effort of the
burgeoning domestic groundfish fleet. By 1992, the fleet had grown to
over 2,200 vessels, including about 110 trawl catcher processors
(factory trawlers). The symptoms of overcapacity intensified; the
``race for fish'' resulted in shorter fishing seasons and allocation
disputes among various fishing and processing interests.
To address the overcapacity problem, the Council, working together
with the NOAA Fisheries Alaska Regional office, aggressively pursued
capacity limitations in all managed fisheries. An Individual Fishing
Quota program for halibut and sablefish fisheries was adopted in 1992,
and fully implemented in 1995. A moratorium on new vessel entry for
groundfish and crab fisheries was implemented in 1996, with a more
restrictive license limitation program in place by 2000. In 1998, the
American Fisheries Act was passed by Congress and implemented by the
Council and NOAA Fisheries the following year. The Act limited access
to the Bering Sea pollock fisheries only to qualifying vessels and
processors, eliminated a number of large catcher processor vessels from
the fleet, and established a system of fishery cooperatives that allows
for individual catch and bycatch accountability. Lower bycatch and
significantly higher product recovery rates have resulted under the
pollock cooperative system. In 1999, the Council adopted a very
restrictive limited entry program for the scallop fishery. In 2003, the
Council completed its work on an individual fishing and processing
quota system for the Bering Sea crab fisheries (crab rationalization),
consistent with Congressional legislation. Current Council initiatives
include development of further rationalization programs for Bering Sea
non-pollock groundfish fisheries, and development of some form of
rationalization program for Gulf of Alaska groundfish fisheries.
Measures implemented in the 1990's also were designed to limit
impacts on target and bycatch species, marine mammals and seabirds, and
habitat, and provide opportunities for disadvantaged coastal
communities along the Bering Sea. A comprehensive domestic groundfish
observer program, funded by participating vessels, was instituted in
1990 to provide the basis for controlling catch within allowable levels
and monitoring removals of both target and bycatch species. Closure
areas and bycatch limits were established for chinook and chum salmon
taken in Bering Sea trawl fisheries. Additional year-round trawl
closure areas were established to reduce bycatch and protect habitat
for Bering Sea crab stocks. To reduce bycatch and discards of Alaska
groundfish, mandatory retention of all pollock and cod was required
beginning in 1998. Retention requirements are soon to be implemented
for Bering Sea flatfish fisheries, and further reductions in bycatch
and discard amounts (currently about 7%) are expected.
In 1990, Steller sea lions were listed as threatened under the
Endangered Species Act, and numerous measures were implemented over the
following decade to minimize potential interactions with fisheries and
potential competition for prey. These measures included incidental take
limits, 3 nm no entry buffer zones, 10 nm no trawl zones around
rookeries, 20 nm no pollock fishing zones, seasonal and spatial
dispersal of pollock and mackerel fisheries, and a prohibition on the
harvest of forage fish. In 2001, a comprehensive suite of protection
measures was implemented through Council recommendation which closed
over 58,000 square miles of ocean to fishing for certain species, or in
some cases to all fishing activities, to reduce fish removals and
fishing activities in Steller sea lion critical habitat areas
throughout the Gulf of Alaska, Bering Sea, and Aleutian Islands.
What Makes Alaska Different?
Management of fisheries off Alaska is, by all accounts, a success
story of biological and economic sustainability. The foundation for
success has been the long-standing, precautionary approach embraced in
the North Pacific, supported by an underpinning of sound science and a
reliance on that science, and by a fishing industry supporting a
priority toward long-term sustainability. Strict catch quotas for all
managed species, coupled with an effective monitoring program,
represent the forefront of the conservative management approach in the
North Pacific. Since 1976, groundfish harvests have been maintained in
the range of 3 to 5 billion pounds annually, and no groundfish stocks
are overfished. Vast areas of the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska are
closed to trawling, or in some cases to all fishing, to protect
habitat, minimize bycatch, or minimize interactions with protected
species such as Steller sea lions.
The Council's precautionary management approach is to apply
judicious and responsible fisheries management practices, based on
sound scientific research and analysis, proactively rather than
reactively, to ensure the sustainability of fishery resources and
associated ecosystems for the benefit of future, as well as current
generations. The basic tenets of this approach include public
participation, reliance on scientific research and advice, conservative
catch quotas, comprehensive monitoring and enforcement, limits on
bycatch of non-target species, marine protected areas, measures to
protect marine mammals and seabirds, and other measures.
Strict annual catch limits for every groundfish fishery are the
foundation of the sustainable fisheries management approach in the
North Pacific. A rigorous process in place for almost 30 years ensures
that annual quotas are set at conservative, sustainable levels.
Beginning with scientific data from regular groundfish abundance
surveys, stock assessment scientists recommend acceptable biological
catch (ABC) levels for each species. These are reviewed by the
Council's Groundfish Plan Teams, then further reviewed by the Council's
Scientific and Statistical Committee, prior to the Council's setting of
the Total Allowable Catch (TAC), which is always set at or below the
ABC, and far below the designated overfishing level.
As an additional precautionary measure, the Bering Sea and Aleutian
Islands quotas, for all groundfish combined, are capped at a maximum of
2 million metric tons (mt) annually, regardless of the maximum
recommended ABC levels. For example, ABCs for the past several years
have ranged from 3 to 4 million mt, yet TACs were reduced to stay
within the 2 million mt cap. The Gulf of Alaska has a similar overall
TAC cap. Catch of all species, whether targeted or taken as bycatch,
whether retained or discarded, count toward the annual catch limits,
and fisheries are closed when these limits are reached. This is one of
the fundamental aspects of responsible management in the North Pacific
groundfish fisheries.
These catch quotas are closely monitored to ensure accurate
accounting on a real-time basis. At the core of the monitoring system
is a comprehensive, industry-funded, on-board observer program, coupled
with requirements for total weight measurement of most fish harvested.
Except for small vessels less than 60 feet, all vessels fishing for
groundfish in federal waters are required to carry observers, at their
own expense, for at least a portion of their fishing time. The largest
vessels, those over 125 feet, are generally required to carry observers
100% of the time, with multiple observers required on catcher/
processors and in certain fisheries. Scales to weigh catch are also
required on many of the larger vessels. Most shoreside processing
plants are also required to have observers at all times, and to weigh
all fish landed at each processing location. Observers estimate total
catch weight, catch composition, and discards, and collect biological
information critical to stock assessment. In excess of 36,000 observer
days, by over 500 observers, are logged in these fisheries each year.
In the North Pacific's largest fishery, for walleye pollock, nearly 85%
of the total catch is measured and sampled by observers, with 99% of
the catcher/processor (factory trawler) harvest sampled by observers.
Used in conjunction with reporting and weighing requirements, the
information collected by observers provides the foundation for in-
season management and for tracking species-specific catch and bycatch
amounts.
The Council and NOAA Fisheries are currently developing amendments
to the fishery management plans that are designed to better ensure
ongoing collection and quality observer data. These amendments will
examine alternative funding mechanisms (for example, a fee-based
program instead of direct payment by vessels required to carry
observers), and alternative service delivery models, all designed to
allow fisheries managers to more effectively determine specific
observer deployments by fishery and by vessel. Technological
innovations, such as digital (video) observer applications, are also
being evaluated by the Council and NOAA to potentially supplement
onboard observers.
Enforcement of fishery regulations is accomplished by complementary
efforts of NOAA and State enforcement agencies, and the U.S. Coast
Guard, both on the grounds and dockside. As part of their patrol
activities, the Coast Guard enforces a complex array of domestic
regulations and international treaties, including enforcement of the
maritime boundary and high seas driftnet violations. The Coast Guard
also maintains its priority mission of search and rescue, a critical
mission in all U.S. waters, particular in the volatile Bering Sea. NOAA
Enforcement also conducts patrols and investigations throughout coastal
Alaska to enforce fisheries regulations and total catch limits.
The North Pacific region also enjoys one of the strongest science
support structures of any region. The Alaska Fisheries Science Center
conducts annual stock assessments in the North Pacific, and provides
the information upon which annual catch quotas are set. The
comprehensive North Pacific groundfish observer program also is managed
through the Science Center, and biological and economic analyses of
proposed actions often involve Science Center personnel. The Alaska
Department of Fish and Game also administers an observer program for
the crab fisheries, and provides stock assessment information and in-
season management for the crab fisheries, as well as the scallop
fisheries and some rockfish species.
Notwithstanding this success, the Council and NOAA Fisheries
continue to develop new and innovative approaches to address issues
such as bycatch, protecting habitat, overcapacity, and further
development of ecosystem-oriented management approaches. In 2004 the
Council and NOAA Fisheries completed a comprehensive assessment of its
overall management programs through approval of a programmatic
supplemental environmental impact statement (PSEIS). This process
included adoption of revised goals and objectives for the groundfish
FMPs, which further strengthen the precautionary, ecosystem-based
approach to management.
Progress Towards Ecosystem-Based Management
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council has a long track
record of making precautionary fishery management decisions, and has
continued developing its ecosystem-based approach. The approach is
built upon four goals: 1) maintain biodiversity consistent with natural
evolutionary and ecological processes, including dynamic change and
variability; 2) maintain and restore habitats essential for fish and
prey; 3) maintain system sustainability and sustainable yields for
human consumption and non-extractive uses; and 4) maintain the concept
that humans are part of the ecosystem.
The existing Alaska Groundfish FMPs contain many components of
fishery ecosystem plans, or an ecosystem approach to management.
Specific measures have been taken to minimize potential impacts to
marine mammals, seabirds, and other components of the Alaska marine
ecosystem. Major measures include limits on total removals from the
system, a prohibition on directed fishing for forage fish species,
seabird deterrent devices to minimize incidental bycatch of seabirds, a
variety of measures to protect Steller sea lions from disturbance and
potential competition with prey, and quasi marine reserves to conserve
benthic biodiversity. However, recent recommendations from the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy, and NOAA's own internal initiatives,
underscore the need to even more explicitly incorporate ecosystem
considerations in management of all U.S. fisheries.
In February 2005, the Council took significant action to identify
and conserve essential fish habitat (EFH) from potential adverse
effects of fishing. A 2,500+ page scientific analysis was prepared to
evaluate the total impacts of fishing on EFH, and evaluate alternatives
to describe and conserve EFH from fishing impacts. Although the
analysis concluded that fisheries do have long term effects on habitat,
these impacts were considered minimal and would not have detrimental
effects on fish populations or their habitats. Nevertheless, continuing
with its long history of precautionary, ecosystem-based management
policy, the Council adopted several new and significant measures to
conserve EFH. Specifically, to protect deep-water corals, the Council
took action to prohibit all bottom trawling in the Aleutian Islands,
except in small discrete ``open'' areas. Over 95% of the Aleutian
Islands management area will be closed to bottom trawling (277,100 nm2)
and about 4% (12,423 nm2) will remain open. Additional bottom trawl
closures were created in the Gulf of Alaska. Further, on the Alaska
seamounts, and in areas with especially high density coral and sponge
habitat, the Council voted to close these areas to all bottom contact
fishing gear (longlines, pots, trawls, etc.). As a result, these areas
will essentially be considered ``marine reserves''. While pelagic
fishing would be allowed in these areas, none is anticipated, so
resource extraction will be nil in the areas.
The North Pacific Council, through its newly constituted Ecosystem
Committee, is actively pursuing additional avenues to further and more
explicitly implement an ecosystem approach to management, both at a
fisheries-specific level (EAF), and at a broader level addressing non-
fishing considerations (EAM). Given the unique environment and
management context of the Aleutian Islands ecosystem, the Council is
planning to use this area as a test case for development of a separate
Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP), and for development of an Ecosystem-
Approach to Management (EAM) using a regional ecosystem council model
(or other coordinating body) to discuss and exchange information on
fishery and non-fishery activities. The Aleutian Islands FEP is in the
developmental stages and we anticipate a draft later this year. Details
of the FEP, including possible designation of an Aleutian Island Plan
Team, are still being developed at this time. Council staff is also
involved with a NOAA internal working group to draft national
guidelines for implementing the ecosystem approach to fisheries. The
Councils support the development of such guidelines, as a guiding
strategic document for the FMPs, rather than explicit statutory
requirements at this time. The Council is also in discussions with
other State and Federal agencies regarding the larger ecosystem
coordination issues, and is planning to hold a workshop with the State
of Alaska and NOAA Fisheries later this year to determine how best to
coordinate the broader ecosystem approach.
How is Science Integrated?
The Council has an active Scientific and Statistical Committee
(SSC) that reviews all analytical documents prepared for each
management change. The SSC consists of biologists, economists, and
social scientists from academia and federal and state agencies. The SSC
meets five times per year, concurrent with and at the same location as
the Council meetings. In addition to providing comments to analysts,
the SSC makes recommendations to the Council on the adequacy of
analytical documents relative to the best available scientific
information, including biological, economic, and social impact
analyses. The SSC also reviews development of models and other
analytical approaches for understanding impacts of fishery measures.
Further, the SSC provides recommendations on priority areas for
research.
The scientific review process used by the Council is multi-tiered
and robust. For example, stock assessments and acceptable biological
catch limits undergo a thorough internal review by the Alaska Fisheries
Science Center. Each year, a couple of these assessment models are
further reviewed by the Center for Independent Experts. Once completed
by NOAA Fisheries scientists, the assessments are scientifically
reviewed by the Plan Teams, consisting of federal, state, and
university scientists. The SSC has final scientific review authority
for the assessments. The Council then approves the Stock Assessment and
Fishery Evaluation Report for public distribution, and adopts the SSC's
recommendations for Acceptable Biological Catch limits (ABCs). Total
Allowable Catch levels (TACs) are then established by the Council with
the SSC recommended ABCs as an upper bound. Because this process has
worked so successfully, we have not made any additional changes to the
existing scientific review process.
The Council also coordinates with the recently formed North Pacific
Research Board (NPRB) and other governmental and academic research
organizations to identify priority areas for funding of proposed
research activities. Through direct membership and participation on the
NPRB, and through annual reviews of funded research, the Council
maintains a close working relationship with the scientific research
community and is regularly apprised of pertinent scientific
information.
Regional Issues and Challenges
The Council's basic precautionary approach to management cuts
across all FMPs and geographic regions under our jurisdiction. The
comprehensive goals and objectives (recently revised in the PSEIS
process) pertain to both the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands and the Gulf
of Alaska FMPs. While these basic tenants apply to all areas we manage,
there are some regional differences and specific regional challenges
that are currently being addressed by the Council.
The Bering Sea fisheries can be characterized as more industrial in
nature than fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska, and are dominated in
volume and value by the enormous pollock resource. While the pollock
fishery is operating under a fully rationalized system established by
the American Fisheries Act and the Council, other groundfish fisheries
are in need of further rationalization programs, beyond the basic
limited entry programs currently in place. Cod fisheries are a
significant resource for a number of user groups and the Council is in
the process of re-evaluating the current allocations among gear types,
and considering even more discrete allocations to more narrowly defined
user (gear) groups. The Council is addressing bycatch and discard
issues by imposing minimum groundfish retention standards, and in
conjunction with that initiative is developing a program of fishery
cooperatives for the non-AFA catcher processors (the head and gut or
H&G fleet) which we expect to approve later this year. The Council will
also be considering further measures with regard to essential fish
habitat and habitat areas of particular concern in the Bering Sea, in
addition to the measures recently approved for the Gulf of Alaska and
Aleutian Islands areas.
Gulf of Alaska groundfish fisheries are characterized by more
numerous, smaller vessels, lower overall resource abundance, direct
ties to a greater number of coastal communities, and a greater number
of user groups/constituencies (gear groups, coastal communities, sport
fisheries, etc). Fisheries in the Southeast area of Alaska are
primarily fixed gear (longlining for halibut and sablefish, or salmon
troll fisheries), and state water salmon fisheries. This area, along
with areas in the Central Gulf of Alaska, also has an important
recreational fishery component, primarily for salmon and halibut.
Management of the guided sport fishery for halibut (charter boat
fishery) is under Council jurisdiction and we have approved both a
guideline harvest level (GHL) program for that fishery, and a charter
boat IFQ program which, if approved by the Secretary, would incorporate
this fishery into the existing IFQ program for halibut. Halibut is also
critical to subsistence users and the Council and NOAA have approved
and implemented regulations recognizing and protecting subsistence use
of the halibut resource.
The most significant program currently under development by the
Council, and one of the most challenging, is focused on a comprehensive
rationalization of the Gulf of Alaska groundfish fisheries, which would
apply primarily to Central and Western Gulf fisheries. Recognizing the
operational and economic benefits of Bering Sea rationalization
programs, and coupled with the logistical challenges posed by the
numerous Steller sea lion restrictive measures in the Gulf of Alaska,
the Council is attempting to develop some type of quota-based,
cooperative style program for Gulf fisheries. Working closely with the
State of Alaska and the State Board of Fisheries, this is an ambitious
program with numerous competing constituencies and overlapping
jurisdictions with regard to state waters inside three miles.
Completion of the environmental impact statement (EIS) required for
this program will not occur until sometime in 2006, with actual
implementation not likely until at least 2008.
Lessons for Reauthorization
The subcommittee has expressed interest in what lessons can be
learned from the management approach in the North Pacific, and how
those lessons might inform reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
In summary, I believe our overall management program illustrates that
the current Magnuson-Stevens Act contains the necessary tools for
successful, sustainable fisheries management. Strengthening the
existing tools, or imposing requirements to use the existing tools, may
be necessary in the reauthorization process but it does not appear that
significant new requirements are necessary at this time. Below I
provide a brief summary related to some of the primary reauthorization
issues.
Ecosystem approach to management: Regarding ecosystem approaches to
fisheries management, we believe that we have long been using an
ecosystem approach to fisheries management, as are many of the other
regional Councils, but that a more explicit recognition and application
of this approach may be warranted. We believe that development of
national guidelines is appropriate, which would then be used as
strategic guidance (rather than as regulatory requirements) for
implementation of specific regulatory programs through the existing
FMPs. We believe that extreme caution should be exercised with regard
to specific statutory requirements for fishery ecosystem plans, until
we have some experience with voluntary, pilot projects regarding
fishery ecosystem plans, and some experience with collaborative efforts
on the broader EAM front. The North Pacific has long embraced this
approach and is working hard to more explicitly incorporate that
approach in our management programs.
Improving science in management: Regarding the integration of
science and management, we believe that the North Pacific model clearly
illustrates (1) the importance of closely linking science and
management; (2) the ability of the existing SSC structure and process
to provide the nexus between science and management by the regional
Councils; and, (3) the flaw in the argument to somehow separate science
and management (allocation) decisions. We believe that the integration
of science in management works very well in the North Pacific, and we
are very concerned that changes could be imposed on that process, in
order to address other regional problems. We also believe that any
potential new requirements for ``independent peer review'' of data and
analyses needs to be considered carefully, given the additional cost
and time implications and given the ability of the current SSC process
(or similar existing processes) to provide quality, objective peer
review of the majority of information used by the Council and NOAA
Fisheries.
IFQs or other DAP programs: Regarding individual quota programs, or
other dedicated access privileges (DAP) such as fishery cooperatives,
we believe that multiple programs currently operational in the North
Pacific (or pending such as Bering Sea crab) illustrate the benefits of
``rationalized'' fisheries. We also believe that these programs reflect
the differences among fisheries and regions, and underscore the need
for maximum flexibility in designing these programs. In the halibut and
sablefish IFQ program, in place since 1995, the Council included
numerous provisions in the program design, such as restrictions on
transfers across vessel categories and restrictive share caps, in order
to maintain the important social and community fabric of those
fisheries. The pollock fishery cooperative system, and to some degree
the crab IFQ/IPQ program, are designed to reflect the more industrial
nature of those fisheries, though in the case of the crab IFQ/IPQ
program there are still, for example, regional delivery provisions
which were designed to protect existing community involvement in those
fisheries. Programs currently under development, such as the Gulf of
Alaska rationalization program, will require a different set of
provisions to address the specific regional, social, economic, and
fishery conditions.
Reconciling statutes: The development of fishery management
programs, and the review and approval process, is overly complicated,
takes way too long, and often is not user-friendly to the public and to
the fishing industry. This is primarily due to the number of often
redundant and overlapping statutory requirements, including the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, the National Marine Sanctuary Act, the Endangered Species Act, the
Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and numerous
additional Acts and Executive Orders. In the North Pacific, our close
working relationship with NOAA Fisheries Alaska Region and Science
Center has been crucial to our ability to successfully implement our
core management measures, as well as many innovative, cutting-edge
management programs. And that close coordination has allowed us to do
so, for the most part, while still addressing the myriad statutes and
executive orders that apply to fisheries management actions. However,
while the Councils and NOAA Fisheries have made substantial progress
over the past few years in terms of ``streamlining'' this regulatory
process, and reducing litigation, we strongly believe that there needs
to be some Congressional action to clarify and reconcile the competing
statutes. Our ability to design, analyze, and implement complicated DAP
programs in particular is hindered by the redundant applications of
several statutes.
Particularly, the application of NEPA to fishery plan and
regulation development, and to some degree the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, are impeding our ability to develop realistic, practical
management solutions in a timely manner. For example, specific
provisions could be made to the Magnuson-Stevens Act which would
capture the underlying intent of basic NEPA provisions, and reinstate
the Magnuson-Stevens Act as the primary Act governing fisheries
management, with the necessary environmental and conservation
protections built directly into the Act. Specific recommendations in
this regard have been developed by the eight regional councils and
include requirements for considering a range of alternatives,
requirements for cumulative impact assessment, and additional
requirements for public review and input.
Mr. Chairman, there are a number of other issues we could discuss
today, but I believe that I have covered the basic management approach
used in the North Pacific, and covered the primary issues we see in the
upcoming Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization. I thank you again for
the opportunity to comment on these issues, and further apprise you of
our management approach and specific issues here in the North Pacific.
We stand ready to help in any way we can as you are further shaping
important changes to the Act, and to respond to those changes when they
are finalized.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. I think we'll start with one of the common
themes that I've heard from our four witnesses this morning is
the rationalization program. And when we develop the
reauthorization of Magnuson in Washington, we want to be
cognizant of all the various aspects of whether it's a
harvester or a processor or skippers, crews, new entries into
the program. But like you said, Ms. Madsen, we want to provide
the flexibility for the councils to deal with all of these
issues. We in Washington create a standard that will provide,
to the degree it is possible, fairness, economic viability, and
conservation.
And I guess the general question I have, and I would like
each of you to respond to it if you would like, is can you
create a rationalization program that includes harvesters,
processors, skippers, crews, entry-level, all of those things
and not gentrify the fishery, as Mayor Floyd described?
I don't know if we need come up with a term gentry, who's
the gentry out there, but we're looking at the big ships, the
little ships, the crews, the skippers, entry-level, second
generation who wants to become involved in this 10 years from
now, 20 years from now. It is a public resource. Can we do this
without gentrifying the fishery?
Ms. Madsen. Mr. Chairman, I guess I'll start. I certainly
hope we can. And I think that we've learned from--we get better
every time we look at a process, that we learn from our
mistakes. I think that every program that we have moved forward
with since halibut IFQ to IFQ programs has included a periodic
review requirement, an increased collection of data, both
social and economic, a clear requirement on our Council's
behalf of stating a clear problem and goals and objectives for
that program that can be used during the periodic review of
that program.
And if we don't get it right the first time, I hope that
future council members will look back and look at those
objectives and make a determination whether they need to amend
that program to address some of the deficiencies in meeting
those goals and objectives.
It is a balancing act, and I think that we struggle with
it. As you know, Mr. Chairman, our crab plan did provide
provisions for both harvesters, processors, increased to the
community development quota. We have a skipper set-aside in
that program that we hope would be available to crew members on
the transfer of that initial allocation. We have regional
landing requirements that we hope would to some extent provide
some protection to those landing requirements and the way that
those landing requirements are distributed amongst Alaska
coastal communities.
Did we get it exactly right? I'm not sure. Did we set up a
situation where we can go back and look at that? Yes. I think
we're very clear. We've already established a time line for
looking at those reviews. Could we have done it better,
possibly. And I think that as we move forward and we learn from
our mistakes and people put their thinking caps on, I think we
will.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much.
I think maybe the question should have been should we move
forward with rationalization programs, but I don't mean to----
Ms. Floyd. You keep looking at me.
Mr. Gilchrest. You used the word gentry, so I thought that
was----
Ms. Floyd. Yeah, right, you liked that. I do think that it
can happen, but I think it's going to take time and study and
research and stopping periodically to see how we have
accomplished our goals so far. But it's not going to happen
overnight. But I think it can happen with adequate study and
time to do our homework.
Mr. Gilchrest. Ms. Salveson, could you--now, you spoke
about the rationalization program, which I don't want to put--
this is a paraphrase of what I understood you said. Seems to be
a vehicle to ensure the sustainability of the fishery in its
management regime. So I guess, do you see any other system now
that would be preferable to rationalization? Given the
evolution of this process, the rationalization process, do you
think we're moving in the right direction with that?
Ms. Salveson. Mr. Chairman, yes, I do. I think the
experience that we've gained through the different
rationalization programs here in Alaska have had benefits in
terms of conservation, managing the fisheries, and safety. And
I also believe that in order to do a hindsight, 20/20
assessment of these programs, we need to collect the right
information.
And right now, we are limited in the information that we
can collect in terms of socioeconomic information primarily
from processors. And the Administration is considering proposed
amendments to the Magnuson Act that would authorize the
collection of this information so that we do have the tools to
go back and assess the effects of these programs that can
create some very significant social and cultural changes. And
to collect that information in a way that maintains the
confidentiality of it.
I think also in considering all the different interests and
concerns going into rationalization programs and to accommodate
those concerns, potentially creates complexity to these
programs. And I think the crab rationalization program is an
example. It was an attempt to balance all these different
inputs and concerns and interests in the fisheries with the
results that was the best attempt to do that. We will see in
the future how well we were able to do that because under
statute, we have been given the authority to collect that
socio-economic information from the harvesters and processor
sector and set ourselves up to refine those programs as we see
fit.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
Mayor Selby.
Mr. Selby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you have astutely
figured out, this rationalization business is pretty tricky
about how to make this happen so that it works well for
everybody who is involved. But the question you're asking,
strikes right at the heart of a couple of the issues that we
raise in the resolution that I referenced.
The first one being that we requested that whatever happens
with the rationalization program that it result and maintain an
independent harvester fleet. We want these fishermen to be
independent, not owned by somebody else. And if the quota
shares all end up being owned 20 years from now by a bunch of
New York attorneys, that's a tragedy. Not only for this
community, but, you know, for us as a country to allow that to
happen, it should not happen.
We understand that there's going to be some reduction of
excess capacity because that's partly what rationalization is
about. And that's going to happen. But we suggested that they
institute reasonable quota share ownership caps which would
control excessive consolidation of quota shares. So that's one
of the things that can be done, to do that.
We also suggested that access rights should be structured
to encourage that ownership of the rights remain within the
communities. And now that's the trickiest part, about how do
you do that.
But consideration by the Council right now of some
different options, and folks have talked about different things
like required owner on board would be one way of assuring that
the fisherman who owns the share is a fisherman, not an
attorney off someplace else. So we feel that there are ways to
assure that fishermen continue to own these quota shares. And
that's what is most desirable here. To have it owned by outside
interests someplace else, is not a good result, we don't feel,
for either the fishery, and certainly not for our communities.
So we've suggested these things in the Resolution that
we've sent forward and asked the Council to consider. And they
are considering that, that's why, you know, we feel that if the
process works well here, which we're confident it will, that
you can accomplish a way of accomplishing this.
And the other thing we have in here is to put it in
conjunction with some community fishing quotas and some
community purchase programs that will allow particularly our
villages here on the Island because we've got six other
communities besides Kodiak here on Kodiak Island. A lot of
those tend to be fairly heavily Native communities. And what
we'd like to assure is that there is access, which is then a
third item that we have in our Resolution, is to establish
entry-level fishing opportunity so that somehow some of this
quota keeps coming back and is available for new fishermen, new
entries into the fishery from the local area.
And so what we're asking exactly goes to heart of what
you've asked about here, is how do you keep from gentrifying
this, to use Mayor Floyd's word, and leave it so that fishermen
are the ones who own this quota and are fishing and catching
these fish. That's the model that's going to give us the best
fishery in our view, particularly from an economic impact for
the community basis. But we also feel it's going to work well
also in terms of the management side, for the National Marine
Fisheries Service folks for managing this fishery working with
North Pacific Council.
So that's the kind of structure exactly that we've asked to
somehow figure how it's going to--it's hard work because
figuring out how to do this and with all the legal
ramifications and, yeah, you can't require somebody to live in
Kodiak if they have quota share. We know that. Now, that's
unconstitutional. So, you know, to figure out how to send this
thing in the direction where it's favorable for local fishermen
to own this share is going to take a lot of work, but we feel
that it's going to be worth the effort, and would certainly
hope that that's where this effort goes.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Mayor Selby.
Ms. Madsen. Mr. Chairman, can I add one other comment on
that.
Mr. Gilchrest. Yes. Ms. Madsen, yes.
Ms. Madsen. Your last question about whether we should move
forward with rationalization, and I think some of the comments
that you may hear over time is some of the--we didn't choose to
move forward with rationalization because we didn't have
anything to do. There was consolidation occurring. There were
people that were going bankrupt. We were concerned about
safety. The Steller sea lion restrictions were prohibiting or
burdening the industry with different management regimes they
weren't able to adapt to.
Some of the things that people are concerned about today,
consolidation, a loss of jobs, are occurring today without
rationalization. And the challenge is how can we address those
concerns in a way, kind of a controlled rationalization versus
an uncontrolled rationalization? Because there's an
uncontrolled rationalization, Mr. Chairman, that is occurring
today.
With no controls on consolidation, it goes to the highest
buyer or who is going to buy who out and what people that are
going to go bankrupt and those vessels are going to come back
pennies on the dollar. Rationalization is occurring today
without any governmental interference, and I think people are
concerned about how that looks and maybe we could do a better
job if we sat down and put some constraints on some of the
things that are occurring and how do we best do that.
Mr. Gilchrest. Very good, thank you.
I'm going to shift gears just a little bit to a more
scientific question. In the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996,
there was a provision dealing with essential fish habitat. And
so I would like to hear your perspective on how that has been--
how have you been able to manage with that concept, essential
fish habit, in your areas of expertise. And there's another
provision that's being considered now along with essential fish
habitat called habitat areas particularly concerned, and, Ms.
Salveson, you mentioned that in your testimony.
I guess the question is how do you amend the Magnuson-
Stevens Act by including habitat areas of particular concern
and how can that be compatible with essential fish habitat with
a management regime?
Ms. Salveson. Mr. Chairman, I'll take a stab at that. I
think, first off, habitat areas of particular concern are a
subset of essential fish habitat. So they are not separate, but
they are actually complementary. And HAPCs are identified based
on areas being especially vulnerable or of special ecological
significance. And they're typically off Alaska in some fairly
small areas. And the process that was engaged in most recently
within the Council forum I think was fairly successful in that
it engendered a great deal of stakeholder input. And we
encouraged and actually solicited separate outside peer reviews
of both the EFH analysis and designation as well as HAPCs.
So I think it is very important to have widespread and
early opportunity for stakeholder input, and I think at this
point in time, I am not aware with respect to the existing EFH
construct of any significant problem with respect to EFH
consultations, that any Federal action that occurs within the
EFH area is subject to, if a Federal action potentially could
have an adverse effect on essential fish habitat.
That process has gone fairly well. It has not required any
delay in permitting processes. And it provides an opportunity
for Federal agencies to consider our recommendations on how to
mitigate any potential effects on essential fish habitat for
fisheries that are federally managed in Federal waters.
So, Mr. Chairman, I think the EFH process is going well
right now. I think integrating the HAPC concept in the Magnuson
Act as an option and to provide guidance on how to identify
special areas of ecological importance or vulnerability is
helpful.
Mr. Gilchrest. So we should, as we reauthorize the Act, we
should specifically mention habitat area of particular concern?
That's something that's necessary in the Act and it can't be
done through the regulatory process of NMFS.
Ms. Salveson. Mr. Chairman, I think it can be done through
the regulatory process because the North Pacific Council has
done that. I believe that the Administration may be considering
proposals to the Magnuson Act that might highlight that as an
option.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see.
Ms. Salveson. To other councils.
Mr. Gilchrest. OK.
Ms. Salveson. But at this point in time, Mr. Chairman, the
North Pacific Council has done that and we have implemented
those sorts of provisions so far.
Mr. Gilchrest. All right. Thank you. I don't know if Joe
wanted to comment on that question or not, essential fish
habitat.
(Mr. Sullivan declines comment).
Mr. Gilchrest. Another question too, I think all of you
have mentioned this whole concept of ecosystem approach to
fisheries and how difficult and how layered the complexity is
and that sounds like much of what you are doing is moving in
that direction. But, Ms. Salveson, you mentioned a pilot
project possibly in the Aleutian Islands for an ecosystem
approach. And also included in that ecosystem approach in the
Aleutians, marine transportation, oil and gas development, and
so on. Could you tell us where that pilot project is right now.
Is it likely to move ahead? And do you need any help from us on
that?
Ms. Salveson. Mr. Chairman, I would like to defer to Ms.
Madsen given that she is the chairman of that group who's
actually developing that concept.
Mr. Gilchrest. Ms. Madsen.
Ms. Madsen. Mr. Chairman. And it is under development. I
mean, I don't want to people to think that we've decided we're
moving forward but--and I think we're adding new acronyms.
Mr. Gilchrest. I'm just getting used to the old acronyms.
Ms. Madsen. I know. The first one that you talked about, an
ecosystem approach to fisheries management, and we call that
EAF. And that's the concept that you've identified that was in
our written comments that we're looking at. And that's relative
to fishery ecosystem plans. That would be fishery-specific, and
what does that mean, and how would we move forward. And we have
chosen the Aleutian Island because it's a smaller, unique area
to look at how would that fishery ecosystem plan work, what
would it entail.
We generally, Mr. Chairman, see the fishery ecosystem plan
as a broad strategic guidance document that our fishery
management plans would continue to stay under. The regulatory
aspect would still stay in the FMPs, but the fishery ecosystem
plan would be some goals and objectives that would require when
you're doing your management actions to consider marine
mammals, seabirds, a habitat. It's more of a strategic guidance
document is the way that we have been looking at it in North
Pacific.
And we have generally gotten the impression from the Agency
that they're interested in fishery ecosystem plans. We do know
that in other councils, they talk about having fishery
ecosystem plans, but it's a little unclear what we're all
talking about when we talk about that.
Your reference to marine transportation is what we now are
calling EAM, ecosystem approach to management, which is broader
than ecosystem approach to fisheries because we do believe
that--and it goes to some of the recommendations on a regional
ecosystem council concept. You know, is there a need for
increased communication and coordination among authorities,
agencies that have authority over the oceans?
For example, we are looking at the Aleutian Islands again
as a subset for kind of a model pilot project, but specifically
in the Aleutian Islands, you have huge fisheries out there. We
have great important critical habitats out there. We have an
international shipping lane that goes through there. We have
military activities out there. So we believe that--we have the
marine refuge out there that the Department of Interior
manages. Are we all talking? Are we coordinating? Do we
understand what impacts our different agency actions have on
one another. Could we do a better job at making sure that we're
not duplicating, we're not causing concern or problems in
overlapping authorities. But we're also very concerned and
cautious about moving forward with a duplication or another
layer of your bureaucracy, and how does that affect their goal.
Mr. Gilchrest. Hence you would be, you have some interest
if we put into the reauthorization some mention of an ecosystem
approach, it would be--you're moving forward with an ecosystem
approach, so you don't want any statutes that would disrupt
that.
Ms. Madsen. Well, Mr. Chairman, we are concerned about any
statutory direction at this time because we are not actually
positive about what everyone means. We believe that we are
doing ecosystem approach to fisheries management in Alaska. We
are concerned that until some of our science catches up with
where we want to go, statutory requirements are going to hinder
our ability to continue to move forward, potentially because if
there is not accurate or correct statutory authority, we could
find ourselves being litigated. If there are time lines in the
Act that we are unable to comply with due to our science or our
process, then I think we are concerned that we are setting
ourselves up for another round of litigation. And as I
mentioned in Ketchikan, we are finally seeing the light at the
end of the tunnel in the North Pacific on some of our
litigation and court cases here.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much.
Any other comment or point one would like to make?
I had just one last quick question, something you said, Ms.
Salveson, I didn't quite--let me see if I can--whole ecosystem
models that assess fishing impacts on patterns of energy flow
in the marine ecosystem. Could you just explain what that
means.
Ms. Salveson. Mr. Chairman, I'll try to give a brief
overview, and then I can provide you more in-depth information
after these hearings. But the attempt is to assess one
component of ecosystem influence and that's the harvest of fish
by the fisheries, and ideally other uses and harvests by other
users as well. And what is the effect of that harvest on the
flow of energy in an ecosystem in terms of predator-prey
relationships, competition, fisheries for prey for other
species, or discharge of fisheries products into the ocean.
So it's an attempt to look at the human element of removing
fisheries by species, species-specific harvests, from the
ecosystem relative to other uses, that species by marine
mammals, birds, and the overall food web perspective of the
give and take within the ecosystem from that influence of
removals by human beings. And I'm not being very articulate or
scientific or----
Mr. Gilchrest. Sounds fascinating. You're more articulate
than I could have been.
Ms. Salveson. But we can certainly get back to you with
some more in-depth perspective on what we mean by the modeling
initiative.
Mr. Gilchrest. So that's in some--that would be one aspect
of the potential pilot project in the Aleutians, I would guess.
Ms. Salveson. Mr. Chairman, I believe so to the extent that
we're able to feed into that. And again this pilot project in
the Aleutian Islands is intended to be just that. What
information is out there, what information can we garner, put
into that process in a timely manner, what research, additional
research, would be needed to make it a more complete
information. And certainly a lot of stakeholder input as well
in identifying the social, the economic issues.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much.
Yes, sir. Mayor Selby.
Mr. Selby. Mr. Chairman, if I could just refer briefly back
to your earlier question, a couple of the issues that you just
touched on with some of your questions, I would point out once
again that more research would help with both essential fish
habitat and this pilot program. So I wanted to point that out.
But the other thing I would encourage you folks to do in
the reauthorization is I don't think you need to get a lot more
specific on some of these areas that you've asked about, but I
think if you would encourage cooperative effort both for
research as well as some of these management things where Ms.
Madsen indicated there was overlapping jurisdictions and
whatnot, because one of the things that we've learned over the
years is that originally that word never showed up and so there
was a question about whether legally a National Marine
Fisheries Service person could work cooperatively with someone
from the Department of Interior or with the State of Alaska.
Now, we've moved past that, but I think that if the Act
makes it clear that that's not only encouraged but kind of
expected that folks will make those sorts of efforts, that that
would help move us ahead here so that the cooperation continues
to grow and mature because it is happening and I'm really
pleased to report that I see a lot more of it now than I did 20
years ago, but I think it can get much better. And so if you
folks would just encourage that, I think that would go a long
way toward helping get this thing moving ahead.
Mr. Gilchrest. Excellent point, Mayor Selby, and we'll make
that one of our priorities. The question about more research
and more funding for science is one that we've taken very
seriously in Washington. We all know that the budget is very
tight up there, and we don't want to keep using that as an
excuse because we really need to prioritize how to spend the
taxpayers' dollars.
We will be creating, we hope that this can move in that
direction, within the next few weeks, a task force within the
House of Representatives whose sole responsibility will be
ocean issues. And as part of that, we'll look into Ocean
Commission Report and the President's Ocean Action Plan, and
within about a year make specific recommendations that are now
in the Ocean Commission Report and the Ocean Action Plan by the
President.
But the Administration and certainly the House and the
Senate is looking I think much better in the last year or two
at the importance of the world's oceans. And that the only way
the U.S. Will come up with a premier policy is to take a close
look at it and certainly make much more money available for
research.
Well, thank you very much, Ms. Madsen, Ms. Salveson, Mayor
Selby, Mayor Floyd, and our friend Joe, for your testimony.
Ms. Madsen. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much.
Our second panel will be Mr. Dave Benton, Executive
Director Marine Conservation Alliance; Ms. Julie Bonney,
Director, Alaska Groundfish Data Bank; Mr. Jay Stinson, Alaska
Draggers Association; Mr. Duncan Fields, Gulf of Alaska Coastal
Communities Coalition; and, Ms. Dorothy Childers, Alaska Marine
Conservation Council.
(Off record).
(On record).
Mr. Gilchrest. We will hear from Mr. Dave Benton, Ms. Julie
Bonney, Mr. Jay Stinson, Mr. Duncan Fields, and Ms. Dorothy
Childers. Thank you for coming and we look forward to your
testimony, and we also want to thank you for the effort that
I'm sure you went through to write your testimony.
Mr. Benton, you may begin, sir.
STATEMENT OF DAVID BENTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
MARINE CONSERVATION ALLIANCE
Mr. Benton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, my
name is David Benton. I'm the executive director of the Marine
Conservation Alliance. The Marine Conservation Alliance is a
coalition of harvesters, processors, coastal communities, and
support industry companies involved in the groundfish and
shellfish fisheries off of Alaska. Collectively, we probably
represent about 80 percent of the production from those
fisheries off of Alaska.
Mr. Chairman, I want to pick up on some themes that I heard
from your opening remarks and the questions you were asking the
previous panel in my oral comments. You have our written
comments that can go into the record.
First, I want to touch on just briefly as others have, and
I think you have become aware of by coming up here, about the
importance of fisheries to Alaska. Fisheries account for about
35,000 jobs in our state. Groundfish alone is worth about $1.5
billion in 2003, and overall fisheries are worth about $4
billion to the national economy from Alaska, fisheries from
Alaska.
Mr. Chairman, in your opening remarks, I heard some very
encouraging words and something that Alaskans I believe find
perhaps reassuring and certainly very important. And that is
that you in your opening remarks stated that you thought that
the councils generally were doing pretty well and were poised
to evolve and do even better as we move into the next century
and look at new ways to manage our fisheries and our ocean
resources to meet new challenges. And that was very
encouraging.
And I know that you come from the East Coast and have had
the opportunity to learn about some of the challenges that are
facing other parts of the country, and that's why it's
important to us that you've come to Alaska. It's a long way.
It's not an easy trip. And I know you and other members on this
committee have a lot to do, and the thoughtfulness of taking
the time to come to Alaska is greatly appreciated by the
residents of Kodiak and by folks throughout the state.
The second thing I want to touch on briefly is ecosystems.
And I know that you were personally very interested in how
ecosystem considerations can be further taken into
consideration in fisheries management. And then I'd like to
touch on research funding and the role of science in
management.
So I'm going to start off, Mr. Chairman, with the councils.
As you've heard here from the previous panel and I think as
you've heard from conversations around Kodiak here and in
Ketchikan, the council process in Alaska has in our view been
very successful. And it is a fundamental component to fisheries
management for Alaska that we have decisionmaking close to
home, where people that are affected by those decisions have
the opportunity to be present to affect those decisions and to
see how those decisions are made. And as you know there've been
in the past calls for either dismantling the council process
all together or greatly diluting its ability to do that job. So
it's very encouraging to hear the remarks that you made in your
opening statement.
The Council here in our state is very diverse in its
composition and very unified in its approach. That doesn't mean
that everybody agrees on every particular issue. And there are
some real knock-down, drag-outs, especially on allocation
issues. But the overall approach that our council has had has
been very consistent for a long period of time, and that's the
reason you don't see any overfished groundfish stocks in
Alaska. And that is a very simple, fundamental thing. You have
scientists that tell you how many fish you can catch on a
sustainable basis for a long period of time to have sustainable
fisheries and healthy coastal communities. And the Council just
doesn't vote to raise the catch levels above that amount that's
recommended by our scientists.
Our organization believes that that simple change, simple
in concept, simple in wording, and fundamental as a principle.
If that simple change was made in the Magnuson Act, that the
kinds of problems that you see in other parts of the country
would be, if not solved, certainly addressed in a very
substantial way.
You and I had a chance to talk yesterday a bit about the
role of science in management. And the way that it's done in
this region is that the science process, if you envision a
pyramid with the fundamental sort of foundation of that science
process being the stock assessment that's done out in the
field, the plan team process where the scientists get together
amongst themselves and review that, analyze it in an open
public arena. And then an SSC that advise--meets with the
council concurrently and advises that council in again a very
open process. That gives confidence in the science with folks
that participate in the fisheries. And that breeds a culture
that then allows for conservation to come first and allows our
council to do the job that they've done so very well over the
last 25 some odd years.
Mr. Chairman, I see that red light. I'm going to forego the
rest of my comments and----
Mr. Gilchrest. I'll give you another 60 seconds, Mr.
Benton.
Mr. Benton. Oh, OK. Having chaired meetings, I understand
that time is of the essence.
Mr. Chairman, I want to touch just very briefly on
ecosystem management and then perhaps research funding.
Ecosystem management I know is something that is very near and
dear to your heart and something you would like to see evolve
in fisheries. And you heard previously about the actions that
our North Pacific Council has taken and the pilot program that
is in its very infancy in the Aleutian Islands.
And I recall a bill, I believe that you authored a couple
of years ago, that would have pilot programs on the West Coast
and on the East Coast, and then some research planning and some
dedicated funding for research to sort of move that process
along. And I would I think like to point out that the North
Pacific Council is doing what you had in that bill. It's doing
it voluntarily. It's doing it with the existing tools in the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. And it's feeling its way along so that as
that program evolves, the right kinds of questions are being
asked and the right kinds of scientific information is being
developed. I would encourage you to look at that.
I don't believe and our organization does not believe that
you need to put standards in the Magnuson Act for ecosystem
approaches to fisheries management at this time. We believe
that a better way of handling this is to allow the councils and
the council process to develop in an evolutionary manner how
they're going to deal with ecosystem considerations.
As Chair Madsen pointed out, the way that the North Pacific
is looking at it, the ecosystem fisheries plan would be a
guidance document. The actual implementation and regulations
would still be developed through the FMP. Other councils may
take a slightly different tact because of the way they have
structured their fishery management planning process. But I
think that what you're seeing is that throughout the council
system around the country, that ecosystem planning is taking
place and that, at least up here, it's being taken very
seriously as tied closely with research planning that's done
both through National Marine Fisheries Service and the Science
Center and the North Pacific Research Board. Our council has
input into both the research plan that the Science Center
develops and has input into the North Pacific Research Board
which has a dedicated source of funding for marine research.
All of those components are very much in line with the kinds of
things that you were talking about in that bill that you had a
couple of years ago. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Benton.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Benton follows:]
Statement of David Benton, Executive Director,
Marine Conservation Alliance
Introduction
Thank you Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to testify before you
today with regards to the importance of fisheries to Alaska and to
touch on some of the important fishery conservation issues facing
Alaska and the nation.
My name is David Benton. I am the Executive Director for the Marine
Conservation Alliance. The MCA is a coalition consisting of seafood
harvesters, processors, coastal communities, Community Development
Quota organizations, and others interested in and dependent upon the
groundfish and shellfish fisheries off Alaska. Taken together, the
membership of the MCA represents about 80% of the harvesting and
processing of groundfish and shellfish off Alaska.
Alaska produces roughly half of the nation's commercial fisheries
landings by volume. Fisheries account for about 35,000 jobs in Alaska,
and are valued at over $1 billion dollars in value, hi 2003, the ex-
vessel value of groundfish alone was $608.4M with $127.1M from the Gulf
of Alaska and $481.3M from the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. The
gross value of the 2003 groundfish catch, after primary processing, was
approximately $1.5B (F.O.B. Alaska). In addition to groundfish, halibut
and shellfish generated $165.9M and $175.4M ex-vessel values
respectively, hi 2003, 1037 vessels caught Alaska groundfish.
Most importantly, the majority of our coastal communities are built
around a fisheries based economy, and without a stable fishery resource
base many of these communities would not exist. It is because of this
dependence upon the sea and its resources that Alaskans work hard to
ensure that conservation comes first, and that fishery resources are
managed for their long term sustainability.
The record speaks for itself. There are no overfished stocks of
groundfish in Alaska. Fisheries are managed under hard caps and close
when harvest limits are reached. Federal observers and Vessel
Monitoring Systems (VMS) monitor the catch ensure compliance with
closures. Over 380,000 square nautical miles are closed to bottom
trawling to protect marine habitat. Ecosystem considerations are taken
into account in fishery management plans. For example, fishing on
forage fish species is prohibited. And, for the two Bering Sea crab
stocks rated as ``overfished'' aggressive rebuilding plans have been in
place for many years. Most scientists believe that these stocks are
depressed because of oceanographic changes that happened in the late
1970's, and that these stocks will not rebound until oceanographic
conditions become more favorable for these species.
It is this record that caused the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
to cite Alaska as a potential model for the rest of the nation. MCA
concurs with that view.
The Council Process works for conservation
Alaska is remarkably fortunate, in that we have robust fish stocks
and a long and successful record of producing healthy seafood on a
long-term sustainable basis. For fisheries conducted in federal waters,
this success story hinges on the regional fishery management council
system embodied in the Magnuson Stevens Act (MSA). We believe that this
system has all the characteristics that are required for developing and
implementing science driven, conservation oriented management regimes
while at the same time providing the public, affected user groups,
communities, academics, scientists, and other interested parties with
unprecedented access to the decision making process.
The MCA strongly supports the regional council system because it
recognizes the remarkable diversity of issues facing the different
regions of the country, and because it provides the public access to a
transparent and science-driven fishery management process. We support
the broad inclusion of state and federal fishery managers as well as
expert stakeholders as council members. The MCA supports the current
MSA appointments process whereby each Governor consults with the
public, ensures that each nominee is experienced and knowledgeable on
the region's fisheries, and nominates at least three individuals. In
order to ensure that top quality individuals continue to serve on the
councils, the appointments should continue to be made by the Secretary
of Commerce, not another official in the Department of Commerce.
The MCA supports a requirement that each new council member receive
training before taking a seat on the council. Such training should
include instruction in meeting the requirements of the Magnuson Stevens
Act, the regulatory process (e.g. NEPA, Regulatory Impact Review, etc),
and the rules for recusal and financial disclosure. The MCA supports
continuation of the current requirements to disclose all financial
interests relating to fishing and for recusal from voting in instances
as defined in regulations.
Some argue that council members with any financial interests in a
fishery be barred from sitting on a council or from voting on
management decisions related to that fishery. Congress decided in 1976
to take a new approach to a regulatory system--establishing a regional
council system that meets close to where the fisheries occur, opening
all meetings to public scrutiny, and inviting those with hands-on
experience to be part of the process that seeks to protect the
sustainability of the resources they depend on. In 1996, as part of the
Sustainable Fisheries Act, Congress reaffirmed this approach while at
the same time strengthening the MSA recusal provisions to be
functionally equivalent to those applied in other federal advisory
boards. These provisions, coupled with the advisory role of the
councils whereby the Secretary makes the final decision is a robust
system of checks and balances that successfully prevents misuse of
authority by council members.
The transparency of the MSA fisheries management process is unique
in the federal government and ensures fair decision-making. It is a
rare instance where the public has the level of access to the decision
making process that is present in the regional fishery management
council system. Council members sit through hundreds of hours of public
testimony, receive voluminous reports and analyses, have the
opportunity to receive scientific advice from experts through
presentations, and in the end have to state their rationale for a
decision on the record and vote. All of this takes place in the public
eye. The complexity of fisheries management requires council members
with deep knowledge and experience in a region's federal fisheries.
Training can build a common knowledge base among council members to
encourage understanding of the issues and efficient communication with
each other and with the public.
Arguments have been made to require appointment of council members
from particular interest groups, rather than building councils with
important fisheries expertise. Designating specific seats for
particular interest groups will lead to continuing battles for
representation of narrow interest groups such as recreational fishers,
a longline seat, a trawl seat, a tangle net seat, etc. This would
seriously undermine one of the strengths of the council system,
inclusion of knowledgeable persons from a broad spectrum of interests.
Although many current council members have interests in either
commercial or recreational fisheries, the largest group of seats goes
to professional fisheries managers from NMFS and the states.
Supplementing their broad expertise with private citizens with specific
expertise in the fisheries being managed is the best method for
promoting rational fisheries management. In the North Pacific, this
discretionary process has led to the appointment in recent years of a
wide variety of members from diverse backgrounds.
Strengthening the Role of Science in Management
The MCA strongly supports strengthening the institutional role of
science in the regional council decision-making process. MCA believes
that the policy of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council to set
harvest levels at or below those recommended by their science advisors
should be applied by all regions. In the case of the North Pacific, the
Council does not set Total Allowable Catch for any species or stock
offish higher than the Allowable Biological Catch set by the Council's
Science and Statistical Committee (SSC).
In addition, MCA strongly supports increased funding for science
programs. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy Report makes a strong
case for the doubling of funding for fisheries and oceans research. The
MCA supports that recommendation.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council has consistently
followed a policy of accepting SSC-recommended ABCs as a ceiling,
setting annual TACs at or below those recommendations. The result is
that no stocks of groundfish are overfished in the Bering Sea, Aleutian
Islands, or Gulf of Alaska. That high degree of success is achieved
within the existing Magnuson Stevens Act (MSA) structure and
procedures. This policy can be replicated in all regions of the
country.
A similar position was endorsed recently by the Chairs of the eight
regional fishery management councils. The Chairs document states:
``Councils shall adopt acceptable biological catches (ABCs) within
limits determined by their Scientific and Statistical Committees (SSCs)
(or appropriate scientific body) and shall set total allowable catches
(TACs) and or management measures, such that catch would be at or below
ABC.''
The MCA supports amending the MSA along the lines recommended by
the Chairs to clarify that this policy applies to all regions of the
country.
MCA does not support proposals to split the science process and the
SSCs from the Regional Fishery Management Councils. Such an arrangement
would serve to politicize the scientific process, and further remove
the science from the overall decisionmaking. MCA believes that it will
be more effective to forge stronger ties through closer working
relationships between the science advisors and the councils, instead of
creating additional institutional barriers.
The excellent conservation record in the North Pacific demonstrates
the benefits of maintaining and strengthening this important
partnership. The MSA currently provides that each Council appoints the
members of its SSC, a process which should continue. The regional
nature of the Council's work is key to a regulatory process that is
transparent, available to all stakeholders, and that provides
opportunities to participate and understand the scientific basis for
decisions. A strong Council-SSC relationship is central to that
process.
The MCA supports additional regulation of the conflict of interest
rules for SSC members and more detailed qualifications requirements.
There should be no question of the objectivity of the SSC and no doubts
about their work. Standards for SSC membership, including restrictions
on conflict of interests (e.g., no current contracts on issues before
the SSC), and academic qualification criteria should apply.
The stock assessment process is the foundation of a successful
science-based fishery management system. In the North Pacific, NMFS
assembles top scientists for each Plan Team, with input and appointment
by the SSC. The Plan Team assessment process is tied closely to the
SSC-Council schedule for setting TACs, ensuring that the most recent
scientific data is available and used. Plan Team meetings are open to
the public and occur in the region.
Increased peer review would ensure that the methods used for stock
assessment in each region are up-to-date and can withstand tough
scrutiny, providing confidence in the stakeholder community. Each
Council and its SSC should cooperate in selecting methods, models, etc.
for outside peer review and, in consultation with NMFS, select the
reviewers. The MCA recommends that time-sensitive work, such as annual
stock assessments, be reviewed either on a periodic basis or after
implementation with the objective of improved methods for future work.
Building an Ecosystem-Based Approach to Fisheries Management
Ecosystem-based management is an approach that seeks to balance the
uncertainties of our knowledge regarding the workings of the marine
environment with the better known science of single-species management.
The goal on an ecosystem-based approach to management is to protect the
long term sustainability of marine resources while providing a source
of healthy food, jobs, economically viable communities, and recreation.
The MCA supports ecosystem-based management as an important goal for
the nation's federal fisheries management system. We agree with others,
including the Chairs of the regional fisheries management councils,
that the MSA currently allows for an ecosystem-based approach to
fisheries management and that incorporating ecosystem considerations
into management can be strengthened with increased research funding and
enhanced collaborative efforts among fishing and non-fishing regulatory
bodies.
However, we are not in favor of establishing statutory requirements
for ecosystem-based management in the Magnuson Stevens Act or other
law. Our knowledge base regarding the structure and functions of marine
ecosystems is in its infancy. Marine ecosystems are dynamic and driven
by climate, biological abundance and human-induced factors. Climate and
ocean currents and biological conditions such as plankton production
and predator/ prey dynamics change from year to year. Human-induced
factors such as pollution, coastal development, shipping traffic,
recreational uses and fishing do also influence marine ecosystems.
While the United States Commission on Ocean Policy (USCOP) recommended
moving towards an ecosystem-based approach to management, the
Commission also recognized that our knowledge of these forces and their
interrelationships is limited. The Commission recommended moving
towards an ecosystem-based approach to management in a careful and
deliberate manner, using voluntary programs, and taking into account
these uncertainties. The Commission did not support mandating an
ecosystem-based management regime.
The National Research Council (NRC) also recognized these limits.
The challenge, according to the NRC, is to ``rebuild and sustain
populations, species, and biological diversity, so as not to jeopardize
a wide range of goods and services from marine ecosystems, while
providing food, revenue and recreation for humans.'' The NRC proposed
eight specific criteria to be used in development of an ecosystem-based
approach to management.
1. Conservative harvest levels for single species fisheries.
2. Ecosystem considerations incorporated into fishery management
decisions.
3. A precautionary approach to deal with uncertainty.
4. Reduced excess fishing capacity and assignment of fishing
rights.
5. Marine protected areas as a buffer for uncertainty.
6. Inclusion of bycatch mortality in catch accounting.
7. Institutionalization of scientific advice and stakeholder
participation in a transparent decision-making process.
8. Research on the structure and function of marine ecosystems.
In the North Pacific, the Fishery Management Council's
precautionary approach to fisheries management incorporates measures
consistent with these eight recommended guidelines. Extensive habitat
protection, prohibition of fishing on forage fish, controls on bycatch,
protections for seabirds and marine mammals, strict catch accounting
and hard caps on harvest levels are all part of the program. This
strategy has sustained the nation's richest marine resources, producing
more than half of all seafood harvested in U.S. waters. The record is
25-plus years without a single groundfish species classified as
overfished. This success has come about within the existing framework
of the MSA.
Some have proposed to empower the Secretary of Commerce, in
consultation with the councils, to develop national guidelines to
``standardize'' the criteria used to develop an ecosystem-based
approach to fisheries management. MCA does not support statutory
language charging the Secretary with development of national criteria
for ecosystem-based management. In the past, such mandates, though
appealing on the surface, have led to lengthy administrative processes
and unnecessary litigation to interpret the intent of Congress with
regards to such language. Instead, MCA believes that we must recognize
that one-size may not fit all, and that national criteria are not
appropriate. The other regions of the country, as part of the
established council-driven process under MSA, should consider and adopt
their own sets of management policies to balance the uncertainties of
marine ecology with the better known science of single species
management as they incorporate ecosystem considerations into regional
fishery management plans.
In order for any ecosystem-based approach to management to be
successful, it has to be founded on solid scientific information. This
fundamental principle was recognized by the USCOP in recommending
significant increases in marine scientific research. Congress has also
considered the need for better planning for marine research programs
and increased funding to better understand the marine environment. MCA
strongly supports development of comprehensive marine research plans
that address important management needs, and increase funding for
programs to implement such plans. MCA believes that a solid commitment
to long term funding for expanded research focusing on the structure
and function of marine ecosystems is paramount to the success of
ecosystem-based approaches to management.
Some proposals would establish ecosystem management councils,
separate from the regional fishery management councils. While MCA
supports coordination of fishing and non-fishing activities as they
pertain to the marine ecosystem and as recommended by the USCOP, it
does not support creation of a national ecosystem management authority
or regional ecosystem management councils. Ecosystems are varied as are
existing regional fishing and non-fishing activities. Creating another
layer of management will create confusion, duplication, and be
expensive. MCA supports a simpler approach through the creation of
regional coordinating bodies that rely on existing regulatory
authorities. MCA recommends that the regional fishery management
councils play a pivotal role in establishment of these advisory bodies.
The purpose of these regional ecosystem coordinating councils would be
to exchange information and coordinate research and management efforts.
But they would not have any overarching management authority. MCA
believes this collaborative approach is consistent with the
recommendations of the USCOP, and should encourage an evolutionary and
scientifically sound ecosystem-based approach to marine resource
management.
Reducing Excess Capacity and Using Dedicated Access Privileges to
Support Conservation
The MCA is supportive of quota-based and/or cooperative rights-
based management systems, now being referred to as Designated Access
Privileges (DAP). We support the availability of this important
management tool to all regional management councils. Any such systems
should be developed consistent with the National Standards and other
provisions of the Magnuson Stevens Act.
The MCA believes that continued movement toward the equitable
rationalization of fisheries represents the best available strategy to
accomplish the management goals and objectives set out in the Magnuson
Stevens Act. Eliminating the ``race for fish'' through rationalization
provides opportunities to improve safety, reduce bycatch, protect and
enhance the economies of coastal communities, and results in delivery
of higher quality products. Management systems that have been
implemented in the North Pacific have achieved these results while
reducing overcapitalization. This has allowed for better management of
fishery impacts on important species and habitats by distributing
fishing effort more evenly in time and space. This temporal and spatial
management has benefits ranging from positive impacts on endangered
species to the introduction of seafood product forms that are more
responsive to markets demands.
Authorization of these programs was recently endorsed by the Chairs
of the eight regional fishery management councils. The MCA is
supportive of the position adopted by the Chairs calling for
authorization of quota-based and/or cooperative rights-based management
systems.
However, MCA has taken no position on who should be included in
such programs, or on any criteria for such programs. In fact, MCA does
not support the development of standardized national criteria or
guidelines for DAP programs. Each Council should be afforded the
opportunity to shape fishery rationalization programs to fit the unique
characteristics of their respective regions and fisheries. Any such
systems should be developed consistent with the MSA National Standards
and other provisions of the Magnuson Stevens Act.
Conclusion
MCA wishes to conclude by emphasizing that the regional council
process currently established under the Magnuson Stevens Act plays a
vital role in the health of our communities, our fisheries, and in the
conservation of the rich marine resources off Alaska's shores. We urge
you to carefully consider the successes we have had in Alaska when
others ask you to change this system. Adding new statutory requirements
or new layers of bureaucracy to this system would, in our view,
undermine what is widely regarded as one of the worlds more successful
management systems.
Mr. Chairman, MCA again thanks you for taking the time to hold
these hearings. We have included additional information on a number of
other issues as attachments to this testimony.
Enclosure:
(1) Positions of MCA, the Council Chairs and the State of Alaska
regarding MSA reauthorization (July 8, 2005)
(2) Marine Research in the North Pacific http://
www.marineconservationalliance.org/issues/research.htm
(3) Sustainable Fisheries, Healthy Communities http://
www.marineconservationalliance.org/issues/sustainable.htm
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Ms. Bonney.
STATEMENT OF JULIE BONNEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
ALASKA GROUNDFISH DATA BANK
Ms. Bonney. Good morning, Chairman Gilchrest, and I guess
we'll also say hello to Congressman Young even though he isn't
here right now.
My name is Julie Bonney, and I represent the members of
Alaska Groundfish Data Bank, both shore-based trawl catcher
vessels and shore-based processors. My members participate in
fisheries across the North Pacific. However, most are
economically dependent on the Gulf of Alaska groundfish
fisheries fishing out of Kodiak.
Kodiak is a hub fishing community with harvesters of all
gear types and vessel classes, plus a diverse and robust
processing sector. Kodiak consistently ranks among America's
top three seafood ports in ex-vessel value, and is a unique
community to have a year-round processing labor force.
Our strength is the diversity of the harvesters and
processors and the health of the fisheries that surround our
island home. Given the success of the North Pacific Management
Council, the members of Alaska Groundfish Data Bank strongly
support the regional management council process, authority, and
structure.
The Council is in the process of developing a comprehensive
Gulf rationalization plan, which you've heard a lot about, for
all groundfish. The formation of the plan has been highly
participatory and transparent and has been in the council
process for more than five years.
The Gulf trawl and processing sectors have been working
toward many of the challenges that will face them once the
rationalization plan is implemented. Thanks to Federal grants,
to the Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation, and NOAA
cooperative research funds, the trawl fleet has been able to
experiment with voluntary hot spot bycatch avoidance and gear
modifications that will help reduce and avoid bycatch once the
race for fish ends. So we hope that you will continue to fund
both cooperative resource and AFDF.
Additionally, the Kodiak trawl fleet and processors are
involved in an experimental catch monitoring program with NMFS.
This program showcases the cooperative relationship between the
fishing industry and the management agency that highlights the
North Pacific's willingness to be forward thinking to meet
future fishery management needs. This summer's observer project
has some video monitoring equipment and a change in the service
delivery models where NMFS assigns observers to vessels and
plants instead of industry contracting for their own observers.
Since the Gulf fisheries are small, independent, family
owned vessels with significantly less annual ex-vessel revenue,
it is imperative to develop monitoring programs that are
innovative and cost effective that meet monitoring needs. If
these goals cannot be met, it means excessive fleet
consolidation where smaller entities with lower daily
production will be squeezed out of the fishery in favor of
larger more capital intensive operations.
For the fleet to embrace additional monitoring and move
toward video monitoring, the MSA needs to provide better shield
proprietary data from FOIA. Assurance that observer data will
not be disclosed in an unaggregated form is essential if
fishermen are going to embrace the kind of monitoring coverage
that is necessary for responsible management. The
confidentiality policy should apply whether the data is
collected by human observers or technological means.
Under the present observer plan, the fishing industry
arranges for and pays for its vessels and processing plant
observers. Observer requirements are determined by vessel
length. In the Gulf, vessels less than 60 feet constitute 92
percent of the groundfish fleet and harvest 58 percent of the
total groundfish catch by value, yet are not required to carry
or pay for observers. Vessels greater than 60 feet carry the
entire financial burden paying for fishery catch data used to
manage the Gulf groundfish fisheries. For this fleet, observer
costs are much higher on a per-vessel basis due to lower
revenues plus logistics of deploying observers to remote ports
for short periods at a time.
The Council is moving forward to address data quality
concerns of the Gulf and also considering monitoring needs for
future comprehensive Gulf rationalization. It is clear that an
expanded observer program would be prohibitively expensive.
Since the Federal government pays for observer programs in all
other parts of the country, some level of Federal funding ought
to be available for the Gulf.
Several modifications are needed in the MSA so that the
North Pacific Management Council can meet future challenges of
catch monitoring. 1) Amend the MSA that defines North Pacific
groundfish observers as professionals under the Fair Labor
Standards Act. 2) Amend the MSA to provide for mechanisms to
better shied proprietary data from FOIA. 3) Provide for
supplemental Federal funding to pay for observers for those
fleets that are similar to other fleets in the Nation that
receive full Federal funding.
The members of Alaska Groundfish Data Bank look forward to
working closely with the members of the Subcommittee on
Fisheries and Oceans as we approach reauthorization of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. Thank you for the opportunity to comment,
and thank you for being in Kodiak.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Ms. Bonney.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bonney follows:]
Statement of Julie Bonney, Executive Director,
Alaska Groundfish Data Bank
Mr. Chairman and members of the House subcommittee on Fisheries and
Oceans:
My name is Julie Bonney and I represent the members of Alaska
Groundfish Data Bank, both shorebased trawl catcher vessels and
shorebased processors. My members participate in fisheries across the
North Pacific however most are economically dependent on the Gulf of
Alaska (GOA) groundfish fisheries fishing out of the port of Kodiak.
The groundfish fishery in the North Pacific is one of the largest
volume and revenue producing fisheries in the world. Alaska's economy
relies heavily on its fisheries, and long-term fisheries sustainability
is the key to Alaska fishery's economic future. Sustainable, productive
fisheries translate into jobs for Alaskans, revenues for coastal
communities, and a healthy statewide economy.
Kodiak is a hub fishery community with harvesters of all gear types
and vessel classes plus a diverse and robust processing sector. Kodiak
consistently ranks among America's top three seafood ports in ex-vessel
value. The seafood industry is the largest industry in Kodiak,
providing over 2,800 annual average jobs and approximately 64 percent
of Kodiak's basic economic employment. Kodiak is a unique community
having a year round processing labor force instead of the more typical
transient labor force. Our strength is the diversity of the harvesters
and processors and the health of the fisheries that surround our island
home.
Given the success of the NPFMC's sustainable fisheries management,
the members of Alaska Groundfish Data Bank strongly support the
Regional Management Council process, authority and structure. We
believe that the strengths of the NPFMC process are:
The highly transparent and participatory public process
Regional management authority that allows participants to
design fishery management structures for their independent region
A clear separation between science-based stock assessment
and allocation
A commitment by regulators never to set harvest levels
above the Allowable Biological Catch (ABC) established by the SSC
A gubernatorial appointments process for Council
representation
A maximum biomass extraction limit for the Bering Sea and
GOA ecosystems that is never exceeded, leaving fish for other
ecological processes
The North Pacific Regional Management Council is progressive with
forward thinking management processes, both in terms of conservation
and allocation. Allowing the North Pacific to be progressive at the
regional level yet address more general and global national standards
is imperative to the North Pacific Council future success. The MSA
should not be amended to create nebulous standards that will end us up
in court.
The North Pacific Fisheries Management Council has developed
several rationalization plans that have shown the benefits of
individual catch allocations. Our experience has shown that once the
race for fish has ended it gives harvester the tools to deal with
conservation mandates, reduces bycatch, increases vessels safety and
increases fish retention levels. It changes the focus from catching the
most amounts of fish in the shortest amount of time to capturing the
most economic value for each fish caught. The North Pacific Fishery
Management Council has developed several distinct rationalization
plans: the one-pie IFQ Sablefish and Halibut plan, the Bering Sea
Pollock America Fisheries Act, the 3-pie BS crab rationalization plan,
and finally the CGOA rockfish rationalization plan. The Council has
learned lessons from implementation of each dedicated access program.
With each program additional stakeholders are incorporated within the
initial allocation, with the goal of creating a healthy fishing
industry as a whole. Most notably the Council understands that
processors are stakeholders and must be included. Including processors
accomplishes several goals:
Compensation to processors for their capital investment
in the fishery and awards processing privileges based on historical
participation
Prevention of excessive processor consolidation once the
management structure is changed and fisheries are lengthened
Creation of an appropriate balance for price leveraging
that maintains rent sharing between harvesters and processors
Prevention of redistribution of deliveries amongst
processors--from primary processors to fish buyers with lower overhead
and infrastructure costs that produce minimally processed products
decreasing processing labor within the State of Alaska
Incentives for processors, to reinvest in infrastructure,
product innovation and processing labor since they have a stake in the
new fishery structure
Encourages fleet relationships with historical processors
magnetizing harvesters to historically depend fishery communities
With rights based fishery structures Councils should focus on
sharing the rents of the fish resource appropriately between fishery
dependent communities, processors and harvesters.
The North Pacific Fishery Council is in the process of developing a
comprehensive GOA rationalization plan. The formation of the plan has
been highly participatory and transparent and has been in the Council
process for more than five years. The GOA trawl sector has been working
towards many of the challenges that will face the fleet once a
rationalization plan is implemented. Thanks to federal grants to the
Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation and NOAA cooperative research
funds, the trawl fleet has been able to experiment with voluntary
hotspot bycatch avoidance and gear modifications that will help reduce
and avoid bycatch once the race for fish ends.
Additionally, the Kodiak trawl fleet and processors are involved in
an experimental catch monitoring program this summer with National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). This program showcases the
progressiveness and cooperative relationship between the fishing
industry and the management agency. It also highlights the North
Pacific's willingness to be forward thinking to meet future fishery
management needs.
This summer's observer project tests video monitoring equipment and
a change in the service deliver model where NMFS assigns observers to
vessels and plants instead of industry contracting for their own
observers. Since the GOA fisheries are small independent family owned
vessels, with significantly less annual ex-vessel revenue, it is
imperative to develop monitoring programs that are innovative and cost
effective but meet monitoring needs, if these goals cannot be meet if
means excessive fleet consolidation where smaller entities with lower
daily production will be squeezed out of the fishery in favor of
larger, more capital-intensive operations.
For the fleet to embrace additional monitoring and move towards
video monitoring, the MSA needs to provide a better shield of
proprietary data from FOIA. The need for clarification that
unaggregated observer data is confidential and exempt from disclosure
was underscored earlier this year when the North Pacific fishing
industry was forced to file suit to prevent the release of vessel by
vessel catch and bycatch data in response to Oceana's FOIA request.
Assurance that observer data will not be disclosed in an unaggregated
form is essential if fishermen are going to embrace the kind of
observer/monitoring coverage that is necessary for responsible
management. The confidentiality policy should apply whether the data is
collected by a human observer, video cameras or vessel monitoring
systems. This was one of the recommendations of the Managing our
Nation's fisheries conference II.
Under the present observer plan authorized in 1990, the fishing
industry arranges for and pays for its vessels and processing plant
observers. Observer requirements are determined by vessel length where
vessels less than 60' are not required to carry observers, vessels
greater than 60' but less than 125' are required to carry observers 30
percent of the time while vessels greater than 125' are required to
carry observers 100 percent of the time. In the GOA vessels less than
60' constitute 92% of the groundfish fleet and harvest 58% of the total
groundfish catch by value. Because of the vessels size classes present
in the GOA much less of the catch is observed, the low range of
observed catch in the GOA is 3% compared to a high range of 86% in the
BSAI (see enclosure 1--Observed catch in the BSAI and GOA). Since
vessels decide when they take observers, coverage does not occur over
the entire time frame of the fishery or in all locations of fishing.
Finally, the 60' to 125' vessels carry virtually the entire financial
burden paying for fishery catch data used to manage all the GOA
groundfish fisheries. Observer costs are much higher on a per-vessel
basis due to far lower revenues on a per-vessel basis plus the daily
observer costs are often higher due to logistics of deploying observers
to remote ports for short periods of time.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council is moving forward to
address data quality concerns in the GOA and also considering
monitoring needs for future comprehensive GOA rationalization. The
recent analysis that was prepared in connection with the proposed
overhaul of the North Pacific Fisheries Observer Program made it clear
that the cost of an expanded observer program in the GOA would be
prohibitively expensive for the small boat fleet that operates. Since
the federal government pays for observer programs in other parts of the
country, some level of federal funding ought to be available to help
pay for expanded coverage in the GOA. Costs of an expanded observer
program in the GOA could be as much as five or six million dollars a
year (see enclosure 2--Proposal for Halibut and GOA Groundfish Observer
Program Design). For comparison purposes, other observer programs in
the U.S. that are fully federally funded are as follows: For the West
Coast Observer Program that monitors groundfish vessels fishing off the
coast of Washington, Oregon, and California the annual budget is $4
million. The Northeast Observer Program, which provides coverage on
vessels operating from Maine to North Carolina, has an annual budget of
$12.2 million.
The GOA fishing industry is equivalent to other areas of the
national whose programs are fully federally funded and thus deserve
federal funding as well. The fishing communities in the GOA such as
Sitka, Yakutat, Cordova, Homer, Kodiak, Sand Point, King Cove, Chignik,
and others have traditional roots in commercial fishing and most have
had fleets of local commercial fishermen for over a century. These
fishing towns are very similar to traditional fishing communities
outside of Alaska such as Astoria and Newport, Oregon: Gloucester and
New Bedford, Massachusetts: Reedsville, Virginia: Empire, Louisiana:
and Pascagoula, Mississippi, in terms of the scale and composition of
their fishing fleets and processing industries. Alaska's coastal
fishing communities tend to be even more dependent on commercial
fishing than these lower 48 communities due to their isolation and lack
of alternative economic opportunities. As is the case outside of
Alaska, the coastal fishing fleets in Alaska are almost exclusively
family owned small businesses.
Additionally, for the Council to move forward with restructuring
the observer program and change the service delivery model, where the
agency contracts for observers and deploys them as they chose, the
determination that North Pacific Groundfish Observers are professionals
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) must be made. Incorporating
accurate estimates of observer labor rates is important for
restructuring alternatives for consideration by the Council. This
cannot be achieved while the FLSA status of North Pacific Groundfish
Observers remains uncertain.
While working through the observer issue several modifications need
to occur within the MSA so that the North Pacific Fisheries Management
Council can continue to move forward to address observer program needs:
(1) Amend the MSA that defines North Pacific groundfish observers
as professionals under the Fair Labor Standards Act. (Enclosure 3--Memo
from NMFS/ASC to Dr. William Hogarth--Status of North Pacific
Groundfish Observers under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)).
(2) Amend the MSA to provide for mechanisms to better shield
proprietary data from FOIA.
(3) Provide for supplemental federal funding to pay for observers
for those fleets that are similar to other fleets in the national that
receive full federal funding. (Enclosure 4--Draft section for
incorporation in the EA/RIR/IRFA to establish a new program for
observer procurement and deployment in the North Pacific Groundfish
Observer Program).
The members of AGDB look forward to working closely with the
members of the subcommittee of fisheries and oceans as we approach
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Thank you for the
opportunity to comment.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Stinson.
STATEMENT OF JAY STINSON, PRESIDENT,
ALASKA DRAGGERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Stinson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the
invitation to testify today concerning the reauthorization of
the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and welcome to Kodiak.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
Mr. Stinson. The weather is getting nicer by the minute
here.
I'm Jay Stinson, President of Alaska Draggers Association.
I'm also the owner-operator of a 73-foot multi-purpose boat
that is engaged in trawling, longlining, research. And I also
own another tender vessel that's currently operating in Bristol
Bay right now.
ADA supports the testimony given by both Mr. David Benton
and Ms. Julie Bonney. I think they expressed their perspectives
quite saliently. The fishing community of Kodiak enjoys the
benefit of many well managed and healthy fish stocks. For this
success, we can thank the efforts of the North Pacific
Fisheries Management Council, NOAA, National Marine Fisheries
Services, the Alaska Board of Fish, the Alaska Department of
Fish & Game, and certainly we can thank the efforts of this
Subcommittee for their commitment to the living resources of
this nation's marine ecosystems.
The social and economic importance of Alaska fisheries
cannot be overemphasized. The Alaska fisheries harvest would
rank 12th in the world if Alaska were an independent country.
Commercial fishing is the life blood of the coastal communities
of Alaska. Tax revenues from fisheries resources fund schools,
local government, and essential services for most of our
coastal communities.
Alaska's challenges and issues regarding fisheries
management are different than those regarding most of the rest
of the nation. Certainly, we need to maintain the current
health, viability and sustainability of our marine resources.
We also need to conserve habitat and nurture the economic
vitality of our communities that rely on those resources. We
need to develop and refine a better and more comprehensive
understanding of the natural environment and ecological systems
of the North Pacific. The North Pacific Fisheries Management
Council process has proven to be a successful and instrumental
tool to facilitate those objectives.
One of the critical issues important to this region is
ending the race for fish by creating equitable rights-based
management systems for all of the federally managed fisheries
in the North Pacific. This is going to be a very contentious
statement, but I'm willing to defend that idea. Rights-based
fisheries management allows harvesters and managers additional
tools to meet increasing regulatory mandates.
Non-rationalized fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska are being
economically marginalized by entities with more efficient
market structure combined with the cumulative effects of severe
environmental regulation that constrains our abilities to
operate. We've seen this under Steller sea lions, essential
fish habitat, and other things. IFQs, co-ops, and other forms
of rights-based management will encourage harvesters,
processors, and fishing dependent coastal communities to invest
in the long-term vision of sustainable fisheries in Alaska.
While ecosystem-based management is a preferable
methodology and mind-set for prudent fishery management
policies, the concept is still in the early stages and large
challenges need to be addressed before it can be a viable
management system. As of yet, we do not have adequate data for
refined methodologies to integrate the various disciplines and
bodies of scientific knowledge into a single comprehensive
management model.
Regional oceanographic biological socioeconomic concerns
need to be considered in developing a prudent, conservative,
and sustainable approach to fisheries management. However, our
current ability to use this as a discrete management tool is
less than sufficient to meet legal and regulatory standards.
Response to litigation is currently driving the management
concept for many of the fisheries in the North Pacific.
Management by litigation compromises credible science. The
science needed to manage the resource that comes beholden to
the legal process instead of the scientific and management
priorities. Legal exposure over rights, biological and
scientific process, this broad untested concept of ecosystem-
based management begs for legal challenge.
ADA supports the development of a credible and cost-
effective national fisheries observer program. Our current
Federal fisheries observer program in the North Pacific, while
viewed by some as a success in collecting data, is certainly
less than equitable in practice.
Observer information requirements based on management
concerns, fleet logistics, biological considerations and data
collection protocols need to be considered on a regional basis.
An observer program should not be designed as an unfair tax to
disproportionately impact certain segments of the industry, nor
should it be unduly burdensome to certain harvesters or
processors.
One piece of information I picked up yesterday is that we
have approximately 36,000 man days of observer coverage in the
North Pacific that's paid for by the fishing industry. That
equates to probably close to $13 million that this industry is
financing our own observer data collection with. Compared to
the East Coast, the Pacific Coast, for me that's a large
inequitability. We need good observer data. We need good
science. We need good management. We also need equitability.
Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Stinson.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stinson follows:]
Statement of Jay E. Stinson, President,
Alaska Draggers Association
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, for the
invitation to testify today on the Reauthorization of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
I am Jay Stinson, President of Alaska Draggers Association (ADA), a
trade association representing vessel owners, captains and crew members
of the Central Gulf of Alaska shore based trawl industry. Last year's
membership included 32 of the approximately 40 vessels that make up
this regional fleet.
Because of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the management policies
developed by the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council and the
Alaska Board of Fish, Kodiak enjoys the benefit of many well managed
and healthy fisheries. Our fish stocks are conservatively managed and
allowing for normal environmental fluctuations and cyclic population
dynamics are some of the healthiest and most viable native fish stocks
in the world. Of the 63 species of Groundfish managed under federal
Fisheries Management Plans in Alaska, none are listed as over fished
and none of their populations are threatened. Only three species of
crab have been listed as ``overfished'' although most scientists
attribute unfavorable environmental conditions as the likely cause of
low stock levels for crab species in the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska.
Our state managed salmon stocks are regarded as the most viable and
healthy natural populations in the world.
According to the 2004 Coast Pilot, Alaska has an ocean coastline of
5,770 nautical miles, slightly less than the combined total of the
other 49 states. The surprising figure though, is the 29,500 miles of
tidal shoreline that surround the state. Paradoxically, Alaska's
resident population of less than 600,000 is approximately only 2 tenths
of one percent of the total U.S. population. More than one half of
Alaska's population lives in the greater Anchorage area.
The social and economic importance of fisheries to Alaska cannot be
over-emphasized. The commercial fishing industry is the largest private
employment sector in the state with an ex-vessel value in excess of one
billion dollars. Alaska fisheries harvest would rank 12th in the world
if Alaska were an independent country. Commercial fishing is the life-
blood of the coastal communities of Alaska. Tax revenues from fisheries
resources fund schools, local government and essential services for
most of our coastal communities.
Alaska's challenges and issues regarding fisheries management are
different than those regarding much of the rest of the nation. Urban
sprawl, pollution and contaminants, habitat degradation, depleted and
overfished of stocks, and just plain too many people impacting marine
habitat is epidemic in many coastal regions of the United States. Those
issues are not as immediately critical to Alaska. What is important for
this region is ending the race for fish by creating equitable right-
based management systems for North Pacific fisheries that have not been
rationalized, maintaining the current health, viability and
sustainability of our marine resources, conserving habitat and
nurturing the economic vitality of our communities that rely on those
resources. We need to develop and refine a better and more
comprehensive understanding of the natural environmental and ecological
systems of the North Pacific. Policy that allows access to the
resource, maintains social, economic and cultural stability is vital to
the people that have historically relied on the bounty of Alaska's
marine environment.
Ecosystem Based Management:
Over the course of the last four years, my vessel has been under
contract with the University of Alaska School of Fisheries and Ocean
Science. Working under the direction of Dr. Robert Foy, we have logged
over 6,000 miles of hydroacoustic transects around Kodiak Island. Using
hydroacoustic equipment, plankton nets, tucker trawls, a midwater
trawl, surface temperature and salinity recorders, and CTD recorders,
we assessed a significant portion of the near shore and inner bay
habitat areas of Kodiak Island.
This type of work is fundamental to the actual development of
``ecosystem based'' management concepts. While everyone agrees that
ecosystem-base management is a preferable methodology and mindset for
fisheries management, the concept is still in the early stages and
large challenges need to be addressed before it can be a viable
management system. As of yet, we do not have the data or methodologies
to integrate physical oceanography, meteorology, habitat concerns,
energetics, trophic efficiencies, relative survivalship of competing
species, essential fish habitat, life history bottlenecks, and, socio-
economic management concerns into a single comprehensive management
model. The complexity and breadth of these ecological relationships is
overwhelming. The range of variables is daunting. While all of these
concerns need to be considered in a prudent, conservative and
sustainable approach to fisheries management, our current ability to
use this as a discrete management tool is less than sufficient to meet
legal and regulatory standards.
Whether we choose to promote a ``bottom-up'', ``top-down'' or a
``middle-out'' approach to multi-species or ecosystem based management
plans, the information base and associated expertise will need to be
increased substantially. In addition to the provision of funding for
and carrying out basic data collection for ecosystem-based management,
inter-disciplinary and inter-agency research collaboration will be
required. These are needed to effectively integrate fisheries
management, oceanography, fisheries ecology, marine habitat,
meteorology, environmental toxicology, as well as initiating long term
regional monitoring plans. Significant increases in funding and program
development would need to occur far in advance of any policy
implementation. And all of this process would beg for legal assault
from the environmental industry--a major vulnerability if requirements
for ecosystem-based management are added to the Act ahead of the basic
data collection and development of scientific methodologies.
ADA does not support the creation of an independent ecosystem
council. Regional councils are best suited to manage fisheries concerns
unique to the ecological conditions in their respective areas.
Management by Litigation:
Response to litigation is currently one of the predominant
management concepts in use today to manage the fisheries off the coast
of Alaska. The Environmental Industry's legal challenges under the
Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policies Act and
Essential Fish Habitat are creating an extremely unstable regulatory
and fiscal environment for harvesters, processors and Alaska's fishing
dependent coastal communities. ADA is concerned that if a legal and
philosophical paradigm shift mandates ``ecosystem based'' management
approaches without sufficient data and scientific foundation that a
whole new round of legal challenges will arise from the law offices of
the environment industry.
Management by litigation is detrimental to both the resource and
communities that depend on those resources for several reasons. First,
the science needed to manage the resource becomes beholden to the legal
process instead of the scientific and management priorities. The
process of legal discovery replaces open, transparent, peer reviewed
research. Defensive or strategic research is pursued with a
predetermined conclusion in mind. Legal exposure overrides biological
process. Under current legal and regulatory process, the burden of
proof lies with the stakeholders; not the litigants or the agencies.
Closed litigious negotiations also disenfranchise the communities and
stakeholders from the policy decision process.
One of the examples of this process lies in the enforcement of the
Endangered Species Act inconsistent with the principles and national
standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Following the finding of
jeopardy contained in the Nov 2000 Biological Opinion on Steller Sea
Lions, the Office of Protected Resources, based on speculation and
indirect correlations, instituted new fishery management measures that
increased bycatch, disenfranchised certain sectors of the historic
fishing community, disregarded concerns for human safety, while
creating direct economic cost to affected communities, industry, and
taxpayers that to date have exceeded several hundreds of millions of
dollars with no discernible impact on any observed recovery of the
Western Stock of Stellar Sea Lions.
EFH: The Sustainable Fisheries Act mandate for protecting fish
habitat to the extent practicable and particularly NMFS' guidelines for
protecting essential fish habitat also spawned vulnerability for those
dependent on fishing for the livelihoods. One problem was the all
inclusive definition of ``essential'' fish habitat built into NMFS
implementation guidelines. Resource-based industries cannot reasonably
be held to the standard of having no detectable effect on the
environment. Yet that is how many NGOs sought to interpret the EFH
mandate- i.e. to minimize the effects of fishing wherever those effects
were discernable and with no regard as to whether a measurable effect
truly affected the long-term productivity of the habitat for the fish
resources of Alaska upon which the nation depends. In addition to the
rancor between resource users and advocates of protectionism created by
the open-ended EFH guidelines created, in many ways the lack of clearly
definable scientific goals and once again allowed litigation to
paralyze the management system. This probably added at least two years
to the North Pacific Council's consideration of reasonable and
practicable protections for deep-water corals in the Aleutian Islands.
The success of the federally managed fisheries in the North Pacific
is directly linked to the high regard and confidence that the
harvesting and processing sectors have for the science based process of
the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council. Open and transparent
dialogue between scientists, industry and the management council is the
foundation of successful management. Litigation has, at times,
compromised that process.
ADA supports a precautionary and prudent approach in crafting
amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act; anything less will likely lead
to another round of legal challenges from outside interests.
Rationalization and Rights Based Fisheries Management:
For fisheries to remain viable and sustainable in the Gulf of
Alaska, they need to be attractive to long-term investment. The Bering
Sea AFA co-ops and the Halibut/Sablefish IFQ program have been very
successful in creating a stable market based business and regulatory
environment. Both management programs have reduced waste, increased the
value of the resource, ended the ``race for fish'' and created safer
working conditions for the harvesters. It appears that the Bering Sea
Crab rationalization plan will produce comparable results.
Federal fisheries management has undergone substantial evolution
over the course of the last decade in much of North Pacific. However,
the federal fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska are still transitioning.
Traditional management tools have not been able to address issues of
over-capitalization, by-catch reduction or community stability. The
general objective of fisheries management is to conserve marine
resources and maximize sustainable benefits to the nation. While quota
based management systems may effectively limit fisheries harvest, they
promote a ``Race for Fish'' and encourage ``over capitalization''. This
situation is becoming increasingly problematic in the Gulf of Alaska
where several of our groundfish fisheries are now measured in hours or
days.
With rationalization comes responsibility. Alaska Draggers
Association is looking forward to the opportunity to assist in creating
constructive tools that will better allow harvesters and managers the
ability to effectively deal with:
Minimizing discards and bycatch
Understanding the true impacts of fishing practices on
benthic habitat
The identification of mitigation strategies to ameliorate
fishing impacts
Minimizing disproportionate impacts of Protected Species
Management
Improving safety at sea
Ensuring the socio-economic and cultural stability of
coastal communities
Developing cost effective harvest auditing methodologies
Assisting agencies with fisheries research and reliable
data collection
ADA supports rights based fisheries management utilizing such
concepts as Dedicated Access Privileges (DAPs) or Individual Fishing
Quotas (IFQs) that would allow industry and managers a broader suite of
tools to reconcile these issues. Co-operative management structures add
additional flexibility to manage bycatch and quota distribution while
maintaining historic processing and community relationships
DAPs should be a fisheries management tool suited to the particular
needs of a specific fishery in a given region. Admittedly, Alaska may
be somewhat unique in that we have already implemented several
fisheries rationalization programs, including Halibut and Sablefish
IFQ's, the American Fisheries Act, the Bering Sea Crab Rationalization
Program. The Gulf of Alaska Rockfish Pilot Program and Gulf of Alaska
comprehensive rationalization plan are working their way through the
North Pacific Council Process. Each rights based management program has
emphasized different management objectives. Each new program has
evolved to meet new issues and complexities.
The challenge in developing National Standards for Rights-Based
fisheries lies in the fact that ``one size does not fit all''. Alaska
is different geographically, culturally, and ecologically from New
England, the Mid-Atlantic, or the Western Pacific. Management concerns
and industry needs for the Central and Western Gulf of Alaska are
different than those of the Bering Sea or South-East Alaska. We need
regional programs that best fit local needs. Regional councils
operating as a component of the Magnuson-Stevens Act are best suited to
develop and tailor these programs.
ADA does not support the requirement of a referendum vote by all
licensed harvesters with-in a region to validate a rationalization
program. Allocative arguments between individual harvesters of various
gear sectors have the potential slowing efforts for improving the
management process of the North Pacific.
Creation of a National Fisheries Observer Program:
Alaska has a functional and in most regards successful fisheries
observer program. This program monitors most segments of our federally
managed fisheries for directed harvest and bycatch rates. Observers
also monitor compliance with fisheries regulations, gear types, fishing
areas, and well as Marine Pollution regulations and vessel safety
requirements. There are currently several gaps in the Alaska observer
program's ability to gather reliable data and to provide consistent
coverage of all the harvesters. Our observer program is funded on a
pay-as-you-go basis by the vessels and plants that are required to
carry observer coverage. Vessels less than 60 feet are not required to
have observer coverage. Vessels greater than 60 feet and less than 125
feet in length are required to maintain a minimum of 30% coverage.
Vessels over 125 ft are required to maintain 100% coverage, and at
times 200% coverage.
This situation is both inequitable and ineffective in design.
Vessels less than 60 feet get a free ride. And other vessels that can
pack 500,000 pounds of product pay the same as vessels that can only
carry one-quarter of that amount. While some vessels incur observer
costs of less than one half of one percent of their gross fishing
revenues, smaller vessels that are just over the 60 foot criterion may
have observer costs that exceed 10 percent of their revenues, while
other vessels incur no cost at all. There is a significant lack of
observer data from vessels less than 60 feet.
ADA is currently joining with NMFS to test the effectiveness of an
automated video monitoring program to audit the upcoming GOA rockfish
fishery. As the industry moves toward a more rationalized approach to
fisheries management, tools that allow harvesting co-operatives to
monitor and self regulate harvest quota's and bycatch rates will be
necessary to meet the regulatory mandates of the future.
ADA supports developing an equitable and cost effective national
fisheries auditing program. Management concerns, fleet logistics, and
data collection requirements need to be considered on a regional basis.
An observer program should not be designed as an unfair tax to
disproportionately impact certain segments of the industry, nor should
it be unduly burdensome on the harvesters or processors.
Mr. Chairman, I'll end by summarizing five import points:
Sustainable Fisheries are vital to Alaskan communities.
Alaska's issues and needs are different than those in other areas of
the nation. Access to well managed resources is paramount to the
vitality of Alaska's coastal communities.
Management by litigation does not encourage credible
science. The level of science required for ESA is not consistent with
traditional academic research which encourages transparency and peer
review. Intra-agency consultation and review creates a bias
perspective. Policy developed for ESA and the MMPA mandates are not
consistent with the National standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Ecosystem Based Management approaches is not sufficiently
defined to effectively manage federal fisheries. Given our current
information base and technological capabilities, comprehensive
ecosystem based management structures would currently be too complex to
be effectively implemented and administered.
Rights Based Fisheries Management would allow harvester
and managers additional tools to meet increasing regulatory mandates.
Non-rationalized fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska are being economically
marginalized by entities with a more efficient market structure
combined with the cumulative effects of severe environmental regulation
that constrains our ability to operate. IFQs, co-ops or other forms of
rights based management will encourage harvesters, processors, and
fishing dependant coastal communities to invest in the long term vision
of sustainable fisheries in Alaska to the overall benefit of the
nation.
A national fishery observer program should be instituted,
based on an equitable cost structure, regional needs and the
information requirements of specific fisheries.
Thank you for your consideration.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Fields.
STATEMENT OF DUNCAN FIELDS, TECHNICAL ADVISOR TO THE GULF OF
ALASKA COASTAL COMMUNITIES COALITION
Mr. Fields. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for coming to
Kodiak. My name is Duncan Fields. I'm speaking today as a
technical advisor to the Gulf of Alaska Coastal Communities
Coalition. I have behind me Freddy Christiansen who is the
chairman of our Board. In the audience are numerous community
leaders here who are interested in these issues. I trust after
the hearing, you'll have an opportunity to meet with some of
those and talk further on the issues.
Our coalition was established in 1998 because Gulf of
Alaska coastal communities were becoming increasingly alarmed
about loss of fishing opportunities and loss of access to
marine resource in proximity to these communities. The
coalition is working with approximately 42 communities across
the Gulf of Alaska to provide some sort of dependable
fisheries-based economic base to these communities. For many of
these communities, fisheries is the only substantial economic
opportunity they have. All of these communities are not
connected by roads. They are isolated communities along the
Gulf of Alaska.
I've fished for the past 45 years on the West side of
Kodiak Island between two communities, the communities of
Larsen Bay and Karluk. These communities like many of your
communities on the East Coast have long and significant fishing
histories. Karluk is where the salmon fishery in Alaska got its
start some 20 or 30 years ago. Nevertheless, today both
communities are dying. This is true for communities across the
Gulf of Alaska.
Chignik, on the Alaska Peninsula for example, Seldovia in
Cook Inlet, Chenega Bay in Prince William Sound, Yakutat in
northern Southeast, Craig and Klawock in southern Southeast.
All of these communities have lost fishing opportunities.
Family fishing operations have gone out of business. Numerous
fishing-related jobs have been lost, particularly crew jobs
that provided infrastructure in these communities. Populations
are declining. Basic community services have been lost. Schools
are being closed. Many of these communities have had reliance
on fisheries calculated in terms of centuries rather than
generations, Mr. Chairman.
It's the belief of the Coalition that the next Magnuson-
Stevens reauthorization will decide the fate of many Gulf of
Alaska coastal communities. The initial Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the subsequent
reauthorization address many significant fisheries issues.
However, now is the time to look at the critical needs of
fishery-dependent coastal communities.
We had a wholesale fisheries economic crisis that's tearing
apart smaller Gulf of Alaska communities. It's a well
documented fact. For many years, it's been a major concern to
the State of Alaska as well as the North Pacific Fisheries
Management Council. In addition, Alaska's congressional
delegation, including Congressman Young, have been concerned
about and supportive of initiatives to keep these communities
viable.
In light of what's happening here in the Gulf of Alaska to
these communities, Mr. Chairman, we would make the following
recommendations in the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act. Our first recommendation is the community protection
provisions in the Magnuson-Stevens be strengthened. National
Standard 8, that's a broad national policy of community
protection, but this is generally speaking not sufficient to
ensure that regional management councils apply significant
community protections as part of the rationalization program.
Our second recommendation, Mr. Chair, is that provisions
for community quota share programs, CFQs, should be included as
part of the Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization. You'll remember
that the inclusion of these types of provisions were
recommended both by the February 2004 General Accounting Office
report to Congress as well as the National Research Council
report to Congress in 1998. They're both called Sharing the
Fish.
Our third recommendation and closer to home, Mr. Chairman,
Congress to provide for community fisheries quota program for
smaller Gulf of Alaska communities. The essence of community
protection is long-term access to and ownership of a modest
portion of the resource.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, we would recommend that you provide
funding mechanisms for community quota share purchase programs.
These would be our four recommendations.
In conclusion, if the current trends continue, most smaller
Gulf of Alaska communities will have few if any commercial
fishermen in a few years. Some of these communities will no
longer exist. Access to fisheries resources is critical for the
economic survival of these communities. Significant steps must
be taken immediately to provide these communities with fishing
opportunities. These communities, Mr. Chairman, are seeking a
hand up, not a hand out. This is not hyperbole.
These communities are at an historical crossroads and
therefore Congress is also at that crossroads. Help, which
could occur through Magnuson reauthorization, would capture a
unique opportunity to ensure that Gulf of Alaska fishing
communities will not be relegated to the dust bin of history
and will continue to be economically viable participants in
both Alaska's economy and the economy of the nation.
We're all on notice as to the precariousness of the
situation. If you as a congressional decisionmaker could
provide meaningful community protections, then you will
preserve something here in Alaska that is absolutely unique and
irreplaceable. We implore you to help save Alaska's smaller
Gulf communities.
Thank you for your consideration of my comments today. We
are eager to work with you and members of the Alaska delegation
as well as other affected parties to craft legislative language
that is fair and equitable to help address some of challenges
Alaska's small communities face. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Fields.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fields follows:]
Statement of Duncan Fields, Technical Advisor to the Gulf of Alaska
Coastal Communities Coalition (GOAC3)
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee.
Thank you for your invitation to the Gulf of Alaska Coastal
Communities Coalition to present views on reauthorization of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA).
My name is Duncan Fields and I am speaking today as a Technical
Advisor to the Gulf of Alaska Coastal Communities Coalition (GOAC3), an
organization formally established in 1999 to help ensure that GOA
Coastal Communities have fishing opportunities that are essential to
their viability today and long-term survival into the future.
Thank you for holding this field hearing regarding fisheries
management successes in Alaska and the reauthorization of MAS, an Act
that affects the economies of the over 45 small coastal fishing
communities within the Gulf of Alaska most of whom have representation
within this coalition.
The GOAC3 is dedicated to securing fishing opportunities within the
traditionally fisheries-dependent communities of the Gulf of Alaska
sufficiently adequate to help sustain them as viable coastal
communities. This organization has sought to assist the member
communities with a combination of private and federal funding to help
fisheries dependent communities work with regulatory agencies to
develop substantive ways to retain, and regain lost fishing effort and
opportunity which will help these communities survive.
By way of background, I am a long-time commercial fisherman in the
Gulf of Alaska. I have fished for salmon for 45 years at our family's
fish camp, about 80 miles from Kodiak between the fishing communities
of Larsen Bay and Karluk. Over that time I have witnessed many changes.
The most striking change is the decline of commercial fishermen living
in these and other rural fishing communities of the Gulf of Alaska and
the subsequent loss of their fisheries-based economies. A number of the
Gulf coastal communities are clearly struggling to stay alive and not
seeing an improvement in their struggle. While the GOAC3 certainly
recognizes that there are many factors other than access to the
fisheries involved in the increasingly hard times in these coastal
communities, reduced access to fishing is the salient factor in their
diminished capacity to remain viable.
What has happened around the entire Gulf, from Sand Point to
Chenega Bay and Yakutak to Craig is similar to what has occurred here
on Kodiak Island. Family fishing, the number of jobs supported through
crew and infrastructure, a way of life that was healthy and
sustainable, is disappearing in favor of consolidation of boats,
fishing effort and ownership that frequently does not favor fishing
communities of the Gulf of Alaska.
To help inform you about the impacts of the shift in fisheries on
coastal communities and the importance of the inter-reliance of multi-
species fishing, we would like to offer the following background.
First Major Commercial Fishing in Alaska
Many of the Communities refer to the ``historic period'' of their
reliance on fishing in centuries, not decades or less. Their ancestors
were there long before commercial fishing came into its own. The salmon
industry was the first major commercial fishing in Alaska and in the
late 1800's got its start in Klawock, Old Sitka and Karluk. At one time
there were six processing plants operating on the Karluk spit from the
resources of a single river. The processing plant in Larsen Bay was
built in 1912 and still operates today. For decades, Karluk and Larsen
Bay remained vibrant fishing towns by moving focus from one species to
another depending on supply and markets. Salmon was a constant but when
salmon runs were down, rural fishermen would switch to codfish or
halibut or herring and, after World War II, crab.
Alaska Statehood--1959
When Alaska became a state in 1959, it took control of its
fisheries. The new state immediately banned the hated cannery-owned
fish traps, along with other initiatives that helped to create greater
economic benefit to area harvesters.
1973 Salmon Limited Entry Program
The first rationalization program, instituted by the State of
Alaska in 1973 for salmon, issued salmon permits with an intent to
protect the small boat fleet as much as possible. Although the number
of permits issued to Alaska coastal community fishermen was often less
than the number of residents that had previously participated in the
fisheries, these permits maintained the small boat fisheries based
infrastructure. Most vessels from smaller communities were less than 58
feet and many less than 32 feet.
The shrimp fishery in the early 70's brought larger (trawl) vessels
to Kodiak and the Gulf of Alaska. Most rural residents were not
interested in trawling because of the large by-catch of crab and the
adverse impact on the habitat of their fishing grounds. Consequently,
few moved up to the larger vessels that became the mainstay of the
emerging groundfish fisheries.
Implementation of MSA
The 1976 implementation of the Magnuson Fisheries Conservation and
Management Act coincided with the increase of pollock and codfish in
the Gulf of Alaska. The opportunities to have American catcher boats
joint venture with foreign processors went entirely to larger vessels,
not the small boat fishermen from rural communities. Capital that
accumulated from the joint ventures enabled participants to enlarge
their vessels, expand their fisheries and, eventually, obtain all of
the quota for American fishermen.
Although this was a good thing for Alaska and for American
fishermen, small boat fishermen from Alaska coastal communities were
almost entirely excluded from the economic benefits of this
capitalization and simply have not been able to catch up. They were not
equipped by experience or history to compete in this capital intensive
arena. To offset these types of systemic impediments to access to
fisheries by coastal communities with respect to the Bering Sea
fisheries, the Community Development Quota (CDQ) program was created
for communities of that region with the 1991 reauthorization of the
MSA, but no similar program was created at that time for small, rural
communities of the Gulf of Alaska.
Throughout the 1980's, small boat fishermen in the Gulf of Alaska
survived on salmon and herring with some winter crab fishing. However,
salmon prices and then herring markets began to decline in the 1990s.
At the same time, the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council was in
the process of rationalizing halibut and sablefish. Groundfish were
being caught by a large trawl fleet in shorter and shorter seasons.
Just when rural small boat fishermen would have switched to catching
other marine resources, they were excluded from the fisheries.
Combination Fishing
Combination fishing had been kept fishing families alive as market
values and allowable catch fluctuated. With increased rationalization,
the ability to adjust has been dramatically reduced. The inability of
our community fishermen to sustain their ``combination fishing''
livelihoods is a direct result of fisheries regulatory changes.
Fishermen understand that there will be a fluctuation in stocks
based on the annual stock assessments or in-season management.
Fishermen understand that markets will also rise and fall. What is
difficult for fishermen, especially in small remote communities, is the
increasing restrictions on who is allowed to fish and that a resource
once readily available to them is now suddenly reduced to an
expensive--and unaffordable--commodity. Small coastal community
fishermen simply do not have the capital or access to capital to
leverage the cost of buying into new rationalization systems.
Number of Small Boat Fishermen in Precipitous Decline
The halibut and sablefish quota program created immense wealth for
many initial recipients but in the past ten years, lacking any or
sufficient initial issuance of halibut quota, and unable to sustain
themselves on remaining fisheries, most small boat fishermen have been
forced out of business.
For example, in the Kodiak Management Area alone, active salmon
purse seine fishermen have dropped from about 300 to less than 120 in
the past ten years. This scenario has repeated itself around the Gulf
over and over again. The community of Old Harbor went from 61 permits
fished in 1995 to 17 fished in 2004. In that same time period, the
community of Sand Point went from 226 permits fished to 148, the
community of King Cove went from 142 to 68, the combined Chigniks from
67 to 43, Seldovia from 67 to 38, Port Graham from 10 to 3, Ouzinkie
from 35 to 13, Perryville from 142 to 65. In Southeast Alaska, Yakutat
went from 194 permits fished in 1995 to 162 in 2004, Kake from 83 to
33, Hoonah from 148 to 70, Craig from 300 to 204, Klawock from 54 to
35, Hyderburg from 64 to 30, Pelican from 98 to 39, Angoon from 77 to
7. The list goes on and on.
While some of this shift was absorbed by increased fishing effort
through consolidation, the majority of the fishing effort has migrated
out of these communities. These numbers mean a huge loss to these
communities in terms of dollars and infrastructure. In a ten-year
period many of these communities have had their fishing effort reduced
by as much as 90%.
As IFQs came on the scene, many in the small communities no longer
had access to halibut and sablefish which were needed to diversify the
income producing capability in the communities. Adding to this
situation was the previous collapse of the crab fishery--both Tanner
Crab and King Crab- in the Gulf. This ``deadly combination'' of events
was like the ``Perfect Storm'' for many villages and communities...it
took away their ability to diversify.
Amendment #66 to the Halibut and Sablefish Fishery Management Plan
At the encouragement of the GOAC3, the NPFMC researched and
recognized the negative impacts of the halibut and sablefish
rationalization program on smaller Gulf coastal communities and, in
April 2002, passed Amendment #66 to the Halibut and Sablefish Fishery
Management Plan creating the Community Quota Entity (CQE) program to
allow smaller Gulf of Alaska coastal communities to purchase halibut
and sablefish. Again, timing was not good. Quota shares that had sold
for $10.00 per pound in 2002 when the CQE program was introduced at the
Council sell for more than $20.00 per pound in 2005. Despite a
subsequent State of Alaska statutory change that allows community quota
groups to be eligible for low-interest State loans, unless a fisherman
has a base of quota from initial issuance or from available capital
when the price was much lower, prospective fishermen simply cannot
afford to enter the fisheries, economically justify or pay debt service
on quota that is this expensive. The CQE program is a good program but,
it needs funding if it is to actually assist communities.
The way to provide community fishing flexibility is through a
combination of both purchase ability and initial issuance of quota
share, or the equivalent.
Amendment 66 for (CQE program) was designed to help provide the
opportunity to get halibut and sablefish back into the communities.
This is a purchase only program and requires funding. A community
fishing quota combined with a purchase capability program, however,
will provide the appropriate combination to help communities leverage
their assets to keep fishing effort in their communities. With some
basic infrastructure improvements, and access to fisheries, young
people may once again be able to look forward to living in the small
communities and making at least part of their livelihoods from
commercial fishing.
Conference on Managing Fisheries/Empowering Communities
In April of 2005, the North Pacific Council co-hosted with the
National Marine Fisheries Service Restricted Access Management Division
and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game a conference entitled
``Managing Fisheries/Empowering Communities.'' The questions raised and
the subsequent discussions at this conference only reinforce the sense
of frustration and urgency that our coastal communities are feeling.
The recommendations of that group include--
(a) Communities need to be able to hold and own fishing permits
for fisheries in their respective areas;
(b) Residents do not want to be forever precluded from fishing
resources near them simply because they did not happen to fish for that
species during a short set of ``qualifying years'';
(c) Communities need reliable fishing employment to allow young
people to remain. Currently, communities are ``training kids out of the
fishery'' due to lack of opportunity;
(d) Participation in (community fishing quota allows a community
to leverage its existing level of fisheries utilization;
(e) Instead of creating IFQs, make geographical CFQs that would
tie residents to the resource;
(f) Make sure that a provision exists in all quota or other
limitation systems to provide an opportunity for an entry level
component;
(g) Strengthen National Standard #8.
We strongly concur with these conclusions.
Recommendations
To help address major impediments to the programs for fisheries and
dependent small coastal communities, the GOAC3 recommends to the
Subcommittee the following:
(1) That community protections provisions in the MSA be
strengthened. National Standard 8 sets a broad national policy of
community protections, but this is generally not sufficient to
encourage the regional management Councils to apply significant
community protections as part of a rationalization program. This means
a community quota share program at a sufficient level, as recommended
both by the February 2004 GAO (General Accounting Office--now
Government Accountability Office) report to Congress on Individual
Fishing Quotas: Methods for Community Protections and New Entry Require
Periodic Evaluation'', 1 and the 1998 National Research
Council report ``Sharing the Fish.'' 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Several methods are available for protecting the economic
viability of fishing communities and facilitating new entry into IFQ
fisheries. The easiest and most direct way to help protect communities
under an IFQ program is to allow the communities themselves to hold
quota--. fishery managers can give each community control over how to
use the quota in ways that protect the community's economic viability,
such as selling or leasing quota to fishermen who reside in the
community.'' GAO Report # 04-277, February 2004, pages 2 and 12.
\2\ ``Sharing the Fish: Toward a National Policy on Individual
Fishing Quotas'', National Research Council, December 1998,
recommendations to Congress and/or regional management councils
regarding guidelines for IFQ programs, include (a) allow the public to
capture some of the windfall gain sometimes generated from the initial
allocation of quotas in new IFQ programs, (b) Councils should avoid
some of the allocation controversies encountered in the past by giving
more consideration to who should receive initial allocation, including
crew members, skippers, communities and other stakeholders, (c)
councils should avoid taking for granted the `gifting'' of quota shares
to the present participants in a fishery, just as they should avoid
taking for granted that vessel owners should be the only recipients of
quota and historical participation should be the only measure for
determining initial allocations, (d) when designing IFQ programs,
councils should be allowed to allocate quota shares to communities or
other groups, as distinct from vessel owners or fishermen.'' P.9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Give the regional management councils sufficient options for
them to make management decisions that are meaningful and beneficial to
their respective communities;
(3) Create national standards for any Dedicated Access Privilege
(DAP) program which include requirements for community protections;
(4) Congress should provide for a Community Fishing Quota program
for Gulf of Alaska communities. The essence of community protection is
long-term access to and control of the resource. Without dedicated
quota shares in the rationalized fisheries, the communities and their
economies are in serious jeopardy. (The GOAC3 will submit a proposal in
the near future to deal with the acute and chronic impediments to
community fisheries access that we have described);
(5) Institute methods for biannual reviews of rationalization
programs on impacted coastal communities;
(6) Provide funding for community quota share purchase programs,
such as Amendment 66;
(7) Strengthen the assessment of ``cumulative social impacts'' as
discussed in the National Marine Fisheries Service Social Impact
Assessment (SIA) Guidelines so that these impacts are actually factored
into the decision-making process.
The Gulf of Alaska Coastal Communities Coalition is supportive of
the existing fisheries management system in general. However, the GOAC3
strongly urges increased community protections and increased
opportunities for stakeholder participation, through dedicated
community seats on the Councils, increased community participation
within subcommittees, or other means.
On a related issue, the GOAC3 is on record opposing the permitting
of finfish aquaculture within the EEZ. The Coalition does this based on
research that strongly indicates that wherever there are near-shore or
off-shore aquaculture programs, the local communities ultimately pay a
heavy price rather than see a benefit. The dangers of aquaculture to
viable wild finfish stocks are well known. This Coalition is not
opposed, however, to shellfish aquaculture within State waters. It
currently seems the benefit ratio, as long as it is not impacting wild
stocks, is relatively good for shellfish.
Conclusion
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of
the fishermen, residents, and organizations that comprise the Gulf of
Alaska Coastal Communities Coalition in trying to keep small Gulf of
Alaska fishing communities alive. If current trends continue, it seems
improbable that most of the small coastal communities of the Gulf of
Alaska will have any commercial fishing in a few years. Unless real
steps are taken soon, this period will be known as the death knell for
many of these communities. Fishing is what has sustained them for
countless centuries, their fishing families and their social, cultural
and economic fabric. Fishing is what has kept these communities
economically viable. They are seeking a hand up, not a hand out.
This is not hyperbole...this is reality. These communities are at
an historical crossroads...the Congress therefore is at such a
crossroads. If the Congress does not provide strong guidance and
assistance to fisheries-dependent communities through the MSA
reauthorization, it will see further out-migration of fisheries
opportunities and capital to residents and businesses of states other
than Alaska.
Importantly, if this occurs, Congress will have missed a unique
opportunity to help ensure that rural communities in the Gulf of Alaska
will not become relegated to the dustbin of history, and will be able
to participate in Alaska's, as well as the Nation's, economy into the
future. If a substantial portion of these communities do not survive
because modest, common sense and equitable steps are not taken today,
when all are on notice of the precariousness of the situation, then
decision makers will have allowed this to happen. If that should occur,
something absolutely unique and irreplaceable will have been
squandered. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, we implore
you not to allow this to happen.
Thank you for your courtesy and consideration in affording the
GOAC3 with this opportunity to present these views today. We are eager
to work with you, members of the Alaska Delegation and other affected
parties to craft legislative language that is fair and effective in
addressing the issues we have raised with you today.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Ms. Childers.
STATEMENT OF DOROTHY CHILDERS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
ALASKA MARINE CONSERVATION COUNCIL
Ms. Childers. Thank you, Chair Gilchrest. My name is
Dorothy Childers. I'm the executive director of the Alaska
Marine Conservation Council. We are a community-based
organization made up of fishermen, traditional subsistence
harvesters, small business owners, biologists, and families
throughout coastal communities in Alaska. Our mission is to
protect the health and diversity of our marine ecosystem. And
we do that by working to improve fisheries management to
minimize bycatch, prevent overfishing, protect habitat, and
promote community-based fishing opportunities, all existing
objectives in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. We believe that
enabling communities to have access to our fishery resources
combined with strong conservation management preserves and
promotes both healthy economies and the ecosystems that our
fisheries depend on.
First, I would like to concur with the accolades made by
others that the North Pacific is the best managed fishery in
the United States because the North Pacific Council has
instituted certain positive practices. Some of these include,
as has been said by others before me, the allowable catches set
below the biological limit, sensitive areas have been protected
from bottom trawling, seabird interactions have been reduced in
longline fisheries, local fleet allocations. The Council
allocated a portion of the Bering Sea cod fishery to local
boats in the Aleutians Islands and this has enabled low impact
local fisheries to take hold in an otherwise industrialized
Bering Sea.
Beneath these and other positive aspects of our fisheries,
however, lies a more subtle critique which we believe is
important to recognize and address if we are to be really true
to the goal of long-term sustainable fisheries, healthy
ecosystems, and vibrant communities. And there are a number of
aspects of our management that need to be improved in the North
Pacific, both to address conservation needs identifiable today
as well as to prepare for problems that are likely to arise in
the future. And these are outlined in my written testimony.
I won't go into it here, all of them here, except to
mention that in terms of ecosystem-based management, we feel
very strongly that habitat research should be a feature of what
is encouraged to move us in that direction of ecosystem-based
management. And I would concur with other speakers that the
research component is important and without understanding the
habitats that our fisheries rely on, we will never have
ecosystem-based management. So we would like for Congress to
encourage and facilitate that happening.
Today I want to focus on a very significant change in
fisheries that is happening with the development of dedicated
access privileges. Individual fishing quotas or other kinds of
dedicated access privileges are often promoted as management
tools that have conservation and economic benefits as a natural
consequence of slowing down the race for fish and making
fisheries more efficient.
Our look at the case studies from around the world show
that the natural trend is toward increasing consolidation of
participants in a fishery, absentee ownership, and leasing
fishing access to sharecropper harvesters and communities
bereft of vibrant working waterfronts. At times conservation
benefits are hard to measure. The promise that dedicated access
programs will be a panacea for solving a wide array of problems
just by slowing down the race for fish is in our view a myth.
The lesson then is that particular outcomes for
conservation or fishing communities are not achieved unless
they are an explicit part of the program design. Having said
that, we also support well-designed rationalization programs.
So in order to get to well-designed programs, we are
recommending that Congress adopt guidelines for dedicated
access privileges to guide regional councils in the development
of specific programs.
Dedicated access is going to change the face of our
fisheries forever. And whether that's good or bad, the
consequences will be large and long-lasting. So it's critically
important to design them properly for intended outcomes.
Guidelines in the Magnuson-Stevens Act would ensure that new
dedicated access plans serve conservation effectively and
promote the working waterfront of our fishery-dependent
communities.
We recommend the following standards or guidelines be
included in the Magnuson Act.
Objectives. We feel that the programs must contain specific
and measurable objectives defining the biological, social, and
economic goals of each program. Programs should be designed
with incentives to reward clean fishing. That is, such as
promoting low bycatch, preventing high-grading, and minimizing
habitat impact.
Programs should be of limited duration. Before the end of
each term of duration, programs should be subject to a
scheduled review. If programs are meeting their objectives,
they should be continued for another term. And if not, they
should be modified to better achieve the objectives as a
condition of their continuation.
New entrants. Programs should create reasonable opportunity
for future generations of independent fishermen to enter the
fisheries, and that means reducing barriers that will arise if
these programs aren't designed properly.
Maintaining active participation in fishing. Programs
should preserve existing characteristics of diverse independent
fishing fleet by retaining the percentage of the catch that is
harvested as owner-on-board. That ensures that the owners of
the opportunity to fish are the people catching the fish. And
also to prevent excessive consolidation.
Our last point is the question of data collection and
disclosure. We feel that programs that dedicate access for a
public resource to private individuals should require
transparency of ownership of the fishing quotas, transparency
in quota transfers and leasing, and agreements that govern the
use of quota. This kind of information is needed for managers
to understand who actually controls quota as a prerequisite to
enforcing caps on consolidation.
And, finally, we urge Congress to promote competitive
markets. We don't think that Congress should authorize controls
on markets through processing quota or limiting what processors
are eligible to buy fish. These are barriers to competition and
they ultimately affect individual fishermen and their
opportunities to participate and enter the fishery.
We don't think that it's in Alaska's or the nation's
interest to limit entrepreneurial activity in the seafood
business. And so we would recommend Congress look to other non-
permanent means to assist processors in adapting to the
transition from open access race for fish fisheries to slower
paced fisheries. We think that that transition could occur
without permanent rights to buy and sell fish.
So, in summary, AMCC appreciates the work that Congress did
in the 1996 reauthorization. We urge the Committee to maintain
these existing provisions to minimize bycatch, prevent and end
overfishing, protect habitat, and promote our communities. And
to build on these positive steps, AMCC recommends establishing
standards for dedicated access privileges as guidance to the
regional councils.
And thank you again for the opportunity to be here. I hope
that you'll have an opportunity to look at our written
testimony and the more specific conservation recommendations
that we make there.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Ms. Childers. We will
look at that on our long journey home.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Childers follows:]
Statement of Dorothy Childers, Executive Director,
Alaska Marine Conservation Council
Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the important issues
associated with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act reauthorization.
The Alaska Marine Conservation Council (AMCC) is a community-based
organization made up of fishermen, traditional subsistence harvesters,
small business owners, biologists and families. Our mission is to
protect the health and diversity of our marine ecosystem. We do that by
working to improve fisheries management to minimize bycatch, prevent
overfishing, protect habitat and promote clean, community-based fishing
opportunities--all existing objectives in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. We
believe that enabling communities to have access to our fishery
resources, combined with strong conservation management, preserves and
promotes healthy economies and ecosystems on which our fisheries
depend.
North Pacific as a Model for Fisheries Management
The North Pacific is often promoted as a model for fishery
management in other regions. The implication is that if other regional
councils were raised to the standards employed here in the North
Pacific, overfishing and a myriad other problems would be solved. The
North Pacific has achieved the accolade of being the best managed
fishery because there are no declared overfished groundfish species in
Alaska and because the North Pacific Fishery Management Council has
instituted certain positive practices including the following:
Optimum Yield Cap--The Council established a 2 million
metric ton cap on the total amount of groundfish that can be harvested
annually from the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. In the Bering Sea,
the amount of fish that could be taken based on maximum sustainable
yield would be higher than the 2 million metric ton cap. So the cap has
put the brakes on even larger landings that would have been permitted
if the total allowable catch were based only on biomass estimates.
Total Allowable Catch is Set Below Biological Limit--The
Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) sets the Acceptable
Biological Catch (ABC) and the Council sets the total allowable catch
(TAC) at or below this limit for each groundfish species. Setting the
TAC below the biological level serves as a buffer, which helps to
account for uncertainty in stock assessment models. This practice has
prevented political influence from persuading the Council to exceed
scientifically established fishing limits.
Bottom Trawl Closures--The Council has closed several
large areas to bottom trawling (Southeast Alaska, Bristol Bay, a zone
around the Pribilof Islands and, most recently, 60% of the fishable
grounds in the Aleutian Islands). Some of these actions were crisis
driven to protect collapsed crab populations while others prevent
destructive fishing practices in sensitive areas containing coral and
other living habitat features.
Observer Program--The Council established an observer
program to monitor catch and bycatch in groundfish fisheries. The
program has provided important data for evaluating fisheries
performance and controlling trawl fishery bycatch of certain species
including halibut, crab, salmon and herring.
Bycatch Reduction--Estimated total bycatch in the North
Pacific has reduced by 50% since the last reauthorization.
Seabird Protection--Through an industry/agency/Council
partnership, the longline fleet has adopted creative technology to
reduce fatal interactions with seabirds including the endangered short-
tail albatross.
Small Boat Allocation--The Council allocated 2% of the
Bering Sea cod fishery to jig boats. This, along with allocations to
other small fixed gear fleets, has enabled low-impact local fisheries
to take hold in the otherwise industrialized Bering Sea. Similarly, the
State of Alaska allocated 25% of the federal cod TAC in the Gulf of
Alaska to jig and pot vessels only, which revived opportunities for
clean, community-based fleets.
These attributes deserve recognition and a note that they are
measures that help implement legal requirements in the Magnuson-Stevens
Act. Beneath these positive aspects of our fisheries, however, lies a
more subtle critique, which we believe is important to recognize and
address if we are to be true to the goal of long-term sustainable
fisheries intended by the Magnuson-Stevens Act and healthy ecosystems:
While it's important to set the TAC below biological
limits, the question then is how biological limits are set. Some
aspects of setting biological limits are worthy of conservation
improvements. For example, some of the most vulnerable species, such as
rougheye rockfish that live to be over 200 years old, are managed as
one large population across the vast Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
region, without regard to localized populations or their fidelity to
specific locales or habitat features. Overfishing appears to be
occurring in some areas though the problem is not represented in catch
statistics for the region as a whole. Continuing to manage this way is
likely to mask an overfishing situation, which would be especially
serious for long-lived, slow recovering species like rockfish.
As a second example, the tragic legacy of crab fisheries in Alaska
is that almost every crab fishery in the central Gulf and Bering Sea is
either significantly reduced or closed due to population declines.
Policy makers are content to accept the hypothesis that these declines
were caused only by changing oceanographic conditions even though there
is evidence that exploitation rates were too high in some cases and
continued impacts are occurring from the use of bottom trawl gear in
sensitive areas.
Finally, for other species, such as pollock, it may be important to
take into account other food web dynamics. The depleted fur seal
population of the Pribilof Islands feeds in the same area that large-
scale fisheries occur. While the islands and surrounding waters are
critically important for breeding and raising pups and the fur seal is
culturally important to the Aleut people who live there, such ecosystem
factors are not taken into account when setting overall fishery catch
limits.
The Council and NOAA Fisheries Alaska Region have
recognized that bottom trawling is the most damaging fishing practice
and has closed some large areas as a result. The problem is that, as
fishery managers acknowledge, we don't know the habitat requirements
for virtually any groundfish species in the North Pacific. Furthermore,
there is a significant dearth of information about where sensitive
habitats are located, such as the distribution of coral and sponge
habitats or other sensitive living seafloor structures. Very little
mapping has been done to evaluate the condition of these habitats,
assess habitat degradation or enable habitat conservation to be pursued
in a more systematic fashion.
The observer program allows for data collection on only
about 15% of the groundfish catch in the Gulf of Alaska. This problem
has persisted since 1995 when improvements designed to fix this and
other problems were rescinded. More and higher quality data are needed
to track these fisheries and understand fishing practices and their
effects more clearly.
Bycatch has been reduced from over 600 million pounds in
1997 to an average of 300 million pounds since 1998. This is a
gratifying improvement generated primarily by the requirement that all
trawl vessels must avoid or retain the catch of juvenile pollock and
cod. However, measures to reduce bycatch in some of the most
indiscriminate fisheries (for Bering Sea flatfish) have been postponed
three times and are not likely to be implemented before 2007, a full 11
years after Congress passed the Sustainable Fisheries Act. In 2003
these bottom trawl fisheries collectively wasted 30% of their catch;
some vessels throw away at least half of their catch of certain
species. Finally, measures to minimize salmon bycatch in Bering Sea
trawl fisheries have not succeeded but the bycatch has dramatically
increased in recent years to about 500,000 salmon taken in 2004 in the
pollock fishery.
We appreciate that the Council is committed to working on some of
these outstanding issues, including rockfish conservation, salmon
bycatch and the observer program. However, these glass-half-full and
glass-half-empty views of our fisheries provide a snapshot of the
strengths and weaknesses of the North Pacific system today and a basis
for how Congress can amend the Magnuson-Stevens Act so as to capture
the positive features of the North Pacific and further build on the
Alaska experience to take all the Nation's fisheries to a higher level.
Applying Lessons from the North Pacific to Magnuson-Stevens Act
Reauthorization
We recommend that the Magnuson-Stevens Act be amended to strengthen
the role of science in decision-making, a strong recommendation by the
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. Specifically, we recommend 1)
institutionalizing the North Pacific practice of setting TACs at or
below biological limits established by the SSC, and 2) increasing the
role of the SSC in determining other biological needs that regional
councils would then need to act on. These needs might include, for
example, establishing habitat priorities, ecosystem parameters, or
refinements to setting ABCs to take into account special life history
characteristics, predator/prey interactions or other ecosystem
considerations.
My experience as a participant in the Council process is that the
SSCs advice on catch limits is always heeded. On other matters,
however, the council's response is inconsistent. With a clearer and
more substantive role, as recommended by the U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy, this irregularity could be remedied without changing the
regional decision-making system.
In addition, AMCC supports maintaining the conservation provisions
added to the Magnuson-Stevens Act in the 1996 reauthorization. We
advise against rolling back any of the provisions (including the
overfishing guidelines for rebuilding overfished species) and believe
all councils can and should come to terms with those basic requirements
to minimize bycatch, end overfishing, protect habitat and promote
communities.
New Challenges that the Magnuson-Stevens Act Should Address
1. Ecosystem-Based Management
The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy was clear in its report that
the primary new challenge to the federal government is to build an
ecosystem-based approach to ocean management including fisheries.
Substantial discussion is underway about how to achieve this goal
ranging from changing the ocean governance system to technical changes
that build ecosystem parameters into fishery stock assessment models.
From our standpoint, the ecosystem challenge needs to be met at many
levels of decision-making.
Our particular interest is building better mechanisms for
considering habitat in fishery management decisions. As described by
the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy 1, good information on
the distribution of habitats, ecological functions and sensitivity of
habitats to fishing impacts is a cornerstone of ecosystem-based
fisheries management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ USCOP, 2004. Final Report, p. 297. ``...maintaining healthy,
functioning habitats is an essential element of an ecosystem-based
approach.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Council has made some positive decisions that protect sensitive
areas but well-informed ecosystem-based management needs better
information on what habitat is where. The Alaska Fisheries Science
Center has accomplished some impressive habitat mapping work using
sophisticated technology; we urge Congress to authorize funds to be
spent on continuing this kind of research and giving priority to
habitat mapping in research funding authorizations. 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ This recommendation is supported by the USCOP and North Pacific
Research Board:
USCOP, 2004. Final Report, p. 298. The USCOP recommended ``...an
extensive research and development program to...identify habitats
critical to sustainability and biodiversity goals.''
NPRB, 2004. Draft Science Plan, p. 78. ``...basic research is
needed to characterize habitat and its relationship to fish, to assess
direct and indirect effects of fishing gears...and to determine the
overall ecosystem function of specific types of habitat.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Habitat conservation can be a very controversial matter sparking
heated debate but that is most often driven by a lack of information
about what habitats are at risk, where they are located and the level
of impact occurring. Despite the heated debates, I've never heard a
fisherman say he didn't think habitat was important. Ultimately
progressive solutions lie in effective research yielding practical maps
and data to inform scientists, stakeholders and decision-makers and
enable creative ways to protect habitat while maintaining economically
viable fisheries.
2. Dedicated Access Privileges
Individual Fishing Quotas (IFQs) or other kinds of dedicated access
privileges are often discussed as fishery management models that are
expected to have conservation and economic benefits as a natural
consequence of slowing down the ``race for fish'' and making fisheries
more efficient. However, IFQ case studies from around the world show
that their natural trend is toward increasing consolidation of
participants in a fishery, absentee owners leasing fishing access to
sharecropper harvesters, ill-defined conservation benefits and
communities bereft of a vibrant working waterfront. The promise that
dedicated access programs will be a panacea for solving a wide array of
problems just by slowing down the race for fish is a myth. The lesson
is that particular outcomes for conservation or the preservation of
fishing communities are not achieved unless they are an explicit part
of the program design. The National Research Council emphasized the
importance of program design in its report to Congress:
Confusion, conflict, and ambiguity about the relative
importance and value of the objectives of an IFQ program can
result in contradictions and inconsistencies in its design and
implementation, making the program more vulnerable to
unintended consequences and less likely to succeed.
3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ National Research Council, 1999. Sharing the Fish, Toward a
National Policy on Individual Fishing Quotas. P. 197.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dedicated access programs are going to change the face of our
fisheries forever. Whether good or bad, the consequences will be large
and long lasting so it's critically important to design them properly
for intended outcomes. Standards in the Magnuson-Stevens Act would
ensure that new dedicated access plans serve conservation effectively
and promote the working waterfront of our fishery-dependent
communities. AMCC recommends that Congress adopt the following
standards to guide regional councils in the development of specific
programs:
Objectives--Programs must contain specific and measurable
objectives defining the biological, social and economic goals of the
program.
Conservation Benefits--Programs should be designed to
reward clean fishing (e.g. promote low bycatch, prevent high-grading,
minimize habitat impacts).
Limited Duration--Programs should be of limited duration
(7-10 years). Before the end of each term of duration, programs should
be subject to review. If programs are meeting their objectives, they
should be continued for another term. If not, they should be modified
to better achieve the objectives as a condition of their continuation.
Regional councils should also be able to make minor course corrections
as needed within a term of duration.
New Entrants--Programs should create reasonable
opportunity for future generations of independent fishermen to enter
the fishery.
Maintain Active Participation in Fishing--
Preserve existing characteristics of today's diverse
independent fishing fleets by retaining the percentage of the catch
that is harvested as owner-on-board.
Prevent ownership of fishing privileges by individuals or
entities not otherwise associated with the fishery.
Prevent excessive consolidation.
Data Collection & Disclosure--Programs that dedicate
access to a public resource to private individuals should require
transparency of 1) ownership of fishing quotas, 2) quota transfers and
leasing, and 3) agreements that govern the use of quota. Such
information is needed for managers to understand who controls quota as
a prerequisite to enforcing caps on consolidation. This may be
especially important as it applies to cooperatives.
Competitive Markets--Congress should not authorize
controls on markets through processing quota, limiting what processors
are eligible to buy fish or requiring independent fishermen to deliver
the catch to specific markets. All of these restraints are barriers to
competition. It is not in Alaska or the Nation's interest to limit
entrepreneurial activity in the seafood business. We recommend Congress
look to other non-permanent means to assist processors in adapting to
the transition from the open access ``race for fish'' to slower-paced
fisheries.
Summary
AMCC appreciates the work Congress did in the 1996 reauthorization
and we urge the committee to maintain these existing provisions to
minimize bycatch, end overfishing, protect habitat and promote
communities. To build on those positive steps, AMCC's specific
recommendations are:
Improve fisheries management in all the regions including
the North Pacific by strengthening the use of science in management
through greater adherence to recommendations by the Scientific and
Statistical Committees on the setting of total allowable catch and
other aspects of management such as establishing habitat priorities,
ecosystem parameters, or refinements to setting ABCs to take into
account special life history characteristics, predator/prey
interactions or other ecosystem considerations.
Enable habitat research by authorizing funds and giving
priority to mapping living seafloor habitats and determining their
ecological functions as a critical tool to move our fisheries to an
ecosystem-based approach.
Establish standards for dedicated access privileges as
guidance to ensure fishery managers achieve community and conservation
goals as they develop programs at the regional level.
Thank you again for this opportunity to provide AMCC's perspective
to the committee.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. I want to thank all of you for your
testimony. And a quick comment before some questions. I live in
a tiny little place called the eastern shore of Maryland which
is a tiny little spot on the Chesapeake Bay, which is one of
the few places on the East Coast that can still be considered
dark at night. It's agriculture and it's fishing. It was
described one time in a local newspaper as a landscape that's
carpeted with farms and dotted with fishing villages. And we
feel passionate about the small farmers and the small waterman,
as we call them there, because they've been economically viable
for 300 years or more.
So when you talk about change to us, everybody's ears perk
up. And we look at economic growth as a bad thing, because we
have economic--we have a dynamic economy that is fine the way
it is. And economic growth to us means change that disrupts
this economy that we've had for 300 years.
And as we pursue this reauthorization, we get a sense,
having been here for just about less than 24 hours now in
Kodiak, that each of you has a passion for this beautiful spot.
And any change I am cognizant of your testimonies in Magnuson
really will have a direct impact on your livelihood. So we want
to be very careful as we pursue this.
So a couple of questions. The question will be to each of
you that wants to answer it. That word again raised by the
Mayor of Kodiak, gentrification, we would like to pursue a
rationalization program that does not have as its primary
result a gentrification of the fishing industry up here. Now,
how do we do that from Washington?
I think the Council is pursuing, as Ms. Madsen described, a
controlled gentrification process that's fair rather than an
uncontrolled gentrification process that is not fair. Do we
need, from each of your perspectives, to change National
Standard 8 to deal with standards or guidelines for the North
Pacific Council to pursue this rationalization, or do we not
need to mention standards or guidelines other than what is
already in the Magnuson Act right now?
So your recommendation to us, I know, Ms. Childers, you
described how you would like to see us put in standards and
guidelines in the Magnuson Act specific to deal with certain
aspect of the fisheries. So I guess I would just like a general
comment about standards and guidelines in the Magnuson Act
directly related to the rationalization of the various
fisheries.
Just one other short comment. Ms. Madsen seemed, and please
keep her comments here in mind because she described to us a
process that seemed to be transparent, open, and fair, in the
rationalization process, but I would like to hear your specific
comments. Since we're going back to Washington and we're not
going to be back up here for quite some time, your comments are
pretty important.
I don't know who we want to start with. Mr. Fields.
Mr. Fields. Mr. Chairman, I'll attempt to take the complex
series of questions. It's hard to address all of those.
Mr. Gilchrest. I apologize.
Mr. Fields. With regard to the gentrification aspect of the
fisheries, our advocacy and interest for community fisheries
quota, that becomes one of the priorities within each of these
rural communities that could provide fishing opportunities for
the young people trying to get started. And so implicit in our
request for community fishing quota is an attempt to address
the so-called gentrification of the fisheries or to provide
fishing opportunities for young people in these communities.
I think a number of the things that Mayor Selby pointed out
are tools that should be looked at. In reference to those
general tools, I think guidelines in this regard would be
helpful in terms of the national policy that over time these
fisheries need to pass on to subsequent generations and that we
don't pass a public resource into a limited number of players
in perpetuity, Mr. Chairman.
So, yes, I would think guidelines or standards would be
helpful. And I don't know that there's one solution for all
fisheries and certainly not for a national policy. You know,
owner on board is something that should be looked at. Limited
leasing, very important. A proportional transfer of quota when
quota is either leased or changed hands that would go into a
pool that then would be reissued, that's an option. Something
that Ms. Childers referenced, the so-called Australian drop-
through system where in every so many years you have a review
and you create a new system and the old shares move on. All
those are tools that could be used or looked at within a set of
national guidelines, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Mr. Fields.
Mr. Stinson.
Mr. Stinson. Well, Mr. Chairman, I'll give this a shot. As
we move through this concept of rationalization, I think we
might move back to actually the definition of rationalization.
Rationalization is to create rations from a limited resource.
It refers to soldiers, sailors with a limited amount of
critical resource. How do you allocate that resource amongst
user groups or sectors of the users with a certain degree of
equitability, understanding impacts on socio-economic aspects,
things like that.
In the North Pacific we're moving through an evolutionary
process. Certainly one of the first types of rationalization
occurred in the salmon fishery where we created limited entry.
We defined which people could participate in that resource, in
that fishery. Later on we moved into halibut and sablefish. We
made individual fishing quotas. And I think that's where a lot
of the problem comes from or the concerns about the problem
because certainly there were negative impacts to small coastal
communities, the out-migration of history or IFQs to non-
traditional users, or to those folks that had a better business
model that could buy this IFQ.
There was a tremendous amount of consolidation that went
on. I think we went from something like 3500 vessels pre-IFQ
down to 1400 vessels post-IFQ. There was a tremendous amount of
consolidation.
Certainly, as we went through AFA there was more, that was
a different program. And now as we're going through crab
rationalization, that's a different program. Each one of those
is going to have positive and negative impacts on the
associated users with it. As we move through rationalization
say in the Gulf of Alaska, it's a very complex set of
circumstances here. Certainly, it's more of a small boat
community-oriented process.
At the same time, my sector, my group, Alaska Draggers,
we're actually competing on an economic market with the folks
that have gone through AFA. So if we're directed to operate
under a different economic model than say what the fleet in the
Bering Sea is, there's going to be inequitabilities within that
relationship.
We need to have the tools that are going to allow us to
compete in a market-driven process, moving from a production-
driven process as we're now in this race for fish. So I think
that developing a set of guidelines that are fairly general in
nature, would assist the councils in this process. But as we
move through each fishery and each region, I don't think we
want to be constrained so much that we're disenfranchising
those folks that are already in the industry.
Industry folks have made the commitment, the financial
commitment in the vessels and gear and the related business
overheads that they're already engaged with. And they're
concerned that their playing field may be radically changed in
order to allocate to new--a different sector of folks. How do
we address that balance is going to be critical, so I don't
think we want to be too restrictive in the development of these
guidelines.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Stinson.
Ms. Bonney.
Ms. Bonney. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I guess when I look at the
history of the dedicated access privileges in the North
Pacific, every one of the programs that's been developed has
been unique and different. And to try to develop guidelines
that are going to allow the different programs to evolve over
time, I think is going to very difficult. And I'm also
concerned that when you look at a national guideline, the
lessons that have been learned in the North Pacific, we're
farther ahead than a lot of the other regions in the United
States.
And so I personally like the regional approach. And I
think, you know, if you look at what you see in Ketchikan
versus what you see in Kodiak, if you went to Dutch Harbor,
each one of those communities, those fleets, the processors,
they're all unique. And I have trouble believing that we can
come up with standards that are going to fit all the tools. And
I tend to agree with Ms. Madsen that we're better off having
the full suite available so that when we're all done with the
design and we built the best program for whatever the fishery
group that we're moving forward is, and, you know, in terms of
I live in Kodiak. I've been here since 1983, 22 years.
And really the goal should be when you move toward
rationalization, there are two mind-sets in this community. One
is we don't want to go to rationalization. We're going to stand
in front of the train. And I tell people on a regular basis,
the train has left the station. And the goal should be to put
all the luggage on the train so that when you get to the
station, everything is there to build the appropriate program.
Mr. Gilchrest. Good.
Ms. Bonney. And I went through and read some articles about
when we did salmon limited entry. And Kodiak was adamantly
opposed to salmon limited entry in the early 70s. And all the
arguments that we hear about Gulf rationalization were the same
under salmon limited entry. So I would suggest that people get
their baggage together and get it on the train so that when we
get to the station, we as a community as a whole will be better
off. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Ms. Bonney.
Mr. Benton.
Mr. Benton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Listening to the other
folks on the panel, what you hear about is the diversity of
fisheries and circumstances in Alaska; that's one region, one
state, and it is very diverse. If you think about that on a
national scale, it becomes even more problematic. The kinds of
criteria or standards that might be put in the Magnuson Act
that could accommodate the unique circumstances in the Bering
Sea and the unique circumstances in the Gulf of Alaska and the
unique circumstances in the Gulf of Mexico versus the unique
circumstances off Guam, that's going to be a very difficult
task. I think that's why, for example, the council chairs have
asked that they be given the latitude to do the job and address
it on a regional basis with the unique circumstances they are
facing.
Our organization supports rationalization programs. We've
taken no position on who should be in, who should be out. We
believe very strongly that councils are the best venue to sort
that stuff out. I know in Alaska that for each of these
programs that has been developed, there have been hundreds and
hundreds of hours of testimony, thousands of pages of analysis,
many, many iterations and opportunities for affected parties to
become involved as you pointed out and as Ms. Madsen pointed
out.
And just, you know, to put it in somewhat of a perspective,
if you look at the programs here in Alaska, most people think
about dedicated access programs, the new terminology, but the
first one of those programs that was put into place or adopted
was halibut/sablefish IFQ program, but that's not correct. The
first program was the community development quota program. That
was a community-based program. The IFQ program came along very
quickly on the heels, but that was, you know, that was a
community-based kind of program that was put together.
And the Council here has been able to address a number of
different kinds of circumstances. They included skippers in the
crab program. They've done halibut IFQ purchase programs for
the Gulf coastal communities; Mr. Fields' organization
represents a lot of those communities. In the charter boat IFQ
program, there's provisions in there for community quotas in
that program. And then the current Gulf of Alaska
rationalization program, there's a whole slew of community
protection provisions that are being looked at including
community quotas. So the councils generally have the tools.
There may need to be some refinement in that, but the point
being to try to put something together on a national level is
going to be difficult. And I wouldn't envy somebody the task of
trying to figure that out. It's quite a Chinese puzzle.
Mr. Gilchrest. I wouldn't either envy somebody.
Ms. Childers.
Ms. Childers. Mr. Chairman, may I add one thing.
Mr. Gilchrest. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Childers. Well, obviously, I do think that there needs
to be more in the Act besides National Standard 8, and the
reason is that dedicated access programs are sweeping in their
effects. And I think that National Standard 8 by itself doesn't
address it sufficiently. And it doesn't speak to the
conservation expectations that we should have for IFQ or
dedicated access programs.
And I really, with all due respect to Mr. Benton, I do
think that Congress can design standards or guidelines that are
appropriate nationally. The ones that I listed, and I will
challenge myself to go through them again and see if I think
there's some place where they don't make sense, but they're
very basic concepts where, for example, every program has
objectives that you can have a review that measures against
those objectives and make course corrections to better achieve
those objectives.
I mean, these things are basic. They're not meant to be at
all micromanaging any council and any particular fishery. And I
think that because of the sweeping nature of dedicated access
and because Congress by allowing it, is allowing, you know,
private access to the public's resource, that it's really
Congress's responsibility to make sure that in doing so that
certain things are met and certain expectations are achieved.
Mr. Gilchrest. Ms. Childers, we will take a very close look
at this particular aspect of the dedicated access programs
rationalization. We want to create a framework that doesn't
inhibit the Council but is certainly fair to all the people who
have been participating in this fishery for such a great deal
of time. We will deal with this in a very dedicated,
comprehensive, competent fashion.
What you deserve here in Kodiak or Dutch Harbor or
Ketchikan or anywhere else in the country from us is for us to
be competent and informed and be influenced by the best
available information. And as we go through this, that's
exactly what we're going to do. And we want to create a
framework for the councils so that initiative, ingenuity, and
intellect will be the ingredients that create the various
evolving aspects of the fisheries. So we will spend a lot of
time on this issue.
I wanted to ask just a couple other questions dealing with
some other areas. If each of you would like to comment on the
evolution into rationalization. The pursuit of good information
has brought us to observers, either human or cameras, and data
collection from both, every aspect of the fishery. And many of
you this morning have mentioned the Freedom of Information Act
and proprietary information.
And as we move forward with trying to collect data, and
that does come up against whether or not there will be
firewalls to proprietary information. There has been some
recommendations to include in Magnuson some provision to create
firewalls for information purposes. So if you could make some
comments about how you would like us to proceed in that area,
it would be helpful. Don't know where we want to start or who
would like to make a comment on that.
Ms. Bonney.
Ms. Bonney. Mr. Chairman, actually there is a
recommendation in the Council's chair document that deals
explicitly with this issue in terms of firewall protection. It
deals with the concept of agencies being able to share the
information for management purposes, but only the aggregated
data could be released.
We see that regularly in the council process where if you
have three vessels' worth of information, then that's
releasable, but anything less than that is withheld due to
confidentiality issues. I also believe that the Agency is
working on a draft, and I would look to that draft to see how
they're thinking to protect that firewall.
There are other things that--issues that need to be
considered such as if you have video cameras and there's
someone gets injured on the vessel, that there needs to be some
way to, you know, protect the vessel for that kind of
information as well. So really, there's several pieces, the
FOIA-bility in terms of releasing information where it's
glassed on the front of a newspaper, and then also the issues
of safety issues and liability issues on the vessel.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
Mr. Stinson.
Mr. Stinson. Mr. Chairman, I concur with what Ms. Bonney
has said. I've spent probably 20 years out on the water with
sea time. And your boat becomes your home, and certainly we're
engaged in a commonwealth or a public industry with a public
resource. But at the same time, to invite intrusion into your
home, your living area, your place of business on a 24-hour, 7-
day-a-week basis, that information needs to be treated with
discretion. And I think that's kind of a philosophical approach
to this. There's certainly legal aspects that go beyond that.
But as far as skipper, owner, and speaking for my crew members,
we need to have certain limits on the intrusion into our
privacy.
We need good data. We need to have the Agency have access
to that. We need to look at species data, bycatch rates, a lot
of other things, but as Ms. Bonney said, we don't need this
information splashed across the front page of the newspaper.
That's not necessarily what good science is, so thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much.
Mr. Fields.
Mr. Fields. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be brief. This is
a complex area, but I think it's real important to appreciate
that you're talking about numerous different kinds of
information and different qualitative information. For example,
information that provides competitive economic advantage or
conversely would provide disadvantage, certainly that needs to
be protected. But information that is perhaps embarrassing on
an individual basis, let's say bycatch data for example, that's
information about how a public resource is being exploited. And
perhaps bycatch data is of a qualitatively different nature and
should be treated differently.
For example, it's my understanding that in Canada when they
went to individual bycatch reporting, they substantially
improved their bycatch rates in Canada because the
accountability that comes with individual reporting.
So in answer to your question, complex area, many types of
data, some should obviously be protected, others perhaps as a
matter of public policy should be made available.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much.
Ms. Childers. I just have a short comment, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Sure.
Ms. Childers. From the conservation standpoint, I think
what's important is not individual vessel information in terms
of the name of the vessel. I don't think anyone's interested in
knowing the name of the vessel and how they're behaving, but
rather having clearer information, more exact information,
about where fishing occurs, and not who is there, but, you
know, where fishing--how the fishing patterns really occur
spatially is one example.
And the reason I say that is during our essential fish
habitat deliberations, everyone was trying to build a solution
that would freeze the footprints of the bottom trawl fishery in
the Aleutian Islands. But there was great discrepancy about
where the footprint really is, and the reason there was
discrepancy is because the public is not allowed to actually
know where the fishery occurs very exactly.
And the information that was finally used to define that
footprint was confidential. And so it doesn't seem correct for
the public to not be able to understand these kind of basic
things about where fishing is occurring. And, again, we're not
interested in who was there or, you know, that kind of personal
information and business sensitive information, but rather to
just be able to access the same information that the industry
has in, you know, helping to come up with solutions and being a
more constructive part of the process.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much.
Mr. Benton.
Mr. Benton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As Mr. Fields pointed
out, this is a very complicated and complex issue or can be. I
don't believe anybody in the North Pacific wants to deny the
Agency information it needs to manage fishery resources and
other resources that need to be managed and to control the
fisheries and know where fishing is occurring and what kind of
fishing and what the effects of that fishing are. All that
information is appropriate I think generally and widely
supported that the managers and the enforcement agencies would
have access to that information on as fine a scale as is, you
know, cost effectively available. I mean, there's some cost
issues involved and those have to be factored in.
One of the tools that is emerging, of course, is video
remote monitoring of fishing operations which promises to
provide a much more comprehensive data base at a much more cost
effective manner on a broader fleet because just by the nature
of how it can operate. And that information, in order for that
program to be effective, that information is going to need to
be protected in some manner and right now there's a lot of
ambiguity about that. That needs to be clarified.
The kind of issue raised by Ms. Childers had much less to
do with confidentiality than it had to do with the nature of
the information that had been collected over the years by the
observer program. The observer program was not necessarily
intended originally to document very specifically where fishing
occurred for what species and specific toe tracks. What it was
really designed to do was to collect biological information on
removals from general areas on a fleet-wide basis in
statistically reliable cassettes of information to control the
fisheries. That data was then used or attempted to be used to
develop the essential fish habitat footprint that the Council
eventually identified.
The problem was less that the public had access to it than
that the Agency itself had difficulties in interpreting some of
what that data meant. And when they got down to a fine enough
scale to start looking at it, they found out that their toe
tracks, some of them were inland and some of them were on top
of rocks and some of them were in places that nobody had ever
gone. And it was just an artifact of how data was entered into
the system several years ago. That needed to get clarified and
cleaned up. And it did, but it highlighted some problems that
need to be reconciled in the observer program in a data
collection system. But it had less to do with the
confidentiality issue than it did with the structure of how
data is collected.
Confidentially, what I think concerns the fleet, which
you're hearing about, isn't whether or not bycatch information
is embarrassing because that information is recorded. It's
recorded on a fleet-wide basis or a subset of the fleet. The
Agency, if it's a violation, the Agency has access to that
information right now, and they can take appropriate
enforcement action.
The kinds of information that I think people are the most
concerned about is information that then gets misused and
mischaracterized by people that either have an agenda or are
unfamiliar with the data and how it's collected. And that's the
kind of protection would need to be put in place in order for
there to be good solid cooperation from the fleet.
You want to have the best information about where fishing
is occurring, how it's occurring, what species are being taken,
what effects that might have on other components of the marine
ecosystem. The best program is going to have to have solid
cooperation from the fleet, from the skippers, the people that
participate. If they feel threatened that that's going to be
misused against them in some in appropriate way, then you're
not going to have that cooperation. That's really the
fundamental issue that needs to be solved.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much.
Just one last question. We, if I haven't said this earlier,
I think I may have, but we're going to leave the record open
for 60 days. So the people that want to give us more
information or participate will be able to do so. But I would
like to continue this dialog certainly in the months ahead with
all of you. And we can respond to this just very briefly for
those of you who want to respond.
Do you see or would you recommend any change in the makeup
of the councils? Do you see any need for any kind of council
reform? You don't have to respond to that if don't want to. If
you want to, you can say, no, yes, or----
Mr. Benton.
Mr. Benton. I've always let these guys go first, and I'll
go first this time. They can make potshots at me, Mr. Chairman.
You know, I served on the North Pacific Council for nine
years and have 20-some odd years experience on the North
Pacific Council. Through that time, I've also had experience
with most of the other councils around the country. And in the
course of my experience, at least in the North Pacific, when it
comes down to a clear issue of conservation versus the
pocketbook, I'm not talking about allocation issues where, you
know, there's a, you know, people are butting heads over an
allocation matter. That's different. But I'm talking about when
it comes down to very clearly conservation versus the
pocketbook.
Time and time again, I've seen industry participants, both
the conservation side of the equation against what logic would
tell you is not necessarily in the interest of their
pocketbook. And the easiest example of that of course is the
catch level issue I mentioned in my statement, which is there
have been many times when it would have been easy to vote to
raise catch levels higher than what was recommended by the
scientific advisors.
Sometimes it would be easy to raise catch levels higher
than what was adopted by the Council and still stay within the
level that the scientists provided. The industry
representatives and the state representatives and the Federal
representative on the Council consistently have supported going
for the conservation side of the equation. That's a pretty
strong statement about participation on fishery management
councils.
When I served on our council, we had a lot of industry
participants. I served both as a private citizen and as a
representative of the State of Alaska. We had scientists. We've
had environmental representatives or people that, you know,
were considered to be environmental representatives, most of
which, by the way, were involved in commercial fishing as well.
And throughout the process, to me, there was never really a
consistent pattern of people voting against conservation for
the pocketbook.
That to me has been the chief criticism of the council
process. That, you know, for some odd reason because we've got
fishermen and others involved that have a stake in the
fisheries, there's an automatic conflict of interest. And when
I looked at the different reports that have come out the last
two years, not one of those reports actually went and looked at
the voting records. They did do a lot of interviews with people
who raised concerns that that may be an issue, but they didn't
actually go down and look at the voting record.
My experience has been that that conflict of interest issue
really is to me a red herring. I think there are other things
that need to be done. And the simplest way of dealing with that
is to just tell the councils, you live within the amounts your
scientists tell you is sustainable, you don't exceed it. And
that goes a long way to just get that problem right off the
table.
Mr. Gilchrest. You want me to put that into the Act as a
direct line in the statute.
Mr. Benton. I'm feeling the slings and arrows as I sit
here, Mr. Chairman, but our organization does support that as a
matter of fact.
Mr. Gilchrest. Yes, sir.
Mr. Benton. Yes.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you. Anybody else on that.
Mr. Fields.
Mr. Fields. Mr. Chairman, from my perspective representing
small boat fishermen in rural communities, I think access to
the Council has been difficult in the past. Although I've been
actually involved now about six years in the council process.
I'm reminded of an analogy, when you asked the question of
the Council, with my five boys who tend to fight from time to
time.
Mr. Gilchrest. You have five sons.
Mr. Fields. Five sons.
Mr. Gilchrest. Any daughters.
Mr. Fields. And one daughter.
Mr. Gilchrest. And one daughter. I'm one of six sons. My
mother tried and tried, but gave up after six of trying.
Mr. Fields. Well, we tried as well, I guess.
Mr. Gilchrest. You were successful.
Mr. Fields. But, you know, it's sort of, you can fight, but
you keep it in the family and the issues are internal to the
family, you don't take it out of the family. And I think that's
a lot about how my constituency feels about the North Pacific
Council. There's things we'd like to get changed. There's
things that we think could be improved with the Council, but
they're not national policy things. They're not things that
need to be embedded in Magnuson. They're things for me to talk
to Chairman Madsen about and maybe the state representatives
and, you know, I think that's the level for most of the
concerns my constituency has, that things are going to be
handled internal to the current council and the current council
makeup, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much.
All right, I want to thank each of you. This has been very
informative and very, very--extremely helpful to us.
I think what we'll do is take a five-minute break.
(Off record).
(On record).
Mr. Gilchrest. If I could have your attention again, we
will get started here. I do have to say this is a different
experience than holding a hearing in Washington. I'll have to
try to have refreshments and good conversation at our hearings
from now on. It's also nice not to be interrupted by votes.
Well, thank you all very much. Our third panel will be Mr.
Frank Kelty, Natural Resource Analyst, City of Unalaska; Mr.
Glenn Reed, who his colleague said was always late. I'm not
sure if that's fitting.
Mr. Reed. Not true.
Mr. Gilchrest. Pacific Seafood Processors Association,
welcome. Mr. Kevin Duffy, Executive Director, At-Sea Processors
Association; Mr. Eugene Asicksik, President and CEO, Norton
Sound Economic Development Corporation. Welcome, sir. Mr. Arni
Thomson, Executive Director, Alaska Crab Coalition. Welcome.
And Mr. Thorn Smith, Executive Director for North Pacific
Longline Association. Thank you very much, gentlemen, for
coming. We look forward to your testimony.
Mr. Kelty, you may begin, sir.
STATEMENT OF FRANK KELTY, RESOURCE ANALYST,
CITY OF UNALASKA
Mr. Kelty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to Alaska.
For the record, my name is Frank Kelty. I'm the resource
analyst for the City of Unalaska. Previously I worked in the
Alaska seafood industry for 30 years and served as mayor of
Unalaska for 10 years. I'll be testifying today in support of
the regional council system and its positive impact on fishery-
dependent communities such as Unalaska.
Since 1988, Unalaska has been the nation's leading
commercial fishing port in the number of pounds landed. And in
2003, the community set a national record for pounds landed
with 908.7 million pounds at a value of $157 million.
Alaska's fisheries resources provide half of this nation's
seafoods. Virtually the entire economic base of Unalaska is
fisheries related, from fishing and seafood processing to
fisheries support functions. The revenues that are generated
from the seafood industry and support sector businesses have
allowed the City of Unalaska to embark on a number of major
quality of life improvements that have changed the face of
Unalaska.
None of these improvements would have been possible without
the investment of over $400 million by the seafood industry and
support sector businesses in our community. They made this
investment knowing that it holds their own future and that of
the community are sustained by a well-managed, healthy, and
strong fisheries resource in the Bering Sea.
In Unalaska, we realize that the health and sustainability
of the fisheries resources of the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands
is critical to our community's survival. We've seen firsthand
what can happen to a community and an industry that supports it
when a fisheries resource collapses.
When the Bering Sea red king crab fishery failed in the
early 1980s, we went from harvesting 150 million pounds
annually down to a closed fishery in three years time. The
community faced seafood plant closure, support sector
businesses failed or left the community, and 50 percent of the
city's general fund revenues were gone overnight.
For over 28 years now, Alaska's annual groundfish fishery
quotas have been set by the North Pacific Council at
conservative, sustainable levels based on the best science
available. As an added precautionary measure, the Bering Sea/
Aleutian Island quotas for all groundfish combined have been
tapped at 2 million metric tons annually, and not one of these
groundfish stocks is overfished during that timeframe.
The council system was designed to work at a regional level
that allows maximum participation by the stakeholders which is
done in an open and transparent process. It is critical for
fishery-dependent communities, and we support this system. The
North Pacific Council works hard to create management measures
that meet conservation needs and still supports fishery-
dependent communities.
In the Bering Sea region, we have a very successful CDQ
program for communities in Western Alaska. In the development
of the crab rationalization plan, the North Pacific Council
used a suite of protection measures for Bering Sea and Gulf
communities. They included regionalization of crab delivery to
communities based on historic landings, a right of first
refusal on the sale of processor quota shares outside of the
community, and the ability to buy quota shares and lease them
within the community. These types of programs and others that
may come forward are critical for the protection of fishery-
dependent communities.
The challenges for the future in the North Pacific are
many. They include the movement toward an eco-based management
system. Although the industry and councils have done a
tremendous job in the reduction of discharge and bycatch, work
must continue in this area. A good example of such work is that
being done by the industry in developing the salmon excluder
device in pollock trawl nets.
The success story of fisheries management in the North
Pacific is one of biological and economic stability. I'm going
to say that again, biological and economic stability. That
proves that the management systems in place in this country and
the Magnuson-Stevens Act are far from broken. The work done by
the North Pacific Council is now viewed as a model by many
other fishery councils across the country.
The Council's work shows that the regional council system
can and does work and that it should be supported. We believe
the MSA provides an excellent framework for successfully
managing fisheries resources in this country. This framework
shouldn't go through any major changes in the reauthorization
of the Act. Thank you for allowing me to testify. I look
forward to answering any questions.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Kelty.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kelty follows:]
Statement of Frank Kelty, Natural Resource Analyst,
City of Unalaska, Alaska
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
For the record, my name is Frank Kelty, and I am the Resource
Analyst for the City of Unalaska, Alaska. Before becoming a Resource
Analyst, I worked in the Alaska seafood industry for 30 years in
Unalaska as a manager for two seafood processing companies. I also
served the community as an elected City Council member for 19 years,
the last ten years of which I served as Mayor of the City of Unalaska.
In December of 2000, I resigned my position as mayor and council member
to become the City Resource Analyst.
The City of Unalaska with its Port of Dutch Harbor is located in
the Aleutian Islands, approximately 800 miles southwest of Anchorage,
and 1,700 miles northwest of Seattle, Washington. The community enjoys
a strategic location at the center of the rich fishing grounds of the
Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. Over the last 25 years, this community
has seen tremendous growth and diversification which can be directly
attributed to the commercial fishing and processing industry of the
Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. Unalaska, like other communities in
the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands, is located in one of the most remote
areas in Alaska. We are not on the road system with the rest of Alaska,
and we don't have a booming tourism industry. What we do have are the
marine resources of the Bering Sea, upon which the harvesters,
processors and communities depend to survive and thrive economically.
Unalaska's seafood plants process more Bering Sea/Aleutian Island
groundfish and crab than those of any other community in Alaska. Since
1988, Unalaska has been the nation's leading commercial fishing port in
the number of pounds landed, and in 2003, the community set a national
record for volume landed with 908.7 million pounds, the value of which
was $157 million. From 1992 through 1999, Unalaska was ranked number
one in the nation in the value of the fish landed, and since 1999,
Unalaska has been ranked number two, behind New Bedford, Massachusetts,
in value of fish landed. However, Unalaska continues to hold the
national record in dollar value of seafood processed in a year; that
record was set in 1994, with the value of the catch in Unalaska at $224
million.
The Pollock fishery of the Eastern Bering Sea makes up
approximately 85% of the fishery landings for Unalaska. This fishery is
the nation's largest and most valuable with annual quotas in the 1.4
million metric ton range, or three-billion pounds, which clearly shows
the importance of that fishery to Unalaska and other fishery-dependant
communities in the Bering Sea.
The Alaska seafood industry is the State's largest private sector
employer, providing over 35,000 jobs, and it is second only to the oil
and gas industry in providing revenues to Alaska's general fund,
contributing more than $90 million in taxes and fees. National Marine
Fisheries Service figures show that in 2003, Alaska state fishery
resources accounted for 55% of this nation's seafood landings for a
total of 5.3 billion pounds valued at $1 billion.
The City of Unalaska has been a long-time proponent of
conservation. The well being of our community depends on the
sustainable use of the resources of the Bering Sea. Virtually the
entire local economic base of Unalaska is fishery-related, from fishing
and seafood processing, to fishery support functions, such as fuel
sales, vessel repair, trans-shipping of seafood products, longshoring,
marine equipment sales, groceries sales, vehicle rentals, fishing gear
replacement and repair. The seafood industry and support sector
businesses provide $20 million in annual general fund revenues for the
City of Unalaska, which is approximately 65% of the $30 to $32 million
total annual operating budget for the City. I have provided some graphs
with my written testimony that give a breakdown of City of Unalaska
revenue streams from the early 1990s to the present. For your
convenience, I have also included National Marine Fisheries Service
reports on the current Bering Sea/Aleutian Island fishery quotas, and
landing and value reports that focus on Unalaska and the State of
Alaska.
The revenues that come from the seafood industry have allowed the
City to embark on a number of major quality-of-life improvements that
have changed the face of Unalaska over the past 18 years. Newly built
facilities include an elementary school, an award-winning medical
health facility, a community center, a new city hall facility, new
public works facility, a new library, a state-of-the-art museum, park
developments, road paving, utility upgrades, improvements in the high
school and the aquatics center, and improvements to City-owned docks.
The City has also made hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding
available annually to local non-profits that provide such services as
mental health care, alcohol and drug abuse programs, daycare programs,
nutrition programs for senior citizens, and shelter and support for
victims of domestic violence. Upcoming projects include a new power
house, new boat harbor, improvements to the landfill and wastewater
treatment plant, remodeling the airport, and additional road paving.
None of these improvements and programs would have been possible
without the investment of well over $400 million by the seafood
industry and support sector business in the community of Unalaska who
made these investment decisions knowing that their own future and that
of the community is sustained by the well managed, healthy, and strong
fishery resource in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands.
In Unalaska, we realize that the health and sustainability of the
fisheries resource of the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands is critical to
our community's survival. Fishing and seafood processing are all we
have; they are our only industry. I have seen first hand what can
happen to a community and the industry that supports that community
when a fishery resource collapses. I lived and worked in Unalaska when
the Bering Sea Red King Crab fishery failed. It wasn't pretty; we went
from harvest of 150 million pounds annually down to a closed fishery in
three years time in the early 1980s.
The community faced seafood plant closures; support sector
businesses failed or left the community; 50% of the City's general fund
revenues were gone overnight. This led to massive layoffs and cut-backs
in projects. It took years for the City to get back on its feet. (This
happen before the Americanization of the groundfish resource in the
Bering Sea) Because of what we have seen happen with resource failures
in the past, we support the North Pacific Fishery Management Council
and the National Marine Fisheries Service in their efforts to set
conservative catch limits for each species. For over 28 years, annual
fishery quotas have been set at conservative, sustainable levels based
on the best science, thorough scientific review, and current research.
As an added precautionary measure, the Bering Sea/Aleutian Island
quotas for all groundfish combined has been capped at two million
metric tons annually, no matter what the recommended Allowable
Biological Catch (ABC) levels. In the past 28 years, there has not been
one groundfish stock considered as over-fished in the North Pacific. We
do have two crab stocks in the Bering Sea listed as over-fished, but
the stocks are currently in aggressive rebuilding plans. It should be
noted that these two crab stocks, most likely, were impacted by
climatic factors, rather than fishing activity.
The review process in the North Pacific is substantial for the
setting of annual fishing quotas. After annual stock surveys are
completed, stock assessment scientists recommend ABC levels for each
species. These recommendations are reviewed by the Council's groundfish
plan team (the Council also has a plan team for crab stocks). The data
is further reviewed by the Council's Scientific and Statistical
Committee (SSC) prior to the Council setting of the Total Allowable
Catch (TAC); the TAC is always set below the ABC level recommended by
the SSC, and far below the over-fishing level. Science and research
programs in the North Pacific are a priority for the North Pacific
Council. The Council incorporates the science and research with
reporting requirements, in-season management, industry-paid observer
programs, conservative catch limits, limits on bycatch and discards,
and habitat protection measures, all of which is done in an open and
transparent process that involves stakeholders at all levels.
The Council system was designed to work at a regional level that
allows maximum participation by the stakeholders, which is critical for
fishery-dependant communities such as Unalaska whose livelihood may
depend on the decisions made at the Council level. The North Pacific
Council meetings allow many opportunities for public testimony, both
written and oral, before the SSC, the Advisory Panel, and the Council.
The Council also appoints many working committees that include
stakeholders from all industry sectors and the environmental community,
with assistance from agency members who work on specific issues.
Considering the record of the North Pacific Council in the management
of the federal water fisheries in Alaska over the past 29 years, it is
hard to challenge a system that has worked so well in the long-term
sustainability of the marine resources of Alaska. The North Pacific
Council is now viewed as a model by many other fishery councils across
the country. And has even been praised, by some environmental groups.
One of the major points in the successful management system in the
North Pacific is that it is based on the use of the advice provided by
the 15-member Scientific and Statistical Committee panel. Following
their recommendations has led to science-based management decisions
that have, in turn, led to sustainable fishing quotas. The North
Pacific Council has successfully used the rationalization programs in
their reduction efforts in specific fisheries. The nation's largest
fishery, the Bering Sea Pollock fishery, operates entirely as a
cooperative management regime. The Halibut/Sablefish fishery operates
as an Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) fishery. The Bering Sea/Aleutian
Island Crab rationalization program, which is a rights-based program,
goes on line this year, and the North Pacific Council is considering a
Gulf of Alaska Groundfish rationalization program.
In addition, the Council uses license limitation programs in other
fisheries in the North Pacific to mitigate over-capitalization. We
believe it is very important that the authority for these types of
decisions remain at the regional council level.
Habitat protection is another key element in the future of the
fisheries; the North Pacific Council takes habitat impacts into
consideration in all of their management decisions. The North Pacific
Council receives an annual assessment from the groundfish plan teams as
a supplement to their annual stock assessment report. Included in their
annual report are updates on the status of on-going ecosystem research,
local observations from fishermen and coastal people, and new
information on the status of sea birds and marine mammals. In an effort
to reduce potential impacts on coral, sponges and Rockfish habitats,
over 380,000 square miles have been permanently closed to bottom
trawling in the North Pacific. Included in those closures are also
protected areas for crab, salmon, herring; and other habitat
conservation areas, in addition areas for the protection of Steller Sea
Lions have been in place for many years.
Coastal communities depend on the ocean resources, and the MSA-
managed North Pacific Fisheries have met the subsistence and commercial
needs of rural Alaskans. The Community Development Quota (CDQ) program
is very successful for the Bering Sea communities, and non-CDQ
communities are built upon the sustainability of the marine resources.
The North Pacific Council works hard to create management measures that
meet conservation needs while, at the same time, supporting a healthy
coastal economy. For example, coastal communities in the Gulf of Alaska
are allowed to purchase and hold halibut quota shares for community
harvesters to use, and the halibut subsistence program has been
revamped to allow subsistence fishing activities by certain rural
residents and native tribes that hold on to their customary and
traditional practices of using halibut to feed their families.
At this time, there are many issues that are of concern to Unalaska
and other fishery-dependant communities in Southwest Alaska. The issue
of the Steller Sea Lion is far from over. We have seen some recovery of
Stellers in some areas of the North Pacific, but the recovery has been
slow. Because of the significance of this issue, we support increased
research on the possible reasons for the decline, and we are working to
support the recovery of this important marine mammal. The emerging
possibility of designating segments of the Bering Sea and Aleutian
Islands (BSAI) as critical habitat areas for the Pacific Right Whale
could have major economic impacts on the seafood industry of BSAI,
which, in turn, will impact communities that depend on the fishing
industry for their economic livelihood. The possible listing of the
Aleutian Sea Otters as endangered is of concern throughout the Gulf of
Alaska and the Aleutian Islands. The continued decline Northern Fur
Seal and sea birds in the Bering Sea is also a major concern in the
region. The decline of many of the crab stocks in Bering Sea is a very
important issue that is not well understood and that, therefore,
requires increased research efforts. The formation of Marine Protection
Areas (MPA) is an issue that could have major impacts in the BSAI and
Gulf of Alaska, and it is an issue we will continue to monitor. We
believe that the MPA should be formed at the regional council level and
should be based on the best science available.
The challenges in the North Pacific for the future are many. They
include the ways in which the movement toward an ecosystem-based
management plan will allow for the extraction of fishery resources at
sustainable levels for both the fish stock and the ecosystem. The North
Pacific Council should continue to accommodate fishery-dependant
communities in all of its management actions.
Work needs to continue on streamlining the regulatory process,
including the improvement in the quality of the analyses of all
proposed fishery management actions. Although the North Pacific Council
and the industry have done an outstanding job in by-catch reductions
and in protection of habitat, we should continue to work on by-catch
reduction and habitat protection. Increased research funding is
critical to the management process; we need to have the best science
available to the fishery managers when they make their decisions.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Reed.
STATEMENT OF GLENN REED, PRESIDENT,
PACIFIC SEAFOOD PROCESSORS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Reed. Chairman Gilchrest, my name is Glenn Reed. I'm
the President of Pacific Seafood Processors Association. I'd
like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify
today, and more specifically I'd like to thank you for the
attention you've been paying to the panels. The questions
you've been asking and the interest that you've shown in the
issues, that's obviously critical to all of us that have come
here today.
Since 1914, PSPA has represented seafood processing
companies in the Pacific Northwest on matters relating to
legislation and regulation that affect our members businesses.
In the over-90-year history of our group, no piece of Federal
legislation has had greater impact on the operation of the
members of PSPA and the livelihoods of coastal Alaska than the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The
vast majority of these impacts have been positive.
I'm going to focus my discussion today on the rights-based
management program. You've heard a lot of discussion about them
so far. But specifically those programs in Alaska, their
impacts on the stakeholders which include harvesters,
processors, and coastal communities.
In Alaska, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council has
designed and implemented more rights-based management programs
than the rest of the Nation combined. More fish is managed
annually through rights-based fishing in Alaska than any of the
other seven regions managed individually under all of their
management systems per region.
The largest fishery in North America, and one of the
largest in the world, the Bering Sea pollock fishery, is
managed under a cooperative rights-based system which is one of
these programs that the North Pacific has implemented. The
benefits to the Nation as a result of rights-based management
include greater opportunities for resource conservation and
utilization, improved safety and opportunities for new product
forms, expanding domestic markets, economic stability, and the
list goes on.
It's important to note that all the fisheries in the North
Pacific, including these managed through rights-based
approaches, are managed through the use of total allowable
catches based on recommendations of research scientists. This
TAC process requires all fishing stop once the overall
biological quota is reached. As a result, as you've heard, the
North Pacific Region currently has no overfished groundfish
stock.
Also, as was mentioned earlier, the first rights-based
management system that the North Pacific Council implemented
was the CDQ program or Community Development Program
implemented in 1992. The program initially awarded 7.5 percent
of the annual Bering Sea pollock harvest to 65 Native Alaskan
communities in proximity to the Bering Sea taking a resource
that was historically exploited by foreign fleets and granting
it to the named communities as an economic engine for their
future. The resource is available to all the participating
sectors of the fishery. And I think others are going to speak--
Eugene was going to speak more about the CDQ program in his
testimony, so I'm just going to move on. I mentioned it as the
first rights-based system that the Council passed.
The second rights-based system passed by the North Pacific
Council was implemented in 1994 and was the Individual Fishing
Quota system. This system awarded fishery resources in the
halibut and sablefish fisheries to the historic harvesters of
those resources. No other historic user groups were given any
future rights. By allocating all the value of these two
fisheries to one user group, the IFQ system created groups of
beneficiaries or winners and several groups of disenfranchised
perhaps or loser groups, to use a simple term.
The vessel owners were the winners. This in some cases was
the actual harvester and some cases it was the owner of the
vessel. Vessel owners enjoyed immediate wealth to pay for
fishing operations and improve market opportunities.
Processing companies, communities, the State of Alaska, and
perhaps crews were included in the groups of losers. Processors
experienced bankruptcies, loss of investment value, loss of
revenue. Communities experienced loss of tax revenues, loss of
community job base, loss of service sector base. The state
experienced loss of tax revenue and employment base, and crew
members lost jobs and potential future opportunities.
The IFQ program is the only rights-based management program
implemented in Alaska that awards rights exclusively to one
group, any one group. All programs that have followed, have
been more inclusive and have included more of the historical
participants. No one is suggesting this program be changed.
It's been in place for a long time. It has a lot of benefits,
but I think from one person's perspective, this is some of both
the benefits and the downside of the program.
The American Fisheries Act. After the experience of the IFQ
model of rewarding rights to only one historic fishery
participant, we congressionally approved the American Fisheries
Act in 1998, awarded rights in the Bering Sea pollock fishery
to both harvesters and processors. By virtue of awarding rights
to two groups, harvesters and processors, the AFA became the
most inclusive rights-based system ever implemented in the
United States.
This program provides the opportunity for harvesters and
processors to form cooperatives based on their respective
history and business relationship with each other. The benefit
for the program flows through communities as well as local and
state government, in addition to the historic fishery
participants in both harvesting and processing sectors. This
plan improved opportunities for resource conservation,
increased state TAC and improved the economics of the fishery
for vessel owners, the operators of processing companies, and
the communities that depend upon both of them. The AFA system
didn't take one group and make them wealthy at the expense of
others. It improved the position of all of those participants
considered in the program.
Crab rationalization. Later this year, the Bering Sea Crab
Rationalization Program will begin implementation. This program
is the most inclusive rights-based system designed in the
United States to date and includes protection for rights for
harvesters, processors, communities, and skippers. This program
may have set a new world standard for inclusivity on awarding
rights to public fishery resources. The success of the program
over time will make the most dangerous jobs in America safer or
provide increased economic stability for harvesters,
processors, and communities as well as new market opportunities
for all participants.
The rockfish rationalization pilot program. The Gulf of
Alaska rockfish pilot program passed by Congress directed the
Secretary of Commerce in consultation with the councils to
implement a program that includes all aspects of the economic
portfolio for this fishery. Specifically the legislation
directs that all harvesters and processors need to be
recognized in a meaningful way. The final motion of this plan
was passed by the North Pacific Council just last month and
this program is scheduled for implementation in 2007.
Conclusion. Each of these rights-based management programs
is different than the ones that came before it. This is a
testament to the people who designed these programs learning
from each system's strengths and weaknesses as well as
recognition that one size does not fit all when it comes to
managing fisheries. The council process that led to development
of these rights-based systems is an open, iterative public
process that benefits from a vast amount of input provided by a
broad-based spectrum of interest.
My request to you today, as you work toward updating the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, is that you maintain a regional fisheries
council system and give the regional councils all the tools
available for managing the fisheries in their region and insist
that all stakeholders are considered. I think this will allow
the councils the ability to choose the tools that work in each
region for each fishery management plan that they implement.
I would like to thank you again for the opportunity to
testify, and I look forward to your questions.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Reed.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Reed follows:]
Statement of Glenn E. Reed, President,
Pacific Seafood Processors Association
Chairman Gilchrest, Representative Young, my name is Glenn Reed; I
am the President of the Pacific Seafood Processors Association (PSPA).
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear before you today.
Since 1914 PSPA has represented seafood processing companies in the
Pacific Northwest on matters relating to legislation and regulation
that affect our business. In the over 90 year history of our group no
piece of federal legislation has had greater impacts on the operations
of the members of PSPA and the livelihoods of coastal Alaskans than the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The vast
majority of these impacts have been positive.
I am going to focus my discussion today on rights based management
programs in Alaska and their impacts on stakeholders, including
harvesters, processors, and coastal communities. In Alaska the North
Pacific Fishery Management Council has designed and implemented more
rights based management programs than the rest of the nation combined.
More fish is managed annually through rights based systems in Alaska,
than any of the other seven regions manage individually under all of
their management systems. The largest fishery in North America and one
of the largest in the world, the Bering Sea pollock fishery is managed
under a co-operative rights based system. The benefits to the nation as
a result of rights based management include greater opportunities for
resource conservation and utilization, improved safety, opportunities
for new product forms, expanding domestic markets, and the list goes
on. It's important to note that all of the fisheries of the North
Pacific, including these managed through rights based approaches, are
managed through the use of a total allowable catch (TAC) based on the
recommendations of resource scientists. This TAC process requires all
fishing to stop once the overall biological quota is reached. The North
Pacific region has no over fished groundfish stocks.
CDQ
The first rights based system established in Alaska was the
Community Development Quota (CDQ) program. Implemented in 1992 the CDQ
program initially awarded 7.5% of the annual Bering Sea pollock harvest
to 65 Native Alaskan communities in proximity to the Bering Sea, taking
a resource that was historically exploited by foreign fleets and
granting it to the named communities as an economic engine for their
future. Others will speak more specifically to this program today.
IFQ
The second rights based system established in Alaska, in 1994, was
the Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) system. This system awarded the
fishery resources in the halibut and sablefish fisheries to the
historic harvesters of those resources. No other user historic groups
were given any future rights. By allocating all of the value of these
two fisheries to one user group the IFQ system created one group of
``winners'', and several groups of ``losers''.
The vessel owners were the winners while the processors,
communities, State, and crews were the losers. Vessel owners enjoyed
immediate wealth, safer fishing operations, and improved market
opportunities. Processors experienced bankruptcies, loss of investment
value, and loss of revenue; communities experienced loss of tax
revenues, loss of community job base, loss service sector base; the
State experienced a loss of tax revenue and employment base; crew
members lost jobs and potential future opportunity. The IFQ program is
the only rights based management program implemented in Alaska that
awarded rights exclusively to one group, all programs that have
followed have been progressively more inclusive.
AFA
After the experience of the halibut and sablefish IFQ model of
rewarding rights to only one historic fishery participant, the
Congressionally approved American Fisheries Act (AFA) in 1998 awarded
quasi-rights in the Bering Sea pollock fishery to both harvesters and
processors. By virtue of awarding rights to two groups, harvesters and
processors, the AFA became the most inclusive rights based system ever
implemented in the United States. This program provides the opportunity
for harvesters and processors to form cooperatives based on their
respective history and business relationship with each other--the
benefits of the program flow to communities as well as local and state
government in addition to the historic fishery participants in both
harvesting and processing sectors. This plan improved opportunities for
resources conservation, increased safety at sea, and improved the
economics of the fishery for vessel owners, the operators of processing
operations, and the communities that depend upon them. The AFA system
did not make one group wealthy at the expense of the others, it
improved the position of all those considered.
CRAB RATIONALIZATION
Later this year the Bering Sea crab rationalization program will
begin implementation. This program is the most inclusive rights based
system designed in the United States to date, and includes protections
or rights for harvesters, processors, communities, and skippers. This
program may have set a new world standard for inclusivity in awarding
rights to public fishery resources. The success of this program over
time will make the most dangerous jobs in America safer while providing
increased economic stability for harvesters, processors, and
communities as well as new market opportunities.
ROCKFISH RATIONALIZATION PILOT PROGRAM
The Gulf of Alaska rockfish pilot program passed by Congress
directed the Secretary of Commerce in consultation with the Council, to
implement a program that includes all aspects of the economic portfolio
of the fishery. Specifically the legislation directs that all
harvesters (both catcher vessels and catcher processors) and processors
need to be recognized in a meaningful way. The final motion on this
plan was passed by the North Pacific Council just last month.
IN CONCLUSION
Each of these rights based management programs is different from
the ones that came before. This is a testament to people learning from
each systems strengths and weaknesses as well as a recognition that
``one size does not fit all'' when in comes to managing fisheries.
The Council process that lead to the development of these rights
based systems is an open, iterative, public process that benefits from
vast amounts of input provided by a broad based spectrum of interests.
My request of you today as you work toward updating the Magnuson-
Stevens Act is that you maintain the Regional Council system and give
the regional councils all the tools available for managing the
fisheries in their regions allowing them the ability to choose the
tools that work in each fishery management plan.
Thank you again for the opportunity to express my views.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Duffy.
STATEMENT OF KEVIN DUFFY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
AT-SEA PROCESSORS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Duffy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the invitation to
testify on fisheries management successes in Alaska today. I'm
Kevin Duffy, executive director of the At-Sea Processors
Association, a trade organization composed of seven member
companies that operate U.S. Flag catcher-processor vessels. In
the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands, we own and operate 19 catcher-
processors that are allocated 40 percent of the TAC annually.
The Alaska pollock fishery is a proven fishery management
success story. In 2005, the Alaska pollock fishery was
certified as sustainably managed by the Marine Stewardship
Council, the international nonprofit organization funded by the
World Wildlife Fund. The certification was earned through a
four-year-long process or assessment of the fishery against the
MSC sustainability criteria and standards by a team of
independent scientists and fishery management experts.
I'm not aware of any fishery that has been subject to such
a rigorous comprehensive evaluation. And the MSC process is
simply one of many internal and external reviews to conclude
that management of the Alaska pollock fishery by the North
Pacific Council and NOAA Fisheries has been exemplary.
The sustainability certification of the fishery is a
notable achievement for many reasons, not the least of which is
the significance of Alaska pollock in the world marketplace.
Alaska pollock production is a dominant player in the world
whitefish market because it is valued as a consistent and
dependable source of high quality product. The harvesting and
primary processing of pollock in Alaska generates $800 million
annually in revenue. The U.S., Japan, and European Union are
important markets for Alaska pollock products.
I want to talk a bit about keys to successful management of
the Alaska pollock fishery. First, in 1998, Congress passed the
American Fisheries Act principally to resolve chronic over-
capitalization in the nation's largest fishery. The AFA
included a buyback of certain fishing vessels and created a
framework that allowed the industry sectors to form fish
harvesting cooperatives as part of fishery rationalization.
In February of 2002, representatives of APA testified to
this Subcommittee on the success of harvesting cooperatives in
the Alaska pollock fishery. The Alaska pollock cooperatives in
which eligible harvesters agreed voluntarily to allocate the
available harvest on an individual basis has successfully
resolved overcapitalization with its incidental nontarget
species catches, and dramatically increased utilization of
harvested resources.
Rationalization of the pollock fishery is a critical
component to successful fishery management. The PCC or Pollock
Conservation Cooperative is the catcher-processor co-op reports
that due to the deliberate pace of fishing and use of the most
efficient vessels under a rationalized fishery, the fleet is
producing nearly 50 percent more fish products per pound of
fish harvested than the fleet achieved during the pre-AFA race
for fish.
There are also demonstrated conservation benefits of
cooperative fishing. While the midwater trawl Alaska pollock
fishery is always ranked as one of the world's cleanest
fisheries, under the fishing cooperative, less than 0.5 percent
of what is harvested is discarded. Any MSA reauthorization
efforts should support the formation of cooperatives as part of
the fishery rationalization program.
There are other keys to successful management pertinent to
reauthorization of the MSA, and I'm going to address those
quickly in my testimony.
First, science and management of the Alaska pollock. NOAA
Fisheries has a long time series of reliable data on pollock
abundance derived from hydro-acoustic surveys, bottom trawl
surveys, and some fishery-dependent data collected under a
comprehensive Federal fishery observer program. NOAA Fisheries'
scientists use state-of-the-art stock assessment models in
analyzing data to determine pollock abundance levels.
Currently the adult spawning biomass of Alaska pollock
exceeds 20 billion pounds. The methodologies employed by NOAA
Fisheries' stock assessment teams and their findings are peer
reviewed internally and then again through the groundfish plan
team process, a review process conducted by scientists inside
and outside of NOAA, and at which public comment is invited.
The findings of the groundfish plan team are then considered by
the SSC of the Council, which meets five times a year to
forward recommendations on safe harvest levels to the Council.
Second, enhancing and standardizing the role of SSCs
nationally. It is well documented and perhaps well known that
the Council traditionally defers to the SSC in setting catch
levels at or below the safe harbor levels recommended by the
SSC. Congress should consider amending MSA to require each
council's SSC to propose ABC levels, acceptable biological
catch levels, for fish species under the jurisdiction of each
council and for councils to adopt the SSC proposal and to
recommend catch levels no higher than the upper range of ABC
recommendations.
With respect to the pollock fishery in Alaska, managers and
scientists have been using an ecosystem-based approach since
well before the term came into common usage. Virtually every
element of the ecosystem-based approach is in effect for the
pollock fishery including conservative catch limits,
comprehensive monitoring and enforcement, a precautionary
approach to possible fishing impacts on the environment,
bycatch reduction measures, and extensive use of marine
protected areas.
In formalizing and standardizing the role of SSCs in the
process, we should not minimize the value of the independent
external scientific review currently conducted through the
Center for Independent Experts. However, fishery managers are
concerned about a recent administrative action that could
impede Council decisions based on the best scientific
information available.
New guidelines developed by OMB to the Information Quality
Act have created concerns. These new provisions mandate outside
review of certain scientific information and highly influential
scientific assessments developed by the Agency's scientists.
The APA urges the Subcommittee to evaluate the impact of these
new provisions on the fisheries management decisionmaking
process.
My written testimony includes additional recommendations on
the proper role of SSCs in the regional fishery management
process, and I would encourage you to consider them.
Third, in the TAC-setting process alone in the North
Pacific, stakeholders of all stripes are afforded ample
opportunity to provide public comment to the plan team, the
SSC, the Council, the numerous committee councils that are
formed that include stakeholders as well as when proposals are
published in the Federal Register.
To the extent that opportunities for public participation
in the fishery management process are not standard across all
regions, APA urges that this be done by law or regulation.
Fisheries management in the North Pacific is open, transparent,
and has resulted in a progressive ecosystem-based approach to
management.
In terms of final comments, NOAA Fisheries and the regional
councils have been resolute in implementing the 1996
Sustainable Fisheries Act. Fishery managers appear to have
effectively addressed overfishing in regions and fisheries
where it was occurring. Fisheries managers have also instituted
rebuilding plans when necessary. A next step is to evaluate
what their effective monitoring and course of mechanisms in
place for major fisheries to ensure that responsible catch
levels required under the Sustainable Fishery Act are
respected.
Two quick issues on the observer program. Two national
policy issues if addressed could strengthen the observer
program in the North Pacific. The first issue deals with vessel
owner liability in the event that an observer is injured.
Current law is not clear about the legal status of observers.
As a result, vessel owners often purchase more than one
insurance policy since it is not clear under which statute an
injured observer might choose to file a suit.
The second has to do with the Fair Labor Standards Act and
specifically whether government observers are considered
professionals or technicians. If the latter designation is
applied, observers are entitled to overtime pay for time on the
vessel even when they are not on duty. This designation, if it
occurred, would substantially increase costs which either makes
an observer program less practical or results in significantly
scaled back programs.
APA proposes that Federal observers be dedicated as
professionals and be fairly compensated in line with their
experience, knowledge, and level of responsibility. I would
concur with the number of comments made earlier about the
observer program and the privacy issues associated with that. I
would encourage the Subcommittee in MSA reauthorization to
merely get used to using the word aggregated when you talk
about observer data, and I think a lot of these problems go
away.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I apologize for
being a couple minutes long-winded. This is a big opportunity
for us to testify in front of you. I appreciate the
opportunity. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Duffy.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Duffy follows:]
Statement of Kevin C. Duffy, At-Sea Processors Association
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee for the
invitation to testify on fisheries management successes in Alaska. I am
Kevin Duffy, Executive Director of the At-sea Processors Association
(APA). APA is a trade association composed of seven member companies
that operate U.S.-flag catcher/processor vessels, primarily in the
Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Alaska pollock fishery. The seven companies
own and operate 19 U.S.-flag catcher/processor vessels that are
allocated 40 percent of the annual Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands pollock
catch.
The Alaska pollock fishery is a proven fishery management success
story. In 2005, the Alaska pollock fishery was certified as sustainably
managed by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), an international non-
profit organization founded by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). The
certification was earned through a four-year long assessment of the
fishery against the MSC sustainability standard by a team of
independent scientists and fishery management experts. I am not aware
of any fishery that has been subject to such a rigorous and
comprehensive evaluation, and the MSC process is simply one of many
internal and external reviews to conclude that management of the Alaska
pollock fishery by the North Pacific Council and NOAA Fisheries has
been exemplary.
The sustainability certification of the fishery is a notable
achievement for many reasons, not the least of which is the
significance of Alaska pollock in the world marketplace. Alaska pollock
production is a dominant player in the world whitefish market because
it is valued as a consistent and dependable source of high quality
product. In 2005, three billion pounds of Alaska pollock will be
harvested, accounting for approximately one-third the weight of all
U.S. seafood landings. While few seafood consumers might know Alaska
pollock by name, most have likely eaten pollock. Alaska pollock is the
principal whitefish used in frozen fish products in retail stores as
well as ``quick service'' restaurants. Alaska pollock fillets
reportedly account for 90 percent of the 275 million McDonald's fish
sandwiches served each year in North America. Alaska pollock is also
processed into surimi, a minced, frozen product used to make imitation
crab products. The harvesting and primary processing of pollock in
Alaska generates $800 million in revenue annually. The U.S., Japan and
the European Union are important markets for Alaska pollock products.
Keys To Successful Management of Alaska Pollock
In February 2002, APA testified before this Subcommittee on the
success of fish harvesting cooperatives in the Alaska pollock fishery.
The Alaska pollock cooperatives, in which eligible harvesters agree
voluntarily to allocate the available harvest on an individual basis,
have successfully resolved overcapitalization, reduced incidental, non-
target species catches and dramatically increased utilization of
harvested resources. Rationalization of the Alaska pollock fishery is a
critical component of successful fishery management, but there are
other keys to successful management pertinent to reauthorization of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act that my testimony will focus on today.
Science and the Management of Alaska Pollock
NOAA Fisheries has a long time series of reliable data on Alaska
pollock abundance, data derived from hydro-acoustic surveys, bottom
trawl surveys and from fishery dependent data collected under a
comprehensive federal fishery observer program. NOAA Fisheries'
scientists use state-of-the-art stock assessment models in analyzing
data to determine pollock abundance levels. Currently, the adult
spawning biomass of Alaska pollock exceeds 20 billion pounds.
The methodologies employed by NOAA Fisheries' stock assessment
teams and their findings are peer-reviewed internally and then again
through the Groundfish Plan Team process, a review process conducted by
scientists inside and outside of NOAA and at which public comment is
invited.
The findings of the Groundfish Plan Team are then considered by the
North Pacific Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC). The
SSC, which meets five times a year in conjunction with the nCouncil,
forwards a recommendation of a safe harvest level--the Acceptable
Biological Catch (ABC)--to the Council. The Council sets the Total
Allowable Catch (TAC) at, and most often below, the ABC recommended by
the scientific panel.
While recent policy discussions focus appropriately on enhancing
and standardizing the role of SSC's in the council process, the
Subcommittee should be mindful that investment in science and rigorous
internal and external review of scientific findings and methodologies
beyond the contributions of the SSC's contributions play a significant
role in management of the Alaska pollock fishery.
Enhancing and Standardizing the Role of SSCs Nationally
It is well-documented and perhaps well-known that the North Pacific
Council traditionally defers to its SSC in setting catch levels at or
below the safe harvest level recommended by the SSC. Congress should
consider amending the Magnuson-Stevens Act to require each council's
SSC to propose ABC levels for fish species under the jurisdiction of
each council and for councils to adopt the SSC proposal and to
recommend catch levels no higher than the upper range of ABC
recommendations.
With respect to the Alaska pollock fishery, managers and scientists
have been using an ecosystem-based management approach since well
before the term came into common usage. Virtually every element of an
ecosystem-based management approach is in effect for the Alaska pollock
fishery, including conservative catch limits, comprehensive monitoring
and enforcement, a precautionary approach to possible fishing impacts
on the environment, bycatch reduction measures and extensive use of
marine protected areas.
The above progressive fishery management measures adopted by the
North Pacific Council were reviewed by the Council's SSC, including
analyses of proposed measures required under the Magnuson-Stevens Act
and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). APA recommends that
either through law or regulation SSCs be directed to peer review
analyses pertinent to the development of all fishery management
measures developed by councils.
In formalizing and standardizing the role of SSCs in the regional
fishery management council process, we should not minimize the value of
independent external scientific review. Currently, peer review teams
selected by the Center for Independent Experts (CIE) at the University
of Miami provide valuable advice to NOAA Fisheries on major issues,
including reviews of stock assessment procedures in the North Pacific
and important new research results on possible fishing impacts on
Steller sea lion populations.
NOAA Fisheries and the North Pacific Council cooperate on
integrating science seamlessly into the fishery management process, but
fishery managers are concerned about a recent administration action
that could impede Council decisions based on the best scientific
information available. New guidelines developed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to the Information Quality Act (sometimes
called the Data Quality Act) have created concerns. OMB's revised
guidelines mandate outside review of certain scientific information and
``highly influential'' scientific assessments developed by agency
scientists. While regular external review of major scientific
developments that could provide the basis for altering the regulatory
regime is appropriate and desirable, APA urges the Subcommittee to
evaluate the impact on the fishery management system of OMB's recent
action. Fisheries management in the North Pacific is based on the best
scientific information available and is intended to be adaptive. If the
revised Information Quality Act guidelines require external review of
information and assessments routinely peer reviewed by the SSC, the
process would suffer from increased costs, lack of timeliness for
incorporating new data into the decision making process and delays in
the regulatory process.
As Congress considers the proper role for SSCs in the regional
fishery management council process, APA offers the following comments
as well:
To ensure that SSC members are knowledgeable about the
fisheries being managed, new SSC members should be nominated by the
existing SSC members and appointed by the relevant Council.
SSC candidates should be federal or state employees or in
academia.
If SSC members are to be compensated, Congress must
increase funding for councils since councils are already under-funded
to meet mandates required by law.
SSC members should be free from conflicts of interest,
including affiliations with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) or
commercial or sport fishing interests.
Transparent Public Process
In February 2005, the North Pacific Council adopted a fishery
management plan amendment closing 280,000 square nautical miles of
ocean to bottom trawling and six additional areas with especially high
density coral and sponge habitat to all bottom contact fishing gear.
Oceana, an environmental stakeholder group hailed the Council's action
in a media release that read in part,
``In an historic move for our nation's fisheries, the North
Pacific Fishery Management Council today unanimously adopted
Oceana's Approach to protect nearly one million square
kilometers of seafloor, including the exquisite coral gardens
of the Aleutians...Three years and 33,000 public comments
later, due to the diligence of Oceana and the vision of the
(Council), the Fisheries Service will...protect the Aleutian
Island (sic) coral gardens...''
There is no shortage of irony that Oceana, which was created by the
Pew Trusts environmental program as the litigation arm of its oceans
advocacy program, provides such a clear example of the public's
opportunity to effectively shape policy by participating in the
rulemaking process, but it is the case nonetheless.
In the TAC setting process alone in the North Pacific, stakeholders
of all stripes are afforded public comment opportunities during the
Plan Team, SSC and Council processes as well as when the proposed rule
is published in the Federal Register for comment. Beyond that,
stakeholders are provided opportunities to serve on the Council and on
its Advisory Panel. Both bodies include a wide range of interested
stakeholders, including Alaska natives, NGO representatives, sport
fishermen, onshore and offshore processors, and competing commercial
fishing interests using longline, pot and trawl gear. The Secretary, in
making appointments to the Council, and the Council in making
appointments to its Advisory Panel must accommodate all of the above
interests while also considering geographic balance among three states
and disparate regions within Alaska.
To the extent that opportunities for public participation in the
fisheries management process are not standard across all regions, APA
urges that this be done by law or regulation. Fisheries management in
the North Pacific is an open, transparent public process and that
process has resulted in a progressive, ecosystem-based approach to
management. We do not favor changing this successful system, but if it
can be replicated elsewhere there is much to recommend it.
Final Comments and Recommendations
NOAA Fisheries and the regional councils have been resolute in
implementing the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA). Fishery managers
appear to have effectively addressed overfishing in regions and
fisheries where it was occurring. Fishery managers have also instituted
rebuilding plans where necessary. A next step is to evaluate whether
effective monitoring and enforcement mechanisms in place for major
fisheries to ensure that responsible catch levels required under the
SFA are respected.
Earlier in my testimony, I referenced the comprehensive federal
fishery observer program in effect for the North Pacific groundfish
fisheries. In the BS/AI pollock fishery, every vessel greater than 125
feet in length carries a fisheries observer 100 percent of the time
while fishing. There are two federally-certified observers on pollock
catcher/processors. The $13 million annual cost of this program is
borne by fishermen and processors.
There are two national policy issues that, if addressed, could
strengthen the North Pacific fishery observer program. The first issue
deals with vessel owner liability in the event that an observer is
injured. Current law is not clear about the legal status of observers.
As a result, vessel owners often purchase more than one insurance
policy since it is not clear under which statute an injured observer
might choose to file a lawsuit. Congress should clarify the status of
observers and help contain insurance costs for vessel owners.
The second observer related issue pertains to observers' status
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, specifically, whether government
observers are ``professionals'' or ``technicians.'' If the latter
designation is applied, observers are entitled to overtime pay for time
on the vessel even when they are not on duty. Obviously, such a
designation substantially increases program costs, which either makes
an observer program less practical or results in significantly scaled
back levels of observer coverage. APA proposes that federal observers
be designated as ``professionals'' and be fairly compensated in line
with their experience, knowledge and level of responsibility.
Beyond observer programs, monitoring and enforcement is being
enhanced in Alaska and other regions through application of various
technologies, including onboard cameras and Vessel Monitoring System
(VMS) units. These technologies can often offer significant cost
savings over labor intensive observer programs, but regulations
requiring onboard surveillance technologies raise privacy issues, among
other concerns. We urge the Subcommittee to consider necessary changes
in the Magnuson-Stevens Act to promote cost-effective methods that
promote fisheries monitoring and enforcement without infringing upon
individuals' privacy rights.
That concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, for the
opportunity to testify on Alaska's fisheries management successes and
on efforts to further improve living marine resource management in the
region and nationally. I am pleased to answer any questions from the
Subcommittee.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Asicksik.
STATEMENT OF EUGENE ASICKSIK, PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
NORTON SOUND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Asicksik. Mr. Chairman, and, for the record, members of
the Subcommittee that aren't here, I'm Eugene Asicksik,
President and Executive Director of Norton Sound Economic
Development Corporation, one of the six CDQ groups that are
participating in the Western Alaska Community Development CDQ
program. However, I am testifying today on behalf of all six of
the groups. Each of the groups may be submitting its own
written testimony to the Subcommittee noting that you mentioned
earlier that there would be a 60-day open period.
In 1976, Congress enacted the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act. The Act directed the Secretary
of Commerce to phase commercial fishing by foreign fishermen
out of the 200-mile exclusive economic zone, EEZ, and to
regulate commercial fishing conducted by United States
fishermen in a manner that would ensure the biological health
and long-term sustainability of the United States fishery
resource.
To assist the Secretary to achieve those objectives, the
Act established regional councils to advise the Secretary
regarding the discharge of these regulatory responsibilities.
For the Bering Sea and North Pacific Ocean areas of the EEZ,
the Act established the North Pacific Fishery Management
Council. Over the years, the North Pacific Council has done an
outstanding job particularly in working with representatives of
all sectors of the Bering Sea and North Pacific Ocean,
commercial fisheries to develop innovative conservation and
management measures that have reduced wastes, protected fishery
resources, marine mammals, and rationalizing the fisheries for
the benefit of fishermen and the health of the resource.
To further assist the Secretary, the Magnuson-Stevens Act
contained national standards with which the Secretary's
regulations of commercial fishing inside the EEZ must comply.
One of the most important of those standards is National
Standard 4. As the phase-out of foreign fishing inside the EEZ
occurred, National Standard 4 directed the Secretary to
allocate the new fishing opportunities among United States
fishermen in a manner that would be fair and equitable to all
United States fishermen.
Unfortunately, between 1977 and 1992, the Secretary did not
afford United States fishermen who live in small rural
communities in Western Alaska that are scattered along the
coast of the Bering Sea a fair and equitable opportunity to
participate in the new Bering Sea commercial fisheries. When
that fact became apparent in 1992, the North Pacific Council
urged the Secretary to establish the Western Alaska Community
Development Quota Program and to authorize Western Alaska
communities eligible to participate in the program to harvest
annually 7.5 percent of the total allowable catch of the Bering
Sea pollock. At the further urging of the North Pacific
Council, the Secretary soon thereafter expanded the CDQ program
to include first halibut and sablefish, and then crab and other
Bering Sea groundfish species.
In the mid-1990s, a question was raised regarding whether
the Magnuson-Stevens Act delegated the Secretary's authority to
promulgate the regulations that had established the CDQ
program. At Congressman Young's urging, in 1996, Congress
responded including a provision in the Sustainable Fisheries
Act that added Section 305(i)(1) to the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Section 305(i)(1) not only authorized but required the
Secretary to establish the CDQ program.
In 1998, when it rationalized the Bering Sea pollock
fishery by enacting the American Fisheries Act, Congress
included a provision in that Act which increased the 7.5
percent to 10 percent, the percentage of total allowable catch
of the Bering Sea pollock that the Secretary allocates annually
to the CDQ program. The regulation implementing the CDQ program
created the following regulatory framework.
To participate in the CDQ program, each of the 65 eligible
Western Alaska communities must join a CDQ group. The group
then submits a community development plan first to the State of
Alaska, then to the Secretary. The plan identifies the amount
of the percentage of total allowable catch or guideline harvest
levels of each Bering Sea fishery that had been allocated to
the CDQ program that the group wishes to harvest annually.
The plan also describes the CDQ projects the groups will
undertake while the plan is in effect. The State of Alaska
reviews and then makes recommendations to the Secretary
regarding each plan including a recommendation regarding the
harvest allocation. In 1992, the eligible communities organized
themselves into six CDQ groups. The groups vary widely in terms
of numbers of member communities. Similarly the total number of
community residents that a group represents also varies widely
from group to group.
In 1992, when the first community development plans were
submitted and approved, none of the CDQ groups had any capital
for that reason. The plan simply described how the groups would
contract with established fishing companies to harvest the
groups' pollock allocation, and how the groups would use oil
revenues they received from those contracts to fund the CDQ
projects that would benefit their member communities.
Once the CDQ groups began accumulating capital, they began
purchasing various percentage of equity interest in fishing
vessels, onshore and offshore fish processing companies, and
other Bering Sea fishery-related businesses, as well as
starting fishery-related businesses of their own. As a
consequence in addition to oil revenue, the groups now also use
the revenue their investments generate to further local
economic development by financing additional investments and by
providing employment, economic, education, and social benefits
to the approximately 28,000 residents of their member
communities.
For example, since 1992, the six groups have used those
revenues to provide nearly $125 million in wages as well as
educational and training benefits. I have with me today Teresa
Asicksik who is a young student taking advantage of one of our
scholarship programs and studying marine biology at Florida
State University.
Mr. Chairman, while all six of the CDQ groups are sharing
in that success, the CDQ program has grown and matured much
faster than many of us initially envisioned. As a result, the
program has outgrown the administrative structure that the
Secretary created in 1992. However, the six groups have had
difference in views regarding how the administrative structure
of the program should be modified.
For example, should CDQ groups be encouraged to concentrate
their future investments into equity ownership interests in the
Bering Sea fishing companies, or should they be encouraged to
diversify into non-fishery holdings? Is external oversight the
best method of governance for the CDQ groups, or is governance
from the groups' member communities more appropriate?
In the past, the ability of the CDQ groups to make certain
types of investments and to provide certain benefits to member
communities has been subjected to significant regulatory
restrictions. Should those restrictions be reduced or
eliminated and the board or directors of the CDQ groups allowed
to make their own decisions regarding the mix of investments
and benefits that will best continue the objectives of the CDQ
program.
In that regard, the National Marine Fisheries Service
recently concluded that the Secretary's regulations do not
require the CDQ projects that the groups undertake to have a
fishery-related purpose as along as the project will advance
the economic and social development of a group's member
community or communities.
Should Section 305(i)(1) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act or the
Secretary's regulation be amended to restrict the amount of
sorts of revenue that the CDQ groups may use to finance CDQ
projects that do not have a fishery-related purposes?
Another important question is whether the fishing
allocation for which the Secretary now requires the CDQ groups
to compete, should be made permanent. All six of the CDQ groups
agree that stable fishing allocations would be beneficial, but
that the groups have had differing views regarding how best to
achieve the important objectives. To try and develop a common
position, I and other representatives of the six CDQ groups
have been meeting to discuss those and related questions.
We have set August 15th as our target date to reach
agreement on as many of the issues as we can. I am hopeful that
our discussions will produce a recommendation to the
Subcommittee regarding an amendment to Section 305(i)(1) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act that all of the CDQ groups can support.
Also at the urging of the North Pacific Council, in April,
Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski created a blue ribbon panel
which is chaired by Council member Edward Rasmuson and which
will be submitting recommendations to Governor Murkowski
regarding many of those same issues. I and the other
representatives of the six CDQ groups look forward to working
with the panel as well as to evaluate the panel's
recommendation.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of all six of the
CDQ groups, I would like to express our appreciation to you and
other members of the Subcommittee for coming to Alaska and for
your ongoing interest in the CDQ program. We also would like to
particularly express our appreciation to Congressman Young,
even though he is not here, for his steadfast and long-time
support of the CDQ program. I'd be happy to answer any
questions. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Mr. Asicksik.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Asicksik follows:]
Statement of Eugene Asicksik on Behalf of the Aleutian Pribilof Island
Community Development Association, Bristol Bay Economic Development
Corporation, Central Bering Sea Fishermen's Association, Coastal
Villages Region Fund, Norton Sound Economic Development Corporation,
and Yukon Delta Fisheries Development Association
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Eugene Asicksik.
I am President and Executive Director of the Norton Sound Economic
Development Corporation, one of the six groups that are participating
in the western Alaska community development quota (CDQ) program.
However, I am testifying today on behalf of all six of the groups.
Each of groups may be submitting its own written testimony to the
Subcommittee. For that reason, I would like to request that the hearing
record be kept open for a reasonable period of time in order to allow
the groups to do so.
In 1976 Congress enacted the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act. The Act directed the Secretary of Commerce to phase
commercial fishing by foreign fishermen out of the 200-mile exclusive
economic zone (EEZ), and to regulate commercial fishing conducted by
United States fishermen in a manner that would ensure the biological
health, and long term sustainability, of United States fishery
resources.
To assist the Secretary achieve those objectives, the Act
established regional councils to advise the Secretary regarding the
discharge of his regulatory responsibilities. For the Bering Sea and
North Pacific Ocean area of the EEZ, the Act established the North
Pacific Fishery Management Council. Over the years, the North Pacific
Council has done an outstanding job particularly in working with
representatives of all sectors of the Bering Sea and North Pacific
Ocean commercial fisheries to develop innovative conservation and
management measures that have reduced waste, protected fishery
resources and marine mammals, and ``rationalized'' the fisheries for
the benefit of fishermen and the health of the resource.
To further assist the Secretary, the Magnuson-Stevens Act contains
national standards with which the Secretary's regulation of commercial
fishing inside the EE2 must comply. One of the most important of those
standards is national standard no. 4.
As the phase-out of foreign fishing inside the EEZ occurred,
national standard no. 4 directed the Secretary to allocate the new
fishing opportunities among United States fishermen in a manner that
would be ``fair and equitable'' to all United States fishermen.
Unfortunately, between 1977 and 1992 the Secretary did not afford
United States fishermen who live in small rural communities in western
Alaska that are scattered along the coast of the Bering Sea a ``fair
and equitable'' opportunity to participate in the new Bering Sea
commercial fisheries.
When that fact became apparent, in 1992 the North Pacific Council
urged the Secretary to establish the western Alaska community
development quota program and to authorize western Alaska communities
eligible to participate in the program to harvest annually 7.5 percent
of the total allowable catch of Bering Sea pollock. At the further
urging of the North Pacific Council, the Secretary soon thereafter
expanded the CDQ program to include, first halibut and sablefish, and
then crab and other Bering Sea groundfish species.
In the mid-1990s, a question was raised regarding whether the
Magnuson-Stevens Act delegated the Secretary authority to promulgate
the regulations that had established the CDQ program. At Congressman
Young's urging, in 1996 Congress responded by including a provision in
the Sustainable Fisheries Act that added section 305(1) (1) to the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. Section 305(i)(1) not only authorized, but
required, the Secretary to establish the CDQ program.
In 1998 when it rationalized the Bering Sea pollock fishery by
enacting the American Fisheries Act, Congress included a provision in
that Act which increased from 7.5 percent to 10 percent the percentage
of the total allowable catch of Bering Sea pollock that the Secretary
allocates annually to the CDQ program.
The regulations implementing the CDQ program create the following
regulatory framework:
To participate in the CDQ program, each of the 65 eligible western
Alaska communities must join a ``CDQ group.'' The group then submits a
community development plan, first to the State of Alaska, and then to
the Secretary.
The plan identifies the amount of the percentage of the total
allowable catch or guideline harvest level of each Bering Sea fishery
that has been allocated to the CDQ program that the group wishes to
harvest annually. The plan also describes the ``CDQ projects'' the
group will undertake while the plan is in effect.
The State of Alaska reviews and then makes recommendations to the
Secretary regarding each plan, including a recommendation regarding the
harvest allocations.
In 1992, the eligible communities organized themselves into six CDQ
groups. The groups vary widely in terms of the number of member
communities. For example, the community of St. Paul is the only member
of the Central Bering Sea Fishermen's Association, while fifteen
communities are members of the Norton Sound Economic Development
Corporation. Similarly, the total number of community residents that a
group represents also varies widely from group to group.
In 1992 when the first community development plans were submitted
and approved, none of the CDQ groups had any capital. For that reason,
the plans simply described how the groups would contract with
established fishing companies to harvest the groups' pollock
allocations, and how the groups would use the royalty revenue they
received from those contracts to fund CDQ projects that would benefit
their member communities.
Once the CDQ groups began accumulating capital, they began
purchasing various percentages of equity interests in fishing vessels,
onshore and offshore fish processing companies, and other Bering Sea
fisheries-related businesses as well as starting fisheries-related
businesses of their own. As a consequence, in addition to royalty
revenue, the groups now also use the revenue their investments generate
to further local economic development by financing additional
investments and by providing employment, economic, educational, and
social benefits to the approximately 28,000 residents of their member
communities. For example, since 1992 the six CDQ groups have used those
revenues to provide nearly $125 million in wages, as well as
educational and training benefits.
Mr. Chairman, while all six of the CDQ groups are sharing in that
success, the CDQ program has grown and matured much faster than many of
us initially envisioned. As a result, the program has outgrown the
administrative structure that the Secretary created in 1992. However,
the six CDQ groups have had differing views regarding how the
administrative structure of the program should be modified.
For example, should CDQ groups be encouraged to concentrate their
future investments into equity ownership interests in Bering Sea
fishing companies, or should they be encouraged to diversify into non-
fishery holdings? Is external oversight the best method of governance
for the CDQ groups or is governance from the groups' member communities
more appropriate?
In the past, the ability of CDQ groups to make certain types of
investments and to provide certain benefits to member communities has
been subject to significant regulatory restriction. Should those
restrictions be reduced or eliminated and the boards of directors of
the CDQ groups allowed to make their own decisions regarding the mix of
investments and benefits that will best achieve the objectives of the
CDQ program?
In that regard, the National Marine Fisheries Service recently
concluded that the Secretary's regulations do not require the CDQ
projects that the groups undertake to have a fisheries-related purpose
as long as the projects will advance ``the economic or social
development'' of a group's member community or communities. Should
section 305(i)(l) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, or the Secretary's
regulations, be amended to restrict the amount or source of revenue
that the CDQ groups may use to finance CDQ projects that do not have a
fisheries-related purpose?
Another important question is whether the fishing allocations for
which the Secretary now requires the CDQ groups to compete should be
made permanent? All six of the CDQ groups agree that stable fishing
allocations would be beneficial. But the groups have had differing
views regarding how best to achieve that important objective.
To try and develop a common position, I and other representatives
of the six CDQ groups have been meeting to discuss those and related
questions. We have set August 15 as our target date to reach agreement
on as many as issues as we can. I am hopeful that our discussions will
produce a recommendation to the Subcommittee regarding an amendment to
section 305(i)(1) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act that all of the CDQ
groups can support.
Also, at the urging of the North Pacific Council, in April Alaska
Governor Frank Murkowski created a ``blue ribbon'' panel, which is
chaired by Council member Edward Rasmuson and which will be submitting
recommendations to Governor Murkowski regarding many of those same
issues. I and other representatives of the six CDQ groups look forward
to working with the panel, as well as to evaluating the panel's
recommendations.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of all six of the CDQ
groups, I. would like to express our appreciation to you and the other
members of the Subcommittee for coming to Alaska and for your ongoing
interest in the CDQ program. We also would like to particularly express
our appreciation to Congressman Young for his steadfast and longtime
support for the CDQ program.
I would be happy to answer any questions that you or other members
of the Subcommittee may have.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Thomson.
STATEMENT OF ARNI THOMSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
ALASKA CRAB COALITION
Mr. Thomson. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Excuse me. I will pass that along to
Congressman Young, your kind remarks.
Mr. Thomson.
Mr. Thomson. Good afternoon, Chairman Gilchrest and Mr.
Whaley. On behalf of the Alaska Crab Coalition, I'd like to
express appreciation for the opportunity to provide testimony
on this vitally important subject of fisheries management
successes in Alaska and reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
My name is Arni Thomson. I am executive director of the
Alaska Crab Coalition. The ACC is the longest standing
organization of Bering Sea crab fishing vessel owners. Our
organization has worked closely with the North Pacific Council,
the State of Alaska, Congress, the industry, conservation
groups, and local communities in the effort to achieve
improvements for the basic fabric of the MSA and to adopt our
national laws to the unique circumstances of fisheries off the
coast of Alaska.
Beginning in 1992, we strongly supported bycatch reduction
amendments to the MSA. Twelve years ago on August 20th, 1993,
here in Kodiak High School, I testified before the U.S. Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation in concert
with like-minded organizations to kick off an industry effort
to achieve enactment of national standards to reduce bycatch
and to improve safety that culminated in the enactment of
National Standard 9 and 10 to the Magnuson-Stevens Act in 1996.
Our recommendations even back then included support for
development of an individual vessel incentive program, known as
a VIP, to reduce bycatch in the trawl fisheries. The first
sector-wide rights-based management program is yet to be
developed in the North Pacific. Later on, in 2001 and 2004,
following the model of the shore-based AFA pollock program, we
spearheaded crab harvesters' support for the legislation that
authorized and provided for the implementation of the new crab
rationalization program.
The ACC ranks the 3-pie voluntary co-op program for BSA
crab fisheries among the most significant achievements in
fisheries management. The program adopted on a Council vote of
11-0, representatives of all three states, Alaska, Washington,
and Oregon, after extensive public input, represents a fair
balance of harvester, processor, and community interests. This
compromise achieves a fundamental goal of ending the race for
crab that killed our fishermen, accelerated bycatch to the
detriment of our resource base, and hurt the economies of the
fisheries for all concerned.
There are six key elements to the program: 1) extended
fishing seasons to avoid dangerous fishing conditions and
improve resource utilization; 2) quotas to fishermen,
processors, and communities, and regional landing requirements
to provide economic stability; 3) mandatory binding arbitration
to settle price disputes between harvesters and processors and
to ensure competitive market prices; 4) comprehensive data
collection and program review to assess the success of the
rationalization program and to provide oversight on the revenue
share ratio between harvesters and processors.
We note that Congress needs to complete its work on the
BSAI crab program by complying with the Federal Credit Reform
Act to authorize crab IFQ loans that will benefit skippers and
crewmen.
Today management of major fisheries including BSAI crab
under the jurisdiction of the North Pacific Council stands as a
model for the nation. This success evidences the fundamental
soundness of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the effectiveness of
Congress in adopting our national fisheries law as
circumstances warrant.
We encourage the Council to adopt preferred alternatives to
the non-pollock groundfish fisheries of the Bering Sea and
Aleutian Islands and the major groundfish fisheries of the Gulf
of Alaska at the earliest possible date.
It is exceedingly important the new BSAI program for non-
pollock groundfish fisheries include an individual vessel
incentive program, VIP, allowing allocations of bycatch species
to cooperatives to reduce bycatches of crab and halibut with a
phase-in ratchet-down program at the current allowances of
those species, and these are under consideration in that
program.
Rights-based management programs in the North Pacific have
proven to reduce bycatch. In light of the North Pacific Council
record of success, the ACC urges caution on the part of
Congress in considering any major changes to the MSA. We
believe the first principle should be to do no harm. The
success of fisheries management including most notably those in
the EEZ off Alaska should be preserved. Accordingly, Congress
should take great care to ensure that any new standards or
procedures do not upset existing successful programs, waste
scarce management resources, impose heavier costs on industry,
or spawn new litigation.
By way of example, we believe that ecosystem management
should be integrated into existing regional management plans
not established as a separate nationally standardized process.
The ACC commends the Chairman for holding this hearing and
looks forward to working closely with him, Congressman Young,
and other friends from Congress as we approach reauthorization
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Our fishing industry in fishery-
dependent communities are fortunate to have representatives in
Congress without whose dedication and effectiveness the success
of our fisheries management could not have been achieved.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Thomson.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thomson follows:]
Statement of Arni Thomson, Executive Director,
Alaska Crab Coalition
Mr. Chairman, Congressman Young:
The Alaska Crab Coalition (``ACC''), a trade association
representing the owners of Bering Sea crab fishing vessels, as well as
service and supply companies in the fishing industry, is grateful to
have been invited to testify at this important hearing on fisheries
management successes in Alaska and reauthorization of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (``MSA'').
Summary
I think it beyond challenge to say that the major fisheries of the
Exclusive Economic Zone in the area under the jurisdiction of the North
Pacific Fishery Management Council (``Council'') are models of
fisheries conservation and management. This success reflects the fact
that the standards and procedures of the MSA, in accordance with which
those fisheries are managed, are fundamentally sound, and that Congress
has been superbly effective in adapting the MSA to the unique and
widely differing circumstances of the major fisheries off the coast of
Alaska. The United States fishing industry is fortunate, indeed, to
have the benefit of the MSA and of the continuing dedication of you,
Chairman Gilchrest, and you, Congressman Young, as well as that of
other distinguished Members of Congress, to the conservation and
management of our Nation's fisheries. And, in view of the venue of
today's hearing, I think it especially appropriate to pay tribute to
Senator Ted Stevens for his longstanding leadership in fisheries
affairs. The United States fishing industry, the fishery-dependent
communities, and the American public at large, owe him an enormous debt
of gratitude.
Since its inception, in 1986, the ACC has worked closely with the
North Pacific Fishery Management Council (``Council''), the State of
Alaska, the Department of Commerce (``Commerce''), and Congress in the
development and implementation of an array of statutes, regulations,
and policies aimed at the improvement of safety, conservation,
efficiency, and fairness in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
(``BSAI'') crab fisheries. Over the years, the challenges have been
enormous: the highest occupational fatality rate in the Nation,
resources in severe difficulty, the industry on its financial knees,
and communities at serious economic risk. The Congress, the Council,
the State of Alaska, and Commerce have risen to these challenges.
Through amendments to the MSA in 1992, Congress set us and the
North Pacific Fishery Management Council, with the leadership of the
State of Alaska, on the path that led to a series of innovative
approaches and industry compromises to addressing the adverse impacts
of excessive bycatch, a problem that long vexed the crab fisheries in
the BSAI, where bottom trawling wreaked havoc on female and juvenile
crab. Then, again, in 1996, Congress elevated the priority of bycatch
control, by enacting National Standard Nine. In that same year,
Congress placed safety at the forefront, along with conservation, by
the enactment of National Standard 10. The ACC, in concert with like-
minded organizations, was proud to provide Congress with proposals that
eventually were reflected in these vitally important amendments. In
addition, Congress included authority for capacity reduction
``buyback'' programs. The ACC supported that legislation and the
eventual implementation that resulted in removal of ten percent of the
fishing capacity in the BSAI crab fisheries.
Then, in 2004, Congress crowned its efforts, for the benefit of the
BSAI crab fisheries, with enactment of legislation to authorize and
implement the rationalization plan (``Plan'') that the Council adopted
in accordance with far-seeing legislation enacted several years
earlier. This achievement, with the cooperation and support of the
State of Alaska and Commerce, was possible only because the standards
and procedures of the MSA were fundamentally sound, and Congress could
be counted upon to adapt the Act, as needed, to the unique
circumstances of the BSAI crab fisheries.
What sets the Plan apart from all previous management responses,
and what delivers the long-sought after solutions, is its comprehensive
approach to addressing the root cause of the problems plaguing these
fisheries--the race for crab. Through implementation of the Plan, in
October of this year, excess harvesting and processing capacity will be
removed from the BSAI crab fisheries in a way that will be fair to
harvesters and processors, alike, and will avoid economic dislocation
of dependent communities. Through a carefully balanced system of
harvester and processor quota shares and regional delivery provisions,
a sustainable equilibrium of production capacity and resource
availability will be achieved, markets will be stabilized, safety will
be improved, and communities will be protected. It is true that the
Plan encountered some spirited opposition, but the debate only served
to highlight the foresight and resoluteness of Congress, and the
effectiveness of the Council process.
The ACC urges Congress to proceed carefully with reauthorization of
the MSA. The successes in Alaskan fisheries demonstrate the fundamental
soundness of the Act. The unique circumstances of particular Alaskan
fisheries, including BSAI crab, have been well accommodated by
judicious amendments to the MSA. Accordingly, the ACC maintains that
any further amendments to the MSA be crafted to avoid upsetting the
basic fabric of the Act and the provisions specific to particular
fisheries. In short, we would urge that BSAI crab fisheries be
grandfathered against any new requirements that could result in costly
and potentially damaging revisions to the Plan as only recently
authorized and implemented by Congress in the MSA.
Background and Need for BSAI Crab Rationalization
The BSAI crab fisheries have long presented daunting challenges to
fisheries managers, our industry, and dependent communities. Safety
concerns have necessarily attended fishing operations in the extremely
harsh natural environment of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands area.
Conservation became an issue, as soon as major fishing fleets began to
exploit the resource. Allocation issues arose for our fishermen, when
we first sought to ``Americanize'' the fisheries, by wresting control
from the foreign fleets, and later, after such issues arose again, when
that goal was achieved and our domestic harvesting exceeded the
available resources.
As communities became dependent upon BSAI harvesting and
processing, the scope and complexity of economic and social issues
greatly increased. The full spectrum of these challenges became less
and less manageable, as BSAI crab resources suffered declines and
failures under enormous fishing pressures.
Following much debate and the rejection of a harvester-only
individual quota program, a license limitation program (``LLP'') was
adopted in 1995 and implemented in 1998, with the objective of slowing,
if not halting, increased harvesting capacity in the fisheries. Of
course, this was only a halfway measure, as it failed to prevent
``capital stuffing,'' that is, additional investments increasing the
efficiency of the limited number of vessels that were permitted to
operate in the fisheries. Limits on the number of pots per vessel and
various other management measures, including time and area closures,
also failed to solve the fundamental problem of excessive harvesting
capacity. The race for fish intensified.
In the superheated race for crab, these measures had perverse
safety, conservation, and economic effects. Crab pots are designed to
``soak'' for long enough to allow all the bait to be consumed, and for
the juveniles to leave, through escape panels, in search of other
forage. Fishing seasons comprised of a few days, coupled with pot
limits, led to a spiral of increased risk to the safety of fishermen
and to the sustainability of the resources, as frantic efforts were
made to maximize the numbers of pot lifts in short seasons. In these
circumstances, juvenile crab feeding on bait, would still be in the
pots at the time they were lifted, and a high percentage of juveniles
would perish, as a result of the changes in temperature, when they
ascended and descended through the water column. The future of the crab
fisheries was dying with its juveniles. Many independent vessel owners
were left hanging precariously on the brink of bankruptcy. Worst of
all, the BSAI crab fishery remained the most dangerous occupation in
the United States.
In 1996, while the LLP was wending its way through the bureaucracy
toward implementation, the Sustainable Fisheries Act was enacted. As
noted, above, it included two measures first proposed by the ACC, new
national standards to limit and reduce bycatch, and to improve safety,
and a third measure supported by the organization, authority for the
federal government to conduct industry-funded fishing capacity
buybacks. However, to the disappointment of the ACC, the Act also
included a four-year moratorium on new individual fishing quotas.
Bering Sea pollock took center stage in the North Pacific, and in
October 1998, the American Fisheries Act (``AFA''), established a
unique system of harvester/processor coops for that fishery, including
a 90/10 formula for mandatory deliveries to exclusive processors. Most
of the Council's time during the ensuing 18 months was consumed with
resolving those issues left to its jurisdiction by the new law.
During the year 2000, the crab industry considered various forms of
coops, modeled after the shorebased AFA coops, and a buyback. However,
these potential management responses to the crisis in the BSAI crab
fisheries failed to achieve a critical mass of support.
At the close of the year 2000, the moratorium on individual fishing
quotas was extended for an additional two years. However, in the
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001 (P.L. 106-554), Congress also
enacted special legislation that served as a guidepost for future BSAI
crab management:
...The North Pacific Fishery Management Council shall examine
the fisheries under its jurisdiction, particularly the Gulf of
Alaska groundfish and Bering Sea crab fisheries, to determine
whether rationalization is needed. In particular, the North
Pacific Council shall analyze individual fishing quotas,
processor quotas, and quotas held by communities. The analysis
should include an economic analysis of the impact of all the
options on communities and processors as well as the fishing
fleets. The North Pacific Council shall present its analysis to
the appropriations and authorizing committees of the Senate and
House of Representative in a timely manner.
In January of the following year, the Council formally constituted
a 21-member Crab Rationalization Committee that represented all
affected interests, including the crab industry organizations,
dependent communities, and the environmental community. The work of
that committee culminated on March 23 of that same year with
endorsement, by a two-thirds vote, of a system that would provide
quotas for both fishermen and processors, as well as regionalized
landing requirements. This served as the basis for the Council's
eventual adoption of a ``three-pie voluntary cooperative program.''
On June 10, 2002, the Council adopted the Plan by a unanimous vote
of 11-to-0. The very fact that the long public debate leading up to
this decision was spirited and even rancorous at times demonstrated
that the Council's proceedings were a model of public participation,
with input received from every party who had a perspective to bring to
the table. There were countless hours of deliberation in the Council
and its committees, as well as within and among interested and affected
individuals and organizations over a period of more than two-and-one-
half years. Anyone who failed to offer his or her views cannot claim to
have lacked the opportunity for participation in the process.
There was, it is true, a last-minute disagreement over a system of
arbitration designed to resolve price disputes. No organization was
more concerned than was the ACC, which withdrew support for the Plan,
pending the outcome of efforts to resolve the crisis. Fortunately, the
ACC was able to support the end-product, based on the expectation that
the Council and Congress would critically and continually review the
operation of the arbitration process, and that the Council would make
changes, if that proved necessary to assure fairness. This expectation
was proved correct, when the Council submitted its May 6, 2003, report
to the Congress, with the following statement concerning arbitration:
If the preferred arbitration program does not function as
intended, the Council is committed to using a different
arbitration structure to provide a fair price setting
environment. Because of the completed analyses of these
different structures, an alternative structure, such as the
``Steele Amendment,'' could be expeditiously adopted as part of
the binding arbitration program should Council review of the
program suggest that the arbitration program is not working as
intended. If Congress approves this program, such explicit
authority could be provided to the Council to ensure timely
action to address problems that might arise...We hope that
Congressional authorization of the program will provide
explicit direction to the Council concerning its obligation to
review and amend the program should any unanticipated negative
impacts arise.
The BSAI Crab Rationalization Plan
While there were concerns that the Plan would somehow establish
precedents unsuitable for other fisheries, the fact is that it
responded in a tailored way to a unique combination of circumstances:
Horrendous weather and ice problems on the fishing
grounds, resulting in the highest occupational fatality rate in the
Nation.
Extreme over-capitalization in both the harvesting and
the processing sectors.
Heavy economic and social reliance of five communities,
located in two regions, on crab production.
Unstable and declining crab resources, and excessive
bycatch waste.
Foregone fishing opportunities, due to inability to
manage small resources.
The Plan responds, in a sustainable, fair, and balanced manner, to
the complex resource, environmental, economic, social, and safety
challenges confronting stakeholders in the major BSAI crab fisheries:
Vessel owners;
Skippers and crews;
Processors;
Communities; and
The public at large.
To achieve this goal, the Plan contains the following primary
elements:
Harvest shares allocated to fishermen for 100 percent of
the total allowable catch (TAC), with 90 percent of those shares to be
delivered to processors holding processing shares, and the remaining 10
percent to be deliverable to any processor.
Processing shares allocated to processors for 90 percent
of the TAC.
Regional share designations for processor allocations and
the corresponding 90 percent of the harvest allocations, distributing
landings and processing between specific regions, plus additional
community protections.
A mandatory binding arbitration program to settle price
disputes between harvesters and processors and to insure competitive
market prices.
Voluntary harvester cooperatives permitted to achieve
efficiencies through the coordination of harvest activities and
deliveries to processors.
Community Development Quota allocations of 10 percent of
the TAC.
Initial harvest share allocations to captains of 3
percent of the TAC, and the opportunity for skippers and crew to
purchase shares.
Low-interest federal loan program for captains and crew
to purchase harvest shares.
Comprehensive data collection and program review to
assess the success of the rationalization program and to provide
oversight on revenue share ratio between harvesters and processors.
The Plan presents an impressive array of improvements over the
prevailing situation.
Biological Benefits:
Improved stock management through use of a TAC;
Reduced overharvests through individual allocations;
Reduced discards resulting longer soak times and better
sorting of undersized crab through escape mechanisms in gear; and
Improved handling of discards by ending the race for
crab.
Economic Benefits:
Compensated reductions in capitalization through
voluntary share transactions; and
Economic stability for the harvesting and processing
sectors and communities.
Social Benefits:
Preservation of regional distribution of economic
activity;
Facilitated entry to the fishery for crew; and
Protection of historical interests of captains.
Safety Benefit:
Improved safety by ending the race for crab in bad
weather and sea-state conditions.
The ACC Position on MSA Reauthorization
What the ACC Supports
The ACC strongly supports the provisions in the MSA that apply to
individual quotas. We believe that those provisions have well served
the Nation with respect to existing programs, and are adequate to
support future programs.
The ACC also strongly supports the MSA provisions that apply
uniquely to the BSAI crab fisheries as providing a successful
adaptation of conventional management measures and the institution of
novel approaches to addressing, in a fair, balanced, and effective way,
the unique circumstances of those fisheries.
The ACC supports any modifications to the MSA that may be necessary
or otherwise useful to ensuring effective implementation of the BSAI
crab IFQ loan program. For that program, the ACC also supports
provision for a loan subsidy of $250,000 and a loan ceiling of
$25,000,000, in an appropriations Act, as required by the Federal
Credit Reform Act. These amounts were recommended by the Council.
What the ACC Opposes
In general, the ACC opposes any changes to the MSA that would
introduce either new, higher costs of operating in the fisheries, or
otherwise reduce the practicability or effectiveness of individual
quotas in achieving the broad goals of that Act. The ACC opposes any
new authority to provide for processor quotas in any other fisheries
than those for crab in the BSAI. However, the ACC does believe that,
for each fishery, management measures, taking into account the
particular circumstances, should provide for a fair and balanced
approach to addressing the myriad affected private and public
interests. We note in this regard, that there is, in important
fisheries, a close interrelationship between harvesters, communities
and shorebased processors. These relationships should be carefully
considered in the crafting of any new quota programs.
The ACC would vigorously oppose any new standards or procedures
that are not accompanied by a grandfather provision that ensures the
continuity of individual quotas under the law as it exists today. Any
new standards or procedures, therefore, should apply only prospectively
to any program established after their enactment into law.
Among the previous proposals we have opposed, and would continue to
resist, are the following:
Any sunset of individual quotas. Such a measure would
reduce the effectiveness of rationalization, by adversely impacting the
value of quotas over time, and thus would impede consolidation and
other measures leading to increased efficiency.
Any new fees, the current law already provides for fees
in individual quota programs, and there is no justification for
increasing the costs to operators in those fisheries through what would
amount to an additional, special tax. Any statutory requirement that
would increase the time required for development and implementation of
individual quota programs. The current statutory requirements are
excessively time-consuming, and thus, costly to both the private sector
and government. This situation should not be further aggravated by new
law.
Any new statutory provisions that would predictably spawn
litigation. Commerce is already under severe assault in the courts,
with seriously deleterious consequences for the management system. New
provisions that are controversial, ambiguous, or duplicative must be
avoided.
Any penalties or enforcement mechanism that is suspect
from the standpoint of due process. We believe the current penalties
and enforcement provisions of the MSA serve its purposes adequately.
(We support the special provisions in the enabling legislation for the
BSAI crab rationalization plan.)
Matters of Particular Interest to the Subcommittee in this Hearing
The letter of invitation to this hearing identified matters of
particular interest to the Subcommittee, and accordingly, requested
information regarding them.
What is the importance of fisheries both to Alaska and the various
regions?
Fisheries are vital to the economic well-being of Alaska. They
provide thousands of jobs and revenues for the State and local
governments. Many coastal communities depend upon fisheries, and have
few if any major, alternative sources of economic activity. Fisheries
off Alaska are managed on a sustainable basis. Therefore, they provide
a renewable resource for the indefinite future, and thereby, stand in
contrast to the such extractive activities as oil, gas, and hard rock
mineral production. The BSAI crab fishery, alone, produces $120 million
in landings, and as the crab resources continue to recover, will
produce much more.
How is science integrated into the management process and is this a
transparent and public process?
The Scientific and Statistical Committee (``SSC'') of the Council
considers every management action in open meetings, and reports to the
Council, where the public at large has an opportunity to comment. The
Council is diligent in weighing scientific considerations, when making
management decisions. In addition, the Council relies on the support of
the impressive science capabilities of NMFS and other elements of NOAA.
The process is both transparent and highly effective.
What management processes occur in the North Pacific and what lessons
can we learn from the North Pacific for the reauthorization of
the MSA?
The management process in the Council is characterized by careful
consideration of inputs from scientists, fisheries managers,
economists, communities, industry organizations, and members of the
general public. Public hearings, recorded votes, exhaustive analyses in
EIS and other regulatory analyses, ensure responsible decisions. The
ACC believes that the North Pacific is a model for other regions. The
views of the ACC on MSA reauthorization are set forth above.
What are the major issues affecting each region in Alaska and what are
the challenges for each region?
The ACC would not presume to comment on issues affecting, and
challenges confronting, all the regions in Alaska. However, we would
point out that, in the BSAI, the key issues and challenges are, as they
always have been, conservation, safety, and allocations. The new Crab
Rationalization Plan resolves the major issues for the BSAI crab
fisheries. However, challenges will arise in crafting refinements, as
experience is gained with the program and circumstances change.
Also, the ACC, given its lengthy experience with Olympic fishery
threats to overall sustainability of resources, resulting in excesses
of discards of target and non-target groundfish species, bycatch
mortality of crabs, halibut, salmon and herring, and threats to the
safety of life at sea, recognizes a pressing need for the NPFMC to
adopt at the earliest possible date, a suite of preferred alternatives
for fair and balanced rationalization programs for the Bering Sea and
Aleutian Islands non-pollock groundfish fisheries and for the Gulf of
Alaska pollock, cod and flatfish fisheries.
Additional comments.
The ACC has long taken an interest in ecosystem management
proposals. While we find them intellectually interesting, we believe
them to run the risk of making an already complicated, yet highly
effective, management system unworkable, excessively costly, and prone
to even more litigation than now swamps the agency. The fact is that
the complexity of marine ecosystems exceeds the technical, scientific,
and management capabilities of NMFS and NOAA.
The ACC supports ecosystem-based management as an important goal
for the nation's federal fisheries management system. The MSA currently
allows for an ecosystem-based approach to management and that this
approach should be given higher priority with increased research
funding and enhanced collaborative efforts among fishing and non-
fishing management bodies. The ACC concurs with the National Academy of
Sciences (``NAS'') conclusion that, given our current state of
knowledge, single-species assessments currently provide the best
guidance for scientific stock forecasting and fishery management
advice. We endorse the use of currently available tools in implementing
ecosystem-based management and the resources and funding necessary to
better engage those tools on a regional basis.
ACC does not support establishment of a separate ecosystem council,
but we do support establishment of regional ecosystem collaborative
bodies designed to coordinate fishing and non-fishing information,
research and management. The concept of ``national standardization'' is
incompatible with the need for ecosystem approaches. The Regional
Fishery Management Councils and NMFS need to maintain the flexibility
to manage regional fisheries taking into account regional ecosystem
differences. In March of this year, these same conclusions emerged in
the official findings of the NOAA sponsored, Managing Our Nation's
Fisheries Conference II. Participants were specifically wary of
mandating development of overarching fishery ecosystem plans rather
than building an ecosystem approach into existing management practices
and plans.
Conclusion
The ACC is a major stakeholder in the BSAI crab fisheries, and
therefore, in the MSA. We have a long history of constructive and
successful participation in the legislative and regulatory processes,
with the goal of improved conservation of our Nation's fisheries.
The ACC believes that the MSA is an excellent law, and should only
be amended where a compelling need is demonstrated, the risk of
litigation is low, and the probability of demonstrable, material
improvement to conservation and management is high. We are strongly
opposed to any changes that could increase operator costs or otherwise
impede the effective management of individual quota fisheries.
The MSA is the organic fisheries law of our country, and as such,
should not be amended by provisions of general application to address
special cases. Special legislation, such as that enacted for the BSAI
crab fisheries, is by far the preferable route to dealing with unique
situations.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Smith.
STATEMENT OF THORN SMITH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
NORTH PACIFIC LONGLINE ASSOCIATION
Mr. Smith. Good afternoon, Chairman Gilchrest. I'm Thorn
Smith of the North Pacific Longline Association. Welcome to
Alaska and sincere thanks for the opportunity to express my
views on fisheries management successes in Alaska and the
reauthorization of the MSA. I very much regret that Mr. Young
is not here. I know he too is very much dedicated to this
process.
I want to take this opportunity on behalf of all of us to
thank Dave Whaley, who we refer to often as a national
treasure, for the many, many years of work that he has put into
this field. I'm really serious. Dave's been a wonderful guy,
continues to be, and, Dave, we appreciate it very much.
I represent freezer longliners that harvest, process, and
freeze groundfish, primarily cod, off Alaska. The product is of
the highest quality commanding top prices. We deploy baited
hooks on the sea bed through automatic baiters to catch our
fish. We showed you a little earlier, Mr. Gilchrest, how this
stuff looks. We set many miles of this sort of thing on the
bottom of the ocean. We're not midwater fishermen which has
significance for bycatch and incidental take.
Rather than address the many issues that have been
addressed repeatedly here, and I agree with most of those who
have gone before, I'd like to address one specific experience
we had with the Endangered Species Act with an endangered
species and consider what that may tell us about fisheries
management and MSA reauthorization.
In the fall of 1995, freezer longliners encountered the
mother of all endangered species problems when we took two
short-tailed albatrosses on our baited hooks. We were told only
that it was a highly endangered species. None of us had ever
heard of a short-tailed albatross. In fact, I laughed when told
we took the first one. I didn't laugh when I heard about the
second one.
I called to ask the Alaska Fisheries Science Center, and
that's Bill Aaron, then the director, whether there was such a
thing as a short-tailed albatross. Yes, Thorn, there is. OK,
Bill, they tell us we caught a couple of them. How many are
there? And he pulled out his 1962 Audubon book and said, Thorn,
in 1962, there were 300, and I about died. And I said, well,
Bill, how many are there now? He said nobody knows. If you
consider that there were 6-8,000 spotted owls when we ran into
that crisis and 30-40,000 Steller sea lions in the Western
Aleutians, you get an idea of the magnitude of our problem. And
things just kept getting worse.
We found out that they were hunted to near extinction at
the turn of the 20th Century and you've seen this photograph,
Mr. Gilchrest, of the dead birds that are actually thought to
be extinct until 1950 when a small remnant population was
rediscovered on their home island. It turns out they nest on an
active volcano, Torishima. It's a very violently active
volcano. It's gone off several times in this century.
In 1908, it blew up and killed 125 people who were there
for the purpose of killing albatrosses known in Japan as the
raid under the albatross. In 2002, this thing started to blow
up again. I was sitting in my office and people gleefully
started resending e-mails of the photograph. Fortunately it was
not a major eruption. Fortunately none of these eruptions have
occurred during the half year when the birds are on the island.
But the Japanese scientists warned that that may happen, and if
that does happen, they may lose as much as 40 percent of the
population. I'll get back to that later.
The significance of all this is not lost on the
environmental community. I was advised that there was a
consortium of 12 environmental groups coming after us. Indeed,
we started getting bad press, including this article which
appeared almost immediately in the Science Times in the New
York Times.
Mr. Gilchrest. What is the year?
Mr. Smith. This is Tuesday, November 5th, 1996.
Mr. Gilchrest. Oh.
Mr. Smith. Early on.
Mr. Gilchrest. I'd like to get a copy of that before we----
Mr. Smith. You may have this one. And this National
Fisherman came out just a little later, January of 1997. This
is not going to be a favorable article which told the truth
basically.
Mr. Gilchrest. So the New York Times Science Section can
sometimes be a little bit off the mark.
Mr. Smith. I think on the congressional record I prepared
that--I did spend a lot of time talking to the reporters and
was disappointed in what came out.
Now, then. So I then visited--flew to Anchorage and visited
the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, who took a dim view of all
this stuff to begin with. They had absolutely no idea how to
resolve the problem. They did warn me this is a highly
endangered species, that they had to write a biological opinion
on this species and to determine an incidental take limit. And
if they didn't have an incidental take limit, they would have
to shut our fishery down.
They informed me further they didn't have the biological or
the population dynamic data they needed. The only human being
who had that is Hiroshi Hasegawa, Dr. Hasegawa, of Toho
University in Japan, and they'd been trying to reach him for
two or three years without success. So no bi-op, no incidental
take limit, no fishery, no Hasegawa.
So I had been having similar difficulties with the regional
director in Alaska of NMFS, who didn't seem very interested in
fisheries or in seabirds in fisheries. So I got a $2,000 ticket
and went back to see the national director of NMFS in
Washington D.C.
I prepared a slide show like this one. I suggested there
that NMFS had taken the initiative with trawl bycatch, had a
wonderful scientist on board with the Alaska Fisheries Science
Center, hands-on guy who went out and invented new kinds of
nets and escape panels that work with industry as well as
manufacturers. Might NMFS not consider hiring somebody like
that to help us with our seabird problem because we had no idea
what to do. And she listened to me, she saw this side show, she
looked me in the eye and said, not our problem, and walked out
of the room.
And at that moment, I realized that the official agency had
literally turned its back on us, and we were on our own. And
that we were going to have to do something very fast because
there was an environmental firestorm arising, and they're going
to have to do that outside of the traditional fishery
management system.
My idea at that point was to try to develop some
regulations and get them in the Federal Register before the
million-pound hammer came down. So I swore my people to secrecy
so we wouldn't attract too much attention. I studied longliner
and seabird interactions around the world. Came across the
CCAMLR regs from Antarctica, used those to develop a model set
of seabird avoidance regulations for Alaska. Gave it to my
board of directors, they gave me comments, then we went out to
the fleet and all the other associations. We e-mailed, we
faxed, we got some mighty interesting comments back from
captains at sea. And in the end, we got a pretty good set of
regulations.
We went to the North Pacific Council, said we've got a
problem, here's our best shot at a solution. They said sounds
like a good idea to us, implement these by emergency rule.
Right after that I found Hiroshi Hasegawa. He came to the
United States, gave Fish & Wildlife the population dynamics
data it needed. They wrote two bi-ops, the first of which gave
us a very stringent limit of two shirt-tailed albatrosses per
year that we could take in our fishery. The second one said,
well, NMFS you will now assess scientifically the effectiveness
of the measures of these regulations.
We found that NMFS once again had no expertise, no money,
and no particular interest in doing this. So we were obliged to
join with Washington Sea Grant, which really does have some
seabird experts, Ed Melvin and Julia Parrish. They designed the
first ever, massive seabird avoidance experiment ever done in
the world, never been done before, completely new experiment.
We obtained a series of appropriations to support the work.
In over two years on our commercial fishing vessels, we set
millions of hooks in this experiment and discovered that paired
streamer lines, this orange stuff right here, suspended over
the baits as we set the baits scared the birds away and was
very effective. And you, Mr. Gilchrest, have seen on the back
of this cover document that we reduced our seabird incidental
take by 80 percent. We have not taken a short-tailed albatross
since 1998.
Interestingly enough, a week from today, we will begin yet
another very large experiment, even larger, by using integrated
weight groundlines, like this. It sinks 2-1/2 times as fast as
the normal line. Very effective in getting the bait to a depth
where birds can't get down to it. Being used widely, and this
is widely, in the southern hemisphere. As our principle
researcher said this will not only be the biggest seabird
avoidance experiment we will have done, it will probably be the
biggest one that will ever be done.
In terms of outreach, which is a tough problem, we designed
and printed 17,000 of these pamphlets, 3,000 of these books
from Australia were distributed this week, 11,000 copies of the
North Pacific albatross guide which I showed you earlier which
identifies the albatrosses not only for the fishermen, but for
the observers.
And because these animals fly from Torishima off Japan, off
the Russian coast, China coast, Korean coast, up to Alaska each
year, we wanted to reach out to some of these other countries.
We knew that the Russians had taken a short-tailed albatross,
so we joined with the Marine Conservation Alliance and the
World Wildlife Fund, translated this guide into Cyrillic, had
it printed, took it to Russia, and World Wildlife delivered it
to the longliners.
And then I went too with my slide show to Russia, China,
Korea, Japan, Singapore, Hawaii, Midway, and so forth. The
University printed up this video which actually went to our
fleet and elsewhere. This also was translated into Cyrillic and
delivered to the Russians.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Smith, do we have a copy of that video?
Mr. Smith. You may have this one, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
Mr. Smith. We support the short-tailed albatross recovery
team set up by Fish & Wildlife. It's a group of Japanese and
American scientists and me who are dedicated to the recovery of
this animal. We have 50 tasks in the recovery plan. The main
though is to establish a new breeding colony on a non-volcanic
island.
What lessons have we learned? What significance is there to
all this?
First of all, from the perspective of ecosystem-based
management, I think it's the first time seabirds have ever been
taken into account, certainly in American fishery management.
And that I think is--and I think the way this occurred has
illustrated what I regard to be ecosystem-based management.
There was no real seabird avoidance science at the time. We had
to develop it. We had to do it in real-time. And we had to
again step outside the traditional framework of fishery
management to do it, but we did it. And what we did was
discovered a problem, went out and got the results, and
designed a program to stop it with the full cooperation of the
Council. The Council does this all the time. It was just one
example of how it was done.
I think that much can be achieved through cooperative
research involving industry and outside third parties like
Washington Sea Grant and Alaskans elsewhere. I think much can
be achieved outside the box of traditional fishery management
as long as we has have the cooperation of the councils and the
agencies. Overall, I think this is a good thing.
In retrospect, I'm glad NMFS didn't respond. It's a fishery
management agency. It's core of expertise is fish, not birds.
The MSA is a fishery management statute. The definition of fish
is, finfish, mollusks, crustaceans, and all other forms of
marine and animals and plant life other than marine mammals and
birds. Pretty clear what the framers of the Magnuson Act had in
mind.
We don't think it's necessary to amend the statute further
to protect seabirds. We've been at this for 10 years now. We
know how to do that. We have the tools. We know where the
problems are. Any of the material--there's a document showing
what an excellent job they've done in Hawaii in avoiding
albatrosses. There were a number of things in the earlier bill
that we have examined and thought were unnecessary.
We don't think there's any need for a list of fisheries or
public comments on such a list, that is, fisheries with seabird
problems. Certainly no need for the Secretary to work with
fishermen. The Secretary still lacks that expertise. The
expertise lies outside the Agency and we've tapped it. We're
ready to go if another problem arises.
So we would ask, please, that you not give NMFS any
substantive statutory responsibilities with regard to seabirds.
NOAA GC says they have authority to implement regs as the ones
we've got now. Also, we joined with the State of Alaska and the
Marine Conservation Alliance to encourage you not to change the
definition of bycatch. Bycatch is fish, not marine mammals or
seabirds.
Finally, I was talking with a colleague in Hawaii who's
working on this stuff, and he said, you know, Thorn, in
retrospect, after all the smoke has cleared, this is a fairly
easy problem to solve. We have a localized problem where
seagulls are attracted to birds because we're either dumping
bait or offal off of the bait. We're only setting bait a very
short period of time we're out there, and the fishermen can
figure out ways to avoid the birds during that period of time,
and they have done so. And the scientist then, this is his
words, go out and put numbers around it, and then we develop
regulations.
So I just hope that the word seabird will not appear in the
Magnuson-Stevens Act.
I'd like to support what Julie Bonney said about the
observer program. I think we need Federal funding for small
vessels throughout Alaska, beyond the Gulf. I approve the
amendment of MSA to be NEPA-compliant, and I think we do need
to protect unaggregated observer and other data from FOIA.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Mr. Smith. Fascinating
testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Statement of Thorn Smith, Executive Director,
North Pacific Longline Association
Mr. Gilchrest, Members of the Subcommittee, Welcome to Alaska and
sincere thanks for the opportunity to express my views on fisheries
management successes in Alaska and the reauthorization of the MSA. I
represent freezer-longliners that harvest, process, and freeze
groundfish--primarily cod--off Alaska. The product is of the highest
quality, commanding top prices. We deploy baited hooks on the seabed
through automatic baiters to catch our fish. Freezer- longliners are
owned and operated by Alaskans, Community Development Quota groups, and
companies from Washington State. The Alaska cod fishery and its
sustainability are essential to all these groups.
There are many fishery management success stories in Alaska--you
will hear some today. I would like to focus on one problem that took us
by surprise and required fast footwork and ``thinking outside the box''
to reach a resolution. It touches on ecosystem management, how science
is developed and used in our management process, how that process can
work in Alaska and elsewhere, and what lessons it may hold for MSA
reauthorization and for the future. There may be some surprises.
In the fall of 1995, the Alaska freezer-longliner fleet ran
headlong into the mother of all endangered species problems. We took
two short-tailed albatrosses on our baited hooks. These iconic seabirds
nest on an active volcanic island off Japan, and were hunted to near
extinction by the Japanese at the turn of the nineteenth century. In
1995 the only population information available was that in 1962 there
were 300 short-tailed albatrosses in the world (there are now 1,990).
The significance of these takes was not lost on the longline
industry or the environmental industry. It was obvious that immediate
action was necessary if we were to avoid the million-pound hammer
effect of the Endangered Species Act. Unfortunately neither the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) with responsibility for the
fishery, nor the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) with
responsibility for the endangered albatrosses, had any idea what to
do--the seabird issue had not arisen previously in the context of U.S.
fishery management. As the environmental industry organized to blow us
out of the water, the longline industry undertook an immediate study of
longline/seabird problems worldwide and wrote its own set of seabird
avoidance regulations. These were approved by the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council in December of 1996, and were implemented by May of
1997. The United States Coast Guard (USCG) volunteered to enforce the
regulations by overflying the fleet.
The USFWS then wrote a Biological Opinion requiring that NMFS
conduct research to determine the effectiveness of the measures
contained in the regulations. We found that NMFS did not have the money
or the expertise required for the work (NMFS needs and deserves more
funding), and here began a remarkable collaboration between the fishing
industry and the Washington Sea Grant Program (WSGP)--outside of the
usual fishery management process. Industry was able to obtain funding
from Congress, and the WSGP seabird experts designed and staffed a
first-ever massive experiment to test seabird avoidance methods. The
experiment was conducted over a period of two years on vessels
participating in the commercial longline fisheries--millions of hooks
were set. In the end it was discovered that paired streamer lines
suspended over the baited hooks while setting gear were 88%-100%
effective in deterring seabird strikes. The method that worked for
albatrosses worked for all seabird species. Paired streamer lines are
now required on our longliners and the longliners of many other
countries. Since the implementation of our first regulations in 1997,
we have reduced overall seabird incidental take in the freezer-
longliner fleet by more than 80%. No short-tailed albatrosses have been
taken since 1998. A week from now, on July 15, we will begin at-sea
testing of integrated weight groundlines, which sink two and one-half
times as fast as unweighted groundlines, and which have been found
highly effective in avoiding seabirds in Southern Hemisphere longline
fisheries. Again we are working with Washington Sea Grant.
The fishing industry engaged in extensive outreach exercises to get
the word to longliners at home and abroad. We printed and NMFS
distributed 17,000 brochures on the new regulations and on streamer
lines. We created and laminated in plastic a North Pacific Albatross
Guide for use by our longliners and observers. These guides were
delivered to longliners in Hawaii and on the West Coast of Canada. The
Marine Conservation Alliance and the North Pacific Longline Association
had the guides translated into Cyrillic, laminated in plastic, and
hand-carried to Russia where they were delivered to Russian longliners
by the World Wildlife Fund--which has a remarkable program promoting
conservation in Russian longline fisheries. Washington Sea Grant
prepared an excellent video, ``Off the Hook,'' which demonstrates the
use of streamer lines on longliners of various sizes. These were
distributed to the fleet. I developed a seabird avoidance slide show
which I presented in the U.S. and several foreign longlining countries.
USFWS created a program with the Pacific States Marine Fisheries
Commission (PSMFC) to deliver streamer lines to the fleet free of
charge. There were many other outreach efforts.
Finally, the industry obtained appropriations for the Short-Tailed
Albatross Recovery Team, a group of Japanese and American scientists
dedicated to recovery of the species.
What can we learn from all this? First, it constitutes an expansion
of the concept of ecosystem-based management, as seabirds had not
previously been considered in U.S. fishery management. Second, it shows
that sometimes science must be developed in the course of management--
in real time. There was no reliable science of seabird avoidance until
our first-time experiment. Third, it shows that amazing things can be
accomplished through cooperative research between industry and outside
third parties like WSGP. If it can be done in Alaska, it can be done
elsewhere. Fourth, it shows that much can be accomplished ``outside the
box'' of routine fishery management--again, with the cooperation of all
involved (the Council, NMFS, USFWS, USCG, PSMFC were all supportive).
Finally, it shows that there is no need to amend the MSA to ensure the
protection of seabirds. Industry and academia have taken the lead here,
with great success. In addition to the longliner work above, the trawl
fleet is about to conduct seabird avoidance experimentation with the
same Washington Sea Grant personnel used in the longline experiment.
Our actions are being emulated worldwide. Great progress has been
achieved in Hawaiian longline fisheries, as well. We have been at this
for ten years now. It is not necessary for Congress to mandate a ``list
of fisheries with significant seabird interaction problems,'' or for
public comment on such a list, or for the Secretary to work with
industry to develop seabird avoidance methodologies. The problem
fisheries have been identified, and most of the problems are well on
the way to resolution. Such work is best done collaboratively by
industry and academia, with support from the councils and agencies.
Grant Authority to fund such activity is a good idea.
There is no need to change the definition of ``bycatch'' in the MSA
to include seabirds, for the above reasons. The MSA is a fisheries
statute, and NMFS is a fisheries agency. If seabirds were included in
``bycatch,'' a number of substantive obligations come into play that
are aimed at fish, not seabirds or marine mammals. Modifying the
definition of ``bycatch'' would put us on a slippery slope, shift the
focus of the fishery management program, and invite frivolous
litigation. We should recognize that the MSA and NMFS cannot do
everything, and rely on responsible industry and academia to resolve
problems that are outside the core expertise of the agency and the
councils.
In this regard I have recently been reminded by a colleague at the
Western Pacific Fishery Management Council that the seabird incidental
take problem is a relatively easy one to fix--unlike the sea turtle
problem. The birds are focused on fishing vessels and their bait or
offal discharge. The problem is a highly localized one, and fishermen
have been able to develop solutions. Please see Melvin and Parrish,
``Focusing and Testing Fisher Know-How to Solve Conservation Problems:
A Common Sense Approach.''
As a final aside on another topic, the continued warming of North
Pacific and Arctic waters is a real concern for all of us. Some
problems really are beyond legislation.
In closing, I thank you again for the opportunity to express these
views, and wish you the best of luck in the MSA reauthorization
process.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. I think I'll start with you with the
questioning.
Mr. Smith. Uh oh.
Mr. Gilchrest. Since we're talking about seabirds. And I
really--I hate to take this art--this may be, this is a 1996
Science Times from the New York Times, and I may just want to
keep it as a--I don't know. Do you want this back as a
souvenir? It looks like----
Mr. Smith. I bought 200 when it came out.
Mr. Gilchrest. You bought 200.
Mr. Smith. I have stacks.
Mr. Gilchrest. All right, good.
Mr. Smith. And I'll have you know I was talking to Andy
Ruskin (ph) of their staff and trying to get him to, not write
a retraction, but to get him to write an article in Science
Times that will explain what has been done in the interim.
Mr. Gilchrest. Well, I appreciate the copy because I read
it every Tuesday.
Mr. Smith. Good, would you call Andy for me.
Mr. Gilchrest. I look forward--it's the most important
thing for me to do every Tuesday morning is to read the Science
Times of the New York Times.
Mr. Smith. I enjoy it too, yeah.
Mr. Gilchrest. My question though is what was happening to
seabirds in 1996 compared with longliners compared to what's
happening with seabirds and longliners in 2005.
Mr. Smith. Well, in 2005 (sic) we encountered this problem,
which took us completely by surprise. And it was in the fall, I
think.
Mr. Gilchrest. Was it '96, you mean.
Mr. Smith. No, '95.
Mr. Gilchrest. Oh, '95.
Mr. Smith. 1995. And when I made my efforts to get help
that was unsuccessful, I realized we were completely exposed to
an onslaught by the environmental community. And so I kind of
went underground for awhile. I swore my board to secrecy. I
said don't talk about this. It'll leak from NMFS eventually,
but keep quiet because we got to do something. And then I
engaged in about a six-month study of, you know, I couldn't
spend all my time on it, but every time I had--whenever I had
time I contacted somebody, and it kept going all around the
world and mostly found problems in the southern hemisphere. And
the only regulations in the world were the CCAMLR regulations,
the Antarctic regulations, and use those for a model.
So in '96, I was going through that. We got our regs done
and the process I described I would say in about September,
October, and went to the Council late in that year. So we were
at the point of, when that article was written, we had
developed our regulations, were trying to get them to and
through the Council, and the Council cooperated completely.
They were in effect the next day which is the fastest that kind
of thing has ever happened.
Mr. Gilchrest. So what you've done starting in '95
certainly to the present is develop gear technology that is
much better today for seabird avoidance than it was when this
article was written.
Mr. Smith. Well, there was no technology when that article
was written.
Mr. Gilchrest. OK.
Mr. Smith. There wasn't anything yet. And the answer is,
yes, and a lot of--Ed Melvin and his colleague did a wonderful
job. This is their report, and I've given you an executive
summary, and I'll give you this one if you want. This is a
report that he turned out that is very thorough going--
basically became the Bible for seabird avoidance around the
world, and a lot of other countries have followed suit. I won't
say we're the only people who've been involved in this. The
Australians have been involved too at the same time.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see.
Mr. Smith. But this was the first major study and the work
that Ed and his colleague did was utterly fantastic. And it
really started a great interest in many, many countries in this
particular issue.
Mr. Gilchrest. Well, we'll take a--certainly we'll take a
look at all the information that is given to us this morning.
There has been a great deal of interest in seabird avoidance by
a number of different groups, so as we go through the process
of reauthorizing this, we'll keep your thoughts in mind as far
as any reference to seabirds, seabird avoidance, and gear
technology in our reauthorization. But we want to compliment
you on your relentless efforts to solve this problem.
Mr. Smith. Well, I just encourage you to understand that
we're not alone. There are other parts of our seafood industry
who have done similar things, and I think that's a part of our
management process, as I explained to you in our conversation
earlier. I don't think you need to legislate everything. I
think sometimes you confuse things when you legislate. I'm very
confident that you open yourself up for what might be frivolous
litigation when you do that.
We've experienced so much litigation that the agencies
can't do their jobs. So I would say please keep seabirds out of
the statute. We're taking care of it. Others like us in Hawaii
are taking care of it, and we're ready to help when somebody
else runs into a problem. We've got the tools, we've got the
people, we can do it.
Mr. Gilchrest. All right. Thank you very much.
I guess I'm going to have some, except for maybe Mr. Duffy,
but anyone else can answer this particular question. Mr. Duffy
mentioned an ecosystem approach with the pollock fishery in the
Bering Sea, if I'm paraphrasing correctly. I guess my question
is as we, and it's been mentioned by a number of different
panels, both here and Ketchikan and certainly other places
around the country, as we pursue this reauthorization, your
recommendation as far as any reference to national standards or
to an ecosystem pilot project or approach as far as the
Magnuson Act is concerned, do you have any recommendations on
how we approach that in statute, in language, in reference. And
each panel has mentioned that, I don't know when it was. I
guess two or three years ago we had a Magnuson Reauthorization
Act that passed the full committee but never made it to the
House Floor for a number of reasons.
Our approach was at the time, but I think the councils and
a lot of people have gone at least that far and maybe have
exceeded what we did a few years, was for two years to take a
look at what we didn't know about ecosystems, for a year with
enough money to fill in the gap of what we didn't know. And
then in the fourth and fifth year of the reauthorization, we
were to develop--we wanted to develop with councils on the West
and East Coast, a pilot project and pilot projects for an
ecosystem fisheries management plan in a particular fishery.
It sounds like though a number of--North Pacific Council as
well as some other councils have actually moved in that
direction without that statute. But do you have any
recommendation on the kind of way we should treat ecosystems in
this new reauthorization?
Mr. Duffy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that question. It's
a big one. I would proceed with caution; that may not be
helpful, but that would be my first recommendation. I do not
think it would be appropriate in reauthorization to have
detailed criteria for establishing a framework for an ecosystem
approach.
In my previous testimony, the point I was trying to make is
I think the way that the Bering Sea/Aleutian Island pollock
fishery is managed with its conservative catch limit, bycatch,
minimal bycatch impacts, comprehensive observer and monitoring
program, that we are really, and one can argue, we are
conducting an ecosystem-based approach as we speak. We just
didn't call it that over the last few years. And so I would
urge caution.
In terms of reference to a pilot type project in
reauthorization, I think there was previous testimony from Ms.
Salveson and Ms. Madsen about some of the things that the North
Pacific Council is looking at out in the Aleutian Islands. So I
would not encourage detailed criteria on an ecosystem approach
under reauthorization.
There are a number of arguments that I believe previous
council members, like me and others, would make. For example,
the programmatic SEIS for the management of the Bering Sea/
Aleutian Island and Gulf of Alaska groundfish fisheries is a
comprehensive document just approved by the Council. And the
programmatic SEIS envisions making progress through time best
on scientific information on a number of the measures that
we've been talking about today, whether it's bycatch reduction,
whether it's, you know, there's a whole set of provisions
they've been looking at with the reauthorization.
So I think the Council's doing it. I think pushing to
maintain the regional structure and to allow them to move
forward is the best way to go. And I am concerned that if there
are general references in Magnuson-Stevens to ecosystem
approaches, it could lead to litigation, and I'm concerned
about that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
Anyone else want to make a comment on that?
Mr. Smith. I would certainly concur, Mr. Gilchrest. I think
the North Pacific Council is making rapid strides in this
direction. I think the seabird incident is just one small
instance of what they've done. I think it's what we refer to as
adaptive management where we see a problem, we have enough
science to tackle the problem, and we go right after it. We're
very aggressive about it. And as a non-scientist, I can tell
you that some of the stuff they do is more or less beyond me.
It's really kind of good stuff, I think. I would prefer that
the statute not be amended to set standards or to do anything
other than generally encourage ecosystem management. And
frankly you talk to a lot of scientists, they say we're not
sure what that is. They don't have the science yet.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Thomson.
Mr. Thomson. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to refer
to the comments of Stephanie Madsen and Chris Oliver of the
North Pacific Council in terms of their recommendation for
development of national guidelines being appropriate which
would then be used as strategic guidance rather than as
regulatory requirements for implementation specific regulatory
programs to the existing FMPs.
In other words, you just build ecosystem management into
existing FMPs. And we believe that, you know, the Magnuson-
Stevens Act as it stands allows you to incorporate ecosystem
management into existing FMPs.
We're also concerned about if we start authorizing specific
statutes in terms of ecosystem management, that it could result
in litigation and swamp the Agency with litigation.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see. Thank you.
Now, I'm not sure if it was Mr. Reed or Mr. Duffy, maybe
Mr. Kelty, somebody on this side of the room that made a
recommendation for an amendment which I wanted to ask about.
The recommendation for an amendment was that, I'm going to
paraphrase here, for the SSC, the scientific statistical
committee, when they give their acceptable biological catch to
the council, the amendment recommendation was that the council
could not exceed that, and put that in statute. That's a
fascinating recommendation, and I'm just--I'm not sure who said
it, but, OK, Mr. Duffy.
Mr. Duffy. Mr. Chairman, that was me. I should have learned
from sitting in DAP about being too definitive in my testimony
this morning, but I didn't.
Yes, APA does believe that that would be an appropriate
action to consider under reauthorization to ensure that the
councils set total allowable harvest levels lower than the ABCs
in all circumstances recommended by the SSC. I also believe
that that is the position of the Marine Conservation Alliance
in some of their written testimony as well.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
Does anyone else want to make a comment on it? Mr. Reed.
Mr. Reed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that's a fairly
commonly held belief that surprises a lot of people from other
parts of the country that folks who represent industry would
support such an idea. And in my limited travels around, talking
to folks in different regions, you know, you had mentioned in
describing where you're from, how they had a system in place
for 300 years and people like it, and change is considered to
be something that isn't embraced maybe as much as you see here.
We've had a system in place since 1976 or a little bit
later of Americanizing this resource. So we look at it
differently. I think it's natural. And I think that in the last
30 years this, as people have told you, this state's benefited
greatly from this, and we want to preserve that.
The folks that I represent and the other people here
represent have invested hundreds of millions of dollars based
on a long-term healthy resource for us to have access to and to
operate our businesses with. And so it seems counterintuitive
sometimes when we go around and they say you guys would support
having scientists determine how much you can catch and think
nothing of it, but we have over the 30 years of the program I
think gained faith in our scientists. We don't always agree
with them, but we want the research here next year, too, and
the years beyond to take benefit of the investment that we've
made. So I think that that's a fairly commonly held position
that you'll find in the North Pacific. We want to have a good
future.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Asicksik. I think I can speak for the other five CDQ
groups that, you know, that's something that we would like to
see also because most of the communities are within 50 miles of
the Bering Sea and they're predominantly Native residents in
those communities and a lot of the subsistence occurs. So what
happens out in the Bering Sea has an impact, you know, not just
on the CDQ groups, but how subsistence is driven, you know, in
each of our respective communities.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much.
Mr. Kelty.
Mr. Kelty. I think I would just concur with that. You know,
some of the, in my neck of the woods where I live we're in some
of the most remote areas in Alaska, and all we have is the
seafood industry. We're not on the road system. We're, you
know, we don't have--it costs a thousand bucks round-trip to go
to Unalaska from Anchorage, so our tourist industry is not
booming right now. We don't have a golf course. We don't have a
Coast Guard Base. So the sustainability of this resource is all
we have, as I said in my testimony, so it's very important.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Reed. I want to clarify too that he also has no woods.
Mr. Kelty. I have no trees.
Mr. Gilchrest. No trees.
Mr. Kelty. The Russians logged us off.
Mr. Gilchrest. Oh, my.
Mr. Kelty. In the early 1800s.
Mr. Gilchrest. The other question I had for actually all of
you who have some direct interest in this particular arena of
observers, is the question of should they be professionals or
technicians? Where do we come down on that as far as vessel
ownership/liability of the observers are concerned. And I'm not
sure who, someone said they should be considered professionals.
And that's an issue that I think we need to deal with so
liability, the designation of profession or technician, where
is that profession heading.
Mr. Duffy. Mr. Chairman, once again, that was my testimony.
First, in the groundfish fishery in Alaska, I think the cost to
the industry is on the order of $13 million a year, industry-
funded, for observer programs.
What has happened is in the absence of the clear definition
whether observers are considered technicians or professional,
if they're considered technicians, then there is significant
overtime involved even when they're on the vessel. Because we
have two observers on-board our catcher-processor vessels
around the clock. We operate around the clock; two observers on
board, 200 percent observer coverage.
If they're identified as professionals, then I think you
have some cost containment measures that in the end will
provide more extensive observer coverage as opposed to the cost
going up significantly. So that was the point I was trying to
make by identifying them as professionals. The industry, as
you've probably gathered from being here at the hearing, is
very supportive of an observer program. Sure there's some
tweaks they might want to add here and there, whether it's
confidentiality or other issues, but I think it's important to
note that the industry is very supportive of having a
comprehensive observer program. But we don't want the cost to
be so cost prohibitive that we would scale back in the observer
coverage.
I think there are other issues that I didn't touch on
relative to the Gulf where I believe we're going to need some
additional funding like in other areas of the country to help
support an observer program in the Gulf particularly for the
small boat fleet. But that was the issue that I brought up.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much.
Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Gilchrest, I'm not an expert in this area. I
have consulted briefly with an expert here and we will provide
you with a memorandum during this 60-day period that will try
to elucidate this for you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Well, thank you.
Mr. Smith. It's explained to me that there are two issues
here. The professional-technician issue has to do primarily
with overtime pay and has nothing to do with liability. And on
the liability issue, I believe that there's a question of
whether the Jones Act or the Longshoremen's Act applies. I am a
non-expert here, and so we will supply you with something
written by somebody smarter than me.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much.
Mr. Thomson.
Mr. Thomson. Yes, Mr. Gilchrest, I don't pretend to be an
expert either, but I would concur with Mr. Duffy's remarks
about the professional status of observers because it can help
us contain the cost of observers, for sure.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
Mr. Thomson. Well, I guess, also I would add that the
observers in the North Pacific have a very wide and
professional range of duties. And as I understand it, the
duties of the observers up here in terms of observing bycatch
and knowledge of all different types of species and these kinds
of things, would warrant them having this distinction as
professionals.
Mr. Gilchrest. Gentlemen, you have provided us with an
extraordinary range of information that will be analyzed by us,
and I think of great benefit as we proceed to reauthorize the
Act.
And the hearing record will be open for 60 days. And, Mr.
Asicksik, I think that takes in, if it doesn't, we'll
incorporate your remarks into the record, but I'm looking
forward to your recommendations for the CDQ program. I think
you made mention that by August the 15th you will have some of
those recommendations from your six communities.
Mr. Asicksik. Yes. And when it was heard that there would
be hearings in Alaska, of course, you know, all six groups
would probably have liked to be here and testified, but we were
informed that they would hear only from one. So my testimony
was basically put together by six of the groups.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see.
Mr. Asicksik. And that's why we requested that the hearing
period be open, so each individual group can submit its own
written testimony.
Mr. Gilchrest. Well, we will look forward to those
recommendations.
Mr. Asicksik. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Gentlemen, it's been a pleasure. It's a
wonderful place, Kodiak. Thank you all very much.
[Whereupon, at 3:13 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[A statement submitted for the record by the Central Bering
Sea Fishermen's Association follows:]
Statement of the Central Bering Sea Fishermen's Association
I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing.
I ask that the Central Bering Sea Fishermen's Association (CBSFA)
testimony be included in the record in its entirety.
I. Introduction:
In recent months, CBSFA has been actively involved with the other
CDQ groups in efforts to amend certain aspects of the CDQ Program that
will allow for its modernization and will reflect the level of economic
maturity that many groups have achieved. While CBSFA is supportive of
the objectives being pursued it has concerns about the proposed
allocation freeze, in particular with respect to the valuable pollock
allocation; the definition of the principal purposes of the CDQ
program; and certain aspects of the program's administration. This
testimony will elaborate on these concerns in greater detail below.
II. The CDQ Program and Its Success on Saint Paul Island:
On St. Paul Island, sixty Aleuts now earn all, or a portion, of
their living from the halibut fishery. CBSFA has been able to create a
self-sustaining Halibut fishing coop for the local fishing fleet to
harvest our CDQ Halibut. Over the past two years CBSFA has been able to
increase the ex-vessel price paid to local St. Paul fishermen from a
past average of $1.50 per pound to $2.60 in 2003 and $2.77 in 2004.
Taking into consideration that the Halibut harvest has declined by over
half since 2002 this increase in ex-vessel pricing has helped the local
fishermen and their families dramatically. Thus, St. Paul residents
have been provided with total revenue of $1,071,200 in 2003 and
$865,000 in 2004. Had the fishery remained status quo St. Paul
residents would have received $618,000 in 2003 and $468,000 in 2004, a
combined difference of 44%.
As a result of recent reduced Catch Per Unit of Effort in Area 4C,
CBSFA has successfully worked with the North Pacific Fisheries
Management Council to allow the harvest of 4C IFQ and CDQ in adjoining,
and much larger, Area 4D. This action allows for the continued
successful harvest of halibut resources by local quota holders while
protecting the resource itself.
The CDQ halibut fishery is a three month fishery that can be
harvested by small boats during the day when the weather in the Bering
Sea permits it. There are twelve captains of commercial day fishing
vessels on St. Paul. The halibut fishery is a day fishery where the
CBSFA fishermen fish on 20 to 36-foot boats. Some of the most
successful captains are now trying to upgrade their boats to larger
vessels in order to participate in other commercial fisheries for
additional species where the fishermen have to venture further from
port.
All this has happened in the last 15 years thanks to the CDQ
Program. Despite the fact that 55% of the United States' commercial
fishing industry catches their fish within 65 miles of Saint Paul
Island, there would not be an economically viable inshore fishing fleet
in the community without the CDQ Program.
The CDQ Program allows access to the fish and provides the
resources to finance individual CBSFA fishermen in purchasing boats and
also in purchasing additional IFQ halibut in the area around Saint Paul
Island. Without the CDQ Program, this would be another situation where
the residents of Saint Paul, which is over 90 percent Aleut, would have
sat by in poverty and watched people from Seattle, Anchorage, Kodiak
and Dutch Harbor benefit from the halibut resource in the waters around
Saint Paul. Whatever improvements are necessary, the bottom line is
that this program is a success.
Giving local residents a stake in the sustainability of the
commercial resources in their coastal areas is also one of the most
effective ways to assure that the resource is well-managed. Unlike the
distant water commercial fleet, which can move to other fishing grounds
around the world if the resource is over fished, the residents of St.
Paul Island, Alaska, and the other Western Alaska coastal communities,
are not able to pick up their communities and move to distant grounds
when a fishery declines as a result of mismanagement, or otherwise.
This alone is an important benefit of the CDQ Program.
The future of Saint Paul Island depends on the CDQ Program too. If
CBSFA receives adequate allocations, particularly in pollock, and if it
is not burdened with excessive regulation, there is potential for:
1) moving a processor to the harbor to process cod, pollock and
other flat fish. This venture will expand the markets for the whole
fleet and of course, CBSFA members;
2) the continued harvest and processing of crab for the benefit of
CDQ groups that are not located near the resource under the newly
rationalized crab fishery. CDQ crab harvesting and processing on Saint
Paul benefits all the CDQ groups;
3) the ability of the community to develop the necessary
infrastructure, such as the construction of the local authorized small
boat harbor, so that CBSFA can upgrade its boats and other groups can
take advantage of the immense resource around Saint Paul;
4) the revenues to finance individual fishermen's acquisition of
larger vessels and additional fish quotas so that the fishermen can
expand and diversify into other fisheries, and
5) the training, internship and other educational programs to
allow the local Aleut residents to participate successfully in these
developments.
CBSFA is concerned about a proposed allocation freeze that would
limit its pollock allocation (which is worth 84% of the entire CDQ
Program's royalty income) at 60% of its original levels. CBSFA historic
allocation of pollock stood at 10% and was reduced over the years,
through decisions that CBSFA considers unjustified, to 4%. In recent
allocation cycles CBSFA has been able to recoup one percentage point,
to 5%, and based on the recommendations for the 2006-2008 cycle,
CBSFA's allocation would be increased to 6%. A freeze at 60% of its
original levels would prejudice this upward trend and would limit CBSFA
from undertaking the numerous fishery-related projects discussed above
that are important to the community and other CDQ groups as well. CBSFA
aspires to end up closer to its historic pollock allocation levels.
III. The Establishment of the CDQ Program:
The CDQ Program was initially established by the North Pacific
Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) in 1991 to allow fishermen residing
in Western Alaska communities an opportunity to participate in the
Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands ground fisheries and other near-shore
fisheries as part of the Council's Pollock Fishery Management Plan. The
reason given was to provide a means to initiate or support commercial
fisheries activities which will result in sustainable, regionally based
commercial fisheries economies. The National Research Council notes the
``...program was designed to improve social and economic
conditions...by helping communities build their capacity to engage in
commercial fishing.''
When the NPFMC program was statutorily incorporated into the
Sustainable Fisheries Act (Magnuson-Stevens) in 1996, the purpose was
expressed as creating an opportunity for the residents of the coastal
communities to participate commercially in the Bering Sea fisheries.
The regulations implementing Magnuson-Stevens state that the goal is:
''...to allocate CDQ (Community Development Quota in certain
species) to eligible Western Alaska communities to provide the
means for starting or supporting commercial fisheries business
activities that will result in an ongoing, regionally based,
fisheries related economy.'' 50 C.F.R. 679.1(e)(N).
The regulations are consistent with the initial intent of the NPFMC
in establishing the CDQ Program. Thus, Magnuson-Stevens codified the
NPFMC's CDQ Program for the Bering Sea. In the House Committee Report,
accompanying the House-passed version of Magnuson-Stevens in October
1995, the Committee recommended the continuation of the NPFMC's program
pointing out that Western Alaska is one of the poorest, most
underdeveloped areas in the United States. Located on the Bering Sea
coast, the residents of the area, predominantly Native, have
historically watched valuable marine resources exploited by both
foreign and domestic distant water fleets. The CDQ Program provides a
means to develop the local economies and to give the Native people an
opportunity to participate in the commercial fisheries for each
species.
While begun in 1991 as part of the NPFMC pollock management plan,
in 1992 the NPFMC, in conjunction with a limited access plan for
halibut and cod, expanded the CDQ Program. Eligible communities were
authorized to expand their participation by allowing them to harvest 20
percent of the total allowable catch of Bering Sea cod and
approximately 20 percent of the Bering Sea halibut. The plan was
implemented in 1995 and has been the basis for developing the halibut
and cod fishery at St. Paul Island.
The 1996 Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization codified the
additional pollock, cod and halibut fisheries and expanded the program
to include a percentage of each species of the Bering Sea fishery. To
accomplish this objective, the Act amended Section 313 of the Magnuson-
Act to require the NPFMC to establish, and the Secretary of Commerce to
adopt, regulations implementing the Western Alaska CDQ Program as a
permanent, independent program.
The House Committee Report specifically states that:
``The Committee expects that, for each Bering Sea fishery, the
NPFMC, with the final approval of the Secretary, will allocate
to the communities participating in the program a percentage
that is adequate to ensure their significant and sustainable
economic participation in the fishery.''
The CDQ Program was considered, by both houses of Congress, to be
very important for the coastal communities in order to provide the
opportunity for their commercial and subsistence fishermen to ensure
healthy coastal communities. The program is essential for providing
access to the resources in order to develop self-sustaining fisheries-
based economies and infrastructures to support continued development.
In addition, by becoming stakeholders in the nearby commercial fishery
resource, the program creates the incentive among coastal community
residents to work for the protection and sustainable management of the
resources on which they, their families, and their communities depend
for economic and cultural survival.
In implementing the federal regulations contained in 50 C.F.R.
679.30, the State promulgated regulations in 6 AAC 93. State
regulations have been issued and the State has been managing the
program, but there are clearly areas of the program administration that
need to be reviewed and, from the CBSFA perspective, improved.
As amendments to the program are discussed, CBSFA considers it
important that given Saint Paul Island's proximity to so much of the
Bering Sea's fisheries, and its almost absolute dependence on these
resources, the program's initial conception of providing eligible
communities with the opportunity to participate and invest in fishery-
related activities to provide economic and social benefits to residents
and allow such communities to achieve sustainable and diversified
economies, should be protected.
IV. Problems with the Program:
A. Allocations:
One of the main areas of discussion is whether the State of Alaska
should make periodic determinations on allocation levels, which also
ties in to issues regarding the administration of the program.
As the Saint Paul halibut fleet demonstrates, access to the
resources; financing and education; and infrastructure and markets are
all important benefits that allow natives in western Alaska to
participate in the private sector economy. The administration of the
CDQ Program by short-term periodic, competitive allocations among the
CDQ groups, particularly when the principal requirement is creation of
jobs (of whatever nature), undermines the program. The competition
process does not further the original intent of the CDQ Program and
should be reconsidered.
In some cases, consideration of population and the pressure for
low-end jobs ends up as a higher priority than (1) long-term investment
in a sustainable business enterprise, (2) infrastructure that creates
opportunities for the coastal communities to participate in a
sustainable fishery, or (3) in St. Paul's case, the development of a
new fleet of commercial fishermen succeeding in a day boat halibut and
cod fishery because they have access to the fish and the capital.
CBSFA, for example, has suffered significant losses under the
competitive allocation process (CBSFA at one point lost 60% of its
original allocation) despite the fact that CBSFA is one of the CDQ
groups that is and has excellent prospects for continuing to develop
the infrastructure and the processing capacity to allow all Alaska and
Northwest residents and its member fishermen to process species close
to the resource.
Generally, CBSFA agrees with the 1999 National Academy of Sciences
study on the CDQ Program in Alaska that by making a long-term
commitment to the CDQ Program, simplifying the criteria used in the
allocation of quotas and reducing the high administrative expenses, the
CDQ Program will run much more effectively. Ultimately, CDQ groups
should be allowed to submit business records including annual audited
financial statements maintained in the ordinary course of business, so
that they can devote their time to management of CDQ programs.
B. Additional Policy Considerations:
The opportunity for coastal communities to become stakeholders in
the local commercial fisheries is important and needs to have a
priority role. A CDQ group that has profits and only needs
subsidization should not be given greater weight in quota decisions
than one that is building commercial fishing infrastructure. CBSFA does
not contend that CDQ allocations may not be used to subsidize jobs in
some rural villages, even if the commercial fishery has declined or has
never been significant in that village. This also may be good public
policy. However, both should be balanced and administered to make long-
term commercial fisheries development the most important criteria.
The CDQ allocation is also more than just dollars. It is access to
the resource. It is the opportunity of the coastal communities to
participate in the Bering Sea commercial fishery. At the outset, the
allocation may be converted to dollars in order to develop and maintain
the infrastructure, or capitalize the business. However, the allocation
ultimately is worth more. It is critical to the coastal communities'
ability to participate in the commercial fisheries, just as the
allocations that are currently given to harvesters or processors allow
them to participate.
A portion of the CDQ resources awarded to a CDQ Program should be
available to be used to develop and maintain public infrastructure in
coastal communities on the Bering Sea. If public infrastructure is not
supported in these communities, eventually the entire industry will be
offshore, a negative development for the State and for conservation. In
furtherance of community development, the National Academy of Sciences
study on the CDQ Program in Alaska recommends the need for education
and training. The study suggests that educational and training monies
should be spent two-fold: scholarship money to send young adults to
universities and training programs to enable the communities to become
more self-sufficient. Education and training reinforces the
infrastructure and furthers the investment in these communities. It has
helped CBSFA build its fleet.
The commercial fisheries outside of three miles is a federal
resource, but the harbors, the small boat facilities, the outfalls, and
other infrastructure that a community needs to participate in a
fishery, requires a substantial investment of local resources. The
federal resource should support access to the federal commercial
fishery.
V. Conclusion:
The CDQ Program is one of the most innovative and successful
economic development programs that creates economic opportunities in
those communities adjacent to our fishery resources. On behalf of
CBSFA, we stand ready and willing to assist the Subcommittee, the
Congress, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the State of
Alaska in revising the CDQ Program to carry out its intent. This
program is a winner and has been crucial to the development of and
participation in St. Paul Island's halibut, cod, crab and pollock
fisheries. It clearly has worked on St. Paul, but there is much to be
done.
On St. Paul the Corps of Engineers' Small Boat Harbor Project
requires local sponsor matching funds, and CDQ resources are available
for this. The expansion of processing capabilities so that the local
fishermen, and the Northwest fleet can process at St. Paul Island is
beneficial to the United States, the State of Alaska, and the entire
Northwest and should be a priority of the program. It requires a viable
CDQ partnership in order for this to happen.
In the longer term, the CDQ Program is critical to the development
of waste facilities, outfalls, and other infrastructure necessary to
allow one of the most important ecosystems in the Northern Hemisphere
to develop in a sustainable, environmentally friendly manner. By giving
the coastal communities an allocation of resource, the same as we do to
harvesters and processors, the community has a stake in the management
of that resource. This ensures that coastal communities will be active
participants in pursuing goals of conservation, resource
sustainability, and better management of the fisheries.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
______
[NOTE: Additional information submitted for the record has been
retained in the Committee's official files.]