[Senate Hearing 109-1122]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-1122
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND
MANAGEMENT ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 16, 2005
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
65-004 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected]
0SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Co-
CONRAD BURNS, Montana Chairman
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas Virginia
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada BARBARA BOXER, California
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia BILL NELSON, Florida
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
Lisa J. Sutherland, Republican Staff Director
Christine Drager Kurth, Republican Deputy Staff Director
David Russell, Republican Chief Counsel
Margaret L. Cummisky, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Samuel E. Whitehorn, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and General
Counsel
Lila Harper Helms, Democratic Policy Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on November 16, 2005................................ 1
Statement of Senator Cantwell.................................... 27
Statement of Senator Inouye...................................... 25
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Statement of Senator Lautenberg.................................. 26
Statement of Senator Lott........................................ 2
Statement of Senator Smith....................................... 29
Statement of Senator Snowe....................................... 31
Prepared statement........................................... 31
Statement of Senator Stevens..................................... 1
Witnesses
Connaughton, James L., Chairman, President's Council on
Environmental Quality.......................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Dunnigan, John H., Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)......... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Lapointe, George D., Commissioner, Department of Marine
Resources, State of Maine...................................... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Watkins, Admiral James D., U.S. Navy (Retired); Chairman, U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy..................................... 17
Prepared statement........................................... 19
Prepared statement of Hon. Leon E. Panetta, Chairman, Pew
Oceans Commission, submitted by Admiral James D. Watkins... 23
Appendix
Sisk, John, prepared statement on behalf of Stosh Anderson,
Chairman, MSA 2005 Working Group: Working Fishermen Dedicated
to Sustainable Fisheries and Prosperous Coastal Communities.... 49
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE MAGNUSON-
STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION
AND MANAGEMENT ACT
----------
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room
SD-562, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
The Chairman. I think our Co-Chairman will be along in just
a minute, so we will open the hearing. I thank you all for
being here today.
This is a Full Committee hearing to discuss the
Reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act and specifically the legislation to
reauthorize the Act that Senator Inouye and I introduced
yesterday. The bill is co-sponsored by Senators Snowe,
Cantwell, Vitter, and Boxer. This Act was last reauthorized in
1996 with the passage of the Sustainable Fisheries Act. The
authorization of appropriations for the acts expired in 1999.
Our bill will authorize the Magnuson-Stevens Act through 2012
and provides some adjustments to the law to improve national
compliance with the Act.
Our bill represents, I feel, a true bipartisan effort based
on the recommendations from the Administration, regional
councils, states, industry, including fishermen, processors,
and suppliers, environmental groups, recreational interests,
members of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, and the Pew
Ocean Commission, and numerous listening sessions this
Committee held over the last year, which several members
attended.
Over the August recess, Senator Inouye and I put out a
draft for comment and review and received over 700 comments
that our staff has worked on and, through that, evaluated many
items for possible inclusion in the bill.
Over the last year, we received a considerable amount of
information and generated a great deal of dialogue on the
reauthorization of this Act. The intent of this bill is to
build on some of the sound policies enacted in the Sustainable
Fisheries Act and to continue the successes we have achieved
under these acts to provide for the sustainability of the
resources.
The Committee will hear testimony from a panel of witnesses
representing the Administration, ocean policy experts, and a
State representative: James Connaughton, Chairman of the White
House Council on Environmental Quality; John Dunnigan, Director
of the Office of Sustainable Fisheries, the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration; Admiral James Watkins, retired,
Chairman of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy; and George
Lapointe, Commissioner of Resources for the State of Maine.
We want to thank the witnesses for being willing to come
speak with us today.
I see we have been joined by Senator Lott.
This is, I think, a most important step in continuing the
policies that were set down in the original Magnuson Act.
Senator Lott, do you have an opening statement?
STATEMENT OF HON. TRENT LOTT,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI
Senator Lott. Mr. Chairman, let me listen to the panel. I
might have statements and questions after that. Thank you very
much, though, for having this hearing.
The Chairman. Thank you. We will reserve a place in the
record for the Co-Chairman's opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inouye follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Daniel K. Inouye, U.S. Senator from Hawaii
I would like to thank our Chairman for holding this hearing today
on the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Reauthorization Act of 2005. I am extremely proud to be an original co-
sponsor of this bill, and recognize I am the latest in a long line of
bipartisan partners on fisheries issues with Senator Stevens.
This notable history began when our former Chairman from
Washington, Senator Warren Magnuson, worked side-by-side with Senator
Stevens to Americanize our fisheries in 1976. In fact, the Chairman's
work has been so closely in step with Senator Magnuson's legacy over
the past 30 years, the Act was renamed the Magnuson-Stevens Act in
1997, after enactment of the Sustainable Fisheries Act in 1996 which he
co-authored with Senator Kerry.
This bill is one of the most significant pieces of legislation this
Committee will consider this Congress. The breadth and complexity of
the issues we seek to address is significant. While we are justifiably
proud of the legislation, we know that it can be fine tuned, so I thank
this distinguished panel of witnesses for joining us today and for
sharing their insight.
Our Nation has always relied on the bounty of our oceans for
sustenance and trade. This has not changed over the years, as certainly
we in Hawaii are well aware. Our Nation's commercial and recreational
fisheries currently bring in over $60 billion of direct revenue to our
economy each year. In many regions of our country, fishing is not just
the major industry, it is the only industry.
Our fisheries importance to our Nation both economically and
culturally is indisputable. They are a living resource and must be
treated as such if they are to sustain communities today and remain
viable for future generations. Our task therefore, as the title of the
bill makes plain, is to both manage and conserve.
As the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy has already reported to us,
the Magnuson-Stevens Act is a landmark statute that requires some
strengthening but not a major overhaul. It is among the most
conservation-minded national fisheries management laws in the world,
but it is not perfect. The bill takes steps to improve the Act and make
it both more effective and more responsive to community needs. The bill
also takes steps toward exporting our management approaches
internationally.
One of the greatest threats to global fish stocks today is illegal,
unreported, and unregulated fishing. Those who engage in this illegal
activity--whether under national flag or as rogue agents--have no
regard for the future consequences of their actions. This bill includes
provisions to strengthen international fishery management and puts
teeth into our efforts to end rogue fishing and wasteful bycatch. These
provisions are based on successful measures used to combat high seas
driftnets. They will not only help us sustain our shared resources, but
also aid the U.S. fishing industry by leveling the playing field in
terms of regulation and responsibility.
For example, our Hawaiian longline fleet, which operates on the
high seas, accounts for very little of the total Western Pacific tuna
catch, yet it is the only officially recognized nation fishing on these
stocks that is subject to conservation and management requirements to
both conserve shared tuna stocks, and reduce bycatch of endangered sea
turtles. Additionally, rogue, unregulated fleets are driving our bigeye
tuna stocks down, and there is very little that our small fleet of
fishermen can do to mitigate the impact. Nor should they be asked to.
Our bill takes steps to ensure that they do not have to shoulder this
burden alone.
I am also happy to say that we have included a number of community
based initiatives for the Pacific, including a provision to strengthen
development of marine conservation plans in the Pacific insular areas
that could potentially be included under foreign fishing agreements. We
also establish a marine education program in the Western Pacific with
the goal of increasing education, and training in marine resource
issues, especially among indigenous Pacific islanders, Native Hawaiians
and other underrepresented groups.
This Committee's members represent a variety of coastal communities
and interests. I believe that we should be able to pass a bill
reflecting this diversity and experience. Engaging all of these
stakeholders in a productive process is no easy task, and I would like
to commend my friend for his leadership and willingness to work in a
bipartisan manner. I look to him and his considerable experience in
this area to help us shepherd a bipartisan bill out of Committee and
toward final passage.
The Chairman. I would be pleased to call first on Mr.
Connaughton.
Senator Lott. Mr. Chairman, I do just want to add that I
appreciate very much the work you have been doing on this
important legislation and that you have been willing to work
with me and those of us from the Gulf region to get some
important language in there. I just want that to be on the
public record, as well as my private expressions of
appreciation that I always give to you. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Jim?
STATEMENT OF JAMES L. CONNAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN, PRESIDENT'S
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Mr. Connaughton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Lott. I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Committee today
to discuss reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act. Mr. Chairman, it is a great
pleasure to be here with you again and to talk about an act
that bears your name and your legacy.
President Bush is committed to providing the American
people with healthy fisheries and an economically vibrant
fishing industry, a source of both nutritious food and
recreational enjoyment.
The Administration looks forward to working with the
Congress to ensure the long-term sustainable use of our marine
resources. It is a very important objective. We recently had
the U.S. Department of Agriculture and FDA tell Americans that
they, for their good health, should increase their consumption
of seafood. At current levels of consumption, which is about 7
million metric tons a year, the FDA and USDA have called for us
to double that to 14 million tons a year. And yet, the current
U.S. supply of fish to the U.S. economy is about 1 million tons
a year and the rest is from imports. If we want to meet the
health goals of America for the long-lasting good care of
American citizens, further improvement and discipline in our
fisheries process is essential.
Now, to achieve this objective, the fundamental target
needs to be to rebuild our fish stocks and end overfishing once
and for all.
Let me put this effort into its broader context. At the
President's direction, the Administration is working with every
level of government and the private sector to advance the next
generation of ocean policy. This effort flows from the 2001
appointment of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy chaired by
Admiral Watkins, who is with us here today. The Commission
began their work and, over the course of 3 years, produced a
report that provided to the Congress and to the Administration
and the states 212 recommendations in September of 2004.
President Bush responded to this report 3 months later with the
release of the U.S. Ocean Action Plan, which incorporates key
recommendations of the Commission.
Our most important priority under the plan this year is the
improved stewardship of our fisheries resources. On September
19, 2005, President Bush submitted to the Congress his vision
for the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act which
contains essential elements to implement the President's Ocean
Action Plan. Mr. Chairman, I commend you and your bipartisan
co-sponsors for your introduction yesterday of Congress'
proposals.
For centuries our national fisheries have been a source of
prosperity and abundance. U.S. commercial and recreational
fisheries contribute $60 billion to the economy annually, and
they employ more than 500,000 Americans. The Magnuson-Stevens
Act, signed over 30 years ago, has clearly stood the test of
time and has made great strides in improving the management of
our fisheries resources, most particularly with the amendments
in 1996.
Now, the Administration has proposed that we can build on
this strength and harness the changing landscape of both
consumer need and the industry, as well as our expanding
scientific capability and knowledge. Commercial and
recreational fisheries serve an important role in our country
and our leadership on this issue here at home will provide an
important model internationally.
I would like to highlight just a few of the most important
features of the Administration's priorities which should be
part of any final legislation. We have about 10 elements. I
will highlight several.
First, our proposal sets a hard deadline to end overfishing
practices within 2 years, and it also incorporates stock life
history into rebuilding requirements. We maintain our
commitment to balancing conservation and use of fisheries
resources and to continue to rely on scientists, fishermen, and
expertise at the local level to guide fisheries management.
Similar to the bill you introduced yesterday, Mr. Chairman,
our proposal would specifically authorize the councils to use
dedicated access privilege programs as proven, highly-effective
market-based tools for fisheries management, while ensuring
that the councils have the flexibility to tailor these programs
to local circumstances. Under existing dedicated access
privilege programs, commercial fishermen have ended the race-
to-fish. As a result, fishermen have benefitted from a
significantly safer and more stable industry, decreased
harvesting costs, improved compliance with catch limits,
increased product quality, and as a result of all of that,
increased profits. This proven mechanism provides an individual
fisherman, cooperative, or community the exclusive privilege to
a share of the total catch allowed. It is time that we
replicate these successful management systems in regions across
the country. Reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act is
essential to achieving the greater use of these proven tools.
Additionally, the NEPA analytical framework provides
important benefits to our resource agencies, the councils, the
fishing industry, and the general public, as we do fisheries
management planning. However, it is essential that we do a
better job of ensuring that the NEPA process is more timely
and, hopefully, fully integrated with the fisheries management
planning process so that we can achieve a much more efficient
and well-informed outcome.
The Administration's proposal also describes an ecosystem-
based approach to further ecologically sound resource
management decisions. Our approach establishes broad policy
direction and would give clear authority to the councils to
design their approaches. Because fishery scientists and
managers have advocated ecosystem approaches to fisheries
management, NOAA and the councils are already beginning to
integrate this approach into fisheries management, and more can
be done. But we also need to be sure that the ecosystem
approach does not just become another process for delay,
inaction, and conflict. We really need to find a path in which
ecosystem thinking can actually accelerate speed and produce
sound decisions without creating process impediments.
Mr. Chairman, working together, we do have the opportunity
to improve fisheries productivity and benefits for today's
fishermen while also ensuring and enhancing our fisheries'
continued availability for future generations. We have enjoyed
the collaboration that we have had over the last year and the
Administration continues to stand ready to provide the
Committee all of its resources and technical skills to shape a
bill that will have lasting consequence and stand proudly on
the shoulders of the work, Mr. Chairman, that you have done
before.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Connaughton follows:]
Prepared Statement of James L. Connaughton, Chairman,
President's Council on Environmental Quality
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss reauthorization of
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. I commend
you for your work on this important piece of legislation. The President
is committed to providing the American people with healthy fisheries
and an economically vibrant fishing industry, a source of both
nutritious food and recreational enjoyment. Last week, NOAA announced
that seafood consumption in America rose for the third straight year in
2004. As Americans demand more fish and shellfish, we need to become
increasingly better at managing our fisheries. The Administration looks
forward to working with Congress to ensure the long-term sustainable
use of our marine resources. To achieve this objective, we must rebuild
our fish stocks and end overfishing once and for all.
Let me first put this effort into its broader context. At the
President's direction, the Administration is working with every level
of government and the private sector to advance the next generation of
ocean policy. This effort requires more effective management and
conservation of our ocean and coastal resources through innovative
science, management, and policy initiatives. In 2001, the President and
Congress initiated a thorough examination of issues affecting our ocean
and coastal waters through the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy chaired
by Admiral Watkins. The Commission began work in September 2001, and
pursuant to its legislative mandate, completed their report with 212
recommendations in September 2004. President Bush responded to this
report 3 months later, on December 17, 2004, with the release of the
U.S. Ocean Action Plan, which incorporates key recommendations of the
Commission.
One of our most important priorities under the Action Plan is
improved stewardship of our fisheries resources. On September 19, 2005,
the President submitted to Congress his vision for the reauthorization
of the Magnuson Stevens Act which contains essential elements to
implement the President's Ocean Action Plan.
For centuries our national fisheries have been sources of
prosperity and abundance. U.S. commercial and recreational fisheries
contribute $60 billion to the economy annually, and they employ more
than 500,000 people. The Magnuson-Stevens Act, signed over 30 years
ago, has clearly stood the test of time. The creation of a partnership
between the Federal Government and the Regional Fisheries Management
Councils is the law's innovation for improved fisheries management.
This partnership allows the expertise of scientists, fishermen and
other stakeholders at the local level to guide fisheries management.
The Administration has proposed reauthorization that will build on this
strength and harness the changing landscape of the industry and our
expanding scientific capability and knowledge. Commercial and
recreational fisheries serve an important role in our country and our
leadership on this issue here at home will provide an important model
internationally.
I would like to highlight the most important features of the
Administration's proposal, which should be part of any final
legislation. Our proposal sets a hard deadline to end overfishing
practices within 2 years. It also incorporates stock life history into
rebuilding requirements. We maintain our commitment to balancing
conservation and use of fisheries resources and continue to rely on
scientists, fisherman and expertise at the local level to guide
fisheries management.
Our proposal specifically authorizes the Councils to use dedicated
access privilege programs as proven highly effective market-based tools
for fisheries management, while ensuring that the Councils have the
flexibility to tailor these programs. Under existing dedicated access
privilege programs, commercial fishermen have ended the ``race-to-
fish.'' As a result, fishermen have benefited from a significantly
safer and more stable industry, decreased harvesting costs, increased
product quality, and increased profits. This proven mechanism provides
an individual fisherman, cooperative, or community the exclusive
privilege to a share of the total catch allowed. It is time that we
replicate these successful management systems in other regions.
Reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act is essential to achieving
greater use of these proven tools, which harness the power of markets
to achieve sustainable, profitable fisheries.
Additionally the NEPA analytical framework provides important
benefits to our resource agencies, the Councils, the fishing industry,
and the general public. It is essential that we ensure that the NEPA
process is more timely and better integrated with the fisheries
management plan process to better inform local planning and
infrastructure decisions.
The Administration's proposal includes an ecosystem-based approach
to assist further ecologically sound resource management decisions. Our
proposal establishes broad policy direction and gives clear authority
to the Councils to design ecosystem-based approaches. Because fisheries
scientists and managers have advocated ecosystem approaches to
fisheries management, NOAA and the Councils have already begun
integrating this approach into fisheries management and more can be
done.
Working together, we have the opportunity to improve fisheries
productivity and benefits for today's fishermen while also ensuring and
enhancing our fisheries continued availability for future generations.
We look forward to continued work with your Committee to develop a
final bill that can best meet the objectives for the vibrant
sustainability of our Nation's living marine resources. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman for the opportunity to address your Committee today. I would
be happy to answer questions.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Our next witness is Mr. Jack Dunnigan, Director of the
Office of Sustainable Fisheries at NOAA. Mr. Dunnigan.
STATEMENT OF JOHN H. DUNNIGAN, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND
ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA)
Mr. Dunnigan. Yes, thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
Mr. Co-Chairman, members of the Committee. I am Jack Dunnigan.
I work for NOAA and I am the Director of the Office of
Sustainable Fisheries. And on behalf of the Department of
Commerce, I would like to thank the Committee for the
opportunity today to present our views concerning the
reauthorization and the improvement of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act.
Mr. Chairman, I would like, at the outset, to thank the
Committee and its fine staff for the leadership that you have
shown in bringing us to the position we are in today on this
important issue. This is about the sixth one of these
reauthorizations that I have personally been through, and I
must say that it has been characterized by a unique sense of
collaboration and collegiality. Your listening sessions, your
sharing widely with the public of your ideas as you developed
them, and your openness have really helped to create an
atmosphere where these issues could be discussed productively.
And we find that there is really much in common between the
Administration's draft bill and S. 2012, and in many ways what
we see happening is a converging of our shared vision on the
problems that we are trying to address and the best ways to do
so.
We also think that we should not forget the regional
fisheries management councils. You know, Mr. Chairman, that
NOAA and the Department are strong supporters of the council
system. We have mutually engaged with the councils in an open
dialogue as we developed our views, and we believe that we are
fairly close in our positions on most major issues.
Mr. Chairman, the Sustainable Fisheries Act contained many
key provisions that emphasized the conservation mission of our
marine fisheries management programs, and overall, the
Department believes that the last decade has largely been a
record of significant improvement. We have developed rebuilding
plans for nearly all of our overfished fisheries, and we have
seen a reduction in the overall overfishing levels, as well as
in the numbers of stocks that are overfished.
We now have a national plan for the reduction of bycatch,
and we are seeing overall bycatch levels being reduced, as well
as a reduction in the level of bycatch mortality.
We have witnessed the advent of new market-based approaches
toward fisheries management. Whether you call them DAPs or IFQs
or limited-access privileges or something else, the fact is
that we are reducing overcapacity and improving the economic
performance of many of our Nation's most important commercial
fisheries.
Taking note of all of this, the Department believes that
there are some improvements that can be made in the policies
and the Administration of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and we are
very pleased that many of these views are reflected in S. 2012.
For example, we believe and our experience has shown that
market-based approaches to fisheries conservation and
management are effective in addressing many of the problems
that are inherent and apparent in open-access fisheries. We
have proposed measures to expand the types of access programs
that the councils could use, and we are convinced that this
will improve the economic performance of the Nation's
commercial fisheries.
The Administration's bill gives a high priority to the use
of improved and more reliable scientific information in the
fishery management process based upon an upgraded and a well-
grounded peer review process for our important fishery science.
Mr. Chairman, our experience over the last decade has
convinced us that some changes are necessary to the Act's
provisions relative to overfishing and rebuilding overfished
stocks. It is important to require a more timely and definitive
action to end overfishing. We also believe that rebuilding
provisions should move away from somewhat arbitrary and wishful
scenarios for rebuilding fish stocks and be more practically
tied to the realistic conditions surrounding the life histories
of overfished stocks.
The last point that I would like to make, Mr. Chairman, is
relative to international provisions. If you look at the
President's Ocean Action Plan, you see a commitment of the
United States stepping forward as a leader in the international
community in developing sound practices for fishery
conservation and management. The Administration's bill does not
contain many provisions that specifically address this, but we
note that S. 2012 does. And without commenting specifically on
any of those, because we have only recently had a chance to
look at them, we think it is a good sign that the Senate has
stepped forward here and demonstrated some leadership in the
international area, and we look forward as an administration to
working with you to develop and elaborate these ideas.
Mr. Chairman, the Administration's draft bill and the
Committee's bill have been developed in an effective and close
collaboration. Each would build upon the successes of recent
years and expand the vision that Congress advanced almost 10
years ago. The Department and NOAA look forward to continuing
to work with you and with your staff to best meet our shared
objectives for stewardship of the Nation's living marine
resources in the coming years.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Co-Chairman and I
look forward to being able to try to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dunnigan follows:]
Prepared Statement of John H. Dunnigan, Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee.
My name is John H. Dunnigan. I am the Director of the Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS),
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), within the
Department of Commerce. Thank you for the opportunity to testify at
today's hearing on the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). I want to
commend you, Mr. Chairman, and the Committee for the work you have done
over the past several months on this reauthorization. The incorporation
of input from previous hearings, formal listening sessions, and
countless communications with constituent groups is obvious. I am
pleased to report that the Administration and Congress seem to be
moving in the same direction on several of the most important Magnuson-
Stevens Act issues. These points of full or near agreement suggest that
the Administration and Congress share a common vision on which issues
must be addressed to effectively update the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
The 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act
To understand where we are today, we need to look at the progress
we have made in implementing the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA)
amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The SFA ushered in a major
expansion of fisheries management policy, leading all of us--Regional
Fishery Management Councils (Councils), commercial and recreational
users, and NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)--to manage
our marine resources for the long term.
Most significantly, the SFA included several key new provisions,
including strengthening requirements relating to managing fisheries to
avoid overfishing, developing rebuilding plans for overfished stocks,
reducing bycatch, identifying and minimizing adverse impacts of fishing
operations on essential fish habitat, and taking into account the
importance of fishery resources to fishing communities. In the years
following passage of the SFA, the Councils and NMFS have made a major
and sustained effort to implement these changes. We have faced many
challenges, but our marine fisheries are healthier and managed more
effectively than they were a decade ago.
I would like to outline some of our key accomplishments:
We have developed rebuilding plans for nearly all overfished
stocks, and we are reducing both overfishing and the number of
overfished stocks.
To address the ongoing concern with bycatch, we now have a
national bycatch plan that is continuing to reduce overall
bycatch as well as bycatch mortality.
Using several dedicated access privilege management
strategies--e.g., individual fishing quotas, community
development quotas, and fishing cooperatives--we are reducing
overcapacity in many of our most important commercial
fisheries. These initiatives are models for dedicated access
privilege programs across the country.
The SFA presented many challenges, and we have gone a long way
toward successfully meeting those challenges. Now, almost a decade
later, it is time to revisit the Magnuson-Stevens Act and use what we
have learned to improve the management of our fishery resources.
Major Themes in Magnuson-Stevens Act Reauthorization
Our focus on the Magnuson-Stevens Act takes place within the larger
context of future ocean policy and governance. In December 2004, the
White House issued the U.S. Ocean Action Plan. In light of the
discussions surrounding the U.S. Ocean Action Plan, we have been
working on Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization and considering new
issues. We believe that our proposal addresses the most difficult
issues raised in Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization discussions over
the past several years. I would like to outline a few issues that we
believe are critical to reauthorization:
Dedicated Access Privileges: A dedicated access privilege (DAP)
provides an individual fisherman, cooperative, or community the
exclusive privilege of harvesting a quantity of fish (generally, a
percent share of a harvest quota). Market-based approaches to fishery
management, including DAPs, can help solve many problems inherent in
open-access fisheries. Since 1990, NMFS and the Councils have
implemented DAPs in eight fisheries that together have annual ex-vessel
values of over $600 million. In these fisheries, commercial fishermen
have enjoyed increased profits, decreased costs of gear and labor, and
a safer and more stable industry. For example, in 2001, due to the
elimination of the open-access ``race-to-fish,'' the Alaska pollock
catcher/processor cooperative fleet was able to increase product
recovery efficiency so much that the amount of marketable product per
pound of fish caught increased by 49 percent compared to 1998, the last
year of the race-to-fish. DAPs with transferable quotas allow for a
reduction in overcapacity and increased profitability for participating
fishermen and communities. Fishermen can change their fishing practices
to reduce bycatch without concern that they will lose target catch to
competitors.
Amending the Magnuson-Stevens Act to authorize a broader range of
DAP programs with appropriate controls and guidelines will provide
fishery managers more options to improve fishery management and enhance
the economic performance of the Nation's fisheries. Toward that end, we
have included in our Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization proposal a
detailed provision on DAPs, which includes: (1) individual fishing
quotas, (2) community quotas, (3) fishing cooperatives and (4) area-
based quotas. All four types of DAPs would authorize the granting of
exclusive harvest privileges to individuals or to groups, and include
market mechanisms for the sale and/or lease of these privileges. The
Administration supports the greater use of these market-based
management systems to improve the efficiency and sustainability of the
harvest of federally managed living marine resources.
Scientific Support for Fisheries Management: The Administration
gives high priority to the use of improved and more reliable scientific
information in the fishery management process. With that end in mind,
the U.S. Ocean Action Plan pledged to develop guidelines and procedures
on the use of science in fisheries management. One key way to ensure
the quality of scientific information is through peer review of this
information. The Administration's bill recognizes the need to
strengthen the quality of and the public's confidence in the science
used by the Councils in crafting management decisions by bolstering the
peer review of this science.
Rebuilding: A decade of experience has convinced us that changes
are needed in the Magnuson-Stevens Act rebuilding provisions in section
304. In our view, it is critically important that we revise the
Magnuson-Stevens Act to require more timely and definitive actions to
end overfishing, and to amend the rebuilding time frames to better
conform to the life history of the overfished stocks.
Data Collection and Access to Economic and Social Information: NMFS
and the Councils will need more and different kinds of information--
including biological, physical, and socioeconomic data--to improve the
management process, make progress toward ecosystem approaches to
management, and better anticipate the effects of management measures on
commercial and recreational sectors. We propose that the Secretary
implement an information collection program to obtain essential
economic data. Improved access to economic and social information will
also support efforts to quantitatively consider the effects of
management measures on processors and communities.
Registration of Saltwater Recreational Fishermen: Complete
enumeration of this important user group and subsequent collection of
angler information for fisheries management is hampered because the
existing state-based system of fishing licenses is incomplete. In the
U.S. Ocean Action Plan, the Administration stated that we will work to
harmonize data on state-managed recreational fishing licenses and
develop a proposal to complete the state-based saltwater recreational
fishing license network or propose appropriate alternatives to improve
fisheries management. Better data on recreational fisheries are vital
in an increasing number of federally managed fisheries. A national
saltwater angler registry would ensure that all anglers are represented
and accounted for. Knowing who fishes and where they fish will advance
our understanding of fisheries, help improve our scientific
assessments, and lead to better management of the resource. The
Administration's bill requires NOAA to support and promote the
controlled exchange of data for those states that have a system in
place for gathering the information that scientists and managers need,
and to help those states wishing to develop such a system in the
future.
Compliance with the Act: Fishery management regulations require
industry compliance to be effective. Compliance is achieved through
voluntary behavior; effective fisheries law enforcement; and creating
effective financial and penal sanctions. For particularly serious
violations of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NOAA must be able to utilize
sanctions that have significant consequences in order to deter
potential violators. When fisheries regulations are ignored, it is not
only the resource that pays a price, but also the fishermen who obey
the regulations. Increasing the level of fines and penalties, as well
as expanding the types of offenses which can be criminalized under the
Magnuson-Stevens Act will help to ensure that sanctions are not simply
accepted by violators as the cost of doing business. Enhanced
enforcement authority is also consistent with the highly public and
active role the United States has taken in promoting international
actions to combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing in
both domestic waters and on the high seas. The Administration's
Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization proposal recognizes this need for
enhanced enforcement authority and proposes several important changes
to existing law to accomplish it.
Compliance with NEPA: In recent years, NMFS and the Councils have
worked diligently to ensure compliance with the numerous regulatory
assessments that must accompany fisheries management actions. Chief
among these mandatory assessments is a formal review of management
actions under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which
requires an analysis of the impacts of Federal actions on the human
environment and a consideration of alternatives to proposed actions.
Although there are some overlapping procedural and analytical
requirements in the Magnuson-Stevens Act and NEPA, we have already done
a great deal of work through regulatory streamlining to ensure NEPA
compliance in a timely manner. However, in response to concerns raised
repeatedly by the Councils, further work is needed to improve the
efficiency and timeliness of the procedures governing compliance with
NEPA. The Administration's bill outlines procedures to address this
concern.
Fisheries Ecosystems: For several years, fisheries experts,
conservation organizations, marine scientists, and various studies have
advocated ecosystem approaches to fisheries (EAF), whereby management
programs explicitly account for and address all living marine resources
within a specific area/ecosystem, including all sources of
environmental stress and factors influencing the ecosystem, not just
fishing operations. An EAF requires a highly collaborative management
process, and the more scientific information that is collected and
analyzed, the more incremental progress can be made in creating a
comprehensive plan.
We have already been including elements of an EAF in a number of
``conventional'' Fishery Management Plans that have been substantially
modified and expanded in recent years to incorporate ecosystem
principles. Most recently several federally managed fisheries, most
notably in the Western Pacific, North Pacific, and South Atlantic have
adopted an EAF approach. For example, we have a Coral Reef Ecosystem
Fishery Management Plan in the Western Pacific.
However, the Administration supports continued progress toward EAF.
The immediate question is how best to modify current fishery management
practices to further EAF. It is critical that reauthorization of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act provide the Councils overall direction and,
equally important, the tools they will need to make meaningful progress
toward EAF. The Administration's proposal emphasizes the Councils'
discretionary authority rather than mandating actions that in some
cases may not be necessary or may exceed the current capabilities of
ecosystem science.
Conclusion
Our recommendations for this reauthorization would build on current
successes and expand the vision Congress advanced 10 years ago. We
would like to work with you to develop a bill that can best meet the
objectives for the stewardship of our Nation's living marine resources.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer any questions.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Our next witness is the Commissioner from the State of
Maine, Mr. George Lapointe.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE D. LAPOINTE, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
MARINE RESOURCES, STATE OF MAINE
Mr. Lapointe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Stevens,
Senator Inouye, and members of the Committee, my name is George
Lapointe and I am the Commissioner of Marine Resources for the
State of Maine.
I want to thank you for the opportunity to provide a state
perspective on reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. In
Maine, marine resources are central to the culture, economy,
and character of our state and we view this pending
reauthorization as an opportunity to ensure healthy fishery
resources and fishing communities for generations to come.
My testimony focuses on what Maine considers to be the most
critical provisions of the bill, including the importance of
promoting effective State-Federal partnerships and achieving
sustainable fisheries. I want to echo what Mr. Connaughton and
Jack Dunnigan have said about building on past successes and
working with your committee and working with NOAA fisheries in
improving the Magnuson Act. I have some specific comments that
I will go through.
The proposed language in the bill on cumulative impacts
requires the inclusion of economic and social data and
assessment methods in evaluating impacts on fishing
communities, importantly including the cumulative economic and
social impacts of management measures. I believe that taking a
longer-term view of the impacts on coastal communities would
reveal if particular geographic areas, sectors, or gear types
have been disadvantaged by successive plans and will plainly
show the impacts of management on our Nation's fishing
communities.
The language on impact mitigation provides an important
next step in the fisheries management, lessening the concern
that we manage with little regard for the real consequences of
management actions on the participants in fisheries.
The proposed language on annual catch-limits requires the
councils to adopt annual catch-limits for each of their managed
fisheries based on the recommendations of science and
statistical committees. The problem we have had with the
fisheries in New England exceeding the target total allowable
catch must be acknowledged, and I appreciate the need to
achieve greater accountability in the future.
New England has sought to avoid TACs in the groundfish
fishery ever since they were tried unsuccessfully in the 1970s
and early 1980s. And as you have heard, we are concerned about
some of the following impacts of TAC management.
TACs result in managing for the weakest stock components,
the past history of TACs resulting in overfishing, market
disruption, and high-grading, safety issues, and a concern that
TAC management migrates inherently toward dedicated access
privileges.
Having said this, I understand there is a lot of discussion
about different language that balances management
accountability and the flexibility to address circumstances
that arise in particular fisheries and that these discussions
are ongoing. I am committed to working with your Committee and
with NOAA fisheries in coming up with the right language to
improve fisheries management results while providing some
flexibility in how to achieve these results. I know we have a
lot of work to do on this.
The provisions on limited-access privileges I believe
contain safeguards that Maine and other states have been
seeking. These are the referendum process, a referendum on the
program implementation in New England and the Gulf of Mexico,
and the proposed language provides the framework for regional
choice, which is very important. And the language on referendum
makes sure that a move toward such a program is done very
deliberately with the support of those most impacted by the
actions.
The proposed language on the environmental review process
would add discretionary provisions to the fishery management
plans or would add the option to establish a process for
complying with NEPA and require the Secretary to revise and
update agency procedures to achieve compliance with NEPA. Most
people I have talked to are seeking an environmental review
process that does not result in redundant bureaucratic
processes, which is what we seem to have now. The language
contained in the draft bill addresses this issue.
There is language in the bill on joint enforcement
agreements and access to information that recognizes and
strengthens the necessary and successful partnership between
NOAA Fisheries, the Coast Guard, and the state marine fisheries
enforcement bureaus. Maine wholeheartedly supports these
provisions which provide for cooperation and sharing, which are
always important and are absolutely necessary in the lean
budget times we all face.
Maine agrees with the continued emphasis on bycatch
reduction, as Mr. Dunnigan has talked about and through the
Bycatch Reduction Engineering Program.
On recreational fisheries, complete and accurate
information on recreational fishing activity is currently
missing from State and Federal fisheries management. The
language contained in the bill recognizes current and future
State licensing programs as being critical to a registry
program being useful to both State and Federal management
processes. There are some concerns we have about the specific
language, and I would suggest or hope that the Committee, NOAA
Fisheries, and states can get together to refine this process
because the issue of recreational fisheries information is a
critical next step.
Maine strongly supports adding a new section to the
Magnuson-Stevens Act to formalize the ongoing cooperative
research and management programs that have been generated over
the course of the last decade, recognizing the impact of
research participation on catch history and streamlining the
experimental fisheries permit process. All these actions are
critical in obtaining new information at a time when our
management process becomes more data-hungry with things like
ecosystem management. And lean budgets require innovative ways
of getting new data. We simply have to take better advantage of
these opportunities and I think this language allows that to
occur.
In closing, I would like to say I appreciate the
Committee's decision to include a representative of a State
fisheries agency on the panel today. It illustrates your
recognition that the states have a critical role to play as the
primary managers of inshore fisheries and as full partners in
the Federal fisheries management arena. I believe our Nation's
fisheries will be improved by strengthening this role in a way
that builds on and does not diminish the work of the regional
fishery management councils. I hope my comments have been
useful today and I would be happy to answer any questions when
the time comes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lapointe follows:]
Prepared Statement of George D. Lapointe, Commissioner,
Department of Marine Resources, State of Maine
Senator Stevens, Senator Inouye, and members of the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation, my name is George Lapointe, and
I am Commissioner of Marine Resources for the State of Maine. The
Department is established under Maine law for the purpose of conserving
and developing marine resources, as well as promoting and developing
Maine's coastal fishing industries. Thank you for the opportunity to
provide a state perspective on the reauthorization of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA). I would like
to say on behalf of Governor Baldacci that Maine appreciates the focus
that this committee is bringing to the sustainable management of our
Nation's living marine resources. In Maine, marine resources are
central to the culture, economy, and character of our state. Their
sustainable management is of the utmost concern to us, and we view this
pending reauthorization as an opportunity to ensure healthy fishery
resources and healthy fishing communities for generations to come.
The draft bill (dated November 7, 2005) extensively amends the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. I have tried to focus my testimony on what Maine
considers to be some of the most critical provisions, and conclude with
some thoughts on the importance of promoting effective State-Federal
partnerships in achieving sustainable fisheries. Topics are addressed
in the order in which they appear in the draft bill.
Cumulative Impacts--The proposed language amends National Standard
8 to require the inclusion of economic and social data and assessment
methods in evaluating impacts on fishing communities. It also requires
that fisheries management plans analyze the likely effects, including
the cumulative economic and social impacts, of the conservation and
management measures. Maine has long advocated for cumulative impacts to
be taken into account. The cumulative impacts on our fleet and
shoreside infrastructure have been particularly severe. Over the past
decade, Maine has lost more than half of the groundfish vessels
previously homeported in the state. Taking a longer-term view of the
impacts on coastal communities would reveal to managers if a particular
geographic region, sector, gear type, etc., has been repeatedly
disadvantaged by successive plans, and will plainly show the impacts of
management on our Nation's fishing communities.
Further, the proposed language would also require that the
Fisheries Management Plans provide possible mitigation measures to
address any such impacts on the regulated communities. The language on
impact mitigation provides an important next step in fisheries
management, lessening the concern that we manage with little regard to
the real consequences of management actions on participants in the
fisheries.
Annual Catch Limits--The proposed language would require that
Councils adopt annual catch limits for each of their managed fisheries,
based on the recommendations of the Science and Statistical Committees.
If the annual catch limit is exceeded, the excess must be deducted from
the following year's annual catch limit. Management measures must be
established such that catch would be at or below optimum yield, unless
fully justified by the Council.
The problems that we've had with the fisheries in New England in
exceeding the target total allowable catch (TAC) must be acknowledged,
and I fully appreciate the need to achieve greater accountability in
the future. However, what is essentially a version of a hard TAC is not
necessarily the answer for all fisheries. Hard TACs are but one of a
range of possible fishery management tools, and their use is more
suited to some types of fisheries than others. In a multi-species
fishery like New England's, hard TACs result in managing to the weakest
stock. Once that TAC is reached, the entire fishery must be shut down.
As a result, the biological goal may be achieved, but at significant
social and economic cost.
New England has sought to avoid TACs ever since they were tried
unsuccessfully in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Our experience has
been that they failed to prevent overfishing, disrupted the market, and
resulted in high-grading. It took several years to move away from this
failed experiment into the Days-at-Sea (DAS) program. While DAS has
certainly also had its problems, target TACs and DAS have stabilized
the cod stocks in New England, while hard TAC/ITQ programs have failed
to prevent a decline in cod fisheries in other parts of the North
Atlantic.
The negative market impacts of hard TACs are well documented. They
often create ``derby''-style fisheries, wherein, in an effort by each
individual fisherman to obtain a portion of the TAC, the entire TAC is
caught in a highly compressed timeframe. Last summer's yellowtail
flounder fishery is an example of this, where the TAC was caught
quickly, and a low price was paid for the overabundance of fish in the
market place. Because of their tendency to cause disruptions in the
marketplace, hard TACs also tend to eliminate all but the largest
(import capable) processors.
Hard TACs can endanger fishermen. Again, in an effort to secure a
portion of the TAC, fishermen are much more likely fish under dangerous
weather conditions, work continuously for long periods without rest,
and possibly overload their vessels, greatly increasing the probability
of loss of life or serious injury. In addition, hard TACs tend to lead
to fishing strategies that favor big, mobile boats that can move
between areas, which smaller boats are unable to do, and may result in
discards and high-grading.
The problems created by hard TACs in other fisheries have often
forced a shift to rights based management systems, such as Individual
Transferable Quotas (ITQs). Historically, New England in general and
Maine in particular, has expressed long standing concerns about the
impacts of ITQ management on the traditional nature of our fleet and
coastal economies. Some New England fisheries have been pursued for
nearly 400 years; they are the lifeblood of our coastal communities.
Other input controls on fishing effort can be just as effective as an
output control like a TAC in rebuilding a stock, if they are properly
designed. We would suggest alternate language to what is present in the
bill such as ``establish TACs or target TACs with adequate measures as
approved by the SSC in the council of jurisdiction.''
It is my understanding that some fishermen from New England
recently visited Congressional offices to further discuss the balance
between management accountability and the flexibility to address
circumstances that arise in particular fisheries, and that these
discussions are beginning to yield results vis-a-vis this balance. I've
not yet examined the proposed legislative language that came out of
these discussions, but am committed to working with you, interested
industry members, and conservation interests in coming up with the
right language to improve fisheries management results while providing
some flexibility in how to achieve these results.
Limited Access Privileges
One of the most important reasons to move forward with the
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act is the current absence of
any guidance in law for the creation of Limited Access Privileges in
those regions where there is interest in this type of management
system. As reauthorization has been discussed over the past few years,
Maine has been in the somewhat difficult position of providing input on
standards for a system that the majority of people in the state hope
will never be used to manage our fisheries. There is a fundamental
belief that the implementation of Limited Access Privileges, or ITQs as
they were previously known, would mean the end of the traditional
character of the New England fleet. Under the traditional ITQ
structure, corporate consolidation of the fisheries seemed an
inevitable result.
For these reasons, Maine has long argued for strong ``safe-guard''
provisions that would ensure that Limited Access Privilege systems are
only implemented in those regions in which they are appropriate and
desired. The proposed language covers what we consider the most
critical of these provisions, including the development of policies to
foster the sustained participation of small, owner-operated vessels,
preventing privilege holders from acquiring an excessive share,
providing for new entry, setting specific standards for the program,
and including a formal, detailed review after 5 years, and every 5
years thereafter. We support the concept that the specifics of each of
these decisions are best made at the level of the Regional Fisheries
Management Councils, so that they can be appropriately tailored to the
specific fishery.
We also support the provision to require that at least 50 percent
of the permit holders in a fishery petition the Regional Fisheries
Management Council to develop a plan, before the Council could proceed
with this option. In particular, we are glad to see that all permit
holders, not just those deemed ``active'' will have a voice in whether
or not a plan is developed. In addition, we appreciate the provision
that is specific to New England and the Gulf of Mexico which requires
the approval of two-thirds of the eligible permit holders in order to
implement a limited access privilege plan. This concept of a ``double-
referendum'' wherein permit holders have a say both before a plan is
developed and before it is implemented, has been one way that Maine has
advocated to ensure that any ITQ program is entered into very
deliberately, with strong support from the individuals most impacted.
Because the implementation of Amendment 13 has continued to be so
difficult for many of Maine's fishermen, there has been some very early
discussion of identifying more palatable options that the traditional
``Days at Sea'' approach. While this conversation is only in the most
preliminary stages, I am glad to see that the proposed language
contemplates a variety of arrangements for the entities that may
participate in a Limited Access Privilege program, including for
example, fishing communities or regional fishery associations.
The language in the draft bill contains language that requires all
fish harvested under a Limited Access Privilege system be processed in
U.S. waters or on U.S. soil. I am concerned about the precedent
contained in this language. Maine ships much of its fish to Canada for
processing. If applied broadly to Maine fisheries, it would seriously
disrupt the marketing and distribution systems for a number of our
fisheries, most notably lobster.
Environmental Review Process
The proposed changes would add to the Discretionary Provisions of
Fishery Management Plans the option to establish a process for
complying with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and
require the Secretary to revise and update agency procedures to achieve
compliance with NEPA. Our assumption is that the underlying goal is to
avoid duplication of effort and improve efficiency, while still
considering the effects of the proposed actions on the marine
environment, the cumulative effects of the proposed action, and
reasonable alternatives. Provided that all of the NEPA requirements are
met, we would support this change. This action is consistent with
providing a balance between the NEPA procedural requirements, and the
need to be able to make timely and responsive changes to fisheries
management measures.
What most people involved in fisheries management are seeking is an
environmental review process that doesn't result in redundant
bureaucratic processes--which is what we seem to have now. The language
contained in the draft bill addresses this issue.
Secretarial Action on State Groundfish Fishing
Maine is well aware of the specific issue that led to this language
being included in the draft bill. We appreciate the attempt to address
this matter, in which a significant percentage of the total Gulf of
Maine cod catch is being taken in Massachusetts State waters by
individuals not holding Federal permits, but state licenses only. As
this percentage of the catch has increased in recent years, concerns
have been raised that this catch erodes the effectiveness of the
Multispecies Management Plan. However, it seems that this problem
should be addressed through state action on the part of Massachusetts
working with the New England Fishery Management Council, and I hope
that this provision won't be needed in the future.
Joint Enforcement Agreement
Maine has been a successful partner in Joint Enforcement Agreements
(JEA) for the past several years. Access to this program made it
possible to obtain larger vessels that are capable of patrolling
offshore in a way that we would otherwise be unable to do. For example,
Maine has been able to patrol the EEZ for compliance with whale safe
gear requirements in the lobster fishery. Prior to the JEA, we did not
have the capacity to conduct such patrols safely. Similarly, we have
also used JEA funding for effective enforcement of the ``Gray Zone,''
the disputed area between the U.S. and Canada. This program provides an
important opportunity for state enforcement agencies to assist their
Federal partners in addressing enforcement priorities and maintaining
an on the water presence. It would be very beneficial for all the
coastal states to have the Cooperative Enforcement Agreement program
formally authorized, and appropriation levels set.
Access to Certain Information
Much like the Joint Enforcement Agreement language, this proposed
language points to the logical partnership between State and Federal
agencies in sharing information and resources to achieve effective
fisheries management. The intent of this section is to allow state
enforcement employees access to data, such as VMS reports, to aid in
the enforcement of fisheries regulations. The State of Maine strongly
supports this change.
Bycatch Reduction Engineering Program
Maine agrees that the problem of bycatch must be addressed in a
practical, effective way. We support a regionally based, conservation
engineering approach to this issue, as proposed by the bill.
Recreational Fisheries Information
Complete and accurate information on recreational fishing activity
is currently missing from state and Federal fisheries management.
However, we all know that recreational fishing can have significant
impacts on fish stocks, and better information is needed to improve
stock assessments and fine-tune management measures. One need look no
further than the current situation with summer flounder and scup in the
mid-Atlantic states to illustrate the need for better recreational
data. The creation of an angler data base for each of the eight
fisheries management regions would improve data collection. It seems to
be the intent of the proposed legislation to exempt those states with
programs in place that meet the requirements of this section. We would
like to ensure that this is a clear indication of the primacy of the
state programs, and that a Federal program will only be established in
the absence of a state program. In addition, we would hope that this
would not be construed to limit a state's right to develop a licensing
or registration program in the future.
Cooperative Research and Management Program
Maine strongly supports adding a new section to the MSFCMA to
formalize ongoing cooperative research and management, and to provide
for the authorization of continued funding. Maine has a long history of
working with its fishing industry on gear research to reduce bycatch in
the northern shrimp and whiting fisheries. Most recently, Maine
scientists and fishermen have been active participants in cooperative
research through the NMFS Cooperative Research Partners Initiative and
the Northeast Consortium. The Maine-New Hampshire Inshore Trawl Survey
is an excellent example of scientists and fishermen working together to
collect data to improve the management of our coastal fisheries. We
strongly believe in the value that such activity adds to the management
process for all parties involved.
The role specified for the Councils in identifying research
priorities is important in that it will ensure that the research that
is conducted has a direct link to management needs, and will inform the
development of future management measures.
In the past, a serious disincentive to participating in
collaborative research was the potential that it might negatively
impact the participant by lowering their catch history, or their
expended days-at-sea, which may in turn limit their future
participation in the fishery. This bill would require the Secretary to
establish guidelines to prevent this from happening. Finally, we
support the direction provided to promulgate regulations to create an
expedited process for issuing experimental fisheries permits.
Herring Study
This bill singles out Atlantic herring as the focus of a
cooperative research program in the Northwest Atlantic, authorizing $2
million/year for 3 years. This species certainly warrants a concerted
research effort, as it is one of the most biologically and economically
important fish species in the western Atlantic. Herring are oceanic
plankton-feeding fish that occur in large schools, inhabiting coastal
and continental shelf waters from Labrador to Cape Hatteras. With an
estimated complex-wide biomass of 1.8 million metric tons, herring
provide a significant forage base for other fish species, marine
mammals, and birds, as well as supporting the second largest commercial
fishery on the east coast. In addition to the direct economic
contribution of herring landings, this fishery supports a domestic
value added industry (canned sardines and frozen whole fish) worth
approximately $50 million, and the North Atlantic lobster fishery
estimated at $260 million. Studying the impacts of fishery practices on
this keystone species will also assist in the move toward more
ecosystem-based management of fisheries, something in which we all have
an interest.
In closing, I would just like to say again that I appreciate the
Committee's decision to include a representative of a state-level
fisheries agency on the panel today. It illustrates your recognition
that the states have a critical role to play as the primary managers of
the inshore fisheries and as full partners in the Federal fisheries
arena. I believe that our Nation's fisheries will be improved by
strengthening this role, in a way that builds on, and doesn't diminish,
the work of the Regional Fishery Management Councils. I hope that my
comments have been useful to you in moving forward the Magnuson-Stevens
Act Reauthorization.
The Chairman. Thank you, Commissioner.
Our next witness is Admiral Watkins who has been the
Chairman of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.
STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL JAMES D. WATKINS, U.S. NAVY (RETIRED);
CHAIRMAN, U.S. COMMISSION ON OCEAN POLICY
Admiral Watkins. Chairmen Stevens and Inouye and
distinguished Members of the Committee, I am pleased to appear
before you today in my capacity as the Chairman of the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy to discuss legislation to
reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act, which I will refer to as MSA in my brief
comments.
I request that my full written statement be submitted for
the record, as well as that of the Chairman of the Pew Oceans
Commission, Mr. Leon Panetta, who has asked me to do so. He is
Co-Chair with me on what we have called our Joint Ocean
Commission Initiative, one I will touch on briefly later.
I would like to begin by thanking the Chairmen for their
solicitation of the views of the U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy during development of this legislation, also noting that
members of both the U.S. and Pew Commissions collaborated in
this effort.
The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy addressed a broad array
of issues, but few attracted the level of concern or interest
that fisheries engendered. Our chapter on fisheries, entitled
``Achieving Sustainable Fisheries,'' is twice as long and
contains twice the number of recommendations as most other
chapters in the report. The Commission worked long and hard on
fisheries-related issues and believes that its recommendations
are balanced and reflect the best interest of the Nation.
Mr. Chairman, what the Commission is recommending is, in
essence, the codification of the process that has worked so
successfully in the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council.
You are justified in your pride in this Council and its
conservative management approach which has served the region,
its resources, and our Nation well.
As Chairman of the U.S. Commission, it is also particularly
rewarding to see the influence of the Commission's report on
the legislation under consideration today. I commend the
Chairman and sponsors of the bill for inclusion of so many
provisions that are responsive, in whole or in part, to
recommendations made by our Commission.
These include: provisions mandating the science and
statistical committees recommend acceptable biological catch
levels to their councils; establishment of a national
cooperative research and monitoring program; a call to
establish a recreational fishing license program; establishment
of a bycatch reduction program; providing guidance on the
establishment of limited access programs; and a system for
states to enter into cooperative enforcement agreements with
the Secretary of Commerce.
As the Committee moves forward in its MSA deliberations, we
believe that the legislation can be further strengthened by
mandating that the fisheries management councils use the
guidance provided by the SSCs; developing a mechanism for
ensuring the qualification and impartiality of SSC members;
including guidance requiring Governors to submit their slate of
candidates that represent a broad cross section of the public;
requiring the councils to establish and initiate a periodic
scientific peer review process of information used by the SSCs;
mandating the training of new council members; enhancing the
provision on the role of the SSC by appointing SSC members
whose qualifications are reviewed by an independent entity; and
finally, enhancing the bycatch program by directing the
Secretary to evaluate the effectiveness of the program after 2
years.
Full implementation of this collection of measures would
represent an important step towards reinstilling confidence in
the process by which fisheries science is collected, analyzed
and used, reducing grounds for unnecessarily burdensome
lawsuits and the diversion of scarce resources towards
competing science.
I must also emphasize that ecosystem-based management is an
important theme in both the U.S. and Pew Commission reports and
feel strongly that MSA reauthorization should include
statements that encourage fisheries management transition
toward an ecosystem-based management approach. Once again, work
being performed in the North Pacific by the Gulf of Alaska
Ecosystem Monitoring and Research program, as well as the North
Pacific Research Board, offer fine examples of regional
ecosystem-based efforts that contribute significantly to the
overall fisheries management process. I understand also that
the Western Pacific Fisheries Management Council has
tentatively approved four fisheries' ecosystem plans which
supplant existing species-based fishery management plans.
I will close by commending the Committee and its staff once
again for its bipartisan approach to soliciting input from
fisheries stakeholders and the effort to capture the
Commission's recommendations. I fully support this bipartisan
effort and have been collaborating with the Chairman of the Pew
Commission, Leon Panetta, as part of a broader effort to move a
national ocean agenda forward in Congress.
The Chairmen and members of this Committee are clearly
committed to building on the success of the 1996 amendments to
the Act, and the current legislation reflects this commitment.
Fishing is a dominant factor in the health of ocean and coastal
ecosystems, and I believe that the Committee recognizes the
leadership role that the industry must play in the transition
toward an ecosystem-based approach, an approach that rely on
good science and a process that enjoys confidence and support
of the fishermen and the general public.
I appreciate your collective effort to move forward in the
implementation of the Commission's recommendations and I am
prepared to respond to questions from Members of the Committee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statements of Admiral Watkins and Mr. Panetta
follow:]
Prepared Statement of Admiral James D. Watkins, U.S. Navy (Retired);
Chairman, U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
Chairmen Stevens and Inouye and members of the Committee, I am
pleased to appear before you today in my capacity as the Chairman of
the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, to discuss legislation to
reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (MSA).
Before I begin, I would like to thank the Chairmen for the
invitation to the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans
Commission to both share views in conference with your staff as they
developed the MSA reauthorization legislation under consideration
today. The conference was particularly helpful given the relative
similarities in the fisheries recommendations of the two Commissions.
As most of you are aware, Leon Panetta and I have been collaborating to
help move an ocean agenda forward on Capitol Hill, in the
Administration, and out in the states and regions. We have focused our
efforts on those areas where our respective reports reached similar
conclusions, such as the need for a better governance regime, greater
focus on advancing ocean and coastal science, and, relevant to today's
discussion, changes in fisheries management and science. These are
issues that enjoy wide, bipartisan support and we are both dedicated to
supporting the implementation of these recommendations.
As authors and sponsors of the Oceans Act of 2000, I would like to
thank you again for your vision and recognition of the need for a
dramatic shift in the management of our Nation's oceans, coasts and
Great Lakes. The Commission's final report, ``An Ocean Blueprint for
the 21st Century,'' clearly identifies the multitude of ocean-related
problems facing the Nation, and provides numerous recommendations for
addressing these issues. It is particularly rewarding to see some of
the Commission's fisheries-related recommendations incorporated into
the MSA legislation currently under consideration by the Committee.
The Commission addressed a broad array of issues, but few attracted
the level of concern or interest that fisheries engendered. At every
regional meeting around the Nation fisheries-related issues were
discussed and debated. Over the course of 9 regional meetings there
were 11 panels dedicated to living marine resource issues. And this
does not include the extensive public and written comments presented to
the Commission on fisheries issues. The inputs were invaluable and
formed the basis for chapter 19, Achieving Sustainable Fisheries. With
30 pages of text and 27 recommendations, Chapter 19 is twice as long
and contains twice the number of recommendations as most other chapters
in the report. Also worth noting is that many of the fisheries
recommendations are relatively detailed, ranging from a call for better
training for Council members, to suggesting various levels of peer
review for fisheries science.
I am providing these details because the Commission worked long and
hard on fisheries related issues and believes that its recommendations
are balanced and reflect the best interest of the Nation. These
recommendations are not unfamiliar to the fishing community since many
reflect the results of studies and analyses that have been released
over the past decade. What is unique is having them all gathered into
one set of coherent recommendations, providing senior decisionmakers,
such as yourselves, the opportunity to understand the interplay among
key concepts, such as improving the use of independent science in the
decision-making process and enhancing training for Council members who
must digest and apply this increasingly complex scientific information.
As we note in our report, Mr. Chairman, what we are recommending is
basically codifying the process that has worked so successfully in the
North Pacific Fisheries Management Council. You are justified in your
pride in this Council and its conservative management approach, which
has served the region, and our Nation, so well.
Before I use my remaining time to focus on a few key provisions, I
want to inform the Committee that I have included an appendix to my
testimony that contains a statement of principles that we believe
should guide the MSA reauthorization process. These fisheries-related
principles were developed as part of the collaborative effort of the
two Commissions and reflect the broader, overarching guiding principles
identified in the U.S. Commission's report.
I would like to take the remaining time to highlight key provisions
that we support and suggest some additions that we believe will help
strengthen the legislation.
Strengthening Use of Independent Science in Management Decisions
I want to commend the bill's authors and sponsors for the inclusion
of provisions in the bill that mandate the Science and Statistical
Committees (SSCs) to recommend acceptable biological catch levels or
optimum yields to their Councils. This represents a significant step
toward one of the key fishery recommendations of the Commission.
However, I strongly recommend that the Committee further enhance this
provision by also adopting the Commission's recommendation mandating
that the Councils use the guidance provided by the SSCs.
The Commissioners felt strongly that the Regional Fisheries
Management Councils should be required to adhere to scientific advice
provided by the SSCs. This requirement is based on information that a
lack of adequate scientific information has not been the main culprit
in most instances of overfishing. Rather, a 2002 National Research
Council report concluded that the problem in many cases of overfishing
was that the Regional Councils disregarded or downplayed valid
scientific information when setting harvest guidelines. \1\ This
problem is exacerbated by increasing pressure on fishery managers to
maximize the total allowable catch instead of pursuing a more
cautionary approach that factors in a conservation buffer in the event
stock assessment information is found to be lacking or an unanticipated
natural event causes elevated mortality within a fishery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Research Council. Science and Its Role in the National
Marine Fisheries Service. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press,
2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further exacerbating the problem of exceeding total allowable catch
levels is the fact that neither NOAA Fisheries nor the Secretary of
Commerce have adequately exercised their authority to prevent the
Councils from taking such risky actions. Thus, the problem of
overfishing cannot be isolated to one source, but is a result of
systemic problems. Thus, we are suggesting establishment of a safeguard
in the process by allowing the SSC to set a total allowable catch that
cannot be exceeded. Unless another measure can be identified to avoid
the capitulation of Council members and administration officials to
economic and political pressure that result in overharvesting, a
mandate for the Councils to follow SSC recommended catch levels is
necessary. I strongly encourage the Committee to consider incorporating
a more forceful provision requiring the Councils to use the guidance
provided by the SSCs.
The Commission also made recommendations to help ensure the
qualification and impartiality of SSC members, as well as suggestions
for strengthening and mandating a peer review process for fisheries
information, which have not been fully incorporated into the
legislation. Full implementation of this collection of measures would
represent an important step toward reinstilling confidence in the
process by which fisheries science is collected, analyzed and used,
reducing grounds for unnecessarily burdensome lawsuits and the
diversion of scarce resources toward competing science.
Ecosystem-based Management
Ecosystem-based management is an important theme in both
Commissions' reports and there is agreement that fisheries management
should be informed and guided by long-term objectives set for both the
fishery and the ecosystem. The goal is to move toward a management
approach that considers linkages between living and nonliving
components of the sea, land, atmosphere, balancing ecological needs
with the health and vitality of human communities. While we are not
looking for legislatively mandated standards for ecosystem-based
management, MSA reauthorization offers an important opportunity to
introduce ecosystem-based management as a central concept, especially
as a mechanism to enhance collaboration among government agencies.
The Commission recommended the development of regional ocean
information systems whose objective would be to use the resources and
expertise of governmental and nongovernmental entities to develop a
better understanding of ecosystem processes within eco-regions. This
information would be particularly useful in helping meet NEPA
requirements, providing baseline information that would significantly
contribute to the requirement of identifying cumulative impacts as part
of environmental impact statements. Clearly, such a collaborative
effort and the resultant information would be of great benefit to
fishery managers and the Regional Councils. Again, I point to work
being performed in the North Pacific through the Gulf of Alaska
Ecosystem Monitoring and Research Program as well as the North Pacific
Research Board, as examples of regional ecosystem-based efforts that
contribute significantly to the overall fisheries management process.
These are the types of initiatives we would like to see instituted
throughout the Nation. Therefore, we recommend that the legislation
incorporate language supporting a transition toward ecosystem-based
management.
International
The effective management and conservation of global marine species,
and the enforcement of international treaties, require a combination of
domestic, bilateral, regional, and international approaches. Although
regulation of fisheries on the high seas is conducted within broad
regions of the seas, the existing regional fishery organizations
generally struggle in their effort to ensure compliance with the
provisions of these agreements. They lack adequate financial resources
or enforcement capabilities, allowing member states to opt out of
individual management measures they dislike. This, I presume, is the
basis for the international provisions contained in the bill. While I
strongly support efforts to strengthen an international enforcement
regime that will improve compliance with sound living marine resource
management objectives, I am not the appropriate witness to comment on
the specific provisions contained in the bill.
However, I would like to note the Commission's report includes a
number of recommendations aimed at addressing international issues, and
I encourage the Committee to engage the appropriate officials from the
Department of State, Commerce, and other relevant agencies, through the
new White House Committee on Ocean Policy, in a review of these
provisions. I also strongly encourage the Members of this Committee to
communicate to Senate Majority Leader Frist its desire to have the
United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea brought to the Senate floor
for its approval early next year. U.S. accession to UNCLOS will greatly
enhance our Nation's capacity to negotiate more forceful international
regimes for the conservation of living marine resources as well as
other important matters. Accession to UNCLOS is one of the top
priorities of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.
Other Provisions
I commend the co-authors and sponsors of the bill for the inclusion
of provisions that are responsive, in whole or in part, to
recommendations made by the Commission including:
establishment of a national cooperative research and
monitoring program, an important element in the broader effort
to strengthen the quality of fisheries science;
a call to establish a recreational fishing license program,
allowing managers better information on this significant sector
of the fishing community;
establishment of a bycatch reduction program that addresses
the need to reduce and minimize mortality;
providing guidance on the establishment of limited access
programs, giving fisheries managers access to an effective
tool, where appropriate and supported by the community;
a system for states to enter into cooperative enforcement
agreements with the Secretary of Commerce;
As the Committee moves forward in its MSA deliberations, we believe
that the legislation can be further strengthened by:
including guidance requiring Governors to submit a slate of
candidates that represents a broad cross-section of the public
as nominees to the regional councils:
requiring the Councils to establish and initiate a periodic
peer review process to evaluate the scientific information used
by the SSCs;
mandating the training of new council members;
enhancing the provision on the role of the SSC by providing
the NOAA Administrator with the authority to appoint SSC
members that are nominated by the councils and whose
qualifications are reviewed by an independent entity; and
enhancing the bycatch program by directing the Secretary to
evaluate the effectiveness of the program after 2 years.
Closing
I will close by commending the Committee and its staff for its
bipartisan approach to soliciting input from fisheries stakeholders and
the effort to capture the Commission's recommendations. The Chairmen
and Members of this Committee are clearly committed to building on the
success of the 1996 amendments to the Act, and the current legislation
reflects this commitment. Fishing is a dominant factor in the health of
ocean and coastal ecosystems and I believe that the Committee
recognizes the leadership role the industry must play in the transition
toward an ecosystem-based management approach, an approach that will
rely on good science and a process that enjoys the confidence and
support of the fishermen and the general public.
I appreciate your collective effort to move forward in the
implementation of the Commission's recommendations and I am prepared to
respond to questions from Members of the Committee.
Joint Ocean Commission Initiative--Appendix A
Statement of Principles for Improving Fishery Management and Recovery
(September 8, 2005)
In 2003 and 2004, two major national commissions--the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans Commission--released
reports that identified similar priorities and made complementary
recommendations in a number of key areas of ocean policy. In late 2004,
the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative formed to continue educating
people about the work of the two Commissions and to pursue
implementation of the recommendations made in their reports. The Joint
Ocean Commission Initiative is guided by a ten-member Task Force (five
from each Commission) that is led by Admiral James Watkins and Mr. Leon
Panetta, Chairs of the U.S. Commission and the Pew Commission,
respectively.
The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative is committed to a set of
fundamental principles that are articulated in both reports and that
should ground all ocean policy reform. Many of these principles are
reflected in the priorities for fishery management and recovery
highlighted in both Commission reports, including: (1) shifting toward
ecosystem-based management, (2) maintaining and enhancing ecosystem
services, (3) strengthening the scientific process and basing decisions
on science, (4) broadening public participation, (5) enhancing a
stewardship ethic, and (6) ensuring adequate funding to support fishery
management and recovery.
Based on the findings and recommendations of the U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans Commission, the Joint Ocean Commission
Initiative believes the concepts listed below must guide and be
incorporated into meaningful and effective fisheries legislation.
Ecosystem-based Management. Fisheries management should be
informed and guided by long-term objectives set for both the
fishery and the ecosystem, and thereby consider linkages
between different living and nonliving components of the sea,
land, atmosphere, and the health and vitality of human
communities.
Base Management on Independent Science. Strengthen the use
of science in management by requiring Regional Fishery
Management Councils to adhere to allowable biological
limitations determined by their Science and Statistical
Committee, setting catch limits at or below these limitations,
and establishing a consistent and independent peer review
process for the science used in decisionmaking.
Fallback Provisions. As an incentive toward timely and
responsible action to address overfishing and the degradation
of essential fish habitat, require fallback provisions to be
implemented when management plans are not developed within a
required time frame.
Dedicated Access Privileges. Authorize fishery managers to
use dedicated access privileges. Establish national guidelines
that allow for regional implementation that is consistent with
those guidelines.
Enforcement. Expand cooperative fisheries enforcement
programs between Federal and state enforcement entities. The
programs should clarify the role of the Coast Guard and should
emphasize joint training, stronger and more consistent
information sharing, and increased use of enforcement
technology such as Vessel Monitoring Systems.
Cooperative Research. Direct NOAA to create an expanded,
regionally-based collaborative research program that involves
the fishing community and Federal, state, and academic
scientists. Research should benefit from linkages to the
Integrated Ocean Observing System. Funds for such cooperative
research projects should be awarded on a competitive basis.
Bycatch Reduction. Bycatch should be addressed continuously
to ensure the sustainability of fisheries and ecosystem
services. Fishermen should be allowed to keep fish they catch
within conservation limits, rather than be forced to discard
and waste one species because it is in a target fishery for
another. Bycatch reduction efforts should include accounting
for such resources with regard to Total Allowable Catch.
Council Membership. Require Governors to submit a slate of
candidates that represents a broad cross-section of the public
as nominees to the regional councils.
Training. Require training on a variety of topics relevant
to fishery management for new Regional Fishery Management
Council members and make such training available to
representatives from interest groups and industries.
Education. Foster public understanding of ocean resources,
including the importance of conservation measures aimed at
sustaining fisheries and the linkages between human health and
the health of oceans.
International Leadership. Promote adoption and observance of
international standards for the sustainable harvest of coral
reef and other living marine resources.
Reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act should incorporate these and other relevant guiding
principles as articulated in the reports of the U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans Commission. The Joint Ocean Commission
Initiative has identified fisheries management as a priority issue and
will continue to monitor developments in this area.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Leon E. Panetta, Chairman,
Pew Oceans Commission
I would like to thank the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation for the invitation to testify at the
hearing on reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act. I regret that a prior commitment prevents me from
participating in the hearing, and I appreciate the opportunity to offer
my comments to the Committee in writing.
Oceans and coasts are severely threatened, domestically and around
the world. To formulate responses to these threats, two major national
commissions released reports in 2003 and 2004. These commissions, the
Congressionally-created and Presidentially-appointed U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy, chaired by one of your witnesses today, Admiral James
Watkins, and the privately-funded Pew Oceans Commission, which I had
the pleasure to chair, identified remarkably similar core priorities
and made complementary recommendations in a number of key areas--
including the need for fisheries management reform. I applaud the
Committee for taking up this important issue and would like to
compliment Committee Chairmen Stevens and Inouye for their leadership
and for working together in a bipartisan fashion to build broad support
for a bill that would reauthorize this important piece of legislation.
Earlier this year, Admiral Watkins and I agreed that it makes sense
to work together to capitalize on the work of the two commissions. To
that end, we have formed the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative. It is
guided by a ten-member task force (five from each Commission). The
primary goal of the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative is to accelerate
the pace of change that results in meaningful ocean policy reform. The
Commissioners involved bring extraordinary expertise, perspective,
relationships, and diversity of interest to ocean and coastal policy
reform. This foundation can serve as the basis for a greatly expanded
understanding of the critical issues facing our oceans and supporting
action at regional and national levels to address these problems.
One of the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative's purposes is to
monitor and assess the progress being made toward meaningful ocean
policy reform, and we are committed to a careful examination of what
progress is being made and what is lacking. The Joint Initiative has
identified several priorities for concerted attention and chief among
them is fisheries management reform. We also have developed a statement
of principles on fisheries management and recovery. This statement of
principles is based on the findings and recommendations of both
commissions, and the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative believes the
concepts included in that statement should guide and be incorporated
into meaningful and effective fisheries legislation. This statement of
principles has been shared with your offices; I am also attaching the
statement to my comments for your convenience.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ See Appendix A of Admiral Watkins prepared statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Admiral Watkins and I join our fellow commissioners in thanking the
Committee staff for opportunities to discuss earlier drafts of this
bill and provide comments and suggestions. We are pleased to see that a
number of our concerns have been addressed in the current bill. The
following highlights a few specifics to which I would like to direct
the Committee's attention, both to acknowledge the incredible work that
has gone into developing this bill, and also to point out provisions
that we believe can be further strengthened.
Strengthening the use of independent science in fishery management
decisions. Both Commissions have stressed the need to strengthen the
use of independent science in fishery management decisions, including
through measures such as the items outlined below.
Recommendations of Science and Statistical Committees. We
are pleased to see language in the bill that requires Science
and Statistical Committees (SSCs) to recommend acceptable
biological catch levels or optimum yield limits to their
Regional Fishery Management Councils (Councils). Both the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans Commission
recommended amending the MSA to require Councils to set annual
catch limits at or below the level recommended by their SCCs.
However, the bill requires that Councils only ``consider'' the
SSCs' recommendations. We believe the Councils should be
required to follow rather than just ``consider'' the scientific
recommendations of their SSCs.
SSC appointments. In addition, as recommended by the USCOP,
we would like to stress the importance of having SSC
appointments made by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary),
with nominations from the Councils, and vetted through an
external peer review process such as the National Academies
Ocean Studies Board. Such a process would be an additional
check on overtly political appointments and thus help to ensure
the independence of science in the decision-making process. The
bill does not speak to this point.
Peer review process. We are pleased to see that the bill
authorizes the Secretary to establish and initiate a periodic
peer review process to evaluate the scientific information used
by the SSCs. However, we believe the Secretary should be not
just authorized, but required to establish a peer review
process. We are also concerned that the peer review process for
scientific information described in the bill does not address
the standards of the scientific community. The bill need not
lay out strict peer review requirements, but language in the
two Commissions' reports could be used to establish guidelines
under which an executive agency could develop more specific
requirements.
Moving toward ecosystem-based management. Ecosystem-based
management is an important theme in both Commissions' reports, but the
bill does not incorporate provisions to move fisheries management
toward ecosystem-based management. Fisheries management should be
guided by long-term objectives set for both the fishery and the
ecosystem, and should consider the linkages between different living
and nonliving components of the sea, land, atmosphere, as well as the
health and vitality of human communities. While we are not suggesting
legislatively mandated standards for ecosystem-based management, we
would like to see a strong signal in support of the concept within the
language of the bill. Reauthorization of the MSA offers an important
opportunity to introduce ecosystem-based management as a central
concept, especially with regard to providing a framework for improving
consistency across government agencies. Language in the two
Commissions' reports could be used to strike the right balance.
Provisions for an alternative environmental review process. I would
also like to comment on provisions in the bill that seek to streamline
implementation of NEPA and the MSA by amending the MSA to provide an
alternative environmental review process. The bill requires that the
Secretary revise and update agency procedures for complying with NEPA
and specifies that the updated agency procedures would supercede NEPA
procedures and CEQ regulations. While there is a need to improve the
efficiency and efficacy of the NEPA process, NEPA is the only authority
that requires agency actions to be considered within an ecosystem
context. In addition, creating a new process establishes a precedent
for doing so on other issues and sets fisheries apart from the
environmental review for Federal actions in other sectors.
Council appointments, composition, and training. The bill does not
address the USCOP recommendation that Congress amend the MSA to require
Governors to submit a broad slate of candidates for each council
vacancy that includes at least two representatives from the commercial
fishing industry, the recreational fishing industry and the general
public. In addition, although the bill contains language about training
new Council members and advisory panels, it does not make such training
mandatory. Such training is critical to ensure that Council and
advisory panel members are aware of new science, policies, and fishing
technology.
Recreational fishing license program. We are pleased that the bill
requires the Secretary to establish and implement a regionally-based
registry program for recreational fishermen in each of the eight
fishery management regions. Such a program will enable managers to
begin to collect better information on this important component of the
fishing community and is a positive step.
Cooperative research. We are pleased that the bill requires the
Secretary to establish a national cooperative research and monitoring
program. Such a program enhances the quality of fisheries science and
will improve the ability to address stock assessments, bycatch
reduction, conservation engineering, identification of habitat areas of
particular concern, and collection of socio-economic data.
Cooperative enforcement. We are also pleased to see the expansion
of cooperative enforcement provisions in the bill, although
clarification regarding comprehensive data-sharing, and the need for a
clear lead agency will be needed for cooperative enforcement to be
effective.
Mr. Chairmen and Members of the Committee, I commend and applaud
you and your staff on your efforts to undertake reauthorization of this
important law that is the cornerstone of our fisheries management
regime. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these written
comments. I would be pleased to discuss these and other matters with
you at your convenience.
The Chairman. Well, thank you all very much. In listening
to you, my mind went back to the time when I borrowed a Navy
plane and flew from Kodiak to the Pribilof Islands just to view
the foreign fleets that were fishing off our shores in January.
And following that, Senator Magnuson authorized me to go to the
Law of the Sea conferences all over the world and to hold
meetings and hearings on the East Coast, on the Gulf Coast, and
the West Coast, and Alaska on what fishermen wanted to do about
some of the problems we faced.
We have come a very long way since then, and I really do
appreciate all of you taking the time to be with us here today,
and I appreciate, Admiral Watkins, your working with Leon
Panetta on coordination with the Pew Commission. I think it is
very important.
All the statements of the individual Senators will be
placed in the record, but let me call now on the Co-Chairman
for his statements and any questions he might have. We are
going to allocate 8 minutes to each Senator here this morning,
if that is agreeable.
STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII
Senator Inouye. I would like to take this opportunity to
commend you, Mr. Chairman, for establishing a model process in
drafting legislation. Although the uninitiated will see four
witnesses and might conclude that this was the alpha and the
omega of the process, this is the final phase, which was
preceded by hundreds of hours of listening sessions, meeting
with boat owners, with fishermen, with canners, and with agency
heads. This has gone on for months, and I can assure you that
this has been a model of collaboration and cooperation. We
realize that we have not come to the end. We have some fine
tuning to perform yet. But, Mr. Chairman, this is a model that
I hope the whole Senate will look to very seriously. This is
what we call bipartisanship.
My only concern in this bill is what you touched upon. No
matter how well we draft a bill, we must find some way to bring
the other nations in line with us because in this huge pond we
call an ocean, we are not the only ones, and somehow the fish
go from north to south or east to west, and before they get to
us, they may be slaughtered on the other end. So I hope that we
can do something better. But, frankly, I do not know what to
do. If you do have suggestions on how to improve this, as far
as the international nature is concerned, I would personally
appreciate that.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Lautenberg.
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Chairman, first let me thank you
for the work that you did on this landmark process. Your legacy
here will affect so much of human life that has not been tended
to, but as a result of your initial work with Senator Magnuson,
we have a plan that has, I believe, been helpful. If it has not
specifically taken care of all of the problems, it has pointed
us into a direction. It has sounded the alarm and has offered
plans for rescuing a program that is of overfishing and abuse
of the oceans and the species therein that, if it had
continued, would have deprived all of mankind of an important
food source and also disturbing the ecology that nature
originally laid out for us and that would be so altered by the
continued abuse and excessive use.
So I thank you, Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye, for the
initiation that you have given to this process now with the
bill you have introduced. Many of the concerns that Members
have raised have been addressed, and I look forward to working
with you further on the legislation between now and the markup.
It is a long way from the New Jersey shore to the Gulf of
Alaska, but we share an appreciation for the importance of the
ocean to our States, to Hawaii, to Oregon. Wherever you look in
the coastal states, fishing and the recreation, as well as the
commercial value attached to that, is a critical part of our
culture and our existence. Fishing is a major industry in those
states, a beloved form, as I said, of recreation for our
citizens.
So I commend you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Inouye, for your
hard work to rescue our fisheries. And I am pleased that the
bill incorporates many of the recommendations of the Ocean
Commission. My congratulations to you, Admiral Watkins.
I would hope you would also consider responding to the
Commission's call for protecting deep sea coral and sponges.
Only in the last decade have scientists truly begun to
understand the importance of deep sea corals. Unlike tropical
corals, deep sea corals grow in waters below 50 meters in
depth. They are fragile, grow slowly, and take as long as 100
years to regenerate once destroyed. In recent years, scientists
have learned that they have got to provide essential habitat
for hundreds of marine species.
A 2002 survey of the sea floor in the Aleutian Islands--and
I was interested, Mr. Chairman, when did you take that airplane
to Pribilof?
The Chairman. 1970.
Senator Lautenberg. 1970. Well, you got an early look at
what was taking place, and I am sure it has helped to direct
your thinking to protecting the species and the waters that
they live in.
A 2002 survey of the sea floor of the Aleutians,
researchers found that 85 percent of certain species of rock
fish present were found in deep sea corals. Indeed, it is the
North Pacific Council that unanimously set the standard for
protection of deep sea coral and sponge habitat, while
maintaining access to existing fisheries.
The same year NOAA stated that deep sea corals--and I quote
from their report--are ``much more extensive and of more
widespread economic importance than tropical coral reefs.'' We
need to manage our marine resources so that we can study them,
enjoy them, and use them for many years to come. When a
fisherman destroys sea coral for the sake of today's catch, he
burdens all of those who want to fish tomorrow.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to prevent fishermen from
trawling. There are many areas where it is appropriate, but
surely we can set aside some of the most fragile coral habitats
and protect them from destruction. And I look forward to
working with you, Mr. Chairman, on this important bill.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Cantwell?
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you and
Senator Inouye for your leadership on this legislation, which I
am happy to be a co-sponsor of and happy to say I think
incorporates a lot of issues that are important both for the
Northwest region and for the United States.
I thought I would ask a couple of questions of Admiral
Watkins to make sure that we are on the right track as it
relates to the Commission's report. Obviously, we heard today
from witnesses about the Councils' scientific and statistical
committee determination and about biological catch. Now, this
is something we, in the Northwest, are very familiar with.
How important is it do you think that we incorporate these
recommendations into the legislation?
Admiral Watkins. Well, Senator, I think from our
observations, it is essential that we put enough guidance in
here so we do not have misuse of what was intended by the
Congress in this piece of legislation. We found that we have a
plethora of management techniques out there, a totally
different concept of who makes up the SSCs, a totally different
sense of how important the science-based information is to the
SSC. It varies all over the map.
This is why in our report we cited the work done on the
North Pacific Fisheries Management Council in Alaska because
they have addressed this. They do it. I think that they are
worried about anything that would come out of this legislation
that would undo what they are doing well up there. It is
worrisome to them. They think they are doing it right, and I
think they are doing it right. So the degree to which we can
codify the best practices is extremely important, and I think
the bill goes a long way toward doing that, to setting the
standard.
And I have recommended in my oral statement here and in my
written statement some areas that we think could even enhance
it further. We are actually putting clearer words, I would say,
as to what we really want them to do, and we certainly want
them to listen to the science. We want the cooperative research
program with the fishermen and NOAA coming together in their
database so that we are all on the same page. All these kinds
of things are in our recommendations. So the extent to which
you put that into legislation is your business up here, but we
have outlined where we think you can strengthen it in seven or
eight areas that you now have in a very good bill.
Senator Cantwell. So harvest levels should be at or below
the biological catch limit.
Admiral Watkins. Yes, it could be. We think again that that
level set by the scientific input to the SSCs should be the way
to go, and we should not deviate from that.
Senator Cantwell. Some people have complained about
ecosystem-based management. Do you think there are good
examples of ecosystem-based management taking place today?
Admiral Watkins. I think that, there again, the fisheries
management council in Alaska agrees. They do ecosystem-based
management. That is the way they work up there. We are seeing
this, as I mentioned in my oral statement--and I think probably
Senator Inouye was involved in it. The Western Pacific
Fisheries Management Council has just adopted four ecosystem-
based plans. I have not seen those plans, but I understand they
are excellent. So we are beginning, I think, to move toward
that concept.
Some people think it is ill-defined. Okay, but let us give
it a chance to work. We cannot do it species by species
anymore. We are getting into too many litigious situations. We
have got discrepancies in the minds of people working with both
NEPA and the fisheries management plans. All these things have
to be reconciled. We have got 140 laws that do not all talk to
each other, that are counterproductive. Again, the ecosystem
starts right here in the laws. When you integrate the laws in
an ecosystem-based way, then there is a lot more cross-talk
going on between multiple committees up here and subcommittees
than ever before.
So this particular Act is important because it can be a
start, a node into which so many other things can plug. Non-
point source pollution, point source pollution, the coral reef
issues, the airborne contamination of mercury, all those kinds
of things can be plugged into the MSA. If we write the MSA
right to accept those cross-decking items, then I think we have
a tremendous opportunity here to take this and expand it
further into all other aspects that we have recommended in our
commission. So you asked if it is important. I think it is
extremely important.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Admiral Watkins. I appreciate
that perspective on how important science is and I am glad to
know that the legislation does follow the Commission's
recommendations.
You brought up NEPA, and I wanted to ask a couple of the
other panelists about the Administration's support of NEPA in
this process and whether you supported including NEPA as a part
of this process in the legislation.
Mr. Connaughton. Yes, Senator. Actually we were pleased to
work closely with the Committee in the development of that
language, and we do strongly support improvement of the
integration of the NEPA process into the fish planning process.
In fact, from my perspective as a long-term student of NEPA, it
has always amazed me how NEPA is not integrated because in 1969
when NEPA was created, if you read NEPA 101, it calls, it
compels the integration of these environmental aspects of
decision-making into decision-making.
So, I think there is a real opportunity in the fisheries
management context to do state-of-the-art NEPA work, that it
achieves coincident time lines, integrating the NEPA assessment
work into the planning process, and hopefully we can get to
convergence of a unified process, not even two that run in
parallel, but a more unified process. We are looking forward at
CEQ to providing not just the support in the legislation, but
we are looking forward in our role on the executive branch side
of things on helping each of the regional fish councils with
implementation of these ideas.
Senator Cantwell. Mr. Dunnigan, you look like you wanted to
comment on that.
Mr. Dunnigan. What I would like to do, Senator, is to
support the comments that have been made by Chairman
Connaughton.
There was a time when NOAA was under a difficult litigation
burden--and the Committee Members are aware of this--largely
related to the way that we did or did not implement NEPA. We
have been able to turn that around over the last couple of
years. We continue to believe that NOAA can be an effective
tool for the Department, for NOAA, for the public-at-large in
understanding these issues and being able to make the best
decisions we can for the future.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I am happy to be a co-sponsor of this
legislation. Thank you for the open process of having so many
different issues discussed and getting us to this point.
The Chairman. Has the Senator completed?
Senator Cantwell. Yes, thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Smith?
STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON H. SMITH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON
Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join my
colleagues in expressing to you and the Ranking Member
appreciation for your hard work on this bill and your staffs'.
I particularly appreciate the inclusion in the legislation
of language extending State authority to manage the Dungeness
crab fishery, as well as, language implementing the terms of
the agreement on Pacific hake/whiting signed by the United
States and Canada. These are provisions that are very important
to crabbers and fishermen in my state.
I think it is a good effort, and I have only one question
and that is for Jim Connaughton. Nice to see you, Jim.
The Administration and both the ocean commissions have
recommended moving to a more ecosystem-based approach to
fishery management. Many of my colleagues have spoken to this,
and obviously, I support that, but I am also aware that you are
not looking for more lawsuits. You have got your share. I
wonder if there is such ambiguity in this that you worry about
more lawsuits. I am interested in hearing how the
Administration would propose avoiding additional litigation
under this ecosystem requirement that we are speaking about
this morning.
Mr. Connaughton. Thank you, Senator, and it is good to see
you again.
I just want to underscore the centrality of the ecosystem
concept because we now have an appreciation, after 30 years of
experience with marine management and land management and new
environmental laws and new land planning components. The
answers that we have to face in the future are complex. They
are no longer dealt with in a silo: fisheries here, coastal
zone there. So the concept is important to get all of the
actors in the process talking to each other, as the Admiral
said, ``That should not become an instrument of litigation.''
In fact, the collaboration that that inspires should help to
reduce conflict and, at least in areas of disagreement, sharpen
those areas. So that is what we are working with at the back
end.
Now, we tried to design the Administration bill to use this
as a starting point for the conversation and make it very clear
that this should not be a point of litigation. I operate on the
principle that we have to avoid the term ``no good deed goes
unpunished.'' And many see putting their feet into the water on
ecosystem-based conversations as the prospect of a good deed
going punished by litigation, again process as a tool to
produce substantive outcomes. So that is where we have to find
a path.
I think we can construct that because we have seen, for
example, in the forest context with actually your leadership,
Senator, a way to construct the NEPA process and the Healthy
Forest planning process in a way to facilitate the up-front
collaboration, which is really ecosystem-based, again to
diminish the prospect of conflict.
Now, we also set some pretty specific terms regarding the
potential of future litigation. Our experience there shows it
is working. In the forest context, we went from 8 out of every
10 decisions being litigated to currently 2 out of every 10
decisions being litigated. That is huge forward progress. So it
does require, though, careful thinking.
The other point I would make is ecosystem management
thinking is a two-way street. Certainly a fishery management
process in a regional fish council is not responsible for the
ecosystem as a whole. There are other people who have
responsibilities and obligations as well. And so we cannot
expect the burden of the ecosystem philosophy to start with and
end with the fishery councils. So just even one of our goals
should be to have a process where the fishery councils can take
into account what is coming from some of the other broader
ecosystem planning efforts. Like I would commend the effort in
Puget Sound, for example. The forward movement and
collaboration there is wonderful to behold. Now, that is a
great input into the regional fish council process, and we
should not sanction the fish council people for really trying
to be more of a part of that in integrating that thinking. So,
again, the fear of litigation in my mind is what leads people
to say no, and we need to find a way to diminish that.
Senator Smith. Well, thank you, Jim. I ask the question in
part because I know your motivation is not to invite more
litigation, but rather to have a legislative history that
courts can draw upon, as well as these local management
councils that can start putting it together, establishing some
precedent that will make it so that we do not do our fishing in
court, that we can do it on the basis of evidence, experience,
and precedent.
So thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Snowe.
STATEMENT OF HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MAINE
Senator Snowe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry that I
was late. I had a conflict this morning, meeting with Judge
Alito.
First of all, I just want to congratulate you, Mr.
Chairman, for your efforts in assembling a reauthorization of
the Magnuson-Stevens Act. I know it is going to go a long way
to setting the stage and the foundation for addressing some of
the key issues and conflicts that have emerged over the years.
As one who has chaired numerous hearings on this question, I
can assure you that this represents a major breakthrough in
reaching the point to which we can have a reauthorization.
I want to welcome all of you here today, especially Mr.
Lapointe. Thank you for being here from Maine. I appreciate it.
[The prepared statement of Senator Snowe follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Olympia J. Snowe, U.S. Senator from Maine
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening today's hearing on one of
the most complex and critical issues facing our Committee today--
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act. And because this Act bears your name, Mr. Chairman, I
have no doubt that you fully appreciate the magnitude of the challenges
before us. From small fishing ports vital to Maine's heritage, to
remote fishing outposts in the Aleutian Islands, this bill will have
significant, far-reaching impacts on our Nation's coastal economies and
environments. Therefore, I am profoundly grateful for your recognition
of the unique issues facing Maine fishermen and pleased to offer my
support of this bill.
The bill we are considering today would update and renew our
Nation's predominant fisheries law, which, since 1976, has governed all
Federal fishing activity in our Exclusive Economic Zone. Congress last
reauthorized this law with the Sustainable Fisheries Act in 1996, which
expired 6 years ago. Since then, this Committee--and most particularly
my Subcommittee on Fisheries and Coast Guard--has been at the forefront
of an ongoing debate about how America should manage its fisheries, now
and into the future.
Today we will discuss a bill that attempts to answer this question,
but first, we must note our recent history of managing fisheries under
the current Act. I am now completing my 9th year as Chair of the
Fisheries and Coast Guard Subcommittee, and during my tenure it has
become abundantly clear that no two fisheries are identical, and that a
diverse array of challenges affect fish stocks, our fishermen, their
communities, and the overall seafood industry.
For example, when I chaired a series of 6 field hearings on this
Act around the country in 1999 and in other hearing and listening
sessions since then, I heard from fishermen who were being forced out
of their fishery because stocks were rebuilding slower than models
predicted--or, in the case of New Orleans, because their industry was
literally wiped off the map--and where assistance programs are a
paramount concern. I heard from scientists who struggled--sometimes
unsuccessfully--to collect data and set accurate rebuilding targets. I
heard from Council members who labored under onerous review processes
and insufficient funds for meeting their obligations. I heard from
regulators who misunderstood congressional intent on minimizing fishing
community socio-economic impacts and applying flexibility and balance
among management goals.
The experience of Maine fishermen shows the reality of trying to
make a living in the face of these challenges. In the midst of a
lawsuit--based on the claim that fish were not recovering fast enough--
scientists discovered that they severely underestimated rebuilding
targets and miscalibrated their data collection gear. The management
plan for resolving the case required such severe cuts that fishermen
now have--on average--only 52 days of fishing a year. And while the
Maine industry once employed more than 8,500 people and supported more
than $530 million of our state economy, we are still coming to terms
with fisheries unemployment and foregone fishing on healthy stocks. And
while these challenges persist in Maine, they are certainly not unique
to our region.
But previously, reaching any consensus on what to do about these
issues has eluded our Committee's grasp. We have gathered a great deal
of testimony from those who advocate for stricter fishing limits in the
Act, and we have heard from just as many who want to ease these limits.
Given these mixed messages, we have struggled to define the middle
ground that will ultimately lead to sustainable fish stocks and fishing
communities for years to come.
Today, however, I am optimistic that we are on the verge of a
breakthrough. Chairman Stevens has proposed a bill that may very well
chart a way forward, out of the quagmire that often characterizes our
fisheries today.
This bill would put scientists in a key advisory role to the
Councils, and direct managers to weigh their recommendations carefully
with other management goals in determining appropriate harvest levels.
It would also streamline the environmental review process, restoring
common sense to an already thorough management system. And, as I
included in my Fisheries Conservation and Management Act of 2004, his
bill would authorize national standards for limited access or quota
programs and encourage a national cooperative research system.
Of course, I must thank our Chairman working with me on several
provisions of key interest to Maine. The bill now contains language
clarifying our intent with National Standard 8, to improve socio-
economic impact assessment and mitigation. To resolve issues unique to
the New England region, it would mandate two-thirds approval for new
quota programs, a Gulf of Maine herring study, a review of state
fishing on federally-managed groundfish stocks, and efforts to
streamline approval of experimental fishing permits. Mr. Chairman, I
also appreciate your willingness to consider Maine's concerns regarding
catch limits and processor quotas, and I believe the language in this
bill reflects significant progress on these challenges.
Collectively, these measures, and several others still under
review, will make great strides in improving fisheries management--in
Maine and throughout the Nation. That is why I am pleased to co-sponsor
this bill. At today's hearing and in the months ahead, we will hear
additional ways to refine the provisions of this bill, but I am
confident that the basic framework proposed herein will lead to
positive changes for our Nation's fisheries and fishing communities.
This hearing is a critical step on the road to final passage, and I
thank you and all participants here today for your on-going dedication
to improving our Nation's fisheries law. Mr. Connaughton and Mr.
Dunnigan, I look forward to your testimony on behalf of the
Administration. George Lapointe, I am very pleased to see you here
today from Maine--I am confident that you will help us understand
management from the Council perspective as well as from the unique
Maine perspective. And Admiral Watkins, I am so pleased to see you
before us again, representing the views of the U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy. The Committee--and our Nation's fishermen--will certainly
benefit from your collective insight.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to working with you as we
strive to complete our Committee's common goal of passing a solid,
scientifically-based bill that will allow all our Nation's fish and
fishermen to thrive.
I would like to start off with the value of this bill that
is before us because I think it is going to be critical to
getting a reauthorization that now has been overdue for almost
6 years. Hopefully, it can put us on the path to resolving some
of the issues.
One of the questions has already been raised concerning
lawsuits, and certainly in our experience with amendment 13--we
certainly had wide-ranging issues and lawsuits in that regard.
To what extent do you believe that this legislation, as
drafted, will help to reduce or alleviate the number of
lawsuits? Mr. Lapointe?
Mr. Lapointe. I think that the bill, as drafted, if
implemented, will continue the path that other people have
talked about. We are getting smarter about how we put together
our fishery management plans at the Council. The legislation
will, I believe, assist in that. When the bill is passed and we
move forward with implementation, I think that we need to
continue on the path we have had of putting better plans
together, following process better so that, in fact, it
minimizes the chance of lawsuits.
When Mr. Connaughton mentioned ecosystem management, I
think one of the things we have to do is learn from what we
have done on the fisheries side as we incorporate ecosystem
elements and build records and build processes that minimize
the chance of lawsuits. And I think this will all help in doing
that.
Senator Snowe. Mr. Connaughton, do you agree? Is it going
to help? Because so much of this whole process has been
litigation. I am glad to see the streamlining of the National
Environmental Policy Act in conjunction with the fishery
management plans. I think that is going to be helpful. Do you
see it mitigating a number of lawsuits in the future?
Mr. Connaughton. I see that it can, and let me give the two
respects that will--I think further discussion with the
Committee and refining the bill and then a good understanding
on the implementation side of what we need to do is important.
First, the bill assures more completeness of process and
information. So the science component, the notion of getting
better data, for example, from the recreational fishing side of
things, as well as better and ongoing data collection in each
of these systems, that is the kind of thing that tends to, one,
produce litigation or enable the judicial process to put a halt
to things because courts tend to say--if there is a gap in
process or information, that is where courts step in and say,
well, go fill in the gap. So the essential elements of this
bill do a really nice job of creating, again, this more
complete process of data collection, integration, and thinking.
By the way, if you end up in a lawsuit, courts then will defer
to the administrative processes.
Certainly the process in which this bill was developed is
one that can be expanded and replicated in the day-to-day
implementation. Under the leadership of the Chairman and the
Co-Chairman, they themselves have created a process where we
are sitting here at the first hearing where we have 80 percent
to 90 percent alignment. That is huge, which means we can
actually move rapidly on this, not slowly, to get it forward.
With the fish council process, the new enhanced scientific
process, hopefully with a little more expanded representation
on fish councils, we can begin to lay those planks down where
outside reviewers do not have a basis of complaint. So that is
the completeness side of things.
The other side of things is the definitional area. With the
experience of the last 10 years, following the Sustainable
Fisheries Act, we have seen some places where just
definitionally we created some problems and ambiguity brooks
litigation opportunity. The bill does a nice job of clarifying
some of our experience in finding common ground among the
councils so we can get more consistency.
Again, there too, if you end up in a litigation scenario,
judges have a very hard time interfering where there is greater
consistency and common understanding. They do not like to undo
that. But when there are 20 different viewpoints on a
particular term, then judges like to throw their oar in the
water and decide it for themselves.
I would note, though, there remains the challenge with the
NEPA process issues and the fact that, again, fisheries are an
area of great passion, that there are some elements in here
that we can continue to work on together to be sure we are not
creating a litigation lever because something is new. And I
think that is where Senator Smith's comment about the
importance of this record that we are laying here today and the
importance of the legislative history is going to be essential.
These are evolving concepts we are dealing with, especially
ecosystems, and we should be working them out between the
Congress and the Administration. We should not be looking to
the courts to set up these definitions for us.
Senator Snowe. Mr. Dunnigan, do you have any views on that?
Mr. Dunnigan. Thank you very much, Senator. I would agree
fully both with Commissioner Lapointe and Chairman Connaughton.
Litigation can be extremely burdensome within the agency. It
saps lots of our resources, and so we have been very sensitive
to this in working with the Committee and its staff. We think,
as Chairman Connaughton has said, the procedural provisions and
the record-building that is implicit in the way that this law
has come together is going to help us move forward in a way
that is going to be more productive.
Senator Snowe. On the issue of hard total allowable
catches--and I know, Mr. Dunnigan, you indicated,
unfortunately, the legislation is providing some flexibility.
Those of us in New England really appreciate that, Mr.
Chairman, because we have some concerns. If you had a finite
total, it would be very difficult to include other issues that
might have an impact.
Mr. Dunnigan, apparently you have said that fisheries
within the hard TAC did not result in sustainable stock. Is
that true?
Mr. Dunnigan. I do not think our testimony says quite that.
The problem we have in the way we manage fisheries is,
first of all, fisheries are different.
Senator Snowe. It was in the NMFS groundfish assessment
report in 2005.
Mr. Dunnigan. I think the comment then was probably
relating to the fact that we are looking at a number of stocks
that right now are not yet sustainable in New England, and the
Council has been using the effort control and the non-TAC
mechanism for doing it and perhaps trying to draw a link.
The problem when you go with effort control mechanisms, as
we have in the New England groundfish fishery, is that they are
very imprecise. So in order to get the benefits that you want
to have, you end up having to do a lot of regulation. The
question of whether that is right or wrong is a policy question
really that the Council ought to be making the choice about. We
feel that it is our job to work with them and to support them
where we can.
So it is a different way of doing fisheries management.
Sometimes it can work well. It is difficult because it is
imprecise as opposed to a TAC mechanism where you set a target
and then you regulate to achieve that specific amount.
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
I hope you have noticed that title IV is an international
section and it really deals with the whole question of these
international problems related to section 609, Illegal,
Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing.
I was just talking with Senator Inouye. It is my intention
that if this bill is enacted with those provisions, to once
again go to the U.N. Now, when we had the anti-drift net
fisheries action taken by Congress, I did go to the U.N. and
Madeleine Albright was kind enough to arrange for us to have
some visibility of our intention to start enforcing the
provisions of that Act on the high seas, as it affected our
fisheries.
I contemplate that we would also, once again, go to the
U.N. and really advertise the fact that we intend to do just
what the Admiral was talking about, reach out beyond the 200-
mile limit and protect our fisheries, whenever it is necessary,
through actions to prevent this illegal type of unregulated
activity, particularly the process of trawling in the deep
seas, Senator Lautenberg. It is a very vicious thing.
We have to give credit, I think, to Dr. Sylvia Earle to
alerting us all. She has been using those miniature submarines.
She has been observing our outer continental shelf and the
actions of these foreign fishing fleets to disrupt fisheries in
that area. I do hope you all are aware of that.
Second, I am going to ask you all. It is our opinion and if
you look in the bill, the bill does not mandate the concept of
eco-based systems management because it is already in the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. Four regional councils are already
pursuing pilot projects. Our Alaska area initiated it years
ago. So why should we mandate what they already have authority
to do?
I think what we have got to do is encourage. If you look at
the sections we have, the findings of the Act, and the
definitions, and the fishery research provisions in section 4--
do you agree that is sufficient to deal with this concept of
eco-based systems? There are some people who think we ought to
come in now and mandate the others to move forward immediately.
I believe we should leave it to the councils to pursue what is
authorized under the Act. Do you agree with that, Jack?
Mr. Dunnigan. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate that. I
think we were aware--and one of the things that we have learned
in thinking about this concept of ecosystems-based fisheries
management over the last 2 or 3 years is just the point that
you made. We have been doing this and various aspects of it for
a long time in our regulatory programs, in our science
programs, and in our data programs. So there is a substantial
amount of authority that is in the law already.
I think our thinking was that the concept is getting such
currency and it got so much support from the ocean commissions
and from the President's Ocean Action Plan, that this was too
good an opportunity for the real policymakers here, for the
U.S. Congress, to pass up, to not spend some time thinking
about whether there could be improvements that could be made in
the way that we address our approach to ecosystem-based
management. The Administration's bill contains a number of
ideas, but they are not necessarily the end all. But we wanted
to make sure that we were at least aware of this so that we
could try to move forward.
The Chairman. Well, if you look at the provisions
pertaining to NEPA, for instance, now--you have addressed
that--our council had a 7,000-page EIS that it had to prepare
before it could come up with this new fisheries management
plan. This bill says you do both at the same time. You must
comply with NEPA as you make your plan and not have a plan and
then go back and try to see how you comply with it.
Is it not the same thing with eco-based systems? We give
them the authority and encouragement to do what we think they
should do. But these are regional councils. They do not all
proceed at the same pace. Why can we not do the same thing with
the eco-based system concept, saying we have the authority? We
want you to do it. Here are some of the goals we have set for
you.
There are some people now who want to mandate that. I
believe if it is mandated instead of incorporated in, as we
have NEPA, we will face increased litigation on the eco-based
system. Now, am I wrong, Jim? Am I wrong?
Mr. Connaughton. In substance, sir, you are right, and I
just want to underline, which is why our philosophy actually is
not to create something new. It is actually to shine a light on
a concept that has now emerged and is taking traction.
I would just underline your point, Mr. Chairman. Section
102 of the CEQ regulations that have stood the test of time for
35 years requires that the NEPA process initiate and utilize
ecological information in the planning and development of
resource-oriented projects. So this is an age-old idea. What we
are doing is giving it the currency and centrality that it
needs.
Now, I think in our bill what we tried to do was just that.
We did not want to add new elements. What we wanted to do was
identify this as an important operating principle in the
planning and decision-making process and then add the tools, as
Jack indicated, that will further enable councils and those
participating with the councils to accomplish this objective.
We have come a long way from the time when Magnuson-Stevens was
first enacted. We have come a long way in how to get there.
I think in a sense, sir, you are saying, if you have got
webbed feet and wings and a long bill, you now have a duck. In
that sense, we have got a lot of elements of the NEPA process
and the fisheries planning process that add up to ecosystem-
based management. So why do we not just go ahead and let people
know that is what they are doing is our philosophy.
The Chairman. Well, that is the goal that we have here.
I sent some of the provisions of the Administration's bill
to some of the marine and fishery biologists and scientists to
see if we ought to put the definition of eco-based system in
the bill. They say that they are following the concepts now,
and they think that narrows their goals rather than giving them
the broad vision of eco-based system as viewed by each council.
Now, is that acceptable? Mr. Lapointe, do you have a point?
Mr. Lapointe. As a council member, I encourage that line of
advancing the ecosystem-based management. I first sat on the
councils in the mid-1980s as a nonvoting member for the
Atlantic States Commission, and you did not hear the concept.
Now you hear it at every council meeting. The concept of
ecosystem-based management is clear as the nose on all of our
faces, a little clearer on mine because my nose is bigger.
But the councils are working to integrate ecosystem-based
concepts. As Jack said, we are trying to provide incentives so
that in fact the councils can move forward with this effort. We
all know it is more data-hungry than it used to be, but trying
to provide the information and the tools so that, in fact, the
councils can move toward more ecosystem-based management.
The states also recognize this. The Atlantic States
Commission has a multi-species assessment plan that is going
through the Federal process so that, in fact, we are making
sure it is scientifically sound, and it will provide the tools
so that, in fact, we can do a better job of that evolution
toward ecosystem-based management.
The Chairman. I am using all the time. Jim, did you want to
comment on that?
Mr. Connaughton. I just want to say I think based on this
conversation, Mr. Chairman, I think we can accomplish what you
desire by emphasizing the tool-based elements of this bill as
the elements to contribute further to sounder ecosystem-based
thinking. We share the concern about creating a concept that
gets a narrow definition and then gives rise to just a new
lever for litigation. That is not what we want to achieve here.
We want to actually expand the innovation, expand the tool
base. So, I actually think there is a way in this legislation
to shine the light that this is what we are doing, but to do it
in a very practical way where the substantive elements are
contained in the very provisions that you cited.
The Chairman. Jim, do you have a comment?
Admiral Watkins. I agree with that. Mr. Chairman, I do not
think it is necessary to mandate it. I do think it is good to
give a nod to it, to say this is the right approach.
In our whole report, we tried to get a bottom-up from the
states meeting the top-down from the Federal level, and I think
we did that. The State of California today is sending a letter
to the White House that says we have gotten our act together.
Here is what we want to do to collaborate with you.
Now, it seems to me that we could provide an incentive that
when those plans come in from the states, from the regions of
the country, to put their ecosystem into a balance that they
think is right, to accept that only if it takes account of the
whole ecosystem, including the socioeconomic impact.
Let us not mandate it, but let us say it is best business
practices here. Let us encourage it to be done and let us
incentivize those states that come in for collaborative work
with the Federal Government to get the nod over those that do
not use ecosystem-based approaches.
The Chairman. Well, Jim, I think we have mandated it. We
have not narrowly defined what eco-based management is. The
fear is the definition will be so controversial it will lead to
litigation, whereas the scientists and biologists and other
people involved in marine management say, look, we accept this
as a goal, but let us define it for our area.
Admiral Watkins. Also, Mr. Chairman, you have to look at
the science. Each of the regions of the country are going to
have a different set of problems that they have to face, and
the science is not there for ecosystem-based management to be
mandated because we do not know how some ecosystems work. So we
have got to do the research.
So this enables the regional council to say here are my
research requirements. I need to know about this ecosystem in
greater detail than I know today, and we should put our high-
priority research package that the Administration is now trying
to come with by the end of 2006--they are supposed to have
their research package together. That should be an integrated
package with the states out there that have the real
requirements to understand those ecosystems.
I agree with the comments that have been made. I think the
time is right. I think people are ready for it. I think you do
not have to mandate it, but at least say this is a sensible
approach and it is built into your law. We have to highlight
it. There are some councils out there that are not doing what
you are doing well in these four other areas regarding
ecosystems. They do not get it. They are not doing it right.
They are not doing the science. They are not demanding the
requirements, both for their own research, as well as for the
Federal Government.
The State of California just put 35 million bucks into a
coastal ocean observing system. That is an integrated
ecosystem-based approach. They get it. They are doing it now,
and I think others are beginning to worry.
The Gulf of Maine Ocean Observing Initiative up there is an
extremely important role model for others to be following. That
is an ecosystem-based approach.
So I agree with you. You do not need to mandate it, but I
think somehow we should incentivize those that understand it
and are doing it.
The Chairman. Well, if we are going to have increased
operations for oil and gas exploration on the Outer Continental
Shelf, I want to see a mandate that part of that money that
comes to the Federal Government goes in to protect the basic
resources of the oceans, if it happens.
Senator Inouye, do you have any further questions?
Senator Inouye. I just want to say that we should give much
of the praise to the staff. If it were not for the staff, we
would not be here.
The Chairman. Led by Matt Paxton. He prepared a statement
for me yesterday and I did not have to edit one single word. He
was really in tune with where we want to go. That was his
statement that I read.
Senator Cantwell. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Well, Senator Lautenberg would be next going
through the order.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to make one point about the need to protect the
deep sea corals. When we talk about ecosystems, where else
could we go that is more important than protecting the deep sea
corals. Mr. Dunnigan, I am sure that you--let me not put words
in your mouth. Do you agree with the Ocean Commission's
statement that deep sea corals and sponges are the most
important habitat for numerous fish species, as well as their
own value in terms of the pharmaceutical products, et cetera?
Mr. Dunnigan. Yes, Senator. I think that the habitat values
that are presented by deep sea corals are enormous. I think,
unfortunately, they have been under-appreciated for way too
long. I think the landmark action that was taken by the North
Pacific Council to step out and protect huge areas of the North
Pacific is important, as well as the positions that the United
States has been arguing for in our U.N. negotiations to move
forward in providing greater protection to these resources. So
we think that is a good idea.
Senator Lautenberg. Is the greatest threat to deep sea
corals the bottom trawling? Is that not the way that most
damage is done to deep sea coral?
Mr. Dunnigan. Senator, I am not sure that the science yet
has told us that that is the case, and I think we have to be
very insistent that we do this on the basis of good science. We
know there are problems out there. We know we have to be more
careful about it, and we would like to see the opportunity for
the scientific community to develop a more complete
understanding as we have become more aware of these issues in
just recent years.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, the NOAA report says that the
major threat to deep sea corals appears to be fishing--
associated damage from bottom trawling. They do set out other
things as well.
Admiral Watkins, do you have a view on where the risk to
deep sea corals is greatest?
Admiral Watkins. Well, we have a section in our report,
Senator, regarding deepwater corals. And the Commission
recommended that we get our act together by getting NOAA to
serve as the lead Federal agency and work with the stakeholders
to survey the distribution and abundance of these corals, as
well as the major threats to their existence. So we ought to
know where they are, just as we do for many other marine-
protected areas. We ought to know where they are. We ought to
be able to understand all about that, get the science
straightened out, and the information should be used to develop
strategies to address protection of these corals.
So we need something new that we do not have today, and I
think our addressing of this Bottom Trawl and Deep Sea Coral
Habitat Act of 2005--we have addressed that subject in our
report and we think it is very important. Coral and sponge
habitat are areas of significant ecosystem importance and merit
attention from the councils, from the Congress, and from the
Administration.
Senator Lautenberg. Yes, because I think in the Commission
Report it says that even one pass with a bottom trawler can
seriously damage deep sea corals which obviously could take
hundreds of years to recover. So is there not a need to take
steps to protect deep sea coral now rather than wait for a
further outcome of the research that is underway? If we know
that there is a danger, we know that there is a fire under the
sea, we ought to try to put it out as quickly as we can.
Mr. Chairman, my interest at the moment, in addition to
seeing what I think is a very good bill on your part, is to
include in there a particular mention on the protection of deep
sea corals. Where it has already been trawled, then those areas
can be opened to trawling.
The Chairman. Well, not necessarily. Sylvia Earle will tell
you that they are looking at a process to try and stabilize
some of those areas and reestablish them. But we would be
perfectly willing to work with you to have specific mention of
coral protection, but we believe we have got that covered by
the sections I mentioned, but we will be specific. Admiral
Watkins' Commission had a specific comment in their report.
Admiral Watkins. We pointed out that the North Pacific
Council and the Pacific Council approach has been to freeze the
footprint of existing bottom trawling to areas already impacted
and give greater protection to areas that have high
concentration of corals and sponges. And we are saying that
needs to be managed specifically. NOAA ought to be in charge of
it. We ought to be doing the science to understand those areas,
find out where they are, and then put the freeze on what they
have already done in the North Pacific Fisheries Management
Council.
The Chairman. Well, we originated this in Hawaii and down
off Fort Jefferson and the Keys. I remember very serious
problems about trawling and dragging of anchors too.
Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Lautenberg. I just wanted to ask, if I may, one
last question of Mr. Dunnigan, and that is, New Jersey's
commercial fishery industry has a history of welcoming
observers onto its vessels. However, our commercial fishermen
have some concerns about the amount of training that the
observers have. Now, is that something that you plan to address
and to help us sort out?
Mr. Dunnigan. Yes, thank you, Senator. Within our Office of
Science and Technology, we maintain a national program for
improving our observer services around the country. The service
delivery model is usually done out in the region, but we have
recognized that there needs to be an effort that is made to
upgrade the quality and make these programs work better. So I
think the answer to your question is, yes, we do see the need
to do that and are doing the best we can to try to move
forward. Thank you.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Chairman, thanks for your
leadership on these issues. It is so important.
The Chairman. Senator Snowe?
Senator Snowe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
With respect to the individual fishing quota provisions in
this legislation, or as described in this bill, as limited
access privileges, I am very pleased that we are going to have
national standards established for fishing quotas. I think that
is critical, so that the new quota programs do not negatively
affect the fishing communities.
Admiral Watkins, I know the Commission recommended
establishing national standards. How closely do these standards
follow the Commission's guidelines with respect to establishing
the criteria?
Admiral Watkins. Well, I am not that familiar with that
particular section, Senator Snowe. Again, when we mandate
things as opposed to setting strong guidelines, I know that
that is a difficult line to cross, and we are back and forth on
it all the time. But we believe there ought to be at least
national guidelines to help ensure that the programs meet
biological, social, and economic goals. So whether you mandate
or you just say here are the best national guidelines we can
come up with and, again, incentivize those fishery management
councils that engage in that process, I think again you can
incentivize those kind of good practices, and I think it should
be done. So I am not pushing mandatory one way or the other.
But I do think we need to say these are the best business
practices and we are not going to support you unless you come
in within the broad guidelines that we are talking about, work
by ecosystems, work to achieve the limited access privileges
that are in the bill. There are ways to do it without mandating
it. I think maybe we allow a period of time to see if people
start complying uniformly across the management councils and
then decide whether or not we need anything further.
Senator Snowe. Yes, I agree with you. I think it is
important because many of the councils are proceeding with
quota-type programs and it is essential to establish a national
basis in keeping with the national Academy of Sciences'
recommendations.
I also appreciate the fact the Chairman has included a
referendum for the New England Council, requiring support from
two-thirds of those eligible participants. George, have you had
a chance to review those standards and the process in this
bill?
Mr. Lapointe. I have, Senator Snowe, and I think two
provisions in the bill are important. The provisions on limited
access privileges have the referendum to start and the
referendum to implement, as you just mentioned, and I think
that is quite critical. And then the language I think in the
bill on cumulative impacts and the social and economic impact
that Admiral Watkins has mentioned allows the decision to be
made very deliberately. I think people's concern is that this
is done in kind of a de facto way and those two provisions to
me just strengthen the process so that, in fact, should a
council decide to move forward with a limited access program,
it is done very deliberately with eyes wide open about the
impacts on the community, both positive and negative.
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
Mr. Dunnigan, how does the Administration view these
national standards?
Mr. Dunnigan. Senator, the Administration believes it is
critical that we move forward to establish a uniform set of
national standards for these dedicated access privilege
programs. That being said, we recognize that circumstances are
different when you get from one council area to another and
that it is important that councils be given some latitude
within the area of these standards to address the particular
issues that they have.
Senator Snowe. So, you would be supportive?
Mr. Dunnigan. We are supportive of having national
standards for dedicated access privilege programs, and that is
part of the Administration bill.
Senator Snowe. I would like to follow up on what George has
mentioned about National Standard 8, which has been one of my
continued concerns because of the inability of the
Administration and NMFS to evaluate the socioeconomic impacts.
We saw that, and we are still seeing it, with respect to
Amendment 13. I do not think NMFS has even undertaken a review
yet of the impact on the communities. That is why the pending
reauthorization legislation does include language on assessing
the cumulative impact on the community, the collective societal
and economic impact on the community. We cannot ignore or
separate the impact of the regulations and the burden it
presents to the community and to the fishing industry.
So how do you evaluate this? I am hoping that we are going
to see a changed disposition on this question. I think that the
legislation will strengthen the requirement for managers to
consider and to minimize the adverse impact. The U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy, Admiral Watkins' report, also
called for more regard for the impact on communities when the
regulators are regulating the industry. You cannot separate it.
There are ways in which to accomplish the same goals, but
perhaps differently, understanding the harshness of some of the
regulations that have been imposed and, as we have seen with
the groundfish industry, that it had to recalibrate on several
different occasions. That has now resulted in fishermen only
allowed to fish 52 days a year at sea. That is the harshness.
So you have heard from me before on this whole issue, but
we have not seen a change in NMFS on this approach. So can you
give me your views now?
Mr. Dunnigan. Yes, Senator, thank you. I think the
Administration would completely agree that it is absolutely
critical that managers have that kind of information so that
they can make the tough choices that they have to,
understanding both the biological implications, as well as the
impacts that it has on communities and on the fishing industry.
Part of the problem is that we have 125 years of investment
in biological information, and it has really only been in the
last couple of years that we have been able to step forward,
with the support of the Congress with funding, to build a
better basis for us to understand and do the social and the
economic research that is necessary in order to provide the
information that the councils have to have.
So I think the Administration looks at its responsibilities
under National Standard 8 very seriously. We agree that this is
an area where we need to find a way to do a better job and
bringing that information to bear on the problems that the
councils have to deal with.
Senator Snowe. George, do you think that this legislation
satisfies this issue of taking into account the needs of the
fishing communities?
Mr. Lapointe. I think it provides the foundation to do
that. As Jack has just said, this is a relatively new part of
our fishery management process, and I think we need to
concentrate some efforts on it, not taking away from the
biological foundation we have because we need that as well, but
that, in fact, we need to ramp up the efforts so we gather the
socioeconomic data and we can look at, in a better way, the
cumulative impact. There is much we can do now if we take the
time to do it, but providing a better information foundation
will allow us to do that better in the future as well.
Senator Snowe. Admiral Watkins, I know that the Commission
made recommendations in this area as well. Is there anything
else that you would recommend as a way to improve it?
Admiral Watkins. We recognize the issue. There are many
Federal agencies that undertake socioeconomic research today,
but it is very sporadic. It is not coordinated. We do not
analyze the data in a uniform way on a systematic basis. So
there are things that need to be done. We have made a
recommendation that is part of the doubling of the research
budget that we have recommended. And that is not an
overwhelming number, $650 million today in our basic research
from all Federal agencies on the ocean. You compare that with
any other, and it is pitiful. So we say double that budget and
call for in that process social science and economic research
to examine the human dimensions and economic value of the
Nation's oceans and coasts.
So we say include an operational socioeconomic research and
assessment program within NOAA, an interagency steering group
chaired by NOAA to coordinate ocean-related socioeconomic
research and partnerships with other nongovernmental
stakeholders to identify and address socioeconomic information
needs. And this is very consistent with the National Academy of
Sciences' work in this area.
So it is an important issue. Social science has not been
recognized as science, and when we talk about science, we are
talking about the human dimension as well. And I think that has
been one of the reasons why we have the litigation process
going up because we have not considered it.
Senator Snowe. A good point, an excellent point. I applaud
the Commission and your leadership in that regard because I do
think we have to do more to ensure that that is taken into
account and considered, and for the agencies as well. I agree
with you. It probably would reduce the amount of litigation if
we were to take into account all of those issues.
Do you see any other way, Mr. Dunnigan, on that question?
Mr. Dunnigan. I do not think so, Senator.
Senator Snowe. Do you agree with Admiral Watkins and what
he just said?
Mr. Dunnigan. I agree with Admiral Watkins relative to the
need for having to move forward with this.
The question is always a matter of priority, and the
country has a lot of those that have to get sorted out. That
gets done above my pay grade. But there is no question, from
the standpoint of us carrying out the responsibilities we have,
that this is an important area that would help greatly.
Senator Snowe. But in the National Standard 8, though, even
as it is currently written under law, it is supposed to be
given equal consideration and it is not. It has been getting a
much lesser consideration, if at all.
Yes, Mr. Connaughton.
Mr. Connaughton. Again, Senator, I have the opportunity,
because I work on these issues horizontally in other areas--
NEPA actually requires it to begin with, the NEPA statute, as
well as, again, the overarching regs. Other agencies in other
resource management settings do this routinely and have erected
a fairly good infrastructure for doing it. So we actually have
the capacity to translate that skill set and do it even more
effectively in the fisheries context. It just has not been done
as effectively in that context. So there is reason for great
optimism that this can be done more rapidly and to greater
effect.
I would note the reverse of that is humans are part of the
ecosystem. So even when we talk about ecosystem planning, these
issues ultimately converge, and that is where we look at these
tools. When we are selecting from among these market-based
tools, our understanding of the tool to pick is directly
relevant to the socioeconomic analysis that occurs if we are
talking about minimizing disruption and having a smoother
transition. So if we do not understand the socioeconomic side
of it with the biological science, we cannot make a sound
decision about the selection of the tool. So that is why it
becomes critically important.
One final point. I just want to go back to Senator Inouye's
signal to all of us. In a lot of questions is the international
dimension. We need to more rapidly perfect these mechanisms
because the U.S. is regarded not just as a leader in the world
on these issues, but we are one of the world's largest
consumers. If our U.S. harvest is only providing 15 percent of
our consumption, well, we are responsible for that other 85
percent that is going on in the rest of the world that our
citizens are consuming. So we have to get it even better here
so that we can create the heightened expectation with those who
wish to provide food to our citizens, that they do it more
responsibly and well too, not just for the sake of our own
economy and health, but for the sake of this very important,
thriving ecosystem that we all depend on and want to
increasingly depend on in the future.
So I do not have answers either, Senator Inouye, but we
have to heighten the conversation, and I am pleased to let you
know I have had high-level conversations in the capitals in
Australia on this point, recently in China, in Japan, and I was
just in Moscow last week. This was one of the first items that
we discussed, greater discipline in our international fisheries
process and, in particular, on this unregulated component. We
have to have more higher-level conversations about this to
create the political attention that this issue deserves.
Senator Snowe. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. Admiral, do you want to add to that?
Admiral Watkins. I just wanted to follow up a little bit,
Senator, because Senator Inouye brought up a very important
point. One of the most impressive presentations we had in
Hawaii was from a long-liner, and he said we have not had a
bycatch of turtles for a year, and yet, we are precluded from
fishing south of a certain latitude when the other Asian
nations that fish in the Pacific are not. That is not fair to
our fishermen.
So what I am saying is why do we not accede to the Law of
the Sea Convention and get our name at the table, the United
States, and put the pressure on these systems along the line
that Senator Stevens talked about that he had to do earlier. We
are not at the table.
There are claims being made on extensions of the
continental shelf beyond the 200-mile EEZ now. The Russians
have just claimed a big claim in the Arctic. Now, it has been
rejected for the time being, but they were told to go back and
look at it again to take over half the Arctic. We have got to
really start getting serious about the international
ramifications.
We should be acceding to the Law of the Sea Convention. We
talked about this at a former hearing with this committee. It
was brought up, and Senator McCain said we would pass it 95 to
5 if we could ever get it to the Senate floor. So, I strongly
urge that this committee to see if we cannot find the political
leverage to get it to the Senate floor and vote it out and then
get serious about our international connectivity.
The Chairman. We have done everything we could to get that
out. I personally have made pleas that we bring it up, and
certainly this Committee is, I think, 100 percent behind that.
In the past, there had been some objections. There were
modifications to that Law of the Sea agreement that led, I
think, to really an almost unanimous approval here. But I agree
with you.
We are getting close to the time we should close down.
Admiral we put several things in this bill specifically at
the Ocean Commission's request. We have your recommendation
that the scientific and statistical committees provide the
councils with scientific advice on fishery management and that
their recommendations for annual catch limits at or below the
optimal yield acceptable for the biological catch would not be
exceeded. We placed in this your recommendation that the
National Marine Fisheries issue national guidelines for
dedicated access privileges with flexibility for regional
implementation. And we have followed your suggestions, I
believe, in terms of the NEPA process.
Incidentally, few people remember that Senator Jackson had
one co-sponsor to the National Environmental Policy Act, and
that was this Senator. I do not think I ever envisioned that we
would have a separate process for NEPA. We thought it would be
advice that the official in Government would receive at the
time of the original decision, and that is where we are going
in this process here.
Can you comment? Have we left out anything that is
important to you? Let us put it that way.
Admiral Watkins. Well, Senator, as I said in my oral
statement, there are a number of things that we would do. Our
Commission said that we should mandate the fisheries management
council to use the guidance provided by the SSCs. Okay, if you
do not want to mandate it, then let us do something to
incentivize their use of this guidance. And if they do not use
it, we ought to know about it.
Developing a mechanism for ensuring the qualification and
impartiality of SSC members. I think that is very important.
You have SSC members up there that are dedicated to the task,
they are qualified in Alaska to do the job, and so you listen
to them. Now, you do not want outsiders coming in. I understand
that. But still, the qualifications of those people become very
important so that then we can build the confidence in the
system. We want to use the SSC data that is based on good
science, and so we need to look at the process that we follow
to make sure it is good science.
Then we said require the councils to establish and initiate
a periodic scientific peer review process of the information
used by the SSCs. We think that is just a follow-up mechanism
so that it does not just languish there and sit there as a hope
that they might do it and find out many councils are not doing
it.
So, again, we have some recommendations in my statement
here that I think can enhance that, to the extent you can stand
it up here, to strengthen it even further.
The Chairman. We think that 22 of your 27 recommendations
are specifically included in this bill. I think that is a
pretty good batting average.
Admiral Watkins. It is excellent. We are all for it. We are
just saying we think it could be strengthened even further, but
we certainly think you have made a tremendous step in the right
direction.
The Chairman. We would appreciate some detail on the ones
left out and suggestions as to how those might be modified to
meet some of the objections of our Members. If you will help
us, we will work on that.
I know that, Mr. Connaughton, you have had some suggestions
also and Jack, we will be pleased to listen to any last-minute
appeals. We do not intend to mark up this bill until January,
and we hope to have it on the floor by about February. It is
just not the kind of bill that we can get out and get into this
mess that is out there right now. But I appreciate your help
and I appreciate your coming here.
Do you have any last comments? Senator Snowe?
Senator Snowe. No. I just want to thank all the witnesses.
The Chairman. We do thank you very much.
I want to place in the record that Margaret Spring, the
Minority Counsel, has been very much of a resource and a great
help in developing this bill. I want to start the practice for
this committee to list at the beginning of any report that is
filed the staff members who were specifically involved in
preparing the material that led to bringing the bills before
the Committee. So that will be done now on this one, and that
will be our policy so long as we are Co-Chairmen.
We thank you very much for your help.
[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of John Sisk; on behalf of Stosh Anderson, Chairman,
MSA 2005 Working Group: Working Fishermen Dedicated to Sustainable
Fisheries and Prosperous Coastal Communities
On behalf of the MSA 2005 working group I would like to express our
thanks to Senate Commerce Committee Co-Chairmen Ted Stevens and Daniel
Inouye, for the opportunity to submit this written statement for the
record of this hearing on reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). We appreciate the Co-
Chairmen's leadership, and the dedicated. hard work of their talented
Commerce Committee staff. We also extend that appreciation to all of
the Members of the Senate Commerce Committee, and their staff members,
who have received our fishermen so openly when they have traveled to
Washington. I submit this hearing statement today on behalf of group of
a hard working American fishermen focusing specifically on this
legislation.
Our working group, ``MSA 2005,'' is comprised of active commercial
fishermen and former regional fishery management council members who
are dedicated to the health of our coastal communities and the
fisheries they depend on. Participants in the working group hail from
Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California and the New England states.
Although our fisheries and our fleets are different, we have identified
important shared priorities. MSA 2005 is engaged in the reauthorization
of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA)
with one primary goal: keep the fishery access privileges connected to
the working fishermen, their families, and our coastal communities.
Keeping fishing privileges tied to the waterfront is an essential
cornerstone of healthy, prosperous and sustainable communities.
With this goal clearly in mind, MSA 2005 is participating actively
in reauthorization of the MSA, our Nation's primary law governing
fishing in Federal marine waters. Working group members have drawn upon
their substantial experience in commercial fishing and in fishery
policy in order to develop recommendations for consideration by Members
of Congress as they proceed with MSA reauthorization legislation. Our
primary focus is on provisions related to limited access privileges
(LAPs) and LAP Programs. We have worked hard to develop specific
legislative language designed to address our interests, consistent with
the purpose, spirit and substance of the MSA, and we are ready to work
with the Committee on legislative details at any time. Today, we
present the over-arching policy considerations and the approach we
recommend in order to ensure healthy, prosperous fishing communities.
Policy Considerations
MSA 2005 seeks to keep fishing access privileges connected to the
waterfront and to the working fishermen in our coastal communities.
This entails enhancing access, sustaining participation, providing
entry level opportunities. and maintaining competitive and open
markets--all for working community based fishermen defined as vessel
owner-operators, vessel captains, and vessel crew members. In addition,
this requires measures to prohibit ``absentee fishing'' whereby persons
distant from the community might hold fishing privileges from which
they extract wealth through leasing of quota without ever fishing or
taking responsibility for the fishing vessel or crew. Absentee fishing
means wealth is extracted from the fishing fleet and from the coastal
communities without accountability for conduct of the actual fishing.
Absentee fishing compromises community, as well as resource health.
MSA 2005 does not ask that the MSFCMA provide detailed
prescriptions for these challenges. MSA 2005 does recommend in the
strongest terms that the MSFCMA should require that councils address
these crucial issues when they prepare a LAP Program. We maintain that
Congress should identify public policy priorities the councils must
address in preparation of LAP Programs. The councils would retain
flexibility and discretion as to how to address these concerns on a
fishery by fishery basis.
Keeping access privileges connected to the waterfront and to the
working fishermen in our coastal communities should require that
councils follow a three step process in designing and implementing
future LAP programs. These steps are:
A. Establish measurable goals and objectives.
B. Periodically review and assess the program including the
degree to which goals and objectives are being met.
C. Modify the LAPs and/or the LAP program, based on the
assessment, to enhance performance relative to achieving the
goals and objectives.
MSA 2005 refers to this process as the ``ABCs'' of successful LAP
programs.
These ``ABCs'' are interdependent. Measurable objectives provide
the framework for the program. They provide the criteria for
assessments, and the assessments provide accountability as well as a
way to incorporate relevant new economic, social or biological
considerations. Without clear authority to modify the program in
response to program reviews revealing that adjustments are needed, a
LAP program would become over time an inflexible artifact and program
objectives may never be achieved or may be compromised over time.
Instead of councils addressing shortcomings or new challenges in a
timely and responsive manner through program modifications, problems
would spill over to fishermen, communities, the resource itself or
perhaps back to Congress.
Because the ABCs of successful LAP programs are interdependent, MSA
2005 urges that a provision for modification of LAPs and/or LAP
programs be included in the Program Requirements section of draft
reauthorization legislation.
MSA 2005 also recommends the legislation identify several specific
types of goals or objectives that Councils should be asked to consider
when they develop LAP programs. Again, it is not our intent to micro-
manage program design and development, but rather to see the statute
outline the important public policy considerations that must be
addressed.
The ABC approach to LAP program development provides significant
public policy benefits. It bridges the gap between advocates of a hard
``sunset'' provision that would render LAP programs void after a
prescribed number of years, and advocates of permanent, unchanging
fishing ``rights.'' The ABC approach provides a rational way to
periodically modify LAP programs, based on a sound process, to improve
program performance. In so doing the ABC approach offers LAP holders
the substantial value inherent to an access privilege of indefinite
tenure yet provides councils with tools to ensure that program
objectives continue to be achieved over time.
The ABC approach likewise ensures that councils provide LAP holders
with clearly specified program objectives and conditions for the time
period between reviews. The opportunity to modify programs and
allocations may limit the maximum value an LAP would assume, with the
effect of buffering price escalation such that LAP shares remain
affordable to new entrants. The result would be LAP programs that
provide substantial stewardship incentives to LAP holders yet allow
councils to safeguard entry level opportunities, coastal fishermen and
their communities, and the public process.
MSA 2005 recommends specific program requirements to keep access
privileges tied to the waterfront and to guard against absentee
ownership. We strongly recommend that holders of limited access
privileges be directly connected to the actual fishing and that leasing
be limited to instances of hardship or to address inheritance issues.
We propose two ways to maintain the connection between access
privileges and active fishermen.
First, in some instances an active working fisherman who holds LAPs
might own more than one boat in the fishery in which they are engaged.
In other instances a fisherman holding LAPs might fish in one fishery
and own another boat in a fishery that occurs simultaneously. Another
LAP holder might fish on their own boat and be part owner of a second
boat on which a relative fishes. Such fishermen should be able to allow
LAPs they hold to be fished on one of these other boats, provided they
have a substantial direct ownership stake in the vessel.
A second option is for the holder of the LAP to be on board the
vessel from which their LAPs are being harvested. This LAP ``owner on
board'' provision has proven successful in the Alaska halibut--
sablefish IFQ program, and it is well suited to many fisheries, or
segments of fisheries.
A limitation on leasing and these two measures to empower active
LAP holders who participate directly in fisheries are designed to
ensure the long-term connection between access privileges and coastal
fishing communities. When combined with the ABCs of successful LAP
programs, the result is a framework that ensures limited access
privileges remain connected to America's active working fishermen and
fishing families, and that the wealth of our fisheries sustains our
coastal communities.
Two additional, important policy problems and specific
recommendations are included in our reauthorization recommendations:
the need for better information on the participation of working
fishermen in our Nation's fisheries, and the importance of maintaining
open, free and competitive markets for fishermen to sell their catch.
Fishing vessel crew member jobs constitute the lion's share of the
fishery employment opportunities in coastal communities. In Alaska,
where we have the most experience with fishery rationalization and
limited access privileges, the implementation of fishing quota programs
has resulted in substantial layoffs of fishing crew members as fishing
fleets consolidate, with heavy economic impacts on many fishermen,
fishing families, and their communities.
Currently neither the councils nor NOAA Fisheries maintains a
record of fishermen's participation in Federal fisheries as crew
members. As a result. reliable information to support the assessment
and mitigation of economic and social impacts associated with the
transition to limited access privilege programs is lacking. In
addition, there is no information base to inform decisions on whether
to include crew members in the initial allocation of limited access
privileges.
MSA 2005 recommends the establishment of annual records or
registries of fishing crew members on board each vessel, recorded in
conjunction with fish landing documentation. This will provide a data
base of fishing crew members and the associated harvest landing
quantities, by fishery, vessel and season. The resulting information
will contribute to better fishery management and greater capacity to
incorporate crucial community economic considerations into the council
decision-making process.
Fishermen across the Nation share a common interest in maintaining
open, free and competitive markets in which fishermen sell their catch.
This enables fishermen to receive a fair share of the value of the
resource, and is crucial for the economic well being of fishing
families and the coastal communities where they reside. MSA 2005
appreciates the Committee's decision not to include processor quota in
the draft legislation, and looks forward to working toward fishery
arrangements that maintain open, competitive markets for fishermen.
Effective business arrangements among harvesters and processors are
essential for economic success of a fishery, and those arrangements
should--must--be voluntary in nature. Neither legislation nor
management programs should force a fisherman to sell product to a
specific processor. Similarly, measures that allow excessive
consolidation in either the harvesting or processing sector should be
strenuously avoided; competition is the lifeblood of innovation and
entrepreneurship. Finally, fishery arrangements that risk anti-
competitive outcomes must be rejected.
In conclusion, we would like to reiterate our appreciation of the
Committee's work on this important legislation and restate our primary
goal: Let us keep the fishing privileges connected to the waterfront,
the working fishermen, their families, and our coastal communities.
Congress can accomplish this important goal by providing guidelines to
councils in the MSFCA for the development of LAP programs: establish
measurable program goals and objectives, conduct regular periodic
reviews of program performance, and modify programs as necessary in
response to those reviews in order to optimize program performance and
achieve program objectives. Additionally, program objectives should
safeguard against absentee fishing, keep LAPs closely tied to the
waterfront of active fishermen, and ensure that fishermen have a
competitive market in which to sell their catch. Finally, Congress
should direct councils to create a registry for all fishermen who
participate in our Nation's fisheries.