    [House Hearing, 113 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                            REAUTHORIZATION OF THE
                           MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY
                        CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT

    =======================================================================

                               OVERSIGHT HEARING

                                   before the

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                           Wednesday, March 13, 2013

                                   __________

                                Serial No. 113-3

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources

             Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
                                       or
              Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov

                                   ----------
                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    79-966 PDF                       WASHINGTON : 2013
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
       Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (800) 512-1800;
              DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-214 Mail: Stop IDCC,
                          Washington, DC 20402-0001

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                           DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
                EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democratic Member

    Don Young, AK                        Peter A. DeFazio, OR
    Louie Gohmert, TX                    Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS
    Rob Bishop, UT                       Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
    Doug Lamborn, CO                     Grace F. Napolitano, CA
    Robert J. Wittman, VA                Rush Holt, NJ
    Paul C. Broun, GA                    Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
    John Fleming, LA                     Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
    Tom McClintock, CA                   Jim Costa, CA
    Glenn Thompson, PA                   Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
    Cynthia M. Lummis, WY                    CNMI
    Dan Benishek, MI                     Niki Tsongas, MA
    Jeff Duncan, SC                      Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
    Scott R. Tipton, CO                  Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
    Paul A. Gosar, AZ                    Tony Cardenas, CA
    Raul R. Labrador, ID                 Steven A. Horsford, NV
    Steve Southerland, II, FL            Jared Huffman, CA
    Bill Flores, TX                      Raul Ruiz, CA
    Jon Runyan, NJ                       Carol Shea-Porter, NH
    Mark E. Amodei, NV                   Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
    Markwayne Mullin, OK                 Joe Garcia, FL
    Chris Stewart, UT                    Matt Cartwright, PA
    Steve Daines, MT
    Kevin Cramer, ND
    Doug LaMalfa, CA
    Vacancy

                           Todd Young, Chief of Staff
                    Lisa Pittman, Chief Legislative Counsel
                   Jeffrey Duncan, Democratic Staff Director
                    David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel

                                   ----------

                                   CONTENTS

                                   ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on Wednesday, March 13, 2013........................     1

    Statement of Members:
        Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Washington........................................     1
            Prepared statement of....................................     3
        Markey, Hon. Edward J., a Representative in Congress from the
          Commonwealth of Massachusetts..............................     5
            Prepared statement of....................................     6

    Statement of Witnesses:
        Dooley, Robert E., President, United Catcher Boats...........    18
            Prepared statement of....................................    19
        Gill, Robert P., Co-Owner, Shrimp Landing, Florida...........    34
            Prepared statement of....................................    36
        Jones, Bob, Executive Director, Southeastern Fisheries
          Association, Inc., Tallahassee, Florida....................     8
            Prepared statement of....................................     9
            Letter from members of the U.S. Senate requesting GAO
              study on NMFS Stock Assessments submitted for the
              record.................................................    15
        Logan, Captain Keith, Charter Boat Captain, Myrtle Beach,
          South Carolina.............................................    28
            Prepared statement of....................................    29
        Pappalardo, John, Chief Executive Officer, Cape Cod
          Commercial Hook Fishermen's Association....................    24
            Prepared statement of....................................    25
        Plesha, Joseph T., Chief Legal Officer, Trident Seafoods
          Corporation................................................    41
            Prepared statement of....................................    42
        Rauch, Samuel D., III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for
          Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service,
          National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
          Department of Commerce.....................................    76
            Prepared statement of....................................    78
        Shipp, Dr. Robert L., Chair and Professor, Department of
          Marine Sciences, University of South Alabama...............    16
            Prepared statement of....................................    17

    Additional materials supplied:
        Charter Fishermen's Association, Statement submitted for the
          record.....................................................    94
        Crockett, Lee R., Director, U.S. Fisheries Campaigns, The Pew
          Charitble Trusts, Letter and statement submitted for the
          record.....................................................    97
        Gulf Fishermen's Association, Statement submitted for the
          record.....................................................   100
        Keating, Hon. William R., a Representative in Congress from
          the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Statement submitted for
          the record.................................................   101
        Mitchell, Elizabeth, Association for Professional Observers,
          Eugene,
          Oregon, Statement submitted for the record.................   102
        Scott, Hon. Austin, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Georgia, Statement submitted for the record.......   105
        South Atlantic Fishermen's Association, Statement submitted
          for the record.............................................    62

      OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE ``REAUTHORIZATION OF THE MAGNUSON-STEVENS
                   FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT.''

                                  ----------

                           Wednesday, March 13, 2013

                         U.S. House of Representatives

                         Committee on Natural Resources

                                Washington, D.C.

                                  ----------

        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in
    Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Doc Hastings
    [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Hastings, Young, Wittman, Fleming,
    Labrador, Southerland, Runyan, Mullin, LaMalfa; Markey,
    DeFazio, Pallone, Holt, Bordallo, Sablan, Hanabusa, Horsford,
    Shea-Porter, Lowenthal, and Garcia.
        Also Present: Representative Keating.
        The Chairman. The Committee will come to order. And the
    Committee on Natural Resources today is meeting to hear
    testimony on an oversight hearing on the reauthorization of the
    Magnuson-Stevens Fishery and Conservation Act. And I note that
    we do have a quorum.
        Under Rule 4(f), opening statements are limited to the
    Chairman and the Ranking Member of the Committee. However, I
    ask unanimous consent to include any Members' opening
    statements in the hearing record if it is submitted to the
    Clerk by the end of business today.
        [No response.]
        The Chairman. And without objection, so ordered. I also ask
    unanimous consent that the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr.
    Keating, be allowed to join us on the dais and participate in
    the hearing if he chooses to.
        [No response.]
        The Chairman. And, without objection, so ordered. And I
    will introduce Mr. Keating when we introduce the first panel.
        I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for my opening
    statement.

        STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

        The Chairman. I would like to welcome all of the Members
    and today's witness for the first hearing this Congress on the
    reauthorization of the Nation's premiere fisheries law, the
    Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, more
    popularly known as the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        As many of you know, both the full Committee and the
    Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular
    Affairs held several hearings in the 112th Congress on topics
    related to this Act. However, because the Act expires at the
    end of Fiscal Year 2013, the real work on this reauthorization
    will take place in this Congress.
        Managing fish and fishermen is a challenge. It requires a
    balancing act between a sustainable harvest level and the
    maximum economic value for the fisheries, between recreational
    and commercial users of the same resource, between different
    gear types in the same fisheries, and between different States.
    As we begin the reauthorization process, we will review the
    successes of the Act and determine what provisions Congress
    should examine to make the Act work better.
        This hearing is intended to highlight issues that could
    provide the basis for further hearings. I want to emphasize
    that. This hearing is intended to highlight issues that will
    provide basis for further hearings. We will examine how the Act
    could or should be modified to provide better management of the
    Nation's fishery resources, as well as provide better economic
    certainty for recreational fishermen, commercial fishermen, and
    those communities dependent on fisheries.
        In 2006, Congress passed the last reauthorization of this
    Act. The goals of that reauthorization were to base management
    decisions on science and require accountability. While both are
    good goals, they have been difficult to achieve. As we found
    out during hearings last Congress, many of the current
    challenges may not be due to the Act itself, but rather with
    its implementation. We also heard loud and clear that there is
    a lack of accurate, timely data for making sound management
    decisions.
        Judging by the number of bills to amend the Magnuson-
    Stevens Act introduced in the last Congress, there is certainly
    an interest among Members and their constituents in modifying
    the Act. Legislation introduced in the last Congress, including
    proposals to modify a number of provisions in the Act include:
    modification of the annual catch limit requirement; additional
    flexibility in rebuilding time frames; additional transparency
    for councils and councils' science and statistical committees;
    new uses of funds collected from fisheries, fines, and
    penalties; modification of the disaster assistance provision;
    and a definition and restrictions on catch-share management
    programs. All of these issues were part of bills introduced in
    the last Congress.
        Fishermen in coastal communities that depend on healthy
    fisheries are certainly facing challenges. The Secretary of
    Commerce declared seven fishery disasters in 2012 and several
    more have been requested. New England is facing severe cuts in
    the quotas for important fisheries. The Gulf of Mexico is
    facing severe restrictive fishing seasons for recreational
    fishermen. The Pacific Northwest is seeing management and data
    collection costs growing, with an ever-increasing burden
    falling on fishermen. All of these fisheries and all of these
    regions need economic stability.
        During this reauthorization process I also hope to examine
    the need for better data collection. There has got to be a
    better way to get up-to-date accurate data on fishery resources
    and on the harvest levels. Congress attempted to start this
    process in 2006 by requiring an overhaul of the recreational
    data process. Unfortunately, that work is still underway.
        But this is not just an issue for recreational fisheries.
    Increasing burdens are being placed on commercial fishermen in
    the Pacific and in the North Pacific. And, at the same time,
    new uses of technology are not keeping pace with innovation.
        The Committee will examine all of these issues. And I am
    sure more will arise, as the process continues. Luckily,
    congressional hearings will not be the only source of
    information for this Committee. The eight Regional Fishery
    Management Councils are hosting a Managing Our Nation's
    Fisheries III conference in May that will certainly add
    information for us to consider.
        In addition, the General Accounting Office, the Department
    of Commerce Inspector General, and the Ocean Studies Board of
    the National Academy of Sciences have, or will be, releasing
    reports that will aid us in this effort.
        So, I look forward to hearing from the testimony of the
    Committee, or of the witnesses today.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Hastings follows:]

              Statement of The Honorable Doc Hastings, Chairman,
                         Committee on Natural Resources

        I would like to welcome Members and today's witnesses to the first
    hearing this Congress on the reauthorization of the Nation's premiere
    fisheries law--the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
    Act--more popularly known as the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        As many of you know, both the Full Committee and the Subcommittee
    on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs held several
    hearings in the 112th Congress on topics related to the Magnuson-
    Stevens Act. However, because the Act expires at the end of Fiscal Year
    2013, the real work for the reauthorization will take place this
    Congress.
        Managing fish--and fishermen--is a challenge. It requires a lot of
    balancing acts: between a sustainable harvest level and the maximum
    economic value for the fisheries; between recreational and commercial
    users of the same resource; between different gear types in the same
    fisheries; and between different states.
        As we begin the reauthorization process, we will review the
    successes of the Act and determine what provisions Congress should
    examine to make the Act work better.
        This hearing is intended to highlight issues that could provide the
    basis for further hearings. We will examine how the Act could or should
    be modified to provide better management of the Nation's fishery
    resources as well as provide better economic certainty for recreational
    fishermen, commercial fishermen, and fishery dependent communities.
        In 2006, Congress passed the last reauthorization of the Act. The
    goals of that reauthorization were to base management decisions on
    science and to require accountability. While both are good goals,
    they've been difficult to achieve.
        As we found out during hearings last Congress--many of the current
    challenges may not be due to the Act itself, but rather with its
    implementation. We also heard loud and clear that there is a lack of
    accurate, timely data for making sound management decisions.
        Judging by the number of bills to amend the Magnuson-Stevens Act
    introduced last Congress, there is certainly an interest among
    Members--and their constituents--in modifying the Act.
        Legislation introduced in the 112th Congress included proposals to
    modify a number of provisions in the Act including: modification of the
    Annual Catch Limit requirement . . . additional flexibility in
    rebuilding timeframes . . . additional transparency for councils and
    councils' scientific and statistical committees . . . new uses of funds
    collected from fisheries fines and penalties . . . modification to the
    disaster assistance provision . . . and a definition and restrictions
    on catch share management programs.
        Fishermen and coastal communities that depend on healthy fisheries
    are certainly facing challenges. The Secretary of Commerce declared
    seven fisheries disasters in 2012 and several more have been requested.
    New England is facing severe cuts in the quotas for important
    fisheries. The Gulf of Mexico is facing severely restrictive fishing
    seasons for recreational fishermen. The Pacific Northwest is seeing
    management and data collection costs growing with an ever increasing
    burden falling on fishermen. All of these fisheries and all of these
    regions need economic stability.
        During this reauthorization process I also hope to examine the need
    for better data collection. There has got to be a better way to get up-
    to-date, accurate data on the fishery resources and on the harvest
    levels. Congress attempted to start this process in 2006 by requiring
    an overhaul of the recreation data collection process. Unfortunately,
    that work is still underway. But this is not just an issue for the
    recreational fisheries. Increasing burdens are being placed on
    commercial fishermen in the Pacific and the North Pacific and, at the
    same time, new uses of technology are not keeping pace with innovation.
        The Committee will examine all of these issues and I am sure more
    will arise as the process continues. Luckily, Congressional hearings
    will not be the only source of information for this Committee. The
    eight regional fishery management councils are hosting the ``Managing
    Our Nation's Fisheries 3'' conference in May that will certainly add
    information for us to consider. In addition, the General Accounting
    Office, the Department of Commerce's Inspector General, and the Ocean
    Studies Board of the National Academy of Sciences have or will be
    releasing reports that will aid us in this effort.
        I look forward to hearing the testimony from today's witnesses.
                                     ______

        The Chairman. And I will note that the Ranking Member is
    not here. I will allow him to make his statement when he comes.
    But let me introduce the panel, the first panel that we have
    seated, and I will yield to Mr. Keating to introduce his
    constituent here.
        First, we have Mr. Bob Jones, Executive Director of the
    Southeastern Fisheries Association. We have Dr. Robert Shipp--
    do you go by Bob, too? OK, good, two Bobs. Chair and Professor
    of the Department of Marine Sciences, University of South
    Alabama. We have Mr. Robert Dooley--is that another Bob?
    President of United Catcher Boats. We have Captain Keith Logan,
    Charterboat Captain, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Mr. Bob
    Gill, are you Robert? Bob is fine? OK. Co-owner of Shrimp
    Landing, in Florida. And Mr. Joe Plesha, Chief Legal Officer of
    Trident Seafoods.
        And I will recognize now Mr. Keating to introduce his
    constituent.
        Mr. Keating. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And I noted
    your opening statement, where you covered so much ground, and
    it is so important in all those things. As a matter of fact, I
    want to thank you for last session, having myself and then-
    Member Mr. Frank testifying on issues.
        And I want to take the opportunity to introduce a
    constituent of mine who is here, as well. He is the CEO of the
    Cape Cod Hook Fishermen's Association, and a former Chair of
    the New England Fisheries Management Council, John Pappalardo.
    In our area, he has a long-standing interest, represents over
    100 commercial fishermen.
        But as you know, there are so many areas of interest in
    this. I just want to commit with written testimony today to the
    Committee, and my commitment going forward, as I go back to--I
    am supposed to testify in another Committee right now--but to
    work with you in any way. We represent a diverse area, and the
    largest fishing port in the United States, in Bedford, as well.
    And we will work hard.
        I honestly think this Committee represents the best
    opportunity for significant change in Magnuson-Stevens. We will
    be able to go forward and look at socio-economic as well as
    environmental issues in a very even-handed manner.
        So, with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I look forward
    to coming back and listening. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Was that the proper introduction of your
    constituent, there?
        Mr. Keating. He has more, unless you want it to be more
    lengthy, Mr. Chair----
        The Chairman. No, that is fine.
        Mr. Keating [continuing]. I could give you more of his
    background.
        The Chairman. No, that is fine.
        Mr. Keating. I think he could----
        The Chairman. We don't want to know all the bad details, we
    just want to know----
        Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. At this time I will recognize the Ranking
    Member of the Committee for his opening statement.

      STATEMENT OF THE HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
            CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

        Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me thank you,
    Mr. Chairman, first, for allowing my good friend, Bill Keating,
    to introduce his constituent, Mr. Pappalardo, this morning. He
    is a very distinguished part of the fishing community of
    Massachusetts, and it means the world to us that you would
    allow Congressman Keating to make that introduction. We thank
    you so much.
        From Cape Cod to Cape Ann, New Bedford to Newburyport,
    Massachusetts has long been home to some of the best fishermen
    and most productive fisheries in the world. Our proud fishing
    tradition and vibrant coastal communities are a critical part
    of the cultural heritage and economy of my State.
        In 1976, Don Young and Gerry Studds moved the original
    Fishery Conservation and Management Act through the House.
    Subsequent amendments of the law have sought to ensure healthy
    fish populations and the jobs, the income, and the prosperity
    for fishing communities that come with them. Along the way, the
    bill also picked up the name of its Senate sponsors, Warren
    Magnuson of Washington and Ted Stevens of Alaska, shortchanging
    the contributions of both the House and the Atlantic Ocean,
    because the bill originated here, with Gary Studds and with Don
    Young. So all four of them should have their names on the bill.
        That is a shame, because in the waters off of
    Massachusetts, we have one of the best examples of how
    rebuilding stocks and using science-based management can create
    a conservation and economic success story. The Atlantic sea
    scallop fishery landed only 2 million pounds in 1995. But
    cooperation among scientists, managers, and the industry
    increased landings to 125 million pounds in 2011. This created
    thousands of new jobs, generated billions of dollars for the
    Massachusetts economy, and helped make New Bedford the highest-
    valued fishing port in the United States.
        Not all Massachusetts fisheries are doing as well. Last
    fall, the Secretary of Commerce took the unprecedented step of
    declaring an economic disaster for the New England groundfish
    fishery before the 2013 season even started. Anticipating
    reductions in the catch limits for the iconic cod and other key
    fish based on the latest stock assessment prompted Commerce to
    action. Fishermen that depend on this fishery now face an
    uncertain future, and their fears and frustrations are
    justified.
        I am frustrated that the Majority here in the House has
    ignored the needs of the fishermen. House leadership refused to
    even allow a vote on an amendment I proposed to restore $150
    million in fisheries disaster aid passed by the Senate. This
    hurt fishing families not only in Massachusetts and New
    England, but in Alaska, Mississippi, and Texas, as well.
        House Republican leaders have also rejected calls for
    increased funding to improve the scientific understanding of
    our fisheries and oceans. Rather than helping to find real
    solutions to deal with climate change, many have denied its
    existence. Instead, they have backed budgets that undercut
    science and offered alternatives to the sequester that would
    have cut science even more to spare the Pentagon's bloated
    budget.
        While fishermen in Massachusetts and across the country
    deserve this Committee's oversight of what is and isn't working
    for managing our Nation's fisheries, they deserve improved and
    more frequent stock assessments to reduce uncertainty and
    increased harvest quotas. They deserve Federal assistance to
    help them weather the storm of declared economic disasters. And
    they deserve a better understanding of how global warming and
    changes in ocean chemistry are affecting the fish and the sea
    they depend on for their livelihoods.
        Changing the Magnuson-Stevens Act cannot create more fish.
    Changing it cannot create additional science to inform
    fisheries management and build healthy stocks. Inadequate
    funding for science makes poor management and failing fisheries
    a self-fulfilling prophecy. Not funding disaster relief makes
    certain that fishing families will suffer.
        As we begin to consider reauthorization of the Magnuson-
    Stevens Act today, I hope we can focus on the fact that
    fisheries are made up of fish and fishermen, and that healthy
    fisheries have both. I look forward to hearing about innovative
    solutions from our witnesses, especially John Pappalardo,
    Executive Director of the Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's
    Association, that will improve the health of our Nation's fish
    stocks and the economies of the coastal communities that depend
    upon them. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Markey follows:]

         Statement of The Honorable Edward J. Markey, Ranking Member,
                         Committee on Natural Resources

        Thank you Mr. Chairman for allowing my good friend Bill Keating to
    introduce his constituent John Pappalardo, a very distinguished
    constituent.
        From Cape Cod to Cape Ann, New Bedford to Newburyport,
    Massachusetts has long been home to some of the best fishermen and most
    productive fisheries in the world. Our proud fishing tradition and
    vibrant coastal communities are a critical part of the cultural
    heritage and economy of my state.
        In 1976, Don Young and Gerry Studds moved the original Fisheries
    Conservation and Management Act through the House. Subsequent
    amendments of the law have sought to ensure healthy fish populations
    and the jobs, income and prosperity for fishing communities that come
    with them. Along the way the bill also picked up the name of its Senate
    sponsors Warren Magnuson of Washington and Ted Stevens of Alaska,
    short-changing the contributions of both the House and the Atlantic
    Ocean. The bill originated here with Gerry Studds and Don Young.
        That's a shame because in the waters off of Massachusetts is one of
    the best examples of how rebuilding stocks and using science-based
    management can create a conservation and economic success story. The
    Atlantic sea scallop fishery landed only 2 million pounds in 1995, but
    cooperation among scientists, managers and the industry increased
    landings to 125 million pounds in 2011. This created thousands of jobs,
    generated billions of dollars for the Massachusetts economy, and helped
    make New Bedford the highest value fishing port in the United States.
        Not all Massachusetts fisheries are doing as well. Last fall, the
    Secretary of Commerce took the unprecedented step of declaring an
    economic disaster for the New England groundfish fishery before the
    2013 season even started. Anticipating reductions in the catch limits
    for the iconic cod and other key fish based on the latest stock
    assessment prompted Commerce to action. Fishermen that depend on this
    fishery now face an uncertain future, and their fears and frustrations
    are justified.
        I'm frustrated that the majority here in the House has ignored the
    needs of fishermen. House leadership refused to even allow a vote on an
    amendment I proposed to restore $150 million in fisheries disaster aid
    passed by the Senate. This hurt fishing families not only in
    Massachusetts and New England, but in Alaska, Mississippi, and Texas as
    well. House Republican leaders have also rejected calls for increased
    funding to improve the scientific understanding of our fisheries and
    oceans. Rather than helping to find real solutions to deal with climate
    change, many have denied its existence. Instead, they have backed
    budgets that undercut science, and offered alternatives to the
    sequester that would have cut science even more to spare the Pentagon's
    bloated budget.
        Fishermen in Massachusetts and across the country deserve this
    committee's oversight of what is and isn't working for managing our
    nation's fisheries. They deserve improved and more frequent stocks
    assessments to reduce uncertainty and increase harvest quotas. They
    deserve federal assistance to help them weather the storm of declared
    economic disasters. And they deserve a better understanding of how
    global warming and changes in ocean chemistry are affecting the fish
    and the sea they depend on for their livelihoods.
        Changing the Magnuson-Stevens Act cannot create more fish. Changing
    it cannot create additional science to inform fisheries management and
    build healthy stocks. Inadequate funding for science makes poor
    management and failing fisheries a self-fulfilling prophecy. Not
    funding disaster relief makes certain that fishing families will
    suffer.
        As we begin to consider reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act
    today, I hope we can focus on the fact that fisheries are made up of
    fish and fishermen, and that healthy fisheries have both. I look
    forward to hearing about innovative solutions from our witnesses,
    especially John Pappalardo, Executive Director of the Cape Cod
    Commercial Hook Fishermen's Association, that will improve the health
    of our nation's fish stocks and the economies of the coastal
    communities that depend on them.
        Thank you Mr. Chairman.
                                     ______

        The Chairman. I thank the Ranking Member for his statement.
    And for those of you on the panel that have not testified here
    before, I just want to give you the ground rules.
        First of all, you all were asked to submit a statement.
    Your statement, in total, will be made part of the record. But
    you have 5 minutes for your oral remarks. And the lights there,
    you have the green, yellow, and red. Total of 5 minutes. When
    the green is on you are in the 4-minute window. When the yellow
    goes on, it means that you have 1 minute remaining, and I would
    ask you to try to wrap up your remarks. And when the red goes
    on, it means, unfortunately, you are out of time.
        So, if you could, be cognizant of that. Obviously, with the
    number of witnesses and, obviously, the interest of Members
    that want to pursue different parts here, I would ask you to
    keep your remarks to 5 minutes.
        So, with that, we will start, Mr. Jones, with you, from the
    Southeastern Fisheries Association. You are recognized for 5
    minutes.

       STATEMENT OF BOB JONES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOUTHEASTERN
                      FISHERIES ASSOCIATION, INC.

        Mr. Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the
    honor to be here this morning.
        Under the modification of annual catch limits, when the
    Magnuson Act was amended in 2006, giving the Scientific and
    Statistical Committee total control over the amount of fish
    that can be harvested, we expressed concern then, and we still
    express concern. We prefer that the Regional Fishery Management
    Council set the annual harvest, based upon the recommendations
    from the SSC, and that any significant deviation from their
    recommendation must be enumerated and approved by the council
    during a public forum.
        Uncertainty of data. NOAA's mandate that councils allow for
    uncertainty must be buffered by social and economic factors.
    Without additional empirical data available for stock
    assessments, we will always have significant uncertainty,
    resulting in precautionary science and lower quotas. The
    Science Center should provide all stock assessment modeling and
    fish sampling protocols to stakeholders upon request.
        Flexibility. We request flexibility for the council to set
    total allowable catch, nor should we build fisheries without
    banning all fisheries, such as the South Atlantic Red Snapper,
    which was based on incomplete and imprecise stock assessments.
    The motion to ban red snapper fishing in the South Atlantic
    passed on a very contentious seven to six vote within the
    council.
        Need for stock assessments. Appendix one of my written
    testimony is a copy of the letter from eight U.S. Senators to
    the Comptroller General dated February the 28th. They are
    concerned that NOAA does not place a high-enough priority on
    conducting robust, peer-reviewed stock assessments in the
    Southeast, and we totally agree with that letter.
        Additional transparency. MSA says--and I quote--
    ``Conservation and management measures shall be based upon the
    best scientific information available.'' Unfortunately, the
    councils in the Southeast are forced to use imprecise
    information as the best information available. We know that a
    transparent stock assessment process would create better
    options for management.
        NOAA law enforcement. We believe transferring NOAA's law
    enforcement division to another agency separating fisheries
    management from fisheries law enforcement would reduce discord.
    We believe that many regulations are approved by the councils
    to make law enforcement easier, at the expense sometimes of
    fishermen who can't fish in the areas where the fish are. It is
    easier to draw a straight line.
        But if the present law enforcement system continues, we
    believe that the MSA fines should be used for cooperative
    fisheries dependent and fisheries independent research, and we
    think they ought to establish a mandatory training school for
    anyone that violates the provisions of MSA.
        Catch-shares. We believe the catch-shares program should be
    in the council's toolbox, but only used if there is a current
    peer-reviewed stock assessment for the fishery under
    consideration, and if the entire fishing community is involved
    in the process and if the catch-shares remain with the
    commercial fishing sector. We do not think they should be
    traded on the open market. We think that they are there to help
    sustainable harvest of fish for the market. That is where they
    ought to be.
        State noncompliance in the Gulf of Mexico. Texas and
    perhaps Louisiana are noncompliant with the Gulf Council's red
    snapper management regulations. Florida seems poised to go that
    same direction at their next council meeting. And if they do,
    that will leave Alabama and Mississippi alone not in
    compliance, and they will probably be forced to become
    noncompliant, just to stay with the rest of their sister
    States.
        Right now the Gulf is looking for 27-day fishing season for
    recreational fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico. That is not very
    many days. NOAA's analysis of the 2013 red snapper season
    length shows that the days could be increased, or shows how it
    could be increased, by reallocating the consumer's share of the
    red snapper quota to the sport fishermen. Even if NOAA
    reallocated the entire 4.3 million pounds of consumers current
    quota, there might be a 54-day recreational fishing season, but
    there would be zero red snapper on the market. Such action
    would take Gulf Red Snapper from the fully accountable sector
    and gift them to an unaccountable sector. Honest, transparent,
    peer-reviewed stock assessments would remove most of the
    scientific controversy in the Southeast, and significantly
    diminish the fishing industry's distrust of NOAA.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:]

                  Statement of Bob Jones, Executive Director,
         Southeastern Fisheries Association, Inc., Tallahassee, Florida

        Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, Good Morning
        My name is Bob Jones. I am the executive director of Southeastern
    Fisheries Association (SFA), serving in that capacity since June 1964.
    SFA was formed in 1952 and currently represents over 350 seafood
    companies employing over 5,000 men and women engaged in every type of
    seafood harvesting and processing of seafood from Texas through North
    Carolina with worldwide distribution of our products. We have member
    companies in Cape May, New Jersey (Lund's Fisheries) and New Bedford,
    Massachusetts (Packaging Products Corporation). We promote
    sustainability. We are leaders in fighting seafood fraud, and promoting
    safe, traceable, seafood.
        From a historical perspective, I served on the U.S. State
    Department Ocean Affairs Advisory Committee in the late 1960s under
    Ambassador Don McKernan. Two of the main issues we debated during that
    time were the Law of the Sea Treaty and the creation of an Exclusive
    Fishing Zone from U.S. shoreline out to 200 miles. We are still
    debating the Law of the Sea Treaty, but Congress did create the Fishery
    Conservation and Management Act (FCMA). I was appointed by Elliot
    Richardson, U.S. Secretary of Commerce, to the original Gulf of Mexico
    Fishery Management Council in 1976. I served as Vice Chairman from 1976
    to 1979 and as Chairman in 1980.
        Chairman Hastings listed major fishery management issues in his
    invitation. I submit the following:
    Modification of the Annual Catch Limit (ACL) requirement
        The Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) should be amended, mandating that
    each Regional Fishery Management Council set an Allowable Biological
    Catch (ABC) based upon guidance from its Scientific & Statistical
    Committee (SSC) instead of having the Scientific and Statistical
    Committee (SSC) independently setting an ABC. If this amendment is
    adopted, and some Council prefers their SSC to continue to set the ABC,
    those Councils could opt out of the amendment. Also, we do not believe
    appropriate ACL's can be determined without quantifiable stock
    assessments. We believe it is inappropriate to require ACL's to be
    established for stocks that have not had a comprehensive stock
    assessment in the past five years.
        This amendment to MSA would force a SSC to reach a consensus when
    presenting its ABC recommendations to their Council. Any significant
    deviation from the SSC recommendation for ABC would be discussed and
    debated by the council at a public meeting and made part of the
    administrative record.
        When the MSA was amended in 2006, giving the SSCs total control
    over all allowable harvest, great concern about the survival of the
    fishing industry in our region was expressed. Our concerns in 2006 are
    still valid in 2013.
        I was told many years ago by a red snapper expert, a fish stock
    assessment can be accomplished by using only two fish. At the time I
    scoffed at this. Then I learned the hard way that he was correct. He
    didn't qualify how good the stock assessment would be or that it could
    be much more robust using up-to-date empirical data. Instead, he used
    what NOAA decided was the ``best available data'' and thus the original
    red snapper stock assessment estimate for the Gulf of Mexico became
    doctrine.
        SSCs recommendations often focus exclusively on the estimated
    status of fish stocks while excluding adequate concern about
    corresponding social and economic factors. An MSA amendment should
    require more consideration of these two key factors.
        NOAA's National Standard 1 (NS1) guidelines mandate a calculation
    and allowance for ``uncertainty.'' The ``uncertainty factor'' should be
    buffered by social and economic factors. We are not aware of any
    explicit mechanisms NOAA has for incorporating social and economic
    factors into their calculations of what ``uncertainty'' is.
        ``Uncertainty'' is hard to define and should be removed from the
    process unless it is properly quantified in a guideline; and
    comprehensive stock assessments must actually be performed. SSC
    committee members can discuss methods to try this or try that, but
    unless the basic stock assessment data is real, and contemporaneous,
    SSC conclusions concerning uncertainty are meaningless. For example, it
    was recently determined that the estimated historical recreational
    catch of red snapper in the South Atlantic region was five times too
    high because of a computer error. We think that error had a lot to do
    with red snapper fishing being banned from Virginia to Key West for the
    last two years.
        From an ethical perspective, participants of each SSC should
    declare their affiliations with any Non-Government Organization (NGO)--
    past and present--and should sign a declaration if that NGO has
    received grants from NOAA. If SSC members are employed by NOAA in any
    fashion we believe they should not be a voting member of the SSC.
        To NOAA's credit there has been improvement in the SSC and SEDAR
    process of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management
    Councils in the last few years, but there is still a strong need for
    more transparency and open dialogue with the fishing industry.
        A major reason for modifying the Annual Catch Limit (ACL)
    requirement is the fact that the science center in the southeast does
    not allow stakeholders or the council, to review their sampling
    protocols which determine what science makes the list of ``best
    available data''. The doctrine of ``best available data'' is not
    workable as currently used. The Fishery Management Councils and their
    respective SSC must develop standards for what constitutes ``best
    available data. ``
        Unless a Council reviews the annual data collection methods and
    results of such methods, there will be less confidence in the science.
    From our perspective, it takes an act of Congress (and that might not
    even be strong enough) to review the scientific protocols used to
    control fishing in federal waters. The Science Centers should provide
    every aspect of computer modeling used to control our nation's
    fisheries. The Councils should review the NOAA sampling protocols on an
    annual basis and share same with our fishing communities. I paraphrase
    a quote by Sir Winston Churchill made in 1939 in which he said, ``I
    cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle wrapped in
    a mystery inside an enigma.'' We believe the NOAA Science Center in the
    southeast is an ``enigma, within an impenetrable conclave shrouded by a
    stone mountain.''
    Port samplers
        More port sampling, more tagging of red snapper using commercial
    and recreational fishermen, would give credence to the science being
    used by the southeast science center. The lack of an adequate number of
    Port Samplers is a major problem for the southeast. We believe the
    number of samplers today is the same or less than NOAA authorized
    nearly three decades ago. We understand NOAA funds state agencies,
    through the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission who hire state
    personnel to supplement the sampling done by the contracted NOAA port
    samplers. Funding state personnel for port sampling rather than using
    them for more robust biological sampling (age/growth empirical data),
    results in less than adequate stock assessment science. We need more
    port samplers and we need the kind of biological data that can best be
    obtained by state biologists working on or near the water.
        Contemporaneous port sampling data is critical to prevent NOAA's
    premature closure of fisheries. Many times the amount of fish
    authorized by a quota for commercial fishing are ``left on the table''
    and lost to the consumers. If the science centers in the southeast
    would open their doors and let stakeholders see what they do, and how
    they do it, much of the angst and mistrust of government would
    disappear. We don't believe the MSA prevents transparency within NOAA.
        One of our speakers noted at a meeting in Miami, ``Without valid
    measurements of the fish stock, harvesting cannot be made proportional
    to abundance. Without valid measurements, model predictions cannot be
    tested for accuracy. Without accurate predictions, you cannot in good
    faith, use the models in management. Wherever a quota is based upon
    mixed stocks, it over exploits the small stocks and under exploits the
    large stocks. Given sufficient time under this type of fishing regime,
    the assumption of one fish stock in large ocean areas should come true
    (at the expense of genetic diversity).''
        To the fishing industry his statement means, ``If you cannot
    measure it, you cannot manage it.''
    Additional flexibility in rebuilding timeframes
        We urgently need to employ flexibility to reach optimal judgments
    to rebuild fisheries in these austere economic times. Flexibility would
    significantly reduce suffering in our fishing communities because of
    fishing regulations based on incomplete or absent scientific
    information. A further reduction in fishing effort for red snapper in
    the South Atlantic instead of the total fishing ban enacted on a 7 to 6
    vote would not have harmed the red snapper rebuilding process, and
    would have kept fishermen working and protected our seafood industry
    infrastructure.
        NOAA needs a process for creative management adjustments providing
    assistance to the beleaguered recreational and commercial communities
    experiencing one of the greatest economic downturns in our history.
    This harsh economy was not perceived in 2006 when MSA was reauthorized.
    The social and economic realities of today must be weighed more
    seriously by NOAA and the councils.
        Fishing ``communities'' must be fully defined and receive more
    consideration by the councils. The traditional, independent seafood
    markets that depend on a consistent and varied supply of domestic
    seafood must be considered from an economic and social viewpoint. Just
    as the sustainability of fish stocks is a critical aspect of current
    fishery management policy, there should be careful and deliberate
    consideration of the socioeconomic sustainability for the human
    community supported by those same fish stocks.
        These thousands of small businesses require local seafood for
    customers from the entire economic spectrum. Not everyone can afford
    jumbo shrimp or lump crabmeat, but they can afford whiting, flounder,
    bee liners, mahi, yellowtail snapper, black sea bass and a favorite Key
    West delicacy--grunts and grits.
        The MSA should allow a management regime and harvest system for as
    many different species of fish, even in small amounts, available for as
    much of the year as possible. Flexibility would benefit the consumers
    by having a variety of highly nutritious and healthy local seafood
    items on the market all year long.
        Not every group supports more flexibility and use court decisions
    to support their position that there is too much flexibility already.
    Following are the comments filed by the World Wildlife Foundation
    concerning National Standard 2 (NS2) in which they write: ``Although
    some procedural constraints apply to NOAA Fisheries when determining
    the best science, the existing procedure allows far too much
    flexibility (emphasis added) to make the ``best scientific information
    available'' standard effective. There are several baseline rules
    established by the courts that NOAA must follow:
              In developing its administrative record, NOAA
            Fisheries may rely on research science, commercial data,
            regulatory science, and agency research.
              NOAA Fisheries has no obligation to seek out
            information not available in the general scientific literature.
              NOAA Fisheries may choose to ignore relevant
            scientific studies only if it states a basis for doing so.
              NOAA Fisheries must extrapolate from limited data,
            even in light of potential increased error, when the necessary
            means to produce more reliable information is infeasible.
              NOAA Fisheries must also consider any significant
            information of which it is made aware of by interested persons.
              If NOAA Fisheries fails to recognize relevant
            research or establish its reasons for doing so, it risks having
            its decision overturned by the court.
              In the event the court determines that NOAA's
            decision is arbitrary and capricious, the court must ``remand
            to NOAA Fisheries for additional investigation or
            explanation.''
        We suggest the Committee examine these court based requirements. If
    MSA needs to be amended to address any of them to improve fisheries
    management, it should be done.
        MSA should mandate that there be a certain allocation of scientific
    data collection for each fishery which is closed to harvest in the EEZ.
    When no fishing is allowed, scientists miss the age/growth data that
    could be collected every day. Nobody has any facts on the relative
    abundance of a stock of fish if there is no harvest. NOAA could hire
    commercial and recreational fishermen to work on cooperative research
    for fish harvested in their region. This committee might consider
    directing revenue generated by licensing and permitting into a special
    fund and mandate NOAA work with the states for implementation of
    fisheries management projects that generate up-to-date empirical data
    for stock assessments.
        Appendix 1 of my testimony is a copy of the letter to the
    Comptroller General dated February 28, 2013, from a bi-partisan group
    of eight U.S. Senators concerned that ``NOAA may not place a high-
    enough priority on conducting robust, peer-reviewed stock assessments
    on fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic.''
        The fishing industry supports this request for a GAO study knowing
    that if the basic stock assessment numbers used to manage a fishery are
    not correct, every regulation based on those numbers is suspect. We
    request the House Natural Resources Committee endorse the letter to the
    Comptroller General supporting the request for better stock
    assessments.
    Additional transparency for councils and councils SSCs
        MSA was created to promote the domestic fishing industry's optimal
    harvest of coastal fisheries for food and for recreational
    opportunities. Without total transparency of the management system,
    there is a possibility of creating under-utilized fisheries resources
    due to regulations based on imprecise and poor stock assessment data.
    Transparency begins before any data is entered into the computer for
    modeling.
        Transparency would better indicate true status of fish stocks after
    the hypothesis is stated, research is conducted and replicated then the
    conclusions are reached based on the results of the research. This is
    our understanding of the scientific method. We do not believe the
    conclusion should ever precede the hypothesis and only transparency
    will answer our doubts.
        All stakeholders should be able to review every aspect of the NOAA
    modeling process including assumptions, scientific theories and
    formulas that produce stock assessments the SSCs use to determine the
    ABC. We think much of the angst would be improved if NOAA's legal
    division published the revised MSA National Standard 2 (NS2) guidelines
    that have been held up for years.
        Section 301(a)(2) MSA says, ``Conservation and management measures
    shall be based upon the best scientific information available.''
    Unfortunately in our region NOAA and the councils are often forced to
    use poor and imprecise information as the ``best scientific information
    available.'' And to our dismay, NOAA alone decides what the ``best
    scientific information available'' is. We believe what ends up as
    ``best scientific information available'' should be examined by a peer-
    review entity that includes scientists outside the control of NOAA.
    Without honest peer-review NOAA's decisions are often seen as political
    science.
        Since 2008 the fishing industry and the general public have been
    asked to comment on portions of the NS2 after the Reauthorization of
    MSA in 2006. In 2010 the proposed rule for NS2 allowed further comment
    to be submitted. The final rule was expected to be published in the
    Federal Register by early 2012, but that deadline has come and gone.
    The latest information is the Office of General Counsel may finish
    their review by April 2013 and allow publication in the Federal
    Register sometime in the future.
        When the NS2 guidelines are finally adopted will we be able to
    examine them and suggest ways for more transparency at all stages of
    fishery management?
    New use of funds collected from fisheries fines and penalties
        We will not revisit the drama and trauma associated with the ill-
    conceived NOAA law enforcement's collection and expenditures of
    commercial fishing industry fines in the past. We complained about the
    way it operated because it was like a speed trap. In order to finance
    the law enforcement they had to make an ever increasing number of
    arrests and fine fishermen in huge amounts to perpetuate their
    operation. No law enforcement program should be funded based on how
    much money it can take from the user group they are regulating. We
    strongly believe all law enforcement should be funded from general
    revenue.
        I did not know the previous head of NOAA law enforcement, but I
    know the current one from working with him for several decades in
    Florida. He is an honest lawman who will drink coffee with you in the
    morning and arrest you the same afternoon if you break the law. He
    understands the responsibilities of a sworn officer and knows to never
    use the power of the badge and gun for a personal policy preference or
    vendetta. He is the kind of officer that protects us under the rule of
    law.
        There are many of us who would like the NOAA law enforcement
    division transferred to another agency in order to separate fish
    management from fish law enforcement. We believe regulations are
    written on many occasions to make law enforcement easier at the expense
    of fishermen being able to work where the fish are located. We realize
    a straight line is easier to patrol than a curved line, but with modern
    GPS equipment, vessels can easily stay outside of any type of line
    configuration. We believe there will be many more areas with buffer
    upon buffer built into the demarcation lines, establishing no fishing
    areas. This will become more serious as the push for large marine
    protected areas makes its way through the council process.
        If the current law enforcement system continues as it is, we
    believe fines from MSA fishing violations should be used to fund
    cooperative fisheries dependent and fisheries independent research
    projects and to establish a mandatory training program for MSA
    violators. The cooperative research projects would be managed by the
    states under a NOAA protocol. The mandatory training of those who
    violate fishing regulations in the EEZ would be conducted by the state
    agencies in conjunction with NOAA fishery managers. The fines would not
    go to the NOAA law enforcement division, but to specific data gathering
    programs and a strong education program to reduce fishing violations.
    Definition and restrictions on catch share management programs
        The Southeastern Fisheries Association believes catch-share
    initiatives should be a tool in NOAA's toolbox, but only used if there
    is a current, complete stock assessment for the fishery under
    consideration and only if the entire fishing community is involved in
    the process. As I stated before, stock assessments must be developed in
    a totally transparent manner, because everything that follows,
    including the stringent regulations, depend on the stock assessment
    documents.
        We are not suggesting specific changes in the current Gulf of
    Mexico red snapper catch-share program. However, we believe when red
    snapper quotas are increased, fishermen in areas where red snapper have
    become abundant, should be allowed to enter the red snapper fishery. We
    believe catch-shares allocated to the consumers (through the commercial
    catch-share holders) should never be sold or traded to any individual
    or entity to remove them from commercial harvest and therefore the
    marketplace. Catch shares must stay in the commercial fishing sector
    for consumers.
        The fish that live in our defined areas of the ocean belong to all
    the citizens and are managed under the provisions of the MSA. Most non-
    boaters have the opportunity to enjoy a predetermined share of fish
    through sustainable harvests by federally licensed commercial
    fishermen. The amount of fish awarded under a catch-share regime must
    continue as a commercial fishing harvest in order to preserve non-
    boaters access to fresh, local seafood.
    Non-compliance with federal fishery management plans in the Gulf of
            Mexico
        Southeastern Fisheries Association believes NOAA red snapper stock
    assessment does not reflect the actual status in the Gulf of Mexico.
    The small number of days NOAA allows for recreational red snapper
    fishing is causing great angst and alarm all along the Gulf. The true
    recreational harvest is suspect. NOAA's regulations count estimated
    number of pounds of red snapper instead of an accurate determination on
    the number of fish caught. This issue needs to be addressed and every
    aspect of the modeling used for determining the abundance of red
    snapper in the Gulf of Mexico should be open for review by any
    interested stakeholder.
        Because of such short red snapper recreational fishing seasons
    Texas and Louisiana will now be non-compliant with the federal fishery
    management plan. Florida seems poised to go noncompliant as well and
    that decision might force Alabama and Mississippi to join with their
    sister states. While going non-compliant allows states to manage the
    red snapper in their state waters, NOAA will determine what the states
    catch and will use that amount in calculating when the federal quota is
    reached. NOAA, more than likely, will further reduce the number of days
    for red snapper fishing in the Gulf of Mexico. There might be less than
    20 days red snapper recreational fishing in 2013 and the days will get
    less, as long as there is non-compliance or until more empirical data
    can be included in an updated stock assessment.
        The projected ABC for GOM red snapper in 2013 is 8.462 million
    pounds. The consumer's share (51%) is 4.310 million pounds, (harvested
    by commercial fishermen) and the recreational fishing share (49%) is
    4.146 million pounds. These allocation percentages reflect historical
    catches determined by easily accountable landing records for the
    commercial sector and random based surveys for the recreational sector
    which Congress mandated to be improved.
        NOAA presented a Power Point (Analysis of the 2013 Red Snapper
    Season Length-Southeast Regional Office-Jan. 7-8, 2013) that showed the
    following scenarios. Taking 0.5 million pounds from consumer's quota
    would allow a 31 day red snapper season. Taking 1.0 million pounds from
    consumer's quota would allow a 34 day red snapper season. Taking 1.5
    million pounds from consumer's quota would allow a 37 day red snapper
    season. Taking 2.0 million pounds from consumer's quota would allow a
    41 day red snapper season.
        It has been determined that if NOAA took all 4.3 million pounds of
    the consumer's quota, they might allow a 54 day red snapper
    recreational fishing season at the expense of zero domestic red snapper
    on the market. Such a decision would not pass the fair and equitable
    requirement.
        Southeastern Fisheries Association supports direct measurement of
    the abundance and distribution of fish stocks be gathered by repeated,
    independent, standardized surveys. Having scientists on the water
    through cooperative research projects with fishermen is one of the best
    ways to gather true ecological data. We believe traditional catch per
    unit of effort protocols using professional fishing gear and human
    visual estimates of fish numbers is necessary for collecting empirical
    data. It seems empirical data gathering has been deemphasized in favor
    of the less expensive development of theoretical models to estimate
    fish stock abundance.
        Thank you Mr. Chairman.
                                     ______

        [The letter submitted for the record by Mr. Jones follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                    ------

        The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Jones.
        Next we will go to Mr. Bob Shipp, who is Chair and
    Professor of the Department of Marine Sciences at the
    University of South Alabama, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

        STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT L. SHIPP, CHAIR AND PROFESSOR,
       DEPARTMENT OF MARINE SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH ALABAMA

        Dr. Shipp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Bob Shipp,
    and I am the Professor of Marine Sciences at the University of
    South Alabama. In addition, I have served 17 years on the Gulf
    of Mexico Fishery Management Council, three times elected Chair
    of the Council, and presently serve as Chair of the Council's
    Reef Fish Committee.
        The current management of reef species for the recreational
    sector in the Gulf of Mexico is failing. I am suggesting a
    shift in management authority, as described below. I am in
    support of increasing fishery management authority to the Gulf
    States by extending the States' authority to manage reef
    species of finfish out to 20 fathoms. I will address three
    fundamental reasons why this would be beneficial.
        First, most reef species, and especially red snapper,
    inhabit the Gulf waters to depths of 100 fathoms. So, by
    extending State authority to 20 fathoms in no way threatens
    optimum management of reef species. In fact, the Gulf States
    have excellent histories of successful fishery management. And
    it is in their best economic interests to optimally manage
    these species. Beyond 20 fathoms, the fishery management
    councils and National Marine Fishery Service would continue
    their authority.
        Second, I refer to language in National Standard 1 of the
    Magnuson Act: ``Prevent overfishing and achieve optimal
    yield.'' Recently we have been primarily concerned with
    ``prevent overfishing'' verbiage, often times ignoring
    achieving optimal yield. By allowing individual States to
    manage reef fish stocks to 20 fathoms would markedly improve
    the likelihood of achieving optimal yield.
        As an example, in Florida spotted sea trout, speckled
    trout, has a bag limit of four. In Louisiana, it is 25. This is
    because the habitat for spotted sea trout in Louisiana can
    support a stock with a larger yield. A similar situation exists
    for red snapper. Off the Alabama coast some 17,000 artificial
    reefs have been constructed. Each holds a tremendous number of
    red snapper, which could easily support a fishery with a far
    higher yield, an optimal yield, than the current 28-day season
    with a 2-fish bag limit.
        Third is a matter of logic. I was trained by the Jesuits,
    and one of the first required courses was logic. With red
    snapper populations, we have a conundrum of logic. Red snapper
    stocks are considered overfished. Projections of red snapper
    maximum sustainable yield made during the past 20 years have
    varied between 15 and 30 million pounds annually for the Gulf
    of Mexico. But we have never harvested more than 10 million
    pounds, and often much less than that.
        So, if a stock can yield 15 or more million pounds
    annually, but has never yielded anywhere near that number, how
    can it be overfished? There is an answer to this riddle. The
    habitat for red snapper has increased dramatically. Before
    World War II there was little or no red snapper harvest from
    the Northwestern Gulf, despite numerous attempts to locate
    productive fishery areas there.
        But from the mid-forties on, the harvest in the Western
    Gulf has increased dramatically. The reason? About 4,000
    petroleum platforms and thousands of artificial reefs.
    Currently, more than 60 percent of snapper harvest comes from
    these areas with artificial habitat. In total, the harvest
    potential of red snapper in the Gulf has increased. State
    management would insure every effort to maintain these habitats
    in near-shore waters.
        And related, the current practice of removing these
    platforms with explosives kills thousands of pounds of reef
    species. A recent video obtained by the NBC affiliate in Mobile
    revealed the mortality of about 10,000 pounds of red snapper at
    the surface. Divers tell me that probably four to five times
    that much is hidden beneath. Far better would be to dismantle
    these structures, lay them on their sides on the bottom, as is
    done in the ``rigs to reef'' program off Louisiana.
        So, we have the most valuable finfish in the Gulf of Mexico
    not being harvested at optimal yield, and with its habitat
    under duress. Reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens, as described
    above, would rectify this dilemma. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Shipp follows:]

        Statement of Dr. Robert L. Shipp, Professor of Marine Sciences,
        University of South Alabama, and Chair, Gulf of Mexico Fishery
                               Management Council

        My name is Bob Shipp, and I am a professor of Marine Sciences at
    the University of South Alabama. In addition I have served 17 years on
    the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, three times elected
    chair of the Council, and presently serve as chair of the Council's
    reef Fish Committee.
        The current management of reef species in the Gulf of Mexico is
    failing. I am suggesting a shift in the management authority as
    described below.
        I am in support of increasing fishery management authority to the
    Gulf states by extending the state's authority to manage reef species
    of finfish out to 20 fathoms. I will address three fundamental reasons
    why this would be beneficial.
        First, most reef species, and especially red snapper, inhabit the
    Gulf waters to depths of 100 fathoms. So by extending state authority
    to 20 fathoms in no way threatens optimal management of reef species.
    In fact, the Gulf states have excellent histories of successful fishery
    management, and it is in their best economic interests to optimally
    manage these species. Beyond 20 fathoms, the Fishery Management
    Councils and National Marine Fisheries Service would continue their
    authority.
        Second, I refer to the language of National Standard 1 of the
    Magnuson Act: ``prevent overfishing and achieve optimal yield.''
    Recently we have been primarily concerned with the ``prevent
    overfishing'' verbiage, often times ignoring ``achieving optimal
    yield.'' By allowing individual states to manage reef fish stocks to 20
    fathoms would markedly improve the likelihood of achieving optimal
    yield. As an example, in Florida spotted sea trout (=speckled trout)
    bag limit is 4. In Louisiana it is 25. This is because the habitat for
    spotted sea trout in Louisiana can support a stock with the larger
    yield. A similar situation exists for red snapper. Off the Alabama
    coast, some 17,000 artificial reefs have been constructed. Each holds a
    tremendous number of red snapper, which could easily support a fishery
    with a far higher yield, an optimal yield, than the current 28 day
    season with a 2 fish bag limit.
        Third is a matter of logic. I was trained by the Jesuits, and one
    of the first required courses was ``logic.'' With red snapper
    populations we have a conundrum of logic. Red snapper stocks are
    considered overfished. Projections of red snapper maximum sustainable
    yield (MSY) made during the past twenty years have varied between about
    15-30 million pounds annually for the Gulf of Mexico. But we have never
    harvested more than 10 million pounds, and often much less than that.
    So if a stock can yield 15 or more million pounds annually, but has
    never yielded anywhere near that number, how can it be overfished?
    There is an answer to this riddle. The habitat for red snapper has been
    increased dramatically. Before World War II, there was little or no red
    snapper harvest from the northwestern Gulf, despite numerous attempts
    to locate fishery productive areas there. But from the mid-forties on,
    the harvest in the western Gulf has increased dramatically. The reason?
    About 4,000 petroleum platforms, and thousands of artificial reefs.
    Currently more than sixty percent of snapper harvest comes from these
    areas with artificial habitat. In total the harvest potential of red
    snapper in the Gulf has increased.
        And related, the current practice of removing these platforms with
    explosives kills thousands of pounds of reef species. A recent video
    obtained by the NBC affiliate in Mobile, revealed a mortality of about
    10,000 pounds of red snapper at the surface. Divers tell me that
    probably 4 to 5 times that much is hidden beneath. Far better would be
    to dismantle these structures, lay them on their sides on the bottom,
    as is done in the ``rigs to reefs'' program off Louisiana.
        So we have the most valuable finfish fishery in the Gulf of Mexico
    not being harvested at optimal yield and with its habitat under duress.
    Reauthorization of Magnuson as described above would rectify this
    dilemma.
                                     ______

        The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Shipp.
        And next we will go to Mr. Bob Dooley, who is the President
    of the United Catcher Boats. Recognized for 5 minutes, Mr.
    Dooley.

               STATEMENT OF ROBERT E. DOOLEY, PRESIDENT,
                          UNITED CATCHER BOATS

        Mr. Dooley. Thank you. Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member
    Markey, members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity
    to testify before you today. My name is Bob Dooley. I am the
    President of United Catcher Boats, a trade association of 70
    commercial fishing vessels that participate in the Alaskan
    pollock, crab, cod, and West Coast groundfish fisheries. My
    brother, John, and I are co-owners of a commercial fishing
    business that operates three vessels from Alaska to the central
    coast of California. I have been a commercial fisherman for
    over 40 years.
        I would like to begin my testimony by stating that,
    overall, the MSA is an excellent law. But there are areas that
    need improvement or outright change. To that end, my testimony
    will focus on National Standard 1 guidelines, catch-shares, and
    industry agency collaboration.
        Underlying all my comments is a desire for a standard of
    reasonableness. Many of our concerns do not stem from the
    legislative language itself, but rather, from its
    interpretation and application. However, if the Agency and the
    councils cannot apply a standard of reasonableness, then
    Congress needs to amend the MSA to clarify the intent behind
    its various provisions.
        National Standard 1 states that conservation and management
    measures shall prevent overfishing, while achieving, on a
    continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery. UCB
    strongly supports this national standard. We must prevent
    overfishing, but we must also achieve optimum yield from each
    fishery.
        It is important to remember that the fundamental objectives
    of fisheries conservation and management is production of food
    and economic value on a long-term, sustainable basis. This is
    the reason that NOAA fisheries, the Regional Fishery Management
    Councils, and the MSA itself exist. If not, we should simply
    replace all of this with one line of Federal law: No fishing
    allowed. Such a law would certainly prevent overfishing.
    Needless to say, it would not produce optimum yield.
        Fish don't have calendars. Yet harvest targets are applied
    as if there are annual limits, when they should be applied as
    long-term averages. Maximum sustainable yield and optimum yield
    must be understood as dynamic in nature, subject to
    fluctuation, and objectives to be achieved on an average over
    the years. With reasonableness and flexibility, optimum yield
    itself becomes a powerful conservation mandate. Overfishing
    cannot provide OY. Optimum yield is essentially a call for
    long-term sustainability.
        UCB firmly believes that catch-shares should be a tool
    available to the Regional Fishery Management Councils. Our
    members participate in several successful catch-share programs,
    and are familiar with their many conservation and economic
    benefits. Measures such as fisherman-based risk pools,
    cooperative associations, and quota transferability are
    important components of a well-designed catch-share program.
        For example, West Coast groundfish went from a $38 million
    fishery before catch-shares to a $54 million fishery with
    dramatically reduced bycatch and discards under catch-shares.
    An example would be the whiting fleet, where the bycatch of
    canary rockfish was reduced by 79 percent, and for Pacific
    Ocean Perch the reduction was 96 percent.
        We strongly feel that catch-shares should be developed by
    the participants in the fishery at the regional level. MSA
    provides sufficient guidance to the councils on development and
    implementation of catch-share programs. Additional requirements
    are not needed at this time.
        UCB supports science-based fisheries management. We
    recognize that better data results in more robust fisheries.
    UCB has been on the forefront of cooperative management with
    fisheries managers. Examples of our efforts include the
    development of a salmon excluder for the mid-water pollock
    trawl fleet, funding and employment of trawl catcher vessels to
    assist in stock assessment surveys, and the collaboration of
    fishery data for Federal and State research projects.
        We believe such cooperative work should be incentivized and
    encouraged. When managed under a catch-share program, UCB
    believes the cost of such activities should be included as a
    credit when calculating cost recovery fees.
        In conclusion, UCB believes the MSA is a strong and largely
    well-crafted piece of legislation with a proud history of 40
    years of fisheries governance. With changes to the law to
    address the issues outlined in this testimony, we believe it
    will ensure robust and sustainable U.S. fisheries, fisheries
    that will help feed our Nation and promote economic stability
    for decades to come. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Dooley follows:]

         Statement of Robert E. Dooley, President, United Catcher Boats

        Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member Markey, and Members of the
    Committee; thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today
    regarding the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
    My name is Bob Dooley. I am the President of United Catcher Boats and
    co-owner of a commercial fishing operation with my brother John.
        John and I have lived in Half Moon Bay, CA our entire lives and
    have been commercial fishermen for over 40 years. Our families have
    been active in commercial fishing and it's supporting businesses on the
    West Coast for over 70 years. Over the course of our careers we have
    owned and operated several vessels. To this day we operate 2 vessels in
    the Bering Sea Pollock, Cod and West Coast Pacific Whiting fisheries
    and one in the state-managed Dungeness Crab fishery.
        United Catcher Boats (UCB) is a trade association of 70 commercial
    fishing vessels that participate in the Alaskan Pollock, Alaskan crab,
    and West Coast groundfish fisheries. Our vessels are called catcher
    boats because that is all we do--we catch fish and deliver our catch
    ``in the round'' to processing facilities. We do not process the fish,
    even minimally. UCB is deeply committed to science-based management of
    fishery resources.
        I would like to begin my testimony by stating that overall, the
    Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation & Management Act (MSA) is an
    excellent law. Under it, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council
    has been able to manage robust, valuable, and healthy fish stocks.
    However, it is the nature of congressional testimony that it focus not
    on those aspects of the law that work well but on those that need
    improvement or outright change. To that end, my testimony will focus on
    the following issues:
              National Standard #1 Guidelines
              Catch Shares
              Accountability Measures
              State-Federal Fishery Management Plan Coordination &
            Consistency
              Bycatch
              Cooperative Management.
        Overarching all of the following comments is a desire for a
    ``Standard of Reasonableness'' for implementation of the requirements
    of the MSA. Many of our concerns do not stem from the legislative
    language itself but from NOAA Fisheries and the Councils interpretation
    and application thereof. However, if the agency and the councils cannot
    apply a ``Standard of Reasonableness'' then Congress needs to amend the
    MSA to clarify the intent behind its various provisions.
    National Standard #1 Guidelines
        National Standard #1 states that Conservation and management
    measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing
    basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for the United States
    fishing industry. UCB strongly supports this national standard. We must
    prevent overfishing. We also must achieve optimum yield from each
    fishery.
        It is important to remember that the fundamental objective of
    fisheries conservation and management is the production of food and
    economic value on a long-term sustainable basis. This is the reason
    that NOAA Fisheries, the Regional Fishery Management Councils, and the
    MSA itself exist. If not, we can simply replace all of it with one line
    of federal law prohibiting commercial fishing. Such a law would
    certainly prevent overfishing. Needless to say, it would not produce
    optimum yield.
        National Standard #1 (NS1) is well written. Achieving optimum yield
    is an equal objective to the prevention of overfishing. Unfortunately,
    the Guidelines for implementation of NS1 issued by NOAA Fisheries do
    not allow this balanced approach. Under the Guidelines, overfishing is
    certainly prevented but optimum yield is essentially impossible to
    achieve. The emphasis on ending and preventing overfishing over the
    past decade has essentially resulted in ``underfishing'' in several
    fisheries. This is not consistent with NS1.
        Fisheries are now subject to a literal array of harvest targets.
    There is an Overfishing Limit (OFL), Allowable Biological Catch (ABC),
    Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY), Optimum Yield (OY), Total Allowable
    Catch (TAC), an Annual Catch Limit (ACL), and a Maximum Fishing
    Mortality Threshold (MFMT). This array is not only confusing; it is
    often contradictory, and needlessly inefficient.
        The fisheries management process needs to recognize that Maximum
    Sustainable Yield (MSY) and Optimum Yield (OY) are long-term averages,
    not yearly mandates. The MSA needs to be amended to make this principal
    explicit.
        Fish don't have calendars. Yet all of these harvest targets are
    applied as if they are annual limits when in reality several are better
    defined as and should be applied as long-term averages. We are not
    suggesting that a fishery be allowed to exceed the OFL year after year
    and never address the issue. Rather, we are suggesting that the targets
    of Maximum Sustained Yield (MSY) and Optimum Yield (OY) be understood
    as dynamic in nature, subject to fluctuation, and objectives to be
    achieved on average over the years.
    Rollovers, or overages and underages of catch targets can be and should
            be allowed to carry over from year to year so long as the
            prevention of overfishing and the long-term achievement of OY
            occur.
        In addition, the rigidness of ACLs is undermining improvements in
    fisheries science and fishing practices. In the North Pacific, the OFL
    for pollock is 2.550 million metric tons and the ACL is 1.247 million
    mt. Yet when the industry applies for an Experimental Fishing Permit
    (EFP) to test salmon and halibut excluders, NOAA Fisheries has recently
    determined that it cannot allow the EFP-caught fish to exceed the ACL.
    Harvesting fish under this permit is research and catch volumes
    associated with that research would not pose a risk of overfishing
    occurring. Furthermore, the stock assessment author counts the research
    removals as mortality so it is accounted for in the stock assessment.
    For years this practice was widely regarded as acceptable and
    sustainable, but recently the agency has taken a hard line approach and
    interpreted these ACLs as hard caps even when catch is nowhere near the
    overfishing level. The unfortunate and ironic result has been an
    unnecessary reduction in research to spur fishery innovations that
    would improve and advance sustainable fishing practices.
        We all recognize that there is uncertainty in fisheries science.
    Fishermen know about uncertainty all too well. We recognize that the
    weaker the science is to base fisheries management on, the more
    conservative such management needs to be. What is needed is a
    reasonable application of this precautionary approach.
        Under the NS1 Guidelines, the only way to address scientific
    uncertainty is to further reduce the allowable harvest below levels
    that would generate optimum yield. This virtually guarantees that the
    Magnuson-Stevens Act goal of ``attaining optimum yield'' will not be
    met. Such an outcome is not necessary because there are several other
    management options available to address uncertainty.
        For example, when closed areas are established for habitat
    protection, for bycatch reduction, or any similar goal they can, in
    certain circumstances, have the added effect of protecting a sub-
    population of a fish stock within that area. This helps ensure that the
    long-term goal of attaining optimum yield is achieved, and by
    definition is a hedge against uncertainty. However, when these types of
    protections are put in place no credit is given to their role in
    addressing uncertainty. The agency insists that catch reductions are
    the only viable tool for addressing uncertainty.
        Identical to the need for reasonableness and flexibility in the
    application of NS1 harvest caps is the need for such when establishing
    rebuilding targets and timelines for overfished stocks. There is
    nothing scientific about the arbitrary ten-year rebuilding period
    required by the MSA.
        Let me be clear. Overfished stocks need to be rebuilt. Even if NS1
    did not call for the prevention of overfishing, the achievement of OY
    itself requires overfished stocks to be rebuilt so that food production
    and economic benefits can be realized. There is no magic timeline,
    however. Instead of an arbitrary fixed rebuilding period of ten years,
    rebuilding timelines should be allowed to be established by the
    Regional Fishery Management Council consistent with the biology of the
    fish stock, the needs of fishing communities, and the NS1 requirements
    to prevent overfishing and achieve optimum yield on a continuing basis.
        A reasonable application of NS1 to rebuilding would not allow
    overfished stocks to remain so indefinitely. A perpetually overfished
    stock that is not rebuilding is fundamentally inconsistent with the NS1
    standard of achieving OY.
        With reasonableness and flexibility, Optimum Yield itself becomes a
    powerful conservation mandate. Overfished stocks cannot provide OY.
    Ongoing overfishing undermines achieving OY on a continuous basis.
    Understood as the long-term production of optimum levels of food
    production and economic benefits from a fishery, optimum yield is
    essentially a call for sustainability.
    Catch Shares
        UCB firmly believes that catch shares should be available to the
    regional fishery management councils as one among many conservation and
    management tools. UCB members are very familiar with the benefits of
    catch share programs, participating in American Fisheries Act Pollock
    cooperative and the Alaskan crab IFQ program, both of which were
    approved by Congress, as well as the west coast groundfish catch share
    program. Our catch share programs have provided incredible conservation
    and economic benefits. For example, west coast groundfish went from a
    $38 million fishery before catch shares to a $54 million fishery with
    dramatically reduced bycatch and discards under catch shares. In the
    whiting fleet, for example, bycatch of canary rockfish was reduced by
    79 percent, and for Pacific Ocean perch, the reduction was 96 percent.
        As I stated in my April 2010 testimony before the Subcommittee on
    Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife of this Committee, catch shares
    should be initiated and driven by the participants in the fishery. The
    west coast groundfish catch share program was developed from the ground
    up with full participation of all stakeholders in the fishery from
    Southern California to Northern Washington. It was not an example of
    NOAA Headquarters in Washington, DC trying to impose catch shares on
    the fishery. The PFMC established a special stakeholders committee that
    included a very broad membership including fishermen, processors, NGOs
    and community representatives. Out of this open process came a
    preferred option for an IFQ-based system for the shoreside fisheries
    and a Co-opbased system for the offshore Whiting fisheries.
        The MSA provides sufficient guidance to the Councils on the
    development and implementation of catch share programs. Additional
    requirements are not needed at this time. Within the existing
    framework, the Councils have the ability to develop catch share
    programs on fishery-by-fishery basis so they address the particular
    objectives and needs of the fishery. Important to note is under current
    MSA law, the Councils may chose not to develop catch share programs. In
    particular, UCB does not support proposals to include sunset provisions
    or similar catch share terminations in the MSA. Such time restrictions
    undermine the very utility of catch share programs by removing the
    certainty that catch shares provide fishermen. This certainty empowers
    fishermen to make better operational decisions resulting in improved
    conservation and economic outcomes. Long-term investment stability
    directly leads to improved safety-at-sea conditions for vessels.
        Multi-species catch share programs like the west coast trawl IQ
    program require proper measures to insure that hoarding of small
    allocations of constraining species do not thwart the intentions of the
    program. Measures such as fishermen-based risk pools, cooperative
    associations, and an emphasis on allowing fishermen to transfer quota
    during the season are important components to a well-designed catch
    share program.
    Accountability
        UCB members have long participated in federal fishery observer
    programs. We recognize the value and utility of such programs.
    Observers collect valuable fisheries data and help ensure compliance
    with conservation and management measures. Accountability assures
    sustainability but needs affordability. Observers in combination with
    ongoing technology advances such as electronic-monitoring systems (EM)
    are important components of good fisheries management but they need to
    be cost-effective. In the North Pacific, the industry bears the full
    cost of observers and always has. In West Coast groundfish we soon
    will. Other regions should do the same.
        Since we pay for the cost of observer programs, we are extremely
    sensitive to the costs associated with them. Such industry expenditures
    should be included in the cost recovery calculations for catch share
    programs.
        In most fisheries, 100% Human observer coverage is not necessary to
    ensure good data collection or compliance with regulations. A
    statistical subsample of fishing activity would suffice. Greater than
    100% coverage is simply superfluous. For example, in the west coast
    groundfish trawl fishery, observers are placed on mothership catcher
    vessels even though fish never touch the deck of the vessel. These
    fishing vessels mid-water trawl for whiting, pull up the net but leave
    the codend in the water from where it is directly transferred to the
    mothership, where there is an observer onboard. There is literally
    nothing for the observers on these vessels to observe.
        We need to transition away from physically present observers to
    potentially more cost effective electronic monitoring systems.
    Electronic Monitoring might not be potentially more cost effective
    because some NOAA Fisheries personnel want to design and implement EM
    systems that collect all conceivable forms of data. They are designing
    Cadillacs when all we need are reliable Chevys. Such elaborate EM
    systems will reduce if not eliminate the potential cost savings.
    Electronic monitoring systems should be designed and implemented in
    response to a specific problem statement that clearly identifies the
    data needed to ensure accountability. For example, in a full retention
    fishery an EM system that can identify the species of fish being
    discarded is superfluous since any discard is a violation of the
    fishery management plan. A high-tech camera is not needed to discern if
    a discard event has occurred.
        Finally, commercial fishermen are not the only fishery participants
    that need to be held accountable. In many fisheries, charter and
    recreational fishing activities and harvest have a dramatic impact on
    fish stocks. These catches and their compliance with conservation and
    management measures need to be held much more accountable than is
    current practice. Tools such as VMS, AIS, check-in/check-out
    requirements, logbook accounting and perhaps observer coverage should
    be considered.
    State-Federal FMP Coordination & Consistency
        As you know, the MSA governs fisheries outside of state waters and
    inside the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Of course, fish do not
    recognize these boundaries. Many fish stocks managed under the MSA are
    also managed by various States within their waters. In some cases, the
    State management plans can be contradictory or even undermine the
    conservation and management objectives of the federal FMP. Uncontrolled
    fishing effort within state waters can lead to the overcapitalization
    of a federally rationalized fishery. Effective coordination between
    state and federal fishery managers is required. For example, the Bering
    Sea crab fisheries are jointly managed under a `framework' arrangement
    between the State of Alaska and the federal government. This agreement
    clearly details the jurisdiction, authority and responsibility of each
    government and the result is a successful management program that
    governs stock assessment, effort control, harvest record keeping and
    also a newly established catch share program for the crab industry.
        UCB believes State fishery management plans for stocks of fish
    predominantly managed by the federal regional fishery management
    councils should be subject to review and approval by the Secretary of
    Commerce for compatibility with the federal FMP. States should be
    required to meet or exceed the conservation and management standards of
    the federal FMP. States that have no fisheries management for a
    federally managed stock should be required to develop one or have the
    federal FMP reach into state waters.
        UCB also believes that went a designated fish stock is fully
    utilized by a developed fishery and the federal management of such
    fishery is well defined, the states should not be allowed to establish
    a new fishery that utilizes the same fish stock. This leads to
    `leakage' in management and can result in overfishing of the fish stock
    or overcapitalization of the fishing fleet. One stock of concern we
    have in Alaska is Pacific Cod.
    Bycatch
        National Standard #9 requires bycatch and the mortality thereof to
    be minimized to the extent practicable. In many cases this is more of
    an allocation issue than a conservation issues.
        Nonetheless, UCB supports the principal of minimizing bycatch.
    Again, however, a standard of reasonableness needs to be applied. In
    the North Pacific, many bycatch limits are set as hard numerical caps
    that have no relationship to natural variability of the fish stock.
    When stocks are low, the numerical cap may provide very little benefit.
    When stocks are high, the cap may be overly constraining and if
    exceeded may have little or no impact on stock. UCB supports proper
    bycatch management programs in order to insure the conservation of all
    fish stocks. However, these measures need to be reasonable and also
    allow input into the design and management by fishermen.
    Cooperative Management
        As previously mentioned, UCB believes strongly in science-based
    fisheries management. We recognize that the better the data the more
    robust the fisheries management. There are many instances were industry
    supports the collection of fisheries data: industry-funded observers,
    industry-funded surveys, Experimental Fishing Permits, and industry-
    charter work for fisheries scientists. We believe such cooperative work
    should be incentivized and encouraged. The costs of such activities
    should be included as a credit when calculating cost recovery for catch
    share programs. Retention of catch and the calculation of such outside
    of ACLs should also be allowed. UCB has been on the forefront of
    cooperative management with the federal fishery managers. Examples of
    our efforts include the development of a salmon excluder for the mid-
    water pollock trawl fleet, funding and deploying trawl catcher vessels
    to assist in stock assessment survey work, and the collaboration of
    fishery data for federal and state research scientists. This is one
    area of focus that needs further development and can lead to cost
    savings for the federal government.
    Conclusion
        UCB believes the MSA is a strong and largely well-crafted and
    implemented piece of legislation with a proud history of 40 years of
    fishery governance. With changes to the law to address the issues
    outlined in this testimony, we believe it will ensure robust and
    sustainable U.S. fisheries that help feed the nation and promote
    economic stability for decades to come. As the Congress once again
    proceeds with its work to reauthorize the MSA, we look forward to the
    opportunity to provide meaningful ideas and suggestions for you to
    consider. Stakeholder participation is one of the founding principles
    of the original Magnuson Act and has proven to be useful over the past
    4 decades of fishery management.
                                     ______

        The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Dooley.
        Next I will recognize Mr. John Pappalardo, Chief Executive
    Officer of the Cape Code Commercial Hook Fishermen's
    Association.
        Mr. Pappalardo, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF JOHN PAPPALARDO, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CAPE COD
                COMMERCIAL HOOK FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATION

        Mr. Pappalardo. Thank you, Chairman Hastings, Ranking
    Member Markey, members of the Committee. Thank you for the
    opportunity today. My name is John Pappalardo, and I am CEO of
    the Cape Code Commercial Hook Fishermen's Association, an
    organization started over 20 years ago by local small-boat
    independent fishermen. Our members catch around 12 million
    pounds of seafood, annually, worth $17 million. Between 2002
    and 2011, I also served on the New England Fishery Management
    Council, with the last 5 years as its Chairman.
        While many look to New England and see the failure of our
    codfish fishery, I think it is important to remember to look at
    our successes, as well. I think about scallops, monkfish, and
    dogfish when I think about our successes. It is important to
    note that these successes were accomplished through the
    Magnuson-Stevens Act that we have today.
        We think the law is working, but we think it needs
    improvement in implementation. We must move forward to rebuild
    and maintain our fish stocks by providing managers and the
    fishing industry with data and resources necessary to run our
    fisheries with annual catch limits. I have ideas on how to do
    that, and I would be happy to answer questions afterwards about
    that.
        While the law set a tall order with annual catch limits, we
    think it is the right one. We think it can work. And we think
    it is the only way forward. We must make a commitment to
    providing our communities with innovative ways to create a
    fishing future, and make existing programs currently available
    to other industries in the United States also available to the
    fishing industry.
        We need to start managing our marine ecosystem as the
    dynamic and interwoven environment that it is. While annual
    catch limits are the cornerstone of Magnuson-Stevens, they also
    demand annual stock assessments. And annual stock assessments
    are resource and data-hungry--we think the industry needs to be
    engaged and involved in creating those annual stock
    assessments. We currently don't have annual stock assessments
    to set annual catch limits. We think that is a problem.
        Real-time data and accountability are also important, if we
    are going to manage our fisheries sustainably. Comprehensive
    observer coverage and information about the fish brought on
    board are a necessity for managers. But, unfortunately, our
    fishing industry can't afford to pay for these observers at
    this time. But we need that information if we are going to take
    delivery on the promise of Magnuson-Stevens.
        So, we think better, faster, and cheaper information is
    something that managers need, and we think the current system
    isn't delivering that, at least in New England. So we believe
    we should start to look for public and private partnerships to
    fill the gaps that currently exist.
        Our communities in New England need support. The challenges
    we are facing are very real. It isn't enough to be a good
    hunter of fish. Fishermen today need to be sophisticated
    businessmen to navigate all the regulations and requirements.
    My organization started a community permit bank in 2005 to
    provide diversity of access to fishing opportunities for
    fishermen on Cape Cod. We keep seafood landed in our
    communities, and we provide good, stable, crew jobs and
    opportunities for fishermen to access resources that they
    otherwise wouldn't have access to.
        I work with fishermen every day. They spend their lives on
    the water. Not a week goes by without one of these guys coming
    into my office and telling me how important it is to manage the
    ocean, while considering how all species interact. From herring
    to cod and from skate to seal. They talk about how the
    increased abundance of one stock can directly impact another,
    and about how important the improved protection of critical
    habitat is for some of our most depleted and important
    resources, such as codfish.
        While they never use the words ``ecosystem-based
    management,'' that is what they are talking about. That is the
    approach that their lifetime of experience on the water tells
    them is essential. And I think it is time we moved in that
    direction when we manage our fisheries.
        In conclusion, we must move forward to rebuild our fish
    stocks and keep them there. We need to expand accountability,
    improve our annual stock assessments, and come up with
    innovative and cost-effective programs for gathering real-time
    information. We must make a commitment to providing our
    communities with the tools to invest in the future of their
    fishing economies. And we need to manage the entire ecosystem.
        Thank you. I would be happy to answer any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pappalardo follows:]

            Statement of John Pappalardo, Chief Executive Officer,
                Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's Association

        Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member Markey and Members of the
    Committee, my name is John Pappalardo. I am the CEO of the Cape Cod
    Commercial Hook Fishermen's Association (CCCHFA), an organization
    started over 20 years ago by independent small-boat fishermen on Cape
    Cod. We work with over 100 commercial fishing businesses catching 12
    million pounds of seafood worth $17 million each year, including cod
    and haddock, lobster, conch, scallops, monkfish, dogfish, skates, sea
    clams, striped bass and bluefin tuna. These businesses support hundreds
    of fishing families and form the backbone of our area's coastal
    economy. Between 2002 and 2011, I served on the New England Fishery
    Management Council, including five years as Chairman.
        The 2006 reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act was a wise
    step forward in fortifying our nation's fisheries laws by mandating
    better understanding of our marine resources, rebuilding depleted fish
    stocks, and holding fishermen accountable for their catch.
        I support that law because I see evidence of rebuilding fish
    populations and restoring profitable small fishing businesses. I see
    noteworthy success stories on Cape Cod and around the nation. While
    many look to New England and see the failures of the codfish industry,
    I choose to look to successes such as the scallop, dogfish and monkfish
    fisheries.
        We can improve Magnuson-Stevens. In my comments, I will make a
    series of recommendations on how we can further improve implementation
    of the law to help ensure continued growth for small fishing businesses
    in my community and around the nation.
    An End to Overfishing
        The cornerstone of our management under Magnuson is the commitment
    to setting annual catch limits; this truly is the only way forward.
    However, annual catch limits demand annual stock assessments. We cannot
    end overfishing without better, more reliable, real-time information
    and timely stock assessments.
        The value of industry-supported annual assessments is obvious when
    comparing the responses of New England's scallop and groundfish
    fisheries to significant reductions in available harvest this year.
        The Atlantic sea scallop fishery, with annual assessments based on
    three independent surveys including two that are industry-based, faced
    their 30% quota reduction by acknowledging their confidence and support
    in the science. While painful, industry accepted quota cuts as
    necessary for the continued sustainability of their fishery.
        The groundfish fishery consists of 17 different stocks with quotas
    generally set every three years based almost entirely on a single
    government trawl-survey with no industry participation and little
    industry confidence. Many of these assessments show persistent and
    troubling signs of inaccurate catch information among other problems.
    The groundfish fishery largely responded to the announcement of
    significant reductions in a number of key stocks by following a time-
    honored regional tradition of questioning the science and challenging
    the cuts.
        It's important to remember that all wild populations will
    experience occasional downturns, even when well managed. However,
    without timely and accurate information and industry buy-in to the
    process, our Science Centers spend more time and money defending their
    assessments than improving them. This has to change if we are going to
    create an environment for small fishing businesses to thrive.
        But annual assessments alone will not give us the tools we need to
    take the next step. We also need to improve the quality and timeliness
    of the data, particularly the catch information that feeds into our
    stock assessments. Unless we have better catch information, our fishing
    businesses will continue to be hamstrung by unpredictable, fluctuating
    quotas that are often misaligned with the reality of the resource in
    the water.
        Therefore, we must rethink how we collect fisheries dependent catch
    information. We need to do it better, faster and cheaper and that means
    changing how we approach the problem and how we utilize the private
    sector to solve it.
        Almost a decade ago, Cape Cod fishermen volunteered to pilot
    electronic monitoring systems to provide a safer, more efficient and
    cost-effective alternative to human observers. Yet, despite all the
    time and resources we put into proving the viability of cameras in New
    England fisheries, we do not appear any closer to implementation.
    Meanwhile fishermen from almost every region are facing the reality of
    having to pay an ever-rising portion of the monitoring cost.
        Our small businesses cannot afford not to have comprehensive
    coverage and real-time accountability, but they also cannot afford to
    pay for a bloated and costly observer program to deliver catch
    information. We need to move forward with innovative solutions that
    rely on the efficiencies and strengths of the private sector to solve
    these problems. This is why last year our organization supported former
    Congressman Barney Frank's bill, H.R. 4208, which proposed reforming
    the S-K grant program. S-K funds can and should be used to provide much
    needed resources to the regions for these kinds of important
    improvements in monitoring and stock assessments.
    Building Stronger Businesses and Fishing Communities
        We must do even more to protect and strengthen our fishing
    communities under a system of annual catch limits and accountability. I
    was on the front lines in New England when we tried to rebuild fish
    stocks without annual accountability. That effort thoroughly failed to
    protect fish stocks or to serve the small fishing businesses built on
    them. Watering down the conservation mandates of this law will not help
    a single small business grow for the future.
        If we want to have strong businesses in a fishery managed by annual
    limits then I'm convinced, that we will need to utilize catch shares.
    It's the only way forward that I can see to stabilize our fisheries,
    build profitable small fishing businesses and harvest all of the quota
    recommended by our scientists. Now, I have also realized that catch
    shares, while an important part of better management, can have
    unintended consequences on our fishing communities, causing
    consolidation and community dislocation. These are challenges that we
    must prepare to address in all of our nation's fisheries.
        So the question is, ``How do we make this transition while building
    stronger ports, stronger businesses?''
        We need to build resilience through securing diverse fisheries
    access at the business and port level. For centuries small boat
    fishermen in New England weathered downturns in a given fishery by
    maintaining access to other harvesting opportunities. When groundfish
    were less abundant, many fishermen would re-rig to target scallops or
    lobster; this allowed small fishing businesses to adapt, adjust and
    grow. However, too often allocation decisions and rising costs of
    fishing permits/quota are forcing our small boat fishermen to
    specialize in order to remain in a fishery.
        We need to counter this trend and support the continued diversity
    of access that's essential for strong businesses and ports. To do this,
    we need innovative financing programs to support initiatives like
    community permit banks and fisheries trusts which allow communities to
    buy permits, maintain permanent fisheries access, and provide
    affordable opportunities for local fishermen.
        My organization saw the need to build this type of program over
    five years ago as we saw the threat of permits being sold out of our
    communities and our fisheries diminished. Through the Cape Cod
    Fisheries Trust, we've helped dozens of local scallop, groundfish and
    sea clam fishermen gain access to additional fishing opportunities,
    ensured that seafood was landed in our local ports and that those
    fishing businesses provided stable, good-paying crew jobs for Cape
    Codders.
        Through this program we've also provided business training and
    development, reinvested in fishermen-driven research, and have worked
    to identify, support and encourage the next generation of captains in
    our industry. It is not enough to simply be a good hunter of fish.
    Today's commercial fisheries demand that captains also be sophisticated
    businessmen. We must invest now in developing the next generation,
    ready to succeed in this new industry.
        This community-based model can work in ports throughout the
    country, but it must be supported. We must invest in these economic
    engines through cross-agency collaborations and microfinancing
    programs.
    Market Support and Seafood Fraud
        Our fisheries need more than robust fish stocks and fisheries
    access to succeed; they need stable markets and transparent
    distribution pathways to ensure a fair price. Recent media
    investigations have confirmed what those of us connected to wild
    harvest fisheries have long known, rampant seafood mislabeling is
    undermining our small fishing businesses as well as the health and
    safety of American consumers who are too often unknowingly dining on
    foreign substitutes after ordering a domestic seafood entree.
        We must begin to stamp out seafood fraud and bring more
    transparency to the supply chain by passing Congressman Markey's
    Seafood Fraud legislation.
        But we must also take steps to develop and strengthen domestic
    markets for underutilized stocks, like dogfish and skates which are
    abundant but are currently exported as high-volume/low-value products
    to European markets. While we rebuild other stocks, our small
    businesses must be able to adapt to harvest these stocks profitably and
    sustainably.
        As a country, we have invested and worked to stabilize markets for
    our nation's agricultural products; and we must take a similar approach
    with our domestic fisheries. Our robust fish stocks represent a
    critical source of affordable and sustainable protein that we should be
    using to feed our soldiers, schoolkids and those relying on federal
    food programs. This is the ultimate win-win and we must pursue this
    kind of solution.
    Ecosystem-based Fisheries Management
        The final topic I would like to discuss is what people refer to as
    Ecosystem-based Management. I work with fishermen who have spent their
    lives on the water. Not a week goes by without one of these fishermen
    telling me how important it is to manage the ocean while considering
    how the species interact, how the increased abundance of one stock can
    directly impact another, how important the improved protection of
    critical habitat is to some of our most depleted and important stocks,
    like codfish. They never use the words, Ecosystem-based Management, but
    that's what they're talking about, that's the approach that their
    lifetime of experience on the water tells them is essential.
        They recognize that we will never be able to rebuild New England's
    flagship cod populations without a robust forage base of herring and
    mackerel for those fish to feed on. We need to be more conservative
    with the commercial harvest of these forage stocks, since the
    consequences of even small declines in these populations ripple across
    our ecosystems and fisheries.
        Not long ago, seeing a grey seal was a rare occurrence. Now, we
    motor past miles of breeding grey seals on the beach on our way out to
    the fishing grounds and routinely pull up seal-eaten cod and haddock on
    our hooks and in our nets. We recognize the need to have healthy marine
    mammal populations but we cannot pretend to manage an ocean ecosystem
    while refusing to manage top-order predators like seals.
        This isn't an easy conversation, but we need to have it if we're
    going to strengthen our small fishing businesses and better manage our
    oceans.
    Conclusion
        We can and must do more to build strong, resilient, and profitable
    fisheries and fishing ports. To do it, we have to resist the temptation
    to go back to our old ways of mortgaging the future of our fisheries by
    allowing short-term overharvesting. That's liquidating our fisheries,
    not investing in them.
        Instead, we must move forward to rebuild our fish stocks, through
    expanded accountability, improved annual stock assessments, innovative
    and cost-effective programs for gathering real-time catch information.
    We must make a commitment to providing our communities with the tools
    to invest in the future of their fishing economies and managing the
    entire ecosystem.
        There are certainly challenges ahead, but I remain confident that
    we can build stronger fisheries and profitable small fishing
    businesses.
        Thank you, I'd be happy to answer any questions you have.
                                     ______

        The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Pappalardo. Next I
    will recognize Captain Keith Logan, Charterboat Captain out of
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.
        Captain Logan, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

     STATEMENT OF KEITH LOGAN, CHARTERBOAT CAPTAIN, MYRTLE BEACH,
                             SOUTH CAROLINA

        Mr. Logan. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, my
    name is Captain Keith Logan from Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.
    I have over 35 years of fishing experience in the South
    Atlantic as a charterboat captain, as a commercial fisherman. I
    appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today in the
    reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
    and Management Act of 2006.
        I am seeking your immediate help in reauthorization of the
    Magnuson-Stevens Act of 2006 to add flexibility, access, and a
    sound science approach to sustainability.
        Give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. Teach him how to
    fish and the government will say he is overfishing, shut him
    down. This is what the 2006 reauthorization of the MSA is doing
    to us, the fishermen, here in the United States. The annual
    catch limits, accountability measures that the environmental
    groups helped put into the MSA on the eleventh hour of 2006 are
    causing an irreparable economical damaging impact to our
    coastal communities.
        The 2006 reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act is
    clearly evidence of the hijacking of our fisheries management
    by the environmental groups. Enclosed is a screen shot from
    EDF's website, where it shows where they were boasting about
    their oceans team being instrumental in crafting and passing
    the changes to the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Once this was made
    public, and pointed out the possible undue influence by EDF,
    they wiped their site clean of the verbiage. I have a screen
    shot included in your package of it.
        The effects of the annual catch limits and the
    accountability measures in the MSA placed on the fishermen in
    the South Atlantic by NOAA, National Marine Fisheries, and the
    South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council are having
    detrimental irreparable economical consequences on the
    fishermen of the Grand Strand, Horry County, South Carolina and
    the whole South Atlantic. This does not only affect the
    fishermen of South Carolina, it is having an economic impact on
    the gas stations, marinas, tackle stores, golf courses,
    restaurants, grocery stores, motels, hotels, resorts, and
    rental properties. Because recreational fishermen, charter/head
    boat captains, and commercial fishermen are not fishing because
    of the MSA. Industries that provide a service were no longer
    doing business with those guys, because we can't afford to. We
    are not fishing.
        All this being done is with bad data collected through the
    Marine Recreational Fishing Statistics Survey, called MRFSS.
    NCR Chairman, Dr. Patrick Sullivan, referred to MRFSS data as
    ``fatally flawed.''
        The Magnuson-Stevens Act must be changed to add flexibility
    and access for the fishermen. We need legislation to provide
    flexibility and rebuilding of our fisheries. If certain
    conditions are met using a sound science approach for fishery
    management instead of the current very low standards, and best
    available science. Additionally, it must address annual catch
    limits and accountability measures and the rigidity of the SSC.
        The goal should be to keep fresh fish on American tables
    and caught by American fishermen using common sense management
    and accurate science and data. As I have stated, the Magnuson-
    Stevens Act has been manipulated to further interest special
    interest groups at the sacrifice of the local economy and
    fishermen.
        I am seeking your immediate help in the reauthorization of
    the Magnuson-Stevens Act of 2006 to add flexibility, access,
    and sustainability in order to stop the attack on our fishing
    industry. We, the recreational fishermen, charter/head boat
    captains, and commercial fishermen are the endangered species,
    we are. We are being put out of work every day.
        Mr. Chairman, thanks again for hearing me and letting me
    finish my say. For us, we are going out of business because of
    a broken law, bad science. Please don't wait for a full
    reauthorization to get us back in business and on track. We
    need help right now, today. Thank you. Captain Keith Logan.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Logan follows:]

            Statement of Captain Keith Logan, Charter Boat Captain,
                          Myrtle Beach, South Carolina

        Thank you for allowing me to speak. I am Captain Keith Logan, a
    charter boat captain from Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.
        Give a man a fish he will eat for a day, teach him how to fish and
    the government will say he's overfishing and shut him down! This is
    what the 2006 reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
    Conservation and Management Act is doing to the fishermen. The Annual
    Catch Limits and Accountability Measures the environmental groups had
    put into the MSA, at the 11th hour in 2006, are causing irreparable
    economic damage to our coastal communities. The 2006 Reauthorization of
    Magnuson is clearly evidence of the hijacking of our fisheries
    management by environmental groups. Enclosed is a screen shot from an
    EDF website where it shows where they were boasting about their
    ``Oceans Team being instrumental in CRAFTING and PASSING the changes to
    the Magnuson . . .'' Once this website was made public and pointed out
    that this was possibly undue influence, they (the EDF) wiped their site
    clean of such verbiage.
        I am seeking your immediate help in the Reauthorization of the
    Magnuson-Stevens Act of 2006 to add Flexibility, Access, and a Sound
    Science Approach to Sustainability.
        The effect of the Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) and the Accountability
    Measures (AMs) in the MSA placed on the fishermen of the South Atlantic
    by NOAA, NMFS, and the SAFMC, are having detrimental and irreparable
    economic consequences on the Fisherman of the Grand Strand, Horry
    County, South Carolina and the whole South Atlantic. This does not only
    affect the fishermen of South Carolina, It is having an economic impact
    on the gas stations, marinas, tackle stores, golf courses, restaurants,
    grocery stores, motels, hotels, resorts, and rental properties. Because
    recreational fishermen, charter/head boat captains, and commercial
    fishermen are not fishing because of the MSA, they are not buying
    supplies and services that other industries provide, nor do they have
    the money in order to live. The tourists are not coming to the area to
    play golf and go fishing, because they cannot keep fish to eat.
        The closure of Black Sea Bass has result in the complete shutdown
    of the Charter/Head Boat fleet for five (5) months out of the year. The
    loss of employment for those people of the fleet has been catastrophic.
    This is totally unacceptable. We want to work, but the Federal
    Government is putting us out of work! According to the North Myrtle
    Beach and Myrtle Beach Chamber of Commerce, the number one request from
    tourist vacationing in the Grand Strand is for Charter/Head Boat
    fishing information. Given this fact, the economic loss has included
    tourism dollars, tax revenues, and additional people to the ranks of
    the unemployed in South Carolina.
        The effect on my charter business has been very hard over the last
    four years. On October 17, 2012, the Black Sea Bass closed due to
    meeting the ACL. For the remainder of 2011, 2012 I lost twenty-one (21)
    charters in October, twenty-four (24) charters in November, and
    eighteen (18) charters in December. This resulted in a loss of
    $56,700.00, in gross revenues and 63 charters. As the Black Sea Bass
    season remained closed until June 1, 2012, my business continued to
    suffer catastrophic losses. I lost sixteen (16) charters in January,
    seven (7) charters in February, fifteen (15) charters in March,
    nineteen (19) charters in April, and seventeen (17) charters in May.
    This resulted in a loss of $66,600.00, gross revenue and a total of
    seventy-four (74) charters. For the eight (8) months I was prohibited
    from catching and retaining Black Sea Bass, I lost $123,300.00, in
    gross revenues. While I was unable to work, I was not buying fuel,
    bait, or tackle.
        To date, for 2013, I have lost twenty-nine (29) charters and gross
    revenues of $26,100.00. Additionally, I have not purchased fuel, bait,
    or tackle. Based on the above numbers, I am projecting a total loss of
    gross revenue of $150,00.00, during this year's closures from October
    2012, through June 1, 2013. This does not include the loss to the local
    economy six tourists would provide during their stay while fishing. My
    customers traditionally travel to the Grand Strand, play golf, and do a
    half day fishing charter. This may not sound like a lot of money, but
    it is to me. As I have stated, this economic impact does not include
    the fact I did not buy fuel, bait, ice, tackle, or spend any money on
    eating. Also, this figure doesn't include monies lost to gas stations,
    golf courses, restaurants, grocery stores, motels, hotels, resorts, and
    rental properties because my clients did not come to the Grand Strand
    area to go fishing.
        How am I going to pay my mortgage, boat payment, truck payment,
    phone, electric, grocery, insurance, and boat slip if the keeps on
    going on? I don't know. Remember, this number is only for me; it does
    not include the other 152 charter/head boat captains of the Grand
    Strand and 512 charter/Headboats in South Carolina. If only half of 512
    charter/head boat captains are in the same boat that I'm in, then it's
    a minimum of $38,400,000.00 dollars lost to South Carolina's economy.
    Now add all the charter/head boat captains in southeastern United
    States, and all the customers no longer traveling to the coastal areas
    to participate in fishing, and commercial fishermen blocked from plying
    their trade; the economic impact is hundreds of millions of dollars!
    Now, consider the money the recreational fishermen would spend. This
    monetary loss will affect marinas, fuel dealers, marine supply stores,
    boat service centers, and tackle stores. Add another hundred million
    plus dollars of economic loss.
        What needs to be done? The Magnuson-Stevens Act needs to be
    reworked to add flexibility, access, a sound science approach to
    sustainability; not be designed as it is now, resulting in overly
    aggressive closures of perfectly healthy fisheries without good data to
    back it up.
        The Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) and Accountability Measures (AMs)
    are being based and established with old data and ``Best Available
    Science'', per NOAA and NMFS. This has to stop! NOAA must start
    utilizing data obtained through a ``Sound Science Approach''. This must
    include a study of biology, social and economic impact analyses,
    habitat evaluations, and ecosystem management issues. Fisheries must be
    open year round in order to avoid severe economic impacts.
        The Magnuson-Stevens Act must be changed to add Flexibility, Access
    and Sustainability.
        We need legislation to provide for flexibility in rebuilding
    fisheries if certain conditions are met and using a ``Sound Science
    Approach'' for fisheries management instead of the current very low
    standard of ``best available science.'' Additionally, it must address
    ACL's (``Annual Catch Limits''); AM's (``Accountability Measures'');
    and the rigidity in the SSC (``Scientific and Statistical Committee'').
    The goal should be to keep fresh fish on American tables and caught by
    American fisherman using common sense management based on accurate
    scientific data. The recreational marine fishery is worth over $1.5
    billion a year in South Carolina, and commercial marine fishing and
    local seafood is also highly important to our state's growing tourism
    industry and the rest of our economy.
        Flexibility in rebuilding fisheries that are experiencing legal
    ``overfishing'' must be added as follows. Amend Section 304(e) of the
    Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C.
    1854(e)(4))
        (1) in paragraph (4)(A)--
        (A) in clause (i) by striking `possible' and inserting
    `practicable'; and
        (B) by amending clause (ii) to read as follows:
        `(ii) not exceed 10 years, except in cases where--
        `(I) the biology of the stock of fish, other environmental
    conditions, or management measures under an international agreement in
    which the United States participates dictate otherwise;
        `(II) the Secretary determines that such 10-year period should be
    extended because the cause of the fishery decline is outside the
    jurisdiction of the Council or the rebuilding program cannot be
    effective only by limiting fishing activities;
        `(III) the Secretary determines that such 10-year period should be
    extended to provide for the sustained participation of fishing
    communities or to minimize the economic impacts on such communities,
    provided that there is evidence that the stock of fish is on a positive
    rebuilding trend;
        `(IV) the Secretary determines that such 10-year period should be
    extended for one or more stocks of fish of a multi-species fishery,
    provided that there is evidence that those stocks are on a positive
    rebuilding trend;
        `(V) the Secretary determines that such 10-year period should be
    extended because of a substantial change to the biomass rebuilding
    target for the stock of fish concerned after the rebuilding plan has
    taken effect; or
        `(VI) the Secretary determines that such 10-year period should be
    extended because the biomass rebuilding target exceeds the highest
    abundance of the stock of fish in the 25-year period preceding and
    there is evidence that the stock is on a positive rebuilding trend;' or
        (2) in paragraph (7), in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by
    inserting after the first sentence the following: `In evaluating
    progress to end overfishing and to rebuild overfished stocks of fish,
    the Secretary shall review factors, other than commercial fishing and
    recreational fishing, that may contribute to a stock of fish's
    overfished status, such as commercial, residential, and industrial
    development of, or agricultural activity in, coastal areas and their
    impact on the marine environment, predator/prey relationships of target
    and related species, and other environmental and ecological changes to
    the marine conditions;' and
        (3) by adding at the end the following:
        `(8) If the Secretary determines that extended rebuilding time is
    warranted under sub clause (III), (IV), (V), or (VI) of paragraph
    (4)(A)(ii), the maximum time allowed for rebuilding the stock of fish
    concerned may not exceed the sum of the following time periods:
        `(A) The initial 10-year rebuilding period.
        `(B) The expected time to rebuild the stock absent any fishing
    mortality and under prevailing environmental conditions.
        `(C) The mean generation time of the stock.
        `(9) In this subsection the term `on a positive rebuilding trend'
    means that the biomass of the stock of fish has shown a substantial
    increase in abundance since the implementation of the rebuilding plan.'
    Sound Science Approach.
        1. The ``Precautionary Approach'', also known as the
    ``Precautionary Principle'', needs to be eliminated from Magnuson-
    Stevens and a ``Sound Science Approach'' needs to be inserted!
        The ``Precautionary Approach'' was incorporated into the Magnuson-
    Stevens Act as ``Risk Adverse Management'', where no empirical
    scientific evidence of any problem is necessary to precipitate action.
        Presently, action can be initiated based on a hypothesis developed
    through subjective opinion and not based on objective scientific data.
        2. The term, ``Best Available Science'', should be removed from the
    Magnuson-Stevens Act and replaced with ``Sound Scientific Process or
    Science'' in order to improve crucial decision making!
    Negative Results:
        ``Best Available Science'' has been defined and applied to any
    resource, or environmental issues, to facilitate fully informed
    decisions; however, for this to occur, it is essential scientists,
    policymakers, and the public be aware of the prejudices affecting the
    development and limitations of science and its implementation. When
    actions by federal agencies are challenged in federal court, the courts
    always defer to the agency's decision on ``best available science.''
    The agency gets a free pass to use worst case scenario models despite
    evidence showing these models are not consistent with reality and in
    fact impossible biologically.
    Positive Results:
        The results of a ``Sound Scientific Process'' need not be
    infallible to be the best available. Scientific information and the
    conclusions it supports will always be subject to multiple
    interpretations; but, greater transparency in the process will go far
    in addressing skepticism and averting controversy. High-quality science
    adheres to a well-established scientific process. The soundness of any
    science is enhanced if the associated values, assumptions, and
    uncertainties are clearly explained.
        3. The MRFSS ``Marine Recreational Fishing Statistical Survey''
    Data is ``very poor'' according to NMFS. This is the data used to set
    the ACL and AM that are in the Magnuson that are closing our fisheries
    down.
        In the January/February 2011 Big Game Fishing Journal, an article
    written by Jim Hutchinson, Jr., covered in great depth the MRFSS
    program and the legal requirements, as mandated by the Congress, the
    NMFS has failed to implement since 2009.
        Quoting information from this article, ``Marine Recreational
    Fishing Statistical Survey (MRFSS), National Academy of Sciences and
    their National Research Council (NRC) completed a study in 2006 and
    concluded both telephone survey and the onsite access components of the
    current monitoring systems have serious flaws in design or
    implementation.'' NCR chairman, Dr. Patrick Sullivan referred to
    (MRFSS) data collection as ``fatally flawed''. MRFSS was supposed to be
    replaced by Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP). By law,
    MRIP was supposed to be implemented no later than January 2009.
    Magnuson contains a very clear set of guidelines for NMFS to address
    the data deficiencies. Federal law also clearly required that MRFSS be
    replaced by MRIP as of 2009. NMFS has failed to uphold their
    requirements under law, as the current Administration is fast-tracking
    catch share programs and fisheries closures to address other
    requirements related to Magnuson which hurt our industry. And again,
    the MRFSS has been allowed to dictate management decisions since
    Magnuson-Stevens gives it legal protection from challenge--NMFS deems
    it ``best available science!
        4. A scientific approach based on accurate data collection with a
    10% rate of error must be implemented. The MRFSS data currently used is
    flawed 21% to 33%. A test with 67% of the answers correct in any
    college is a failing grade.
    Scientific and Statistical Committee.
        1. Studies must be conducted addressing the biological, social,
    economic, and environmental impacts.
        2. Members of the committee must be composed of leading scientists
    in biology, economics, statistics, and social science, without any ties
    to extremist, special interest environmental groups. Additionally,
    members must include Commercial and Recreational fisherman and Charter/
    Head boat captains who most closely understand these resources from
    their frequent and lifelong activities within the fisheries.
        3. The Committee must meet at least four (4) times a year to
    address a broad range of topics, including stock assessments,
    management action evaluations, social and economic impact analyses,
    habitat evaluations, and ecosystem management issues. SSC members must
    also play a key role in developing stock assessments for Council
    managed resources through participation in SEDAR, the Southeast Data,
    Assessment, and Review program.
    ACL ``Annual Catch Limits''.
        1. ACL's must be set utilizing data obtained through a Sound
    Science Approach. They must include a study of biology, social and
    economic impact analyses, habitat evaluations, and ecosystem management
    issues. Fisheries must be open year round in order to avoid severe
    economic impacts.
        2. Recreational ACL's must be set to allow an average fishing year
    remain open year round.
        3. If reductions in the bag limits are needed to keep a fishery
    open year round, it needs to be addressed prior to the ACL being set. A
    method needs to be developed in order to reduce bag limits when 50% of
    the ACL meet and, again, at 75% of the ACL.
    AM ``Accountability Measure''.
        1. AM's shall not include Catch Shares. Catch Shares are not
    provided within the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        2. If reductions in the bag limits are needed to keep a fishery
    open year round, it needs to be addressed prior to the ACL being set. A
    method needs to be developed in order to reduce bag limits when 50% of
    the ACL meet and, again, at 75% of the ACL.
        3. AM's must be set with a Sound Science Approach. They must
    include a study of biology, social and economic impact analyses,
    habitat evaluations, and ecosystem management issues. Fisheries must be
    open year round in order to avoid severe economic impacts.
        4. AM's make business planning and budgeting impossible. We are
    notified of what appears to be a perfectly healthy fishery being closed
    down, and we have no due process or no input on the matter. NMFS simply
    makes the decision to enact an AM in the middle of our fishing season,
    and there is nothing we can do about it.
    Implementation of ACLs and AMs
        1) When Congress mandated hard time limits to end overfishing, they
    assumed that NOAA Fisheries would have already complied with the
    mandate that they improve the data collection system FIRST, thus having
    the necessary information required to make informed decisions regarding
    setting viable ACLs and AMs. Unfortunately, NOAA Fisheries has opted to
    defy Congressional ``Will'' by refusing to improve the data collection
    system by the January 1, 2009, deadline and instead spend hundreds of
    millions of taxpayer dollars promoting the implementation of Catch
    Shares without having the necessary, required data to do so. THIS IS,
    IN MY EYES, AN OPEN ACT OF CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS AND THOSE RESPONSIBLE
    NEED TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.
        2) Additionally, while testifying at a Senate Commerce Committee
    subcommittee hearing a few years ago, Jane Lubchenco, in answer to a
    question from Rep. Barney Frank, conceded there was no scientific basis
    for the 10 years given to rebuild overfished stocks, but demurred when
    then asked if she would support legislation to write flexibility into
    Magnuson. Clearly, science has taken a back seat to ideology with this
    administration--THAT NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED NOW. Open, transparent
    science process needs to be at the forefront of this management
    regimen, and providing flexibility in the overfishing deadlines is
    paramount in importance, here, now.
        3) It may be more cost effective and create a non-biased,
    scientific based fisheries management plan by defunding NMFS
    immediately and move our fisheries management to the state level, only
    in the Gulf and the Atlantic. NMFS themselves proved the point that it
    needs to be regulated state by state with their recent emergency rule
    implemented at the most recent Gulf Council meeting as well as the
    recent total closures in the Atlantic. The states can perform their own
    stock assessments, as well as implement their own ACLs and AMs to
    ensure that overfishing does not occur. In addition, the states should
    also be able to determine the allocation between recreational and
    commercial fishing in their own region. The states can be overseen by
    the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission as well as the Atlantic
    States Marine Fisheries Commission and the South Atlantic Fisheries
    Management Council.
        Catch Shares are not about conservation. They are about MONEY and
    CONTROL. No one person, or entity, owns the fish in the oceans.
        A. A ``Catch Share'' is an exclusive right, and guarantee, granting
    whoever owns the catch share, the right to harvest a certain percentage
    of the total allowable catch of a particular species of marine life.
        B. Catch Shares will put the small, one boat fishermen out of work.
    It will allow the large corporations owning the fish houses and
    multiple boat operators to continue fishing while the rest of us are
    sitting at the dock starving. If the smaller fishermen wish to continue
    plying their trade, they will have to ``lease'' a portion of the larger
    operators share. Catch Shares accomplish nothing except to allow an
    elite few to profit off the backs of many, by providing the elite the
    ``right to own'' a natural resource provided for all by God.
        C. Catch Shares are NOT GOOD for recreational fishing, commercial
    fishing, or charter fishing. They will substantially increase the costs
    of fishing, to the point many will not being able to fish anymore. This
    natural resource belongs to all people, not just a few of the most
    wealthy. In the end, these ``Individual Fishing Quotas'' (IFQ's) catch
    share programs, are going to be detrimental to fishermen, ecosystems
    and consumers.
        D. Catch Shares, or Individual Fishing Quotas, provide a method for
    a select few to own, control, and prevent the average person from
    utilizing a natural resource owned by no one. So what does this mean
    for you and me? We will have a world of tighter regulations, shorter
    fishing seasons, higher seafood prices, and fewer boats on the water.
    What does this mean for our economy? The loss of billions of dollars
    and jobs!
    Implementation of Commercial Catch Shares
        1) If the quota is to be allocated to fishermen, they should lease
    this quota directly from the government--the very idea of being able to
    trade, sell, or lease their privileges to each other, simply evolves
    into nothing more than a revenue stream for individuals/corporations to
    profit from our Public Trust Resource without even having to go
    fishing.
        2) The way the system is set up now, the nation receives no benefit
    whatsoever from giving these individuals/corporations the right to
    profit from our Public Trust Resource--there are no lease fees required
    to be paid to the nation as are required in other industries such as
    oil, grazing, or timber. Not a good deal for our nation or our
    fisheries.
        3) To add insult to injury, not only does the nation not benefit
    from the harvest of our Public Trust Resource, but is in fact saddled
    with subsidizing the program to the tune of millions of dollars per
    year due to the 3% cap placed on the Cost Recovery Fee (CRF). If the
    fishermen actually fishing the quota were to lease that quota directly
    from the government, that would be the most equitable and fair way to
    allocate the quota, and no need for the CRF.
        4) The current drive to expand the implementation of Catch Shares
    into recreational fisheries needs to be prohibited in the new
    reauthorization of Magnuson. This includes Fish Tags, Days At Sea, or
    Inter-Sector Trading.
        E. The definitions of ending Overfishing must be addressed.
    Closing
        As I have stated, The Magnuson-Stevens act has been manipulated to
    further the interests of special interests groups at the sacrifice of
    local economies and dedicated, hard-working men and women. I am seeking
    your immediate help in the Reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act
    of 2006 to add Flexibility, Access, and a Sound Science Approach to
    Sustainability, in order to stop this attack on the fishing industry.
    We, the recreational fishermen, charter/head boat captains and
    commercial fishermen are the Endangered Species
        Help save the Fishermen and our Heritages here in South Carolina
        Thank you for allowing me to speak.
                                     ______

        The Chairman. Thank you very much, Captain Logan.
        Next I will recognize Mr. Bob Gill, who is the Co-owner of
    Shrimp Landing, Florida. Mr. Gill, you are recognized.

                STATEMENT OF ROBERT P. GILL, CO-OWNER,
                        SHRIMP LANDING, FLORIDA

        Mr. Gill. Thank you, Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member
    Markey, members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity
    to appear before you today. I offer these comments on behalf of
    myself based on years of involvement in fisheries issues in the
    Gulf of Mexico at both the State and Federal levels. Since 1986
    I have owned and operated a fish house in Crystal River,
    Florida, and I have dealt with fresh Gulf seafood from both
    inshore and offshore fishermen. I was privileged to be
    appointed to the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council in
    2006, and served for 6 years, the last year serving as Chairman
    of that body. It is with that background that I speak today.
        The changes made to the MSA in 2006 have had a profound
    effect on fisheries, councils, and stakeholders. The Act is
    fundamentally sound, but some aspects of implementation need
    continued work. What is needed is a focus on the tools to make
    the MSA more effective. Today I will focus on what I consider
    three top priorities: improving the science and data,
    addressing the ACL and AMs, and improving stakeholder
    credibility.
        The requirement for Federally managed fish stocks of AMs
    and ACLs has increased the need for scientifically sound,
    accurate, and timely data, so that fisheries managers can
    properly manage to those limits. However, the current state of
    our scientific knowledge is neither sufficiently advanced nor
    adequately funded to achieve the desired results. Rather than
    roll back or discard fishery management tools that work, we
    must ensure fishery managers have the necessary information to
    better manage the fish stocks in their purview. To do so, we
    need a significantly increased investment in science. The MSA
    cannot address this need, but Congress can.
        Full stock assessments are not realistic for many fish
    stocks in U.S. waters. To achieve the goals of the MSA, we must
    develop less-costly ways to address data-poor stocks. One of
    the downstream results of the lack of data and science is
    larger uncertainty in stock status. Larger uncertainty
    translates directly to larger buffers to compensate, at least
    in part, for the increased probability that overfishing might
    occur. The net result is fewer fish available for all
    fishermen. Weakening the MSA will not improve the reality of
    this result. Improved data and more frequent stock assessments
    will. This means money.
        I recognize the current climate is not favorable for
    additional funding, but I also realize that progress will be
    painfully slow to non-existent without it. Previous legislation
    has proposed a scaling back of the ACL/AM requirement that
    would effectively undo the very tool that has had a positive,
    if painful, result on our fisheries. The culprit here is not
    the ACL/AM ceilings required, but the mechanism by which to set
    them. The science and data need to be fixed, not the law.
        We still need to strike a better balance between the
    biological needs and the social needs. Again, investing in
    improvements to science can help. Making appropriate changes to
    the MSA can also continue the improvement of the fish stocks,
    while mitigating the pain inflicted on the stakeholders. One
    change in MSA that ought to be considered that would ease the
    burden on communities and fishermen is to look at the science-
    based timelines required for rebuilding stocks deemed
    overfished, especially when overfishing is not the primary
    cause. The National Academy of Science is currently looking at
    the science behind rebuilding times, and their report could
    offer additional guidance.
        From the vantage point of my experience, I have serious
    concerns about the viability of the current fishery management
    process. These concerns emanate from an increasing
    disenchantment of many stakeholders with credibility in the
    system. In the Gulf, States are increasingly looking for ways
    to maximize fishing for their constituents without much regard
    for offshore fishermen and other States.
        For example, Texas and Louisiana have both chosen to go
    inconsistent with Federal red snapper regulations, and Florida
    is likely to follow suit. Our goal should be to work together
    to maximize fishing opportunities for as many people as
    possible within the bounds of a prudent scientific basis.
        In conclusion, the reauthorization of the MSA in 2006
    contributed significantly to commendable progress in reducing
    overfishing and rebuilding our Nations' fisheries. The work to
    achieve sustainable fisheries in this country is not finished,
    but wholesale changes to MSA are not needed. I believe that
    modest improvements can and should be made to MSA to help
    fulfill its mandate while allowing the Nation's citizens to
    enjoy access to healthy fisheries. The 2006 reauthorization has
    moved us in the direction of striking this balance. Now we must
    improve on these advancements, rather than abandon ship.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Gill follows:]

         Statement of Robert P. Gill, Co-Owner, Shrimp Landing, Florida

    I. Introduction
        Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member Markey, members of the Committee,
    thank you for this opportunity to appear before you with regards to
    possible changes to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
    Management Act (MSA) as amended in 2006. I offer these comments on
    behalf of myself based on my years of involvement in in fishery issues
    in the Gulf of Mexico at both the state and Federal levels. In 1986, I
    purchased a fish house in Crystal River, Florida, and have dealt since
    then with fresh Gulf seafood from both inshore and offshore fishermen.
    I soon recognized the need to better understand the changing regulatory
    environments and participated with increasing frequency in those
    processes as a private citizen. This resulted in the privilege of my
    appointment to the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council in 2006
    and served for 6 years, the final year as Chairman of that body. It is
    with that background that I speak today.
    II. The 2006 Reauthorization
        The 2006 reauthorization of the MSA required Fishery Management
    Councils (Councils) to implement science based annual catch limits
    (ACL) and accountability measures (AM) for most fish stocks in a
    fishery management plan. While this was a new requirement,
    implementation of science based ACLs and AMs had proven to be
    successful in ending overfishing and rebuilding fish stocks in multiple
    regions in the U.S. The changes required by the 2006 reauthorization
    strengthened the fishery management process. While all is not perfect,
    establishing the concept of hard ceilings through science based catch
    limits to ensure that the discipline required to end overfishing is
    maintained has had a positive effect on many of our fisheries. However,
    at the same time, we must recognize the burden these restrictions have
    placed on stakeholders.
        The MSA now has our nation on track to ensure that overfishing is
    indeed ended and overfished species are rebuilt, benefitting our oceans
    and those dependent upon them. A record number of stocks were declared
    rebuilt in 2011, and all federal fisheries had catch limits in place in
    time for the 2012 fishing season. As prescribed by the 2006
    reauthorization, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) now has
    ACLs and AMs in place for all 537 federally managed fish stocks and
    complexes.\1\ Further, all 36 stocks experiencing overfishing are being
    actively managed under ACLs or equivalent measures to end overfishing,
    and all but eight of the stocks determined to be of an ``overfished''
    status are under rebuilding plans.\2\ These recovering fisheries
    establish a biological baseline from which we can measure any future
    changes. The requirements added to the MSA in 2006 reaffirm our
    realization that nature is amazingly resilient as long as we give her a
    reasonable opportunity to respond and recover from adverse impacts.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ NOAA, NMFS, Status of the Stocks: Report on the Status of U.S.
    Fisheries for 2011, at 1 (May 2012).
        \2\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Legislation has been proposed that would roll back key conservation
    provisions of the Act; provisions that have worked. I do not share that
    view. The basic concept as detailed in MSA 2006 is correct, but modest
    changes can be made to improve an imperfect system. My comments are
    provided with this in mind and will hopefully provide a reasonable
    basis for those improvements.
        While the implementation of ACLs and AMS from the 2006
    reauthorization are the foundation of my comments, there are numerous
    other issues that also are worthy of mention.
    III. The ACL and AM Requirement
        The annual catch limit (ACL) and accountability measure (AM)
    requirement \3\ added to the MSA in 2006 has had a profound effect on
    fisheries, Councils and stakeholders. The MSA's new catch setting
    system has made great progress toward achieving the goals of the MSA
    and is now viewed as a model for other nations. The new ACL/AM
    requirement is reaping the tangible benefits our nation has worked so
    hard to achieve and has allowed us to move toward striking the delicate
    balance between benefit for the nation and meeting fishing community
    needs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ 16 U.S.C. 1853(a)(15) (``Any fishery management plan . . .
    shall establish a mechanism for specifying annual catch limits in the
    plan (including a multiyear plan), implementing regulators, or annual
    specifications, at a level such that overfishing does not occur in the
    fishery, including measures to ensure accountability.'')
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        At its core, the ACL/AM requirement is quite simple. It has two
    parts: (1) the permissible annual catch limit for each stock, and (2)
    accountability measures, which ensure that the annual catch limit is
    not exceeded. Or, if the ACL is exceeded, that the problem is mitigated
    or corrected.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ 50 C.F.R. Sec. Sec. 600.310(f)(2)(iv), 600.310(g)(1).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Councils have spent many hours in reshaping their fishery
    management plans to reflect the mandates of these changes and, indeed,
    are continuing to do so today. The Councils were able to meet the
    specified timelines but were not able to fully incorporate the
    methodology that was required. For example, the Gulf of Mexico
    Council's ABC Control Rule remains a work in progress. Changes to the
    ABC Control Rule have been and continue to be proposed by the
    scientific and statistical committee (SSC), but have yet to be approved
    by the Gulf Council. A control rule is an approach to setting the ABC
    for a stock or stock complex that addresses scientific uncertainty.
    Much discussion and consideration is expected to take place before the
    ABC Control Rule is close to its final form. There are additional steps
    that need to be taken to improve implementation and these steps will
    not be complete for some time to come.
        However, this hard work has all been worthwhile because science-
    based catch limits have proven effective and achievable. The agency's
    most recent Status of the Stocks report found a decrease in both
    overfished stocks and stocks experiencing overfishing across the
    nation. 2011 was record-breaking year with a total of six fish stocks
    declared rebuilt--the most stocks ever declared rebuilt in a single
    year.\5\ The ACL/AM requirement is working.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ NOAA, NMFS, Status of the Stocks: Report on the Status of U.S.
    Fisheries for 2011 (May 2012). See also, ``Good News on the Status of
    the Stocks, A Message from Sam Rauch, Head of NOAA Fisheries'' (May
    2012), available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/aboutus/leadership/
    may_leadership_message.html.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    IV. Data Poor Stocks
        One area that needs additional consideration is how to better
    manage data poor stocks. That is not to cast aspersions on the need to
    continue to improve implementation, but more to reflect the huge effort
    all Councils have made, and will continue to make, to implement the
    full intent of the MSA and make the new requirements of 2006 a fully
    working reality. The Act is fundamentally sound, but some aspects of
    implementation have not gone smoothly. Part of the reason for that is
    the expectations exceed our capability of achieving them.
        In the Southeast region, for example, our ability to provide timely
    stock assessments is severely limited in data and people, resulting in
    a fraction of the needed assessments. And assessments that are
    conducted tend to be concentrated on the species of most interest. The
    remainder, and the bulk of the species under management--so called data
    poor stocks, which are generally characterized by a sparse life history
    knowledge and only landings data, neither of which support a rigorous
    scientific approach to their management--are unlikely to ever see a
    stock assessment. Reasonably choosing legitimate ACLs for these
    species, especially those that are not targeted, is largely a
    conservative approach akin to the ``first of all, do no harm'' precept
    in the medical world. When you consider that most managed stocks fall
    into this category, you begin to appreciate the difficulties of
    managing on a single species basis much less that of an ecosystems
    management approach.
        Legislation has been proposed that would remove the requirement for
    annual catch limits for stocks that have not had a stock assessment in
    the past five years regardless of the status of the stock.\6\ This
    legislative proposal does nothing to actually improve the science or
    management of these stocks and could create more problems in the future
    if the stock becomes overfished or undergoes overfishing. In reality,
    by ignoring these stocks we push the science to the background and
    create a scientific vacuum for that species. The data poor species
    previously mentioned would effectively become unmanaged. Little science
    and no limits do not make for good management. Similar legislation
    proposes that the Secretary of Commerce may suspend ACLs for a fishery
    that has been rebuilt.\7\ The legislation would allow managers to stop
    using the very tool that allowed the fishery to rebuild in the first
    place. This is akin to lowering a speed limit on a highway to decrease
    traffic fatalities and then when the number decreases, removing the
    speed limit. This is clearly a step backward and is not helpful in
    moving forward. Proper management of fisheries requires as robust a
    science basis as can be attained. It is not possible to control systems
    well that are not well understood.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ H.R. 6350, The Transparent and Science Based Fishery Management
    Act of 2013, 112th Congress
        \7\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    a. Improving Science
        It should be no surprise that we find ourselves struggling at times
    with various species. The challenges remain and will remain for many
    years, but we should continue building and strengthening the existing
    structure rather than make major changes mid-stream. That is not to say
    that we shouldn't be open to new approaches and innovative techniques.
    But we need to proceed cautiously lest we undo more than we gain.
        The requirement for federally managed fish stocks to have ACLs and
    AMs has increased the need for scientifically sound, accurate and
    timely data so that fisheries managers can ensure ACLs are not exceeded
    or implement AMs if overages occur. However, the current state of our
    scientific knowledge is neither sufficiently advanced nor adequately
    funded to achieve the desired results. Conducting individual stock
    assessments for all 537 managed stocks is not economically feasible.
    Similarly, full stock assessments are not realistic for many fish
    stocks in U.S. waters. To achieve the goals of the MSA, we must develop
    less costly ways to address data poor stocks. Stocks without sufficient
    data to conduct a traditional scientific stock assessment can and must
    be assessed using alternative, semi-quantitative methods to provide
    information to fishery managers in order to meet MSA's goals and
    mandates.
        Rather than roll back or discard fishery management tools that
    work, we must ensure fishery managers have the necessary information to
    better manage U.S. fish stocks. We need a significantly increased
    investment in science. Previously proposed legislation called for
    increased transparency in the prioritization of stock assessments and
    for NOAA to release an annual report identifying which stock
    assessments would be conducted in a given year and the needed budget
    \8\. This is a small first step in improving the science for fishery
    management. Much more importantly, we must recognize the urgent need to
    improve the data streams and the science that form the foundation of
    fishery management. This means money. I recognize the current climate
    is not favorable for additional funding, but I also realize that
    progress will be painfully slow without it.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As with all things with limited availability, the high cost of
    proper implementation, including science and stock assessments, often
    leaves out lesser priority tasks and needs. It is important to keep in
    mind the need for change versus the foregone efforts to improve the
    existing system and its associated requirements. While many fisheries
    have seen dramatic improvements, the disruption in the social side of
    the equation has also been significant in many areas, unfortunately in
    a negative way. We have arrived where we are today through many tough
    decisions and sacrifice. But the investment is yielding significant and
    long lasting benefits. We still need to strike a better balance between
    the biological needs and the human dimension; the social needs.
    Investing in improvements to science can help.
        One of the downstream results of the lack of data and science is
    larger uncertainty in stock status. Larger uncertainty translates
    directly to larger buffers to compensate, at least in part, for the
    increased probability that overfishing might occur. The net result is
    fewer fish available for all fishermen. The human side is adversely
    impacted by the lack of proper science. Weakening the MSA will not
    improve the reality of this result.
    b. Adapting Our Fisheries Management System for Environmental Changes
        Changing environmental impacts are already affecting the oceans and
    fisheries. Increasing acidity in the ocean is becoming an issue for
    shellfish and habitat degradation is a constant concern for fisheries
    and fishermen. Closer to home, the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster in
    2010 called attention to the need for more and better baseline data for
    our ecosystem as a whole. These impacts on the broader ocean food web
    are not yet fully understood. Not unlike how coastal managers are
    tackling the far reaching issue of sea level rise by focusing on
    individual towns and counties, we must focus on environmental impacts
    on fisheries to ensure long-term fishery health. Our fisheries must be
    resilient in the face of a changing environment and managers must be
    provided with the tools and information needed to assess the impacts of
    climate change and other environmental issues.
        One change in MSA that should be considered to ease the burden to
    communities and fishermen is a modest extension of timelines required
    for rebuilding stocks deemed overfished especially when overfishing is
    not the primary cause. However, any change to rebuilding requirements
    must be approached cautiously. The intent of such a change would be to
    achieve the goal of rebuilding the stock while not imposing unnecessary
    burdens on the multiple stakeholders of that fishery. Some overfished
    designations may have little to do with fishing. For example, the
    updated stock assessment of 2009 for gag grouper in the Gulf of Mexico
    found that the stock was overfished and overfishing was occurring. Yet,
    the cause of the low biomass wasn't necessarily fishing. The likely
    cause was determined to be the episodic mortality event from the
    numerous red tides in 2005 which added an estimated 18% mortality to
    the existing natural and fishing mortalities. This example also
    highlights the time lag and data need dilemma: the sudden decrease in
    stock size languished for four years before being analyzed and dealt
    with. This example is a stark reminder of the difficulties in
    reconciling what fishermen see on the water with the science that
    guides the management. The law must allow better adaptation for
    environmental changes.
    V. Council Makeup and Transparency in Councils and SSCs
        In order for our fishery management system to function properly and
    as intended by the MSA, transparency of the Councils and SSCs must be
    improved. The overall objective for all Councils should be to maximize
    transparency to the extent possible. The easy part is allowing web
    access to meetings and records of proceedings, and ensuring the public
    has access to the decision making fora. The more difficult aspect is to
    fully get the word out and not slow the process unduly as a result of
    notification requirements. This requires constantly trying new
    techniques and make improvements as appropriate.
        From my viewpoint, the Gulf Council spends considerable time in
    this regard and does an excellent job. Yet, there remains much to be
    done in this never ending task. Improving transparency does not require
    amending the MSA. Rather, I believe that establishment of a policy to
    maximize transparency would be sufficient, and detailing specifics will
    do little to improve the achievement of this goal.
        I urge caution in any attempts to revise the makeup of the
    Councils. The overriding consideration is that balance must be achieved
    or, if balance exists, maintained. There are times when an imbalance
    occurs in Council makeup, but these should be corrected at the earliest
    possible opportunity. I find it also true that both the recreational
    and commercial sectors believe the Council is unbalanced, when, in
    fact, such is not the case. Allowing one group to have a greater number
    of seats on a Council is tantamount to establishing a biased fishery
    management regime in that Council. Stacking the deck is ultimately a
    predicate to failure. To fully and fairly discuss difficult fishery
    management issues requires input equally from all sides. This balance
    should provide the best decision achievable. I would also note that the
    larger the Council, the more the overhead becomes and, more
    importantly, the more difficult it is to reach a consensus on a
    decision. The former is important because in the era of shrinking
    budgets we need to reduce overhead, not increase it in order to most
    efficiently use the budget available. The latter suggests exacerbation
    of an already difficult decision making process. As a rule of thumb,
    the minimum number needed to attain reasonable representation from the
    various stakeholders should be the maximum size of the Council.
    VI. Returning Penalty Money to the Regions
        I believe that the best use of any funding from fines and penalties
    is to improve the affected fishery from which they were derived. The
    needs of the enforcement, science and Cooperative Research Programs
    (CRP) far exceed the available monies and represent some of the areas
    for which these funds should be utilized. The use of funds that result
    from fishing fines and penalties has not been as big an issue in the
    Gulf of Mexico as it has in other regions. Regardless, the MSA should
    authorize the proceeds from any penalties and fines to go to the region
    or fishery where the fine or penalty originates, rather than to NOAA at
    large or to the Treasury. I would go further and suggest that the
    regions be allowed to design programs with associated fees and allow
    those fees, again to the extent possible, be directed back to the
    region, and more specifically to the fishery as discussed above for
    penalties and fines. While there clearly needs to be checks and
    balances in such a concept, the fisheries should be able to benefit and
    made stronger by not sending the monies derived to the General
    Treasury.
    VII. Catch Share Programs and Non-Traditional Management Approaches
        As you know, catch share programs have become highly contentious,
    overshadowing an honest discussion of their advantages and
    disadvantages. I believe that such programs are neither inherently good
    nor bad. The circumstances surrounding the fisheries in question and
    the proposed structure of such a program will define its validity, or
    lack of it, for the fishery under consideration. There is no management
    scheme that will always benefit both the fishery and all the
    participants. The question really is which way of managing is the best
    under the circumstances for the biology and the social needs.
        I believe we need to be open to non-traditional management
    approaches that offer different advantages than traditional measures
    do. Doing business as we have in the past is not always best for the
    future. A case in point is Gulf of Mexico red snapper. We have a
    rapidly growing population as a result of severe management measures
    imposed to restrain catch. Now the stock is improving, expanding into
    areas where red snapper have not been prevalent for many years, and
    providing anglers with fish weighing twice as much on average than
    those 5 years ago. Yet, despite this, the recreational season grows
    progressively shorter. And traditional measures of bag limits, size
    limits and seasons don't appear to be of much help, nor does increasing
    the allocation of fish available to the recreational sector. It is
    clear that a new approach is required to alleviate this conundrum. I am
    not advocating a catch share program for this sector, but merely
    emphasizing the need to be open minded to different approaches than we
    are used to for a problem such as this.
        As such, I do not favor shelving catch share concepts unilaterally.
    Our experience with catch share programs in the Gulf of Mexico,
    however, has convinced me that there are some constraints that should
    be considered. Options I prefer include a provision to favorably allow
    new entrants, and a restriction on the amount of shares that can be
    leased. While I favor some modest constraints on catch share programs,
    I do not support highly restrictive requirements that effectively gut
    the option of catch share programs being designed and implemented. I
    believe that the Councils need that flexibility to design management
    measures that are best for their region and fisheries.
    VIII. Stakeholder Credibility
        From the vantage point of my experience I have serious concerns on
    the viability of the current fishery management process. These concerns
    emanate from an increasing disenchantment of and credibility in the
    system by the many stakeholders. This problem is certainly not unique
    to one region, but the consequences of the lack of credibility are far
    reaching. The fundamental basis for fisheries management rests on
    voluntary compliance. While there will always be some people who do not
    comply with regulations, and there will always be tension between state
    and federal jurisdictions, the current environment suggests that folks
    at many levels seek to disregard Federal regulations in Federal waters.
    The thinking is much more self-centered rather than taking a broader
    view of what's best for all. In the Gulf this is being manifested on
    many fronts. States are increasingly looking for ways to maximize
    fishing for their constituents to the disregard of offshore fishermen
    and other states. Texas and Louisiana have both chosen to go
    inconsistent with federal red snapper regulations and Florida is likely
    to follow suit. There is little to no working together to resolve
    problems and disagreements. Discussions regarding regional management
    in the Gulf of Mexico are ongoing and reflect this issue and could
    result in a fragmented management approach to the same fish population.
    This does not augur well. Our goal should be to work together to
    maximize fishing opportunities for as many people as possible, within
    the bounds of a prudent scientific basis. The trend, I fear, is in the
    opposite direction. While the MSA might not be able to resolve this
    difficulty, I urge you to keep in mind that a harmonious whole is
    better than a fractious assemblage of parts.
    IX. Conclusion
        The Reauthorization of the MSA in 2006 contributed significantly to
    commendable progress in reducing overfishing and rebuilding our
    nation's fisheries. Fishery Management Councils around the country,
    acting in partnership with NMFS, have used the new requirements to
    establish science-based catch limits in the vast majority of U.S.
    fisheries. The work to achieve sustainable fisheries in this country is
    not finished, but wholesale changes to MSA are not needed. I believe
    that modest improvements can and should be made to MSA to help fulfill
    its mandate and intent, while not sacrificing the nation's citizens and
    their access to a natural resource that should be fairly shared amongst
    all. We may not agree as to what constitutes fairly shared, but we
    should agree that proper fisheries management should allow for healthy
    fisheries and a populace able to enjoy those fruits without being
    hobbled by an unbalanced approach. The 2006 Reauthorization has moved
    us in the direction of striking this balance. Now, we must improve on
    these advancements rather than abandon ship.
                                     ______

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Gill.
        And certainly--last, but not least, Mr. Joe Plesha from
    Trident Foods out of Seattle. Mr. Plesha, you are recognized.

      STATEMENT OF JOSEPH T. PLESHA, CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER, TRIDENT
                          SEAFOODS CORPORATION

        Mr. Plesha. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
    Committee. Like everyone else on this panel, I appreciate the
    opportunity to be here today. I am testifying on behalf of
    Trident Seafoods Corporation. Trident was founded in 1973 by
    Chuck Bundrant. Chuck invested all of the earnings of the
    company back into the industry to where, today, Trident is one
    of the largest seafood companies in the United States.
        My written testimony focuses on a number of issues, but I
    would like to make my oral presentation deal with just one, and
    that is the need of rationalization programs to include both
    owners of processing plants and vessels when the fishery is
    rationalized.
        Most everyone acknowledges the benefits of rationalization,
    from improved conservation and incentivizing conservation, to
    increasing net national benefits to the Nation. But industrial
    fisheries like those in Alaska, an open-access fishery might
    have 6 to 10 times the harvesting and processing capacity that
    is necessary when the fishery becomes rationalized.
        Therefore, when an open-access fishery is rationalized,
    instead of lasting 1 month it may effectively go on for 6 to 10
    months. So the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of
    harvesting vessels and processing plants that had operated in
    the 1-month fishery, making a market-rate of return on their
    investments, will compete for the resource throughout the 10-
    month period of time where they now can operate.
        In doing so, they will bid up the price, so that they can
    cover only their daily operating cost, or what people call
    their variable cost of operation. And they do this because it
    is better to earn one penny during this period of time than it
    is to do the alternative, which is to earn nothing.
        So, quota holders, the people who own the quota, get the
    value of the fish that is represented by the quota, but they
    also get to use the capital investments made by vessel owners
    and plant owners for free. It is an expropriation, just as
    effective as if the property had been condemned through eminent
    domain. Therefore, for that reason, both vessel owners and
    plant owners should be included in the rationalization program
    so their operations can continue after the program is
    rationalized.
        One method that has proven to be very effective in
    rationalizing fisheries in a way that includes both vessel and
    plant owners is through harvester processor cooperatives. And
    these cooperatives have the additional benefit of reducing the
    consolidation that can occur in a straight individual fishing
    quota fishery, thereby preserving jobs both in the processing
    sector and the harvesting sector. A great example of this type
    of program is the American Fisheries Act, which was passed by
    Congress in 1998, and has turned out to be incredibly effective
    in rationalizing the largest commercial fishery in the United
    States, the Bering Sea pollock fishery.
        In 2003, Congress passed legislation which instructed the
    North Pacific Fishery Management Council to rationalize a very,
    very small fishery in the central Gulf of Alaska, the Rockfish
    Fishery. And Congress passed the legislation asking that the
    Council preserve both harvesting and processing history, but
    didn't dictate how that would occur. The Council then developed
    a program with harvester-processor cooperatives, very similar
    to the American Fisheries Act, and it was proven to be very
    successful.
        Unfortunately, that provision only lasted 5 years, so it
    needed to be renewed. In the process of renewing that rockfish
    program, NOAA came out with a legal opinion in 2009 saying that
    the Magnuson-Stevens Act did not authorize harvester-processor
    cooperatives. Despite the fact that the initial rockfish
    program was developed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, this
    opinion came from a very old 1978 NOAA general counsel opinion
    saying that you couldn't give preference to domestic processors
    over foreign processors.
        Congress very quickly changed the law to statutorily
    indicate that you could. And, in doing so, tried to clarify
    this issue of whether processors were part of the fishery. And
    I quote the Chairman of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries
    Committee saying, ``It is the understanding of the House that
    fishing in Section 3 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act includes
    processing.''
        Well, despite my opinion about NOAA's opinion, NOAA
    continues to have this position. And the reason it is a problem
    is that the North Pacific Council is considering rationalizing
    all of the trawl fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska. The industry
    is working on trying to reach an agreement about how best to do
    that. And they were talking about these same harvester-
    processor cooperatives. Council members also want to see the
    option of harvester-processor cooperatives. Unfortunately, NOAA
    continues to take the position that they aren't authorized
    under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        So, as you move forward with reauthorization, I encourage
    you to consider this issue, and include within the
    reauthorization the authority to include these type of
    harvester-processor cooperatives within the legislation. Thank
    you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Plesha follows:]

              Statement of Joseph T. Plesha, Chief Legal Officer,
                          Trident Seafoods Corporation

        Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, for the
    opportunity to testify on the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens
    Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The
    Magnuson-Stevens Act has been remarkably successful in achieving the
    goals established by Congress when it was first enacted in 1976 and as
    it has been amended throughout the years. I would like to specifically
    acknowledge the work of one of the Committee members in this regard.
    Congressman Don Young was not only instrumental in the writing of the
    initial legislation back in the mid-1970s, he has been a constant
    champion for Alaska's, and our Nation's, seafood industry since passage
    of the legislation. Throughout his career Don Young has been a leader
    in Congress for our fisheries and I would like to express my sincere
    appreciation and gratitude.
        I am testifying on behalf of Trident Seafoods Corporation. Trident
    was founded in 1973 by Chuck Bundrant, one of the true pioneers in
    ``Americanizing'' the fishery resources off Alaska. The company started
    in 1973 with a single boat that harvested crab in the Bering Sea. Chuck
    is one of the most focused, intelligent and driven individuals whom you
    will ever meet. He literally worked seven days a week, took
    unbelievable physical and financial risk, and invested all that was
    earned back into Trident and the seafood industry. As one of countless
    examples, in the very early 1980s, when foreign factory trawler fleets
    still harvested virtually all of the groundfish off Alaska, Trident was
    the first shorebased processing company to buy and process large
    volumes of pollock and cod from U.S. fishermen at a plant located on
    the remote Aleutian Island of Akutan. It was difficult to find markets
    for these groundfish products because foreign countries that consumed
    pollock and cod already had ample supplies from their allocation of
    fish in U.S. waters. Akutan struggled financially. Then the Akutan
    plant burned down in 1983. To the surprise of many others in the
    industry, Chuck immediately began to rebuild at Akutan. Trident now
    employees over 1,000 people at its Akutan plant and the plant is the
    largest seafood processing facility in North America, if not the world.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Trident currently has processing plants in ten different
    coastal communities in Alaska, as well as primary and secondary
    processing plants in Washington State, Oregon and Minnesota. We operate
    five floating processors, three catcher processors, fourteen trawl
    catcher vessels, four crab catcher vessels and various tender and
    freight vessels. Trident is one of the largest seafood companies in the
    United States. It is still a family-owned business, however, and Chuck
    remains its chief executive officer. His son, Joe Bundrant, will take
    over as president of Trident in 2014.
        Trident's story is a great example of how the fisheries off our
    coasts, which previously had been used exclusively by foreign fishing
    fleets, are now fully utilized by the United States fishing industry
    under the policies of Magnuson-Stevens Act.
    Catch-Share Programs and the Issue of Inclusion of Processors
        My comments regarding fishery rationalization programs are focused
    on the industrial fisheries in the United States. Rationalization is
    known by many names: Individual Fishing Quotas, Individual Transferable
    Quotas, Catch Shares, Limited Access Privilege Programs, and others.
    But the basic idea is to allocate the privilege to utilize a certain
    portion of a fishery resource so that, as a result, the fishery becomes
    more economically efficient, or ``rational'' than the open access race-
    for-fish. The North Pacific and Pacific councils have spent a great
    deal of time on the issues surrounding rationalization, but the
    fisheries they manage tend to be relatively large and with capital
    intensive harvesting and processing sectors.
    1. Benefits of rationalization.
        Open access fisheries under-perform rationalized fisheries in every
    relevant criterion by which performance can be measured. These include:
    conservation of the resource, efficient bycatch avoidance, safety at
    sea, gross value of products produced from the resource, and the cost
    of harvesting and processing the resource. Open access fisheries
    systematically destroy the ability of society to collect net benefits
    from the fisheries.
        This dissipation of benefits in open access fisheries occurs
    because uncontrolled entry into the fishery results in
    overcapitalization. A simple example of overcapitalization is as
    follows: Imagine a fishery that is fished at the maximum sustainable
    yield, and produces one million dollars worth of fish per year with the
    services of five boats, at a total cost per boat of one hundred
    thousand dollars per year per boat. This results in a private and
    societal profit of five hundred thousand dollars per year. In this case
    each boat is earning one hundred thousand dollars of revenue above its
    total cost which includes a return on invested capital. These excess
    profits (rent) induce entry into the fishery despite the fact that the
    new capital investments do not add anything to the total catch. Entry
    continues until all the rent is dissipated. This occurs when the
    fishery contains ten boats for a total cost that exactly equals the
    value of the catch. If the price of fish doubled this would attract ten
    additional boats. The open access fishery squanders whatever societal
    benefits a fishery is otherwise biologically and technically capable of
    providing. If the cost of managing the fishery is not totally borne by
    the industry, then any fishery managed under open access becomes a net
    cost to society.
    2. Does it matter who receives allocations under Catch Share programs?
        The benefits attributed to rationalized fisheries occur regardless
    of whom receives allocations of the privilege to utilize the fish.\1\
    From the standpoint of efficient utilization of the resource, it is
    unimportant who receives allocations of quota. No matter whether
    initial allocations are granted exclusively to the owners of harvesting
    vessels, the owners of processing plants, fishermen (i.e., ``crew''),
    processor workers, or taxi cab drivers in Anchorage, Alaska, the
    rationalized fisheries will be utilized by the most efficient industry
    participants.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Coase, Ronald, The Problem of Social Cost, Journal of Law and
    Economics, 3 (Oct. 1960) 1-44.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As an example, the pollock Community Development Quota (CDQ)
    program allocates ten percent of the Bering Sea pollock TAC to villages
    in Western Alaska. When the CDQ program was initially implemented in
    1991, the CDQ communities had no involvement in the pollock industry
    whatsoever. The pollock resource was already being efficiently utilized
    by the existing industry. The pollock quota allocated to CDQ
    communities was simply leased by those communities to companies
    involved in the pollock fishery. It was very similar to an auction, as
    the CDQ communities generally leased their pollock quotas to the
    highest bidder. Because the fishery was rationalized--albeit into the
    hands of entities that were complete outsiders to the fishery--the
    harvesting and processing of CDQ pollock was as efficient as if the a
    pollock company itself owned the quota.
    3. Why not auction the privilege to utilize fishery resources?
        At first blush, there appear to be good reasons to auction the
    privilege to use fishery resources. Our Nation's fishery resources
    belong to the general public.\2\ It would be very simple to allocate
    all the benefits of rationalized fisheries to the general public
    through a simple auction of quota. The federal treasury can certainly
    use the revenue. If auctioned by the federal government, the fisheries
    will be utilized just as efficiently as if the privileges were instead
    allocated directly to industry participants.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ The United States claims sovereign rights over all fish within
    the United States Exclusive Economic Zone. 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1853a.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Looked at another way, if a large un-exploited stock of cod were
    suddenly discovered off a remote U.S.-owned island in the Pacific
    ocean, for example, and fishery managers wanted to rationalize it prior
    to the resource being exploited, the federal government would likely
    auction the privileges to this undeveloped resource rather than
    allocate the privileges to utilize the fishery to processing plant
    owners or fishing vessel owners based in Alaska, Washington State or
    Oregon.
        The typical progression of fisheries, however, is that we tend to
    wait until a fishery is overcapitalized through the uncontrolled entry
    process inherent in an open access fishery before attempting to
    rationalize the fishery. The fact that we tend to wait until a fishery
    is overcapitalized complicates the initial allocation process
    enormously.
    4. Why fishing vessel and processing plant owners must be included in
            rationalized fisheries.
        In a fully capitalized, open-access fishery, where the harvest is
    controlled by a single quota (TAC) that the participants race to
    exploit, the investments in fishing vessels and processing plants that
    are specific to the fishery being rationalized (and that are also
    relatively durable and non-malleable) will be lost as a result of
    rationalization. This lost investment value reappears in the value of
    the quota to utilize the resource. Wealth is unavoidably transferred
    from the fixed capital of processing plants and fishing vessels to the
    holders of quota.\3\ In other words, after an open access fishery is
    rationalized, rationalization fishing vessels and processing plants
    have little value, potentially even negative value, especially in
    Alaska where these assets may have on other productive uses.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Plesha, Joseph T., and Riley, Christopher C., The Allocation of
    Individual Transferable Quotas to Investors in the Seafood Industry of
    the North Pacific, (Jan. 1992). See also, Matulich, S.C., Mittelhammer,
    and Reberte, Toward a More Complete Model of Individual Transferrable
    Fishing Quotas: Implications of Incorporating the Processing Sector,
    Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 31(1) 112-28
    (1996).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        When such fisheries are rationalized, owners of fishing vessels and
    processing plants can suffer enormous financial losses. The amount of
    the loss depends upon three factors: (1) The extent the fishery is
    overcapitalized; (2) the durability (or how long it lasts with routine
    maintenance) of the physical capital in harvesting and processing; and
    (3) the degree that the capital is non-malleable (or has no alternative
    uses of near or equal financial benefit to the owner).
    5. How do these losses occur?
        The mechanism at work that causes investors in fishing and
    processing capacity to lose the value of their capital investments is
    that, by definition, the overcapitalized fishery has much more capital,
    and hence daily harvesting and processing capacity, than is necessary
    to prosecute the fishery once it is rationalized. A quota holder would
    not need to own a boat or a processing plant in order to participate in
    a fishery. When a quota holder decides to participate in the fishery,
    he or she could simply hold a reverse auction \4\ among fishing vessel
    owners. The vessel owners would bid down to the point where the winning
    boat just covered its variable costs. The quota holders would then
    proceed to secure processing services with the same result. The winning
    bid for processing services would cover only the variable costs \5\ of
    production.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ In a reverse auction, the sellers compete to obtain business
    from the buyer and prices will typically decrease as the sellers
    undercut each other.
        \5\ Variable costs are those expenses that increase with
    production. For processors, variable costs would include things like
    direct processing labor, packaging, and increased utility charges. For
    vessel owners, variable costs would include things like fuel.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As long as the price agreed upon by vessel and plant owners allows
    for any return above variable costs, processing and vessel owning
    companies have an incentive to make a more competitive offer until they
    cover only their variable costs of operation and make no return on
    their capital investments. This is a difficult concept for many to
    appreciate. Why would any rational businessman invest tens or hundreds
    of millions of dollars into an industry and later allow others to use
    that investment for free? When an overcapitalized, open access fishery
    is rationalized there is far more harvesting and processing capital
    than is necessary because instead of the fishery lasting, for example,
    one month in an open access race, under rationalization it can be
    efficiently utilized in six months; meaning there is six times more
    existing harvesting and processing capacity than necessary. Not all of
    this physical capital can remain busy during the new six-month fishery,
    but its owners will all have an incentive to keep the physical capital
    operating throughout this period. If this millions of dollars of excess
    physical capital earns one penny above the variable costs of its
    operation, its owner is better off than under the alternative of
    earning nothing. Thus, starved for production through their facilities,
    vessel and plant owners bid for product until the price reaches a level
    at which they no longer can cover their variable cost.
        The holders of quota thereby will effectively own not only the fish
    in the fishery, but also usufructuary \6\ rights to all the non-
    malleable physical capital used to harvest and process those fish. This
    situation, where the quota holders enjoy free-of-charge use of physical
    capital, continues until the capital stock wears out to the point where
    only the appropriate amount remains.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ A usufructuary right is the right of enjoyment, enabling a
    holder of the right to derive profit from property that is owned by
    another person.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Immediately upon beginning operations under a rationalized fishery,
    therefore, owners of fishery-related capital will see the return on
    their investment fall to zero. This cannot be avoided and is, in fact,
    absolutely necessary in order to de-capitalize an overcapitalized
    industry. The owners of this physical capital cannot expect to realize
    any return on their investment until the excess capital stock leaves
    the industry to the point where it is at the optimal level for the
    rationalized fishery.
        In industrial fisheries like the groundfish fisheries off Alaska,
    the financial losses described above are suffered by owners of fishing
    vessels and processing plants. Virtually every vessel and plant owner
    is a corporation; an entity invented by lawyers with the purpose of
    accumulating and investing capital for the financial benefit of its
    shareholders.\7\ These corporations are not ``fishermen.'' The
    corporate owners of fishing vessels and processing plants do not
    themselves fish or process. They are not crew aboard fishing vessels or
    workers in processing plants. (Although it is possible some of the
    shareholders might be.)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Micklethwait, John and Wooldrige, Adrian., The Company, A Short
    History of a Revolutionary Idea (2003).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The allocation of quota to vessel and plant owners in industrial,
    fully capitalized open access fisheries is essential to compensate
    those owners for the losses they suffer to the value of their vessels
    and plants as a result of rationalization. Some vessel owners may
    lament the fact that processing plant owners seek to be part of
    rationalized fisheries, but the rationale for including processing
    plant owners in the allocation of quota is also the only rationale for
    including vessel owners in the allocation of quota. If a corporation
    that owns a fishing vessel does not suffer losses in the value of its
    boat as a result of rationalization, there is no rational basis upon
    which it can be allocated quota.
    6. One of the reasons there is industry opposition to Catch Share
            management.
        Despite the potential benefits of rationalization, it remains
    controversial. Recently Congress has considered placing a moratorium on
    the development of any new rationalization programs. There are many who
    fear they will be negatively impacted by fishery rationalization.
    Certainly owners of processing plants in Alaska and along the Pacific
    coast collectively have well over a billion dollars at risk if the open
    access fisheries in which they have invested--and upon which they
    depend--are rationalized and processing plants are not included in the
    program.
        In the North Pacific, however, the process of developing
    rationalized fisheries tends to be inclusive of the stakeholders who
    are most impacted by rationalization. Given the potential benefits of
    rationalization, it is appropriate for the ``tool'' of Catch Shares to
    be in the ``tool box'' of options for the regional councils and
    Secretary to consider. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA) is a strong proponent of allowing Catch Share
    management to be one of the tools available to manage fisheries.
        One of the potentially effective ways to rationalize a fishery that
    includes both vessel and plant owners is through fishery cooperatives.
    Under this cooperative approach both vessel and processing plant
    historical participation in the fisheries is preserved. Despite the
    success of fishery cooperatives that include both vessels and plants,
    NOAA has taken the legal position that such management systems are not
    ``authorized'' under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. These cooperatives are a
    tool not available in the councils' toolbox.
    7. History of harvester-processor cooperatives.
        With passage of the American Fisheries Act (AFA) in October of
    1998, Congress rationalized the Bering Sea pollock fishery, the largest
    commercial fishery in the United States. The inshore fishing vessels
    and processing plants were rationalized based on the concept of
    protecting both vessel and processing plant market shares. The AFA
    allowed cooperatives to be formed and pollock quota was allocated to
    each cooperative based on the catch history of the vessels that are
    members of the cooperative. But the AFA protected a pollock processor's
    market share by requiring that each vessel in a cooperative deliver at
    least 90% of its harvest of pollock to its historical market. A fishing
    vessel that was allocated quota could not deliver anywhere else without
    their historical processor's approval. Thereby, each processing plant's
    market share in the fishery was protected, as was each vessel's. A
    vessel could move to a different processor without its historical
    processor's agreement only by fishing in the open access pollock
    fishery for a year and delivering a majority of its harvest to the
    different processor. In addition, the AFA included ``limited entry for
    pollock processors.'' No new processors are allowed to enter the Bering
    Sea inshore pollock fishery.
        The AFA's inshore cooperative system was controversial and
    immediately after its enactment some pollock vessel owners petitioned
    the North Pacific Council to amend the AFA by removing the requirement
    that a vessel deliver its pollock to a particular processor. To quote
    one of the proposal's sponsors:
            Under the language of the American Fisheries Act, pollock
            vessels which enter into co-ops and deliver into shorebased
            processors are prevented from forming a co-op if the processor
            doesn't bless it first. They're inhibited in their ability if a
            co-op is formed to get the best fair price. They are prevented
            from entering into a co-op with a different processor in the
            following year. And, last, they are prevented from freely
            moving between competing buyers. We are requesting that the
            Council consider and analyze regulations which would support
            reasonable vessel/plant negotiations. Our proposed change would
            allow vessels in a co-op to deliver their catch history to the
            market of their choice. For example, if one plant would pay
            nine cents a pound because they are producing fillets and
            another would pay eight cents because they are producing
            surimi, we feel that we should be able to deliver to the plant
            with the highest price, even though we may not have been in the
            co-op delivering to them with that processor in the previous
            year.
    Margaret Hall, Testimony before the NPFMC, (Feb. 13, 1999).
        The North Pacific Fishery Management Council did not adopt the
    proposal, instead choosing to keep the AFA's inshore cooperative intact
    while it watched how the system worked for the industry.
        The AFA's inshore cooperative structure was implemented by
    regulation in 2000 and has proven to be remarkably successful. Whether
    measured in price per pound or percentage of finished product sales
    price paid for a vessel's harvest, pollock vessel owners receive
    considerably more for their catch now than they did prior to passage of
    the AFA.
        Below is a historical review of the average ex-vessel prices
    Trident paid for pollock delivered to Akutan from 1993 to 2012. (See
    Figure 2, below.)

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Not only have ex-vessel pollock prices increased since passage
    of the AFA, but the value of pollock vessels has increased. But since
    passage of the AFA vessels are now bought and sold not on the value of
    the hull, but based primarily on the harvesting quota associated with
    the vessel. In 2001, for example, inshore pollock harvesting vessels
    sold at price from $1,225 to $1,250 per metric ton of quota assigned to
    the vessel. Now AFA pollock vessels sell for a price of about $1,950
    per metric ton of quota assigned to the vessel. The value of shorebased
    vessels in the pollock fishery is currently far greater than prior to
    passage of the AFA.
        The success of the AFA did not go un-noticed. By the early 2000's
    Pacific Ocean Perch, as well as Northern and Pelagic shelf rockfish
    were fully utilized by the commercial trawl industry in the Central
    Gulf of Alaska. The entire rockfish total allowable catch for these
    species was harvested in two weeks in a true race-for-fish. There was a
    statutory moratorium in place at that time which prevented the
    Secretary from approving any new Individual Fishing Quota programs. By
    2002, representatives of the trawl vessel owners and processing plants
    that utilized Gulf of Alaska rockfish were urging Congress to
    legislatively authorize rationalization of rockfish.
        In 2003 Congress passed the Rockfish Pilot Program directing the
    Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the North Pacific Fishery
    Management Council, to rationalize the rockfish fisheries in the
    Central Gulf of Alaska. Congress required the Secretary to develop a
    program that protected the harvesting and processing histories of the
    existing participants. The legislation, however, did not direct the
    Council or the Secretary how to protect each sector.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ The Rockfish Pilot Program legislation is short enough to
    recite in a footnote: ``The Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with
    the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, shall establish a pilot
    program that recognizes the historic participation of fishing vessels
    (1996 to 2002, best 5 of 7 years) and historic participation of fish
    processors (1996 to 2000, best 4 of 5 years) for pacific ocean perch,
    northern rockfish, and pelagic shelf rockfish harvested in Central Gulf
    of Alaska. Such a pilot program shall (1) provide for a set-aside of up
    to 5 percent for the total allowable catch of such fisheries for
    catcher vessels not eligible to participate in the pilot program, which
    shall be delivered to shore-based fish processors not eligible to
    participate in the pilot program; (2) establish catch limits for non-
    rockfish species and non-target rockfish species currently harvested
    with pacific ocean perch, northern rockfish, and pelagic shelf
    rockfish, which shall be based on historical harvesting of such bycatch
    species.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In June of 2005 the Council took final action to implement the
    Rockfish Pilot Program. The program developed by the Council was
    similar to the AFA's inshore cooperative structure. A vessel was
    eligible to join a cooperative only in association with the processing
    facility that the harvester delivered the most pounds of rockfish to
    during the years 1996 through 2000. The associated processor was
    expected to negotiate an agreement with vessel owners that
    contractually limited the vessels from delivering to any other
    processor.\9\ Thus a vessel was allocated its historical market share
    and the processing plant was assured of its historical market share.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ Final Review Draft, RIR, EA and IRFA for the proposed Amendment
    68 to the Gulf of Alaska Fishery Management Plan, June 2005. p. 69.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Rockfish Pilot Program, however, expired after 2011and the
    Council was required to take action to renew the program. Stakeholders
    in the program initially supported rolling-over the existing program as
    evidenced by the following testimony from the same individual who
    initially opposed the AFA cooperative structure:
            Thank you. Good afternoon members of the Council. I am Margaret
            Hall, here today representing the vessels Progress and
            Vanguard.

            The Rockfish Pilot Program has been a wonderful benefit to the
            community of Kodiak and the Kodiak processors. Currently 100%
            of the CV rockfish and secondary species are landed in Kodiak
            to associated processors. These processors hence, are protected
            through coop agreements and the rockfish regulations correlated
            to landings and processing history. The Council action of
            choice preferred by many of us independent catcher vessels
            would be to roll-over the existing program, with minor changes
            selected after analysis.
    Margaret Hall, Testimony before the NPFMC, (June 8, 2008).
        At its February 2009 meeting the Council chose to initiate an
    analysis of rolling-over the rockfish program beyond the statutory
    sunset date.\10\ At the Council's October 2009 meeting, however, the
    alternative of extending the existing Rockfish Pilot Program was
    removed from the options for analysis as a result of a legal opinion
    from NOAA General Counsel for the Alaska Region. NOAA's legal opinion
    (``2009 Opinion'') concluded that the Magnuson-Stevens Act did not
    authorize extension of the Rockfish Pilot Program.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ CGOA Rockfish Program Motion, NPFMC February 9, 2009.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        NOAA's 2009 Opinion is wrong. The Rockfish Pilot Program
    legislation itself did not provide statutory authority beyond that
    which already existed in the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Rockfish
    Pilot Program's cooperative structure was developed by the Council and
    approved by the Secretary. As a matter of policy, it is nonsensical for
    NOAA to limit its authority to develop rationalization programs, like
    harvester-processor cooperatives, that have proven to be successful for
    a broad group of stakeholders. NOAA's 2009 Opinion seems to ignore the
    2006 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act that require consideration
    of ``employment in the harvesting and processing sectors,'' and
    ``investments in, and dependence upon, the fishery.'' \11\ Certainly
    the 2009 Opinion unnecessarily removes a potentially useful tool from
    the toolbox.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1853a(c)(5).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        NOAA's odd legal position on this issue originates from a 1978 NOAA
    General Counsel memo that concluded the Magnuson-Stevens Act did not
    authorize the Secretary to disapprove foreign processing vessels
    applications to operate in U.S. waters just because domestic shorebased
    processors had the capacity and intent to utilize the same U.S. fishery
    resources. Congress quickly passed the so-called ``processor
    preference'' amendment giving statutory preference to U.S. processors
    over foreign operations.\12\ In doing so, Congress believed it
    clarified the fact that domestic processors were part of the fisheries.
    As the Chairman of the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee,
    Congressman John Murphy, explained during consideration of the
    amendment by the House of Representatives:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ P.L. 95-354 (1978).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            In the course of our discussions of the bill, some question was
            raised about whether the definition of ``fishing'' under
            section 3 of the [Magnuson-Stevens Act] includes
            ``processing.'' This question is important because the
            [Magnuson-Stevens Act] uses the term ``fishing'' so that the
            statute applies to the processing industry in the same
            situations only if ``fishing'' includes processing . . . In the
            end, we decided to leave the [Magnuson-Stevens Act's]
            definitions unchanged on this point while, at the same time,
            making clear the Act was intended to benefit the entire fishing
            industry . . . [I]t is the understanding of the House that
            ``fishing'' in section 3 of the [Magnuson-Stevens Act] does
            include ``processing'' and that, for that reason, the proposed
            clarification is unnecessary.'' \13\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ Statement of Congressman John Murphy, 124 Cong. Rec. H8266,
    Aug. 10, 1978.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Because of NOAA's 2009 Opinion, however, a rationalization program
    was adopted by the Council that did not include processors and instead
    granted all the benefits of rationalization to the harvesters. The ex-
    vessel prices paid in the newly rationalized rockfish fisheries,
    compared to prices prior to and during the Rockfish Pilot Program, show
    the impacts of a rationalization program that does not balance the
    interests of both sectors of the industry. Prices paid to fishermen in
    2012 nearly doubled from the previous three years. (See Figure 3,
    below.)

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

       8. Need for Magnuson-Stevens Act amendment.
        The Central Gulf of Alaska rockfish fisheries are very small
    compared with the other groundfish fisheries in the region. The North
    Pacific Council will begin exploring whether and how to rationalize all
    of the trawl groundfish fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska as early as
    June of this year. Vessel owners and processing plant representatives
    have been negotiating potential rationalization programs that contain
    harvester-processor cooperatives. There are also members of the Council
    who would prefer to have the option of considering some form of
    harvester-processor cooperatives as a way to include both sectors in
    the rationalized fisheries. It is not an option available to the
    Council at this time, however, due to the NOAA legal opinion.
        Shorebased processors in the Gulf of Alaska have tens of millions
    of dollars at risk and fear that they will not be included in the
    rationalized groundfish fisheries unless there is the legal authority
    to develop rationalization programs with harvester-processor linkages.
    Despite the overall benefits of rationalized fisheries, processors are
    understandably anxious about proceeding with any effort to rationalize
    the fisheries if there is a chance they may be excluded as they were in
    the most recent rockfish program.
        There are other Magnuson-Stevens Act issues I would also like to
    raise.
    State of Alaska Jurisdiction Over Salmon Management in the EEZ
        The North Pacific Fishery Management Council is considering
    updating its salmon Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The Council's salmon
    FMP was last updated in 1990. The FMP does not contain some provisions
    now required under more recently adopted provisions of the Magnuson-
    Stevens Act and national standards guidelines; including Annual Catch
    Limits (ACLs) and accountability measures (AM).
        Under an agreement with the federal government, the State of Alaska
    manages the salmon fishery in state waters. The salmon FMP also covers
    salmon harvest in the EEZ, outside of state waters. There are four
    salmon fisheries in the EEZ. They are: (1) the commercial troll fishery
    in Southeast Alaska; and net fisheries in (2) Prince William Sound; (3)
    Cook Inlet; and, (4) the South Peninsula area near False Pass. All of
    these EEZ salmon fisheries are managed by the State of Alaska under the
    existing salmon FMP.
        Given its long history of sustainable fishery management, the
    Alaska salmon fishery is arguably the best managed fishery in the
    world. The State of Alaska manages the salmon fishery based on
    escapement goals, so it is not clear how ACLs and AM can be adopted for
    the Alaska's salmon management.
        Because it would be extremely complicated to revise the salmon FMP
    to meet the new Magnuson-Stevens Act and national standards
    requirements, and because the federal government has no real role in
    salmon management in the EEZ, the Council might prefer to simply repeal
    the salmon FMP for the net fisheries west of Southeast Alaska, and
    allow the State of Alaska to continue management. The problem with
    repealing the salmon FMP, however, is that the State of Alaska has no
    authority to regulate vessels in the EEZ that are not registered with
    the State. If the salmon FMP were repealed, it would be possible for
    unregulated salmon fishing in the EEZ.
        One option to resolve this problem would be to slightly modify
    section 306(a)(3)(C) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to allow the State of
    Alaska to retain management of the salmon fishery in the EEZ if the
    Council chose to repeal the FMP.
        The following simple modification of 306(a)(3)(C) would achieve the
    goal of allowing the State of Alaska to continue management of the
    salmon fisheries in the EEZ if the Council chose to repeal the salmon
    FMP.

            306 State Jurisdiction

            (a) In General--

            . . . .

            (3) A State may regulate a fishing vessel outside the
            boundaries of the State in the following circumstances:

            (C) The fishing vessel is not registered under the law of the
            State of Alaska and is operating in a fishery in the exclusive
            economic zone off Alaska for which there is no fishery
            management plan in place, and the Secretary and the North
            Pacific Council find that there is a legitimate interest of the
            State of Alaska in the conservation and management of such
            fishery. The authority provided under this subparagraph shall
            terminate while a fishery management plan under this Act is
            approved and implemented for such fishery.
    Overfishing Definition and Rebuilding Requirements
        One issue that has been faced in the Pacific coast groundfish
    fishery is the application of fishery rebuilding requirements and how
    they relate to coastal communities. Unlike many other fisheries, all of
    the species that have been designated as ``overfished'' within the
    Pacific groundfish complex have biological characteristics that require
    more than ten years to rebuild the stocks. Under section
    304(e)(4)(A)(i) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the council--in this case,
    the Pacific Fishery Management Council--must specify a rebuilding
    period that is as short a time as possible while taking into account a
    number of factors including the needs of fishing communities; in other
    words, balance biology and social/economic needs. Unfortunately, the
    courts have ignored this balance. In the case of NRDC v Evans, the 9th
    Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2005 that Congress' use of the word
    ``possible'' meant that the Council must use the absolute minimal time
    to rebuild. From a practical standpoint, this means that a council has
    to start with zero fishing. To give a real life example, at one point
    the Pacific Council had a choice between a harvest level that would
    rebuild canary rockfish in January of a particular year, or a slightly
    higher harvest level that would rebuild the stock in December of that
    same year. According to NOAA's lawyers, under the court decision, the
    Pacific Council had to use the lower harvest level.
        A similar, almost humorous, problem exists in Alaska. The North
    Pacific Council has no overfished groundfish stocks, but one species of
    crab, the Pacific Island Blue King crab, is considered overfished and
    in need of a rebuilding plan, even though no directed fisheries have
    occurred for nearly two decades and the species is only occasionally
    taken as bycatch in other fisheries. The North Pacific Council is
    facing the prospect of curtailing certain groundfish fisheries because
    that is the only source of mortality it can affect even though the
    analysis shows that the expected bycatch savings will not impact
    rebuilding success.
        In summary, Congress should consider amendments to the Magnuson-
    Stevens Act that allow some flexibility in its rebuilding requirements
    when a stock is considered ``overfished'' under the Act.
    Reconciling the Magnuson-Stevens Act with the National Environmental
            Policy Act
        The 2006 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act directed the
    Secretary to update agency procedures so that the Magnuson-Stevens Act
    and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) align and that such
    procedures ``shall conform to the time lines for review and approval of
    fishery management plans and plan amendments under this section.'' \14\
    These procedures were to be developed in consultation with the regional
    councils and the Council on Environmental Quality. On February 19,
    2013, NOAA presented its policy directive regarding NEPA compliance to
    the councils.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1854(i).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        NOAA's policy directive does not seem to coordinate NEPA and
    Magnuson-Stevens Act policies, nor improve efficiencies. Instead it
    seems to subsume the Magnuson-Stevens Act process and the councils'
    prerogatives, within NEPA.
        The regional councils cannot be exempt from following NEPA
    requirements. But the key provisions of NEPA should be incorporated
    within the framework of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Magnuson-
    Stevens Act remain the guiding law for fisheries management.
        Thank you very much for your consideration of these comments.
                                     ______

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Plesha. And I want to thank
    all of you on the Committee for your testimony. And I
    particularly want to thank you for the timing of your
    testimony. That is very, very much appreciated, because we do
    have a lot of Members that want to ask questions.
        I will recognize myself now for 5 minutes for my portion of
    the questioning.
        I didn't hear any of you in testimony say that the
    Magnuson-Stevens Act should go away. You all said that it ought
    to be reauthorized, but there needs to be whatever--whatever
    involved with that. And the one whatever, I guess, would be,
    while it is working, the implementation, how the Act works is
    where the criticism may come.
        Now, that being the case, if that is a fair assumption on
    my part--well, let me just ask that. Is that a fair assumption
    on my part, that if there is criticism of the Act, it is the
    implementation thereof, various areas? We will go right down.
    Yes?
        Mr. Jones. Yes.
        Dr. Shipp. I think that is a large part of it. Not all of
    it, obviously.
        The Chairman. I understand that, yes.
        Mr. Dooley. Yes, I agree with that statement.
        The Chairman. OK.
        Mr. Pappalardo. I agree.
        Mr. Logan. Yes, sir, I agree, too.
        Mr. Gill. I agree that it is the majority of it.
        Mr. Plesha. I agree completely.
        The Chairman. OK. That being said, then it seems to me, at
    least from my perspective, because all of the regional councils
    are different, they have a different constituency, they have a
    different fishery, they have different stock, so it would just
    seem to me--and I know the definition of what I am going to say
    may be interpreted in a different way, but it seems to me, when
    you talk about flexibility, from my perspective, that
    flexibility should allow each council to have, obviously, more
    flexibility within their area.
        Now, the challenge that we are going to face is how that
    means one council decision may conflict with another council.
    That is the balancing act that we have.
        OK. You have heard my assessment. Can I ask each of you if
    you would agree that ought to be the approach and the way the
    Committee should look at reauthorizing MSA? Let's go right down
    the list again.
        Mr. Jones. I do, Mr. Chairman, and I believe that there
    were words that--in the main flexibility--that is, putting the
    determination of the ACL back into the council, rather than the
    SSC. That you could, in that change, allow any council who
    wanted to stay like they are, whether it be a----
        The Chairman. Right. I understand. I mean I understand the
    conflicts. We have heard about SSC and how that interacts with
    the catch limits, and all that. I am just simply saying, from a
    matter of potential policy, the flexibility that is being
    desired is flexibility to address those issues more on the
    regional level than the national. That is what I am asking.
        Mr. Jones. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. All right.
        Dr. Shipp. Yes, I concur with what Bob said. The lack of
    flexibility comes from the constraints put on the councils in
    the last reauthorization, especially regarding the SSC. But
    yes, sir.
        The Chairman. OK, all right.
        Mr. Dooley. I would agree with that, too, that the regional
    level would be the better place for this to happen, not
    mandated nationally.
        The Chairman. OK.
        Mr. Pappalardo. I believe that the regionalization is the
    way to handle the issue. However, I think the flexibility that
    we seek in New England is to have a scientific cycle in sync
    with a management cycle. And because that is not the case
    today, we do not have the flexibility to react in--actively or
    proactively manage our fisheries.
        The Chairman. Captain Logan?
        Captain Logan. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I agree that the
    flexibilities would be handed down to the councils to be able
    to have flexibility in their fisheries, because they know how
    their fisheries are being fished and also handled at the time.
        The Chairman. Right.
        Captain Logan. Also, the rigidity of the SSC needs to
    really be looked into, because this is having a big impact on
    the flexibility that is handed down from National Marine
    Fisheries and NOAA to each of the fishery councils. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Mr. Gill?
        Mr. Gill. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I agree and recognize that is
    a huge challenge.
        The Chairman. All right. Mr. Plesha?
        Mr. Plesha. Mr. Chairman, I think the regional council
    system of the Magnuson-Stevens Act is the genius behind the
    Act, and the councils should be as flexible as possible.
        The Chairman. All right. With that in mind--and I thank you
    very much. I mean what I tried to lay out here is the challenge
    that we are going to face in trying to do this with a national
    act. It is not the easiest thing that we have.
        But when NOAA has gotten back--just one example--dealing
    with the catch limits is only one idea. I know it faces all the
    other areas you are talking about. And the mere fact that their
    rewrite of how to do the national guidelines is now taking a
    little bit longer is evidence that there needs to be a way to
    resolve that.
        OK, listen. I very much appreciate that. That is a good
    starting place, I think, for us, as we go forward. I recognize
    the Ranking Member, Mr. Markey.
        Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Pappalardo, in
    your testimony you mention the difference in the frequency and
    quality of stock assessments that underpin management of two
    New England fisheries: Atlantic Scallops and Northeast
    Groundfish. Do you think we need a comprehensive, end-to-end
    review of the stock assessment process?
        Mr. Pappalardo. I do. If what is meant by that is what I
    mentioned earlier, the syncing of science and making it
    available to managers, I think one of the fatal flaws that we
    have between the two fisheries is in groundfish the fishing
    industry has absolutely no involvement in the collection of
    data or assessment data for managers to consider. By contrast,
    in the scallop fishery, the scallop industry conducts the
    assessment, their own assessment, the government conducts
    theirs. They get together on an annual basis, and there is
    agreement that it is working.
        Mr. Markey. Well, I do believe it has to be comprehensive.
    And let me ask this. What needs to happen for the successful
    cooperative science and management program in the scallop
    fishery industry to be replicated for groundfish?
        Mr. Pappalardo. Well, for starters, I think we need to
    create a space outside of the council arena that will allow the
    industry and other agencies and perhaps academic institutions
    to get together and solve this problem. Right now we are
    getting assessments every 3 to 5 years. We are essentially
    trying to manage our checking accounts with 3-year-old data.
    And I think the scallop industry and what they have done stands
    as an example of what we would like to have in other fisheries.
        Mr. Markey. And so, in your opinion, what role can
    technology play in improving fishery management and maximizing
    healthy stocks? Would improvements in electronic catch
    reporting and monitoring benefit fishermen and fish stocks?
        Mr. Pappalardo. Thank you, sir. Yes, absolutely. There are
    technologies currently in use in other parts of the world, as
    well as in other parts of the country, that would rapidly take
    information from the fishing grounds and get it to the
    managers. Within a day, within 2 days. Currently, the reports
    from the human observers that we are required to take on our
    boats take 6 to 9 months to get to the management table. I
    think that is unacceptable.
        Bank of America or any other institution can manage
    millions of accounts on a moment-by-moment basis. But when it
    comes to about 600 fishing boats in the groundfish industry it
    takes 6 to 9 months to figure out what the heck just happened.
    That is no way to manage.
        Mr. Markey. You are saying in a modern world, with
    technology available.
        Mr. Pappalardo. That is right.
        Mr. Markey. So, I know that many of the fishermen in
    Massachusetts, especially those who target groundfish, are
    hurting right now. I have been working with others in the New
    England delegation, including Mr. Keating, to secure economic
    disaster assistance funding for that fishery. And I will
    continue to do so.
        In the immediate term, though, what actions can the Federal
    Government take to provide fishermen with a bridge to the other
    side of recent quota reductions?
        Mr. Pappalardo. Thank you, sir. In my written testimony I
    mentioned--I believe I mentioned a bill that was filed by now-
    retired-Congressman Frank that talked about re-purposing some
    of the SK funds that the Nation collects, and making them
    available to the regions to handle their issues on a region-by-
    region basis. I think that would be an interesting place to
    look.
        In addition, I know that there are other programs available
    to other industries, whether in agriculture or livestock, where
    businessmen have access to Federally backed capital. I think
    that is something that some fishermen may find attractive, as
    they can make a transition into another fishery.
        Mr. Markey. And finally, if we could, what impact are the
    warming oceans due to climate change having, for example, on
    the cod and lobster industries in New England and across the
    country?
        Mr. Pappalardo. Certainly playing into our ability to
    rebuild some of these resources. I am not a scientist in
    training, but I can tell you that when you have a depressed
    stock like codfish on Georgia's bank, and you have a
    requirement to rebuild it, having an imbalanced ecosystem with
    lots of different stocks and different levels, as well as
    climate change, if you will, makes that task much more
    difficult.
        Mr. Markey. So what does a warming ocean mean for that cod?
    Do they need colder water in order to survive than warmer
    water?
        Mr. Pappalardo. I would say that we have always known we
    have the southern end of the range of that resource. That is
    what the scientific literature tells us. However, we are not
    sure if this is a cyclical issue, in terms of water
    temperature, or not. I know the waters this year have been
    relatively cold, and there is some hope amongst some of the
    fishermen that it will translate into a good year.
        Mr. Markey. Great. Let's hope so. Thank you.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. I will now recognize
    Dr. Fleming, the Subcommittee Chairman dealing with oceans, for
    5 minutes.
        Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, gentlemen, thank
    you for coming before us to testify. In NOAA's testimony on
    page five it says--and I quote--``Without high-quality fishery
    science, we cannot be confident that the Nation is attaining
    optimum yield from its fisheries.
        Now, I have heard it mentioned several times that we really
    need to rely on science, we need to be more precise. But the
    truth is stock assessments are being done less and less
    frequently and less and less accurately. And, as a result of
    that, the estimates are always leaning in the conservative
    direction toward less and less fishing. And what we hear from
    NOAA when they come and testify, they talk about their budget,
    they say that we are not funding them enough. But then, if you
    actually look at their budget, their budgets have increased
    dramatically over the years.
        But here is what we are finding. NOAA has been redirecting
    its budget into climate science, with a budget increase of $112
    million, which is an 8 percent increase, in the environmental
    satellite program last year. And, at the same time, fisheries
    were cut $15 million, 1.6 percent.
        So, it seems to me that we are starving this aspect, the
    science part of this, the precise part, creating overly
    conservative estimates. And, really, in many cases, probably
    under-fishing. And I think some of the testimony here is that
    we are actually not even coming close to the allowable amounts
    in some cases.
        So I would like to hear from the panel. I would like to
    open this up. Do you think that NOAA is using the funding in an
    efficient manner, and certainly with respect to catch-shares
    and fishing in general? Yes, that will be fine, we can start at
    that end.
        Mr. Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No, I don't think that
    they are using it the way it should be used. I think that the
    NOAA people in our part of the world would be glad to have
    enough funds to do the stock assessment work if they had the
    money. I don't think they have a say-so of how much money comes
    their way. I think that decisions to reprogram money that could
    be used is really what is hurting us bad. And if we could get,
    in the South Atlantic, maybe $500,000 or $1 million--we are not
    asking for hundreds of millions--to do basic work on our stock
    of red snapper, black sea bass, and other things, it would pay
    significant dividends.
        Dr. Fleming. Well, and I will point out to you that one
    satellite, one climate satellite, costs as much as $750
    million. Yes, sir.
        Dr. Shipp. Yes, sir. Stock assessment science is very
    expensive, and especially it is in a transition phase right
    now. Previously, stock assessments were based on fishery-
    dependent data, the catches from the fishermen, which
    inherently is biased and flawed. And we are moving toward stock
    assessments based on fishery independent science. That is
    expensive. And just in the last few years, I think the Science
    Center has started to move in that direction, but it is very
    slow.
        When you consider the complexities of a model of a
    hurricane track or a winter storm track, and 3 days out you
    lose almost all your reliability--and we are looking at stock
    assessments with a 30-year or a 20-year projection--who can
    have confidence in that? So I think that is one of our
    fundamental problems.
        Dr. Fleming. Again, the question is, is NOAA efficiently
    using its money or improperly funding or under-funding the
    stock assessments and the science that go with that, and
    putting the money elsewhere in perhaps an inefficient manner?
    Real quickly, because I am running out of time.
        Mr. Dooley. I would--a short answer is going to be hard to
    give you. I would say that--and I will use a particular
    example, West Coast Groundfish rationalization, the catch-share
    program. Because of that tool, we have now been able to form
    cooperatives and been able to take some of the management away
    from NMFS, so they should be able to--like catch accounting in
    our particular whiting cooperative, for instance, resumes 98
    percent of that burden.
        Dr. Fleming. OK, I am running out of time. Let's hear just
    yes or no among the other panel. Is NOAA doing a good job of
    efficiently funding the catch-shares program, the science, the
    surveys that go with that?
        Mr. Pappalardo. I don't know about NOAA's budget, but I can
    tell you we are not getting the information we need to manage
    our fisheries.
        Captain Logan. No, sir, we are not getting the information
    we needed to manage our fisheries through NOAA.
        Dr. Fleming. OK.
        Mr. Gill. The fishery's money is under-funded. Whether it
    should be different priorities, I couldn't tell you. But there
    is not enough money to do it correctly at the fisheries level.
        Mr. Plesha. I concur the highest priority should be
    scientific survey work.
        Dr. Fleming. So it seems the consensus of the panel is
    that, definitely, the science of surveys is well under-funded,
    and that data is not reliable. And, most likely, where we
    appear to be overfishing, we are probably, in a sense, under-
    fishing, compared to what we are being told and what is being
    appreciated.
        I thank you gentlemen, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
    Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Guam, Ms. Bordallo.
        Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank
    the witnesses this morning.
        Well, the heart of the Magnuson-Stevens Act is to protect
    our fisheries. In 1976, it prohibited foreign fishing vessels
    from fishing in our waters. I represent Guam. This has not been
    the case in Guam. We find them within our 200-mile Exclusive
    Economic Zone.
        I am committed, however, to finding the right balance with
    economic impact to our local fishermen. I am disappointed,
    however, that none of our panelists here directly represent the
    Pacific area, and yet we have representatives from Hawaii, the
    CNMI, myself, and Mr. Faleomavaega from American Samoa. So I am
    disappointed in that.
        Your testimonies this morning have not addressed the very
    big problem of illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing.
    Our fishermen are being cheated across this country. Catch that
    rightfully belongs to law-abiding citizens is taken by vessels
    from foreign countries that illegally enter our waters and
    fish. These bad actors unnecessarily compete with legally
    captured seafood from American fishermen. Illegal and
    unreported catch also biases the catch estimate used in stock
    assessments.
        IUU vessels are less likely to adhere to management
    measures. In Guam, this may be preventing the traditional use
    of protected species such as the Green Sea Turtle. Throughout
    the Pacific, limited harvest of Green Sea Turtles is allowed,
    but is prohibited in Guam, CNMI, and Hawaii, and perhaps even
    Samoa. Targeted or incidental catch of Green Sea Turtles by IUU
    vessels may be limiting the recovery of the Green Turtle
    population.
        This is not a problem for just Guam. According to the 2011
    commercial fisheries data, of the top 100 U.S. ports affected
    by job loss due to IUU fishing, 24 are in the Gulf of Mexico
    and 18 are in Alaska.
        Around one in five fish caught in the world were done so
    illegally. So I am interested in your thoughts, Mr. Plesha.
    Given the problems that Alaska has with not only IUU fishing
    but also importing of illegally caught products, many of which
    are mislabeled, do you believe that legislation like my bill,
    which is H.R. 69--are you familiar with that bill?
        Mr. Plesha. Ms.----
        Ms. Bordallo. No? Well, let me just say it amends the High
    Seas Driftnet Fisheries Enforcement Act, the High Seas Fishing
    Compliance Act, the Northern Pacific Halibut Act, and the
    Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. By
    amending these Acts we revised the violations, the penalties,
    the permit requirements, the port privileges, the IUU sanction,
    and other enforcements.
        So, I would like to get your feelings on this. Do we need
    more tools to protect our seafood industries and fisheries?
        Mr. Plesha. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, members of
    the Committee, I very much do believe that we need to
    strengthen our IUU enforcement----
        Ms. Bordallo. Could you speak up a little?
        Mr. Plesha. Yes. I very much do believe that we do need to
    strengthen our IUU enforcement. I spoke 2 years ago on behalf
    of Senator Murkowski's and Senator Begich's legislation to
    accomplish that, and I haven't seen the specific provision you
    are talking to, but I very much support the effort.
        Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much. And again, I have other
    questions for the next panel, but Mr. Chairman, I do think we
    should place our interest more into the Pacific area. It is the
    largest body of water in the world. Thank you.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back her time. The
    Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Runyan.
        Mr. Runyan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And my first question
    is going to be for Captain Logan. Obviously, up in my district,
    in New Jersey, I have quite a few charterboat captains. And I
    have heard many complaints about Magnuson-Stevens from disgust
    over lack of access to rebuild stocks and poor science
    resulting in reductions in the catch. And the big one is really
    fear of the future of catch-share programs being imposed on
    them.
        The lack of access to rebuild stocks has really seemed to
    hit the biggest nerve, especially in New Jersey, where
    recreational fishermen have begged for greater access to black
    sea bass for years. I witnessed this myself, many times.
        What is, in your opinion, the biggest regulatory hurdle, as
    a charterboat captain, to sustain your business?
        Captain Logan. Our biggest regulatory hurdle now is not
    having the flexibility in the bill for the fishery councils to
    manage the fisheries that they need to manage at their local
    level.
        And the funding from NOAA that has been taken from NOAA
    used in places to provide us with the data that we need to
    collect for studies of our fisheries, like it was stated
    earlier, we are dealing with 3- to 5-year-old data for our
    fisheries. And that data just isn't up-to-date. It wasn't
    available soon enough after it was collected. And that is
    what's hurting the fishermen.
        As far as you mentioned catch-shares earlier, it seems that
    the East Coast fishermen are 100 percent against catch-shares.
    Catch-shares is not a management tool. It is a last resort to
    our fisheries. Catch-shares gives individual rights to fish.
    Our ocean belongs to everyone, not just individuals that have
    the right to fish it.
        Mr. Runyan. Thank you. And the other one is for Bob Jones.
    You said in your statement when you were talking about the
    balance between economic and social, how do we make the
    change--obviously, it is in the law, but how do we make the
    change to strengthen it and make it, I don't know, in the
    forefront, and make it part of the process? Do you have any
    ideas on that?
        Mr. Jones. I do. I think that you need to lean on NOAA.
    That is who is going to make the definition. That is who is
    going to write the regulations. They know that they are
    supposed to consider social and economic aspects, because that
    is in the law, but we are just in a state in this particular
    time where we seem to be only looking at the fish itself, and
    not the things that should be included, as far as the optimum
    yield.
        And so, I think the law already requires them to look at
    that. I think what we perceive, whether we are right or wrong,
    is they are just not doing it to the extent that we think we
    are getting enough information.
        Mr. Runyan. It is probably the same answer, but you also
    said in your testimony when a fishery is closed, there is no
    fishery-dependent data being produced that can be used in
    future stock assessments. Is it still kind of the same thing as
    leaning on them, or trying to put some more pressure on them?
        Mr. Jones. Well, yes, sir. You need to lean on them hard.
    They are a tough group for us to deal with. There are a lot of
    good people, and we respect them. They have great employees.
    But under their policies, some of the policies, it just doesn't
    give us opportunity to see what they are doing, how you are
    doing it, what are you doing now, how can we best work
    together. You can't manage a fishery just looking at the
    harvest level, because if you put caps on the harvest level,
    then you are manipulating what product is coming in. So you
    need to look at everything.
        But the main problem with the system is we just don't have,
    we think, access to how the system works, as far as getting the
    stock assessment.
        Mr. Runyan. In other words, transparency?
        Mr. Jones. That would solve most of our angst in the
    Southeast.
        Mr. Runyan. Thank you very much. With that, I yield back,
    Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. The Chair recognizes
    the gentlelady from Hawaii, Ms. Hanabusa.
        Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all
    for being here. It is kind of rare when you all agree on one
    thing, which is that you are not getting information,
    sufficient information, to manage the fisheries. And we all
    know that the amount of seafood that the United States is
    basically importing from elsewhere is about 90 percent of what
    is being consumed. So that is a very striking number, as well.
        So, given the fact that the other thing we can all agree on
    is the fact that the oceans are not just us--in other words, it
    is not just within the jurisdiction of NOAA and the United
    States, you have other parties and players that are dealing. As
    the gentlewoman from Guam says, we have concerns about our
    territorial and jurisdictional waters, as well.
        So, given all of this, the question I have for each of
    you--and you can just go down and answer it--is if you are not
    getting the information you need to manage the fisheries, and
    if it looks like we are importing seafood into the country,
    versus being able to sustain ourselves, and we agree that the
    MSA is a good law, and the fisheries--I think one of you said
    that the fisheries, the regional fisheries is the genius behind
    the Act, tell me how is it that we are ever going to get to the
    point when we have players that we have no control over, and we
    are importing, and you are not getting sufficient information,
    tell me what you think would be the reasonable way a Committee
    like us should begin to look at this issue. It looks like we
    are just going around and around in a circle.
        So, given that, you can start on the left and work your way
    down. And remember, we have about 3 minutes left, so keep it as
    concise as you can.
        Mr. Jones. I am not sure I can answer that. I don't know
    how to get where it is that we need to be. And when you bring
    imports into this situation, there is always going to be that
    amount of imports, because we just can't produce enough fish to
    make up for that.
        Dr. Shipp. Yes, my main problem is that we are just totally
    obsessed with the concern about overfishing and not nearly as
    concerned about achieving optimal yield, as we should be. And
    part of that is sometimes translated in the buffers that are
    put in. But I think that is where we need to go. Let's focus on
    achieving optimal yield.
        Mr. Dooley. I agree with Dr. Shipp on that, also, that we
    need to focus on optimum yield. But I think we need to, more
    than that, focus on increasing research and increasing research
    to define the stocks and to do good research. And maybe get the
    agencies less into accounting for fish and for managing the
    fishery that way, and maybe partnership with industry to do
    that so that it frees the Agency up to do research, and I would
    also add to that enter in a collaboration with the stakeholders
    in doing research.
        Mr. Pappalardo. Well, I think certainly species that cross
    international boundaries are difficult to manage, and we have
    to do our best through these international agreements. I have a
    little bit of experience with that. But for those stocks that
    are under our control, under our purview, I think we need to
    focus on rebuilding them and maintaining them at rebuild
    levels.
        The fact that we are importing so much seafood, I find that
    disturbing. I know for a fact that in some instances, as we
    have taken upon ourselves rebuilding of resources, we have lost
    market share. And gaining back that market share in a globally
    traded commodity is very difficult. So I think that there may
    be ways for this body or other bodies within Congress to look
    at, as our stocks come back, price support or government
    contracts to buy some of the seafood that we have rebuilt,
    until the private industry, private market, can re-establish
    market share.
        Captain Logan. We are at 92 percent import of fish to the
    United States with 8 percent being caught by the commercial
    fisherman here in the United States. And this is largely in
    play with Magnuson-Stevens, with the restrictions that have
    been put on the fishermen, not being able to catch fish.
    Obviously, if we were allowed to catch more fish and still keep
    the sustainability, we would be able to produce more fish for
    the United States.
        Yes, we cannot provide everybody with fish here in the
    United States, but we can definitely do a whole lot more for
    our part of it. And the biggest problem is we are not--NOAA is
    not letting us meet our maximum level of fisheries that we can.
        Mr. Gill. My suggestion is that the Committee focus on the
    things it can control, and let the other ones react and be a
    result. So the focus should be maximizing the domestic
    fisheries, and whatever happens relative to imports will
    happen. We can't do any more than the maximum that the
    fisheries can sustain.
        Mr. Plesha. And thank you. I would first of all like to
    correct the record on just one item. We also have a plant in
    Hawaii.
        And second, with regard to your question, I think it is
    important to recognize the U.S. industry exports a lot of
    seafood products, as well. And with regard to imports, what we
    can do is make sure that there are only legally harvested fish
    imported into the United States, and support strengthening of
    the IUU regulations. Thank you.
        Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Young [presiding]. Thank you.
        Dr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to go
    straight to Dr. Shipp. I want to ask you a question. Do you
    think that NMFS should consider data from fishermen, from
    academic institutions, from third parties, in order to improve
    fishery access through the acquisition of better data?
        Dr. Shipp. Yes and no to several.
        Dr. Wittman. OK.
        Dr. Shipp. From individual fishermen, yes, but with the
    caveat that those data are going to be inherently biased. From
    research institutions, that is where you are going to get your
    best fishery independent data.
        Dr. Wittman. Tell me. Why do you believe the data from
    fishermen would be biased?
        Dr. Shipp. Well, for example, let's take the red snapper
    commercial fishermen. They are focusing on a 2- to 4-pound
    fish, because that is where their biggest profit margin is.
    When those data go into the model, the model may interpret that
    as, well, the fish are too small. We don't have enough big
    fish. When, in fact, that is a result of the targeting of those
    smaller fish.
        Dr. Wittman. Well, let me ask you this, then. What can NMFS
    do, then, to better improve access in the Gulf to the red
    snapper fishery?
        Dr. Shipp. If you are talking about the commercial guys, I
    think they are in pretty good shape. They have an IFQ program
    that----
        Dr. Wittman. Well, access is across the board. So not just
    the commercial side, but----
        Dr. Shipp. But for----
        Dr. Wittman [continuing]. The recreational side.
        Dr. Shipp. For the recreational fishermen I go back to my
    initial testimony. We need to turn it over to the States for at
    least the first 20 fathoms, because the regions of the Gulf are
    so very different from one area to another, to manage the whole
    Gulf as a single unit is extremely difficult and not nearly
    what we need to produce optimal yield.
        Off of Alabama, we could have a year-round season, two fish
    bag limit, and it wouldn't make a dent in our population.
        Dr. Wittman. Got you. Thank you, Dr. Shipp. Mr. Plesha, I
    want to go to you. I know in Alaska there has been a catch-
    share program that has been developed there. And in your
    testimony you talk at length about catch-shares being a tool in
    that tool box for fishery management decisions, and that these
    should be options for the regional council and for the
    Secretary.
        Can you tell me, do you think it would be harmful if catch-
    shares were completely taken off of the table as a fisheries
    management tool?
        Mr. Plesha. I think it would be. I think there are
    fisheries, especially the fisheries that are industrial, like
    those off of Alaska, where catch-share programs have proven to
    be very successful, not just for incentivizing conservation,
    but for maximizing the benefits to the Nation. And when I mean
    that, I mean not just the producers, but the consumers, as
    well.
        So, I think it is a tool that is useful to continue to have
    within the Act.
        Dr. Wittman. How about Alaska's rationalization program?
    You talk about that. Can that success in the rationalization
    program in Alaska be replicated in other areas around the
    United States?
        Mr. Plesha. I feel very uncomfortable speaking for other
    regions in the United States. I just know that it has been
    successful in Alaska.
        Dr. Wittman. All right. Let me ask you. In your view, the
    use of fishery cooperatives are an important component of the
    catch-share programs. As you know, this shared vision planning
    where people talk about the issues, talk about how do you
    manage in a cooperative way these fisheries, especially
    including the harvesters of the resource up front, and making
    those management decisions.
        What could NOAA do to better encourage fishery
    cooperatives, or those types of concepts, as they make
    fisheries management decisions?
        Mr. Plesha. Well, in the case of the fishery cooperatives
    in Alaska, they really have been based around harvester-
    processor linkage and both harvesters and processors being part
    of the cooperatives. Unfortunately, NOAA has considered that to
    be not authorized under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        So, one of the things they could do is either change their
    legal opinion, or the Act can be amended so that is clarified,
    that those type of cooperatives, which have proven to be very
    successful, are allowed to be developed by the councils under
    the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        Dr. Wittman. Very good. Mr. Dooley, I want to go to you. I
    know that, through the process, there has been a lot of
    discussion about having NMFS consider data collected by
    fishermen, that observational data, that real time out there on
    the water. My son is a commercial fisherman and he tells me all
    the time, ``Dad, let me tell you what I am seeing,'' and it is
    not showing up in the decisions that are being made by National
    Marine Fisheries Service.
        What can be done to encourage the National Marine Fisheries
    Service to be more active in considering data collected by
    fishermen in their management decision scheme?
        Mr. Dooley. I think several things could be done. One in
    particular that is being used in the North Pacific right now is
    most of the fishing vessels that I operate or operate around
    have very high-tech sounders and sonars. And these are of the
    same quality as they use in the research vessels. And there is
    an effort to collect that data from vessels while they are
    fishing. And it is black box data, cannot be manipulated. It
    comes directly from the receiver. It is very comparable to what
    is being collected. And it is used to augment and to prove what
    they are seeing in the research charters that they are doing,
    that NMFS is doing. So, I think that is a very good way to do
    it.
        We have also--actually, this last year in the whiting
    fishery, we had a biannual survey. We needed a mid-year survey,
    because we had what we believed was a survey that dropped the
    quota of whiting almost in half, and we didn't believe it was
    warranted, from what we were seeing on the grounds. So industry
    funded a boat and crew and completely funded it, and followed
    with an anchovy survey and teamed with NMFS to do an alternate
    survey. And that survey proved to be very fruitful, and it
    looks like the quota--they are deciding that now--will be back
    up and what we had said was true.
        So, I think those type of interactions are very, very
    useful. Industry funded it, industry supported it, and the
    agency collaborated with it, and it worked out very well.
        Dr. Wittman. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I
    yield back.
        Mr. Young. Mr. Sablan. You, you are up.
        Mr. Sablan. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
    and good morning, everyone.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that a statement from
    Matt Ruby, the President of the South Atlantic Fishermen's
    Association, be included in the hearing record.
        Mr. Young. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The prepared statement from Matt Ruby submitted for the
    record by Mr. Sablan follows:]

          Statement Submitted for the Record by Matt Ruby, President,
                     South Atlantic Fishermen's Association

        The South Atlantic Fishermen's Association (SAFA) appreciates the
    opportunity to comment on efforts to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens
    Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), which is set to expire
    in September. The MSA is fundamental to ensuring that federal fisheries
    are sustainable, and SAFA generally supports the reauthorization of the
    MSA. For that reason, SAFA would like to take this opportunity to raise
    two critical issues for the Committee to consider: management tools
    authorized by the MSA and improvements to data and science.
    Improving Data and Science by Working with Fishermen
        Much of the criticism of fisheries management relates to the
    quantity and quality of data and science used by managers. Science and
    data questions have led to mistrust of the regulators by fishermen,
    concerns about the reliability of established catch limits, and in many
    cases, these questions have led to bad management decisions.
        The MSA provides an opportunity for Congress to address some of
    these data and science issues, by leveraging the resources of
    fishermen. The Federal government has finite resources available to
    handle collection of data for fisheries management. Those resources are
    further constrained by continued pressure on the Federal budget. Thus,
    changes must be made in order to make improvements in these areas by
    leveraging the resources of fishermen to help achieve the goals of the
    MSA.
        Thus, the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
    should be increasing its collaboration with fishermen to collect data.
    Fishermen are on-the-water. The data and information that they collect
    can and should be more effectively utilized by the government to
    improve the science supporting fisheries management. By encouraging the
    use of vessel monitoring systems and/or on-board observers, the agency
    could also further improve the quality and reliability of the
    information collected. Moreover, by engaging with fishermen, NOAA can
    build trust and get access to important data that can help better
    inform the agency in the development of management plans.
        SAFA is a willing partner with Congress and the agency to both
    develop and implement methods to improve data collection and improve
    the scientific methods used to assess historical stocks that are data
    poor in the region.
    Ensuring a Broad Suite of Management Tools
        The MSA authorizes a number of different management tools, and also
    provides for local decision-making in fishery management through
    regional fishery management councils. Among the management tools
    considered and authorized by Congress when the MSA was reauthorized in
    2006/2007 were limited access privilege programs, commonly referred to
    as catch shares.
        Catch shares have been in existence in U.S. fisheries for decades,
    and have proven to be an effective tool for managing many federal
    fisheries. Unfortunately, some in Congress have attempted to eliminate
    their use as a management tool. SAFA is opposed to such efforts and
    urges the Committee to maintain catch shares as a management tool in
    any reauthorization of the MSA.
        SAFA strongly believes that fishermen should have the ability to
    consider all fishery management options and choose those that are best
    for their businesses and the future health of the fisheries in which
    they work. The MSA provides valuable tools to achieve those objectives,
    including permitting councils to consider catch share programs. There
    is no justifiable reason for Congress to withhold a management tool--
    particularly one like catch shares that has proven very effective in
    some cases--when stakeholders in a region want to explore the use of
    that tool.
        Our members strongly support efforts to improve fishery management
    and have been active stakeholder participants with the regional
    councils, NOAA, and Congress to do just that. But previous legislative
    proposals introduced in the prior Congress by Reps. Runyan (H.R. 1646,
    H.R. 2772, and H.R. 6350) and Pallone (H.R. 594 and H.R. 3061)
    undermine the process and the very efforts being undertaken by the
    councils to preserve jobs, improve the livelihoods of fishermen, and
    sustain our fishery resources. We hope that as the Committee considers
    the reauthorization of the MSA, it will not pursue similar approaches
    as those proposed in those bills, especially as it pertains to catch
    shares, rebuilding timelines, or flexibility.
        Finally, we continue to believe that through the MSA Congress
    established a good approach to managing the resource--namely, the
    regional fishery management councils which are predominantly comprised
    of stakeholders in the fisheries. The council process, while it may not
    be perfect, is an effective means of ensuring fishermen input in
    decision-making on critical issues of management and conservation. It
    must be preserved.
    Conclusion
        SAFA stands ready to work with the Committee on making improvements
    to the MSA in order to bolster the data and science that is badly
    needed for our federal fisheries. It strongly opposes efforts to
    restrict the use of catch shares, or to make the implementation of
    catch share programs more difficult. It supports preservation of the
    regional fishery management council system.
                                     ______

        Mr. Sablan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good
    morning, everyone.
        In the Northern Mariana Islands, fishing has been a central
    part of our culture, and a critical source of food for over
    3,000 years. Because our lives are so closely tied to the
    ocean, sustainable management of fisheries in the Western
    Pacific is necessary for our very survival.
        Some of the witnesses today have said that the Magnuson-
    Stevens Act has made our fisheries management overly cautious.
    A friend of mine is opening a restaurant in a couple of weeks
    from now, and he told me that on top of the door to his
    restaurant he is going to say, ``Hunters''--because his last
    name happened to be Hunter--so he says, ``Hunters, fishermen,
    politicians, and liars, welcome.'' And I said, ``Why
    fishermen?'' And he says, ``Well, because they usually talk
    about the big one that got away.''
        But my fishermen, those that actually catch fish, tell me a
    different story. They say that the fish they catch today are
    smaller than they used to be, and that they catch fewer of
    them. In our case, the culprit is illegal fishing, as Ms.
    Bordallo had spoken earlier about, by foreign fleets. But
    overfishing of any kind harms coastal communities, and
    particularly those of us in the Pacific Islands and in the
    island communities.
        So, let me start by asking Mr. Gill. You mentioned, sir, in
    your testimony that the requirement to end overfishing and
    establish science-based catch limits has been beneficial to
    many fisheries. Could you please give us a couple of examples?
        Mr. Gill. Thank you, sir. I will be happy to. Our red
    snapper in the Gulf of Mexico is an example where, prior to the
    implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ACLs, AMs, the
    fishery was constantly overfished, and overfishing was
    constantly occurring, resulting in almost a 50 percent
    reduction in the available fish for fishermen to catch. And
    today, 5 years later, it is roughly doubled in size, in terms
    of what fish can be caught, and the fish themselves have
    roughly doubled in size, as well. And it is an example of hard
    ceilings creating a lot of pain, but they also permit the
    regrowth of the fishery.
        Mr. Sablan. And so you are telling me--and if you are--you
    are explaining how continued overfishing and a failure to
    rebuild fish stocks would impact your business and others like
    it.
        Mr. Gill. Could you repeat that please, sir?
        Mr. Sablan. So you are actually saying--and if you are, can
    you explain how continued overfishing and a failure to rebuild
    fish stocks would impact your business and others like it?
        Mr. Gill. In the seafood business, the fish house is
    dependent on, generally speaking, many species but, more
    importantly, a high volume. Because the profit margin in the
    fish house is extremely slim. And the only way to accrue
    sufficient funds to keep operation requires a volume of fish.
        If you have overfishing and the quotas go down, they can't
    catch as many fish. And so that imperils the fish house
    viability.
        Mr. Sablan. Yes. And because I am really trying to also
    reconcile in my own mind how we prevent overfishing as an
    intention of the Act, and yet also achieve optimum yield. And
    so I am going to try to continue to reconcile that, because I
    think we can achieve optimal yield, once we stop overfishing.
    That is just my thought for now.
        But let me go to Mr. Pappalardo. Sir, many people have
    blamed fishery management tools like catch-shares and sectors
    for pushing off small business--small-boat fishermen. So what
    strategies has your organization adopted to keep people in
    business? And can those strategies be helpful to fishermen
    elsewhere?
        Mr. Pappalardo. Thank you, sir. We have invested money, we
    have borrowed money, we have bought fishing permits and fishing
    quota, and we hold it in trust for our fishermen in our
    community to access at drastically reduced rates. So we have
    essentially formed a buying cooperative where we have bought
    access to the fishery and make it available to fishermen. I
    think that there is a model there that could be shared with
    other regions in the country.
        Mr. Young. Mr. Southerland?
        Mr. Southerland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Jones, I
    wanted to ask you. You made reference in your testimony about
    the ban on red snapper fishing in the Southeast region, and you
    said that was passed on a 7 to 6 vote with very incomplete
    data. Can you just kind of elaborate on that a little bit?
        I wasn't aware of the vote, and as far as the slim margin
    of the vote. But kind of just give us some understanding of,
    first of all, when that was, when the closure was instituted,
    how much warning people had that it was coming, and then I am
    going to ask you a follow-up question or two.
        Mr. Jones. OK, thank you, sir. It happened over 2 years
    ago, and the South Atlantic Ocean from the Virginia line all
    the way to Key West has been closed to red snapper fishing by
    everyone. No recreational, no commercial. During the time it
    was going on, and testimony was given, by even members of the
    Council, we understood them to say that the information, the
    scientific information, is imprecise and incomplete.
        And we, the industry, wanted more information on what the
    science really said. We begged for stock assessments, we begged
    for information. But the way I remember it, they were on a time
    schedule, they had to accomplish certain things by a certain
    date, and so the motion was made to ban all fishing, the vote
    was 7 to 6 in open session. And therefore, it became banned
    from that point.
        Mr. Southerland. So it is 2 years old. There is probably no
    way to be able to measure the economic impact, or the
    devastation as a result of making that decision with little
    data, at least data that was less than conclusive.
        You know, I look at our national standards for fisheries,
    Section 301, and I look down here at the 10 standards that
    councils are to use. Then we do something as drastic as total
    closure of a fishery. And one of the 10 says that, to the
    extent practicable, minimize the adverse economic impacts on
    communities. Do you feel that was followed on a 7 to 6 vote
    with little to no good data or information to make the
    decision?
        Mr. Jones. Absolutely not. I don't believe----
        Mr. Southerland. So, therefore, you believe that the
    Council that is supposed to be looking out for the regional
    interests violated one of the 10 required objectives that they
    are chartered to follow.
        Mr. Jones. I would put it another way. I would say that the
    Council may not have adhered to the requirement they have in
    the same manner that we would have preferred. But they did not,
    in our opinion, ever consider anything but the biological
    standpoint of that particular fishery. And the economic impact
    to every person who is in the charterboat business,
    recreational business, hotels, motels, restaurants, you could
    get a calculation. But it would be higher than most people
    think.
        Mr. Southerland. Sure.
        Mr. Jones. I think it was a political vote, and that
    happens in situations.
        Mr. Southerland. So, has there been a stock assessment done
    since the 100 percent closure of the red snapper in the South
    Atlantic?
        Mr. Jones. I don't think there has. I am sure that the next
    witness will tell you where they are. But we don't see anywhere
    near what needs to be done. The industry itself had to come up
    with about $20,000 to establish a tagging program to where we
    would pay a charter boat to allow two marine biologists from
    the State lab to come out and tag fish. That is the only
    tagging that I know about. And they know that we are not
    satisfied, no one is satisfied with what they are doing on the
    science.
        Mr. Southerland. Thank you very much. Dr. Shipp, a quick
    question, and I see my time is quickly leaving me.
        You made reference to the explosives that are being used to
    remove rigs, especially over in your neck of the woods, south
    of Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and that they are literally
    killing--I saw the news article, the new story done by a Mobile
    news channel that showed thousands upon thousands of red
    snapper floating dead in the water.
        And I am amazed that when you look at all those fish--and
    obviously all those fish that are dead are not counted in the
    assessments, because I have asked NMFS numerous times, most
    recently during the field hearing in Panama City last year,
    ``Do they count fish that are on artificial rigs,'' and the
    answer was no, they do not--you, sir, represent a State and
    live in a State that makes up 40 percent of all of the red
    snapper landings in the Gulf of Mexico. So an enormous haul,
    basically, for a State that has gotten to that point because of
    artificial rigs.
        I have run out of time. I will come back to that. But so--
    --
        Dr. Shipp. I hope you do.
        Mr. Southerland. I am so sorry. I am so sorry. I think it
    is a topic that is worthy of greater exploration. And when we
    say that we cannot increase taxes on hardworking families that
    are making their living fishing, and yet we have the ability to
    go out and remove reefs with explosives that kill tens of
    thousands of fish, and we refuse to count those fish, it
    undermines the credibility of the institutions that have the
    responsibility to manage the fish. And so there is no trust, as
    long as that kind of stuff continues. That was my point. I
    yield back.
        Mr. Young. Thank you. Mr. Lowenthal.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member,
    and all the witnesses. You know, I am a new Member and I am
    here primarily to listen, to learn. I represent a coastal
    district in Southern California. We have a thriving
    recreational fishing industry, probably as large, if not
    larger, than even commercial fishing.
        Recreational fishermen are working with NOAA and the State
    of California to reduce bycatch in new and innovative ways. For
    example, currently our local recreational fisherpeople have
    been working with the State, NOAA, and an NGO to develop
    devices to reduce trauma and the death of fish that live under
    very high pressures after being brought to the surface. They
    developed descending devices that bring rockfish back down to
    the depths, where they are able to regain their functions and
    swim away.
        And what I am concerned about--now this is switching a
    little bit--is how we continue collaborative partnerships
    between recreational fisherpeople, NOAA, the State, and NGO's.
    So I am interested in how MSA can continue to bring all the
    stakeholders to the table. That is really what--including the
    recreational fishing people, to address some of these issues
    about bycatch, overfishing, how we can end that, how we can
    continue science-based management, which all of you have said
    is definitely needed, how we can create sustainable fisheries
    that support our communities and really do yield optimal yield,
    and so how we would create this balance.
        So my question, really, is for Mr. Dooley from Central
    California. And it really has to do with how the council
    process works, in terms of stakeholder input. Do you feel there
    is an adequate, first, understanding by the public of how the
    council works, or how our councils work? And does that need
    improvement?
        Mr. Dooley. Well, speaking from that perspective, from the
    Pacific Council, particularly----
        Dr. Lowenthal. Yes.
        Mr. Dooley. I think the Pacific Council does an excellent
    job of reaching out. I think it is well represented at the
    Council meetings by the public, by the industry. It is a very
    good process.
        Speaking of the catch-share process and its development, it
    was developed from the bottom up. Many stakeholders involved
    worked hand-in-hand with the Council and the agencies to put
    together an excellent program.
        I think, speaking to what you said earlier about
    recreational and the entire fishery, how do we get it
    sustainable, well, I think it really gets to one word:
    accountability. We have total accountability in the
    rationalized fishery. In the trawl, in the catch-share program,
    it is 100 percent--in most cases, 200 percent--observed. The
    cost of that is very high, that is a big issue; we need to talk
    about that. But talking about sustainability, you will never
    know what is being taken out of that ocean until we know--and
    have an accountable system for everyone, from recreational all
    the way through every commercial fisherman, to understand what
    is being removed and understand how to deal with that.
        So, I think accountability is very important. Catch-shares
    help bring that to fruition. We are paying for it in our catch-
    share program. We are having subsidies at this time that are
    going to disappear from the government that are helping them.
    There are many issues with that. I would love to go into that
    with you in depth if you ever have the time. But I would--you
    know, there are a lot of issues there. But I think
    accountability is really important.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Do you think that this kind of--you
    mentioned how, in the Council--and the Pacific Council has
    really included the input of the public now greatly, and you
    really like that--do you think that has helped to reduce
    litigation?
        Mr. Dooley. There has been litigation against this program,
    a couple of cases.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Yes.
        Mr. Dooley. However, I was active in this whole process
    from the very beginning. It took 7 years, 8 years, to get
    this--with many committee-level meetings and hours upon hours
    of council time and agency time to put together a program that
    took into consideration communities, took into consideration
    control limits to maintain the flavor of small communities, so
    that they don't disappear, to not let excessive consolidation
    happen. This program did that.
        I think the undoing of it, the undoing of all that good
    work, may be the cost. Because observer cost is very high.
    There are many other costs, a cost recovery for the program,
    there are several costs that move into this, the buy-back loan
    that is sitting out there at a 7 percent interest rate, and
    taking 5 percent off the top of the fishery. Those things are
    things that we need to deal with, to go forward.
        However, the benefits to sustainability, the elimination of
    discards, the elimination of bycatch, a reduction of bycatch,
    are things that are just shining examples of a well-run,
    properly executed catch-share program, and a well-run fishery.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you. And I do wish to continue this
    discussion with you.
        Mr. Young. Thank you. Mr. DeFazio.
        Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Don. Mr. Dooley, I am well aware
    what an extraordinary burden has been placed on the West Coast
    fleet with the physical observers. And I find it very
    interesting, your comments here on page five. I have been
    urging a move toward some sort of electronic monitoring. But
    you raise an issue here, and I want to investigate what you
    have seen going on here. You are talking about--it sounds to me
    like we are dealing with the FAA. I mean they are famous for
    over-designing, re-designing, over-designing, I mean they have
    been trying to implement a new air traffic control system now
    since I have been in Congress, and that is 27 years, and they
    still haven't figured out what it is.
        So, I am curious about your observations on where NOAA is
    headed with electronic monitoring. And you are talking about,
    you know, they are headed toward a Cadillac, we could work with
    a Chevy. Does the technology for the Chevy already exist? Is it
    off-the-shelf? Could we get that out there quickly? And what
    are they headed toward here?
        Mr. Dooley. Thank you. Absolutely, the technology is there
    for a Chevy. We have that. There is also technology being
    developed for the Cadillac.
        However, the one word that has been said here today most is
    flexibility. Flexibility is key. Not one tool fits all. You
    don't design one system and say, ``Oh, that is great, everybody
    gets to use it.'' There are fisheries that are full retention
    fisheries. If you are fishing dover, you can keep everything
    that you catch and bring it in. These guys are coming in now
    with less than 2 percent that they put over the side. They
    could bring that to town. All they need on that boat, rather
    than a $450-a-day observer, all they need is a camera that
    documents whether you have had a discard or not.
        And that is very, very low-tech, very simple, very little
    data to review. It has been in use before in the hake fleet,
    that camera system was used on the inshore hake fleet and very
    successfully. But now we all have observers that are costing a
    lot of money. And they are going to cost more.
        You know, Alaska just instituted an observer program that
    is upwards of $1,000 a day for observer costs per person. They
    are instituting a 1.5 percent or 1.25 percent, I believe, fee
    to all participants to fund this on their ex-vessel value.
    However, this only achieves a 15 percent observer rate and
    observer coverage. If you went up to 100 percent observer
    coverage on that model, nobody could afford to fish.
        Mr. DeFazio. Right. So what, specifically, are they looking
    to add in the data monitoring that would make it more like a
    Cadillac? And are those necessary parameters or are they just
    over-designing here?
        Mr. Dooley. I think there are desires to have speciation,
    to understand what every fish is that is going over the side,
    and somehow absolutely quantify how much is being discarded.
    And those type of camera systems, although they may be possible
    in the future, they are expensive right now. And I think that
    we need relief right now.
        We need relief from these costs right now. Because
    particularly in the case of West Coast rationalization, we have
    many small ports up and down particularly--I mean California
    and Oregon have small ports with small fishing vessels. Four
    hundred and fifty dollars a day for an observer is unbelievably
    expensive, and it is a big portion of their income. If they
    were allowed to use less high-tech methods, and cheaper
    methods, they could survive.
        Mr. DeFazio. OK. And then just your observation on maximum
    sustainable yield, optimal yield, and the rollover issue. This
    has been a problem for some folks. I mean you get locked out by
    bad weather, you got a quota but you can't fish it, and you
    can't roll it over. What kind of response have you got from
    NOAA on that?
        Mr. Dooley. It is a problem with the ACL language, I
    believe. It makes it----
        Mr. DeFazio. So it is just the language. It is not
    necessarily a biological issue, where they say, that would
    create a stock problem if you fished a little more one year and
    less another.
        Mr. Dooley. I have heard no proof to that. I have heard
    some people could have that concern. But like I mentioned in my
    testimony, fish don't have calendars. Some years they run over
    from one year to the next. Just the way the fish present
    themselves. This is a biomassive fish of many species. Some
    years they will be over the calendar year, or some years they
    don't show up at all.
        So, if you under-harvest one year, I believe you should be
    able to average this over the long term, to obtain optimum
    yield.
        Mr. DeFazio. All right, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Young. Thank you. I want to thank the panel. This has
    been interesting to me. I am sorry I was a little late.
        But, Captain Logan, I understand the State of South
    Carolina once owned a fish survey vessel. Do they still own it?
    And, if so, could it be used to supplement Federal fishery
    surveys for important species such as black sea bass and red
    snapper?
        Captain Logan. Yes, sir. They own the research vessel
    called Palmetto. It is funded through the Marpac program. And I
    have talked to Colonel Taylor, who is head of D&R, and they do
    not have any problem at all in helping with the Federal funding
    to make sure that we get the right data that we need.
        My personal opinion is we need to defund NOAA. We need to
    take the money away from them. They are taking that money and
    using it somewhere else, instead of using it on our fisheries.
    Give it to the States. Like Mr. Shipp said, he said 20 fathoms.
    I look at 50 fathoms. Let each State govern their fisheries out
    to 50 fathoms. Give that money to them, let them do the
    research. Most States are already proving that research through
    creel clerks now that are doing these surveys. We can get a
    whole lot better data that way, it is a whole lot more
    controllable, and we know where the money is going, and it is
    not being misused.
        But, yes, sir. That vessel is there, and they are willing
    to use it. They just need the direction of where to go. And the
    biggest problem they've had with that vessel is when they do
    get a order from NOAA, they send them out to a area where there
    is no live bottom. It is all mud bottom. There is no live
    bottom in that area. Many occasions we have been out charter
    fishing or commercial fishing, that boat has been there, and we
    call them up, say, ``Hey, what you guys doing?''
        ``Oh, we are doing research, blah, blah, blah.''
        ``Well, hey, you need to come over here, this is where the
    rocks are. Over there is just muddy bottom for miles and miles
    and miles.''
        ``Well, we can't leave this grid. We are stuck in this grid
    here. This is the area we have to fish in.''
        So they are not sending them to the right places. They are
    sending them places where it is mud. Fish live on rocks. They
    live on structure. They need the good information to get them
    there. That is why they need to talk to the fishermen.
        Mr. Young. Well, but what I am interested in--I was
    listening to--I believe it is, let me see, what is it, Dr.--
    what is the last name?
        Dr. Shipp. Shipp.
        Mr. Young. Shipp. You know, I am mature and I can't see as
    far as I used to see.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Young. I tell you there are much better-looking women
    now than there was when I was 18. I can tell you that right
    now. You all look good.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Young. But I am interested in the council. It bothers
    me about NOAA and NMFS, that a lot of this studying is being
    done, I would say, by people that don't really understand
    fisheries. And it is like doing studies on a mud bottom, for
    instance. That is silly.
        Why couldn't we use the information that you can collect
    from those black boxes, as long as it is sacred, and make sure
    that they have to use it also? I am thinking about something in
    the bill that would make them have to use this information,
    instead of relying on, well, we don't have the money, or we
    can't do the study, and making, actually, recommendations that
    don't make sense. Because there is other documentation that
    gives them better information. So, if we can make them do that,
    I think that would work.
        And I happen to like the idea of the States being involved
    in this. As long as there was some cooperation amongst the
    council, so it isn't--one State isn't killing all their fish,
    and sort of like Russia is doing now in Alaska, killing all
    their fish, and then come over and getting the other State's
    fish. So that is something we want to work on.
        I do think that there is some improvement we can make to
    the Act itself. I want to suggest to all of you to write
    something up that makes sense.
        I am not happy with NOAA nor NMFS right now--they all know
    this--because I think they spend an awful lot of money, like
    the gentleman brought up the fact about blowing up oil rigs
    with dynamite and killing fish. That does not make sense.
    Frankly, you would be better off leaving the rig there, or
    taking some divers and cutting it off. It was put in there one
    time by individuals.
        So there are a lot of things I think that can be done to
    make sure this Act works--now, rationalization works. You can't
    overfish a fishery if it is properly rationalized. And that is
    something that people should recognize.
        And I am proud of what Mr. Plesha has said. The fact is, we
    have a pretty good fishery in Alaska. Can there be
    improvements? I think if we get more cooperation from NOAA and
    NMFS, better recognition about what is endangered and what is
    not endangered. The idea that we are killing sea lions by
    overfishing the area, finding out it was the orca whale that
    was killing them. But orca whales are protected. I mean I can
    go on and on and on about this.
        But the sustainable yield, one thing that does concern me--
    and I am lecturing now, but you have to put up with me, because
    I have the gavel.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Young. What bothers me the most, I have heard two
    statements about we import 92 percent of our fish that we
    consume. That may be true. But the value of our fish is, in
    fact, it is not farm-raised. And in Alaska, that is one thing
    that drives me absolutely nuts. They are willing--and NOAA has
    promoted this, and we have stopped it so far--they want to put
    fish farms off our shores. And I argue that will destroy the
    wild Alaskan salmon, which is the most valuable species we
    have, with all due respect to the red snapper and the grouper,
    and the rest of those bottom fish, the salmon is the most
    valuable fish, and they are willing to destroy it by raising
    more. And their argument is, ``Well, we are importing so much
    fish.''
        I don't think we can always supply all the fish wild. I
    will tell you that. If they want to raise them in a lake, man-
    made or something, I am all for that, if they want to do it.
    But don't mess with offshore, wild fish by contaminating it
    with something that, to me, does not make sense. I mean that is
    my little lecture for today.
        And, Mr. Holt, did you have anything to say, or do you want
    to just be quiet?
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Young. You are recognized.
        Dr. Holt. That was a leading question, Mr. Chairman.
        [Laughter.]
        Dr. Holt. Well, there is a lot to still discuss. And so, I
    would like to take my time, if I may, Mr. Chairman.
        Let me begin with Mr. Pappalardo. Your organization was an
    early adopter of catch-shares. I would like to know why you
    chose it, and what the benefits have been. Maybe you have
    addressed this, but I think it is important enough, it is
    probably worth going over again.
        When I think of the alternative to catch-shares, I think of
    the old movies of the Oklahoma Land Rush. People charging out
    at midnight. But the difference is in the land rush they didn't
    destroy the land. Here, I am afraid, the alternative is harming
    fisheries. And so I would appreciate your thoughts on that,
    please.
        Mr. Pappalardo. Sure. Thank you, sir. The genesis for our
    organization requesting a catch-share through the New England
    Fishery Management Council was at the time we were managing
    fisheries through what we call input controls, or how many days
    you can fish, how many pounds you can bring in on a day, things
    of that nature. And the resource we were most dependent on at
    the time, Georges Bank cod, was in bad shape and going down.
        And so, we knew the reaction from the Council was going to
    be to reduce us to such a small amount of days and such a small
    amount of pounds that it wasn't viable to turn the key on the
    boat and go fishing. So we went to the Council and asked them,
    ``Translate our historical catch of this species into a
    poundage, and we will live and work within this zone on Georges
    Bank. We don't go into other areas. But give us the pounds.
    Allow us to convert the days and the trip limits into pounds.''
    So it was a preservation issue that forced us to ask for a
    catch-share.
        Additionally, we didn't like the common practice, because
    we had trip limits, of once you hit that limit you have to
    throw over the very thing you hope to catch the next day. So,
    it was to eliminate discards as well, sir.
        Dr. Holt. And the experience, how would you describe that?
        Mr. Pappalardo. It gave our community and the fishermen
    within it much more flexibility to decide when they wanted to
    fish, how they wanted to fish, where they wanted to fish. And
    it allowed them to not have to throw over the resource.
        Dr. Holt. Thank you. Mr. Gill, my constituents are
    concerned about reports of seafood fraud, improper
    substitution, illegal substitution. It is not good from a
    consumer point of view. I would like to understand what it is
    from a fishing industry point of view, or individual
    fisherman's point of view.
        Mr. Gill. Thank you, sir. Well, it is a bad practice by
    whomever practices it. And it smears, if you will, the entire
    industry from top to bottom.
        Dr. Holt. Well, in light of the legislation that we are
    talking about here, is there anything to be done about it?
        Mr. Gill. Not that anything comes to mind. The difficulty
    is that one piece of fish is very difficult to tell, after it
    is cooked, from another. And so it is the unscrupulous----
        Dr. Holt. Mr. Dooley, Mr. Jones, would either of you point
    us toward any policy steps to address this? OK, yes, please.
        Mr. Plesha. One of the things that can be done is through
    FDA enforcement actions. FDA has really not taken any sort of
    lead in enforcing seafood fraud, whether it is short weights,
    whether it is mislabeling of species. That is really an issue
    within the jurisdiction of that agency. Their enforcement
    ability is, unfortunately, not able to spend the resources
    necessary to make sure that doesn't occur. But there are
    already laws in placed to prevent it, if it were enforced
    properly.
        Dr. Holt. But because the fishery regulations require
    identifying the catch, there is a certain amount of enforcement
    here, particularly in catch-shares and other, of how many we
    are taking in, does that not translate into some control over
    how it is sold, how it is marketed? Or not at all?
        Mr. Plesha. Forgive me for saying this, but the Agency
    takes the position that the Magnuson-Stevens Act doesn't allow
    for regulation of onshore processing activities.
        Dr. Holt. Right.
        Mr. Plesha. So that is not something that, within that Act,
    is able to be managed.
        Dr. Holt. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Young. Bless your heart, you even finished before your
    time was up. That is good.
        Mr. LaMalfa, you have questions? Welcome, by the way.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you. Earlier in the testimony, when I
    was here, Mr. Gill, I think you alluded to the Magnuson-Stevens
    Act creating a system to involve stakeholders. Do you feel like
    it is weighted well enough to the stakeholders that actually
    have the investment? Or could more be done to have greater
    input from the people who are really out there with the
    investment, and trying to make a living from it, as opposed to
    stakeholders that usually just come in with demands?
        How do you feel about that ratio, or that weighting of--
    because what I am frustrated by in other avenues is that people
    can come to the table and make demands, but they don't have the
    investment, they don't have the years of service, they don't
    have the risk out there. They can just simply make demands and
    then industry has to jump through the hoops. How do you feel
    about that stakeholder ratio? And anybody else on the panel
    that would like to speak to that, as well.
        Mr. Gill. Thank you, sir. I think one of the things that we
    do need in proper fisheries management is as much involvement
    with the stakeholders as we can get. The difficulty comes--
    before I get to the ratios--in that the process is so complex
    that it is very difficult for the average person to understand.
    So it takes a huge amount of time and effort to understand
    where--what part they might play.
        Having said that, the difficulty for either the commercial
    or the recreational fishermen is in order to participate you
    have to sacrifice whatever else you are doing to participate.
    So the folks, the NGO's that have--that is their job, don't
    have that burden.
        What we typically see at council meetings tend to be the
    same folks from recreational or commercial participating in the
    process, because they are deeply invested in contributing to
    that process. And I praise them for that. However, there is a
    huge body of folks that are not in that mode. And part of it is
    the barrier to participating is huge.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Meaning that you are busy doing your job, more
    or less, yes?
        Mr. Gill. Yes, sir.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Yes, I had that same frustration. I am a
    farmer in my real life, too. So as a younger man, having to go
    down to Sacramento all the time and go to meetings, like, well,
    why can't we just do our job? But I get that. So you have to
    get more people involved to be heard on that, on the invested
    side, on the stakeholder side, they live or die by what is
    going to happen with the possible regulation, or others that
    really don't have anything in the game. So thank you.
        Anyone else on that? Yes, sir.
        Mr. Jones. Thank you, sir. I think that having a way for
    the stakeholders to believe that their attendance is going to
    matter is where effort needs to be focused. Because so many of
    the fishermen, they have to take off, they have to spend their
    money, they may have to drive from Florida to North Carolina,
    they are going to get 3 minutes, and I know that you can't
    filibuster, but they just get to the point to where they go,
    they make that commitment, they try to be heard, but you can't
    say much in 3 minutes. And they sometimes feel that the
    decisions are already made. Whether that is true or not, I
    don't know. But that is what they get. And so it is hard to get
    them to say, ``Come on, let's go back again, let's do it over
    again, it will matter.''
        So, if there was a way--and I don't have the answer--how
    you can get the stakeholders to believe that what they have to
    say matters would be a big step forward.
        Mr. LaMalfa. That is correct, I run into that, too. Farmers
    and ranchers, they see there is yet another government agency
    doing a dog-and-pony show somewhere that they feel like, ``Am I
    doing any good here? Is this wasting my time? Because I still
    have to make a living.''
        And so we do need to infuse more confidence that they are
    going to be heard, and actually take it into account. They have
    the meetings where they draw the nice pictures and such on
    butcher paper up there and say, ``Oh, yes, we are going to take
    this back and use that as part of our decision,'' but people
    feel like the decision has been made, and it is not going to go
    their way on the industry side.
        So, I would encourage you and your colleagues to show up
    anyway. You have to fight the fight, and you have to make
    yourselves be heard and on the other side they have to feel the
    heat. And so hang in there.
        Mr. Young. I thank the gentleman. And I hope you don't have
    the feeling that we short-shrift you in these hearings. This
    has gone on quite a while. Most of you need to go to the
    restroom, I can tell by looking at you.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Young. But I am not going to let you go yet. I was
    interested in the observer program. And, Joe, this is just for
    halibut, right, the $1,000?
        Mr. Plesha. Mr. Chairman, it is a way that the North
    Pacific Council can get observers on smaller boats in the Gulf
    of Alaska that currently don't have any observers at all, is to
    charge everyone within the industry and then place them on
    vessels where they think it is appropriate. A relatively low
    percentage, but it is vessels that traditionally have not had
    observers.
        Mr. Young. Now, where does the $1,000 a day come in?
        Mr. Plesha. That is the first I have heard of that price.
        Mr. Young. Well, someone mentioned that. Yes, sir?
        Mr. Dooley. Our Executive Director, Brent Paine, sat on the
    observer committee when they put this together and is
    intimately acquainted with what the costs and such are. He told
    that to me, that it is north of $900 a day right now,
    approaching $1,000, for the government to provide an observer.
        Now, I know it is kind of technical stuff, but when the
    government does the observer program, their--I am sure I will
    get it wrong, but they are subject to the Fair Labor Standards
    Act, or something, which makes them pay an hourly wage for
    observers, as opposed to the observer programs that we, like in
    the pollock fishery or the whiting fishery, use a pay-as-you-go
    the industry pays for. Those are done on a daily rate.
        We pay, in Alaska, somewhere around $330 to $350 a day, we
    pay it ourselves. When the government does it, it is three
    times as much. I think it is--so there needs to be some work in
    this front to reduce these costs.
        Mr. Young. Well, I am interested for another reason. I
    argue that observer is probably the worst thing that can happen
    to the sustainable yield rationalization, because the observer
    is human, he can be corrupted. He can be put into the trawl net
    and solve some problems.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Young. He could be a drunk. And I am arguing--I go back
    to the idea of equipment that can--the camera that can be
    tampered with, like a State scale, or the black box which you
    are talking about gives us better data. And that is what we are
    going to base our rationalization on, is good data. And that is
    something we would like to look at, because I just think the
    observer program wasn't in the original Act to begin with, it
    was put in there because we wanted some better data for NOAA to
    make decisions on the quota.
        And I am saying let's go beyond the mule skinner now and
    get into the computer age--and I am way beyond that--but in the
    computer age we can do better studies so we know exactly what
    the sustainable yield is, and rationalization is justified, not
    by someone sitting smoking a cigarette or playing his video
    game. Because there is no standard, as far as I know, about an
    observer.
        And $1,000 a day, that pays better than we do right here in
    Congress. I want you to know I have been thinking about that.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Young. Anyway, Mr. Garcia?
        Mr. Garcia. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Young. Welcome aboard. You just about missed it. You
    would have been out of luck.
        Mr. Garcia. No, no. I am all right, Mr. Chairman. I met
    with some of the witnesses already privately, so I am good.
    Thank you very much.
        Mr. Young. All right. We now will call up the next panel. I
    want to thank the panel for a good job. And I am serious about
    submitting--I am no longer the Chairman of the full Committee,
    but submitting to the Chairman your legitimate request, what
    you think can be done to make the program work better, I think
    that is very valuable. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Southerland [presiding]. In our last panel we have just
    one person, Mr. Rauch, Deputy Assistant Administrator for
    Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Services,
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, at the
    Department of Commerce.
        You are again reminded that your complete written testimony
    will appear in the hearing record, and you have 5 minutes to
    summarize it. Mr. Rauch, thank you for joining us today, and
    you may begin.

     STATEMENT OF SAM D. RAUCH III, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
      FOR REGULATORY PROGRAMS, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE,
         NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S.
                         DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

        Mr. Rauch. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before
    you today. My name, as you said, is Sam Rauch. I am the Deputy
    Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs at the National
    Marine Fisheries Service. NMFS is dedicated to the stewardship
    of living marine resources through science-based conservation
    and management. Much of this work occurs under the Magnuson-
    Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, which sets
    forth standards for conservation management and sustainable use
    of our Nation's fishing resources.
        Marine fisheries such as salmon in the Pacific Northwest,
    cod in New England, and red snapper in the Gulf, are vital to
    the identity and economies of coastal communities in the United
    States. Our most recent economic estimate for 2011 showed just
    how economically important they are. In 2011, U.S. commercial
    fishermen landed 9.9 billion pounds of seafood, valued at $5.3
    billion, increases of 1.6 billion pounds and $829 million over
    2010 figures. This represents the highest landings volume since
    1997, and the highest value in nominal terms ever recorded.
        In 2011, the seafood industry generated $129 billion in
    sales impacts, $37 billion in economic impacts, and supported
    1.2 million jobs. Recreational fishing generated $70 billion in
    sales impacts, $20 billion in economic impacts, and supported
    455,000 jobs in 2011. This is a 40 percent increase in jobs
    over 2010. In total, U.S. commercial and recreational salt-
    water fisheries added 200,000 jobs to the broader economy
    between 2010 and 2011. This success is a product of hard work
    and ingenuity by the industry, by the fishery management
    councils, and the overall sound Federal fishing management
    system that is effectively rebuilding fisheries.
        Since its initial passage in 1976, the Magnuson-Stevens Act
    has chartered a ground-breaking course for sustainable
    fisheries. When reauthorized in 2007, the Act gave eight
    Regional Fishery Management Councils and NMFS a very clear
    charge and some new tools to support improved science and
    management. It mandated the use of science-based annual catch
    limits and accountability measures to prevent and end
    overfishing, provided for market-based fishery management
    through limited access privilege programs, focused on
    collaborative research with the fishing industry, and bycatch
    reduction, addressed the need to improve the science used to
    inform fisheries management, and sought to end illegal fishing
    and bycatch problems around the globe.
        Working together, fishermen, NMFS, the councils, coastal
    States and territories, and a wide range of industry groups and
    constituents have made significant progress in implementing key
    provisions of this legislation. As of December 31, 2012, we put
    in place limits to ensure overfishing does not occur in all
    Federally managed stocks. And we have demonstrated that
    overfishing has ended for 58 percent of those stocks subject to
    overfishing in 2007.
        In addition, 32 stocks have been rebuilt. A prime example
    of the benefits of rebuilding is seen in the New England sea
    scallop fishery, where revenues increased five-fold as the
    rebuilt fishery--as the fishery rebuilt from $44 million in
    1998 to $353 million in 2011, making New Bedford the largest
    port by value every year since 2000.
        Ending overfishing and rebuilding depleted fisheries brings
    significant biological, economic, and social benefit. But doing
    so takes time, persistence, and sacrifice, and adherence to
    scientific information. While significant progress has been
    made since the last reauthorization, we recognize that this
    progress does not come without cost. Fishermen, fishing
    communities, and councils have had to make difficult decisions,
    and many areas have had to absorb the cost of conservation and
    investment in long-term, economic, and biological
    sustainability.
        Without high-quality fishery science, we cannot be
    confident that we are preventing overfishing and rebuilding
    stocks. That is why NMFS is committed to regenerating the best
    fishery science today to support the goals of the Magnuson-
    Stevens Act. Today we know more about fish stocks than ever,
    and it is vital that our science not regress, as this would
    inevitably lead to declines in our stocks and loss in the
    economic and social values they provide.
        We are making great gains. We have great tools under the
    Magnuson-Stevens Act; 200,000 jobs added in the midst of the
    severe economic issues indicates just how successful we have
    been. We stand ready to work with Congress on moving forward
    this important Act, making the necessary changes that need to
    be made, if any, and continue to improve our management and
    ensure that the biological and economic sustainability of this
    vital natural resource continues.
        Thank you again for inviting me to testify, and I am happy
    to answer any questions you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Rauch follows:]

     Statement of Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for
       Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service, National
      Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce

    Introduction
        Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Thank
    you for the opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Samuel
    D. Rauch and I am the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory
    Programs for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
    (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). NMFS is dedicated to
    the stewardship of living marine resources through science-based
    conservation and management. Much of this work occurs under the
    Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-
    Stevens Act), which sets forth standards for conservation, management
    and sustainable use of our Nation's fisheries resources.
        Marine fish and fisheries, such as salmon in the Pacific Northwest
    and cod in New England, have been vital to the prosperity and cultural
    identity of coastal communities in the United States (U.S.). U.S.
    fisheries play an enormous role in the U.S. economy. Commercial fishing
    supports fishermen and fishing communities, and provides Americans with
    a sustainable, healthy food source. Recreational fishing is an
    important social activity for individuals, families, and communities,
    and it is a critical economic driver of and contributor to local and
    regional economies, as well as the national economy. Subsistence
    fishing provides an essential food source and is culturally significant
    for many people.
        Our most recent estimates show that the amount landed and the value
    of commercial U.S. wild-caught fisheries was up in 2011 while
    recreational catch remained stable. U.S. commercial fishermen landed
    9.9 billion pounds of seafood valued at $5.3 billion in 2011, increases
    of 1.6 billion pounds (20%) and $829 million (18%) over 2010 figures;
    the highest landings volume since 1997 and highest value in nominal
    terms ever recorded.\1\ The seafood industry--harvesters, seafood
    processors and dealers, seafood wholesalers and seafood retailers,
    including imports and multiplier effects--generated $129 billion in
    sales impacts, $37 billion in income impacts and supported 1.2 million
    jobs in 2011. Recreational fishing generated $70 billion in sales
    impacts, $20 billion in income impacts, and supported 455,000 jobs in
    2011. Jobs supported by commercial businesses held steady from the
    previous year, while jobs generated by the recreational fishing
    industry represented a 40% increase over 2010.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ See NOAA Fisheries Annual Commercial Fisheries Landings
    Database available at http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/
    commercial-landings/annual-landings/index.
        \2\ See Fisheries Economics of the U.S. 2011. NMFS Office of
    Science & Technology, available at: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/
    economics/publications/feus/fisheries_economics_2011.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Federal fishery management system is effectively rebuilding
    fisheries. We continue to make progress towards long-term biological
    and economic sustainability and stability. Since its initial passage in
    1976, the Magnuson-Stevens Act has charted a groundbreaking course for
    sustainable fisheries. When reauthorized in 2007, the Act gave the
    eight regional fishery management councils and NMFS a very clear charge
    and some new tools to support improved science and management. It
    mandated the use of science-based annual catch limits and
    accountability measures to prevent and end overfishing, provided for
    market-based fishery management through Limited Access Privilege
    Programs (or catch shares), focused on collaborative research with the
    fishing industry and bycatch reduction, addressed the need to improve
    the science used to inform fisheries management, and sought to end
    illegal fishing and bycatch problems around the globe so that foreign
    fishing fleets are held to the same standards as, and do not
    economically disadvantage, U.S. fleets.
        While significant progress has been made since the last
    reauthorization, we recognize that this progress has not come without
    cost. Fishermen, fishing communities, and the Councils have had to make
    difficult decisions and many areas have had to absorb the cost of
    conservation and investment in long-term economic and biological
    sustainability. The U.S. now has effective tools to address marine
    fisheries management, and as we look to the future, we must look for
    opportunities to increase flexibility in our management system. We need
    to approach that challenge in a holistic, deliberative, and thoughtful
    way that includes input from the wide range of stakeholders who care
    deeply about these issues.
        My testimony today will focus on NMFS's progress in implementing
    the Magnuson-Stevens Act's key domestic provisions, and some thoughts
    about the future and the next reauthorization.
    Implementing the Magnuson-Stevens Act
        The Magnuson-Stevens Act created broad goals for U.S. fisheries
    management and a unique, highly participatory management structure
    centered on the eight Regional Fishery Management Councils (Councils).
    This structure ensures that input and decisions about how to manage
    U.S. fisheries develops through a ``bottom up'' process that includes
    fishermen, other fishery stakeholders, affected States, tribal
    governments, and the Federal government.
        The Magnuson-Stevens Act guides fisheries management by 10 National
    Standards for fishery conservation and management. These standards,
    which have their roots in the original 1976 Act, provide a yardstick
    against which all fishery management plans and measures developed by
    the Councils are measured. National Standard 1 requires that
    conservation and management measures prevent overfishing while
    achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery
    for the U.S. fishing industry. Optimum yield is the average amount of
    fish from a fishery that, over the long-term, will provide the greatest
    overall benefits to the Nation, particularly by providing seafood and
    recreational opportunities and affording protection to marine
    ecosystems.
        The Councils can choose from a variety of options to manage fish
    stocks--quotas, catch shares, area closures, gear restrictions, etc.--
    and also determine how to allocate fish among user groups. These
    measures are submitted to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce for approval
    and are implemented by NMFS. Thus, the Councils in developing their
    plans must carefully balance fishing jobs and conservation. Other
    National Standards mandate that conservation and management measures be
    based upon the best scientific information available, not discriminate
    between residents of different States, take into account variations in
    fisheries and catches, minimize bycatch, and promote the safety of
    human life at sea.
        Central to many of the Council decisions are fishing jobs. Fishing
    jobs, both commercial and recreational, are the lifeblood of many
    coastal communities around our Nation. Fishermen and fishing industries
    rely not only on today's catch, but the predictability of future
    catches. Under the standards set in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and
    together with the regional fishery management councils, States, tribes
    and fishermen, we have made great strides in ending overfishing,
    rebuilding stocks and building a sustainable future for our fishing
    dependent communities. Thanks in large part to the strengthened
    Magnuson-Stevens Act and the sacrifices of fishing communities across
    the country, the conditions of many of our most economically important
    fish stocks have collectively improved steadily over the last decade.
        We all share the common goal of healthy fisheries that can be
    sustained for generations. Without clear, science based rules, fair
    enforcement, and a shared commitment to sustainable management, short-
    term pressures can easily undermine progress toward restoring the
    social, economic, and environmental benefits of a healthy fishery.
    Challenges remain in some fisheries, but in other fisheries, as fish
    populations grow and catch limits increase, the benefits for the
    resource, the industries it supports, and the economy are beginning to
    be seen.
    Progress in Implementation
        Working together, NMFS, the Councils, coastal states and
    territories, and a wide range of industry groups and other
    constituents, have made significant progress in implementing key
    provisions of this legislation.
    Ending Overfishing, Implementing Annual Catch Limits, and Rebuilding
        One of the most significant management provisions of the 2007
    reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act is the mandate to implement
    annual catch limits, including measures to ensure accountability and to
    end and prevent overfishing in federally managed fisheries by a certain
    deadline. An annual catch limit is an amount of fish that can be caught
    in a year so that overfishing does not occur. Accountability measures
    are management controls to prevent the limits from being exceeded, and
    to correct or mitigate overages of the limits if they occur. This is an
    important move away from a management system that could only be
    corrected by going back through the full Council process--often taking
    years to accomplish, all while overfishing continued. Now, when
    developing a fishery management plan or amendment, the Councils must
    consider the actions that will occur if a fishery does not meet its
    performance objectives. As of December 31, 2012, assessments
    demonstrate that overfishing ended for 58% of the 38 domestic U.S.
    stocks that were subject to overfishing in 2007 when the Magnuson-
    Stevens Act was reauthorized.\3\ Annual catch limits designed to
    prevent overfishing are in place for all stocks, and we expect
    additional stocks to come off the overfishing list as stock assessments
    are updated in the coming years.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ See Fish Stock Sustainability Index. This report was the source
    for the underlying data, but the numbers presented here were compiled
    specifically for this hearing. The report is available at: http://
    www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/2012/fourth/
    Q4%202012%20FSSI%20Summary
    %20Changes.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We recognize that learning from our past actions and adjusting is
    important. With that in mind, the agency has already begun the process
    of reviewing the National Standard 1 guidelines, which were last
    modified in 2009 to focus on implementing the requirement for annual
    catch limits. This was a major change in how many fisheries were
    managed, and we want to ensure that the guidance we have in place
    reflects current thinking on the most effective way to meet the
    objectives of National Standard 1. An Advanced Notice of Proposed
    rulemaking was published in May 2012, which was followed by an almost
    six month public comment period where we asked the public for input on
    11 topics addressed in National Standard 1. We received a lot of input,
    and are in the process of working through the comments and developing
    options for moving forward, be it through additional technical
    guidelines, regulatory changes, or identifying issues for discussion as
    part of a reauthorization.
        The Magnuson-Stevens Act also includes requirements to rebuild any
    overfished fishery to the level that can support the maximum
    sustainable yield, and as of December 31, 2012, we have rebuilt 32
    stocks.\4\ Ending overfishing and rebuilding depleted fisheries brings
    significant biological, economic and social benefit, but doing so takes
    time, persistence and sacrifice, and adherence to scientific
    information. We estimate that rebuilding all U.S. fish stocks would
    generate an additional $31 billion in sales impacts (including
    multiplier effects), support an additional 500,000 jobs and increase
    dockside revenues to fishermen by $2.2 billion, a more than 50 percent
    increase over current annual dockside revenues.\5\ A prime example of
    the benefits of rebuilding is seen in the New England sea scallop
    fishery, where revenues increased five-fold as the fishery rebuilt,
    from $44 million in 1998 to $353 million in 2011, making New Bedford
    the largest port by value every year since 2000.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ See Fish Stock Sustainability Index. Available at: http://
    www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/2012/fourth/
    MapRebuiltStocksCY_Q4_2012.pdf.
        \5\ See The NMFS Commercial Fishing & Seafood Industry Input/Output
    Model. The change in landings revenue for each species was derived
    using the calculation: (Current Price*MSY)--(Current Price*Current
    Landings). If MSY is not available, a zero value is assumed for the
    change in landings revenue. These values were then entered into the
    model, which produced the job and sales impacts estimates. The model is
    available at: https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/documents/
    Commercial%20Fishing%20IO%20Model.pdf.
        \6\ See Fisheries of the U.S., Vols. 2000-2011, Commercial Fishery
    Landings and Value at Major U.S. Ports (tables). Available at: http://
    www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/publications.html.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As the fishing industry rebounds and the money involved increases,
    so does the need for comprehensive enforcement to ensure adequate,
    fair, and effective enforcement of the management plans so that they
    can continue to function for the benefit of those who play by the
    rules.
    Improvements to Science and Recreational Fishing Data
        Without high quality fishery science, we cannot be confident that
    the Nation is attaining optimum yield from its fisheries, or that we're
    preventing overfishing and harm to ecosystems and fishing communities.
    Attaining optimum yield requires an investment in information about
    fish stocks, their fisheries and their ecosystems, including habitat
    requirements. NMFS is committed to generating the best fishery science
    to support the goals of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Increasingly, we are
    conducting research and analyses to understand the environmental and
    habitat factors affecting the sustainability of fish populations.
    Today, we know more about our fish stocks than ever before, and it is
    vital that our science not regress, as this would inevitably lead to
    declines in our stocks and a loss in the economic and social values
    they provide.
        The importance of increasing the frequency of stock assessments,
    improving the quality of fisheries science with a better understanding
    of ecosystem factors, investing in cooperative research and electronic
    monitoring technology, and enhancing our engagement with fishermen
    cannot be stressed enough. Partnerships with industry are a key
    component of successful fisheries management. Cooperative research
    provides a means for commercial and recreational fishermen to become
    involved in the science and data collection needed to improve
    assessments and develop and support successful fishery management
    measures. For example, the Northeast Cooperative Research program
    enhances the agency and the New England Fishery Management Council's
    capacity to respond to emerging management needs and research
    priorities associated with improving stock assessments, as well as
    supporting the industry during the transition to sector management and
    the implementation of annual catch limits. In the Gulf of Mexico, NMFS
    supports a number of electronic monitoring programs including funding a
    project to test closed circuit televisions, gear sensors, and a data
    storage system to improve the overall catch and bycatch accounting
    system for the Gulf reef fish fishery thus improving management.
        The Magnuson-Stevens Act also required improvements to recreational
    fisheries data collected by NMFS for use in management decisions. In
    October 2007, NMFS established the Marine Recreational Information
    Program, a new program to improve recreational fishery data collection
    efforts, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirement and the
    2006 recommendations of the National Research Council. The Marine
    Recreational Information Program is a national system of coordinated
    regional data collection programs designed to address specific needs
    for improved recreational fishing information. One major component of
    the Marine Recreational Information Program is the development of a
    national registry of anglers, also required by the Magnuson-Stevens
    Act, which NMFS has been using in a series of pilot studies to test
    more efficient mail and telephone surveys for the collection of data on
    recreational fishing activity. Based on the results of these studies,
    NMFS expects to be ready to implement new registry-based survey designs
    on all coasts in 2014. The Marine Recreational Information Program is
    also developing and implementing numerous other survey improvements to
    address the National Research Council's recommendations, including
    improved estimation methodologies, improved shoreside survey design,
    and improvements in for-hire fishery data collections.
    Looking to the Future
    Remaining Challenges
        Looking ahead, we must continue to increase the quality and
    quantity of scientific data, continue progress made on addressing
    overfishing and rebuilding stocks, and better address the difficult
    transitions that can come with management changes leading to more
    biologically and economically sustainable fishery resources.
        The most effective annual catch limits and accountability measures
    will require further improvements to our stock assessments and
    monitoring efforts. Ensuring solid, science-based determinations of
    stock status and responsive management will also require better
    linkages to ever-shifting biological, socio-economic, and ecosystem
    conditions. U.S. fisheries are extraordinarily diverse in value,
    participation, and science needs. The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides
    flexibility in adapting management plans to the life history
    differences among species and nuances of particular fisheries as well
    as to the unique regional and operational differences among fisheries
    and in the fishing communities that they support. Together with our
    partners, we continue to explore alternative approaches that will
    produce the best available information to incorporate into management.
    It is also increasingly important that we better understand ecosystem
    and habitat factors, including climate change, and incorporate them
    into our stock assessments and management decisions, as well, because
    resilient ecosystems and habitat form the foundation for robust
    fisheries and robust economies. As we end overfishing and rebuild
    stocks, the strategic alignment of habitat conservation efforts to
    support the need of fish stocks will be a key component of NOAA's
    success.
    General Views on Legislation Proposed in the 112th Congress
        NOAA supports the collaborative and transparent process embodied in
    the regional fishery management councils, as authorized in the
    Magnuson-Stevens Act and strongly believes that all viable management
    tools should continue to be available as options for the Councils to
    consider when developing management programs.
        It is critical that we maintain progress towards meeting the
    mandate of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to end overfishing and, as
    necessary, rebuild stocks. Annual catch limits are an effective tool in
    improving the sustainability of fisheries around the Nation, and NOAA
    has concerns with efforts that would create exemptions or otherwise
    weaken provisions regarding annual catch limits. Uncertainty in the
    stock assessments upon which annual catch limits are based should not
    be used as a basis for exempting fisheries from annual catch limits.
    Managing fisheries using annual catch limits and accountability
    measures was a major change for some fisheries, and the initial
    implementation has identified some areas where we can improve that
    process. We will continue to work with the Councils to achieve the best
    possible alignment of science and management for each fishery to attain
    the goals of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        In an increasingly constrained fiscal environment, we must not
    mandate duplicative or otherwise unnecessary actions. Additional stages
    of review for certain types of fisheries data, or repeating data
    collection and stock assessment efforts when there are already sound
    peer reviewed processes in place are examples of actions that will
    divert resources to a select few fisheries at the expense of others
    with little additional benefit. Moreover, legislation should be cost-
    effective, particularly during this time of constrained funding. NMFS
    welcomes the opportunity to work closely with Congress, the regional
    fishery management councils, and the recreational and commercial
    fishing industries, to use the best available science to seek
    opportunities for efficiency and improved management in order to end
    overfishing, rebuild stocks and achieve stable economic opportunities
    for our fishermen and coastal communities.
    The Next Reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act
        With some of the largest and most successful fisheries in the
    world, the U.S. has become a model of responsible fisheries management.
    This success is due to strong partnerships among the commercial and
    recreational fishing, conservation, and science and management
    communities. Continued collaboration is necessary to address the
    ongoing challenges of maintaining productive and sustainable fisheries.
        The upcoming conference, Managing Our Nation's Fisheries 3--co-
    sponsored by the eight Regional Fishery Management Councils and NMFS--
    will bring together a broad spectrum of partners and interests to
    discuss current and developing concepts addressing the sustainability
    of U.S. marine fisheries and their management.\7\ The conference was
    developed around three themes: (1) improving fishery management
    essentials; (2) advancing ecosystem-based decision making; (3) and
    providing for fishing community sustainability.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ The Managing Our Nations Fisheries 3 conference is scheduled to
    take place May 7-9, 2013 in Washington, DC. See
    ManagingOurNationsFisheries.org.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The first theme, improving fishery management essentials, will
    examine the core principles, practices, and tools essential to the
    long-term sustainability of fishery resources. This includes challenges
    that arise in using annual catch limits, implementing stock rebuilding
    programs, and participating in international management. The topics
    related to the second theme, advancing ecosystem-based decision making,
    are designed to foster conversation around the fact that fisheries
    affect, and are affected by, an ever-changing ocean ecosystem, and that
    we therefore need to consider relationships between managed species and
    their environment when setting policy and developing management
    strategies. These topics include assessing ecosystem effects and
    integrating climate considerations, forage species management, and
    integrating habitat into fisheries management. The last theme explores
    fishing community sustainability, including recreational and
    subsistence fisheries, socio-economic trade-offs, and fishing
    communities. Discussion will focus on meeting management objectives
    while taking into account the needs of different user groups and their
    diverse social and economic objectives.
        We are looking to this venue as a critical step in bringing
    together a wide range of stakeholders. The session speakers and
    panelists represent many points of view, from commercial and
    recreational fishing to the conservation and science and management
    communities. Before the last reauthorizations, we co-sponsored two of
    these conferences, and they played an important role in bringing people
    together and creating an opportunity to present ideas and understand
    different perspectives. Ideas that emerge from this event may inform
    potential legislative changes to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, but the
    benefits are much greater than that. The communication across regions
    and councils provides an opportunity to share best practices and
    lessons learned, and may also inform changes to current policy or
    regulations that can be accomplished without statutory changes.
    Conclusion
        Because of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the U.S. has taken action to
    end overfishing in Federally-managed fisheries, rebuild stocks, and
    ensure conservation and sustainable use of our marine fisheries.
    Fisheries harvested in the U.S. are scientifically monitored,
    regionally managed, and legally enforced under 10 strict national
    standards of sustainability. But, we did not get here overnight. Our
    nation's journey toward sustainable fisheries has evolved over the
    course of 35 years.
        In 2007, Congress gave NOAA and the regional fishery management
    councils a clear mandate, new authority, and new tools to achieve the
    goal of sustainable fisheries within measurable timeframes. Notable
    among these were the requirements for annual catch limits, and
    accountability measures to prevent, respond to, and end overfishing--
    real game changers in our national journey toward sustainable
    fisheries, and ones that are rapidly delivering results.
        This progress has been due to the collaborative involvement of our
    U.S. commercial and recreational fishing fleets and their commitment to
    science based management, improving gear-technologies, and application
    of best-stewardship practices.
        It is important to take time and reflect on where we have been to
    understand where we are. We need to look to the future in a holistic,
    comprehensive way that considers the needs of the fish and the
    fishermen, and the ecosystems and communities. We look forward to the
    discussions that will take place during the upcoming Managing Our
    Nations Fisheries 3 Conference, and will happily work with Congress on
    any efforts to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss implementation
    progress of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and future efforts of
    reauthorization. I am available to answer any questions you may have.
                                     ______

        Mr. Southerland. Mr. Rauch, thank you for your testimony.
    Just like our first panel, each Member here today is given 5
    minutes to ask you questions. And I reserve the next 5 minutes
    for questioning.
        In the cases like the South Atlantic red snapper fishery,
    which has been closed for most of the last 3 years, how will a
    new stock assessment come up with the different results, when
    there is no new fishery-dependent data, and there is no new
    survey data?
        Mr. Rauch. So, that fishery actually was opened this year--
    --
        Mr. Southerland. For, I think, a weekend.
        Mr. Rauch. A limited season.
        Mr. Southerland. Well----
        Mr. Rauch. So there is some data, but not much. And that is
    one of the concerns that we do have about closures, where you
    break the time series of fishery-dependent data, data that you
    get from the fishermen themselves. It creates a concern and a
    problem, as we go forward. That is why such large-scale
    closures are often viewed as a last resort in our case.
        We do have a stock assessment coming up in 2014, which will
    deal with some of these issues. I don't know what the new
    information is going to be. I am pleased that we are able to
    offer some limited opportunities, even though it is not as much
    as what the fishermen, obviously, would like.
        Mr. Southerland. I am worried about that particular fishery
    because, like you heard in the testimony earlier on a 7 to 6
    vote with data that was vague, at best. And when you close a
    fishery for 3 years, the economic damage that is out there is
    something that, well, quite honestly, 301 requires you to take
    into consideration.
        So, with that being said, since that requires you to take
    that into consideration, do you know if that was, in fact,
    taken into consideration when basically that particular fishery
    was shut down? And has been fished--when you mentioned a
    season, I want to be very clear. It was a weekend, if you call
    that a season--maybe a sample of a season, but a season from
    Virginia to South Florida.
        So, was that requirement of 301 that you have to take into
    consideration, did you consider the economic impact that
    followed when that closure took place?
        Mr. Rauch. Yes, sir. We took into account all of the
    requirements of the Fishery Management Act as we were
    developing that, and working with the Council to deal with that
    issue. We have actually been sued on that case, and have won on
    all counts, people raising claims such as that one, that we had
    not appropriately followed the requirements of the Magnuson-
    Stevens Act.
        Mr. Southerland. I am told that the Senate CR includes
    language regarding NOAA's lack of responsiveness toward
    communities in the Mid-Atlantic area, and requires a report on
    a number of issues, including how to improve relationships with
    fishermen.
        Would you like to comment on why the Senate has felt--or do
    you even know why the Senate has felt it necessary to include
    this language, and how NOAA is likely to address the Senate's
    concerns?
        Mr. Rauch. I cannot comment on the Senate's language, nor
    do I know why they felt it necessary to include that.
        But we do feel that one of our jobs, as a fishery manager,
    is outreach to the coastal communities. We control a limited
    industry, in terms of the fishing industry. Many of these
    coastal communities are not particularly diverse, and they rely
    heavily on these fishing industries. And that is, I think, the
    nature of the requirements in the Magnuson-Stevens Act reflects
    that, so that we believe it is part of our obligation to reach
    out to them, to understand their needs, to try to develop
    measures that impact them in as minimal a way as possible,
    being mindful of the other requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens
    Act.
        But I can't speak to the Senate CR language.
        Mr. Southerland. That is fair. One of the other topics that
    we addressed on the earlier panel was regarding the explosives
    that are used to remove rigs. And I am just curious about
    NOAA's opinion. If you have tens of thousands of fish that are
    being killed and floating in the open water, with that being a
    fact, clearly in 301 there was a concern regarding the
    mortality of bycatch. Bycatch is specifically mentioned in 301
    as something that NOAA and the councils must consider.
        So, if my catch is a consideration in coming up with our
    regulations and our seasons, I mean, is it fair to say that we
    should be somewhat appalled at the fact that it seems to be OK
    with the government to blow up rigs, killing tens of
    thousands--it seems to be a contradictory--and undermine the
    integrity of the process.
        Mr. Rauch. Thank you. So on the issue of rig removal, that
    issue--we have a consultative role in that situation. We do not
    authorize the removal of rigs, nor the processes in which they
    do that. That is handled by the Interior Department. However,
    we have worked with them, and expressed some of the similar
    concerns about making sure that, as they carry out their
    obligations under their statutes, that they do so in a way that
    minimizes the effect on fishing and fish habitat.
        I know that the Gulf Council is working on a potential
    amendment to identify the rigs as essential fish habitat. We
    are concerned about if they have to be explosively removed,
    that they are done so in a way that would minimize the effect
    on the fishery--bearing in mind, though, that it is the
    Interior Department's ultimate decision as to how to carry that
    out.
        Mr. Southerland. I understand. OK. I see my time has
    expired. I will move now to Ms. Hanabusa.
        Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rauch, you must
    have been pleased to hear the prior panel. No one said that the
    MSA should be repealed. However, everyone says that it has
    problems, and it has to be fixed somehow.
        One of the things that I was struck by in your testimony,
    you talk about MSA being in place for 35 years, and all the
    positives that have come from it. And yet we do know that the
    United States is importing about 92 percent, 90 to 92 percent,
    of its fish coming in for consumption. So do you, by any
    chance, have an idea of what it was 35 years ago, in terms of
    the amount of fish that was being imported for consumption?
        And you, in your testimony, stated that we are doing a lot
    better now, and the whole purpose of this Act was to basically
    address overfishing, how are we doing?
        So, first question is do you know where we were 35 years
    ago, and also this idea of overfishing. And I would also like
    to know how you believe we are going to address--well, you have
    heard the fishermen saying it is not sustainable for many of
    them. They cannot make a living doing this. So I would like to
    hear your response.
        Mr. Rauch. I don't have the figures for 35 years ago. I do
    know that at that time, within U.S. waters, a significant
    portion of the catch was being caught by foreign boats in U.S.
    waters. And that has changed. There is little or no foreign
    fishing in U.S. waters any more. That doesn't change the global
    dynamic. We export an awful lot of fish. We import for
    consumption an awful lot of fish. Some of that is fish that we
    have exported out and has been processed and we import it back.
        In terms of overfishing, I think we have made great
    progress. We have put in place measures to end overfishing in
    all Federally managed fisheries. We still have some concerns in
    international fisheries. I think you are starting to see--I
    gave some economic figures about job creation and job growth. I
    think that is a reflection of rebuilding fish stocks. That is a
    reflection of stability.
        But what those figures mask is that this has come at a
    transitional cost. Many fishing communities are having
    difficulty adapting to these new requirements. There is great
    economic opportunity for rebuilt fish stocks and economic
    stability, but we have to get to that place. And what I think
    you are seeing are transitional costs that the fishermen are,
    quite rightly, indicating has been very difficult for them to
    bear.
        So, we bring a lot of tools to bear in such a situation.
    The Magnuson-Stevens Act is not as rigid as many people believe
    it is. There is room in there to account for local communities
    to design programs to better allow for new entrance and those
    kind of issues, but it requires effort on both us and the
    councils to take advantage of all those provisions.
        Ms. Hanabusa. But, Mr. Rauch, aren't the fishermen really
    one of the major players or stakeholders in this process? So if
    you are saying, for example, we have rebuilt and they have
    great opportunity, but you are almost saying, ``But somehow
    they don't see that opportunity,'' or they don't know how to
    adjust to that opportunity.
        What is NOAA going to do about that? Because it seems like
    they are the people you should be talking to. And do you feel
    any obligation to adjust the way you are approaching it so that
    they can better understand it, or they can better take
    advantage of the situation?
        Mr. Rauch. So I think fisheries are diverse around the
    country. And there are fisheries that are doing very well, and
    that are driving some of the economic numbers. And there are
    fisheries that are not doing as well, based on local issues,
    environmental issues, regulatory issues, all kinds of different
    reasons.
        So I don't think that one message fits all when you are
    talking to the fishermen, and you need to reflect that
    variability and diversity of situations. We try very hard,
    through the council process, to tailor our regulations and our
    approach and our communications directly to the fishing
    communities themselves, and to reflect that there is no
    universal, one-size-fits-all solution. What works in Alaska may
    not work in Hawaii. It may not work in the Keys. We need to be
    mindful of that. What works for an industrial commercial
    fishery may not work at all for a recreational fishery.
        So, we need to be mindful in tailoring our message to talk
    to the fishermen themselves, and to understand what is driving
    that local fishery, because it could be vastly different around
    the country.
        Ms. Hanabusa. Do you believe the law, as it now stands,
    gives NOAA enough flexibility to be able to address the needs
    of basically your regional councils of the various fishing
    regions, and addressing the fishermen in each one?
        Mr. Rauch. It gives us a lot of diversity and flexibility
    at the moment.
        Two things that we are doing to actually answer that
    question. One is we put in these annual catch limits in 2012.
    And it was our first effort to do this nationally. And we do
    not know whether or not--I mean in that process we identify
    some things that didn't go as well as we wanted to. So we are
    engaged in a process of looking at the regulations and trying
    to change them within the confines of the Act to take advantage
    of those needs.
        The other thing, as I think the Chairman mentioned at the
    outset, we are engaged with the councils in a broad process
    looking at managing our Nation's fisheries to decide that exact
    question, whether the Act currently provides the kind of
    flexibility and opportunities we need to address all the
    problems around the country.
        Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you.
        Mr. Southerland. Thank you, Ms. Hanabusa. Next is Mr.
    LaMalfa.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rauch, thank you
    for appearing. I was disturbed earlier to hear the figure for
    the observer costs when they can do a similar service for $300
    that, because it may come through a government entity, it is
    triple that price, $1,000. And so, I was wondering why is there
    such a discrepancy. And, more importantly, what can be done to
    relieve this cost and have it be more in line with what the
    industry would be able to pay, since they do have to meet a
    bottom line, unlike around here, government does not?
        Mr. Rauch. So I am not familiar with the $1,000 cost. I am
    not sure how it was derived. I am not saying it is not the
    right cost. I don't know. This is the first I had heard of
    that.
        Often times, when we talk about observer costs, we split it
    into two categories. We talk about the cost that is borne by
    the industry, or the total cost. The total cost includes the
    cost to analyze the data, the cost to the government of the
    whole data collection process. I suspect that might be some of
    what you are hearing with the $1,000, but I don't know.
        On the broader issue, though, of decreasing that cost, it
    is clear to me that the pressure for more observers is out
    there. The observers are becoming more expensive. We need to
    find a different, better way to collect data. There has been a
    lot of talk in the prior panel about the use of cameras and
    monitoring, something that we very strongly support.
        You have to realize that there are two issues with cameras.
    One is a technological issue. What can the cameras tell you
    now? On that issue, they are very good at the moment of
    identifying discard events. Did somebody throw something
    overboard? They are not yet to the point where they could
    identify individual fish. So if you are asking somebody using a
    big trawl net to say how much of any particular kinds of fish,
    a camera is not going to do that very well.
        And then there is a regulatory side of the issue. We have
    to adapt our regulatory requirements to take advantage of
    cameras. If you wanted, as one of the prior panelists said, to
    have a full retention fishery, which means the fishermen
    basically keep every fish and they land it on the dock, you can
    have someone count the fish on the dock, and all the camera
    needs to say is they do throw something overboard. That
    situation, I think, is achievable in many fisheries today. But
    the fishing councils and the fishermen do not want to go to
    that full retention fishery. It requires a cost. Because if you
    have to catch everything that you brought on board, some of
    that is not going to be marketable. And so there is a cost to
    that.
        So, the fishermen have not wanted to embrace full
    retention, so they have wanted a more complicated situation,
    where you look at the kind of fish that are caught, you make
    certain assessments about that, and you still discard some.
    That is not impossible, it is just more complicated to deal
    with, and we need to move forward on that. And hopefully we
    will be moving forward aggressively. But we have to do that to
    solve the observer problem.
        Mr. LaMalfa. They don't always ask for extra complication,
    though. That is what I observe. I don't have a coastal district
    any more, but I do have an inland one where farmers and
    ranchers, for example--but it is a similar thing--are not
    asked, told to shoulder a greater and greater burden of cost of
    monitoring, of different things they have to do, on water use,
    and I think that would apply to the way fishing is done, as
    well, that the requirement by regulators, they have to shoulder
    more and more burden to do things that they didn't ask for that
    may not necessarily be producing a result for them.
        So, we have to take into account that it is a huge--
    becoming a huge burden, and is pricing some people out of the
    business. So when we talked about the possibility of electronic
    monitoring, that in the part of the Pacific fleet that--in
    designing the program, electronic monitoring was seen as an
    integral part by the fleet for doing so. And then that has kind
    of fallen out, that component is not in it any more as a
    reliable part. You touched on that a little bit, but it seems
    like, again, the people from the fleet side were expecting
    certain things, and then that doesn't happen, and so they get a
    higher cost. What is going to be--what is fair for them?
        Mr. Rauch. There were a number of provisions, in terms of
    the Pacific groundfish fishery that balanced the need for a
    changing regulatory system with some things that would provide
    economic flexibility. The monitors were one, there are certain
    other things that are all sort of packaged in what is called
    the trailing amendments to that.
        We are working through those with the council as quickly as
    we can, because it is, as the fishermen have told me--and I am
    sure they have told you--there is a gap now. This has become
    more costly because some of the cost-saving mechanisms that
    they had expected to see aren't in place yet. Some of those are
    regulatory, some of those are the camera systems. We continue
    to move with the council, with the Pacific Commission on
    cameras. We had a meeting, the Pacific Council had a meeting 2
    or 3 weeks ago to try to move out on how you can implement
    cameras more broadly within that fishery, as a cost-saving
    mechanism.
        So, I am hopeful that, as a result of that meeting, the
    Council will take up management measures that will actually get
    us down the road to replacing some of these human observers
    with cameras.
        Mr. Southerland. Time has expired. Thank you, Mr. LaMalfa.
        Mr. DeFazio.
        Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple issues, Mr.
    Rauch. One is, as you know, that Mike Thompson and I and
    Huffman and Don Young have been working on lowering the burden
    of the cost of the buy-back program with lower interest rates.
    And I am hopeful that your agency would be supportive and
    helpful in that effort.
        Mr. Rauch. Yes. The Administration has not taken a position
    on the particular bills, but I think we are, in general, very
    supportive of working with the Hill and with the industry on
    trying to find a way to make this program cost-effective, and
    to achieve the benefits that we had originally designed it to
    achieve.
        Mr. DeFazio. Great. Now, the observers you have just been
    talking a little bit about the observers. Do you know what the
    observer cost or what portion NOAA will cover this year?
        Mr. Rauch. I can get you the exact figure, or I can spend
    the time to look it up. I think that we had allocated--this
    fishery was designed that, over time, the government would
    start out funding all of the observers, and----
        Mr. DeFazio. Right. There is a theory that the catch will
    become so much more valuable that----
        Mr. Rauch. Right.
        Mr. DeFazio [continuing]. The fishermen should carry more
    of the burden. They are also paying 3 percent of their gross.
    And the fishery hasn't gotten substantially more valuable.
        So my question is, you are going to be putting additional
    burden on the fishermen this year, on the observer program,
    even though they are not necessarily seeing those kind of
    gains. It is a pretty quick turnaround to say, ``Gee, we have
    had this 2 years, now your fishery is so much more valuable now
    that you guys can pay for it.'' And I know you have budget
    problems. Is sequestration going to hit this?
        Mr. Rauch. I can't answer the question of sequestration.
    Plus, in reality, under my continuing--the resolution expires
    at the end of this month. So I have no budget after March 27th.
    And so maybe you can answer the question better than I.
        We do envision, bearing in mind the uncertainties of
    sequestration and the budget, picking up a portion of the
    observer costs. I think it is somewhere around $300-something
    for the observer day.
        Mr. DeFazio. OK.
        Mr. Rauch. So that is a substantial amount.
        Mr. DeFazio. Sure.
        Mr. Rauch. It is not the entire amount.
        Mr. DeFazio. OK. But then, on the issue of the transition
    to other means of monitoring, essentially you talked about a
    full retention fishery could, with today's technology, off-the-
    shelf, relatively inexpensive cameras, be implemented at that
    point if it is full retention. And essentially, as I understand
    it, we are pretty much a full retention fishery for groundfish.
        Mr. Rauch. Some aspects of the groundfish are full
    retention, yes.
        Mr. DeFazio. Right. So----
        Mr. Rauch. And so you could move forward in those fisheries
    fairly quickly.
        Mr. DeFazio. Good. Then how do we move forward, toward
    cameras?
        Mr. Rauch. So that requires the Pacific Council to take
    action. I think the equipment is not an issue, because that is
    already funded through the Pacific Fisheries Commission. But it
    does require us to work with the councils to make sure that
    full retention, that those requirements, such as you have to
    keep the cameras on, and to figure out what happens when the
    cameras turn off, we have dealt with these kind of situations
    with other electronic equipment, with electronic log books,
    with vessel monitoring systems.
        So, it is not particularly groundbreaking, but it does
    require the fishery management council to put in the supporting
    regulations to support that. And they are working on that, as I
    indicated in the last series of questions. They had a meeting
    earlier this month to deal with that exact issue about moving
    forward and transitioning to cameras where you could have them.
        Mr. DeFazio. Yes. And, of course, your agency would save
    money, because you wouldn't have to help support the observers,
    and the fishermen would save money. So it seems to me that if
    we can give the Pacific Fisheries Management Council a sense of
    urgency here to both help the people who are fishing and to
    help an agency whose budget is strapped and about to be
    partially sequestered, it seems like we would all come out
    ahead.
        Mr. Rauch. I have had discussions with them along the same
    lines.
        Mr. DeFazio. OK, good. Well, I will add my voice to that.
    Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Southerland. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio. Next is Mr.
    Pallone.
        [Pause.]
        Mr. Southerland. I apologize. We are going to move to Mr.
    Horsford next. I apologize, Mr. Horsford.
        Mr. Horsford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to the
    witness for being here. I just have a couple of questions.
        First, can you talk to us about how the investments in
    stock assessments translate into greater fishing opportunities,
    more economic benefits, and reduced risk of overfishing?
        Mr. Rauch. Yes, thank you. As the prior panel indicated,
    increased investment in stock assessments decrease--give us a
    better indication of what actually is being caught. We can
    manage much closer to the target. As uncertainty is decreased,
    in certain fisheries we have been able to clearly tie that to
    economic opportunities. Like in Alaska, for every point
    reduction in uncertainty, you can set the quotas closer to the
    limit, and that means that you get a much higher economic
    benefit.
        And I agree with what most of the prior panel had said.
    There is great return on investment from increasing the
    scientific support for that. You can, with better data, better
    manage the fisheries, extract as much economic opportunity as
    is available for the fisheries, all while ensuring that you
    have met the statutory standards. And we have a number of good
    examples of where that has happened.
        Mr. Horsford. So then, would additional appropriations from
    Congress help ensure more timely and accurate stock
    assessments, then?
        Mr. Rauch. I can't speak to the appropriations. I do know
    that overall, the Fishery Service budget has decreased, in the
    last 2 years, the one area where we have seen modest increases
    has been in expanding stock assessments. And much of that has
    been directed toward the Southeast, but some of it has gone
    other places. Where we have made that investment, we will, over
    time, see returns on that investment. And I think that money is
    well spent.
        Mr. Horsford. Good. Now, fish in United States waters are a
    common property resource that belongs to all Americans, not
    just the ones with harvest quota allocations. So how does that
    fact influence management decisions under the Act? And do you
    think that the Act adequately protects the interest of all
    Americans in achieving a healthy marine environment?
        Mr. Rauch. So the Act requires a very open, transparent,
    participatory process. You have fishery management councils
    that engage the public in an open way that has representatives
    from a cross-section of the public, including the States, and
    it is not limited to just quota holders. Sometimes there are
    environmental groups, other public groups, universities, and
    the States. So I think that one protection is the participatory
    process. And we need to make sure that it is as transparent and
    open as possible.
        Within that there are a number of requirements that require
    us to look not just to the short-term economic needs of the
    industry, which are important, but also to balance a broader
    range of social and environmental issues. One of the provisions
    which was mentioned here earlier is the requirement to consider
    the effects on communities. Some of those communities do not
    hold quota share. So you might theoretically make a decision to
    benefit a community which would not be in the best interest of
    all the quota shareholders.
        There are also provisions to look at the broader habitat
    impacts and the ecosystem impacts in the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
    So there are flexibilities in the Act which allow you to
    consider the broad range of societal interest in the fishery,
    but the most significant is the council process itself, and the
    members of the council.
        Mr. Horsford. So, based on the concerns that there needs to
    be additional regulatory flexibility, can the NOAA work with
    councils and fishermen to address some of their concerns?
        Mr. Rauch. We are trying to do that. We are looking at what
    we call National Standard 1. That is our overarching guideline
    on how you adopt the annual catch limits and accountability
    measures. After the first suite of accountability measures and
    catch limits were put in place at the end of last year, we need
    to go back and look at how we did that work? Did we do it well?
    Did we not do it well?
        So, we are engaged in a regulatory process within the
    statute, within the bounds of the statute, to find out whether
    we can change our approach to deal with some of the issues that
    you heard earlier today and other issues that have been raised
    by the other fishermen.
        Mr. Horsford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Southerland. Thank you. Next is the Ranking Member, Mr.
    Pallone.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to ask Mr.
    Rauch. The 2006 reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens required
    NOAA to implement recommendations from a National Research
    Council report, and to put in place improved science and data
    programs, including a recreational angler registry program.
    Since I was a part of the Committee at the time, I know the
    idea was to have NOAA replace the faulty MRFSS system with an
    improved recreational registry system that would be more
    accurate. And the deadline written into the law to complete the
    program and implement the improved program was January 1, 2009.
        Has the NMFS entirely moved away from using the MRFSS
    system at this time? And is the recreational angler registry
    the primary source of fisheries management information at this
    time?
        Mr. Rauch. Thank you. It is correct that--as you
    indicated--that we had a 2009 deadline that we did not entirely
    meet. We have been working diligently in implementing the
    Marine Recreational Information Program, or MRIP. And it has
    been more of a transition than a flipping-the-switch kind of
    situation, where we have implemented pieces of it as we move
    forward.
        Currently, we have released revised estimates for catch for
    Atlantic and Gulf Coast fisheries from 2004 to 2011 based on
    MRIP, as opposed to MRFSS. It is a more accurate way of
    collecting the catch. We are implementing this year a new
    onsite intercept survey as part of MRIP----
        Mr. Pallone. Well, let me ask you that, because that was my
    second question. I wanted to ask whether there are adequate
    number of intercepts being made to accurately estimate
    recreational catch, as required in the 2006 reauthorization. So
    maybe you can throw that in, too.
        Mr. Rauch. Yes. So I think that is an issue of statistical
    power. Are you looking at the right places in order to make the
    assumptions that you are making? And this is one of the things
    that they have been trying very hard to address in that issue.
    I can't tell you exactly how many we have made, or how many
    intercepts that we are doing this year. But we are working on
    that. That is a part of the MRIP process. I believe that we
    plan to cover enough to give us the right kind of statistical
    significance. I can get you more information on that, though.
        Mr. Pallone. But in terms of--going back to what I
    originally said--I mean you still are using the MRFSS to some
    extent. You still consider yourself in transition from MRFSS to
    the registry at this point?
        Mr. Rauch. Yes. If you had asked me last year, we were more
    on the MRFSS end. This year we are more on the MRIP end, I
    think.
        Mr. Pallone. Now, what about the development of a weather
    corrective factor that can be applied to recreational catch and
    for estimates? Again, that was required under the 2006
    reauthorization.
        In other words, how are storms calculated into harvest
    levels and fishing efforts? I mean, obviously, this is
    important to me, given Hurricane Sandy. I am going to ask you
    to go quickly, because I am trying to get to two more things.
        Mr. Rauch. OK, I am going to have to get back to you on
    that issue, about----
        Mr. Pallone. On the weather?
        Mr. Rauch [continuing]. Calculated in there. I am not
    clear.
        Mr. Pallone. All right. If you could, I would appreciate
    it. Through you, Mr. Chairman, he can get back to me in
    writing?
        Mr. Southerland. Yes.
        Mr. Pallone. OK. The Secretary of Commerce, following
    Superstorm Sandy, made a Federal fishery disaster declaration
    for New Jersey and New York. And under Magnuson-Stevens, NOAA
    has 2 months to develop a comprehensive, economic, and socio-
    economic evaluation of the affected region's fisheries.
        And I wanted to ask you if this evaluation has been done
    and what do you see as a result are the needs, and whether
    changes in Magnuson-Stevens could allow NOAA to further better
    assist the region after the disaster. Do you have that? Is that
    evaluation done? Can you share it with us?
        Mr. Rauch. Shortly after the hurricane, or the superstorm,
    we did send out teams to do an economic survey. We have
    provided the data that we collected directly to the States
    about a month-and-a-half ago. The report is not complete yet.
    That is, the accumulation of that data. But the States do have
    that data.
        Mr. Pallone. When do you think the report would be
    complete?
        Mr. Rauch. I cannot say.
        Mr. Pallone. All right.
        Mr. Rauch. Hopefully soon.
        Mr. Pallone. All right. Obviously, we would like to see
    that as soon as possible. And I guess I can't ask you what the
    follow-up would be on the report until you finalize it, right?
        Mr. Rauch. Yes.
        Mr. Pallone. All right. Well, let me ask you a last
    question about resources. In terms of funding, do you think
    that NOAA has the funds and resources necessary to do adequate
    data collection, to perform an adequate number of intercepts,
    to include weather in your model, to provide information
    sufficient for fisheries management? I am just basically asking
    about the funding of all the things I have brought up, whether
    you have enough funds to do the different things I mentioned,
    the data collection, the weather, the intercepts, and
    ultimately, respond to the storm.
        Mr. Rauch. Well, as I indicated before, I have no funds
    after March 27th. So I can't speak to what the future will
    hold, and we are still working through sequester issues. We
    have made a substantial economic commitment to the MRIP program
    and to other scientific data, as I indicated. While our overall
    budget was decreasing, the investment in stock assessments was
    increasing.
        You could always do more, and you can get a good return on
    your investment from doing more. The current Magnuson-Stevens
    Act requires an awful lot of data collection in order to
    operate well. And we have struggled with--as we are starting
    that program--with getting the right kind of data collection to
    match the regulatory needs. But, as I said, at this point I
    don't have a budget after March 27th, so I can't say what the
    future will hold on that one.
        Mr. Pallone. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Southerland. Thank you, Mr. Pallone. Just a follow-up
    question. I am curious. I asked you earlier, in reference to
    the removal of the rigs, and you had mentioned that the removal
    of the rigs was instituted by another department that did not
    fall under the oversight of NOAA. But with the thousands, tens
    of thousands of fish that are killed as a result of another
    department's actions, I am just curious. Could you share with
    us the concern of NOAA that another department has, in such a,
    I think, damaging way undermined what Magnuson-Stevens was set
    in place to do in the first place?
        Mr. Rauch. Yes. So that other department is the Interior
    Department, who authorizes rig removals and those kind of
    things. And we have been concerned over the course of time with
    the way they operate their oil and gas program in the Gulf of
    Mexico, not just with rig removals, but with the entire suite
    of activities, because it can have an effect on fish stocks,
    and also on endangered species-listed stocks and things like
    that.
        We have worked with them over time on limiting the size of
    explosives charges, on placing them in such a way to minimize
    impacts, on requiring site clearance procedures, on looking at
    no-activity zones, in terms of things, issues. So we have
    worked with them on their program. We do not consult with them
    on an individual--because we don't have the resources to do
    it--on an individual, rig-by-rig removal. We consult with them
    generically. And we have shared our concerns with them about
    the way that they operate. And they have been responsive, over
    time, to our concerns.
        Obviously, there is more work that may still need to be
    done between us and them, and the Administration has convened a
    work group led by the CEQ and the National Ocean Council to
    bring all the agencies together to try to find a path forward
    on rig removals, to balance the need for the fish enhancement
    that they can bring, versus the need for the oil companies to
    limit their liability.
        So I can't say more about it than that. But we are
    concerned, and we are working through the interagency process
    to share those concerns with them.
        Mr. Southerland. How are you going to--last year, as a
    result of the storms that we had in the Gulf, the season, the
    fishing season in the summer, was extended for 6 days, from 40
    days to 46. I am curious. When you have tens of thousands of
    fish, and there is so much that goes into an extension of a
    season--I mean it is like it requires an Act of Congress--how
    should tens of thousands of dead fish, snapper, affect the
    season, as far as the assessment towards a total allowable
    catch? I mean they are real fish. Well, wait a minute, I take
    that back. NMFS doesn't count those fish, because they are on
    artificial reefs. But if we picked them up, they would be
    counted.
        So, how do you determine how those fish affect the total
    allowable catch, because we want good data, and that seems to
    be something that you need to address.
        Mr. Rauch. So they have been doing rig removals for a long
    time in the Gulf. That mortality should be accounted for in the
    overall population. So if those fish are dying, and they are
    not contributing to overall population, then the population
    numbers are depressed as to what they should be.
        Mr. Southerland. But how could they be, if you don't count
    those fish because they are on artificial rigs?
        Mr. Rauch. Well, we are going--so on that issue, in the new
    stock assessment, which is expected in June, I believe, we are
    going to start taking into account surveys on artificial reefs
    and those issues. So we have heard the concern about the way
    that we don't trawl on artificial reefs. And some of that issue
    is going to be taken into account in this new stock assessment
    for red snapper that is coming up.
        Mr. Southerland. So one could surmise that the mere fact
    that you all have made that recognition that the stock
    assessments in the past could have been significantly flawed
    because, as we have talked about earlier, 40 percent of all the
    red snapper landed in the Gulf of Mexico or landed off of
    Alabama, which has done an extensive push to build their
    artificial reef program, accounting, thus, for the increased
    landings. So I, first of all, want to thank you for that
    acknowledgment, going forward, that you are going to count fish
    on artificial reefs. And I appreciate your concern with
    Interior, and I will be interested to hear how that goes.
        Obviously, this action out there killing tens of thousands
    of fish is one that is gaining a lot of attention.
        So are there any other questions, I think I am it. So I am
    it. Let me say this to Mr. Rauch and to the members of the
    previous panel. Thank you very much for being with us today.
    Thank you for standing here and taking the questions, and your
    responses.
        Members of the Committee may have additional questions for
    the record, and I ask that you respond to those in writing.
        If there is no further business, without objection, the
    Committee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 1:04 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

        [Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

        Statement Submitted for the Record by Mike Jennings, President,
                        Charter Fishermen's Association

        My name is Captain Mike Jennings and I am the President of the
    Charter Fishermen's Association (``CFA''). CFA represents for-hire
    charter boat captains and private recreational anglers throughout the
    Gulf of Mexico. I appreciate the opportunity to testify in support of
    achieving sustainable and accountable fisheries in a way that will
    increase access to our nation's natural resources. To reach these
    goals, it is critical that the congressionally-created Regional Fishery
    Management Councils have the flexibility to explore all available
    management options. Dictates from Washington, D.C. that take management
    options off the table inhibit our ability to craft solutions that work
    for our regions and could devastate our businesses. At the same time,
    Congress should support efforts to improve data collection necessary
    for effective fisheries management and protect valuable fish habitat.
        I have been a licensed charter boat captain fishing the Gulf of
    Mexico off Texas for over 25 years. I grew up fishing Texas's inshore
    and offshore waters and I am proud to make a living by taking my
    clients fishing and giving them access to the fisheries in the Gulf of
    Mexico. In fact, the for-hire industry in the Gulf of Mexico provides
    access to millions of recreational anglers every year who cannot afford
    their own boats, live far away or who want to fish with an experienced
    captain. Last year my boats took more than 1,500 people out to fish in
    the Gulf. Our customers come from all over the country and are a large
    part of the economic machine that supports thousands of small
    businesses like mine in our coastal communities.
        The recreational fishing industry in the Gulf is suffering under
    increasingly restrictive management measures that threaten our
    businesses. Fishing seasons have gotten shorter and bag limits have
    gotten smaller. These factors make it very difficult for charter boat
    operators like me to stay in business. The service we provide to our
    customers is access to ocean fisheries, but in recent years government
    regulations have prevented us from providing this access. In some
    cases, recreational fishing seasons have shrunk to just a few weeks in
    duration. It is nearly impossible to operate a successful business of
    taking people fishing when fishing is closed for 11 months of the year.
        Fortunately, there are solutions that can simultaneously provide
    increased access to our fishery while also providing for the long-term
    conservation of those resources. We do not want to return to the days
    when unrestricted fishing depleted our fisheries. Instead, we want to
    use the flexibility that currently exists in the Magnuson-Stevens Act
    (``MSA'') to increase access while also preventing overfishing and
    ensuring that fish stocks rebound. Congress should do four things: 1)
    allow fisheries managers the flexibility to use all available
    management tools; 2) improve monitoring and data collection on our
    fisheries; 3) protect valuable fish habitat now in place throughout the
    Gulf of Mexico; 4) explore the issue of 10-year arbitrary time lines
    that are currently overly restrictive for some fisheries. Congress
    should set a science based approach that allows Fisheries managers the
    ability set species specific rebuilding periods in order to help keep
    fishing communities economically viable, without compromising the
    ultimate rebuilding goal.
    ALLOW MANAGERS TO USE ALL AVAILABLE MANAGEMENT TOOLS
        What we need is continued flexibility to explore different types of
    management approaches. At least in the Gulf of Mexico, traditional
    methods of managing our fisheries--setting of fishing seasons, size and
    bag limits--simply are not working. The MSA allows local regions to
    explore other options that might work better. These options include
    sector allocations, Limited Access Privilege Programs (``LAPPs'') and
    Individual Fishing Quota (``IFQ'') programs among others. Right now
    there are several pilot projects in the Gulf under development or
    consideration that would test whether these alternative approaches
    could work better to manage our fisheries.
        There is absolutely no reason Congress should dictate to local
    regions that these options cannot be explored. Now is the time when
    stakeholders need the flexibility to be innovative and find creative
    solutions. Now is not the time for bureaucratic dictates from
    Washington, D.C. that tell us what we can and cannot do. Why on earth
    would Congress want to prevent us from even considering management
    options that might work to both conserve our fisheries and boost our
    revenues?
        We acknowledge that LAPPs may not be appropriate for all fisheries
    and all fishermen. For example, LAPPs may not work for managing fishing
    by private anglers. But the charter industry or any other group of
    stakeholders should have the option to explore LAPPs if it sees fit.
    Under the MSA, the Regional Fishery Management Councils now have the
    option to implement a LAPP where the stakeholders in a fishery want
    such a program. Here in the Gulf of Mexico any new LAPP is subject to a
    fishermen referendum and must be approved by a majority of the active
    participants in the fishery before it can be implemented. No other
    fishery management program requires that level of fishermen input.
        There have been numerous attempts--some of which have been
    successful--to strip our right to explore options for our industry in
    the Gulf of Mexico. But Congress should not decide what tools fisheries
    managers and fishermen can and cannot use in their regions. Congress
    got it right when it set up the MSA to allow local issues to be managed
    at the local level. Congress should allow those local processes to take
    place.
    IMPROVE MONITORING AND DATA COLLECTION
        Fisheries management cannot be successful without good data on what
    fishermen are catching. In some commercial fisheries, such as the
    commercial IFQ programs for red snapper or grouper in the Gulf, there
    is near 100% accountability for all fish caught. By contrast, the
    recreational fisheries lack sufficient methods of monitoring and
    accounting for their catches. Fortunately, new methods of electronic
    monitoring and catch reporting--such as user-friendly software programs
    that can be used on a smart phone--are being developed which could
    revolutionize data collection in recreational fisheries and provide a
    mechanism to achieve a level of accountability for catches commensurate
    with what is achieved in the commercial sector. CFA has been actively
    involved in developing and testing these new products to improve catch
    accountability. We support electronic monitoring requirements for the
    entire for-hire sector in the Gulf of Mexico.
        In addition to supporting efforts to improve catch accountability
    in recreational fisheries, Congress should also make funds available
    for fisheries data collection and stock assessments through the RESTORE
    Act. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill had untold effects on Gulf
    fisheries, and dedicating some of the RESTORE Act funds to fisheries-
    related research would help quantify the extent of those effects and
    improve our ability to respond to them through the fisheries management
    process.
        Finally, Congress should also consider methods to improve fisheries
    science in general. In recent years there has been a lack of
    stakeholder buy-in to the science that supports fishery management
    decisions. Congress can improve the science and stakeholder buy-in by
    ensuring more timely and valid stock assessments, having more direct
    involvement by fishermen in data collection and analysis, increasing
    access to fisheries where necessary data can be supplied by fishermen,
    academics or other third-parties, and ensuring that any monitoring
    required in fisheries is cost-effective and expanding cost-sharing by
    industry.
    PROTECT VALUABLE FISH HABITAT IN THE GULF OF MEXICO
        One of the top priorities for recreational fishermen in the Gulf of
    Mexico today is maintaining the Rigs to Reef program. Gulf of Mexico
    offshore oil and gas production platforms were originally designed and
    built to provide our nation with energy. Today, however, these
    structures have also become critical habitat for many types of marine
    life and are also a valuable asset for recreational fishing and diving.
    The federal Rigs to Reefs program successfully allows removal of
    hazardous materials while allowing the useful habitat to remain and has
    been working great for decades. Many businesses and user groups have
    come to rely on the structures, which have improved our quality of life
    and ability to enjoy our Gulf of Mexico.
        Unfortunately, recent changes to federal policy are causing this
    beneficial habitat to be destroyed at enormous cost to our communities
    and the Gulf ecosystem. The Department of the Interior has sped up the
    process of removing non-producing rigs, regardless of their value as
    fish habitat. As a result, much habitat has been lost and continuing to
    remove more rigs will harm our businesses.
        The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council also has expressed
    concern about the method and rate of oil and gas platform removal. The
    Council sent a series of letters asking the agencies responsible for
    rig removal to reconsider the use of explosives to remove rigs because
    explosives are known to kill fish dwelling near those structures. The
    Council also asked that the rate of rig removal be slowed or
    discontinued until more information is gathered regarding the effects
    of structure removal on the fishery. We strongly support the Council in
    these efforts.

                                   * * * * *

        Sustainable fisheries provide healthy seafood to Americans, public
    access for sportfishing enthusiasts, and long-term economic benefits
    for fishermen and our coastal communities. Current rules that limit
    fishing with short or closed seasons are hurting anglers, fishing
    businesses, our coastal communities and the fisheries they all depend
    upon. These problems can be solved by giving fishermen management
    flexibility and not through rolling back conservation provisions and
    creating management loopholes.
        CFA members see our role as providing access to the average
    American who just simply has no other avenue or opportunity to fish in
    the Gulf of Mexico. Current management practices are stripping the
    American public of this access. Now should be the time when Congress is
    giving us more tools to manage our fisheries, not less. The CFA looks
    forward to working with the Regional Fishery Management Councils,
    Congress and the Administration towards long-term solutions, including
    any and all options that may increase fishing time, improve the
    economics of our businesses, and ensure a sustainable fishery. We need
    all the options at our disposal and we need to allow the user groups to
    work within the guidelines of the MSA at the regional level to best
    manage our fisheries.
                                     ______

        [A letter and statement submitted for the record by Lee R.
    Crockett, Director, U.S. Fisheries Campaigns, The Pew Charitble
    Trusts, follows:]

    March 20, 2013

    The Honorable Doc Hastings
    Chairman
    Natural Resources Committee
    United States House of Representatives
    Washington, DC 20515

    The Honorable Edward J. Markey
    Ranking Member
    Natural Resources Committee
    United States House of Representatives
    Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chairman Hastings and Ranking Member Markey,

        On behalf of The Pew Charitable Trusts, I would like to thank you
    for the opportunity to submit the attached statement for the record for
    the Committee's March 13 oversight hearing on the Magnuson-Stevens
    Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). As we begin discussions
    on reauthorizing this landmark law, it is important to take note of the
    significant benefits the MSA is delivering to the nation as a result of
    the conservation requirements Congress added to the law in 1996 and
    2006.
        Thanks to these requirements, 32 fish populations have been rebuilt
    since 2001, including Atlantic sea scallops (one of America's most
    valuable fisheries) and mid-Atlantic bluefish; and other important fish
    populations, such as red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico, are on the road
    to recovery. Last year, we also achieved a significant management
    milestone by putting in place science-based annual catch limits that do
    not allow overfishing on all federally-managed fisheries. We can now
    boast one of the best fishery management systems in the world, and many
    countries are emulating the conservation requirements of the MSA as
    they seek to bring about sustainability in their fisheries.
        As we look forward to the next reauthorization, I urge you to
    protect these hard-won gains and adopt new, ecosystem-wide approaches
    that will build resilience in our oceans to withstand the impacts of
    changing ocean temperatures, acidification, and other emerging threats.
    The future of our nation's fisheries depends upon these actions.
        If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 202-
    552-2065 or at lcrockett@pewtrusts.org. Thank you for your time and
    consideration.

    Sincerely,

    Lee R. Crockett
    Director, U.S. Fisheries Campaigns

    cc: Members of the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and
    Insular Affairs
                                     ______

    Statement Submitted for the Record by Lee R. Crockett, Director of U.S.
           Fisheries Campaigns, The Pew Charitable Trusts, on ``The
       reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
                                Management Act''

        The Pew Charitable Trusts (Pew) appreciates the opportunity to
    provide a statement for the Committee's oversight hearing on the
    Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). In this
    statement, we will offer a brief historical perspective on the MSA,
    illustrate how conservation reforms added to the law in 1996 and 2006
    are beginning to bear fruit, and urge you to continue supporting these
    critical reforms. Finally, we will provide you with our recommendations
    on how the MSA reauthorization can build upon these successes by
    adopting new, ecosystem-wide approaches that will build resilience in
    our oceans to withstand the impacts of changing ocean temperatures,
    acidification, and other emerging threats. Such measures are vital to
    the future of U.S. fish populations that our fisheries depend upon.
    Historical Perspective
        Ocean fishing is one of our nation's oldest industries, providing
    nourishment, employment and recreation to generations of Americans.
    Unlike other natural-resource related industries such as farming or
    forestry, ocean fishing involves hunting wild animals inhabiting
    ecosystems that are vast and varied. When healthy, ocean ecosystems
    sustain a national commercial seafood industry that is currently
    estimated to support 1.23 million jobs, and a recreational fishing
    industry that is estimated to provide more than 454,000
    jobs.i
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \i\ National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 2011. Fisheries
    Economics of the United States, 2011. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA
    Technical Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-118, 175p. Available at: https://
    www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st5/publication/index.html.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Congress first recognized the need to manage U.S. ocean fish
    populations in 1976 when it passed the Fishery Conservation and
    Management Act, the precursor to the MSA, to phase out rampant foreign
    fishing off the U.S. coast and promote the domestic fishing industry.
    However, over the course of the next two decades, policies focusing on
    expanding fishing, as well as dramatic improvements in technologies to
    locate and catch fish, resulted in overfishing (i.e., catching fish
    faster than they can reproduce) becoming a national problem. Historic
    overfishing led to the collapse of many important fish populations
    around the country, including cod in New England, red snapper in the
    South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, and rockfish off the west coast.
    Today, coastal communities continue to grapple with the impacts of
    these fisheries collapses.
        In response to this problem, Congress amended the law twice (first
    in 1996 and then in 2006), changing the focus of the MSA from promoting
    fishing to conserving fish populations. The goal of these amendments
    was to halt the decline of valuable U.S. fish populations and end the
    boom and bust cycle of fishing in order to create a more stable
    industry. The 1996 amendments (known as the Sustainable Fisheries Act)
    put in place critically important measures to advance sustainability
    including specific requirements to rebuild depleted fish populations to
    healthy levels; and the 2006 amendments finally put an end to
    sanctioned overfishing by requiring managers to abide by the
    recommendations of scientists in establishing annual catch limits
    (ACLs) that do not allow overfishing.
    The MSA today
        Today, with science-based catch limits and accountability measures
    established for all federally-managed fisheries, the U.S. can boast one
    of the best fishery management systems in the world. Other countries,
    including the European Union, are seeking to emulate the central tenets
    of the MSA, including science-based catch limits and commitments to
    ending overfishing and rebuilding depleted species in a set time
    period.
        Though it takes time for these measures to result in change on the
    water, we are beginning to see tangible improvements. While 40 of the
    managed fish populations were subject to overfishing in 2010, we have
    seen significant progress, with 29 populations subject to overfishing
    in 2012, according to the most recent data from the National Oceanic
    and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Furthermore, 32 fish stocks are
    fully rebuilt, compared to just 21 in 2010.
        NOAA Fisheries estimates that the economic benefits of rebuilding
    depleted species will be an additional $31 billion in sales nationwide,
    as well as more than a million jobs. The economic toll of allowing
    unsustainable fishing is equally stark--in a recent analysis, Ecotrust
    estimated that in 2009 alone, the cost of overfishing in New England,
    the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico commercial fisheries was $164.2
    million.ii
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \ii\ Ecotrust, Hidden Cost of Overfishing, 2011. http://
    www.pewenvironment.org/news-room/reports/the-hidden-cost-of-
    overfishing-to-commercial-fishermen-85899361965.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Transitioning to Long Term Sustainability
        The conservation requirements added to the MSA in 2006 represented
    a fundamental transformation in the way we manage our fisheries by
    placing science-based catch limits at the core of our management
    system. Some regions such as the North Pacific have been managing their
    fisheries under this approach for many years, and the value of their
    fisheries demonstrates the long-term pay off of this system. For
    example, Alaska's commercial seafood industry has more than doubled its
    revenue in the last decade, from $845 million in 2002 to $1.9 billion
    in 2011.iii
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \iii\ NMFS, 2011. Fisheries Economics of the United States, 2011.
    https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st5/publication/index.html.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As we look at the challenges facing certain regions transitioning
    toward sustainable management, we must bear in mind the progress we are
    making as a nation in turning the corner in our decades-long effort to
    end overfishing and recover from its troubling legacy. Problems in
    regions like New England are a direct result of decades of excessive
    fishing and collateral damage to the ecosystem caused by damaging
    fishing practices and gear. Offering more ``flexibility'' to allow
    continued overfishing and further deplete stocks that are already at
    unsustainably low levels will exacerbate problems for fishermen in the
    future. We only need look at our neighbor to the north, where the
    Canadian cod industry collapsed, putting thousands of fishermen out of
    work, to see how this story could unfold.
        Another controversial issue in the transition to sustainable
    fisheries management is setting science-based annual catch limits
    (ACLs) for fish populations that lack recent stock assessments, a
    situation that is most pressing in the South Atlantic, Gulf and
    Caribbean regions. Some are concerned that managers are making
    decisions based on inadequate science, and some have advocated for
    weakening or eliminating the requirement to set annual catch limits for
    these so called ``data poor'' species.
        However, there are no fish species managed under the MSA for which
    there are no data. Information is available on basic biology, life
    history characteristics or commercial and recreational catch numbers
    that can be used to set catch limits even for fish without complete
    assessments. For these fish populations, there are tools available for
    managers to set annual catch limits, some as simple as locking in
    current catch levels until more complete scientific evidence indicates
    that the population can support more fishing. Please see the attached
    factsheet for more information on setting catch limits in the absence
    of conventional stock assessments.iv
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \iv\ http://www.pewenvironment.org/uploadedFiles/PEG/Publications/
    Fact_Sheet/FF-CatchLimits.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The lack of complete assessments should not allow managers to
    sidestep the legal requirement to establish catch limits that prevent
    overfishing. In essence, this would allow unchecked fishing unless or
    until a full scientific stock assessment is available to establish
    limits. Failing to establish science-based ACLs has created disastrous
    and demonstrably negative consequences in many parts of the country.
    For example, managers allowed overfishing of Gulf of Mexico red snapper
    for decades, reducing the breeding population to less than 5 percent of
    what scientists considered a healthy level by 1988.v In
    2007, fisheries managers finally heeded the advice of their science
    advisors on sustainable catch limits and lowered allowable red snapper
    take from 9 million to about 6 million pounds and then again to 5
    million pounds in 2008. These significant cuts may have been avoided
    had managers listened to the science and addressed red snapper
    overfishing years earlier. As a result of establishing science-based
    ACLs, Gulf of Mexico red snapper is now recovering and catch limits are
    gradually increasing.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \v\ Goodyear, C.P. 1988. ``Recent trends in red snapper fishery of
    the Gulf of Mexico,'' NMFS. SEFSC. Miami FL. CRD 87/88-16. Memo. Rpt.
    98p, see pages 12 and 24.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Addressing New and Emerging Threats
        The 1996 and 2006 amendments to the MSA have resulted in remarkable
    progress in ending overfishing and increasing the value of U.S. fish
    populations through rebuilding. However, as our understanding of the
    ocean and its inhabitants increases, we are recognizing that it is not
    only critical to protect economically important populations of fish,
    but also interrelated species and surrounding habitat. Ending
    overfishing is just the beginning of sustainable fisheries
    management.vi As we grapple with emerging threats related to
    changing ocean temperatures, acidification and other stressors, we must
    now make the shift to ecosystem-based fishery management to ensure that
    our fisheries can withstand these new challenges.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \vi\ Prelude to Sustainability: Ending Overfishing in U.S.
    Fisheries. Our Living Oceans 6th edition, pps 57-66.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Changing environmental conditions are already affecting our oceans
    and fisheries. The Gulf of Maine experienced the warmest summer on
    record in 2012, and some scientists believe that this may be have
    contributed to the poor condition of groundfish stocks there.
    Increasing acidity in the ocean is becoming an issue for shellfish in
    the Pacific Northwest, and its impacts on the broader food web are not
    yet fully understood. In addition to impacts on ocean health, changes
    in fish population sizes and distribution have a direct impact on the
    U.S. commercial and recreational fishing industry, which generates
    billions in revenue and provides jobs for millions of people.
        The MSA has tools in place to begin this process by protecting
    habitat and reducing the incidental catch of non-target species, or
    bycatch. As you begin to consider possible reforms to the MSA, we urge
    you to strengthen these existing tools and examine new tools that can
    be used to protect the prey base of commercially and recreationally-
    important species. Finally, we must move toward an ecosystem basis for
    management so that fisheries management decisions are taken after
    considering the needs of the larger ecosystem. These reforms will
    restore and maintain healthy and resilient marine ecosystems that are
    critical to our nation's fisheries.
    Attachment
        [NOTE: The fact sheet has been retained in the Committee's official
    files. It is available at: http://www.pewenvironment.org/uploadedFiles/
    PEG/Publications/Fact_Sheet/FF-CatchLimits.pdf.]
                                     ______

      Statement Submitted for the Record by Glen Brooks, Vice President,
               Gulf Fishermen's Association, Clearwater, Florida

        My name is Glen Brooks and I have been a commercial fisherman in
    the Gulf of Mexico for over 30 years. On behalf of the board of
    directors for the Gulf Fishermen's Association, I would like to thank
    you for the opportunity to submit testimony related to Magnuson-Stevens
    Act reauthorization.
        The Gulf Fishermen's Association is the leading offshore commercial
    fishing organization in the southeastern U.S., with several hundred
    members. Our fishermen range from lifetimes of fishing experience to
    new entries to the fishery. We are dedicated to providing fresh
    domestic seafood to America's citizens year-round in sustainable
    fisheries. This is important because more than 97% of Americans do not
    have the means to catch their own fish in federal waters. Instead they
    rely on us. In addition to providing the best seafood in the world to
    American citizens, the economic contribution of the commercial fishing
    industry in the Gulf of Mexico is 128,000 jobs & $17 billion in sales.
        Until 2006, our Gulf fisheries were managed with traditional
    systems of seasonal closures, endorsements, income qualifications, gear
    restrictions, and other indirect means of controlling how many fish
    were caught. In 2005, as the Gulf Council tried to restore our fishery
    with conventional management, our season was cut short and restaurants
    had to take grouper off the menu. Fishermen sat at the dock for one-
    third of the year because managers hoped that would help rebuild the
    stocks, yet overfishing still happened. Fish prices were among the
    lowest in the United States, leaving more than 70 percent of fishermen
    with incomes below poverty level. Quality was poor because of gluts
    caused by fishermen catching all they could during the open season.
    Imports increased to fill the void caused by the closed season.
        The fishery was unmanageable, depleted, and without a future. Most
    fishermen were going out of business and very few could pay taxes or
    maintain their vessels. Things got so bad that in 2005 some in the
    industry developed a plan to reduce the fleet from 1,100 down to 400
    boats. It was eventually abandoned, and fishermen looked for a better
    solution.
        The catch share system was the fairest solution that didn't force
    fishermen out. We worked with federal managers and the regional Gulf of
    Mexico Fishery Management Council to establish our own program. At the
    local level--not through federal mandate or expanded regulations--we
    established individual fishing quotas (IFQs) that would enable us to
    spread out our fishing season and rebuild our fishery at the same time.
    In 2009, 81 percent of qualified fishermen voted in favor of an active
    fishery management program that was focused on rebuilding our grouper
    stocks. In 2010 the Grouper catch share program took effect as a
    companion to the red snapper catch share program.
        Now, for the first time in history we have year-round sustainable
    fishing jobs and no closed season. The fishery is more valuable because
    we provide fresh grouper throughout the year. The product is the best
    it has ever been. Fresh fish has become a reality again in our region
    and restaurants are putting fresh Gulf Grouper back on the menu.
        The fishery dependent science produced is among the best in the
    world and fishermen help pay for this through the cost recovery program
    as the fish are landed. The enforcement system and regulatory
    compliance by fishermen are the Gold Standard for fisheries in the
    Eastern United States, and fishermen help pay for that with their
    Vessel Monitoring Systems.
        This is a tremendous accomplishment for our country and the future
    is brighter if we support the rebuilding plans in place. American
    fisheries Management is among the best in the world. No agency of the
    federal government has more stakeholder interaction than the fisheries
    management system created by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Gulf
    Fisherman's Association feels that our management system is not broken
    and does not need an overhaul by Congress.
        Gulf fishermen have lived through overfishing; we know what it
    causes and how hard it is to reverse. We are very grateful for the
    courage and foresight that our nation has had to end overfishing and
    rebuild our fisheries. Already we are seeing signs of improvement in
    our fisheries in the Gulf. For the first time in our lifetimes,
    management plans are in place to increase catch limits as the fishery
    improves rather than decrease them as the fishery declines.
        We want to thank Congress for the role it has played and America
    for the commitment it has made to healthy fisheries. The Magnuson-
    Stevens Act is working. We urge the present Congress be patient and let
    it continue to work to achieve a sustainable fishery now, and in the
    future.
    Sincerely,

    Gulf Fisherman's Association Board of Directors:
    Glen Brooks: President, Cortez, FL: 941-920-7302
    Dean Pruitt: Vice President, Clearwater, FL: 727-512-2609
    Jim Clements: Board Member, Carrabelle, FL: 850-544-5703
    Brad Kenyon: Board Member, Tarpon Springs, FL: 727-639-0643
    Jason Delacruz: Board Member, Seminole, FL: 727-639-6565
    John Schmidt: Board Member, Palm Harbor, FL: 727-403-6281
    Will Ward: Board Member, St. Petersburg, FL: 727-638-8316
                                     ______

    Statement Submitted for the Record by The Honorable William R. Keating,
      a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

        Thank you to Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member Markey, and Members
    of the House Natural Resources Committee for holding the first hearing
    on the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
    Management Act (MSA) today. I know a number of my colleagues on the
    Committee serve coastal districts and understand the complexities of
    fisheries management thoroughly. I would also like to thank both panels
    of speakers today. We have much to gain from their perspectives on how
    implementation of the MSA has affected fishing communities nationwide
    and it is my hope that Members of the Committee will keep these
    testimonies and eye-witness accounts in mind as reauthorization
    progresses.
        I have the distinct honor of representing Southeastern
    Massachusetts, including the Islands of Cape Cod and Martha's Vineyard,
    where the fishing industry has been an integral part of the history for
    centuries. The South Coast was once the home of the epic whaling
    industry and the lore of whaling trips lives on its streets and piers,
    as well as in those of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket across Buzzards
    Bay. Today, the industry remains a vital economic lifeline for the
    region. The Port of New Bedford is the top fishing port in the country,
    with landings valued at approximately $400 million each year. New
    England's largest fleet of commercial fishermen has access to a variety
    of fish stocks and sea scallops in Nantucket Shoals, Georges Bank and
    the Great South Channel. In fact, nearly 50 million pounds of sea
    scallops pass over New Bedford's docks, which are also home to over 30
    processors and distributors of all sizes. On Cape Cod, over 100
    commercial fishing businesses catch over 12 million pounds of seafood
    worth $17 million each year, from cod and haddock, monkfish and
    dogfish, skates, clams, striped bass, and tuna. Massachusetts'
    lobstermen have landed over 13 million pounds at docks along the
    Commonwealth's coast, including nearly 8 million pounds from near shore
    state waters, accounting for over $50 million in revenue.
        However, one size does not fit all when it comes to fishery
    management policies. It is important that each fishery is assessed
    using the most sound, comprehensive, and accurate data available--and
    that is exactly what I have committed to achieving in Congress. We have
    learned that management is best left to regional stakeholders who
    understand the ebbs and flows of the industry and can identify the
    areas that need reform while the role of Congress should be to
    prioritize funding to improve on science and collaborative research.
    It's important to ensure that interpretation of the law is met with
    congressional oversight to ensure that the law is being implemented in
    the way Congress intended. In some cases managers have refused to take
    advantage of the flexibility already provided in the law and in other
    cases they can abuse this flexibility. We must focus on the challenges
    at hand and promote the maximization of harvests of healthy species,
    the reduction of bycatch, and the improved management of areas closed
    to fishing.
        The issues currently plaguing the industry are not only complex,
    but repetitive. In September 2012, the Northeast Multispecies
    (groundfish) Fishery was issued a disaster declaration by the
    Department of Commerce after the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA) allowed for a one-year interim measure before
    implementing drastic cuts in quota for Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank
    cod and yellowtail flounder. New England's fishermen are now facing
    such severe restrictions in allowable catch for the 2013 fishing
    season--which begins in just over six weeks--that many of them are
    facing the reality of losing their livelihoods and only source of
    income. It is my belief that many of the challenges of the fishing
    industry have been due to infrequent and inadequate data collection
    that then dictates catch quantities. In the face of ongoing challenges
    outside of our control--from increasing water temperatures, ocean
    acidification, and regime changes--it is imperative that Congress
    implement fair and effective fisheries management policies that support
    the existing successes of this implementation while helping to preserve
    those that are struggling.
        On December 1, 2011, this Committee hosted a hearing on several
    bills introduced in the 112th Congress to reform the Magnuson-Stevens
    Act and better fisheries management. I joined my colleagues from both
    sides of the aisle in testifying on behalf of my legislation, H.R.
    1013, the Strengthen Fisheries Management in New England Act, which
    would have rerouted funds collected through penalties imposed by NOAA
    to the improvement of New England fisheries. In April 2012, we sent a
    letter to the Committee urging them to take up legislation to reform
    federal fisheries law in the immediate future. It was to our
    disappointment that a second hearing was not scheduled and that none of
    our legislation was considered. I am committed to working with my
    colleagues and Members of the Committee to ensure that the proposals
    included in these bills are thoroughly considered as reauthorization of
    Magnuson-Stevens progresses.
        The New England Fishery Management Council is charged under the
    Magnuson-Stevens Act to manage fisheries in the federal waters of New
    England. Each year it identifies research and monitoring priorities,
    most of which lack adequate funding. In order to make sound management
    decisions, the Council must have the increased capacity to address
    these knowledge gaps. In today's age of austerity, it is essential that
    we maximize our reallocation of existing resources for best results.
    With the onset of sequestration and fiscal uncertainty, I hope that
    Members can work together to assist NOAA Fisheries in their ability to
    continue to provide at-sea monitoring coverage through the 2013 fishing
    year. Currently, the Agency has announced its intent to cover this cost
    as they have in previous years, provided that the number of trips not
    exceed the number from the 2012 fishing year. I am very concerned that
    the Agency's ability to meet this assurance comes at a cost: the very
    research that we are striving to improve.
        Furthermore, NOAA has also committed to participating in an end-to-
    end review of the flawed stock assessment process led by the University
    of Massachusetts Dartmouth's School of Marine Sciences and Technology
    (SMAST). SMAST will be collaborating with NOAA Fisheries and the
    industry in holding workshops on three focus areas: incorporating
    environmental change in assessments and management, fishery monitoring
    and survey selectivity, and overfishing reference points and
    uncertainty buffers. This is a unique opportunity for industry
    engagement and I look forward to helping facilitate the review and
    provide my full support to this process.
        Finally, there is an urgent need for fishing communities--from
    legislators and regulatory officials to healthcare providers and
    families--to fully understand the socioeconomic impact of fishery
    regulations and management on all industry stakeholders. In
    Massachusetts, we are increasingly bearing witness to heart wrenching
    scenes of frustration and grief as members of the fishing community
    find themselves out of work without an alternative source of income. I
    implore the Committee to listen to the suggestions of the industry and
    incorporate mechanisms to measure both the social and economic
    consequences of job loss, uncertainty, and hardship within fishing
    communities.
        Thank you once again to Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member Markey,
    and Members of the Committee. With challenges comes great opportunity,
    and I look forward to continuing to engaging with the Committee and
    participating in the robust conversation that will surely follow
    throughout the next year as we work toward constructive reform and
    reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
    Management Act.
                                     ______

           Statement Submitted for the Record by Elizabeth Mitchell,
             Association for Professional Observers, Eugene, Oregon

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
        My name is Elizabeth Mitchell and I am president of the Association
    for Professional Observers (APO). The APO is a non-profit association
    of biologists who advocate strong data collection programs for our
    national fisheries and a support network for the biologists who collect
    the data. In addition, I have over 25 years of experience working as a
    fisheries observer, primarily in the North Pacific Groundfish Observer
    Program (NPGOP). The underlying principle behind all of the APO's
    activities is the belief that collection of high quality, unbiased data
    is essential to sustainable management of resources and that well
    prepared professional biologists are necessary to articulate this
    course of action.
        I had the opportunity to listen to the archived version of this
    hearing after it was held. I wanted to add written testimony to those
    panelists who presented. Since all but one panelist were exclusively
    from members of the fishing industry, and some of the discussion
    involved fisheries observers, I felt it was important to provide a
    fisheries observer's perspective regarding several issues raised at
    this hearing.
    What Does a Fisheries Observer Do?
        Some of the discussion at the hearing was on the topic of replacing
    observers with electronic monitoring (EM) and ensuring that the next
    reauthorization pushes this forward aggressively. When changing
    technologies, we should proceed with caution to ensure that EM will
    provide us with the necessary information to effectively manage our
    marine resources. I thought I would provide an outline of just some of
    the observer duties but I would encourage a detailed outline specific
    to regions and fisheries of what information fisheries managers
    require, and a comparison of what observers now provide with what EM is
    capable of doing. We cannot sacrifice for the sake of convenience data
    and specimen collection that is necessary to manage our nation's public
    fisheries resources in a sustainable way.
        Observers gather unbiased, objective data on daily fishing effort,
    including, but not limited to:
              Total catch quantification by species, weight and
            number
              Identification of all organisms using scientific
            taxonomic keys
              Record incidental catch of protected species
              Record interactions of protected species with fishing
            gear
              Conduct rehabilitation of injured protected species
              Make observations of seabird and marine mammal
            bycatch reduction mitigation measures
              Conduct randomized samples of total catch to
            determine species composition of both target fish and bycatch
              Determine disposition of catch by weight
              Conduct a variety of randomized biological data
            collections and tag recoveries for basic research on age
            distribution, prey species and genetics studies
              Monitor vessel compliance to U.S. fishery regulations
            as well as other regulations such as MARPOL (the International
            Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
              Conduct safety checks of vessels prior to boarding
        Observer-collected data is used for in-season management of fish
    stocks and quotas and are essential for fishery management councils to
    write fishery management plans (FMP), which must comply with the
    Magnusun Stevens Act (MSA). Among other requirements, the MSA requires
    the use of the best scientific data available and efficient use of
    marine fisheries resources.
    Access to Observer Data and Information, Including Electronic
            Monitoring
        One of the sections of the last reauthorization of the MSA in 2007
    caused a lot of consternation for users of observer data and
    information. The confidentiality provisions added in the 2007
    reauthorization placed a blanket of secrecy over all information that
    observers collect, and specifically added electronic monitoring (EM) in
    the definition of observer information, assuming future trends toward
    the replacement of observers with EM. As mentioned above, observer data
    is essential for a whole suite of analyses to ensure sustainable
    management of our public marine living resources. The confidentiality
    provisions of this Act remained in limbo for five years, as National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) grappled with its
    implementation. Discussions, working groups, workshops and task teams
    languished behind closed doors, despite a MSA mandate to be inclusive
    of stakeholder input.
        In 2012, NMFS issued a proposed rule that appeared to go beyond the
    requirements of the MSA and in many ways conflicted with the Act's
    mandates, including being ``responsive to the needs of interested and
    affected States and citizens'' and drawing ``upon Federal, State, and
    academic capabilities in carrying out research, administration,
    management and enforcement''. It included not only protection of
    identity of the fisherman, but also the protection of the fishermen's
    business information. This included everything that is needed to study
    fishery impacts on the marine environment. The rule neglected to inform
    the public how the data would be aggregated for public disclosure and a
    future decision on this would have been made behind closed doors
    without public input. It placed ownership of the data in the hands of
    the fishing industry, which is a direct conflict of interest, since
    this could enable the fishermen to release the data or not, according
    to their own exclusive benefit.
        Transparency is the cornerstone of a democratic society and
    observer data has long been considered to be the cornerstone of
    fisheries management. Observers risk their lives to collect this data
    for public good, not just for those we're monitoring. The ocean belongs
    to us all. The fisheries are a public resource, an inheritance given to
    us for simply being born. Since not all of us have the capacity to fish
    for ourselves, we entrust our government to take care of these
    resources on our behalf and those of future generations. We request
    your consideration in re-examining the confidentiality provisions of
    the MSA to ensure adequate public access to observer data and
    information, including electronic monitoring information. Without
    access to observer data and information, other provisions of the MSA
    would be impossible to carry out, including the ability to monitor the
    effectiveness and efficiency of our monitoring programs.
    The Committee Must Treat its Citizens with Respect
        U.S. citizens have a right to expect respect and consideration from
    our Congressional representatives. I was appalled by the comments of
    Congressman Don Young about observers. He said: ``I argue that
    observers are probably the worst thing that can happen to the
    sustainable yield rationalization. The observer is human. He can be
    corrupted. He can be put into the trawl net to solve some problems. He
    can be a drunk.''
        Observers are recognized worldwide to be an essential component to
    fisheries managers so that they may make the difficult objective
    decisions in order to sustainably and fairly manage public marine
    resources. Observers believe in this role and are extensively trained
    for it, so to hear a U.S. Congressman marginalize observers at a
    ``public'' hearing, where only fishermen are invited, is contemptible.
        I understand his point--that humans sometimes come with negative
    variables. So do cameras, with much more ease and likely with less
    consequence, not to mention less oversight. So too are fishermen and
    politicians corruptible. In Mr. Young's home state, small boat
    fishermen are the recipients of the first time observer coverage this
    year that he was referencing. It was one of these fishermen who served
    in powerful political positions in Alaska who influenced fisheries
    policies in Alaska and the nation. He was then vetted to become the
    head of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) until it was
    discovered that he had been fishing illegally for five years.
        Jesting in front of a bunch of fishermen that killing observers
    would solve the problem of having them on board is beyond contemptible
    given the reality of our already risky and vulnerable situation.
    Harassment, assault and interference with our duties is a regular and
    serious problem for observers. Rationalization actually exacerbates
    this, so his statement about rationalization is the other way around--
    rationalization is the worst thing to happen to observers. Observers'
    data is no longer pooled with other observers sample data in the fleet.
    Instead it is used to monitor the individual vessel's quota. When the
    observer's data is directly impacting a vessel's quota on which he/she
    is monitoring, observers are often faced with additional pressures from
    fishermen to ``match'' their data with the vessel's quota accounting.
    It's not uncommon for fishermen to make attempts to subtlety (or
    outright) influence the observers' sampling protocols. Additionally,
    fishermen in Alaska tripled many observers' already heavy workload with
    rationalization--demanding that NMFS implement complex randomized and
    larger sample schemes of an impossibly small poplulation--the
    individual vessel. What the fishermen want is actual accounting against
    their quota, not a sample. However, we just don't have that technology
    yet. That's the cadillac version. So rather than insult observers and
    feed the resentment, we need to pull together to accept them as an
    essential componant of fishing sustainably. It is reprehensible for a
    politician to joke in front of fishermen about killing us. With an
    expected rise in harassment and interference that accompanies a new
    program, we'll know who to partially blame.
    EM is not Proven to be Cost Effective
        Another panelist at this hearing, Bob Dooley, stated that observer
    costs (in the NPGOP) went up from $300/day to over $1000/day ``once the
    government got involved''. However this is misleading because the 300/
    day figure only includes cost to industry and the 1000/day includes
    costs to industry and for NMFS program management. Because contractors
    consider observer charges for service fees proprietary information,
    this makes it impossible to accurately analyze ways to save costs to
    industry or the government--only total cost after the service is
    completed. Since cost effectiveness is a driving force for many,
    transparency about these costs should be of the first order.
        In addition, costs of enforcement of EM regulations is not included
    in cost analyses. Nor are non-compliance fee schedules. Non-compliance
    fee schedules should be a part of any cost analysis. Fines sometimes
    become the ``cost of doing business'' for some industries, so depending
    on the cost of non-compliance fines, these may not be effective in
    deterring EM violations.
        Thank you.
                                     ______

           Statement of The Honorable Austin Scott, a Representative
                     in Congress from the State of Georgia

        First, I would like to thank Chairman Hastings for bringing this
    important issue to the committee's attention. The Magnuson-Stevens
    Fishery Conservation and Management Act plays a major role in the
    recreational and commercial fishing by Georgia citizens. This is no
    more apparent than with the management of Red Snapper in the Gulf of
    Mexico and the South Atlantic. Over the last several years, the
    Administration has decided to severely limit the access to Red Snapper
    stating the erratic fluctuation of population. However, previous and
    current regulations of red snapper have lead to a steady and of late
    explosive growth in the Red Snapper population. This growth has been
    ignored by NOAA and National Marine Fishery Service in implementing new
    catch seasons and limits.
        There is only one answer for the contradiction in data and NOAA/
    NMFS actions. The quality and quantity of science and data used by
    NOAA/NMFS is fatally flawed. NOAA has chosen to actively pursue a path
    of severe and unwarranted closures while failing to address the severe
    deficiencies in its science and data collection. Many of my
    constituents fail to understand how generally actions by NOAA, much
    less acts of closures and restrictions, can be conducted without
    accurate, timely data collection and sound science.
        Further, NOAA has failed to conduct timely economic studies or
    assessments to determine the economic impact on communities who rely on
    fishing as a source of revenue. The basis of economic studies when
    conducted by NOAA are based on inadequate samples of fishing operations
    and could be argued, due to the sample size, that no economic study was
    actually conducted. If NOAA continues to implement severe policies
    based on flawed incomplete, poorly implemented science, an adversarial
    relationship will continue to grow between fisheries and NOAA. If not
    corrected, this will undoubtedly spill over into the other species and
    over 4,000 square miles of water that is regulated. This is no more
    evident than with the actions taken by states in the past few years who
    have extended their seasons past NOAA set dates.
        With the current economic climate, many communities need all the
    help that can acquire to provide their citizens with sustainable and
    fair economic stimulus. I charge NOAA/NMFS to discontinue its current
    practices and accept their responsibility to regulate the fishing
    industry with sound and adequate science, and in a manner that is first
    and foremost beneficial to coastal communities but also mandated by
    Congress.