[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 [email protected]. 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.