[Senate Hearing 113-261]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-261
NEW ENGLAND AND MID-ATLANTIC PERSPECTIVES ON MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT
REAUTHORIZATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, FISHERIES, AND COAST GUARD
of the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 23, 2013
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
87-797 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman
BARBARA BOXER, California JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Ranking
BILL NELSON, Florida ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington ROY BLUNT, Missouri
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas MARCO RUBIO, Florida
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota DEAN HELLER, Nevada
MARK WARNER, Virginia DAN COATS, Indiana
MARK BEGICH, Alaska TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut TED CRUZ, Texas
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts JEFF CHIESA, New Jersey
Ellen L. Doneski, Staff Director
James Reid, Deputy Staff Director
John Williams, General Counsel
David Schwietert, Republican Staff Director
Nick Rossi, Republican Deputy Staff Director
Rebecca Seidel, Republican General Counsel and Chief Investigator
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, FISHERIES,
AND COAST GUARD
MARK BEGICH, Alaska, Chairman MARCO RUBIO, Florida, Ranking
BILL NELSON, Florida Member
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii DAN COATS, Indiana
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
TED CRUZ, Texas
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 23, 2013.................................... 1
Statement of Senator Begich...................................... 1
Statement of Senator Rubio....................................... 3
Statement of Senator Ayotte...................................... 25
Statement of Senator Blumenthal.................................. 27
Statement of Senator Markey...................................... 29
Witnesses
John K. Bullard, Northeast Regional Administrator, National
Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
C.M. ``Rip'' Cunningham, Jr., Chairman, New England Fisheries
Management Council (NEFMC)..................................... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Richard B. Robins, Jr., Chairman, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
Council........................................................ 15
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Captain Nick Muto, Chairman, Cape Cod Commercial Fishermen's
Alliance....................................................... 31
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Captain John McMurray, Owner/Operator, One More Cast Charters.... 36
Prepared statement........................................... 38
Patrick Paquette, Recreational Fishing Advocate.................. 42
Prepared statement........................................... 43
Dr. John Boreman, Adjunct Professor, North Carolina State
University..................................................... 48
Prepared statement........................................... 49
Dr. Joshua B. Wiersma, Sector Manager, XI and XII Northeast
Fisheries Sectors and President and Executive Director, New
Hampshire Community Seafood Association........................ 51
Prepared statement........................................... 53
Appendix
Letter dated August 15, 2013 to Hon. Mark Begich and Hon. Marco
Rubio from Robert Beal, Executive Director, Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission.................................... 63
Matthew McKenzie, University of Connecticut History Department,
prepared statement............................................. 65
Response to written questions submitted to John K. Bullard by:
Hon. Mark Begich............................................. 67
Hon. Richard Blumenthal...................................... 74
Hon. Edward Markey........................................... 80
Hon. Marco Rubio............................................. 82
Response to written questions submitted to C.M. ``Rip''
Cunningham, Jr. by:
Hon. Mark Begich............................................. 82
Hon. Richard Blumenthal...................................... 85
Hon. Edward Markey........................................... 86
Hon. Marco Rubio............................................. 87
Response to written questions submitted to Richard B. Robins by:
Hon. Mark Begich............................................. 88
Hon. Marco Rubio............................................. 93
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Mark Begich to
Captain Nick Muto.............................................. 96
Response to written questions submitted to Captain John McMurray
by:
Hon. Mark Begich............................................. 97
Hon. Marco Rubio............................................. 99
Response to written questions submitted to Patrick Paquette by:
Hon. Mark Begich............................................. 99
Hon. Richard Blumenthal...................................... 101
Hon. Edward Markey........................................... 101
Hon. Marco Rubio............................................. 102
Response to written questions submitted to Dr. John Boreman by:
Hon. Mark Begich............................................. 102
Hon. Edward Markey........................................... 106
Hon. Marco Rubio............................................. 107
Response to written questions submitted to Dr. Joshua B. Wiersma
by:
Hon. Mark Begich............................................. 107
Hon. Edward Markey........................................... 111
NEW ENGLAND AND MID-ATLANTIC
PERSPECTIVES ON MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT REAUTHORIZATION
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 23, 2013
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and
Coast Guard,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark Begich,
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK BEGICH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Begich. Thank you for your patience. I know Senator
Rubio is on his way and will be attending in moments. So thank
you all very much for attending. Thank you for being patient as
we start our continued efforts in regards to reauthorization of
the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Today, the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries,
and Coast Guard begins a series of hearings that will occur
over the next few months dealing with the reauthorization of
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act or
MSA.
Today's hearing focuses on the New England and Mid-Atlantic
regions. Future hearings will look at the South Atlantic, the
Caribbean and Gulf Regions and the Pacific fisheries.
MSA was last reauthorized in the 109th Congress with the
enactment of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Reauthorization Act of 2006. This reauthorization
act, which was signed into law by President Bush, authorized
appropriations to carry out the provisions of MSA through
Fiscal Year 2013.
The 2006 reauthorization also provided new management tools
that ushered in sweeping changes to the way regional fisheries
management councils and the National Marine Fisheries Service
can serve and manage the fisheries of which their coastal
communities and economies rely on.
Each council was required to incorporate mechanisms into
its fisheries management plans specifying annual catch limits
or ACLs and/or prevent overfishing. The 2006 reauthorization
took a significant step toward science-based fisheries
management by requiring each council to develop ACLs that do
not exceed the recommendations of their science and statistical
committee. It created a new Marine Recreational Information
program to improve upon the recreational fisheries statistical
survey which had been place since the 1970s in order to better
collect and report marine recreational catch and effort. It
also created a National Saltwater Angler Registry to better
quantify recreational fishing effort and improve recreational
catch estimates.
The 2006 reauthorization also mandated the Secretary of
Commerce, working with the regional councils and the Council on
Environmental Quality, to come up with revised procedures and
compliance with NEPA to streamline the review and approval of
fishery management plans and plan amendments.
Today's hearing gives us a chance to hear from managers and
stakeholders about how these and other aspects of MSA are
working. We know that New England has had some success and some
setbacks. The New England Council successfully implemented ACLs
for all their fisheries and transitioned the ground fisheries
to an output-based management model. Alaska has incorporated
similar measures years ago. I'd like to boast a little bit
about what we're doing up there. We produce over half the
Nation's seafood while living ``hard TACs'' and various limited
access regimes. For Alaska, this is a tried and true method for
sustainable, efficient and safe fishery management.
While several valuable New England fisheries, including
Atlantic sea scallops, monkfish and others are now being fished
at sustainable levels, the lack of progress in rebuilding key
species like cod and certain species of flounder in spite of
everyone's best effort under the sector system has been a
source of great frustration.
As with the New England Council and the Mid-Atlantic
Council succeeding in bringing all its fishery management plans
into compliance with the ACL requirements of MSA, as part of
this effort, the Council incorporated a new framework across
the fisheries' plans that is improving management consistency.
The council also has taken a step toward forwarding cooperative
research and management with the development of the Advisory
Panel Fishery Performance reports. They give a fuller picture
and broader basis for its fishery management advice and
recommendations.
But these and other initiatives are only as strong as the
data and stock assessments that form the core of fisheries
conservation and management. The experience in the New England
and Mid-Atlantic regions reaffirms what most of us already
know: our biggest challenge in fisheries management is and will
likely always be balancing the need of responsible stewardship
of the resource for future generations with the needs of the
individuals, businesses and communities who rely upon the
resource today.
In closing, I want to note that in May of this year, I had
the pleasure of speaking at the Managing Our Nation's Fisheries
conference, which was convened here in Washington by the
Regional Fishery Management Councils to discuss MSA
reauthorization. I was heartened to hear that for most of the
stakeholders there, whether they were representatives of
commercial fishing interests, charter boat operators or
recreational anglers, are largely pleased with MSA in its
current form. That's not to say that they are completely happy
with the status quo. Issues remain regarding managing data poor
stocks, competing user interests and other issues, but these
can be dealt with minor adjustments to the law or
administratively through rulemaking and changes in agency
interpretation of the existing rules. I hear the same sentiment
in Alaska and think that this bodes well for reauthorizing this
important statute.
Before we start, I just want to make sure folks know, too,
that we're going to take this process very systematically. I
know the House is moving at a much faster pace when it comes to
MSA. We want to hear, as I mentioned, from the different
regions as we get their input. Alaska also has a unit
component, subsistence harvesters, and we need to hear from the
subsistence users as well. As we move through this, we will not
just rush into making changes for the sake of meeting a
deadline at the end of this year. We will do our best to
process the information and then at the same time, prepare a
new reauthorization that continues to move us forward in
quality management of our resource.
Let me end there and I know, again, as soon as the Ranking
Member appears, what we'll do, depending on where we are in the
panel, I may midstream stop one of you--not your testimony, but
before I go on to the next one--to have Senator Rubio make his
comments and then we'll go back to the panel.
What I'd like to do is start off with John Bullard,
Regional Administrator, Northeast Regional Office, National
Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. Thank you very much, John, for being here. I'll
start with you and we'll just kind of go down the road here.
John? It's always good to see you.
Mr. Bullard. Do I push this?
Senator Begich. Yes. A light should come on.
Mr. Bullard. There it is.
Senator Begich. Did it do it? Perfect.
Mr. Bullard. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is John
Bullard. I'm the Northeast Regional Administrator for NOAA's
National Marine Fisheries Service. It is my personal--oh, do
you want to stop----
Senator Begich. Perfect. Perfect timing. No, I told him I
would do that. He just said his name. So, John, thank you, I
gave the pre-warning. Our timing was just right. Again, we'll
pause here for a second, we'll give Senator Rubio--we
appreciate this kind of uniqueness from Alaska to Florida,
everything in between, when it comes to fisheries, so we're
very honored to have him as a Ranking Member.
Senator Rubio.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARCO RUBIO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Rubio. Thank you, and it would be very unsenatorial
of me to give up an opportunity to speak, and I apologize for
being late. We had a Foreign Relations hearing on some
Ambassadors and--I'll be brief because I am more interested in
your statements than I am primarily in you listening to what I
have to say--but I'm happy we're going to be having this
meeting about reauthorizing Magnuson-Stevens.
This is, I think, the first of three regionally-focused
hearings before the Subcommittee and we'll hear about the
successes and the challenges that are facing our fisheries in
New England and the Mid-Atlantic region. And while each region
in our country has very different kinds of ecosystems and
different species of fish, many of the concerns expressed by
stakeholders are very similar and I'm confident that we can
identify broad policies that should be reviewed and revamped to
the benefit of fishermen and the industry all across the
country.
For example, in today's testimony and in the feedback I
often receive from people back in Florida, accurate and up-to-
date science is a fundamental requirement for proper fishery
management. In the Gulf of Mexico, a recently released stock
assessment for red snapper allowed the Council to raise the
catch quota for the season by about two and a half million
pounds; that's consequential.
Unfortunately, despite this positive result, however, this
stock assessment was the first assessment conducted on the
fishery in literally over 5 years and unfairly leaving the
economic burden of a lower than necessary catch limit on the
back of both recreational and commercial fishermen in the Gulf
region. That's just my neck of the woods, but it's an example
of the kind of testimony we've heard from all parts of the
country. It's even more dire in the red snapper fishery in the
South Atlantic, where the fishery has been essentially closed.
Despite the fact that the fishery has not had a stock
assessment to adequately predict the health of the stock, it
has not had a stock assessment since 2008, and as a course,
we'll hear today, similar issues exist in the Northeast and in
the Mid-Atlantic. Each of our witnesses today are going to
touch on the need for accurate and up-to-date science as a
foundation for management with a particular emphasis on real-
time data collection for the recreational industry and an
increased emphasis on cooperative research.
I understand that vastly increasing our data on fisheries
will be resource-intensive and will continue to explore efforts
to address this issue, such as reforming the authorized uses of
the Saltonstall-Kennedy Funds. I look forward to hearing from
today's witnesses and their views on how this fund is currently
being managed by NOAA.
While the need for sound science is clear, the necessary
reforms to management policy are less clear, and today, I hope
to hear from our witnesses which management policies under
Magnuson-Stevens are working in their regions and which ones,
of course, are not.
For example, addressing forage species is a common
management theme in today's testimony that I've read, as is the
proper definition of the word ``sustainable'' and the role of
the National Environmental Policy Act in Fishery Management.
I'm also interested to hear from our witnesses their views
on the flexibility or the lack thereof of rebuilding timelines
as currently required by the Act, so again, thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for holding these hearings and I look forward to the
testimony of everyone here today.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much, Senator Rubio. John,
we'll go right back to you. Thank you very much for being
patient and we appreciate all of you being here. John?
STATEMENT OF JOHN K. BULLARD, NORTHEAST REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR,
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND
ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Mr. Bullard. All right. Again, good morning, Mr. Chairman,
Ranking Member Rubio.
My name is John Bullard. It is a personal honor to appear
before you, Mr. Chair, given the historical ties between my
hometown, New Bedford, Massachusetts, and the whalers of
Barrow, Alaska, and the continuing towns of my home fishing
port, as with Dutch Harbor. Thank you for the opportunity to
speak about New England and the Mid-Atlantic perspectives of
the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Since passage in 1976, the Magnuson-Stevens Act has charted
a groundbreaking course for sustainable fisheries. When
reauthorized in 2007, Magnuson gave the Regional Fishery
Management Councils and NOAA a clear charge and some important
new tools. It mandated science-based annual catch limits and
accountability measures to prevent and end overfishing. It
provided for market-based fishery management and focused on
collaborative research with the fishing industry.
Congress also addressed the need to improve the science
used to inform fishery management. These improvements included
better recreational fishing data, which we have collected
through our Marine Recreational Information Program. We expect
to have a nationwide survey in place in 2014. These tools are
working. We are steadily rebuilding fisheries to support more
fishing jobs and stronger communities.
In our latest report, the value of commercial fisheries was
up and we had the highest volume of landings since 1997 and the
highest value ever recorded. The seafood industry supported 1.2
million jobs. Recreational fishing supported 455,000 jobs, a 40
percent increase.
But our progress rebuilding fisheries has come with a cost.
Fishermen, fishing communities and the councils have had to
make tough decisions. While the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic lead
the Nation in the number of rebuilt stocks, important stocks
like Summer Flounder and swordfish, the Northeast also, as you
mentioned, has some of the nation's most depleted stocks.
Perhaps the best known is Atlantic Cod. The decline in
productivity and the need to prevent overfishing so the stocks
can rebuild led to significant reductions in catch levels this
year. This is causing real pain for fishermen and the
businesses that depend on these stocks.
We also have examples of what fishermen, scientists and
managers can do when they work together to rebuild stocks. The
Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery recovered when fishermen joined
with scientists at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
and NOAA and pioneered rotational management.
Today, the fishery is valued at more than $380 million, a
fivefold increase since the dark days of the early 1990s.
Scallops have made New Bedford the top revenue port in the U.S.
Looking ahead, we must continue to improve scientific data,
continue our progress ending overfishing and rebuilding stocks,
and find ways to better assist fishing communities with
difficult transitions to sustainable fisheries.
We're actively engaged in research to better understand why
some stocks are not recovering. Our research is showing that
changing ocean water temperatures, chemistry and circulation
patterns have affected key zooplankton species that cod depend
on. Sea surface temperatures last year in the Northeast Shelf
ecosystem were the highest recorded in 150 years. This may be
hindering recovery of species like cod. Fishermen are
witnessing firsthand the effects of climate change.
The Managing Our Nation's Fishery Conference, co-sponsored
by the eight councils and NOAA, brought together a broad
spectrum of partners and stakeholders to discuss sustainability
in our fisheries. Similar open public stakeholder conferences
were held before the previous Magnusson reauthorizations. We'll
take the recommendations from the conference and look to the
future in a comprehensive way that addresses the needs of
fishermen and fish, communities and ecosystems. We look forward
to working closely with Congress on any efforts to reauthorize
the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Thank you and I welcome your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bullard follows:]
Prepared Statement of John K. Bullard, Northeast Regional
Administrator, 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 John K.
Bullard and I am the Northeast Regional Administrator 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 percent) and $829 million (18 percent) 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 an
estimated $129 billion in sales impacts, $37 billion in income impacts
and supported 1.2 million jobs in 2011. Recreational fishing generated
an estimated $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 percent
increase over 2010.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See NOAA 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
overfished 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 (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 equivalent 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 a
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' 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 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 conservation and
management through 10 National Standards. These standards, which have
their roots in the original 1976 Act, provide a yardstick against which
all fishery management plans and actions 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. 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, while
ensuring that overfishing is eliminated and overfished stocks are
rebuilt. 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-
related 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 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.
Though challenges remain in some fisheries, the benefits for the
resource, the industries it supports, and the economy are beginning to
be seen as fish populations grow and catch limits increase.
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 was the mandate to
implement annual catch limits, including measures to ensure
accountability and to end and prevent overfishing in federally managed
fisheries by 2011. An annual catch limit is an amount of fish that can
be caught in a year such 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 demonstrated that overfishing ended for 58 percent 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%20Sum
mary%20Changes.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are many examples of what fishermen, scientists, and managers
can do by working together to bring back a resource that once was in
trouble. The Atlantic sea scallop resource was rebuilt after fishermen
partnered with academic and NOAA scientists to learn more about scallop
abundance and distribution, and then embraced a rotational management
approach focused on long-term sustainability. Valued at over $380
million in 2011, the scallop fishery has made New Bedford, MA, the top
revenue port in the U.S.
In fact, many fisheries in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic are a
significant part of the national success story. Of the 32 stocks
rebuilt nationally since 2000, 18, more than half, were rebuilt by
NOAA, the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils, the
fishing industries, recreational anglers, and other partners on the
Atlantic coast. In addition to Atlantic sea scallops, these include
other important stocks such as summer flounder and Atlantic swordfish.
We recognize that learning from our past actions and making
adjustments as needed 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, and builds on what we and
the Councils have learned in applying the latest requirements of the
Act. An Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published in May
2012, which was followed by an almost 6-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 of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act also includes requirements to rebuild any
overfished fishery to the level that can support the maximum
sustainable yield, and as I mentioned, as of December 31, 2012, we have
rebuilt 32 stocks nationally.\4\ 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Fish Stock Sustainability Index. Available at: http://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/status
offisheries/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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 and academia 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. The Northeast Cooperative Research Program, for example,
enhances NOAA's capacity to respond to emerging management needs and
research priorities associated with improving stock assessments, and
has helped support the industry during the transition to sector
management and the implementation of annual catch limits. Through
cooperative research, fishermen and scientists learned that they could
use smaller mesh fishing nets to more effectively target Acadian
redfish and still have low bycatch of other overfished groundfish
stocks. Based on this research, we were able to quickly authorize this
fishing gear to provide some New England groundfish fishermen with an
opportunity to pursue redfish while their access to rebuilding
groundfish stocks, such as Gulf of Maine cod and haddock, was limited.
This year we will be carrying out a new, pilot flatfish survey in New
England using a chartered commercial fishing vessel; results will be
evaluated to determine the potential for establishing an annual survey
based on this approach. We will also work with commercial vessels to
compare survey catches from commercial vessels with those from NOAA's
Fishery Survey Vessel, Bigelow. In addition, HABCAM, a video-based,
non-invasive survey technology that has been developed in partnership
with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, is now integral to our
annual scallop surveys.
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.
Adequate observer coverage also is critical for improving data
collection related to bycatch. National standard 9 requires fishery
management plans to take into account the impact of the fishery on
bycatch, particularly for protected species. NMFS continues to work
with the Councils and through take reduction teams established under
the Marine Mammal Protection Act to identify measures that can be taken
to minimize serious injury and mortality to harbor porpoises, right
whales, and other marine mammals in New England and mid-Atlantic
fisheries.
Looking to the Future
Remaining Challenges
Even with these successes, we know that there are challenges that
remain. While the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic lead the Nation in the
number of rebuilt stocks, the Northeast also has some of the Nation's
most depleted stocks; some of which have been overfished for more than
a century. Some key stocks, including Atlantic cod, are having
difficulty rebuilding. On September 13, 2012, then-Acting Secretary Dr.
Blank determined a commercial fishery failure because a fishery
resource disaster had occurred. This determination includes the 2013
fishing year, which started May 1. The decline in productivity and the
need to prevent overfishing so the stocks can rebuild have resulted in
significant reductions in allowable catch levels, with great economic
impact on Northeast fisheries. We are actively engaged in research to
better understand the drivers affecting these stocks. A recent study by
NOAA scientists found that changing ocean water temperatures and
circulation patterns have greatly affected key zooplankton species in
recent decades, and may be limiting survival of cod larvae and impeding
recovery of cod and other stocks. We determined that last year, sea
surface temperatures in the Northeast Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem were
the highest recorded in 150 years. In response, you'll see the FY 2014
President's Budget Request reflects a $10 million increase for NOAA to
fund research on the impacts of climate on fisheries with a focus on
the Northeast groundfish region.
Looking ahead, we must continue to improve 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. For example, in New
England, we are trying to cushion the effects of groundfish rebuilding
measures by optimizing fishing opportunities on stocks that are not
overfished, and by supporting marketing strategies that improve fish
prices.
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.
We value the important partnerships we have formed, such as with
the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, in helping address
these challenges. NOAA's work with the Commission in support of
effective science and management has been the backbone of valuable
commercial and recreational fisheries. Together with our partners, we
continue to explore alternative and innovative 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,
because resilient ecosystems and habitat form the foundation for robust
fisheries and fishing jobs. Similarly, it is important that we meet our
responsibilities under the Magnuson-Stevens Act in concert with related
legislation, such as the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the
Endangered Species Act, to reduce bycatch of protected species to
mandated levels. As we end overfishing and rebuild stocks, the
strategic alignment of habitat and protected species conservation
efforts with rebuilding and managing 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 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. 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 review 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 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 global 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 Managing Our Nation's Fisheries 3 conference--co-sponsored by
the eight Councils and NMFS--brought 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. 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.
We were excited to see a wide range of stakeholders represent many
points of view, from commercial and recreational fishing, to the
conservation and science and management communities. Before the last
reauthorization, 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. We
expect that the ideas that emerged from this event will inform
potential legislative changes to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, but the
benefits are much greater than that. The communication across regions
and Councils provided an opportunity to share best practices and
lessons learned, and could 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 made great
progress in ending overfishing in federally-managed fisheries,
rebuilding stocks, and ensuring conservation and sustainable use of our
marine fisheries. Fisheries harvested in the U.S. are scientifically
monitored, regionally managed, and enforced under 10 national
standards. 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 Councils a clear mandate, new
authority, and new tools to achieve the goal of sustainable fisheries
within measureable 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. We have established strong partnerships
among NOAA, the states, the Councils, and the fishing industry. By
working together through the highly participatory process established
in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, we will continue to address management
challenges in a changing environment.
It is important to take time and reflect on where we have been to
understand where we are. We will take the recommendations from the
Managing Our Nation's Fisheries 3 conference, and 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
these discussions, 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.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much. Our next panelist is
C.M. ``Rip'' Cunningham, Jr., Chairman, New England Fisheries
Management Council.
Mr. Cunningham.
STATEMENT OF C.M. ``RIP'' CUNNINGHAM, JR., CHAIRMAN, NEW
ENGLAND FISHERIES MANAGEMENT COUNCIL (NEFMC)
Mr. Cunningham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Rubio, on
behalf of the New England Fisheries Management Council. As the
current Chair, I am pleased and honored to testify and hope
that I can be helpful to you in your deliberations concerning
MSA.
With 18 voting New England Council members, there are often
diverse opinions about what the problems are and what their
solutions might be. As a result, my comments do not represent
the official position of the Council, but the sense of the
Council as a body.
In New England, we have transitioned to a sustainable
management regime and the past few years have seen impressive
changes. We have completely revised the management of the
iconic New England Groundfish Fishery from input to output
controls. The scallop fisheries rotational management system is
maturing into an efficient program that consistently leads to
robust industry revenues while preventing overfishing. Also, we
are completing a multi-year effort to minimize the adverse
effects of fishing on essential fish habitat.
The stocks in the sea scallop, monkfish, red crab, red
fish, whiting, pollock, herring and dogfish fisheries are being
fished at sustainable levels and effort is focused on improving
the net benefits to the Nation. Partly due to environmental
regime shifts, efforts to end overfishing on cod and several
flounder stocks have been frustrated. Even though quotas are
set according to advice and actual catches have recently been
below the quotas, this has led to an erosion of trust in both
the science and the management.
The Council's adoption of sustainable fishing practices has
dramatically increased the demand for stock assessment advice.
We believe that sufficient resources are not being provided to
the National Marine Fisheries Service to meet these demands. In
our region, there is a need for about 60 different stock
updates and yet, the Science Center is only capable of
providing about 10 to 12. With fast-growing species, this means
some quotas are set to catch paper fish, fish that are a result
of assumptions about future stock growth. This is a recipe for
disaster. Only with enhanced support will the system be able to
make the statutory demands.
As for MSA, we do not believe wholesale revisions are
necessary. We believe that the Council's system is successful
at providing an open and transparent venue for the debate on
using fishery resources, but there are several important issues
that need to be addressed.
First, we believe that the current emphasis on a fixed
rebuilding time period is misdirected. This approach assumes a
level of stock assessment certainty that does not exist, nor
can we predict or control the environmental changes that are
key drivers in rebuilding. Management should focus on ending
overfishing with a narrowly defined exception to the
requirement when there is a dramatic change in the perception
of stock status.
Next, third party sustainability certification should be
replaced by a National Marine Fisheries Service Certificate of
Sustainability.
Next, there is an increasing interest in ecosystem
approaches to fishery management, but some provisions of the
statute limit the ability to pursue such approaches. This needs
to be addressed. And in some cases, data confidentiality
provisions of the statute hampered the ability to understand
the effects of management decisions. This is a public resource
and the Council needs access to the basic data.
In closing, the Council has expended substantial effort to
meet the requirements of the reauthorized MSA and this effort
has demonstrated that the current capacity of the National
Marine Fisheries Service to provide scientific support cannot
meet the requirements. Without that, the management process is
likely to fail. MSA does not need to be dismantled and
resurrected. Addressing a short list of issues would make a
substantial impact on the Act's effectiveness. Magnuson is
working. The improvement in the nationwide tally of stocks no
longer experiencing overfishing and not overfished is evidence
of the Act's success.
Thank you, again, for asking me to participate on behalf of
the New England Fishery Management Council.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cunningham follows:]
Prepared Statement of C.M. ``Rip'' Cunningham Jr., Chair, New England
Fishery Management Council (NEFMC)
On behalf of the New England Fishery Management Council, I am both
pleased and honored to respond to your invitation and hope that I can
be helpful to you in your deliberations concerning the Magnusson-
Stevens Act, as well as those members of the fishing community who are
here today.
Before I begin, I would like to offer a few details about my
background. I have served for nine years on the Council, five years as
its Vice Chair and two years as Chair. I am currently the Council's
chair--but only for a few more weeks as I have reached my term limit.
My nine years of service on the Council has been at times fascinating,
at times frustrating--but always rewarding. Prior to my appointment to
the Council, I was the owner, Publisher, and Editor-in-Chief of Salt
Water Sportsman, the world's largest sport fishing magazine, with
approximately four million readers. I am privileged to have made a
living by working with and for our valuable marine resources.
With 18 voting New England Fishery Council members, there are often
divergent opinions about the problems we face and their solutions. As a
result, my comments may not represent the opinion of any individual
member or the official position of the Council, but I will try to
convey the sense of the Council as a body. I will talk about both our
progress in the transition to sustainable management and a few
suggested changes to the Magnuson-Stevens Act (M-S Act).
Progress Made in the Transition to Sustainable Management in New
England
In New England, we have had mixed success in the transition to
sustainable fisheries management. The past few years have seen
impressive changes in our management system. We successfully
implemented a system of Annual Catch Limits and Accountability Measures
for all of our fisheries mandated by the 2007 amendments to the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. We completely revised the management of the
iconic New England groundfish fishery in 2010, shifting most of the
fishery from an input management regime to an output or catch share
system. The scallop fishery's rotational management system is maturing
into an efficient program that consistently leads to robust industry
revenues while preventing overfishing. Also, we are completing a multi-
year effort to redesign our approach to minimize the adverse effects of
fishing on essential fish habitat.
The impacts of these changes, however, have not been positive in
all cases. The target stocks in the Atlantic Sea Scallop, Monkfish, Red
Crab, Redfish, Whiting, Atlantic herring, and Dogfish fisheries are
being fished at sustainable levels. These fisheries are manageable and
sustainable and management is focused on improving the net benefits
they produce for the Nation. Within the Skate and Northeast
Multispecies fisheries, however, there are numerous stocks that are
still overfished and/or subject to overfishing. Partly due to
environmental regime shifts, our extensive efforts to end overfishing
on cod and several flounder stocks have been frustrated at every step
of the way. Even though quotas are set according to the advice of our
Scientific and Statistical Committee and actual catches have recently
been below the quotas. This has led to an erosion of trust in both the
scientific advice and the management system. More importantly, the
reduced quotas have led to a dramatic reduction in the active
groundfish fishing fleet, with fewer than 400 active boats remaining,
compared to nearly 1,200 in 2001. Our groundfish fishermen and fishing
communities have been negatively impacted by the decline in landings
and revenues. The Council has been largely stymied in our efforts to
find ways to mitigate the low quotas that are in effect this year.
After nearly twenty years of increasingly restrictive management
measures, many groundfish fishermen feel that the promise of future
benefits from stock rebuilding is an empty one.
As I mentioned, the Council has complied with the requirement to
adopt Annual Catch Limits and Accountability Measures in all our
fisheries. The one problem Councils have all seen is that this
management system dramatically increases the demand for stock
assessment advice. It is our belief that sufficient resources are not
being provided to the National Marine Fisheries Service to meet these
demands. In our region, there is a need for periodic updates for about
sixty different stocks and yet the science center is only capable of
providing annual updates for about ten to twelve stocks. As a result
assessments of an individual stock are often separated by four or five
years. With fast growing species, this means some quotas are set to
catch ``paper fish''--fish that have never actually been seen in an
assessment, but are the result of assumptions about future stock
growth. This is a recipe for disaster and contributes to our difficulty
in rebuilding groundfish.
It is not just the workload of scientists that has increased in
recent years. Because of the increased complexity of both fisheries and
other statutes, the preparation and review of management actions by
Council and National Marine Fisheries Service staff is taking more time
and resources than in the past. As a result the system threatens to
become bogged down and unable to respond to our rapidly changing
conditions. Only with enhanced support will the system be able to meet
the demands imposed by the current statutory framework.
MSA Changes to Consider
As one would hope with a law that has been in effect for thirty-
seven years, we do not believe wholesale revisions are necessary. We
believe that the Council system, while not without its warts, is
successful at providing an open, transparent venue for the debate on
using fishery resources. Nevertheless, we do believe there are several
important issues that need to be addressed.
First, given our experience with the rebuilding of groundfish
stocks, it is probably not surprising that we believe that the current
emphasis on a fixed rebuilding time period is misdirected. This
approach assumes a level of stock assessment certainty that does not
exist. We have little ability to predict, and no ability to control,
the environmental changes that are key drivers in rebuilding progress.
We think management should focus on ending overfishing and not
arbitrary rebuilding time frames.
Obviously, we fully support the focus on the requirement to end
overfishing, Our only suggestion to improve this part of the statute
would be to create a narrowly-defined exception to the requirement to
end overfishing immediately when there is a dramatic change in the
perception of stock status. This is the result of our recent experience
with a cod stock, where two successive assessments presented a
dramatically different view of stock size that was not due to fishing
activity. A more flexible approach would allow a management reaction
that would be responsive to the National Standard 8 requirement to
consider the needs of fishing communities. As I noted, however, this
should be a narrow exception and not provide a loophole to overfish
indefinitely.
With one of the more strict management frameworks in the world, we
believe that our industry should not be required to buy a third-party
certification to demonstrate that our fishery products are sustainable.
There are several competing seafood certification programs that confuse
buyers, and the standards of these programs can differ. This situation
could be simplified if the M-S Act were modified to authorize a
National Marine Fisheries Service certificate of sustainability. Such a
program would provide our industry with the ability to promote and sell
seafood products in the world market.
In addition to these main points, there are also a few other issues
that deserve attention:
The relative importance of National Standard 1 (the
requirement to end overfishing) and National Standard 8
(consideration of impacts to fishing communities) continues to
be troublesome. Courts have interpreted National Standard 1 to
take precedence; it would be helpful to clarify if this is
indeed the intent of Congress.
There is increasing interest in ecosystem approaches to
fishery management, but some provisions of the statute limit
the ability to pursue such approaches. A more explicit
recognition of this concept would help us pursue this rapidly-
developing approach.
The overlap between the National Environmental Policy Act
and the M-S Act has not, in our opinion, been adequately
addressed in spite of congressional direction to do so. While
NMFS has published updated guidance that the Councils have
reluctantly acceded to, we do not agree that this addresses the
fundamental problem nor were the Councils adequately consulted
in its development.
In some cases the data confidentiality provisions of the
statute hamper the ability of managers and the public to
understand the effects of management decisions. This is a
public resource, and the Council members need access to the
basic data that will tell them the effect of their actions.
Summary
The NEFMC has expended substantial effort to meet the requirements
set forth in the 2007 reauthorization of the Magnusson-Stevens Act by
implementing annual catch limits and accountability measures for all of
the managed species under its jurisdiction. This effort has
demonstrated that the current capacity of the National Marine Fisheries
Service to provide scientific support cannot meet the requirement for
continuously updated stock assessments. Environmental regime shift has
also dramatically increased the need for updated science. Without
enhanced scientific support, the management process is likely to fail.
It is said there are three important things to success in the real
estate business, location, location, location. There are the three
things that will enhance the fisheries management process, science,
science, and science.
MSA does not need to be dismantled and resurrected. Addressing a
short list of issues would make a substantial impact on the Acts
effectiveness:
The focus should be on ending overfishing. That is the one
aspect that Councils can control effectively.
Address the existing regulatory impediments in the Act that
will adversely impact the shift to ecosystem based fishery
management.
Better define the priority of competing National Standards.
Support the industry with a national sustainability
certification program.
MSA is working. The improvement in the nationwide tally of stocks
no longer experiencing overfishing and not overfished is evidence of
the Act's success. The system works and simply needs some ongoing
modifications, which will likely be the case in another six years.
Thank you again for asking me to participate on behalf of the New
England Fishery Management Council.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Next, we have Richard Robins, Chairman of the Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD B. ROBINS, JR., CHAIRMAN, MID-ATLANTIC
FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
Mr. Robins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Rubio. I am Rick Robins, Chairman of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council. I appreciate the opportunity to testify
before you this morning on the Magnuson Act.
I'm pleased to report that the Council's stock rebuilding
efforts that were ongoing at the time of the last
reauthorization are now essentially complete. All of the stocks
for which we have biological reference points are either at,
near or above their biological targets. Today, fisheries in the
Mid-Atlantic support over $600 million in commercial landings.
They also support 21 million recreational fishing trips taken
annually by over five million anglers.
Since reauthorization, we've integrated the Scientific and
Statistical Committee into our decisionmaking process. We've
developed a quota-setting framework that incorporates a risk
policy and a harvest control rule. The new processes worked
very well for situations in which we have inadequate stock
assessment. It also provides for a more clear and consistent
approach to setting quotas; it strikes an effective balance, I
believe, between accounting for scientific uncertainty and
trying to maximize the yield out of our managed stocks. We've
also established an Advisory Panel Fishery Performance report
to provide the SSC and the Council with timely, on-the-water
perspectives about trends in our fisheries.
In terms of challenges and recommendations, I'll touch very
briefly on five areas: sustainability in marketing, science,
ecosystem approaches, representation and recreational fisheries
management.
Despite our rebuilding successes, some of our commercial
fishermen and fisheries struggle to regain their footing in
U.S. and international markets, despite the fact that the
stocks are rebuilt and the quotas are increasing. There is also
a lingering and sometimes demoralizing sense that U.S.
fishermen in our region are still negatively associated with
overfishing. These problems deserve to be addressed. U.S.
fishermen fishing under today's Magnuson Act should be standing
tall on the world's stage. In a market transformed by
globalization, the sustainability of U.S. fisheries needs to be
affirmed and U.S. processors and fishermen should be able to
identify and label their fish caught under the gold standards
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act as being sustainably and
responsibly harvested. We don't need a complex Federal
certification program, but rather, a public affirmation of the
core strengths of the U.S. management system would be an
important step toward facilitating education, awareness and
better marketing for the benefit of U.S. fisheries.
Shifting to science, adequate science is critical to our
mission. I have three specific recommendations in this area.
First, we need adequate research capacity within the system.
The same system that I described to you that works very well
for setting quotas in data-rich situations has not worked well
in data-poor situations; it's produced inconsistent results.
That highlights the need for this research capacity.
Second, we also need adequate capacity within the Northeast
Fishery Science Center to generate operational stock
assessments and assessment updates at appropriate frequencies.
We share these resources with the New England Council and the
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, so these
capacities are critical.
Cooperative research, and specifically, cooperative surveys
such as NEAMAP, should be adequately funded and expanded
strategically in the Northeast region. It's not just about how
fisheries data are packaged and communicated that build
confidence. Directly engaging the stakeholders in the
collection of data is the most direct strategy for building
confidence in fisheries data and fisheries management.
With respect to ecological considerations, our Council is
pursuing an incremental and evolutionary strategy to implement
an ecosystem approach to fisheries management. At the same
time, the Northeast Fisheries Science Center is strategically
expanding its ecosystem research programs to support this
transition. The reason I bring this up to you today is because
a truly ecosystem-based approach to management may require us
to set quotas for some species above maximum sustainable yield
while we set quotas for other species well below maximum
sustainable yield. The ecosystem references in the Act should
be reviewed and clarified, if necessary, to ensure alignment
between the ecosystem references, the national standards and
the definition of optimum yield.
In terms of representation, it was clear from the port
meetings we've held over the last 2 years with Southern New
England fishermen that these fishermen in those states desire
some form of representation on our council. Similarly, the Mid-
Atlantic's top fishery, Sea Scallops, is managed by the New
England fishery and we don't have a final vote on those actions
through that New England process. This issue is expected to be
exacerbated by ongoing and substantial shifts in fisheries
population and response to changing ocean temperatures. One
option to resolve this in the interest of both councils would
be to vest liaisons with voting rights.
Turning to recreational fisheries, enhancing the stability
of our fisheries is one of our top strategic priorities. We've
just submitted an omnibus amendment that would frame our
recreational accountability measures in such a way that it
would take the statistical uncertainty into account. We would
suggest leaving room in the Act for some flexibility in
recreational AMs.
In conclusion, the Mid-Atlantic Council's history offers
solid evidence that the system established by the Magnuson Act
is effective at preventing overfishing and rebuilding stocks.
The next authorization should build on that success, but should
do so in broader terms than simply preventing overfishing. We
need to define and pursue success in terms that result in the
management of U.S. fisheries for the greatest overall benefit
of the nation, not just biologically, but also, socially,
economically and ecologically, to ensure better futures for our
fisheries and our fishing communities. As strong as the system
is, we can improve it by working together to fine-tune the Act,
the policies that shape its implementation and our practices.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Robins follows:]
Prepared Statement of Richard B. Robins, Jr., Chairman, Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Thank you
for the opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Richard B.
Robins, Jr. and I am the Chairman of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council. I was appointed to the Council in 2007 and have
served as chairman for the last five years. In addition to my
involvement on the Council, I have served as an Associate Member of the
Virginia Marine Resources Commission since 2004. I have been processing
and exporting U.S. seafood since 1990, and I have also been a lifelong
recreational fisherman.
The Mid-Atlantic Council has primary management responsibility for
8 species of fish, 2 species of squid, and 2 species of shellfish, as
well as the surrounding ecosystem and habitats, in the Exclusive
Economic Zone from North Carolina to New York. The Council manages 5
species jointly with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
and 2 species jointly with the New England Fishery Management Council.
In 2011, the commercial fishing industry in the Mid-Atlantic
harvested 858 million pounds of fish and shellfish valued at $605
million, and more than 5 million fishermen took nearly 21 million
fishing trips. The commercial and recreational fishing industries also
provide approximately 80 thousand full- and part-time jobs. Although
our jurisdiction includes the seven states of the Mid-Atlantic, the
ecological and socioeconomic impacts of our fisheries extend well
beyond our region.
The Mid-Atlantic Council's stock rebuilding efforts that were
ongoing at the time of the last reauthorization are now complete. All
of the stocks we manage that have biological reference points are now
rebuilt to levels at, near, or above their biological targets. Several
of our stocks, including Atlantic Mackerel, do not currently have
biological reference points and their status is unknown.
I was asked to speak today about three topics as they relate to
fisheries management in the Mid-Atlantic:
1. Progress made since the 2006 reauthorization;
2. Ongoing challenges faced in transitioning to sustainable
fisheries; and
3. Tools, resources, and statutory refinements needed to address
these challenges.
The Council just completed its first Visioning Project and
Strategic Planning Process. The initiative benefitted from extensive
public input from thousands of fisheries stakeholders throughout the
region, and culminated in a 5-year Strategic Plan. My responses to
these questions will reflect not only my own perspective as a Council
member, recreational fisherman, and commercial industry participant but
also the goals and concerns identified by stakeholders during this
planning process.
Recent Progress and Successes
The U.S. has the strongest fisheries management system in the
world. At the time of the last reauthorization, the Mid-Atlantic
Council was already on a solid path to rebuilding stocks that were
depleted in the 1980s and 1990s. The Council's rebuilding success was
facilitated by quota-based management that generally complied with the
scientific advice that came through the stock assessment process and
quota recommendations from Monitoring Committees.
The 2006 reauthorization required that the Council's Scientific and
Statistical Committee (SSC) provide the Council with Acceptable
Biological Catch (ABC) recommendations for each fishery. This was a
significant institutional change, and the Council focused on developing
necessary capacities within the SSC to develop and refine the quota-
setting process.
In addition, the Council was able to bring all of its fishery
management plans (FMPs) into compliance with the Annual Catch Limit
(ACL) and Accountability Measure (AM) requirements of the Act through
an omnibus amendment. At the core of the omnibus amendment is a harvest
control rule and associated risk policy that quantifies the Council's
tolerance for risk as a function of each fishery's stock status and the
biological life history characteristics of the species. Since the
Council was able to incorporate the harvest control rules for all
fishery management plans in an omnibus amendment, our approach to risk
and accounting for scientific uncertainty is consistent across plans
and is explicitly incorporated in the harvest control rules.
Our risk policy is an example of success because it strikes a
balance between maximizing yield from a stock and accounting for the
scientific uncertainty that is inherent in stock assessments. The new
framework has worked very well for fisheries that have stock
assessments with reliable biological reference points. The framework
creates consistency for the Council and the public by establishing a
crucial link between the Council and the SSC in the quota-setting
process.
A second major area of improvement for us since 2006 relates to the
way we incorporate fishermens' on-the-water perspectives, knowledge,
and market information into the management process. In 2011, we began
developing Advisory Panel (AP) Fishery Performance Reports to provide
the SSC with an annual description of the factors that influenced
fishing effort and catch for each fishery. These reports provide the
SSC with additional contextual information and are particularly useful
when we establish quotas for data-poor stocks. They also provide useful
and up-to-date information about the operations Mid-Atlantic fisheries.
We have also reviewed and updated the composition of our APs to ensure
the Council was benefitting from a broader range of stakeholder
interests and geographical perspectives.
The Council's post-reauthorization process changes have not been
easy, but they have helped us establish a more clearly defined quota-
setting framework and contributed to successful stock rebuilding in
Mid-Atlantic fisheries.
Challenges and Recommendations
Allow fisheries managed under Magnuson-Stevens to be marketed
accordingly
As I mentioned previously, we have been steadily rebuilding stocks
that were depleted in an earlier chapter in history. Despite these
successes, the social and economic outcomes for our region's fishing
communities have not been entirely positive. Many members of the
commercial fishing industry struggle to regain their footing in U.S.
and international markets even as quotas increase. There is also a
lingering and sometimes demoralizing sense that U.S. fisheries and
fishermen are still negatively associated with overfishing, despite the
solid rebuilding successes and sustainability requirements in the
current act.
These problems deserve to be addressed--U.S. fishermen fishing
under today's Magnuson Act should be standing tall among their
international peers. In a market transformed by globalization, the
sustainability of U.S. fisheries needs to be affirmed, and U.S.
fishermen and processors should be able to identify and label their
products as fish that were harvested responsibly and sustainably under
the gold standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
A U.S. fisherman catching fish in fisheries subject to the
Magnuson's peerless standards should not have to make a hefty
investment in a third-party certification in order to sell his fish to
U.S. consumers, much less to the vendors of the U.S. Park Service.
Within the global market, there will always be a need and a role for
third-party certifiers for sustainability and food safety.
I would be very concerned about shouldering NMFS with an unfunded,
complicated certification program. Rather, I think the focus should be
kept simple and should give the agency the authority to confirm that
fisheries subject to Federal management are sustainably managed,
consistent with the legal requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
This would allow fishermen and processors to label and market their
product accordingly. Such a designation may or may not satisfy a
European retail chain, but a public affirmation of the core strengths
of the U.S. management would be an important step toward better
marketing of U.S. fisheries products.
Provide funding and support for the collection of timely and accurate
data to meet the requirements of the Act
The effectiveness of our fisheries management system hinges on the
availability of accurate information about the status of our fisheries.
The stock assessment and research capacities of the Northeast Fishery
Science Center (NEFSC) are critical to the successful management of
fisheries in the Mid-Atlantic. The ACL requirements of the last
reauthorization increased the demand for assessment products from the
NEFSC, which also supports the New England Fishery Management Council
and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. I would
specifically recommend additional investment in the NEFSC's stock
assessment and research capacities to meet the future needs of the
region's managed fisheries.
I also suggest securing the future of cooperative and collaborative
research initiatives such as the highly successful Northeast Area
Monitoring and Assessment Program (NEAMAP). These programs build
stakeholder confidence in fisheries data used to support fisheries
management by bringing fisheries scientists and commercial fishermen
together to collect important fisheries data. Cooperative and
collaborative initiatives like NEAMAP should be expanded in a strategic
way to supplement existing surveys in the Northeast Region.
Data-Poor Stocks
While I have already described several areas of progress relative
to how we use scientific information in the management process, this
progress has not applied evenly across our fisheries. The revised
process created by the 2006 MSRA has not worked as well for data-poor
stocks. In cases where a stock assessment fails to produce reliable
biological reference points, the process has produced inconsistent
results.
Black sea bass and butterfish are two examples of fisheries that
have been the subject of significant quota-setting challenges as a
result of scientific uncertainty. For both fisheries, the Council has
had to work through an iterative process with the Northeast Regional
Science Center, the SSC, and other management partners to conduct
supplemental analyses to achieve improved outcomes. Every Council has
some data-poor stocks, and these examples highlight the need for
sustained investment in the research necessary to support improved
stock assessments that will move these stocks from the data-poor
category, which is currently subject to ad-hoc quota-setting methods,
to the point that they have acceptable biological reference points.
Improve Alignment of Ecosystem Objectives in the MSA with Other
National Policies
The Mid-Atlantic Council has taken several significant steps toward
a more ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management since the last
reauthorization. These steps have included: 1) Establishing an
Ecosystem Subcommittee within the SSC to provide the Council with
scientific advice specific to ecosystem management, 2) Holding a
comprehensive forage fish management workshop in 2013, and 3)
Initiating an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management Guidance
Document in 2013.
The Council is pursuing an incremental, evolutionary strategy to
incorporate ecosystem approaches to fisheries management. This approach
responds to significant public interest in the management of low
trophic level (forage) stocks and a broader objective of more
effectively incorporating species interactions, environmental
conditions, and habitat associations into our management decisions. The
process should ultimately enhance the ecological sustainability of our
managed fisheries.
It may be necessary to fish some species at levels above Maximum
Sustainable Yield (MSY) and other species well below MSY in order to
achieve ecosystem level objectives. The act should be clear on these
issues as they relate to the definition of Optimum Yield (OY).
Address emerging representation issues
Fish do not respect political boundaries, so the Mid-Atlantic
Council has spent considerable time in Southern New England holding
port meetings with fishermen and fisheries stakeholders during our
Visioning Project. From Stonington, Connecticut to Chatham,
Massachusetts, each of these groups raised a common concern regarding
representation. Specifically, they expressed concern over the fact that
their state jurisdictions did not have a voting representative on the
Mid-Atlantic Council despite the fact that some of them depend
substantially on fisheries managed by the Mid-Atlantic Council.
Similarly, the Mid-Atlantic fishing and processing industries
depend significantly on the Atlantic Sea Scallop fishery. Sea Scallops
are the top commercial fishery in the Mid-Atlantic region in ex-vessel
value. New Jersey and Virginia landed nearly 23 million pounds of sea
scallops worth $222 million in 2011. While the Mid-Atlantic Council has
two voting seats on the New England Council's Sea Scallop Oversight
Committee, the Mid-Atlantic committee members are not able to vote on
final Council actions.
Geographic distributions of fisheries populations are also shifting
substantially in response to changing ocean temperatures. The
governance implications of these ongoing changes in the marine
environment should be considered to ensure that constituents throughout
the range of these fisheries are adequately and effectively represented
in the process. The Mid-Atlantic Council is addressing these concerns
proactively in a governance workshop in March of next year. Meanwhile,
vesting the liaisons of the New England and Mid-Atlantic Councils with
motion-making and voting rights in the reauthorization would ensure
that both Councils can preserve their interest in fishery management
actions through the final Council vote that submits a recommendation to
the Secretary of Commerce. Another strategy would be to give the
Council the discretion to submit final actions when convened as a
committee of the whole, which would allow the additional committee
members to vote on the final action.
Incorporate provisions that account for the needs and interests of the
recreational fishing community
Recreational fisheries are an important source of food, recreation,
employment, and income for many Mid-Atlantic communities. In 2012, 5
million anglers took about 20 million fishing trips in the Mid-Atlantic
region. The recreational fishing community is highly diverse and
includes not only private anglers, but also for-hire vessels (i.e.,
party and charter boats with paying customers) whose business interests
may reflect different values and regulatory preferences. It is clear
from input we received from stakeholders during our Visioning Project
that recreational anglers want reasonable access to fishing
opportunities and they want greater regulatory stability.
Since the last reauthorization, we have made considerable progress
toward adapting our management system to better account for the
different needs and interests of the recreational community. We
recently completed an Omnibus Amendment that involved a comprehensive
review and overhaul of our recreational Accountability Measures (AMs).
Our recommendations were designed to enhance stability of recreational
fisheries by improving alignment of our management strategies with the
statistical characteristics of the recreational catch estimates.
Conclusion
The Mid-Atlantic Council's history offers solid evidence that the
system established by the Magnuson-Stevens Act and subsequent
amendments is effective at preventing overfishing and rebuilding
stocks. The next reauthorization should build on the past success of
the act and position our fisheries for future success in broader terms
than simply preventing overfishing. We need to define and pursue
success in terms that result in the management of U.S. fisheries for
the greatest overall benefit of the Nation not just biologically, but
also socially, economically, and ecologically to insure and secure a
better future for our fisheries and fishing communities. As strong as
the system is, we can improve it by working together to fine tune the
act, the policies that shape its implementation, and our practices.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much. Thank you, again, for
all of your testimony.
I'll start off; we'll do a 5-minute round. I'll start with
a few questions then ask other members to join in with their
questions.
First, Mr. Bullard, thank you very much for being here. I
want to specifically ask you about a couple things. One, a
little follow up on a report that was done--I think it was
called the Touchstone Report on New England Fishery
Management--are you familiar a little bit with it?
Mr. Bullard. Yes.
Senator Begich. OK. Let me ask you, so I won't go through
the whole detail of what the report's purpose was, but because
of your knowledge of it, I'm curious about the actions has NOAA
taken--I know there were some recommendations within the
report; once it was done, NOAA announced that it would adopt a
series of immediate actions and near-term plans to incorporate
the report's recommendations. Can you give me just a sense of
how that is going or what the status is from NOAA's
perspective?
Mr. Bullard. Yes, we are very grateful for Pres Pate and
Touchstone's report to improve the work of the regional office
with the Mid-Atlantic and New England Councils and we've taken
those recommendations very seriously. We have drafted formal
agreements with the Mid-Atlantic Council, which I think is
being signed pretty much as we speak, Mr. Chair, and hope to do
something very similar with the New England Council.
We're also reviewing our data collection systems with an
eye to improving efficiency in data quality, to meet short and
long-term management. We've undergone a plain language campaign
that's resulting in clearer and more concise informational
bulletins. It has always amazed me how fishermen can get
through the regulations that constantly change to comply with
them, so we're trying to make them easier to understand. We
have assembled a team at the regional office and the New
England Council to improve the process of developing fishery
management plans, which are incredibly complex.
And last, I'd say when I took this job about 11 months ago,
I did a series of 20 listening sessions from Manteo, North
Carolina to Ellsworth, Maine, to go to people's places of
business to listen to what they had to say about how we could
improve our operations. I got many, many comments. We
deciphered them, we reported back on what I heard, and we're
starting to put in place improvements based on the many
comments that we got from people.
Senator Begich. Very good. Thank you.
Let me do a quick follow up and then one other question
related and then I'll ask a couple others to other folks.
Can you, on that report, can you at some point present to
the Committee or give to the Committee kind of the here's the
recommendations, here's the status, as you've just described
some of them, and then timetable. And some of that status could
be that you may not do some of the recommendations, which is
understandable, because it may not be practical, but is that
something that you could provide at some point to the
Committee?
Mr. Bullard. Sure.
Senator Begich. In a very simple--I don't need a complex, I
hate to say this, government document; I want a simplified,
like what you're working on here, a simplification.
Mr. Bullard. Yes.
Senator Begich. That would be great if you could do that.
Mr. Bullard. We'd be happy to.
Senator Begich. Then the other one, I'm a big proponent of
electronic monitoring systems. I've met with Woods Hole and had
some great discussion there on their technology, as well as
other places around the country. Can you provide me with any
additional information? I know I harass NOAA on this all the
time because I think it's just, the last time, I think it was
in 2011, Administrator Lubchenco indicated an openness to kind
of broadly implement this technology. Do you have any comments
in regards to that, in advancing the use of this technology? I
know in New England, there's some great testing being done by
Woods Hole and others.
Mr. Bullard. Yes, I believe that in this area, there is
much that can be gained in efficiency that can benefit
fishermen and can certainly benefit the Agency, and in Bill
Karp, we have someone that is a gift from the State of Alaska,
who has come down to direct the Science Center. He's got a lot
of familiarity with the advances that have been made in Alaska
and we are going to benefit from his experience.
There is a working group that we've assembled between the
regional office and the Science Center. It had almost a full-
day meeting, most recently in Boston a couple of days ago, on
this. It's incredibly complex; a lot of people think it's just
a question of putting cameras on boats. As you know, it's much
more complicated than that; it involves work with the councils;
there are regulatory changes that have to be made. Both
councils, as the Chairs can tell you, have working groups set
up, very recently set up. We're starting with working teams at
the regional office and the Science Center to understand how we
might do this, whether it would involve full retention where
the cameras might be used, just to see whether or not you're
discarding. And so--I'm new to this, I have a hard time with my
cell phone, but I'm learning about this--and we're trying to
figure out which models, which fisheries, might this work on
first, and which fisheries would be most appropriate, what
regulations would have to be changed. We're trying to get it
straight between the Science Center and the regional office,
then bring in the councils to figure out which regulations have
to be changed, involve the industry, some of whom are chomping
at the bit, they can't wait to get started; others of whom see
cameras as--oh, wait, I'm not sure I want to go there. And
we're trying to figure out how it works in the Northeast and
how that fits with the national effort because this is, as you
know, a priority in NOAA fisheries nationally as well. So I
appreciate how complex it is; I also appreciate how important
it is and how big the potential payoff is.
Senator Begich. Very good. Thank you.
Let me go ahead and turn to Senator Rubio, my time is up,
for his questions.
Senator Rubio. Thank you.
I have two initial questions of this panel, and I'll
actually direct them at you, Mr. Cunningham, but Mr. Robins,
I'd like to hear from you on these as well.
The first is: should the Act be revised to offer greater
flexibility in the rebuilding timelines for fisheries, if you
could comment on that.
Mr. Cunningham. Thank you.
I think, as I mentioned in my comments, the New England
Council feels that the focus should be on preventing
overfishing, not on a set rebuilding timeline because as it
currently is, we don't have the scientific information that's
exact enough to allow us to rebuild to that set time period, so
that's where we think the emphasis should be placed, that
councils should control overfishing.
Senator Rubio. So the Council would be supportive of an
effort to offer greater flexibility with regards to how we view
the timelines, given the data inadequacy?
Mr. Cunningham. That is the Council's position, that's
correct.
Senator Rubio. Mr. Robins?
Mr. Robins. Thank you, Senator Rubio.
The Council doesn't have a position per se, so I'll be
reflecting on our experience more broadly, but the Mid-Atlantic
Council has been through the stock rebuilding process and so
our constituents, our communities, have been through it. It was
very difficult and we did that jointly with the Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission and many of those important
fisheries such as Summer Flounder. But thinking back on back on
some of these experiences, such as dogfish, when we rebuilt the
spiny dogfish stock, the first action was to essentially close
the fishery because it could be rebuilt within 10 years, but
only at an extremely low level of catch, and so that fishery
was essentially all but wiped out in the course of the stock
rebuilding process in that 10-year period.
I think the other exacerbating fact here is the fact that a
lot of times, stock growth and stock rebuilding hinges on
environmental conditions that facilitate recruitment and growth
into that population. To the extent that those environmental
variables are outside of our control, I think it would be
helpful to have some flexibility to deal with those types of
changing or adverse environmental circumstances when a council
is trying to rebuild a stock, so some targeted flexibility, I
think, could be in order.
Senator Rubio. At the core of all the testimony today has
been the need for better data and better research. At the end
of the day, we're making decisions here sometimes with things
that are 4 or 5 years old and it's impacting not just the
livelihood of people who live off of these industries, but
quite frankly, on the recreational side; sometimes, we forget
the economic impact that that has. I mean, I know in Florida,
but I think this is true around the country, people pay a great
amount of money, then stay at hotels and bring their boats in
and take their families out, and it's also just part of the
culture of the place, I mean, it's part of, certainly, the
culture in South Florida and one of the greatest experiences
I've had with my children is the ability to go out and fish and
I'd hate to see any of that diminished at any point.
I say all of that as a preface to the fact that one of the
common practices now that the administration has is to divert
in their annual budget the Saltonstall-Kennedy Funds that are
received by NOAA. They would divert that away from the
authorized uses and toward the agency's operation and research
fund. So I guess my question is, have you spent any time
talking about the diversion of those funds to the extent that
they undermine the availability of those funds for more
research? Shouldn't those funds go to their intended purposes
and be appropriated, be used, so that NOAA can conduct more
fishery research?
Mr. Bullard. I'd assume that question is for me.
Senator Rubio. Sorry, anybody on the panel could take it
first. I know it's----
Mr. Bullard. We expect that Saltonstall-Kennedy will have
funds this year for grants $5 to $10 million, and as you know,
Congress has allocated a significant portion of Saltonstall-
Kennedy for basic research, for stock assessments and
cooperative research, in the past, and if it's one thing I
heard in the listening sessions that I've mentioned, it has
been the need for stock assessments and basic science and
frequently people saying that we need more frequent stock
assessments. So Congress has used a portion of Saltonstall-
Kennedy to fund that through operations and research, and so if
the Congress wishes for Saltonstall-Kennedy Funds to be used
for other purposes, then we're going to need to find other
sources of money for stock assessments, which is the most basic
thing we do for management plans. I mean----
Senator Rubio. Clearly, you've heard the need for more
funds--this research costs money.
Mr. Bullard. Couldn't agree more, but every----
Senator Rubio. But you're saying you just need
Congressional authority to do that?
Mr. Bullard. The building block is the stock assessment;
that's what everything else is based on.
Senator Rubio. So your testimony is that we would need--
what you're asking or what you need in order to be able to do
it that way using these funds is more Congressional authority
to spend more of this money on the research component?
Mr. Bullard. The research is the fundamental building block
and cooperative research, I mean, we applaud that, the
intention is great.
Senator Begich. Can I ask quick and then I'll go to Senator
Ayotte--Mr. Bullard, could you give us maybe again for the
record, not right now, but maybe the last 5 years of that Fund
and how that has been used? It can be in broad categories for
now and then if there is additional information that maybe
Senator Rubio or others might have on it, but maybe for the
Committee, for the last 5 years, the broad use in category; if
you could present that, that'd be good.
Mr. Bullard. The last 5 years? Yes.
Senator Begich. The last 5 years. I'm picking that date; I
don't know if Senator Rubio--does that sound okay?
Senator Rubio. Yes, that's fine.
Senator Begich. OK, that gives us a little range. Thank
you.
Mr. Bullard. We'll get that to you.
Senator Begich. Senator Ayotte.
STATEMENT OF HON. KELLY AYOTTE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Ayotte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Bullard, I'm really troubled. As you know,
not only myself, but the New England delegation in January
asked for approval of interim measures for 2013 for Gulf of
Maine cod and haddock and you wrote back in January 14, 2013
and said no, we could not have interim measures for the Gulf of
Maine cod and haddock, and really, the end result was, just to
use a couple numbers, was that the New England Fisheries
Managemewnt Council then had no choice as a result of your
denial of interim measures but to vote on January 30 to approve
unprecedented cuts, just decreasing the overall quota for Gulf
of Maine cod by 78 percent for the years 2013 to 2015, and to
put that into perspective, that means fishermen's allocation
has been reduced from 6,700 metric tons in 2012 to 1,550 metric
tons beginning on May 1 of this year. I don't know a business
that can go from 6,700 tons to 1,550 tons, a 78 percent
reduction, and survive, and this is a matter of survival for an
honorable and noble profession in New Hampshire.
New Hampshire fishermen, many of them have this in their
families; they have fished the waters, they believe very firmly
in sustaining the stocks because it's part of their livelihood,
and yet, they have not been given the opportunity to even
transition; it's just been drastic, the impact that they've
felt.
And it really bothers me, and so I want to ask you, when I
look at national standard eight of the Magnuson-Stevens Act,
NOAA is directed to sustain both fishing stocks and fishing
communities. What actions are you going to take to sustain our
fishing industry in New Hampshire, and how do you expect the
small boats to survive? In some ways, it's almost the
implementation of too big to fail in the fishing industry, the
way this is working out for our small boats. So I just don't
know a business that can go with a 78 percent reduction and
survive. So can you help me with this because this is just
something that, you know, I've gotten to meet many of them, it
just really bothers me and it just seems to me that they care
deeply about what they do, we're proud of them, and yet, so
many of them are going out of business.
Mr. Bullard. Senator, I assure you, it bothers me too. I
come from a fishing port and the condition of cod stocks in New
England is something that keeps me up at night as well, and I
wrestle with it. And especially, the situation in New
Hampshire, a state that had six processing plants and is down
to one, Yankee Co-Op. It is something that I thought long and
hard about when we adjusted the closure due to Harbor Porpoise
at the request of the sector managers up there, persuasive to
me at any rate, request.
I think that in the long term, the answer is what can we do
to rebuild the stocks, and the decision made by the Council in
January to make that 77 percent cut, a courageous vote, is made
to rebuild those stocks. Now, long term is one thing, if you
can't get to the long term because you go out of business, then
what difference does it make----
Senator Ayotte. Correct, and that's what's happening and I
don't fault the--I really don't fault the Council for this
because basically, the denial of the interim measures, I don't
think that they had a lot of choice at that point. And so, I
guess I don't understand the decision why we couldn't at least
be granted----
Mr. Bullard. Extended interim measures----
Senator Ayotte. Extend them, because you do have a dual
purpose under the Magnuson-Stevens Act; it is, and seems to me,
that it's so dramatic what is happening to these fishermen,
that they can't even plan. Just basically, many of them just
had to go out of business.
Mr. Bullard. And so, when I did my best to explain it, I
said that there were two reasons to deny the interim measures.
One was the legal reason, and when we granted interim measures
2 years ago, we said we could do that; we found flexibility
where many people thought there wasn't, but we said we could
only do that for 1 year. We made it very clear in granting
that, that it was 1 year and we did that and we said that we
hoped that was a warning that allowed people some preparation
to do that, but that it was for only year only and that we
could not grant that for two years. So there was a legal
reason. But the second reason was that the stocks, we couldn't,
from a biological standpoint--the cuts needed to be made, and
so, that's the other reason to do it.
Now we still--there are other fish out there, and we are
working very hard with the fishermen to find ways to get people
through this. I met yesterday with Secretary Pritzker. She is a
businesswoman. She looks at this same issue the way you do: how
do you survive this cut in cod, in Gulf of Maine haddock? How
do you get through this tough time?
Senator Ayotte. And as you can imagine, this was on the top
of my list when I met with her as well.
Mr. Bullard. Yes, I'm sure.
Senator Ayotte. Her confirmation, because how can you
survive?
Mr. Bullard. And other members of the delegation, how do
you get through this? And as I've met with fishermen, they say
the answer is we know how to catch fish. So there are other
fish. How can we do this? How do we solve the problem? If we
can't catch cod, if we can't catch Gulf of Maine haddock, if we
can't catch yellowtail flounder, there are other fish. If they
don't sell, if pollock doesn't sell for the same price as cod,
what can we do to catch the fish that are out there? What can
we do to get the price? So we have developed with the industry,
with others, resources, and what Secretary Pritzker said
yesterday is I will do everything to help you, John, reach out
to other agencies, state and Federal, and the industry and
NGO's, anyone who can bring something to the table, to help
people get through this difficult time, either by catching the
fish that are out there in abundance and build markets, or to
get relief. I know the Senate has moved along disaster
assistance, whatever can be done to help people get through
these difficult times while we rebuild stocks. I'm trying to
not leave any stone unturned to help people get through this
time while we rebuild these stocks. That's the answer, though,
rebuilding the stocks.
Senator Ayotte. I know that my time is up. I just want to
say two things. Number one, I disagree with the legal
interpretation.
Mr. Bullard. OK.
Senator Ayotte. I think that you could have granted the
interim measures, but let's put that aside for a minute.
Mr. Bullard. Yes.
Senator Ayotte. I think this goes to Mr. Cunningham's point
that he made earlier, making sure that we have good information
because I know that there's a lot of dispute in terms of what
data is being used to implement the catch shares program that
is having an impact on the fishermen.
And so, finally, my final point would be if we do need to
give flexibility under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, to make sure
that there is a path that is more sensible, that we can also
sustain the stocks, but not put people immediately out of
business like that. We've got to do that.
So I know my time is up and I thank the Chairman for the
latitude, and I will probably stay because I do have a few more
questions. Thank you.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much.
Senator Blumenthal.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you very much for being here
today, every one of the witnesses.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing, and thank
you to my colleague from New Hampshire for articulating so well
a number of the concerns that I have shared for many, many
years, in Connecticut. As a matter of fact, as Attorney
General, I took legal action because this system is such a
failure, an abject failure, over many years in upholding the
very interests that you have expressed in your testimony, Mr.
Bullard, and I don't blame any one of you because it really is
the system and the lack of sufficient, reliable data, and you
make reference to it in your testimony, Mr. Bullard, the need
to improve the science that is so essential in this area, the
estimates of stocks, the assessments that go into the
conclusion that there has been overfishing and the need for
rebuilding, and how that rebuilding should be undertaken so
that it maximizes the interests of recreational as well as
commercial fishermen.
So my question to you is really more specifically what you
think can be done, what should be done, to change this system?
Mr. Bullard. Well, I think there's a lot in the system
right now that works. I think the catch limits that make us
face the music that was instituted in 2007 in Magnuson is an
important part, important improvement, in Magnuson. I think it
is a very good part of the system. I think I wouldn't change
that. So what would I change? Science can always be better.
Counting fish is difficult business and communicating science
is also very difficult. Dr. Bill Karp, at the Science Center,
has worked very hard to reach out to fishermen, to involve
fishermen, but that can always be made better. The way we
involve fishermen, the amount that is done, the resources
available for cooperative research, that can always be
improved.
I think the impacts of climate on fishing is something
that--I'm not a scientist, but how we understand the impacts
that climate is having on the system can be made better and
that's something that can be made better. I think the way we
manage and introduce ecosystem-based management and how that
works with Magnuson Act, where Magnuson is based on managing
single stocks and, again, related to climate change, the
advantages that ecosystem-based management has when you're
dealing with something like climate change----
Senator Blumenthal. But let me just, if I may, interrupt.
Mr. Bullard. Yes.
Senator Blumenthal. Because I want to focus on the science
issue. You know, the system may work well in some ways, as you
suggested, but it has put out of business many, many fishermen
in the State of Connecticut; I suspect the same is true in New
Hampshire, so we're not just talking about an abstract,
speculative danger on the horizon. Some of this harm is already
history, unfortunately. But, for example, a lot of the
information that provides the basis for judgments made about
rebuilding and shortages and overfishing and so forth are the
result of observers. What kind of checks are there on the
information that's provided for observers and what kind of
additional checks could there be?
Mr. Bullard. Well, I think that the system that doesn't
work for groundfish has worked very well in scallops, it's
worked very well in a lot of fisheries that have rebuilt, and
so I think you have to look at why does a system work really
well in most of the fisheries, the same system that you're
criticizing, works so well in generating jobs, in generating
economic activity, but----
Senator Blumenthal. But where it's failed, why has it
failed?
Mr. Bullard. Yes, why has it failed in one place and
worked----
Senator Blumenthal. That's really why I'm--that's the
question I'm posing.
Mr. Bullard. Yes, and so--and I don't have a good answer
for why something works so well in the majority of fisheries,
but in New England groundfish, the important, iconic fishery
that defines New England, why has it failed in this one iconic
fishery?
Senator Blumenthal. Well, there may be more than one.
Mr. Bullard. Yes.
Senator Blumenthal. But I think that, really, the challenge
for all of us, most especially for you because it's your----
Mr. Bullard. That's right.
Senator Blumenthal.--job to suggest to us how this system
needs to be changed because it may be failing in just a few, it
may be failing in more than a few areas, but wherever it fails,
it is a failure that has powerfully damaging consequences to
America and to the industry, so my time is expired, but again,
thank you and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much.
I know, Senator Ayotte, you have to leave; you wanted to
make one quick comment about your questions.
Senator Ayotte. Yes, I appreciate it.
I'm going to be submitting a question for the record,
particularly to you and Mr. Cunningham, to get your perspective
on what changes you think need to be made to make sure how we
can improve the Federal Government's role in the fishing
management area, probably a little more specific than Senator
Rubio's; I appreciated his questions, but we really need your
advice on this because it's just unacceptable where we are. So
thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much, and again, that's the
purpose of our hearing is to get as much information started on
the table and as we move forward to the reauthorization because
we need thoughts and ideas.
Senator Markey, thank you very much. Welcome to your first
subcommittee meeting here on something I know is dear to your
heart and that's the oceans and fisheries, so thank you very
much. We have 5-minute rounds and you're the next person up and
then we have a group right after this. So please.
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much, and I'm
very sorry that I was late for this important hearing.
New England is the home of America's first fisheries, so it
is fitting that this subcommittee begins its work to
reauthorize Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act by hearing from New England fishermen.
Massachusetts has a long, proud and prosperous history
based on the bounty of the ocean. I look forward to working
with fishermen, their communities and this committee to ensure
Massachusetts has a long, proud and prosperous future for
fishermen and our coastal communities.
But right now, that future is in question, as our region's
iconic fish and fishermen are struggling to survive. Many of
our coastal communities are facing an economic disaster. The
destruction is not as quick or as clearly delineated as the
path of a tornado and we've had more warning than hurricane
forecasts provide, and like drought, it may persist for
multiple years, but it is still a disaster.
Just as the Nation comes together to help the victims of
tornados, hurricanes and droughts, we must help our fishermen
in their time of need. I will continue to work with my
colleagues in Congress for emergency fishing disaster funding,
and with the Obama Administration, to explore every option
available to help Massachusetts fishermen, their families and
their communities, weather the current storm and steer into
calmer waters where fishermen can maximize the harvest of
healthy species.
Let me ask this, Mr. Bullard, I appreciate the efforts that
you and Mr. Karp at the Science Center are making to help our
New England fishing communities through the current disaster to
a more sustainable future, and I am glad to hear that helping
fishermen is a priority for the Department of Commerce, and I
look forward to working with you and her to address the
disaster that Massachusetts fishermen and coastal communities
are experiencing.
Mr. Bullard, you mentioned in your written testimony that
the President's budget requests for Fiscal Year 2014 include
$10 million increase for NOAA to fund research on the impacts
of climate on fisheries, with the focus on Northeast
groundfish. What does NOAA hope to accomplish by undertaking
this research and how could that help improve stock assessments
and ultimately benefit fishermen?
Mr. Bullard. Thank you for your question, Senator Markey. I
think, as I've mentioned, I'm not a scientist, but I am very
concerned with the effects of climate on fishing. Twenty years
ago, all you had to do in fishing in the Northeast is really
think about how you managed overfishing; now, I think climate
is something that exerts more and more of an impact and
fishermen are the first who can tell you that. They're out
there, they see temperature changes, they see fish stocks
moving north and east offshore and they see the impacts. They
don't have PH meters, so they're not as aware of ocean
acidification or its impacts, but they're certainly going to be
the recipients of those impacts. And today, as a matter of
fact, in Providence, NOAA is hosting a workshop to understand
the scientific gaps and understand this issue. There is, in the
President's Fiscal Year `14 budget, $10 million for this, and I
think that what Dr. Karp has made very clear is that we need,
despite all of the pressure to focus on stock assessments,
stock assessments, stock assessments, we need more resources to
understand the drivers, the climate change, water temperature,
current change, ocean acidification, are going to have on fish
stocks, on fish biology, on the development of larvae, and I
hope Congress can support this part of the President's budget
because it's going to provide insights that are going to help
us manage fisheries and ecosystem change, minimize the economic
disruption on fisheries, and so your interest is welcome.
Senator Markey. Mr. Cunningham, in your written testimony,
you indicate that there are some provisions of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act that limit the ability to manage fisheries using an
ecosystem approach; I would ask that you provide to the
Committee and to me the specific provisions you think hinder
ecosystem management and your suggestions of how to improve
them.
Mr. Cunningham. Well, certainly one of the issues with the
way that the statute is written versus how you would manage
under ecosystem-based management is the regions would be
totally different than they are currently set up today. They
may span areas that include two of the regions, and from a
management standpoint, putting into the Act some ability to
manage more, whether it's on regionally or whether the councils
themselves have much more ability to jointly manage stocks,
those comments were really directed at things from the
management standpoint, rather than what John was talking about
on the science side of things.
Senator Markey. So would you provide that information in
writing to the Committee and to me as well, please?
Mr. Cunningham. Certainly. Glad to.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much, and I know--again,
thank you for the panel. We always have more questions than
time and I know several of us, I just made some notes to myself
of questions I'll be submitting to you all for some additional
follow-up, but I want to thank you; I know other members will
have the same thing.
If we can, we want to dismiss this panel. Again, thank you
for your testimony. Thank you for being part of this and we
have the Panel 2 to be put up next. Thank you all very much.
We'll take just a second here to change out, folks. Thank you
for your attendance.
[Pause.]
Senator Begich. And as the next panel is coming forward,
just a note to the members: there's a noon vote, so we will
attempt to get through all the testimonies as quickly as we
can, and then if there's time allowed, we'll do questions. I'll
forego my questions for other members if they would like to
ask.
For the five members, can you go ahead and please be
seated; just sit and they'll put a nametag in front of you.
There we go.
Again, thank you all very much for your attendance. I'd
like to start and just, again, go down the panel; we'll go
again from this side over and allow you your 5 minutes of
testimony. Again, we appreciate your efforts to be here to help
us move forward on the reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens.
Mr. Nick, is it Muto?
Mr. Muto. Muto.
Senator Begich. Chairman of the Cape Cod Commercial
Fishermen's Alliance. I'll have you up first and there's the
button there on the pad there for the microphone you need to
turn on; if it turns the light on, that should work. Just tap
the microphone, make sure it's on. Perfect. You are on first.
Thank you again for being here. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN NICK MUTO, CHAIRMAN, CAPE COD COMMERCIAL
FISHERMEN'S ALLIANCE
Mr. Muto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Nick Muto. I'm a commercial fisherman from
Chatham, Massachusetts. I've fished for nearly 15 years and
have participated in just about every fishery we have on Cape
Cod, from weir fishing in Nantucket Sound to groundfishing on
Georges Bank. I've fished with just about every high-line
captain in our community, and in 2009, I made the jump from
crewman to captain, took on a tremendous amount of personal
debt and risk and went out on my own. I now own and operate a
lobster boat and I also fish for striped bass and dogfish. In
the winters, I fish on another Chatham boat that fishes for
monkfish and skates a hundred miles from Chatham.
I also serve as Chairman of the Board of the Cape Cod
Commercial Fisherman's Alliance, which was formerly the Cape
Cod Commercial Hook Fisherman's Association. Our organization
was founded over 20 years ago by independent, small boat family
fisherman on Cape Cod, and I appreciate the opportunity to
speak to this committee here today.
When I started fishing in 2001, there were still dozens of
boats landing codfish. Day in and day out, we'd land 6,000-
8,000 pounds of fish until we couldn't really do it anymore.
Cod was our mainstay and it had been for centuries, and today,
I get a text or a phone call sometimes, anytime somebody lands
more than a few hundred pounds of codfish and people actually
get excited about that. You don't see the thousands of pounds
of fish like we used to.
We have a community fishing quota. The codfish are worth
money, but we can't catch them and they're not out there, and
to me, that's the major disaster in our community, and as I
talk to other fishermen and look at the daily auction report,
it seems to be that the story's much the same throughout New
England.
Over the past decade, I've also seen our traditional weir
fishery for squid, scup, mackerel and menhaden in Nantucket
Sound go from a thriving and profitable one to one that's
almost extinct. This fishery is one of the oldest in the
country and relies on healthy populations of forage stocks in
shore and it hasn't been from too-tight regulations that's
destroyed this fishery, it's that we've depleted our bait
stocks to the point that it's not even viable to set the traps
anymore. The traps that used to be overflowing with fish are
now completely empty, and that means there is almost nothing in
our inshore waters to catch and fish like cod, striped bass and
tuna have nothing to eat.
When we allow our forage base to be depleted like it is
now, particularly in the inshore areas, we should not be
surprised that when all the fish that rely on that bait don't
rebuild. Fishermen have focused on the understanding, the
important interactions between these fish species and we need
to have our managers to have a similar understanding of these
interactions. They need to manage the ecosystem as a whole and
protect these forage stocks.
I bring up these fisheries not to make the whole thing seem
hopeless, but to describe the nature of the disaster that we're
facing. Congress can help, but not by rolling back regulations,
but by renewed commitment to the rebuilding of these stocks so
my generation has a future in this industry. The Magnuson-
Stevens Act, I believe, is the cornerstone of that commitment
and is essential to turning around fisheries in New England,
and those rebuilding efforts, I believe, depend on
accountability. The good old days of fishing when you could
just go out and fish to your heart's content and come home,
those are over, and right now, today's managers, we need real-
time information and that means reliable monitoring and catch
reporting, and unless we can account for how many fish are
being taken out of the ocean, we're not really managing, we're
guessing. We need to rely on tools like electronic monitoring
to achieve these goals and I think there's funds for this and
other changes in Saltonstall-Kennedy.
Another critical part of improved management is mandating
annual assessments for our commercial stocks, and there's
simply no way to effectively manage with annual catch limits
without annual fish counts. With old information, we can't
protect the stocks that need protecting or reap the benefits of
management measures that actually work.
Fishermen on Cape Cod take great pride in our community, in
our traditions, our independence and the idea that we've
received something from our fathers and our grandfathers and
are going to pass that knowledge on to the future.
The transition to new management systems, if done wrong,
can put communities like my own out of the game from the start,
unless we have the tools to protect ourselves and preserve
access to the fisheries we've always depended on.
By working more closely together, we can expand the support
and kinds of innovative solutions like the Cape Cod Fisheries
Trust and other permanent banks that small fishing ports like
ours around the country are already building, and I believe
Congress should be looking for every opportunity to support
these efforts.
It's no secret that we're facing a disaster in New England.
The ground fishery is in a freefall and codfish that used to
support our fisheries and our fishermen are on the verge of a
collapse and we need to make changes.
I believe the Magnuson Act is a solid foundation for moving
forward and we need to build off it and improve it, and I think
we can. I wouldn't be here today if I didn't believe we could,
and I believe the future of our fisheries, that we can make the
changes, and the success of my business depends on it. And I
appreciate your time and listening to me today and welcome any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Muto follows:]
Prepared Statement of Nick Muto, Chairman, Board of Directors,
Cape Cod Commercial Fishermen's Alliance
Chairman Begich, Ranking Member Rubio and Members of the
Subcommittee, my name is Nick Muto, I'm a commercial fisherman from
Chatham, MA. I've fished for nearly 15 years and have participated in
just about every fishery we have on Cape Cod from weir fishing in
Nantucket Sound to groundfishing on Georges Bank. I've fished with
almost every highline captain in our community. In 2009, I decided that
it was time to make the transition from crewman to captain, and I took
on a tremendous amount of personal debt and risk to go out on my own.
I now own and operate a 36 foot fishing vessel that primarily
targets lobster, but I also catch dogfish, and striped bass. In the
winters, in addition to doing trap work, I fish on another Chatham boat
that targets monkfish and skates 100 miles to the south.
I also serve as Chairman of the Board of the Cape Cod Commercial
Fishermen's Alliance (formerly the Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's
Association). We are an organization founded over 20 years ago by
independent small-boat family fishermen on Cape Cod. We now work with
over 100 commercial fishing businesses annually catching more than 12
million pounds of seafood worth millions of dollars each year. These
businesses support hundreds of fishing families and form the backbone
of our area's coastal economy.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today about the
future of our fisheries.
Lack of fish means lack of opportunities
I started fishing commercially in 2001, and I'm now one of the
younger captains in our port. When I started working on groundfish
boats, there were still dozens of trips of day boat codfish coming
across our pier daily. We'd bring in 6,000 to 8,000 pounds of cod a day
for weeks until the tide ran too hard to fish and we got a few days off
before starting again. Almost every boat fished in multiple fisheries
over the course of the year, but cod was our mainstay and had been for
centuries. Today, I get a text or call at home anytime someone lands
more than a few hundred pounds a trip. People get excited about that
little now. It's not that we don't have the quota; it's not that we
can't get paid for them; it's that the codfish aren't there to catch!
To me, that's the disaster in our community. And as I talk to guys all
over New England and I look at the daily report of what's getting
landed in other ports, it's clear that the story is much the same
throughout New England.
Over the last 20 years, I've also seen our traditional fish-weir
fishery for squid, scup and pogies in Nantucket Sound go from thriving
and profitable to almost extinct. This fishery, one of the oldest in
the country, relies on healthy populations of forage stocks inshore. It
hasn't been too-tight regulations that destroyed this fishery; it's
that we've depleted our bait stocks to the point that it's not even
viable to pursue it. Traps that used to be overflowing with fish are
completely empty! That means that there's almost nothing in our inshore
waters to catch, or for fish like cod, striped bass and tuna to eat.
When we allow our forage base to be depleted like it is now,
particularly in inshore areas, no one should be surprised when all the
stocks that rely on that bait don't rebuild. We need to manage the
whole ecosystem. To me, that means we need to pay attention to the way
these fish interact in the water. Fishermen have focused on
understanding those interactions ever since the first fisherman ever
set a net; it's time for our managers to catch up to fishermen in
recognizing the importance of managing the whole ecosystem.
I bring up these fisheries, not make the whole thing seem hopeless,
but to help describe the nature of the disaster we're facing. We need
help! But the help we need isn't pretending our fish stocks aren't
depleted and trying to roll back regulations. We need a renewed
commitment to rebuilding these stocks so that my generation has a
future in this industry. That commitment is the cornerstone of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act and it's essential to turning our fisheries around
in New England.
Accountability, monitoring and enforcement
Those rebuilding efforts depend on accountability. There are still
plenty of people around that remember the `good old days' before
regulations when a guy could go out, fill his boat and do it again the
next day without ever worrying about calling in or filling out a trip
report. But those days are gone forever. Today, to manage to annual
catch limits we need to have systems for monitoring and catch
accounting that track information in real-time and feed it into our
management decisions. Unless we can reliably account for how many are
being caught, we're not actually managing our fisheries to ACLs.
But, as we build these monitoring systems, we need to keep in mind
what our fisheries and vessels look like. I fish all winter on a small
boat with three other guys. We steam over 100 miles each way, often
through terrible weather, to the fishing grounds. That means we steam
for over 24 hours to actually fish for less than 6 hours. Unless we're
able to use electronic monitoring tools, we're building a system to put
an observer on a very small boat in dangerous conditions to sleep for
24 out of 30 paid hours. With all due respect to our observers, and
many of them are really good, hard-working people, I've never seen a
camera show up late for the boat; puke over the rail; or stay in a bunk
below-deck when we're hauling gear. Electronic monitoring can get us
the information we need without the cost, safety concerns or logistical
hassles of trying to get the same coverage with observers. We need to
accelerate using this technology for many of our fisheries; we just
can't keep refusing to change how we do things.
I want to briefly discuss enforcement. Unfortunately in New
England, because of serious abuses by some people at NOAA,
`enforcement' has become a dirty word. Almost any time I hear a
politician talk about enforcement, they just want to rail against what
happened years ago. Well, I want any NOAA employee that abused their
authority in prosecuting fisheries violations punished and removed. The
culture of that office had to change. But we absolutely need strong and
fair enforcement in our fisheries to keep the playing field level; and,
right now, I don't see it. Without solid enforcement of our fishing
rules, we might as well stop making new rules. Unreported catch and
landings are quietly stealing from the future of our fisheries. We've
got big enforcement problem and we need to fix it.
Need for annual stock assessments
Another critical part of improved management is mandating annual
assessments for almost all our commercial stocks. Earlier I mentioned
our winter fishery targeting monkfish and skates. There are actually
seven different skate stocks all managed under one plan in New England.
Years ago, one of these stocks, the barndoor skate was declared
overfished and a landings prohibition was put in place to help them
rebuild. These measures worked and now both fishermen and the
government trawl survey are catching more and more barndoor skates each
year. When we're fishing for monkfish in the winter, we now spend most
of our time picking tens of thousands of pounds of marketable barndoors
out of our nets and throwing them senselessly over the side, often
dead. That's just on one trip on one boat.
Why? Because we're told that a formal assessment is needed before
fishermen can be allowed to land and sell even a small amount of
barndoor skates. This gets us back to the problem: we haven't had an
actual skate assessment since 2006 and we don't have one planned until
at least after 2016. That means that for this multi-stock, open-access,
targeted fishery, we won't have an actual assessment in over a decade.
That's completely unacceptable! And in the meantime, our fisheries are
wasting an unthinkable volume of this product at a time when we can't
afford to waste any opportunity for sustainable harvest in New England.
Without annual assessments, we can't protect the stocks that need
protecting or reap the benefits of management measures that work.
Investing in our fisheries
I understand that more frequent stock assessments, better science,
and expanded monitoring all cost money and that the regions need
resources to make these changes. But, I think this can be done without
increasing Federal spending. In the last Congress, Senators John Kerry
and Olympia Snowe authored a bill that would reform the use of the
Saltonstall-Kennedy (S-K) Fund. This money, taken from duties on
imported fish products was always intended to provide resources for
fisheries research and management. But over the years, it's been
redirected into NOAA's Operations Account. This has totaled almost $1.7
billion from 2001 to 2010 and the estimated funds for 2014 are about
$115 million.
It's time we recommitted these funds to the kinds of research
projects and regional priorities like stock assessments and monitoring
that they were always intended to pay for.
Strengthening and supporting seafood markets
We also have to work to build and support markets for those fish
that are abundant. Don't get me wrong, Georges Bank and the waters off
New England are full of fish, they just aren't the ones we have
traditionally harvested and sold. Instead of cod, haddock and flounder
the ocean is full of dogfish, skates and monkfish. Unfortunately, the
markets for these species are extremely limited and the prices
fishermen get when we can sell these fish often barely cover fuel and
bait costs.
We're getting paid less now for our dogfish than we were over a
decade ago, and this after fishermen took the cuts and made the
sacrifices to rebuild the stock. We need congressional help to rebuild
our markets. If there were greater demand and better markets, we could
keep boats working in New England. And if were paid even a nickel or
dime more per pound, it would make a huge difference.
So the Fishermen's Alliance, working with other New England fishing
groups, has requested the USDA to include dogfish in their commodity
food purchase program. This is a good product that could be used in
many Federal food aid programs and food pantries. Our request has been
supported by virtually the entire New England congressional delegation
who I'd like to thank. Support from this Subcommittee for USDA
purchases of dogfish could go a long way in helping create a domestic
demand. 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.
Protecting our communities
One of the last topics I'd like to comment on is how we protect our
fishing communities as we reinvest in our fisheries and rebuild the
resource. I hear the term `community' thrown around all the time now.
But the fishermen on Cape Cod take great pride in our community and
always have. We take pride in our traditions, our independence and in
the idea that we've received something from our fathers' and
grandfathers' generations and are passing that knowledge on to the
future.
The transition to new management systems, if done wrong, can put
communities like ours out of the game from the start unless we have the
tools to protect ourselves and preserve access to the fisheries we've
always depended on. That doesn't mean that we can or should fight off
needed changes to our management. It means we need to expand and
support the kinds of innovative solutions that small fishing ports
around the country are already building. Through the Fishermen's
Alliance and working with a local economic development group, fishermen
in our ports have built the Cape Cod Fisheries Trust, a permit bank
that works to secure permanent and affordable fisheries access for
independent Cape Cod fishermen. Whether it's through low-cost quota and
loans to fishermen; business planning assistance to help young
fishermen build stronger businesses; or local cooperative research,
permit banks can offer an important tool for strengthening all fishing
communities.
Congress should be looking for every opportunity to support these
efforts.
Conclusion
There's no denying that we're facing a disaster in New England. The
groundfish fishery, especially, is in a freefall and the codfish stock
that sustained our ports for centuries is on the verge of a total
collapse. We need to make changes. We need to help the guys in the
groundfish fishery who took on debt and bought permits with the promise
that things would turn around and who are now losing their boats and
their homes. They have no options and they are desperate. Congress has
to act.
But I wouldn't be here if I didn't believe in the future of our
fisheries, if I didn't believe that we can make the changes that will
result in more robust fish stocks and more profitable fisheries. I've
built my business and tied my family's fortunes to the success of
commercial fisheries. That's why I'm here today: I'm all in.
In closing, I want to say we already have a strong law. It's not
perfect; but, with due respect to the Committee Members, few laws are
perfect. The Magnuson Act is a solid foundation for moving forward and
we need to build off of it and improve it. I think we can.
Thank you, I'd be happy to answer any questions you have.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much and I know we have a
good-sized panel here, so if folks could keep them as close to
the time as possible, that's important so we can have some
questions before our noon vote.
John McMurray, owner and operator of One More Cast
Charters. John?
STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN JOHN McMURRAY, OWNER/OPERATOR, ONE MORE
CAST CHARTERS
Mr. McMurray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
Subcommittee.
My name is John McMurray. I own a relatively successful
charter fishing business in New York that employs three boats
and three captains. I also sit on the Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council, and in addition, I'm the Director of Grant
Programs at the Norcross Wildlife Foundation.
Today, however, I'm offering testimony mostly from the
viewpoint of a charter boat captain, small business owner and a
father.
Without a doubt, the most nerve-wracking aspect of owning a
business on the water is the host of variables: fuel costs,
weather, water temperatures, but nothing is more important to a
sustainable business model than an abundance of fish. With that
in mind, I'd like to talk about summer flounder, one of several
Mid-Atlantic stocks that are currently at or near historic
highs. This was not always the case. As recently as the 1990s,
the population was so badly overfished that it was nearly
impossible to find a fish over 2 years old.
Things began to turn around with the Sustainable Fisheries
Act. It mandated an end to overfishing and required overfished
stocks to be rebuilt within a timeframe certain, which in most
cases, was 10 years. And so the Mid-Atlantic Council began to
make a determined effort to rebuild overfished stocks. In 2006,
reauthorization firmed things up with annual catch limits and
accountability measure requirements. Perhaps more importantly,
it required each council's science and statistical committees,
rather than politically-pressured state managers and other
council members, set the upper limit for allowable catch. As a
result, the Mid-Atlantic Council was the only regional fishery
management council where, to the best of its knowledge, no
stock was overfished and none are subject to overfishing.
My charter business has undoubtedly benefited. On the
water, I see more fluke than I've seen in 13 years as a
captain, or my 25 years as a saltwater angler. Frankly, up
until the last few years, I never even bothered with them, as
the inshore was composed almost exclusively of young, small
fish. The large ones were few and far between and you generally
had to go out 60 or even 90 feet of water and fish with 10 or
12 ounces of lead if you wanted to catch them. Today, summer
flounder make up a substantial portion of my business, as 20-
inch fish are relatively abundant and can be caught in shallow
water close to home, and it seems to be consistently good from
May to September, providing something to target in the
traditional dog days of summer. I'm booking a lot more trips
now during what has historically been a slow time of the year.
Business interests aside, this fishery has become a
recreational staple for my family. Early in May, I took my two
4-year-old twins out on their first fishing trip. First drift
in a spot less than 5 minutes from where we live, my son
catches a 28-inch fluke. Second drift, my daughter sticks a 24-
inch fish. As is usually the case with four-year-olds,
attention spans ran out, but only after several large,
beautiful fish made their way into the boat. The look of pure
and utter joy on their faces was worth any of the
aforementioned business interests. We now try to do such family
trips at least once a week, and we all look forward to them.
I brought a prop. This, ladies and gentlemen, is a rebuilt
fishery under Magnuson. This is my son and my wife with the
mentioned 28-inch fish. This sort of thing exists because the
Mid-Atlantic Council made the hard decisions and adopted the
hard caps on harvest that they recognized were essential to
successfully rebuilding the stock. Sure, it was inevitable that
there would be some economic pain associated with summer
flounder's recovery; however, the facts demonstrate that such
pain was for the most part temporary and eventually well
rewarded.
In the Mid-Atlantic, according to the National Marine
Fisheries Service, recreational fishermen caught 2.7 million
flounder in 1989; in 2011, after the rebuilding, that number
jumped to 21 million fish--that's a 700 percent increase. NOAA
fishery service numbers show angler trips over the last decade
along the Atlantic coast up 41 percent from the 1980s. During
the rocky road to the recovery, many in the fishing industry
said it couldn't be achieved; the rebuilding goals were too
ambitious, the timelines were too tight, and the catch limits
were too strict. But it's precisely because of such management
action that we're once again catching those older, larger
summer flounder.
Perhaps more importantly, I can take my family out with a
reasonable expectation of catching a few keepers, and so can
other fathers. The story's similar for other recreational
important fish that the Mid-Atlantic Council manages, such as
black sea bass and scup, but of course, the picture is not all
rosy; there are indeed some management problems which I won't
go into detail and list here.
While the summer flounder's recovery has been spectacularly
successful, the collapse of winter flounder jointly managed by
the New England Council and the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission has been dismayingly sharp and complete.
My business has been directly affected. In 1984, New York
anglers harvested over seven million winter flounder; in 2012,
they harvested only 43,000. When NMFS finally realized the
depth of the flounder's distress in 2009 and closed the fishery
in Federal waters, ASMFC left the state seasons open, but that
didn't matter to me because instead of fishing in March, I keep
the boat up on blocks because there simply aren't any fish
around.
Other species managed by the ASMFC haven't fared well
either; weakfish is one of them. That has affected my business
as well. As a member of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
Council, I can tell you that the implementation of the 2006
Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization, which was not easy, but
it's important we stay the course. Congress should not weaken
the Magnuson-Stevens Act conservation provisions just as they
stand on the threshold of success, for those measures are
responsible for the turnaround in the Mid-Atlantic. There are
still improvements to the Magnuson that should be made; the
most important is to create a funding source for the science
needed to produce better stock assessments, as well as funding
for improved data collection and monitoring of our managed
fisheries. It's very important that we have a mechanism for
funding observers, including a mechanism for cost-sharing with
the industry. This is critical in our squid, mackerel and
butterfish fisheries in determining herring bycatch.
We also need better protection of forage and guidance on
ecosystem management. Today, the ecological consequences of
ecosystem overfishing are rarely considered when catch limits
are set fishery by fishery. Council needs statutory guidelines
on developing regional fishery ecosystem plans that apply basic
ecosystem principles to all fishery management decisions.
This concludes my testimony. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McMurray follows:]
Prepared Statement of Captain John McMurray, Owner/Operator,
One More Cast Charters
Chairman Begich, Ranking Member Rubio, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to share my perspective on the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) in the
Northeast region. My name is John McMurray.
I've run a relatively successful fishing charter business for well
over a decade, employing three boats and three captains. I sit on the
Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Council, one of eight regional fishery
management councils in the United States. I'm also the Director of
Grant Programs at the Norcross Wildlife Foundation, which has
distributed over 30 million in equipment grants, much of that used by
organizations focused exclusively on fisheries and marine habitat
protection.
All of these positions, give me a unique perspective. However,
today I'm offering testimony mostly from the viewpoint of a charter
boat captain, small business owner and a father.
While being a charter boat captain may seem like a dream to some,
it's actually very difficult and quite stressful. In this business,
there are long hours (not just running trips but maintaining boats),
early mornings and little time for sleep, clients who are paying what
seems like a lot of money to catch fish, and daunting overhead
expenses. Add to this the fact that at in my region fishing is
seasonal, so most Captains, like me, have at least one other job they
have to attend to. However, the most nerve-wracking aspect of this
business is the dependence on a host of completely uncontrollable
variables, such as weather, water temp, clarity, bait concentrations,
salinity, chlorophyll levels etc. But nothing is more important to a
sustainable business model than an abundance of fish to catch. Without
such an abundance of fish, other variables matter little.
With that in mind I'll focus on summer flounder (aka fluke). Summer
flounder is one of several Mid Atlantic fish populations that are
currently at or near historic highs. That was not always the case; as
recently as 1990, the population had been so badly overharvested that
it was nearly impossible to find a fluke more than two years old. For
years, fishing for summer flounder was dismal, with few fish meeting
the 14-inch size limit that prevailed at the time. Things began to turn
around after Congress enacted the Sustainable Fisheries Act, which, for
the first time, mandated an end to overfishing and required overfished
stocks to be rebuilt within a time certain, which in most cases was ten
years. At first, the Mid-Atlantic Council seemed to dismiss the
conservation provisions of the new law, as it adopted a supposedly
compliant amendment to the summer flounder management plan that had
only had an 18 percent chance of succeeding. However, after a Federal
appeals court found that plan inadequate in Natural Resource Defense
Council v. Daley, and decided that, at a minimum, a fishery management
plan must have no less than a 50 percent chance of ending overfishing
and rebuilding a stock within the established deadline, the Mid-
Atlantic Council adhered to the mandate of the law and made a
determined effort to rebuild overfished stocks. As a result, it is now
the only regional fishery management council where, to the best of its
knowledge, no stock is overfished, none are subject to overfishing and
just one, tilefish, remains in the rebuilding stage. My charter fishing
business has certainly benefitted from the Mid-Atlantic Council's
actions.
On the water, I see more fluke than I have ever seen in my 13 years
as a Captain, or my 25 years as a saltwater angler. This is one fishery
where I don't have to stress about abundance levels. Frankly, up until
the last few years I never even bothered with them, as the inshore
fishery was composed almost exclusively of small, young fish. The large
ones were few and far between, and you generally had to go out to 60 or
even 90 feet of water and fish with 10 or 12 oz. of lead if you wanted
to catch them. Today, summer flounder make up a substantial portion of
my business, as 20-inch-plus fish are relatively abundant and can be
caught in shallow water close to home. They are really fun to catch on
light-tackle and they are great eating fish. My clients really enjoy
fluke fishing these days, and it seems to be consistently good from May
to September, providing me and my clients something to target in the
traditional ``dog-days'' of summer. I'm booking more trips now during
what has historically been a slow time of the year.
Business interest aside, this fishery has become a recreational
staple for my family. Early in May of this year I took my 4-year old
twins out for their very first fluke trip. First drift in a spot less
than 5 minutes from where we live, my son catches a 28" fluke. Second
drift my daughter sticks a 24" fish. As is usually the case with 4-
year-olds, attention spans ran out quickly, but only after several more
large beautiful fish. The look of pure and utter joy on their faces
were worth more than any aforementioned business interest. We now try
and do such family trips at least once a week. We all look forward to
them.
THIS is what a fishery rebuilt under the current Magnuson Stevens
Act looks like, and it exists because the Mid-Atlantic Council made the
hard decisions and adopted the hard caps on harvest that they
recognized were essential to successfully rebuilding the stock. But
those decisions were not popular at the time that they were made.
It was inevitable, given how badly summer flounder and other stocks
had been overfished prior to 1996, that there would be some economic
pain associated with the summer flounder's recovery, which was suffered
not only by the commercial fishing industry, but the recreational
fishing industry as well, which saw its seasons and bag limits shrink
while the stocks recovered from decades of overfishing. However, the
facts now demonstrate that such pain has been well rewarded.
In the Mid-Atlantic, according to the National Marine Fisheries
Service, recreational fishermen caught some 2.7 million summer flounder
in 1989. In 2011, after rebuilding, that number jumped to more than 21
million fish. That's a 700 percent increase! NOAA fisheries service's
numbers show angler trips over the last decade along the Atlantic Coast
up 41 percent from the 1980s. In the Mid-Atlantic alone, according to
the fisheries service, by the mid-2000s, that has brought in an
additional $1.4 billion in economic activity and supported 18,660 jobs.
On the commercial side, the success story is similar. Gross commercial
revenues for summer flounder are up more than 60 percent since 2000,
when the rebuilding plan was put in place. And, in total, all of the
rebuilt fish stocks brought in, on average, $585 million in gross
commercial revenues every year from 2008-2010.
During the rocky road to recovery many in the fishing industry said
rebuilding couldn't be achieved--the rebuilding goals were too
ambitious, the timelines were too tight, and that catch limits were too
strict. But it's precisely because of such management action that we're
once again catching those larger, older summer flounder. I take clients
out on fluke trips now and know that we have a good shot at landing big
fish and that I won't have to fillet 14-inch juveniles. It's more
enjoyable for everyone!
Without a doubt the Magnuson Stevens Act requirements for science-
based goals and firm deadlines serves the general public, who own the
resource, even if a few business interests may have suffered a short-
term decline in profits. But, as the aforementioned statistics show,
even they now benefit from a fully restored stock. Perhaps more
importantly, I can take my family out with a reasonable expectation of
catching a few keepers and so can other Dads.
The story is similar for other recreationally important fish the
Mid Atlantic Council manages, such as black seabass and scup. But of
course the picture is not all rosy. Some management problems remain. In
the summer flounder fishery, because the size limit is considerably
higher than it has historically been (undoubtedly the reason there are
large fish around now), the recreational discard mortality (about 10
percent of the throwbacks don't survive) is significant. This is a
problem deserving of the Mid Atlantic Council's attention, and it's
getting it. Yet, I can't help but note that the fishery has been
rebuilt despite such discards, so overfishing was clearly a much bigger
problem and, in the end, something eats those fish; they all go back
into the marine ecosystem. There are also serious ``fairness'' issues
with the state-by-state allocation system that currently exists, but
that is a complicated political issue and I'm not sure any ``fix'' to
the Magnuson Act would help.
In the black seabass fishery there are issues with uncertainty in
the stock assessment and the way accountability measures are applied in
the recreational fishery. Because of imprecise estimates that show big
picture trends rather than year-by-year accuracy, accountability
measures such as pound-for-pound paybacks are not practicable. But the
Mid Atlantic Council is in the process of developing reasonable
solutions to such problems. Such individual solutions should be created
by the competent regional Councils as they arise elsewhere. Changes in
Magnuson that will inevitably effect all fisheries to fix regional
species-specific problems would be a form of legislative overkill that
likely would, when applied across the board, create far more problems
that they solved.
Summer flounder, and the other fisheries managed by the Mid
Atlantic Council, provide a good example of how this Council took the
right approach to management, setting hard catch limits and enforcing
them, despite the political pressure brought by some narrow economic
interests. They stand in stark contrast to the still-depleted fisheries
managed by, for example, the New England Fishery Management Council,
which relied on various input controls such as trip limits, days at
sea, etc. in order to avoid setting poundage limits on landings, and so
never effectively reduced harvest. Now truly painful measures are
required because they failed to embrace effective measures--such as
hard harvest caps--since the Sustainable Fisheries Act was enacted in
1996.
My business has been directly affected by such failure, for while
the summer flounder's recovery has been spectacularly successful, the
collapse of the winter flounder, jointly managed by the New England
Council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC),
has been dismayingly sharp and complete. Even two decades ago, New York
anglers could legally catch winter flounder throughout the year,
although the ``traditional'' start of the fishery was St. Patrick's
Day, March 17, and anglers often came home with buckets overflowing
with fish. Today, we are limited to a 60-day season in April and May,
and permitted to keep only 2 12-inch fish per day. In 1984, New York
anglers harvested nearly 7,400,000 flounder; in 2012, they harvested
43,500. When NMFS finally realized the depth of the flounder's distress
in 2009, and closed the fishery in Federal waters, ASMFC left the state
seasons open. But that doesn't really matter to me, because instead of
booking flounder trips in March, I keep my boat on land because, even
if the law still allowed it, no one is going to book a charter trip to
catch two 12-inch flounder.
Unfortunately, winter flounder are only one of the species managed,
in whole or in part, by ASMFC that haven't fared very well, precisely
because that management body doesn't have to comply with Magnusson
Stevens Act standards, may ignore overfishing and is not required to
rebuild overfished stocks. Striped bass remains ASMFC's only notable
``success'', but the real success took place 18 years ago after things
got so bad that many states imposed a moratorium on the fishery, and it
was finally recovered under a management plan that protected 95 percent
of the spawning stock, a far higher level of protection than is imposed
under the vast majority of the plans created pursuant to the Magnusson
Stevens Act. And the current outlook for striped bass is not good.
ASMFC's 2011 Stock Assessment Update states that the striped bass
spawning stock biomass will fall below its threshold in 2017, which
means that the stock will be overfished in four years; despite that
fact, proposals to reduce harvest and stop the decline have been
deferred or rejected by ASMFC's striped bass management board, pending
a new stock assessment.
ASMFC rarely, if ever, takes action to avert a crisis.
Unconstrained by Federal law, it waits until such stocks are on or
beyond the threshold of disaster before action is taken. I have already
mentioned its failure to adopt the New England Council's measures to
protect winter flounder. Weakfish, which used to be a substantial
portion of my spring business, provide a similar example. Today they
are virtually gone; the last stock assessment indicates that just 3
percent of the spawning stock remains, yet ASMFC refused to follow the
advice of its scientists, who advised that closing the fishery was the
only way that the stock might begin to recover by the year 2020.
Abandoning the conservation and management provisions of the
Sustainable Fisheries Act, in favor of an ASMFC-like model, as some in
the recreational fishing community are now suggesting, is a step back
in time that will ultimately hurt both fish and fishermen. Firm
rebuilding deadlines appear to be the only things that get managers,
who are often under intense pressure from constituents to continue
overfishing, to take action. As unpopular as they may be, hard quotas
represent the only approach that has ever fixed things.
As a member of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council I can
tell you that implementation of the 2006 Magnusson Stevens Act
Reauthorization has not easy, but it is important that we stay the
course. The Magnuson Stevens Act is working, and this is important for
my business, my community and my family. The Mid-Atlantic has turned
the corner and ended overfishing, and we have rebuilt depleted fish
populations like summer flounder, black seabass and scup. Such success
and has improved fishing, the coastal economy, and the ocean
environment for the long-term. Now is not the time to retreat from the
hard work we've done and the progress we are seeing on the water.
Last year NOAA Fisheries announced that the end of overfishing is
in sight, with annual catch limits, mandated by the 2006
reauthorization, now in place in all federally-managed fisheries. In a
marine environment where overfishing has long been the rule, reaching a
point where it is the exception is indeed a milestone. Having each
council's Science and Statistical Committee, rather than politically-
pressured state managers and other council members who, like myself,
make a living from catching fish, set the upper limit for allowable
catch results in far more effective management plans. Congress should
not weaken the Magnusson Stevens Act's conservation provisions just as
they stand on the threshold of success, for those measures are
responsible for the turnaround in the Mid-Atlantic and around the
country, and the last thing we want to do is to go back to the failed
policies of the past.
Still, there are certainly improvements to the Magnusson Stevens
Act that should be made. The most important is to create a funding
source for the science needed to produce better stock assessments, as
well as funding for improved data collection and monitoring of our
managed fisheries. Black seabass provide a good example of such a need.
The species' life history--they are the only protogynous hermaphrodite
found north of Cape Hatteras--creates a challenge for managers. The
most recent stock assessment was rejected in January 2012. Fishermen
argue that there are plenty of black sea bass around and that landings
can be safely increased, but given the currently available information,
managers can't prudently concur. The only way to find the real answers
is to dedicate adequate financial resources.
We also need better protection of forage and guidance on ecosystem
management. National Standard #1 says we will prevent overfishing while
achieving the ``optimum yield'' (OY) from each fishery. OY is defined
as providing ``the greatest overall benefit to the Nation,'' taking
into account food production, recreation and protection of ocean
ecosystems. In reality, though, the ecological consequences of
fishing--``ecosystem overfishing''--are rarely considered when catch
limits are set fishery-by-fishery. We know through experience that even
what is commonly referred to as ``sustainable fishing,'' especially of
keystone predators or prey, can cause dramatic shifts in ecosystem
communities. Councils need statutory guidance on developing regional
Fishery Ecosystem Plans that apply basic ecosystem principles to all
fishery management decisions. A new National Standard requiring that
all management measures prevent ecosystem overfishing would give these
comprehensive plans teeth, a change that will in turn trigger new
Federal guidelines akin to what we have done to prevent conventional
overfishing
Lastly, as a recreational industry member of the Mid Atlantic
Council, I would like to see statutory language that requires a
periodic--every five years or so--look at the allocation between
sectors to provide the greatest overall benefit to the nation, as the
Regional Councils are generally uncomfortable addressing such unpopular
questions on their own.
This concludes my testimony. Thank you for the opportunity to
provide these comments.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much.
Next, we have Patrick--is it Paquette?
Mr. Paquette. Yes.
Senator Begich. Paquette. Recreational Angler. Patrick,
thank you.
STATEMENT OF PATRICK PAQUETTE,
RECREATIONAL FISHING ADVOCATE
Mr. Paquette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Markey.
My name is Patrick Paquette. I'm a recreational angler from
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I've been working in various
aspects of the recreational fishing industry for the past 20
years. I've served in dozens of elected positions with local
and East Coast-wide recreational fishing organizations and more
recently, I worked as a consultant and organizer and
professional advocate, and worked with groups from Maine to
North Carolina. I've been interacting with the fisheries
management system for over a decade and I regular attend the
Mid-Atlantic Council, the New England Council and the Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission. I'm honored to be invited
to testify this morning and I'm not representing anyone
specific and I'm slightly grateful for that.
I want to emphasize an overarching point and that is that,
in my opinion, the Magnuson-Stevens Act is working, and I can't
say that enough. The results of the 2006 reauthorization are
only just starting to be seen and that's a theme that I'm going
to repeat a couple of times as I go through this. I do not
believe MSA needs an overhaul. In fact, as you consider options
and proposals over this process you're undertaking, I'd ask you
to take extreme care because every single word that changed
guarantees us a legal challenge at some point, and every single
one of those legal challenges, in my opinion, delays rebuilding
and delays and causes more pain to fishermen on the other end.
Every time we're tied up in a court onshore, good management is
put aside, from any side, from any perspective. And so, changes
need to come slowly and carefully and I just want to urge that.
This being said, I absolutely see challenges in fisheries
management that I think Congress can and should consider
addressing. My good news to you this morning is that most of
those issues either come from incomplete implementation of the
Act; they come from failures in leadership, failures in
management, and in rare occasions, failures in science.
Recreational fishing is a national pastime, but it's also
an economic engine that is a major and growing source of jobs
in the United States. NOAA's own Fisheries Economics of U.S.
2011 found that recreational fishermen took over 70 million
trips in that year. To put that in perspective, the total
attendance at Major League Baseball games was 73 million.
Recreational fishing is as big as baseball.
My first marine fishing was done with my father and
brothers for winter flounder. I'm not surprised I'm the second
person talking about winter flounder. At times, I learned to
fish on the docks of Boston Harbor or we would go to the harbor
and we'd catch flounder with my dad and brothers. We'd watch
skiffs populate every corner of Boston Harbor that were rented
from buses from New York and New Jersey and Pennsylvania and
Ohio, and they came to fill five-gallon buckets with winter
flounder. Those fish collapsed, those buses stopped coming, and
the kids in the city of Boston no longer grew up fishing at the
Castle Island Pier for winter flounder. Eventually, we got some
striped bass, but at that time, there were no striped bass and
it's taken a long time for that fishery to come back. We've
only recently got some more quota. That fishery wasn't rebuilt
in 10 years. That fishery wasn't required to rebuild in 10
years because of the way Mr. McMurray brought it up. So even
though it is coming back, it's taking too long and it's
something that Congress might want to consider correcting.
The 2006 MSA reauthorization required a total restructuring
of recreational fisheries data is collected and analyzed. The
implementation of MRIP thus far has not gone well and is a long
way from being complete. State by state, stakeholders went
through the pain of instituting registries, deciding if they
wanted to take on a license in their state or go with the
Federal program, and we did that. Unfortunately, the first
experience under this new system and the promise of a 2006
Magnuson, the first experience of an updated data collection
program was a new analysis of the same old data from NMFS. We
didn't get the new data stream online first; we fixed the
analysis, which to many of us, seemed backward, and although
there may be some internal reasons that that happened, the
other end of that is that the public trust has been hurt yet
again, and people like myself who try and translate fisheries
management to recreational stakeholder groups, we struggle
greatly in trying to explain to somebody how we decided to
analyze things differently before we got the better data. It's
seven years later and even Massachusetts, which is a national
leader in collecting that recreational data, we're not really
online yet; we've just gone online in March of this year. So
the 2006 reauthorization needs to be implemented; it needs to
continue to be implemented.
My community easily understands ecosystem-based management.
Every child, every child is first taught: if you want to go
fishing, big fish eat little fish, and to catch fish, you find
the bait. That's not hard to understand, it really isn't, and
we want that. We want ecosystems protected; we want the
relationships between forage fish and predator fish to be
included in management plans.
I'm over time so I'm going to--if I could just read one
small thing, and that is just that I hope my overall message
has been that, as written, the Act does a good job in ending
overfishing. We have to complete the implementation of what's
gone on and we need to fast track ecosystem-based management. I
submitted an eight-page document where I expand on all of
these. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Paquette follows:]
Prepared Statement of Patrick Paquette, Recreational Fishing Advocate
Chairman Begich, Ranking Member Rubio, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to share my perspective on the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) in the
Northeast and Mid Atlantic regions. My name is Patrick Paquette and I
am a recreational fisherman from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Since my first job as a regular customer turned mate on Gloucester
Party boats fishing for New England groundfish, I have spent over
twenty years working in the many sub sections of the recreational
fishing industry. My experience includes working my way up the chain as
a mate, captain and owner of a small charter fishing vessel, working in
the development, sales and marketing of fishing tackle and writing
about both sport fishing and regional recreational fishing management
issues for a variety of media outlets. I have served in dozens of
volunteer and elected positions in the organized recreational fishing
community. More than a decade ago I became heavily engaged within the
fishery management system. My body of experience has lead me to work
with recreational fishing and beach access groups from North Carolina
to Maine seeking a balance between sound management and conservation
all aimed at benefiting the recreational fishing community.
I regularly attend meetings of both the New England and Mid
Atlantic Fishery Management Councils, in addition to the Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission. I have and continue to serve as an
advisor to various sub groups under each of these management bodies.
I am honored to be invited to testify this morning and do so
representing no specific organization. In this testimony, I'll cover
the unique importance of the recreational fishing community and the
challenges we face, and I'll discuss significant progress that could be
made without changing the law, and offer some thoughts I hope you keep
in mind as you begin the process of reauthorization.
The MSA is Working
I want to emphasize the overarching point that the Magnuson-Stevens
Act is working, the results of the 2006 reauthorization have only just
begun to take effect and any changes at this time should be given
extremely rigorous consideration. I am sure that today and through out
the process, the Subcommittee will hear about problems we face in the
Northeast and Mid Atlantic fisheries, but I think it's important to
recognize that progress has been made toward ending overfishing and
rebuilding many fish stocks is underway.
I do not believe the MSA needs an overhaul. In fact, as you
consider opinions and proposals, I urge you to approach this
reauthorization always keeping in mind the unfortunate reality that
each and every change, even to a single word, has the potential to
inspire costly legal challenges that can drag on for years. This legal
wrangling always frequently puts our fish stocks, our fishermen, and
the goal of ensuring consistent, healthy and sustainable long-term
fisheries further away from being realized.
This being said, I do see challenges in fisheries management that I
think Congress should consider during the process of reauthorizing the
Act. My good news to you this morning is that many of these issues are
the result of either incomplete implementation of the Act (specifically
the 2006 reauthorization) or failures of leadership, management and the
ability of strained resources preventing science from keeping up with
an increased change in our ocean environment rather than the problems
being found within the Act itself. I believe this is good news, because
it is much easier to repair the plumbing than to demolish and rebuild
the whole building.
The Value of Recreational Fishing in the Northeast
Recreational fishing is a national pastime, but it is also an
economic engine that is a major and growing source of jobs and income,
supporting small businesses along the coast. For too long, our
community has been underappreciated, our economic impact underestimated
resulting in our being underrepresented in Federal fisheries
management, and this has played out in both allocation decisions and a
lack of developing management strategies to manage our portion of
fisheries in a manner that is fair and makes sense.
The latest National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
``Fisheries Economics of the U.S. 2011'' report found that recreational
fishermen took over 70 million trips in 2011, which I think is probably
an underestimate. To put that in perspective, the entire Major League
Baseball attendance for the same year was around 73 million. In the
Northeast, 3.7 million anglers took 22.1 million fishing trips.
Recreational fishing jobs, income, sales, and the overall value it has
added to the U.S. economy have all increased significantly since 2008
despite downward national economic trends.
Each individual trip has much broader secondary impacts in terms of
income and jobs through associated businesses and industries including
boat sales and maintenance bait and tackle, even gas and food in
coastal communities. According to the NOAA report, in 2011 recreational
fishing added $1.1 billion in sales impacts in New England alone. In
the mid-Atlantic, the contribution was even larger, $3.8 billion in
sales impacts which was greater than the contribution of commercial
fishing.
Unfortunately, the council makeup in our regions does not reflect
this reality, so we often lose out in decisions. For example, past
allocations of quotas for many key species have become fossilized. We
need a more equitable distribution of stakeholders on councils.
Although this can be addressed without opening the Act, I fear Congress
may need to intervene to fix this imbalance of representation.
The Benefits of MSA Conservation Successes
Again, while I see room for improved implementation I want to
emphasize the law is working. The MSA's conservation requirements are
strong and smart, and the law is working to benefit our nation,
including millions of recreational saltwater fishermen like me. The
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) reported in its latest Status
of U.S. Fisheries that 32 previously overfished federally managed
stocks, like summer flounder and bluefish, have been rebuilt since
2000. While states played an important role in contributing to these
successes, the MSA was a driving force that instituted a science-based
approach to management in the Northeast, and it will accomplish far
more if it is fully implemented.
My first marine fishing was done with my father and brothers
fishing for winter flounder from the docks and piers of Boston Harbor.
We would watch busloads of anglers rent skiffs or hire charter vessels
in coastal communities like Quincy MA to fill buckets with winter
founder. These tourists populated hotel rooms and frequented seaside
businesses. As winter flounder stocks collapsed for many reasons, the
busses no longer came and the children of Boston no longer lined the
docks on a weekend afternoon. Due to many circumstances, it has taken a
long time to rebuild winter flounder but it is happening. In recent
years catch limits for winter flounder have increased. I am convinced
that without the MSA, this rebuilding would not be ongoing.
NMFS has said that the return on investment from rebuilding all
Federal stocks would be $31 billion in sales activity and 500,000 new
jobs. Many of these gains would be realized by recreational fishermen
and associated businesses. So I believe that Congress must heed these
successes and stay strong in its current commitment to ending
overfishing and restoring populations through science-based catch
limits based on well informed stock assessments coupled with reasonable
accountability measures that support robust rebuilding plans. We can,
nonetheless, improve on the current system--especially with regard to
the recreational sector.
A Changing Ocean
Fisheries in New England and the mid-Atlantic are changing at a
pace that is hard for someone not regularly on the water to understand.
To comply with the MSA, fisheries management must be able to keep up
with this new reality. The best example that I can provide is that in
the summer of 2012, black sea bass, a species associated with the Mid
Atlantic and Southern New England were encountered in surprisingly
catchable numbers in Boston Harbor, a place where previously it was a
news item when even one of these fish was caught. The spring and summer
of 2013 has seen both private anglers and for-hire operators actually
targeting black sea bass and while doing so, they are now catching
scup, another fish not known to be common north of Cape Cod. Another
example of this is that over the last month I have heard multiple
reports of cobia being caught in RI and southern MA waters.
I view these personal observations, in the context of recent
scientific studies, as irrefutable evidence that climate change or
ocean warming is affecting fisheries at a previously unseen rapid pace.
One important way managers can react to these kinds of changes is for
the management system to be producing timely catch data. The only
solution is to invest in recreational management and complete the
implementation of the 2006 required update to recreational data
collection so that the best possible science drives management,
adjustments can be made quickly, and accountability measures will be
based on reliable and timely data. Managers should not be asked to
choose between timeliness and accuracy of data. We need to make
decisions on better than three year old data and we must collect data
in the most accurate way possible. I understand this is an expensive
suggestion. My response to the obvious question is to urge you to take
a hard look at how much money is being spent on recreational fisheries
in the North East and Mid Atlantic and compare it with both the direct
and indirect economic impact of recreational fishing.
There is a fundamental difference between managing commercial and
recreational fisheries. Commercial fisheries effort and catch is more
predictable and easier to manage because it is based on how much fish
is taken from the ocean, usually done in pounds. Recreational catch and
more important to the scientific analysis, recreational fishing effort
is largely determined by availability of fish stocks or numbers of
fish. In essence, commercial fisheries require fish, while recreational
fisheries require the opportunity to catch fish. In that sense,
recreational fishery impact can seem less tangible--but as I explained
earlier there is hard data to suggest that recreational fishing has a
momentous effect on the economy. It may be appropriate to consider MSA
provide some direction that clarifies managers can use different tools
to approach this fundamental difference. Managers must have the ability
to address this difference across a comprehensive management plan
strategy as opposed to the current norm of picking some specific point
and doing a calculation that in almost every case sees negative
consequences for the recreational fishery. My view is that ability to
address these fundamental differences exists now, however an
institutionally the management system seems stuck in a ``this is how we
do it'' state of mind. Also preventing progress is a lack of
consideration of economic impacts and a lack of representation on
councils, which muffles fresh ideas before they are given serious
analysis, and consideration.
The Need for Improved Management of Recreational Fisheries
The 2006 MSA reauthorization recognized major problems in
recreational fishing management and required a total restructuring of
how recreational fisheries data is collected, how catch is monitored,
and how the results are analyzed. This new program was named the Marine
Recreational Information Program (MRIP). I submit to you that although
most state and local communities adhered to the program, the
implementation of MRIP thus far has not gone well and is a long way
from being complete. State by state, community by community, managers
and the public went through great pains implementing the MRIP's
required Federal registry which in most cases became a salt water
fishing license. While this was going on, NMFS focused on developing
new analytical methods.
Unfortunately, by choosing to develop the MRIP analysis methodology
before completing development of MRIP data collection methodology, the
first experiences of the recreational community under the new system
involved being presented with an updated way of looking at the same
data most agree is unreliable, and has failed independent scientific
review because it was never designed to be used for the kind of
management it was informing. Instead of building on the promise of the
reauthorized Act, the result was disappointment and a feeling that our
community was simply tricked into paying for the right to go fishing.
Without improved recreational data to provide the foundation, there
is no chance management will be able to make better decisions. No
amount of good will and outreach by NMFS will supercede our problems
with data reports that in some cases do not pass even a common sense
review.
My point is that damage has been done. A change to the Act will not
repair this damage. What will begin the long process of repairing the
recreational fishing communities trust is finishing implementation,
stabilizing the data collection methodology and getting new and better
data into the system. It is tough for me to consider changing a system
that is not yet online after seven years.
For my community, the rubber really meets the road when management
decisions get translated into accountability measures in the context of
the large amounts of uncertainty or imperfection of recreational catch
data. I can not repeat enough the reality that recreational fishing
effort fluctuates on both actual availability of fish to catch and on
the ability to catch fish. Councils definitely need to approach
accountability measures based on unique situations, and that
flexibility already exists in the MSA. With the exception of the
fundamental constraint of not allowing overfishing, the Act allows
plenty of opportunity for creative management strategies when it comes
to determining recreational annual catch limits and accountability
measures. It is wrong to tell a community it needs to pay a price after
adhering to measures established by management.
An example of this is that In June, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council (MAFMC) adopted an innovative new policy for
recreational accountability, where the Council's management response to
annual overages will take into consideration the health of the fish
stock and the quality of the data. This change was largely driven by a
looming crisis with black sea bass, which is rebounding in some areas
so that anglers are blowing through quotas. Even though the stock is
considered healthy, managers were faced with shutting down the 2014
season completely due to past overages. This problem was resolved
within the MSA's existing flexibility.
While I see stocks rebounding, severe underlying threats have not
been addressed, such as the destruction of fish habitat, increasing
temperatures and acidity of the sea, and the catch or bycatch of fish
with ecologically critical roles that just aren't factored sufficiently
into management strategies. I have spent a great deal of my time
building coalitions between recreational, small boat commercial, and
environmental organizations in order to improve fisheries management
and promote conservation. My experience is that the one common belief
among all of these very diverse and often adversarial communities is
that we need to move from single species management to something that
better accounts for the interconnected relationships between species
and the environment.
The Needed Transition to Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management
The transition to Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management (EBFM) must
be accelerated. In the recreational fishing community, most of us find
the concept of EBFM to be easily understood. When you are first taught
to fish, every child learns that big fish eat little fish. Once you are
old enough to fish on your own, the second lesson you learn is that to
catch fish, all you have to do is find the bait. It's a simple fact
that much of this bait--forage fish--serves as the linchpin for the
whole marine food web. It is this common sense truth that has led me to
dedicate many years to encouraging managers to look at forage species
with a special eye. These little fish are one major part of the
equation for the long-term success of our fisheries.
Bait or forage species are important locally both because of their
ability to draw in and increase the availability of predator species,
and also because of their role as food for valuable fish stocks. We can
never expect to rebuild and achieve healthy sustainable fisheries by
fishing down the food chain. And leaving more forage fish in the ocean
makes common sense, and it's also the right decision economically.
A reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Act should recognize the importance
of forage species by requiring that ecosystem functions be included in
scientific assessments and fishery management plans, and accounting for
the critical ecological role of forage fish and the needs of predators
when we set catch limits. We should require that plans to ensure these
values are protected are in place before forage fisheries are started
or expanded. Under the existing authority of the Act, Councils are
moving forward with developing policies to improve the management of
forage fish, but a legal requirement to do so would speed up this
process. Earlier this year, I attended a full day forage fish panel
organized by the MAFMC, which is being translated into a policy.
Unfortunately, other councils including the NEFMC are lagging behind.
We also need to do a better job of tending to fish habitat and
minimizing the wasteful bycatch of species of fish we aren't even
targeting. The MSA currently requires that this bycatch should be
minimized, and that essential fish habitat should be protected, but the
Councils and NOAA have done an inconsistent and often poor job of
achieving these important goals. Over the past few years the New
England Council & NMFS allocated a large amount of juvenile haddock to
the Atlantic Herring Fishery while and this year, two short years later
raised the minimum size of recreationally caught haddock to a point
where NMFS scientists developed a model that predicted recreational
catch of haddock was so unlikely that the recreational community did
not have to take the significant reductions being taken by the vessels
that harvest haddock for food. Essentially management has turned
apportion of haddock caught for food and private harvest into lobster
bait. This quite frankly is an outrage to small boat commercial
fishermen, for hire charter operators and private anglers alike, all
done in the name of preserving one industrial fishery that provides few
jobs and a small ecomomic impact.
Just last week NMFS rejected a community wide demanded action
passed by the New England Council to place 100 percent monitors and
limit dumping of unwanted catch over the side on industrial scale
herring harvesters. To their credit these harvesters had stepped up and
offered to pay for part of the monitoring costs. The NMFS lawyers have
a reason for deciding that what has been figured out in fisheries
managed by other councils and was passed by the NEFMC is not allowed in
New England. Once again I feel this is an issue of implementation and
NMFS leadership rather than in the Act itself but Congress may need to
strengthen protection of non target species so that we are getting the
most value out of our fisheries.
One way Congress can make these ecosystem safeguards a reality, and
consistent across the country, through the next MSA reauthorization
would be by requiring that broader fishery ecosystem plans be developed
and integrated into all individual fishery management plans. This way
Congress could ensure that such plans are in place to account for
current ecological impacts, and for consideration in future actions
before opening or expanding a forage fishery can take place.
These combined steps would add up to ensure that the species we
depend on for food and for recreation can rebound if overfished, and
that their populations are resilient enough to prosper for generations
into the future.
Conclusion
In conclusion I hope my overall message today has been that as
written the act does a good job ending overfishing and does not need
significant changes. I urge you to allow and even accelerate
implementation of the actions required in the prior reauthorization of
2006 and to add language that accelerates the transition from single
species management to a more ecosystem based system.
Thank you again for allowing me the honor of providing testimony
and I am available for questions.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Next up, we have Dr. John Boreman, Adjunct Professor,
Department of Biology, North Carolina State University.
Dr. Boreman.
STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN BOREMAN, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR, NORTH
CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Boreman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Markey.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today.
I'd like to focus my remarks on the scientific aspects of
the Magnuson-Stevens Act as they relate to establishment of the
acceptable biological catch, or ABC, recommendations, and
identify where adding language to MSA can help reduce
scientific uncertainty and bolster the scientific underpinnings
of ecosystem-based fisheries management.
Since the enactment of MSA reauthorization in 2006, our
SSC, which I chair, has worked with the Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council to establish ABC control rules and has
successfully implemented those rules for all the stocks managed
by the Council. Our rules are based on the amount of confidence
the SSC has and the information contained in the associated
stock assessments by using a four-level approach.
Unfortunately, all of the stocks managed by our council are
associated with the lowest two levels. This means that,
according to our control rules, the buffer between overfishing
limit and the ABC needs to be much larger because of the
greater amount of scientific uncertainty associated with the
assessments.
The problem that has led to the SSC's lower-level ratings
of the stock assessments is related to the poor quality of
input data used in the assessment models, not the quality of
the models themselves. Two of the principal sources of
scientific uncertainty in stock assessments and sources of
frustration for the SSC are inadequate spatial coverage of
surveys and inefficient or inappropriate survey gear.
Supporting expansion of industry-based cooperative surveys and
reauthorization of the MSA can help to address both of these
major sources of scientific uncertainty. Industry-based surveys
can complement the spatial coverage of ongoing fishery
independent surveys being conducted by the Northeast Fisheries
Science Center. The SSC would also like to see survey coverage
expanded further offshore, outside the current offshore extent
of the spring and fall bottom trawl surveys conducted by the
Center, particularly with regard to reducing the uncertainty in
stock biomass estimates for species like Atlantic mackerel and
spiny dogfish.
Employment of alternative sampling gears, such as traps and
long lines and mid-water trawls to complement the bottom
trawling gear used by the Northeast Center can also be
undertaken through the use of industry-based surveys. For
example, the Northeast Center's Cooperative Research Program
and the Mid-Atlantic Council's Research Set-Aside Program are
testing the use of traps deployed from industry vessels in
developing more robust stock assessment of stock biomass
estimates for scup and black sea bass.
In development of the new system of recreational fishing
surveys, known as MRIP, NOAA Fisheries is testing the use of
angler-generated catch information to complement collection of
information on recreational and other types of non-commercial
catch. A major drawback is that the angler-generated data, as
well as the data generated by industry-based surveys, need to
be collected in a statistically robust fashion or they cannot
be used. Reauthorization of the MSA can help in this regard by
allowing the commercial industry and non-commercial angling
community to work closely with NOAA Fishery scientists in
designing cooperative data collection programs that would yield
high quality information. Currently, this type of close
collaboration during the early stages of program development is
not possible due to constraints imposed by the grants process
within the Agency.
Forage fish species have become the poster children for
ecosystem-based fisheries management. In developing
recommendations for the Mid-Atlantic Council related to forage
species and ecosystem-system based management, our SSC has
discovered that the definition of a forage species varies
across the SSCs, as well as how each SSC accounts or does not
account for forage status in their ABC recommendations to their
fishery management councils. Reauthorization of the MSA can
clear up confusion and inconsistencies among the SSCs by
defining what constitutes a forage species and requiring that
ABC recommendations from the SSCs account for the importance of
forage species to the food web of the fish community.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I'm available
to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Boreman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. John Boreman, Adjunct Professor,
North Carolina State University
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Thank you
for the opportunity to testify before you today on science. My name is
John Boreman and I am an adjunct professor in the Department of Biology
at North Carolina State University. I retired from NOAA Fisheries at
the end of 2008, where my last two positions were as Director of the
Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) and Director of the Office
of Science and Technology. Since my retirement from NOAA, and in
addition to my faculty position at NC State, I have been Chair of the
Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) for the Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council (MAFMC), a Member of the SSC for the South Atlantic
Fishery Management Council (SAFMC), and Chair of the Executive Steering
Committee that overviews the development and implementation of NOAA's
new marine recreational fishing survey (MRIP). Also, I am currently
serving as president of the American Fisheries Society (AFS). AFS was
established in 1871 and is the world's oldest and largest professional
society dedicated to fishery science and management, with over 9,000
members in 64 countries.
Today, I would like to focus my remarks on the scientific aspects
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) as they relate to establishment of
the MAFMC SSC's acceptable biological catch (ABC) recommendations, and
identify where adding language to MSA can help reduce scientific
uncertainty and bolster the scientific underpinnings of ecosystem-based
fisheries management.
Since the enactment of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Reauthorization Act in 2006, our SSC has worked with the
MAFMC to establish ABC control rules and has successfully implemented
those rules for all the stocks managed by the MAFMC. Our rules are
based on the amount of confidence the SSC has in the information
contained in the associated stock assessments by using a four-level
approach. Level 1 assessments account for all major sources of
scientific uncertainty in the data sources and assessment methods.
Level 2 assessments account for most major sources of scientific
uncertainty and have a reliable estimate of uncertainty for the
overfishing limit. Level 3 assessments do not have a reliable estimate
of uncertainty for the overfishing level, but the SSC feels comfortable
using a proxy value. Finally, Level 4 assessments contain no reliable
estimates for key biological reference points, including the
overfishing limit. Many of the other SSCs have adopted similar rating
systems for information related to ABCs that is generated by stock
assessments. Unfortunately, all of the stocks managed by the MAFMC are
associated with either a Level 3 or Level 4 assessment. This means
that, according to our control rules, the buffer between the
overfishing limit and the ABC needs to be much larger because of the
greater amount of scientific uncertainty associated with the
assessment.
Support Expansion of Industry-Based Surveys
The problem that has led to the SSC's lower-level ratings of the
stock assessments for fishery species in the mid-Atlantic region is
related to the poor quality of input data used in the assessment
models, not the quality of the models themselves. Enhancing sampling
frequency in current fishery dependent and fishery independent surveys
can address some of the data quality issues, such as improving
estimates of bycatch-related fishing mortality. However, two of the
principal sources of scientific uncertainty in stock assessments are
inadequate spatial coverage and inefficient or inappropriate survey
gear. Supporting expansion of industry-based cooperative surveys in
reauthorization of the MSA can help to address both of these major
sources of scientific uncertainty.
Industry-based surveys can complement the spatial coverage of
ongoing fishery independent surveys being conducted by the NEFSC; the
Northeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program (NEAMAP) survey
conducted under the research set-aside program of the MAFMC is an
excellent example of how industry vessels are being used to sample near
shore in areas that are unreachable by the large NOAA survey vessels.
The SSC would also like to see survey coverage expanded further
offshore, outside the current offshore extent of the spring and fall
bottom trawl surveys conducted by the NEFSC, particularly with regard
to reducing the uncertainty in stock biomass estimates for species like
Atlantic mackerel, spiny dogfish, shortfin squid, and longfin squid.
Industry vessels could be used to expand the survey range.
Employment of alternative sampling gear, such as traps, longlines,
and midwater trawls, to complement the bottom trawling gear used by the
NEFSC, can also be undertaken through the use of industry-based
surveys. For example, the NEFSC's Cooperative Research Program and the
MAFMC's research set-aside program are testing the use of traps
deployed from industry vessels in developing more robust stock biomass
estimates for scup and black sea bass.
Promote Closer Collaboration between Industry and NOAA Fisheries
In development of the MRIP system of surveys, NOAA Fisheries is
testing the use of angler-generated catch information to complement
collection of information on recreational and other types of non-
commercial catch. Although using such information is appealing to the
fishing community, and would probably generate more ``buy-in'' to the
catch and effort estimates being generated through MRIP, a major
drawback is that the angler-generated information needs to be collected
in a statistically robust fashion or it cannot be used. The same
drawback applies to using data generated by industry-based surveys.
Reauthorization of the MSA can help in this regard by allowing the
commercial industry and non-commercial angling community to work
closely with NOAA Fisheries scientists in designing cooperative data
collection programs that would yield high quality data. Currently, this
type of close collaboration during the early stages of program
development is not possible due to constraints imposed by the grants
process within the agency.
Directly Address the Need to Conserve Forage Fish Species
Forage fish species have become the poster children for ecosystem-
based fisheries management. The MAFMC SSC is being encouraged by
outside groups to give forage fish a special status that would result
in a lower-than-normal ABC for forage fish that are directly managed by
the MAFMC (such as squids, Atlantic mackerel, and butterfish). Although
we are sensitive to the concerns of these groups, we have discovered
that the definition of a forage species varies across the SSCs, as well
as how each SSC accounts (or does not account) for forage status in
their ABC recommendations to the fishery management councils.
Reauthorization of MSA can help clear up confusion and inconsistencies
among the SSCs by defining what constitutes a forage species and
requiring that ABC recommendations from the SSCs account for the
importance of forage species to the food web of the fish community.
In closing, I have touched on three areas where changes to language
in the MSA can help reduce the scientific uncertainty in stock
assessments (and thus reduce the buffer between the ABC and the
overfishing limit) and help facilitate recognition of the implications
of ABCs directed at individual fishery stocks to ecosystem-level
impacts. Specifically, I am requesting that language in the
reauthorization of the MSA: (1) promote expansion of industry-based
surveys; (2) promote closer collaboration between the commercial and
non-commercial fishing interests and NOAA Fisheries; and (3) directly
address the need to conserve forage fish species.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I am available to
answer any questions you may have.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much.
Next, we have John--is it Weisserma?
Dr. Wiersma. Wiersma.
Senator Begich. Wiersma. Sector Manager, Northeast
Fisheries Sector. Please.
STATEMENT OF DR. JOSHUA B. WIERSMA, SECTOR MANAGER,
XI AND XII NORTHEAST FISHERIES SECTORS AND
PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NEW HAMPSHIRE
COMMUNITY SEAFOOD ASSOCIATION
Dr. Wiersma. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Markey
for this opportunity to testify before your subcommittee today.
My name is Joshua Wiersma. The testimony is about the
progress and ongoing challenges of transitioning to sustainable
fisheries in New England and about what tools and resources or
statutory refinements might be necessary to improve
conservation and management outcomes.
I began working for the commercial fishing industry in New
England in 2006 as an economist for the Massachusetts
Fishermen's Partnership while I was finishing up my Ph.D field
work in Gloucester. In 2009, I was hired as a sector policy
analyst for the Northeast Seafood Coalition to help them
organize New England fishermen into 12 harvesting groups called
sectors. The Northeast fishery sectors varied by geographic
region and gear type and I took a job in New Hampshire managing
the two New Hampshire sectors, NEFS 11 and NEFS 12. We are a
small day boat fleet of gill netters and small draggers. This
is now my fourth year as manager and things look much different
today than when I first started.
After my first year, the number of active boats fishing
dropped from 36 to 26; we are down to 14 this year after a
large series of cuts in our ACL, and 3 weeks ago, we were told
that our fishermen would no longer be able to land dogfish as a
result of the global market for dogfish crashing. So now, we're
down to four boats fishing right now as I speak. And when I
first started, things were bad and our first year, we qualified
for disaster relief, as we experienced a 38 percent reduction
in groundfish revenue via a new sector system. Today, that
first year looks really good. In short, the fishing industry in
New Hampshire and throughout New England is not OK today. We
are in a state of disaster. Immediately, we need disaster
relief aid for our fishermen to transition through this time
for us. We also need help establishing different programs so we
can sell surplus dogfish.
This testimony is based on my experiences helping to
transition the Northeast Groundfish Fishery from a system based
on effort controls to a system based on output controls. It may
not necessarily represent the viewpoints of my Board of
Directors, other sector members or organizations like the NSC.
I do believe that some progress has been made, but progress is
very fragile and we are by no means a sustainable fleet.
In terms of progress, the progress that has been made is
mostly in the infrastructural transition to sectors. Seventeen
sector groups were established and formed throughout New
England; all official 501(c)5 non-profit groups with a mission
to fish sustainability, at-sea monitoring, selection,
communication and execution has been more streamlined. Dockside
monitoring proved to have little to no utility and was
eliminated. Data management reporting is becoming more
electronic and streamlined but by no means real-time, and my
reporting has transitioned from once a month to once a week.
Ace trading markets have developed both internally and external
to sectors. Collaborative research projects are easier to
develop and execute through the organization of sectors. Risk
pooling behavior and bycatch hotspot reporting behavior is
evolving, which has been shown on the West Coast to be
beneficial to conserve low quota stocks, and there seems to be
an increased awareness about local seafood and traceability and
certification.
Here in New Hampshire, we've had a lot of support from our
representatives and Senators, especially recently. A thank you
to Senator Ayotte and Senator Shaheen for their continued
support on our many issues in New Hampshire, but we still have
many challenges ahead of us. Most important, our challenge is
due to the instability in ACL from year to year. These wild
fluctuations have not protected the resource, play havoc on the
lease prices of ACE, sometimes distorting the price so much
that it costs more to go fishing than it does to stay home.
Data collection, storage management and transmission is not
in real-time or automated and has been riddled with errors and
transcribing and the science used for fisheries management has
historically not included fishermen's observations or
information about their fishing effort.
Finally, fishermen are sacrificing healthcare and safety to
go to work in this most dangerous profession in the world, and
now our best fishermen are existing the fishery at an alarming
rate because even our best fishermen, the ones that our nation
needs fishing right now as stewards of this resource, can't
figure out how to make a business plan from year to year and
they can't figure out how much to invest in its future or how
much to invest in their family's future.
The reauthorization of Magnuson needs to include some level
of sustained stability so that fishermen stand a fair fight in
the battle to consolidate or not, and fish stand a fair fight
in the battle to rebuild or not. Specific recommendations
include: additional strategies added to Statute 304(e)(4)that
include fishing mortality rate-based strategies to
simultaneously prevent overfishing and rebuild overfished
stocks, but to do so in a time-frame that reflects prevailing
ecological and environmental conditions; the mandate to end
overfishing immediately should be replaced with a more rational
and smoother mechanism to end overfishing that would employ
step up or step down approach to achieving a new desired ACL;
expand collaborative fisheries research and management with a
focus on making it more industry-driven and research priorities
set by industry members along with scientists at the government
level; require more safety training for fishermen prior to
going to sea to participate in this most dangerous profession;
prioritize better healthcare and shore-side support aid for
fishermen; reprioritize our local seafood by establishing a
national sustainable fishery certification program so that any
fish caught in U.S. waters operating under Magnuson is deemed
sustainable; re-determine how cost recovery for at-sea
monitoring programs is recovered from sectors. I feel cost
recovery should be based on the same 3 percent level used for
the limited access privilege programs and levied on individual
sectors, not on the fishery as a whole. Mandate that
information has to flow in real time from vessel to dealer and
from the dealer to sector manager and the government
simultaneously. Real-time information about landings is
critically important to improve efficiency, reduce transaction
costs, trade ACE, manage quota and to create certainty in
traceability about catch that can be used as a new source of
marketing and branding.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify in front of you.
It has been my honor.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Wiersma follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Joshua B. Wiersma, Sector Manager, XI and XII
Northeast Fishery Sectors and President and Executive Director, New
Hampshire Community Seafood Association
Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank you
for this opportunity to testify before your Subcommittee today to
contribute to your oversight of the implementation of the Magnuson-
Stevens Reauthorization. My name is Joshua Wiersma. This testimony is
about the progress and ongoing challenges of transitioning to
sustainable fisheries management in New England, and about what tools,
resources, or statutory refinements might be necessary to improve
conservation and management outcomes.
Background
I began working for the commercial fishing industry in New England
in 2006 as an economist for the Massachusetts Fishermen's Partnership
while I was finishing up my PhD field work in Gloucester studying
fisheries economics. I learned quickly that fishermen are different
from academics. To adapt, I became a fisherman-economist. As a
fisherman-economist I espoused the benefits of tradable fishing rights,
LAPPs, fishing cooperatives and risk pools--but was also willing to
question these ideas when the actual playing field didn't fit their
applications, or when I started to meet fishermen who were going out of
business who shouldn't be.
I worked at the Massachusetts Fishermen's Partnership between 2006
and 2009 just as the major changes in Magnuson like annual catch limits
(ACLs), accountability measures (AMs), and sectors were being discussed
and developed. After that, I was hired as a Resource Economist by the
Northeast Seafood Coalition (NSC) in 2009 just in time to help organize
New England fishermen into twelve harvesting groups, called
``sectors''.
To do this, fishing leaders were invited from different fishing
regions though out New England for a year-long series of meetings to
recruit and organize members, develop operating plans and harvesting
strategies, complete environmental assessments, and completely overhaul
the data collection and reporting infrastructure.
What resulted from the series of meetings and workshops at the NSC
was a network of twelve sectors (NEFS Sectors), varied by geographic
region and gear type, but tied together through membership to the NSC
and to another newly formed entity, the Northeast Sector Service
Network (NESSN). The day after NMFS approved operations plans for the
NEFS Sectors on April 30, 2010, I began work as the manager for two of
these twelve NEFS Sectors (NEFS 11 and 12). NEFS 11 and 12 are official
non-profit 501(c)5 entities. We have a board of directors comprised of
commercial fishermen and fishermen's wives, and we have a set of by-
laws that can be amended from time to time. My sector members are
smaller day boat gill netters and small draggers, who generally make
their living fishing inshore Gulf of Maine waters.
This is now my fourth year as manager for the New Hampshire sectors
and things look much different today than they did when I first
started. The fishing industry in New Hampshire and throughout New
England is not OK today. We are in a state of disaster!
This testimony is based on my experiences helping to transition the
northeast groundfish fishery to be sustainable through the creation and
implementation of sector management. It may not necessarily represent
the viewpoints of my board of directors, other sector members, or other
organizations. I will attempt to highlight some of the most important
obstacles and challenges dealing with the new ACLs and AMs, and
reference those challenges to New Hampshire. Finally, I will recommend
changes to make the Magnuson act more flexible, so that it can better
deal with and give guidance on complex bio-economic issues.
The day NMFS approved our 2010-2011 Final Operations Plans for
sectors, over fishing ended, or so we thought. We were now constrained
to a hard ACL on 16 different groundfish stocks. Since then, fishermen
and sector managers have been learning how to navigate through all of
the new regulatory change and new reporting requirements intended to
satisfy the new AMs and ACLs. They have never exceeded a catch limit,
but overfishing is still occurring because harvesting advice has not
been accurate.
Fishermen have had to learn a completely new language based on ACLs
and AMs, and spoken in terms of annual catch entitlement (ACE) and
potential sector contribution percentage (PSC percent). They had to
start thinking about fish in terms of live lbs rather than landed lbs
because ACE is allocated in live wt. The net effect for a species like
cod for example, is that a fisherman now lands 100 lbs of cod, but 117
lbs will be deducted from his allocation of ACE because it is converted
back into live wt. at the docks.
This conversion is required. It is part of the accountability
measures needed to ensure that the fishery stay under a hard ACL for
that stock, which is calculated using the live weight estimates of a
stocks biomass. To this day, I have to clarify to fishermen whether or
not I'm talking in live or landed lbs. It makes a big difference.
Fishermen also had to learn how to fish with zero regulatory discards.
To me, this transition seemed the most natural to many fishermen. Most
fishermen will tell you that the worst part about effort controlled
management was the legal requirement to discard perfectly good fish at
sea.
Progress has been made, and I will briefly describe some of the
most important progress that I've seen in New England, and then relate
that to New Hampshire. But I should also caution that progress is very
fragile, and we are by no means a stable, sustainable fleet right now.
I should also note that most of the progress that I refer to is
progress in terms of the structural transition to sectors, but in
regards to progress becoming a sustainable fishery--we are not close.
New tools are needed to give Magnuson more flexibility to deal with
dynamic changes in the ecosystem that may cause havoc in one part of
the ocean, but leave another part untouched. New statutes are needed to
end arbitrary rebuilding timelines, and new resources are needed to
help our fishermen and our communities become more professional as
fishermen, as public educators, and as scientific partners.
Progress to Date
Establishment of 17 sector groups throughout New England,
whose membership represents approximately 99 percent of the
total history of groundfish landings. In NH, our two sectors
are comprised of 54 multispecies fishing permits, collectively
owned by 36 individuals, who together represent 100 percent of
the Federal ground fishing industry.
A market place for ACE trading has developed, both internal
to sectors and between sectors. Trading allows us to maximize
the value of our portfolio of allocated fish. In New Hampshire,
fishermen prefer to buy and sell ACE with one another and to
generally keep their fishing rights in New Hampshire. The
rights of first refusal language written into our membership
agreements give us an opportunity to do this.
Fishermen are learning how to be much more selective at sea.
Because we must stop fishing for all stocks if we run out of
allocation of one stock, fishermen must utilize all of their
combined ecological knowledge to help one another fish more
selectively. In New Hampshire, I have seen much higher level s
of information sharing and communications develop though the
years.
Data collection and reporting has transitioned from once a
month to once a week. Accuracy and precision in landings has
dramatically increased. My weekly reports are reviewed and
compared to NMFS own weekly reports every week, and we often
meet to reconcile even small differences.
At sea data gathering, communication, and transmission are
becoming much more advanced. Electronic Vessel Trip Reports
(VTRs) are replacing paper VTRs, and fishermen are starting to
use real time, wireless applications at sea to document by-
catch hot spots. In New Hampshire, about half of our fishermen
now use E-VTR, and we have entered into a pilot project with
the Gulf of Maine Research Institute to test a by-catch
reporting hot spot tool for harbor porpoise sightings.
A series of both federally funded and private permit banks
have been developed to coincide with sectors. Permit banks can
have an impact of the price and availability of permits for
fishermen, but can also benefit local communities and sector
members if used to help keep traditional fishing permits in the
community. In NH, our members have generally benefited from the
existence of three separate permit banks--(1) a state
sponsored/NOAA permit bank run through New Hampshire Fish and
Game, (2) a sector permit bank comprised of NH sector permits
run by myself and my board of directors, (3) a ``collaborative
research'' permit bank comprised of permits owned by the Nature
Conservancy, who lease their ACE to fishermen that want to do
collaborative research or fish more selectively.
Risk pooling behavior has started to develop amongst sector
members. For example, via sectors, two fishermen can
effectively pool their allocations of low ACE species together
to give both fishermen a better chance of catching more of
another species. This type of behavior can be very informal,
and can require nothing more than a phone call to tell me to
say, ``Hey Josh, Neil's going to fish off my dabs this week in
case he runs out . . . he may give me some black backs later .
. .'' These types of behaviors are important for a fishery
transitioning to sustainable. It essentially creates de-facto
insurance policies for low quota fish--increasing the
likelihood that ACL for these stocks will not be overfished.
At sea monitoring increased to a high of 32 percent the
first year of sectors, but has been required around 25 percent
over the last three years. Still, this is an increase from 8
percent observer coverage in 2009. Fishermen have made much
progress transitioning to at sea observers on their vessels,
and now have to coordinate trips with observers through a
robust system of pre-trip notification, developed to randomly
assign observer coverage--but in practice has seemed to be
biased.
Sectors as entities can receive creative financing and low
interest loans to do important economic development and
biological conservation work. For example, our NH Sectors
received a grant to purchase 800 new generation acoustic
deterrent devices called ``pingers''. We were able to partner
on this purchase with NEFS 4 (the Gloucester Preservation Fund
Sector), and the Gulf of Maine Research Institute through their
GEARNET collaborative research program. Together, we purchased
4800 new generation pingers--enough to over haul the entire
gill net fishing fleet. This has been the largest pinger
purchasing program in the world to date.
New Hampshire Community Seafood Program
An increased awareness about local seafood and local fishermen is
evolving. I believe the coordination and organization of sectors, which
has allowed fishermen to come together more often as a group, also
allows them to think of different and creative ways to add value to
themselves and to their fishery. For example, in New Hampshire, we
started a community supported fishery (CSF) called New Hampshire
Community Seafood. Our intent was to highlight our fishermen, share
their stories, but most importantly share our seafood direct from the
boat to their plate. We have found that a tremendously receptive market
for this, and not just for ``high value'' species like cod and haddock,
but also for things like ``day boat'' dogfish and whiting--two
traditionally low valued stocks.
In New Hampshire, we are trying to address the fishery crisis by
increasing the recognition and appreciation of the interdependent roles
that the fishing industry and the consumer play in our local ecological
economy. In doing so, we hope to provide local fishermen a fair market
for all the species they catch and to provide the consumer with access
to a wide variety of fresh locally caught seafood throughout the year,
better insight into the supply chain that brings seacoast seafood to
their table, and direct input about the choice and diversity of fish
they consume.
The cultivation and nurturing of this direct relationship between
local fishermen with local consumers is intended to increase demand for
local seafood, to promote community awareness and engagement in marine
resource issues, and to support our local and regional economies
through the preservation of the livelihoods of local fishermen and the
supporting of shore-side support infrastructure.
Challenges
We have made improvements in transitioning to a sustainable
fishery, but like I mentioned before, most of the improvements have
been structural successes in the implementation of sectors. The core
challenges that we now face threaten to wipe away entire sectors and
fishing communities. We can't have a fishery without fishermen. And we
can't have a healthy ecosystem without fishing and without robust
markets for all the fish that we catch. For example, the domestic
market for spiny dogfish crashed in 1995 when the Federal government
completely shut down the fishery. Even though the stock has recovered
to Marine Stewardship Certification standards, the domestic market
never really recovered.
For the last three weeks fishermen who land dogfish in New
Hampshire and Massachusetts have been unable to go to work. Dogfish
processors are back loaded, and the European market has apparently
crashed. So, just in these last three weeks and even at 17 cents a
lbs., the economic impact of this has already been in the millions of
dollars to fishermen and their communities. This has especially
affected the smaller inshore vessels, like mine, who annually depend on
their inshore dogfish revenue this time of year to support their annual
fishing plan. If fishermen can't land dogfish right now, they can't
fish. Not much else gets caught in their nets now, and nobody wants to
spend all day picking out fish just to throw them back.
This situation is so wasteful. Dogfish can be delicious if
processed correctly. If bled and iced at sea, their meat maintains a
tremendous quality--white, firm and sweet. Our fishermen sell some of
their ``day boat'' dogfish filets to our CSF members at $12 per lbs. We
call it ``day boat'' dogfish because of the special way it was pre-
processed to preserve its freshness and quality. People tell us it
might be their favorite fish now. And yet, on a global level no market
exists. How is this possible?
I say this to highlight the importance of allowing both the
industry time to adapt to new markets, and to highlight the importance
of creating new markets for sustainable, healthy fish stocks, while we
give time to some of the more critical groundfish stocks to recover. We
need some time to educate our citizens about new markets, about new
fish, and about new management. We need help promoting our brand as
certified United States Sustainable. We need resources to help
fishermen make the transition to different markets or to transition to
new technology and ultimately a new way of fishing, and of thinking
about fish.
Here in New Hampshire, we have had a lot of support from our
representatives and senators. We are especially thankful to Senator
Ayotte and Senator Shaheen for their continued bi-partisan support and
recognition of the proud tradition of fishing in New Hampshire, and of
the critical issues that we face here--especially as group of small
family run businesses. Senator Ayotte has advocated for us since I've
been manager, and has recently helped address the dogfish crisis by
supporting an effort for New England fishermen to work with the USDA
farm aid program to buy surplus supply. Senator Shaheen has also been
very supportive of our New Hampshire fishing industry, and just
recently was instrumental in appropriating much needed disaster relief
money for our industry, which was declared a Federal fishery disaster
by the Secretary of Commerce last winter.
We have a number of challenges ahead of us. If these challenges are
not addressed via the reauthorization of Magnuson, I believe the
fishery will be playing catch up for years to come and may never fully
recover. The most important challenge has to do with the instability in
ACL from year to year, and the inability of Magnuson to deal with
changes in ACL that are orders of magnitude larger than what would have
been predicted six years ago. Wild fluctuations in ACL from year to
year have not protected the resource, and instead play havoc on the
lease prices of ACE--sometimes distorting the ACE price so much that it
costs more to go fishing than to stay home.
Specific Challenge Issues
Rapid consolidation of the fishery. Consolidation is
occurring at a rate that is not sustainable or healthy for
either the community or the resource. Consolidation is a
natural consequence of catch share programs, but it should be
more gradual and at pace with true shadow value of fishing.
Problems arise because extreme changes in ACL from year to year
distort the true opportunity cost of fishing. In New Hampshire,
the number of active fishing boats has consolidated down from
26 four summers ago to 4 this summer. This is a direct result
of wild swings in the ACL from year to year.
Rapid swings in the dynamics of ecosystems. We are
experiencing a series of strange phenomena in the ocean that
most fishermen contribute to abnormal environmental conditions.
These rapidly changing conditions are more problematic under
the confines of single stock management because fisheries
managers are too constrained trying to maximize one stock at
the expense of the group.
Data collection, storage and management have to be in real
time. We have been managing a hard TAC fishery with soft TAC
data for four years. Information has to flow in real time from
the vessel to the dealer, and from the dealer to the sector
manager and government. It is tremendously inefficient to
manage a real time fishery with week old data. Real time
information about landings is critically important to improve
efficiency, reduce transactions costs, and to gain certainty
and traceability about catch that can be used as a new source
of marketing and branding.
Instable prices for seafood and high competition with
imports. Catch share management is supposed to benefit
fishermen by restoring some stability to seafood prices.
Generally, this stability is supposed to result in higher
prices and lower landings. However, when the year to year cuts
in ACL are as high as 80 percent for a primary stock like cod,
seafood buyers and processors will look elsewhere to take its
place. Processors can now import a fileted cod product from
Iceland and Norway; unfrozen, and delivered to their door the
day after catch at a cheaper rate than if they bought it
domestically. This trend can't continue.
Non-transparent market for buying, selling, and trading ACE.
Because ACE is not considered a property right of individual
fishermen, the government does not have to track ACE trades on
an individual level. Although this has provided some privacy
benefits, it has also resulted in a marketplace with no central
clearinghouse that fishermen can go to in order to gather
information about ACE prices, or to lease, sell or trade ACE.
ACE postings are generally done by e-mail between sector
managers, who then forward the information on to members.
No plan for industry to pay for at sea monitoring. Fishermen
in New England were supposed to pay for their own at-sea
monitoring coverage starting in 2012 after the transition to
sectors. This has yet to happen, in large part because of the
continuous cuts and costs to fishermen associated with other
aspects of sector management. Also, debate still exists as to
whether we should be gathering more precise data or more
accurate data. In terms of distributing costs more equitably,
it is better to have more accurate data, as costs would then be
proportional to landings--and hence less regressive.
Fishermen are sacrificing their health insurance and their
safety as a way to cut costs and continue to participate in
this fishery. Only 10 percent of all active fishermen have ever
completed a basic safety training course, when every study
shows that it saves lives. We are losing a standard of
professionalism and pride as fishermen, and that needs to be
restored.
Current Status of the Fishery
It's been four years since sector management started, and the
fishing industry has not exceeded the hard annual catch limit set for
any of the 16 different groundfish stocks. In fact, contrary to public
perception, the commercial fleet has remained at or below the target
annual catch limits even prior to ACLs/AMs being implemented. Still,
the results of stock assessments continually show that mortality goals
are not being met, and as a result, estimated ACLs change by as much as
80 percent from year to year, and in the case of Pollock by 600 percent
mid-year! Now our best scientists admit that they have very little
faith in their current models to predict and forest future stock size.
If we can't accurately predict stock sizes, we can't provide harvesting
advice.
And now our best fishermen are exiting the fishery at an alarming
rate, because even our best fishermen--the ones our nation needs
fishing to serve as stewards of this resource--can't figure out how to
make a business plan from year to year, and therefore can't figure out
how much to invest in its future, or how much to invest in their
families future. The reauthorization of Magnuson needs to provide tools
to allow some level of sustained stability in management so that the
fishermen stand a fair fight in the battle to consolidate or not--and
so fish stand a fair fight in the battle to rebuild or not.
Recommendations to Improve Magnuson
1. Additional strategies should be added to the statute 304 (e) (4)
that include a fishing mortality rate based strategy. Such a
strategy for example, achieves by definition the two principle
goals of the MSA--to prevent overfishing and to rebuild
overfished stocks. But, it allows rebuilding to occur over a
time frame that reflects prevailing ecological and
environmental conditions.
2. The mandate to end over fishing immediately should be replaced
with a more rational mechanism to end over fishing that would
employ a ``step down'' or ``step up'' approach to achieving a
new desired ACL. For example, if the change in ACL from an old
ACL to a new ``target'' ACL is large, then the reduction (or
increase) in ACL should be annually capped at some level not to
exceed a 20 percent change from the previous year's ACL.
3. Multiple mandates to end or prevent overfishing have made it
impossible to utilize tools like ``mixed-stock exception
clause'' so that overfishing could continue on some stocks even
if it means that the threshold criterion regarding rebuilding
requirements may not be met. The statutory definition of
fishery at MSA (3)(13) may provide a basis for future treatment
of this issue so that the mixed stock exception could be used
as intended--to allow the fishery and community to survive via
healthy stocks while an unhealthy stock simultaneously
rebuilds.
4. Expand collaborative fisheries research and management with a
focus on making it more industry-driven. Research priorities
should be set by close consultation with commercial fishermen,
and renewed efforts to utilize existing and to integrate new
data sets into traditional science and management models needs
to occur. Collaborative fisheries initiatives need to be
directly tied into stock assessments.
5. The fishing world operates as a bio-economic system, where
management changes that affect the biology also affects our
economy and changes our community. National Standard 8 requires
managers to seriously consider these tradeoffs prior to policy.
This does not often happen, as managers are always playing
catch up to changes in the fishery and stock assessments, and
economists are always playing catch up to changes in management
and policy. The intent of Magnuson should be to protect both
the resource and the resource user.
6. Require more safety training for fishermen prior to going to sea
to participate in the most dangerous profession in the United
States. Prioritize better health care and shore side support
and aid for fishermen. Begin to transition our fishery to one
that relies once again on professional, well-trained fishermen.
7. Re-prioritize our local seafood by establishing a National
Sustainable Fishery Certification Program so that any fish
caught in U.S. waters by a boat participating under the strict
rules of Magnuson is considered sustainable. United States
seafood should be promoted as the gold standard for the world,
and domestic markets have to be developed. Promote local
markets and branding efforts, and encourage the development of
community supported fisheries where fish flows direct from
local boat to local consumer.
8. Re-determine how cost recovery for at sea monitoring programs is
recovered from sectors. Cost recovery for sectors should be
based on the same 3 percent level used for cost recovery in
Limited Access Privilege Programs and be levied on individual
sectors, not the fishery as a whole.
9. Information has to flow in real time from the vessel to the
dealer, and from the dealer to the sector manager and the
government simultaneously. Real time information about landings
is critically important to improve efficiency, reduce
transactions costs, trade ACE, manage quota, and to create
certainty and traceability about catch that can be used as a
new source of marketing and branding.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify before you
today. It has been my honor. I sincerely appreciate your time and
thoughtful consideration on these important issues related to
transitioning to, and sustaining a sustainable fishery.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much. Thank you for all of
your testimony.
Let me just say two quick things, I'll turn to Senator
Markey for his questions. First, I know I said on the
Appropriations Committee we were able to put at this point in
the Commerce Committee's Subcommittee report $150 million for
disaster relief for fisheries failures in the Nation; we'll see
how that fares as it goes through the process. And second,
interesting to note and I think Senator Markey would agree with
this, we debated a House bill or a farm bill on this side and
the House debated a farm bill; if we were to call it a fish
bill, we would all be so pleased.
In many ways, as you sort of talked about when you had the
dogfish surplus, if that was on land, we'd give you a subsidy
to make sure you're taken care of. When you have a shortage,
we'd call it a drought on land; in fisheries, we just call it
emergency. So it's an interesting difference. The only
difference is we harvest from the sea; farming is harvested
from the land. It is still a food supply and food for this
country and so it's an interesting debate that every meeting
that I have, every hearing I have, I try to bring this to
people's attention that I'm singing to the choir and the bottom
line is, again, we harvest from the sea; farmers from the land
and the difference is just where it is. Other than that, it
feeds this country and feeds this world and so we have to
create an equalization here between our on-land and off-land or
in-sea food supply for this country.
So it's just a commentary I always like to make because I
think we get all those economic issues if this was a--if we
were on the Ag Committee right now, we'd have 20 programs
solving that problem, making sure you're continuing the fish or
if you were doing sugar, wheat, corn, you know, I can go
through the list, so let me turn to Senator Markey for his
questions and then if there's time, I'll have a couple
questions, if not, I'll submit mine for the record, only
because we have a vote at noon.
Senator Begich. Senator Markey.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I remember growing up, when we had tuna fish, the company,
its slogan was ``Chicken of the Sea.''
Senator Begich. That's right.
Senator Markey. Brand tuna.
Senator Begich. That's right. Not Chicken of the Land,
Chicken of the Sea.
Senator Markey. No, Chicken of the Sea. You know, I'm just
showing how--pretty much the same deal.
Yes, whether it be fish or chicken, and here, we just find
a way of treating them differently though, as you're saying:
one is subject to drought and should be given emergency relief
and the fishermen not considered in the same way.
So I appreciate the testimony from our witnesses today and
the issues they have raised. There appear to be some areas of
agreement and I think it makes sense to focus on them as we
undertake the reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens and I have a
list here of five that seems to be in agreement.
One, additional support for ecosystem management. Two,
taking into account forage fish, those fish that are at the
base of the food chain, the need for more timely, improved and
cooperative science, more transparent and timely sharing of
fishing data and the possibility of a national sustainable
fishery certification. So I think it's important for us to
focus on those areas that are all in agreement so that we can
ensure that they are in any legislation as we move forward.
Mr. Muto?
Mr. Muto. Muto.
Senator Markey. Excuse me?
Mr. Muto. Muto.
Senator Markey. Muto. Muto. Mr. Muto, I know you're working
with the Fisherman's Alliance and you're working to find
creative solutions for fishermen to the daunting challenges
which they're facing. One encouraging possibility is to expand
the domestic market for dogfish. Can you tell me what is being
done to expand the demand for dogfish and how could this
committee help?
Mr. Muto. Quite honestly, dogfish is one of the only things
we have left in Chatham, and as of the last day or two, we're
not even sure if we have that; I'm waiting to see what happens
when I go home.
But I do know that those 40 million pounds of quota that
are our dogfish fishery, they need to come out of the ocean and
quite honestly, at some sort of an appropriations, even at 30
cents a pound, a ``small,'' $12 million, could afford to pay
for fishermen to go to work and harvest those fish out of the
ocean, which could have a rippling effect to also increase the
groundfish quota; it removes predators from the ocean, it
removes an apex predator, somewhat of a predator to forage
stocks, to codfish, to other fisheries, it removes them from
the ocean. When they cut the dogfish back drastically years
ago, we ran into a problem where they were just overrunning the
ocean; they were destroying everything and, I mean, I think
that's one thing to consider in making sure that we can remove
these species from the ocean, and I think possibly a large USDA
buy of our domestic dogfish and putting it deeper into domestic
markets could really put a lot of guys back to work and show
some glimmer of hope for commercial fishermen up and down the
coast.
Senator Markey. Thank you.
Mr. Paquette, in your testimony, you mentioned that winter
flounder stocks are now rebuilding. How do the requirements to
end overfishing and to rebuild an overfished fishery operate
together to ensure that fishermen can maximize the harvest of
healthy species?
Mr. Paquette. I'm sorry, Senator, could you repeat the
question? I didn't quite understand the way you asked it.
Senator Markey. The bottom line is, what do the
requirements to end overfishing combined with ensuring that the
overfished fishery operates together as part of a rebuilding
process do in order to ensure that something like winter
flounder stocks are in fact now something that are rebuilding
successfully?
Mr. Paquette. I think winter flounder is an interesting
example, and obviously, why I put it in. It was a stock that I
watched crash growing up. For various reasons, I'm not in the
business of blame today. And in my opinion, they took too long
to come back, but they have built and I believe that one of the
reasons they took too long is because there is a difference in
translating Magnuson language, overfishing and stock status
language with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
and it's a little bit of a complex problem, but we see in
summer flounder is sort of like another which was held to the
rebuilding standard of 10 years, that summer flounder rebuilt a
lot faster than anybody thought; it was also given a chance to
rebuild. I believe that species that we do the work on and that
we don't, one way or another, push the pause button on
rebuilding, I think we see it benefit us economically and jobs-
wise. And in high school, I worked on Gloucester cod boats and
I can remember we got better tips when haddock came over the
rail; haddock was the superstar at the time for us. Haddock
today have been turned into lobster bait because of bycatch and
industrial fisheries. We've seen cod stocks fall and if we
don't have some limit--rebuilding didn't really happen until
after it was made mandatory. When it was sort of, what was the
word, optimum in the law? At earlier versions of Magnuson, when
rebuilding wasn't mandatory and didn't set a limit on it, we
didn't really rebuild; we tried, but we were never really
successful at it. We've only seen the number of stocks that are
rebuilding, and there are some that aren't and there's
definitely, I have a lot of talk in my testimony about
ecosystems and climate change and how it's hurting and how we
have to get a handle on it, but it's clear that we have to
allow Magnuson to work and I need to be forced as a fisherman
to follow the rules.
Senator Markey. Thank you, sir. Thank you, all of you, so
much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much, and again, I'll have
some questions for the record, but Mr. Muto, let me ask you a
quick question, just back on the--to follow up on Mr. Markey's
question in marketing, because one thing that hasn't been
mentioned actually interestingly enough in the two panels is
when you have an overabundance, one of the things I know,
Alaska, what we did, I mean, when we had dogfish, today, you
eat them as--not you, but your pets--eat them as ``Yummy
Chummies.''
Mr. Muto. Yes.
Senator Begich. We repackaged them and made them into a
different product. We get two and a half, probably three times
what the value is, what it should be if it was just sold at the
market because we thought of a different way of repacking. It
used to be you'd get salmon strips in a cellophane-wrapped bag;
now, you get it as salmon jerky, you pay more for it.
Marketing, marketing, marketing. But I didn't hear anyone
mention that and I'm just curious, and I know the vote has
started, so I only have a couple minutes and so I just, to me,
when I think of dogfish, if you have an oversupply, as we did,
well, first off, no one likes to buy fish called dogfish, it
just doesn't excite them, so like I said, we called it
something different and we repackaged it and I guarantee you,
we sell more of that product, bycatch for us, than ever before
and make a lot of money on it, especially because we have not
only a raw product, but we've turned the raw product into a
finished product, so I think that's where part of, I think,
Senator Markey was getting to, is there something more we can
do, and I'm going to--I want to ask all four of you, but I'm
going to go right to the economist because in theory, that's
what you do, you look at markets, and so I'm just curious if
that is something that comes up in your discussion with the
regions.
Dr. Wiersma. Yes. Yes, exactly and I mention it in my
written testimony. One of the things that we've done in New
Hampshire is started a what we call the community-supported
fishery and what that is, is it's basically, if you're familiar
with a farm share where people sign up for a weekly share of
the farmer's catch, what they've signed up for is a weekly
share of our fish.
Senator Begich. Right.
Dr. Wiersma. And we include that fish dogfish, only we
called it day boat dogfish because our fishermen are cutting it
at sea, they're bleeding it, they're brining it and they're
bringing in a completely differentiated product, a product that
allows us to give them $1.50 per pound at the dock relative to
the 17 cents a pound they get when they try to sell it to the
global market. You know, this has been extremely positive; our
feedback we've got from our members said that it's some of the
best fish they've ever eaten, and so, in my mind, when I think
the global market for dogfish has crashed, yet I'm selling
fillets for $12 a pound to the local people in New Hampshire,
it doesn't make sense to me and so----
Senator Begich. You're getting someone very excited here on
the--I have feeling you're going to have a conversation----
Dr. Wiersma. We had a conversation----
Mr. Muto. Yes, we talked about this ahead of time; we were
trying to coordinate our teams.
Senator Begich. He's going to go home tonight and ship it
to New Hampshire.
Dr. Wiersma. Yes, well, we have our own dogfish. I mean,
we're trying to develop that market, you know, it's a slow
process, but it can't crash completely, you know, as we make
that transition to taking greater ownership of that resource
and to rebrand it and to remarket it. You know, I don't want to
change the name from dogfish; I think we can make it cool. We
just need to give the time to do that for us.
Senator Begich. Let me ask, and maybe you all just nod yes
or no because I've got to close this off because of the vote.
Do you think we need to make sure in Magnuson-Stevens we do
have commentary or concern or even language in there to talk
about the marketing of our seafood products, not only locally,
but internationally? Does anyone disagree with that, I guess?
OK. It might be a little mixed, I see, but the bottom line is,
we shouldn't not exclude marketing, but it should be something
we should think about. OK.
Let me end there and just say--how many days are we going
to keep this open?
Voice. Two weeks.
Senator Begich. Two weeks? We'll keep the record open for 2
weeks for other members to submit questions for the record for
response. I have some that I'll submit for the panel here
because of our time delay.
Senator Begich. But I do want to thank all of you who are
on the ground, literally, in the water, finding out what we
need to be doing and changes we need to have. The common theme
is that don't make drastic changes, but there are some tweaks
clearly that we need to make, and I think Senator Markey laid
out five of them that he summarized that he's heard and I have
some, too, so again, thank you all very much for your
testimony. This is one of a series that we'll be doing
regarding the fisheries around our country, so as we move to
reauthorization, we totally look at it from a holistic
standpoint, not just one region versus another region.
Thank you all very much. This meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:07 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
Arlington, VA, August 15, 2013
Hon. Mark Begich,
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard,
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Marco Rubio,
Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard,
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Chairman Rockefeller and Ranking Member Thune:
I am Robert Beal, Executive Director of the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission (Commission). The Commission is comprised of the
fifteen Atlantic coastal states and carries out a diverse array of
programs for its members with the goal of restoring and sustaining
Atlantic coastal fisheries. The Commission provides a forum for
interstate cooperation on fisheries that cross state borders and thus
cannot be adequately managed by a single state. Congress authorized the
Commission in 1942; and granted us increased management authority in
1984 with the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act, and again in 1993
with the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act.
Since 1984, the Commission has restored many Atlantic coastal
species and initiated the dialogue to address the emerging
opportunities and ongoing challenges that exist for improved
stewardship. As the Committee undertakes the task of reauthorizing the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, it can do so with the confidence that its
leadership on this and other legislation has given the states and the
Federal agencies the tools and determination to continue working toward
fishery resource conservation successes.
Since its enactment in 1976, each reauthorization of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act has built upon past successes and altered programs to
address emerging issues when necessary. Roughly six and a half years
after the 2007 Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act was implemented we
have another opportunity to clearly observe the new fishery management
structure and how it is working in the real world. The Commission
believes the framework established by the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its
subsequent reauthorizations is fundamentally sound, but, as with most
major laws, could benefit from some minor updates. The issues of
highest interest to the Commission are federal-state partnerships and
data collection and management. With the Commission's unique role and
history in fisheries management, we are well-equipped to provide the
Committee with valuable input into the reauthorization of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act. I hope the Commission can continue to be a resource to the
Committee as it reauthorizes the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Federal-state Partnerships
In the regulation of fisheries, jurisdictional boundaries divide
state and Federal management authority. However, a great number of
fisheries exist under shared federal-state management due to their
migratory nature. In the same way that no one state can effectively
manage its nearshore fisheries alone, the Commission recognizes Federal
and state fishery management authorities must also work together to
make management decisions for species that traverse state and Federal
waters. Our primary Federal partners include NOAA Fisheries, the three
Atlantic Coast Fishery Management Councils, and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. Further, we have strong relationships with our sister
Commissions in the Gulf of Mexico and Pacific. Our fisheries management
and stock assessment processes include regional and Federal partners at
all levels, from our technical committees to our management boards,
ensuring consistent management across the species range. The Commission
cooperatively manages seven species with our Federal partners, and
together we have successfully rebuilt many Atlantic species such as
summer flounder, spiny dogfish, bluefish, scup, and Spanish mackerel.
Successful partnerships must involve the states, Federal agencies, and
Congress. If any of these entities are not fully engaged and supportive
of the process, we will not be able to build on our past successes.
Federal-state partnerships form the cornerstone for many successful
fishery restoration stories. However, there are still opportunities for
improvement. Our member states feel communication between NOAA
Fisheries and the states can be improved. The Commission has urged NOAA
Fisheries to involve us as partners throughout the management process
rather than treating us as a stakeholder group, with involvement
limited to public comment periods. The states are confident that
greater collaboration will lead NOAA Fisheries to more informed
decisions that have greater public engagement and, consequently,
acceptance. The states understand there are currently some legal
constraints on pre-decisional discussions, however, the states can play
a critical role in contributing fisheries science and data and
providing stakeholder input for consideration as decisions are
finalized. States have been conducting fishery-independent research
consistently for decades and can serve as a valuable resource to
enhance the available science.
The listing of Atlantic sturgeon as threatened/endangered under the
Endangered Species Act is a highly visible example of a missed
opportunity for greater collaboration. The states could have provided
additional information and insight on the population status and biology
of Atlantic sturgeon. While this collaboration may not have changed the
listing decision, there would have been greater confidence among the
stakeholders that NOAA Fisheries was fully informed during the process.
The states also request greater transparency and collaboration,
including data sharing during the development of response plans. It
should be noted that since that listing, the Commission and the states
have seen substantial progress in NOAA Fisheries coordinating more
closely with the states, particularly with regards to its consideration
of the river herring listing. It is our hope this increased
coordination will continue.
There is also an opportunity for federal-state cooperation to be
improved in NOAA Fisheries Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Division. The
Commission is concerned about the limited opportunity for input and
collaboration on fishery management plans (FMPs) developed by HMS. For
example, at NOAA Fisheries' request, the Commission adopted an
Interstate FMP for Atlantic Coastal Sharks to complement Federal
management actions and increase protection of pregnant females and
juveniles in inshore nursery areas. Following the approval of the
Interstate FMP, HMS made a number of changes to the Federal management
program with limited opportunity for state input and collaboration. The
states' primary input opportunity has been through the HMS Advisory
Panel process, where states are again treated as stakeholders. The HMS
public comment opportunities frequently do not overlap with a
Commission meeting to allow for the development a unified coastwide
position. Given that the states are co-partners in management, the
Commission would like additional opportunities for input to be provided
and required for HMS activities.
On a positive note, the 2007 Magnuson-Stevens Act Reauthorization
established a cooperative research program to support partnerships
between the Regional Fishery Management Councils, scientific community,
fishing industry participants, educational institutions, and the
states. The resulting regional cooperative research, monitoring
programs, ecosystem studies, and law enforcement initiatives have
proved successful, and further cooperation will continue to increase
efficiency, transparency, and, ultimately, the success of jointly
managed fisheries. It is our hope that the Magnuson-Stevens Act
Reauthorization will provide additional opportunities to build upon
successful partnerships in the interjurisdictional management of
Atlantic coast species.
Data Collection
Ensuring collection and access to comprehensive fisheries data is a
top concern of the Commission as the Committee reauthorizes the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. Data provide the foundation for marine fisheries
management, and the Commission supports a myriad of fishery-dependent
and independent surveys to support our 25 FMPs. Fisheries management
decisions are only as good as the data supporting them, and the
ultimate success of FMPs in terms of sustainable management and
stakeholder confidence lies in the accuracy, reliability, and
timeliness of the data we use to inform our stock assessments and
decision making.
Fisheries data collection is often resource intensive. In an era of
constrained budgets, the Commission strives to ensure each dollar is
used wisely and goes as far as it can to supply accurate fisheries
data. The Commission hopes the next reauthorization of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act will ensure sufficient resources for fisheries surveys and
data collection programs. FMPs based on insufficient data are likely to
result in more conservative management measures to address uncertainty
in landings and population estimates. The result is lower than optimal
catch quotas and erosion of public confidence in fishery management
decisions. Given that Atlantic coastal fishery resources generate
billions of dollars of economic activity and hundreds of thousands of
jobs, it is essential that we continue to invest in the collection and
management of high quality and timely data.
The Commission's Science Program coordinates the two primary
Atlantic coast fishery-independent data collection programs--the South
Atlantic component of the Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment
Program (SEAMAP) and the Northeast Area Monitoring and Assessment
Program (NEAMAP), as well as species-specific surveys for northern
shrimp, horseshoe crab, red drum, and American lobster. The Commission
and its member states also participate in three fishery-dependent data
collection programs: the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics
Program (ACCSP), NOAA Fisheries Commercial Fisheries Statistics, and
the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP). A detailed summary
of the data collection programs the Commission participates in is
attached.
It is important to reiterate that good data supports sound science
and informed decisions. We will never fully understand every detail of
the complex marine environment; however, we can improve our
understanding to ensure the responsible stewardship of the shared
Atlantic coast fisheries resources.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and all the members of your Committee for
your continued support and leadership in fisheries management, and for
this opportunity to comment on fisheries management issues.
CC:
Jay Rockefeller, Chair, Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Committee Committee
John Thune, Ranking Member, Senate Commerce, Science, and
Transportation Committee
______
Prepared Statement of Matthew McKenzie, University of Connecticut
History Department
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, Senator Blumenthal, members of
the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to address issues pertaining to the
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Steven Fisheries Conservation Act. As
an Associate Professor of environmental history at the University of
Connecticut, a lifelong resident of coastal New England, and as the
Connecticut Obligatory Member to the New England Fisheries Management
Council, I see a reauthorized Magnuson Act potentially offering
important tools to solve my region's endemic failure to manage the
region's groundfish species. While my comments emerge from my work and
experience as a researcher, resident, and resource manager, these
positions are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect those of the
University of Connecticut nor the New England Fisheries Management
Council.
The only true and sustainable source of a nation's wealth is its
sustainably managed natural resources. Magnuson has done much to
provide that foundation in other regions. Unlike Alaska and the Pacific
Northwest, however, where Magnuson has led to the successful management
of the Nation's marine fisheries resources, its legacy in New England
stands less clear. There have been successes, to be sure. The New
England scallop industry, most prominently, turned around from facing
ruin twenty-five years ago. Under Magnuson, scallopers engaged the
management process to ensure the industry's long-term sustainability
over short-term gains. Through the active and constructive engagement
with the Magnuson process, the New England scallop fleet consistently
ranks as one of the Nation's top fisheries.
Other fisheries have also used the processes provided for in
Magnuson to end overfishing and restore other fish stocks. Atlantic
herring, monkfish, and Arcadian Redfish, as examples, while still
facing particular challenges, present further instances of New
England's successes. In addition, Magnuson provides the New England
recreational fishing interests a continued and active engagement in the
process, one which promises great ecological and economic benefit as
that sector's influence grows in the future.
Despite these successes, however, New England's commercial
groundfish fishery has fared poorly under Magnuson. In fact, since
Magnuson's passage, the New Englander groundfish fleet has done a
better job of undermining one of the Nation's most important strategic
protein reserves than our Cold War rivals did before 1976. And, after a
forty years of sustained of scientific research, governmental financial
support, and focused regulatory attention, stocks of those species most
associated with New England's oft-invoked fishing tradition--cod, Gulf
of Maine haddock, and yellowtail flounder, among others--have continued
to plummet to historic lows. As a New Englander and a student of its
history, I find the irony of this situation both shocking and
humiliating.
As those resources continue to decline, I believe that this
depleted state of the region's key fish stocks will exacerbate the
effects of the climate changes we currently see. The human consequences
are even more ominous. As stocks decline, the competitive market for
fish--the economic climate that we as a nation believe to be the best
for citizens, business owners, and entrepreneurs alike--will likely
devolve into a business environment marked by fear, defensiveness, and
predatory competition. Such a climate makes it difficult for fishermen
to think in more than just the short term--a problem that bodes ill for
any meaningful sustainable management regime. Such a climate also
stifles the innovation, creativity, and adaptability that, while less
celebrated than its ``fishing tradition,'' has marked New England
fishing since its inception.
I see many of the troubles facing New England groundfish stocks
easing should a reauthorized Magnuson Act address the following four
points. While I doubt these will solve all of New England's problems, I
believe these will help. As we learned with the crisis in the striped
bass fishery, restoring a fish stock requires actions across a wide
spectrum. I feel these points begin to address the most important
problems we currently face.
1. A nationally mandated adoption of ecosystem based fisheries
management regimes that include more effective habitat
protection measures and a more comprehensive understanding of
the ecosystem role of forage species. Such a management regime
must be developed and implemented at a national level with
input from regional science centers, academic researchers, and
industry partners. Furthermore, it is essential that all
information utilized in such a process be made--in its raw
form--transparent and readily accessible for unfettered public
review. As the National Research Council \1\ has stated, such
transparency represents an essential element in determining
information's scientific merit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Research Council of the National Academies, Improving
the Use of the ``Best Scientific Information Available'' Standard in
Fisheries Management (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press,
2004).
2. Related to the first: Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) theory, as
the foundation for national fisheries policy, must be
critically and carefully reconsidered by a blue-ribbon
committee of scientists best suited to review and perhaps
replace MSY theory with another management precept better
suited to current fisheries conditions. As Carmel Finley has
recently argued,\2\ MSY theory never enjoyed a majority of
scientific support in the U.S. before 1976. More importantly,
Sidney Holt--who, along with Ray Breverton developed the
concept of MSY in the mid-1950s at Lowestoft, England--has
openly critiqued how MSY theory has been implemented around the
globe, and questioned its continued utility in managing
overfished stocks, such ours in New England.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Carmel Finley, All the Fish in the Sea: Maximum Sustainable
Yield and the Failure of Fisheries Management (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 2011).
\3\ Sidney Holt, ``The Some Good and Mostly Bad about Maximum
Sustainable Yield as a Management Target,'' presented at the
International Council for the Exploration of the Seas Annual Science
Conference, Bergen, Norway, 17-21 September, 2012.
3. Magnuson reauthorization must clarify Congress' intentions as to
when the Act's mandates for stock rebuilding must take
precedent over industry practicability concerns. In my view,
the council process, and perhaps the courts too, have tended to
put practicability and conservation on an equal footing even as
the preamble to the 2007 reauthorized Act clearly states
Congress' desire to rebuild overfished stocks. Providing clear
guidance as to when rebuilding must be accomplished regardless
of its inconvenience to industry will ensure, in New England at
least, a more effective management regime. That said, it is
also essential that timelines for rebuilding overfished stocks
must be based on ecosystem-based scientific understandings, and
not on political compromise. If we find instances when industry
must take a secondary role to recovery, it is only rational
that the duration of such a situation be based on the best
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
scientific information available.
4. Council members need to be more extensively trained in the
ecological, operational, economic, scientific, legal, and
regulatory contexts within which fishing exists. Most
importantly, however, council members must also be trained in,
and councils as a whole must be held accountable to, the
ethical mandates that accompany the power they wield in the
public's name. Using council membership to advance the
particular interests of one group or another--be they NGO's or
industry associations--defies the oath councilors take. The
history of New England's groundfish fishery since the passage
of the Magnuson Act in 1976 offers a sad testimony as to how
competing short-term self-interests in the council have left
the long-term interest of the public sadly ignored.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide some input into the issues
which Magnuson reauthorization could address.
Respectfully Submitted,
Matthew McKenzie,
Assistant Professor,
University of Connecticut History Department,
American Studies Coordinator,
Avery Point Campus.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Mark Begich to
John K. Bullard
Follow up on Touchstone Report on New England Fishery Management
Question 1. NOAA completed an independent assessment and review of
New England Fishery management, conducted by Touchstone Consulting
Group, ``A Review of the New England Fishery Management Process''. The
report primarily drew from stakeholder input and examined the
effectiveness of the New England Fishery Management Council, the
Northeast Fishery Science Center, and the Northeast Regional Management
Office. The recommendations made by the report include the need to
simplify, streamline, and eliminate many redundant management practices
that are seen by stakeholders as cumbersome and capricious, and the
formulation of a strategic vision and a balance between conservation
and service to the industry. In addition, the report noted the need for
improved quality and timeliness of data. Following the release of the
report, NOAA announced that it would adopt a series of immediate
actions and near-term plans to incorporate the report's
recommendations.
As I requested at the hearing, please provide the Committee with
the implementation status of the Touchstone report's various
recommended improvements for the New England Fishery Management
Process.
Answer. NOAA has made significant progress addressing the issues
identified by the independent assessment and review of the fishery
management process in New England. The Report identified several
priority areas in need of improvement: improving our data management
systems; collaborating more effectively with our partners on science,
cooperative research, and reviews of our science programs; exploring
new approaches to communicating with fishermen about regulatory actions
and the science behind those actions; and identifying ways for the New
England Fishery Management Council (Council), the Northeast Regional
Office (Region) and the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (Center) to
work together effectively to make these improvements.
Recommendations made in the report were broken down into four broad
categories: (1) simplify governance; (2) simplify communications; (3)
improve science collaboration; and (4) maximize collaboration. NOAA has
developed an action plan in response to the recommendations:
(1) Simplify Governance. The report states that the fishery
management process can be difficult and that in some cases
regulations have become overly complicated and redundant. To
address these concerns, we developed memorandums of
understanding between NOAA and both the New England (memorandum
is nearly finalized) and Mid-Atlantic (final) Fishery
Management Councils. These memorandums of understanding will
strengthen collaboration between NOAA and the Councils,
simplify the governance structure and process, and highlight
additional opportunities for public input. We also convened a
team of Council, Region, and Center staff to develop and
implement best practices and recommendations for improving the
efficiency, collaboration, and effectiveness of the fishery
management process.
Regional data management systems were also cited as being
redundant and in need of better integration between the
Region and Center. To address this concern, a working group
of Center and Region staff performed an intensive review
and analysis of data gathered from the fisheries and how
those data are managed and delivered. The group, charged
with addressing current concerns as well as with developing
a long-term vision for the future, has identified near-term
improvements to the existing data collections and
management systems and longer-term activity that will
recommend a redesign of these systems. NOAA has also
developed a standardized peer-review process to evaluate
each aspect of its science programs that is currently
focused on the collection, management, and quality of data
used for stock assessments.
We have made advances in how we collect much of our data. One key
improvement will be to move from paper to electronic
reporting of individual fishing trips. We expect to be able
to accept electronic vessel trip reports in a majority of
fisheries by the end of the year. Further, we have improved
the collection, processing, and availability of the data
collected by our fishery observers and for delivering
biological data collected from scientific surveys by the
implementation of a web-based data entry system. Use of
barcoding to tag samples has saved time and reduced error
rates at every step from collection through auditing and
data delivery.
(2) Simplify Communications. NOAA has made improving our
communications and relations with industry a priority. We are
committed to continuing the effort and are actively seeking
ways to develop a more consistent and focused message. We have
taken several measures including the formation of a
Communications Team and updating our communications plan that
supports all Regional Office program staff that work with
industry and the public, and that promotes outreach
collaboration between the Regional Office, Center, Council, and
the Office of Law Enforcement. We have also made the
information distributed to fishermen more streamlined and
accessible, and are using clear, more concise language in our
communication materials.
(3) Improve Science Collaboration. This category covers topics as
wide as cooperative research, stock assessments, social
sciences and economics. In response to this challenge, NOAA has
worked with our stakeholders to ensure that our Cooperative
Research Program is responsive to industry, management, and
scientific priorities. Ten public meetings were held to review
progress and the focus of the program. This resulted in putting
more emphasis on projects to reduce the scientific uncertainty
in analyses important to setting annual catch limits, and to
characterize bycatch and discards. To address the communication
and transparency concerns raised in the report, the program
website was redesigned, making more information available and
easily accessible.
To improve the stock assessments, an Assessment Oversight Panel
(Panel) was established and includes the chairs of the
Councils' Scientific and Statistical Committees and a
senior Center assessment scientist. The Panel meets
annually to review assessment plans before work begins on
new stock assessments. Stock assessments selected for
completion through the Panel are now integrated, such that
Scientific and Statistical Committee members responsible
for the stock under review are part of the review panel.
The New England Fishery Management Council's procedures
have been revised so that its Scientific and Statistical
Committee does not further peer review stock assessments--
consistent with the Mid-Atlantic Council's procedures.
NOAA is ensuring that socioeconomic analyses are more visible and
meaningful in the Northeast fisheries management process.
Since 2011, we have developed social and economic surveys
to gather information needed to improve analysis of how
fishery regulations affect fishing businesses, communities,
and local economies. We have developed fisheries
performance measures to track the relationship between
fisheries regulations and sustainable outcomes and are now
publishing an annual report specifically focused on the
performance of the New England groundfish fishery.
(4) Maximize Collaboration (Council Lead). The Council has taken
responsibility for findings in the report applicable to their
process. Issues tackled by the Council include redesigning
Council meetings to be a more open and collaborative process
and creating a performance management system to track the
progress of Council decisions and capture lessons learned.
Challenges in New England Fisheries Management
Question 2. New England's fisheries have faced more challenging
management issues than other regions. For example, New England has
eight stocks ``subject to overfishing'', and 13 categorized as
``overfished,'' including a number of historically and commercially
important species such as cod. By contrast, the mid-Atlantic has none.
What is the agency doing to address the historical overfishing of
iconic groundfish, such as Atlantic cod, and the resulting hardship to
New England fishermen?
Answer. After decades of intense fishing by both international and
domestic fleets, many Northeast groundfish stocks reached record low
levels in the early 1990s, particularly cod, haddock, and yellowtail
flounder. Despite fishermen's adherence to annual catch limits in
recent years, several key fish stocks in the Northeast are not
rebuilding as expected. Slower growth rates, delayed maturation, lower
average recruitment, and increased natural mortality impede recovery.
We believe that changing ocean conditions (i.e., warmer water,
changing prey species and abundance) in the Northwest Atlantic may be a
contributing factor. Last year (2012) was the warmest year on record in
the Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank, and Southern New England, and a
changing climate and ecosystem are affecting fish stocks. This is an
active area of research and NOAA requested an additional $10 million to
support research on the impacts of climate on fish stocks, with a focus
on the Northeast groundfish region in the FY 2014 President's Budget
request. Additionally, in the fall of 2013, NOAA is conducting a
climate vulnerability assessment for all managed fishery species in the
Northeast region.
For the 2013 fishing year that started May 1, NOAA implemented
catch limits for some stocks that are substantial reductions from 2012.
For example, fishing year 2013 catch limits for Gulf of Maine and
Georges Bank cod are 77 percent and 61 percent lower than the fishing
year 2012 catch limits, respectively. It is worth noting that although
the situation is worse concerning cod and yellowtail flounder, other
New England groundfish stocks such as Georges Bank haddock, Pollock,
and redfish are not currently overfished or subject to overfishing.
NOAA has taken several steps in 2013 to mitigate the economic
impacts of the low catch limits for some stocks:
NOAA has worked with the New England Fishery Management
Council to offset expected losses by providing greater access
to other healthy fish stocks, such as redfish, winter flounder,
spiny dogfish, and white hake.
NOAA is allowing fishermen to continue to carryover, with no
pound for pound payback, up to 10 percent of their 2012
uncaught quota into the 2013 fishing year for all stocks except
Gulf of Maine cod, for which, to prevent overfishing, the
carryover is 1.85 percent.
NOAA eliminated the dockside monitoring program.
In addition, we are currently paying for at-sea monitoring
costs for the remainder of fishing year 2013--costs that were
scheduled to be transferred in part to industry this year. We
are exploring options for establishing a cost-sharing
arrangement with the fishing industry to potentially help off-
set the costs of at-sea monitoring in the future, subject to
future appropriations.
NOAA is working with industry and other agencies to generate an
initiative to support fishermen during these difficult times. These
ideas are outlined in a `living document' entitled Fishing Through
Tough Times: A Working Document on Resources to Support the Northeast
Groundfish Industry. The draft initiative includes measures such as
identifying Federal loan programs that can help fishermen and improve
marketing to increase prices paid to fishermen. Several meetings have
been held with stakeholders in the region to identify and pursue such
options. A number of meetings have also been held with Congressional
members from New England to ensure that the plan helps to address
concerns they are hearing from their constituents.
From these initial meetings, a Northeast Groundfish Economic
Coordinating Committee has been established that includes members from
NOAA, other Federal agencies, state and local government, and the
fishing industry. The purpose of this Coordinating Committee is to keep
the ideas in the resource document moving forward, and to foster a
coordinated approach for this important issue. We are also working
closely with the Groundfish Task Force established by Governor Deval
Patrick, and have nearly weekly calls with representatives from the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts to discuss our respective efforts to help
the fishing industry.
NOAA is sponsoring a presentation and webinar on December 2 by the
U.S. Small Business Administration and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture on their programs that can provide support to the fishing
industry during these challenging times. Commercial fishing is
considered a type of harvesting so is suitable for these forms of
assistance, and the fishermen, dealers, and others in the industry can
find out whether they are eligible for the various kinds of assistance
offered by these agencies, and if so, how to apply.
Question 3. Do you think the emergency we face in the New England
groundfish fishery results from strict timetables in the MSA or the
biological situation in the water?
Answer. The groundfish fishery in New England is made up of 20
managed stocks, and the biological characteristics of those stocks vary
considerably. While some of the stocks are in good condition and have
responded well to management, such as Georges Bank haddock, pollock,
and Acadian redfish; others, such as the cod stocks and Georges Bank
yellowtail flounder, have not. Because of the different stock
conditions and life histories of the overfished stocks, some had
rebuilding periods of 10 years or less, while others had longer
rebuilding periods. But, in spite of best efforts to set appropriate
and scientifically based annual catch limits and other measures to
rebuild these stocks, regardless of the length of their rebuilding
periods, some have not responded as expected. This has necessitated
repeated and sometimes large cuts to the catch limits to try to get the
stocks back on their rebuilding timelines. It does appear that
environmental factors are hampering the rebuilding efforts, as
evidenced by many years of poor reproduction, survival, and growth in
some stocks. The overall difficult conditions in this fishery are
likely the result of factors other than MSA timetables that we are
still trying to understand.
Question 4. What steps are needed to ensure we don't end up with a
fishery collapse similar to the one that occurred in Newfoundland,
Canada, in the 1990s?
Answer. The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the tools and processes
necessary to manage the groundfish fishery, consistent with the stock
assessment advice, such that fishery collapses can be avoided. The New
England Fishery Management Council and NOAA have been using those tools
to rebuild stocks and to keep overfishing from occurring. However,
while many stocks in New England and elsewhere in the country have
responded as expected to this type of management and have rebuilt, a
few, such as several of the New England groundfish stocks, have not.
There is growing concern that there may be environmental changes
occurring, such as warming waters and possible changes in distribution
of prey that we do not yet fully understand, and that may be thwarting
our management efforts. The best managers can do is use the available
tools, based on the best scientific information, to control fishing
mortality until conditions are right to produce better reproduction,
survival, and growth of the stocks. Without improvements in those
factors, managers cannot guarantee successful outcomes over the long
term.
Question 5. New England has been plagued with stock management
issues more so than other regions, including the nearby mid-Atlantic.
Why has New England had so many problems? Do you believe that it's
primarily a management or a biological issue?
Answer. We believe that rebuilding Northeast multispecies
(groundfish) stocks is more challenging than managing most stocks due
to both biological reasons and past management choices.
Most of the fisheries in both the Mid-Atlantic and New England are
healthy, productive, and have responded well to management under the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. In New England, the scallop fishery is the most
valuable fishery in the Nation, and others such as monkfish, skates,
red crab, and herring are in good shape. It is really only the
groundfish fishery that continues to have some serious issues, despite
all efforts to rebuild these stocks. That fishery has 20 managed
stocks, some of which are in good condition that can support
substantial fishing effort. However, there are several, such as cod,
yellowtail flounder, and Gulf of Maine haddock, that are at low levels
causing considerable concern. The reasons for the sharp declines in
these stocks are not completely understood, but they constrain the
fishery as a whole, because the quotas for these stocks are necessarily
low based on their current low abundance. The complexity of this
fishery in terms of the fish stocks, and its diversity in terms of gear
types, vessel sizes, historical participation and other factors, has
made this a very challenging fishery to manage for a long time. No
fishery in the Mid-Atlantic, and few elsewhere in the country, is as
complex as the New England groundfish fishery.
The second key difference involves the fishery management measures
that have been used to control fishery removals. For New England
stocks, past fisheries management relied largely on indirect management
measures including effort control to achieve target Total Allowable
Catches. As a result, these target TACs were frequently exceeded
resulting in overfishing and declining stock conditions. For Mid-
Atlantic stocks, fisheries management established quotas much earlier
than in New England. As a result, overfishing was eliminated earlier
and stocks were rebuilt more rapidly.
Impacts of 2006 Magnuson-Stevens Act Amendments
Question 6. The 2006 reauthorization of MSA added significant
provisions that were groundbreaking in several respects. Congress
amended the Act to require for the first time the use of annual catch
limits and accountability measures to end overfishing, provided for
innovative new fishery management systems, mandated the creation of a
national saltwater angler registry for the purpose of quantifying, for
the first time, nationwide recreational fishing effort, and called for
ecosystem-based management and increased international cooperation on
fisheries management issues.
What role have the 2006 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act,
specifically changes to require the fishery management councils to
follow the advice of scientists and to establish accountability
measures when setting annual catch limits, played in helping end
overfishing, rebuilding depleted fish populations, and moving America's
fisheries on a path toward sustainability?
Answer. The Magnuson-Steven Act ensures that fishery managers use
the best scientific information available to prevent overfishing,
actively rebuild depleted stocks, and minimize bycatch and impacts to
habitat. This dynamic, highly participatory, and science-based
management process, based on 10 National Standards of sustainability,
has helped the United States become a global leader in sustainable
fisheries and seafood. The last reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act included provisions to establish annual catch limits and
accountability measures, and promote the use of science in setting
those limits. While we recognize that implementing annual catch limits
has not been without cost and challenge, they have been effective at
ending and preventing overfishing.
By 2012, all Federal fisheries for which annual catch limits
were required were operating under annual catch limits. As of
June 30, 2013, assessments demonstrated that overfishing ended
for 58 percent of the domestic stocks that were subject to
overfishing as of March 31, 2007, when the requirement to
implement annual catch limits was added to the Magnuson-Stevens
Act.
Each year, we prepare a report to Congress on the Status of
U.S. Fisheries. In our 2012 report, we determined that 10
stocks were no longer subject to overfishing, four stocks were
no longer overfished, and six stocks managed under rebuilding
plans were rebuilt to their target levels. Since release of the
Report to Congress, one additional stock was determined to be
no longer subject to overfishing and one additional stock has
rebuilt, bringing the total number of rebuilt stocks to 33
since 2000.
As additional stock assessments are completed, we expect the number
of stocks on the overfishing list--now at an all-time low--to decrease
further as a result of management under annual catch limits.
Question 7. What benefits have New England and Mid-Atlantic
fishermen and their communities enjoyed from ending overfishing and
rebuilding fishery stocks?
Answer. Summer flounder and scallops are two cases in the Northeast
in which rebuilding efforts were successful. The simplest way to
provide an indication of benefits to New England and Mid-Atlantic
fishermen of the increase in these stocks is through a comparison of
current ex-vessel revenues to revenues before rebuilding took place.
For example, in 1998 before rebuilding sea scallop ex-vessel revenue
was valued at only just over $75 million ($121 million in inflation-
adjusted 2011 dollars). In comparison, in 2011 dockside landings of
Atlantic sea scallops were $581 million, and due to scallops, New
Bedford, MA was the most lucrative fishing port in the Nation.
Similarly, summer flounder ex-vessel revenues were $16 million in
1997 and $31.7 million in 2011 after the rebuilding program. Summer
flounder is also one of the most sought after species by recreational
fishermen. In 2006, anglers spent an estimated $234.1 million fishing
for summer flounder along the Atlantic coast. Many of these anglers
would switch to alternative species if summer flounder encounter rates
declined, but supporting businesses would be impacted if anglers
reduced their effort in response to the declines.
Beyond the gross revenues, other indicators of the financial and
social benefits of rebuilding of these species are not immediately
available. However, the amount of revenue involved makes it easy to
imagine the broader direct and indirect economic impact of these two
species in terms of jobs, value-added revenue from wholesalers,
processors, retailers, and others. If overfishing had not been
controlled, most of this revenue would likely have been lost.
Furthermore, if summer flounder and scallops were allowed to decline,
losses may have been further compounded by increased overfishing in
other fisheries resulting from the shift of summer flounder and scallop
fishermen into other fisheries.
Although these are two stories of successful rebuilding plans, it
is important to point out that rebuilding is a complex process and
results may not be known for several years.
Question 8. How can we better support fishermen struggling to make
ends meet as depleted stocks rebuild?
Answer. NOAA is working with industry and other agencies to
generate an initiative to support fishermen and help the industry
maintain its viability through these challenging times. These ideas are
outlined in a `living document' titled Fishing Through Tough Times: A
Working Document on Resources to Support the Northeast Groundfish
Industry,\1\ and includes an array of information and ideas. In
particular, the document (1) makes fishermen and support businesses
aware of the various forms of assistance available to them, (2)
identifies the key agencies and entities that can provide that support,
(3) facilitates interaction with our partners to address current and
emerging issues, and (4) enables agencies to recognize and undertake
the actions that fall within their purview. Currently, there are thirty
items that suggest both regulatory and financial forms of assistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://nero.noaa.gov/fish/resources/index.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Northeast Groundfish Economic Coordinating Committee has been
established. The Coordinating Committee, which I chair, is composed of
the lead contacts for each of the actions outlined in this evolving
resource document, and the purpose is to keep the ideas in the resource
document moving forward, and to foster a coordinated approach for this
important issue.
We are also working closely with the Groundfish Task Force
established by the Governor of Massachusetts, and have nearly weekly
calls with representatives from the Commonwealth to discuss our
respective efforts to help the fishing industry.
NOAA is sponsoring a presentation and webinar on December 2 by the
U.S. Small Business Administration and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture on their programs that can provide support to the fishing
industry during these challenging times. Commercial fishing is
considered a type of harvesting so is suitable for these forms of
assistance, and the fishermen, dealers, and others in the industry can
find out whether they are eligible for the various kinds of assistance
offered by these agencies, and if so, how to apply.
Cooperative Management
Question 9. Section 318 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the
Secretary of Commerce to establish a cooperative research and
management program to support the conservation and management
objectives of the Act; however, cooperative management strategies have
yet to be extensively incorporated into Federal fisheries management.
MSA authorizes the use of cooperative management strategies in
Federal fisheries management. Do you see a benefit to cooperative
management strategies?
Answer. Yes, cooperative research and management are very
important. The Magnuson-Stevens Act's fishery management council
processes are by nature cooperative. Regarding research, NOAA has
established a cooperative research program that has effectively engaged
and benefited from collaborations with a broad range of external
stakeholders including: State and Tribal managers and scientists
(including interstate fishery commissions); fishing industry
participants (including commercial and recreational fishermen); and
educational institutions.
Program results include: increased quantity and quality of data;
inclusion of stakeholders' knowledge in science and management;
improved relevance of research to fisheries management; and reduced
costs of science. Additionally, this program has promoted and continues
to promote a shared understanding of science and support for management
decisions by stakeholders and improved relationships with constituents.
The NOAA Cooperative Research program is a critical component of
our approach to management and has resulted in significant improvements
in our scientific understanding of our fisheries and fish stocks. This
program provides a means for commercial and recreational fishermen to
become involved in the collection of fundamental fisheries information
to support the development and evaluation of management options.
FY 2013 highlights across the country of the agency's cooperative
research program include:
Northeast Fisheries Science Center's Spiny Dogfish Tagging
Study: This is a cooperative initiative to tag spiny dogfish
(Squalus acanthias) in the Gulf of Maine, Southern New England,
and Georges Bank. The aim of this project is to answer long-
standing questions about stock structure, movement patterns,
and life history of the species in order to update and improve
dogfish stock assessments.
Southeast Fisheries Science Center's Pilot Study on the Use of
a Video Electronic Monitoring System and Archival Satellite
Pop-off Tags to Estimate Endangered Species Act-Listed
Smalltooth Sawfish Bycatch Mortality in Shrimp Trawl Fisheries
in the Gulf of Mexico: The results of this cooperative study
will provide information on the applicability of monitoring the
take of large marine animals in shrimp trawls. While objectives
in this study are specific to sawfish due to the need to
further evaluate their effect on their population recovery,
bycatch of dolphin, sturgeon, sharks, and sea turtles have been
reported in shrimp trawls. Therefore, the results could be used
to evaluate the potential to monitor bycatch of these large
marine animals in other trawl fisheries across the Nation.
Northwest Fisheries Science Center's Southern California Hook
and Line Survey: This collaborative effort with the sport
fishing industry allows NOAA to monitor untrawlable habitats of
many structure-associated species that are commercially and
recreationally important and in some cases are designated as
overfished. The resulting data is essential for the assessment
of several key shelf rockfish species.
Southwest Fisheries Science Center's Southern California
Nursery Area Longline Survey for Pre-recruit Common Thresher
Sharks: This cooperative survey in the Southern California
Bight is focused on defining the core nursery areas of young-
of-the-year common thresher shark pups and obtaining a fishery-
independent estimate of recruitment. The resulting data have
already been used to demonstrate increasing trends in abundance
of threshers in California waters.
Alaska Fisheries Science Center's Fishing Technology and
Conservation Engineering to Reduce Bycatch Studies: This is a
cooperative effort with Alaska fishing groups to improve
fishing gear and methods to achieve bycatch reduction, measure
mortalities from all kinds of bycatch and address the effects
of fishing gear on seafloor habitats. This effort combines its
scientific techniques and direct observation tools with the
gear and fishing expertise of industry partners to design and
test solutions to these issues.
Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center's Pilot Survey for
Bottomfish in the Waters Around Oahu, Maui, Hawaii, and Guam:
The goal of this pilot survey is to assess spatial connectivity
of local bottomfish populations and provide crucial population
level abundance indices for bottomfish. The resulting data will
support improved bottomfish stock assessments.
In sum, NOAA's cooperative research programs provide valuable data
and products used to support Federal and State fishery management
programs involving a broad spectrum of stakeholders.
NOAA also supports the Bycatch Reduction Engineering Program, which
provides an external grant program to develop technological solutions
and investigate changes in fishing practices to minimize bycatch of
fish and protected species (including marine mammals, seabirds, and sea
turtles), and for those animals that are caught as bycatch, to minimize
injury and mortality. In September 2013, NOAA awarded 16 grants
totaling nearly $2.4 million under its Bycatch Reduction Engineering
Program.
Question 10. Why hasn't the agency embraced these approaches
extensively? What do you see as the barriers?
Answer. The Magnuson-Stevens Act is specifically designed to
develop cooperative solutions to our fishery management challenges. The
primary designers of fishery management actions are fishery
constituents, who work through the highly public and participatory
regional fishery management council process to design management that
both meets the standards of the Act, as well as the unique regional
needs of the fishing industry and fishing communities. Voting Council
members are comprised of fishermen, academics, and other interested
citizens, state representatives, and the NOAA Regional Administrator,
to develop management approaches to achieve the goals set forth in the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. Taken together, the U.S. approach to fishery
management and specific cooperative management programs result in a
robust and cooperative process that has improved the sustainability of
the Nation's fishery resources.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Richard Blumenthal to
John K. Bullard
Aquaculture and Essential Fish Habitat
Question 1. One of the issues that I hear about from shellfish
farmers in Connecticut is that certain environmental regulations can
pose challenges for shellfish permitting, which is a big industry in my
state. For instance, eelgrass is protected as ``essential fish
habitat'' under the Magnusson-Stevens Act. Yet, I hear from scientists
that shellfish aquaculture provides many of the same ecosystem benefits
that eelgrass provides including improvements in habitat and water
quality. Should we move away from a policy that mandates ``no net loss
of eelgrass''--to one that says ``no net loss of ecosystem function''?
Answer. NOAA does not have a formal ``no net loss of eelgrass''
policy; however, the value of eelgrass and its susceptibility to
degradation make it a priority for habitat protection through NOAA's
multiple consultation mandates. NOAA recognizes the valuable role of
the shellfish aquaculture industry to provide sustainable seafood and
ecosystem services, restore habitats, and create jobs in coastal
communities nationally, including those in New England. As described in
our 2011 Aquaculture Policy, NOAA supports a regulatory approach that
provides opportunity for the aquaculture industry as well as protects
high priority habitats that are essential to fisheries. In 2011, we
launched the National Shellfish Initiative specifically to increase
populations of shellfish in our Nation's coastal waters through both
commercial production and conservation activities.
Eelgrass is important habitat for many NOAA trust resource species.
Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, eelgrass has been identified as
``essential fish habitat'' along much of the Atlantic coast due to its
importance in the productivity of fisheries such as summer flounder,
cod, and winter flounder. Other non-Magnuson-Stevens Act species such
as bay scallops also depend on eelgrass, which provides food and
shelter as individuals grow to maturity. In much of its Atlantic and
Pacific range, eelgrass has been designated as a Habitat Area of
Particular Concern (a special subset of Essential Fish Habitat) by the
regional fishery management council. For example, the Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council designated eelgrass as Essential Fish
Habitat and a Habitat Area of Particular Concern due to its importance
for survival of various life stages of summer flounder throughout its
range. In addition to the importance of eelgrass for fish production,
it is also a valuable component of the marine ecosystem contributing to
the greater diversity of bottom dwelling animals. Eelgrass also
improves water quality by trapping suspended sediments and absorbing
nutrients. It helps to stabilize bottom sediments and has been shown to
protect coastal properties from storm damage by absorbing waves and
reducing erosion.
Other agencies recognized eelgrass values under their mandates. For
example, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) have designated eelgrass as a ``special aquatic
site'' pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Currently, the
New England District of the Corps and the State of Connecticut
implement a general permit for the installation and operation of
aquaculture facilities. One permit condition is that gear may not be
located over or within submerged aquatic vegetation such as eelgrass.
This restriction reflects the critical role eelgrass plays within the
marine ecosystem. Despite the restriction in eelgrass habitat, and
largely because eelgrass is not found in most coastal waters in
Connecticut and other states, it is important to note that permits such
as the one for Connecticut have helped to nurture shellfish aquaculture
for many years.
NOAA recognizes that habitat protections for eelgrass and other
special habitats can pose challenges to shellfish aquaculture
permitting in discrete areas, and is willing to work with industry,
environmental, state, and Federal partners to examine the issue.
Eelgrass and shellfish are valued components of distressed marine
ecosystems. NOAA's laboratory in Milford, Connecticut conducts research
demonstrating the ecosystem services of shellfish aquaculture,
including nutrient extraction from coastal waters and nursery habitat
for commercial and recreational species. Research in the Chesapeake Bay
and elsewhere has revealed a co-dependence between eelgrass and filter-
feeding shellfish, especially oysters. For example, both wild and
cultured oysters filter water allowing light to penetrate to sediments
where eelgrass grows. Eelgrass, in turn, stabilizes sediments,
lessening the chance that shellfish will be buried from tidal and storm
erosion. This indicates that strategic placement of shellfish
aquaculture near sites where eelgrass grows can help maintain eelgrass,
rather than leading to net losses.
While habitat provided by wild and cultured shellfish is valuable,
it differs from the ecosystem functions provided by eelgrass. Since
NOAA's mandates require that it conserve aquatic vegetation and
shellfish and foster sustainable aquaculture, NOAA will work with its
partners to seek ways to fully consider the ecosystem services of
shellfish aquaculture in the permitting process.
Question 2. Is there a way for us to preserve biodiversity and
ecosystem services while creating new jobs and providing sustainable
seafood as well?
Answer. Providing sustainable seafood and creating jobs is
important. In addition to striving to bring the Nation's wild fish
stocks back to healthy and sustainable levels, NOAA invests in
initiatives that support aquaculture as an important component of how
the agency can reach this goal. There is a perception among some
stakeholders of intrinsic conflict in balancing the goals of preserving
biodiversity and ecosystem services and creating new jobs and providing
domestic safe sustainable seafood for the Nation. However, case studies
from the United States and around the world demonstrate that seafood
can be caught and cultured sustainably. NOAA believes that increasing
and diversifying our domestic seafood supply through expansion of
sustainable marine aquaculture can be accomplished through careful
regulation informed by sound science, and technology development and
transfer to U.S. seafood growers.
In 2011, NOAA and the Department of Commerce issued new aquaculture
policies that support both jobs and the environment. Shellfish culture
will constitute a large part of meeting the goals and objectives of
these policies. With the release of the 2011 policies, NOAA announced,
and is now implementing, a National Shellfish Initiative to address a
priority in our policy to increase the culture and enhancement of
shellfish throughout the country. Successful aquaculture requires a
healthy ecosystem and both provide direct and indirect economic
benefits.
Using shellfish aquaculture as an example, markets for locally-
produced seafood are growing nationwide, including demand for oysters,
clams, mussels, and scallops in the populous northeast. Shellfish
aquaculture infrastructure, whether simple bottom plantings or
suspension or cage culture, provides habitat for invertebrate prey and
young stages of fishes, thereby promoting biodiversity, while providing
sustainable seafood and jobs for farmers, harvesters, and the marketing
chain to seafood consumers. Diversification and growth in the shellfish
aquaculture sector are being driven by market forces; domestic oyster
culture is presently about a $100 million per year industry nationwide
and growing. Research at NOAA labs and partner institutions plays a
critical role by informing management decisions to enable continued
economic growth in a manner that is environmentally beneficial.
Ensuring Choke Stocks Do Not Limit Harvests of Healthy Fisheries
Question 3. Strict new rebuilding requirements, coupled with the
annual catch limit mandate, create problems achieving sustainable yield
for healthy stocks co-harvested in fisheries where some catch of
rebuilding species is inevitable. In such instances, rebuilding stocks
become ``choke'' species, preventing full harvest of healthy stocks and
creating allocation battles. The problems Georges Bank yellowtail
flounder are causing for New England haddock and scallop fisherman
illustrate the situation. For instance, even though Georges Bank
haddock is highly abundant, only a small fraction of its annual catch
limit can be harvested. Likewise, yellowtail by-catch limits are
driving scallop management decisions. Indeed, increasingly small
yellowtail flounder allocations to the scallop fishery associated
accountability measures risk closing the scallop fishery in highly
productive areas on Georges Bank. Conservation is important to our
fishing communities, but so is the need for abundant stocks to be
harvested.
What steps are NOAA Fishery management councils taking to help
ensure that fishermen have access to abundant resources, such as
scallops and haddock?
Answer. NOAA has worked quickly with the Councils to increase catch
limits when stock assessments have shown that a stock is in good
condition and additional fishing opportunity is possible. For example,
we worked with the New England Fishery Management Council to increase
the catch limit for Gulf of Maine winter flounder when a new stock
assessment was completed and showed that the stock was no longer
subject to overfishing. We also moved quickly to increase quotas for
redfish, white hake, and pollock, as new scientific advice became
available.
We have also looked for flexibility to provide additional fishing
opportunities to harvest healthy fish stocks. For example, we created
new exempted fishery programs to enable greater harvests of spiny
dogfish, skates, and redfish, and removed possession limits on monkfish
for certain trips.
In the Northeast, in collaboration with the New England Fishery
Management Council, we will continue to look for flexibility in Federal
laws and ways to provide additional fishing opportunities to harvest
healthy fish stocks. For example:
We covered at-sea monitoring costs in 2013 for the
groundfish fishery;
We are exploring options to allow sectors access to portions
of areas that were closed to address groundfish fishing
mortality while maintaining closures in areas needed to protect
habitat, vulnerable groundfish stocks, spawning stocks, and
protected species;
We are converting discards into landings that provide
additional revenues for groundfish vessels;
We eliminated the dockside monitoring program, and are
considering reductions to minimum fish sizes and allowing
landing of Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic winter flounder,
which has been prohibited since 2010; and,
The New England Council has reduced minimum fish sizes for
many groundfish stocks, such as haddock, to reduce discards and
allow more fish to be landed, and has provided special access
programs for vessels using selective gear, so that the
healthier stocks can be targeted with less catch of the less
abundant stocks.
We are continuing, with fishermen's help, to improve
fisheries and marine ecosystem science and the way we
communicate that science through cooperative research.
Question 4. What flexibility can be added to the Magnusson-Stevens
Act to better balance conservation with access to abundant resources,
such as scallops and haddock?
Answer. The Magnuson-Stevens Act currently requires the Councils to
balance conservation with access to fishery resources, and provide
tools to give Councils wide discretion to determine the best way to
meet conservation goals while still providing fishing opportunities.
The National Standard 1 guidelines address ending overfishing,
including the requirements for annual catch limits and accountability
measures, and stock rebuilding. We solicited public comment on ideas
for revisions to the guidelines, and are continuing to analyze the
issues raised by the Councils and the public. NOAA is exploring
potential areas where guidelines may be able to provide more
flexibility for the Councils and fishermen, while still meeting the
requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Fleet Overcapitalization
Question 5. We have been successfully reducing over-capacity issues
in our fishing fleets for nearly two decades. Are we nearly where we
need to be in terms of matching the fleet's capacity with sustainable
harvest levels or are further cuts going to be required?
Answer. The number of federally permitted fishing vessels in the
Northeast U.S has fallen from a peak of almost 6,400 in 2005 to just
over 5,000 in 2012. The median length and horsepower of permitted
vessels has increased approximately 5 percent (for both length and
horsepower) over that time period. NOAA had undertaken several studies
to better understand the relationship between existing fishing capacity
and fleet-optimal capacity. The results of these studies tend to
indicate that over-capacity exists, but the degree of estimated over-
capacity is affected to a large degree by the estimation method--
several exist and there is no consensus as to the best measure. It is
impossible to say to what degree existing fishing capacity is in line
with potential long-term fishery yields.
The larger point is that fishing capacity is neither an advisable
fishery management tool nor goal. Rather, it is best thought of as a
result of a confluence of fishery management decisions and
environmental/biological conditions. Capacity estimates may be used to
assess how well--or poorly--fisherman are able to adjust their capital
inputs in the face of ever-changing regulatory and environmental/
biological conditions.
Fishery managers strive to reduce regulatory inefficiencies that
prevent fisherman from ``right-sizing'' their businesses. In a fluid,
dynamic fishery with sufficient flexibilities and, ideally, sufficient
profit, fisherman will naturally adjust capacity to conditions.
Question 6. Are there other sectors where we could be putting
displaced fishermen to work? When there was a net ban in Florida,
training programs ushered in millions of dollars of new clam fishing
production.
Answer. NOAA is supporting programs in two sectors that provide
opportunities for displaced fishermen, either as a source of
supplemental income or an alternative career path: aquaculture and
shellfish restoration. In both of these sectors, fishermen are able to
continue working on the water using the fishing vessels, skills, and
much of the equipment they already possess. It is an attractive and
viable option for many fishermen that also supports fishing communities
and contributes to the preservation of working waterfronts.
Several programs have been implemented in the northeast to test
retraining of fishermen to be sea farmers. These programs have had
variable success, and are mainly dependent upon opportunities for
prospective farmers to realize an immediate income. Among the successes
are lobster fishermen who were among the first to invest in open ocean
mussel farming in New England, dividing their time between fishing
activities and tending and harvesting mussels from submerged longlines.
Others have completed training through a NOAA-supported ``cod academy''
and are pursuing new careers as finfish farmers.
Aquaculture provides permanent long-term private industry jobs not
dependent on government funding. Currently, aquaculture production is
the third most valuable fisheries product landed in the Northeast
region (from Virginia to Maine) only behind scallops and lobster. This
economic engine is helping many rural communities maintain their
working waterfront and the jobs associated with them. However, overall
aquaculture production in the United States is very low relative to
many other countries and to our potential production, and we import
over 90 percent of our seafood, about half of which comes from
aquaculture. There is significant room for expansion of sustainable
aquaculture in the United States, which economic studies indicate could
create tens of thousands of jobs. NOAA is working to increase the areas
available to aquaculture by supporting efforts to streamline permitting
in state waters and to develop projects and permitting systems in
Federal waters. For example, in New England, we are working with local
fishermen to permit a mussel farm in Federal waters.
Municipalities in New England that are historical fishing ports are
actively developing waterfront infrastructure (e.g., piers in Plymouth,
MA) to attract shellfish aquaculturists as groundfish landings become
less able to support local economies. Research quantifying the
ecosystem interactions of expanded shellfish aquaculture in New England
coastal ecosystems is needed to inform management decisions enabling
expansion of this seafood sector in an environmentally responsible way.
We are currently working with fishermen and academic partners to
establish a small number of projects in New England to develop
appropriate techniques, and to better understand potential
environmental impacts.
A related sector is shellfish restoration. Shellfish farmers across
the Nation (including New England) are often employed in shellfish
restoration activities supported by Federal, State, local, and/or
private funding. The goals of most restoration efforts are to increase
biodiversity and ecosystem services. Additionally, habitat restoration
jobs may also pay economic dividends twice over: first in creating
immediate, local jobs; and then, through healthy habitats that support
fisheries, tourism, and coastal resiliency for years to come. Several
recent peer-reviewed studies \2\ have confirmed NOAA's own data that
habitat restoration, including shellfish restoration, creates, on
average, 17-33 jobs for every $1 million investment--a strong rate of
job creation. According to an Ecotrust study \3\ on the U.S. west
coast, an average of $0.80 of every $1.00 spent on a restoration
project stays in the county where the project is located, and $0.90
stays in the state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Edwards PET, AE Sutton-Grier, and GE Coyle. 2013. Investing in
nature: Restoring coastal habitat blue infrastructure and green job
creation. Marine Policy 38: 65-71.
Heinz J, et al., 2009. How Infrastructure Investments Support the
U.S. Economy: Employment, Productivity, and Growth. Political Economy
Research Institute Hibbard M and S Lurie. 2006. Some Community Socio-
Economic Benefits of Watershed Councils: A Case Study From Oregon.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 49: 891-908.
U.S. Department of the Interior Report. 2009. Economic impact of
the Department of Interior's Programs and Activities.
Nielsen-Pincus M and C Mosely. 2010. Economic and Employment
Impacts of Forest and Watershed Restoration in Oregon.
University of Oregon, Ecosystem Workforce Program, Working Paper
No. 24.
Nature Conservancy. Benefits of Restoration for People and Nature.
\3\ In Oregon's Restoration Economy. Available at: http://
www.ecotrust.org/wwri/downloads/WWRI_OR_brochure.pdf
Question 7. Should we be retraining fishermen to grow mussels or
seaweed? What can NOAA do to streamline permitting for mussel farms in
Federal waters? We impact millions of dollars of mussels from Canada.
Answer. NOAA is exploring additional ways we can help those
fishermen who want to learn how to grow mussels, seaweed, and other
products in the marine environment. A major new initiative at NOAA's
Northeast Fisheries Science Center is actively addressing the potential
for local mussel aquaculture. We are using new technologies to identify
sites with high potential for mussel aquaculture production, as well as
quantifying the ecosystem benefits of shellfish culture such as the
amount of nitrogen or carbon that can be removed from coastal
environments.
NOAA is using pilot projects to identify and resolve permitting
issues with development of offshore mussel farming--for example, the
coexistence of mussel farms and endangered marine mammals and turtles
that are protected under U.S. laws. We are looking at how other
countries (New Zealand, Canada, northern Europe) have been able to
successfully expand mussel culture using methods that are protective of
their large populations of whales and turtles. These mature and proven
technologies can be used here to create jobs and to provide sustainable
seafood to our Nation as well. Similar issues arise with respect to
seaweed farming--as with mussel farming, we can look to the experience
in countries with established industries for useful information about
potential impacts and available technologies, methods and management
approaches to address adverse impacts.
Finally, under directives in the President's National Ocean Policy
Implementation Plan, we are working with our partners in other agencies
to coordinate and improve the process for authorizing marine
aquaculture operations under multiple statutes. A major contribution
for NOAA is our understanding of how aquaculture interacts with the
marine environment and how marine aquaculture operations can be
designed, sited, and operated in a way that is compatible with our
marine stewardship obligations.
Question 8. NOAA has determined that the Magnuson-Stevens Act gives
it authority to regulate shellfish aquaculture activities in Federal
waters. Are there any shellfish aquaculture experts or representatives
on the Regional Councils? Should the Regional Fisheries Management
Councils have any regulatory authority over shellfish aquaculture
permitting?
Answer. NOAA's position is that the definition of ``fishing'' in
the Magnuson-Stevens Act includes the harvesting of cultured fish and
shellfish. So if a species is included in a fishery management plan, a
grower must obtain an exempted fishing permit or other authorization
from NOAA. Although this requirement does not apply to species not
covered by a fishery management plan, we expect Fishery Management
Councils in regions where interest in offshore aquaculture is expanding
to consider developing aquaculture-specific fishery management plans in
the future. The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council took such an
approach when it developed its aquaculture-specific fishery management
plan. Although the Gulf aquaculture fishery management plan does not
include any shellfish species, it nevertheless provides a good example
of how a Council can take a regional approach to managing species that
are likely to be considered for commercial aquaculture production in
their region. NOAA is interested in working with Congress to explore
alternative approaches that could provide the necessary regulatory
clarity for aquaculture to develop in Federal waters.
The makeup of each fishery management council reflects the
expertise and interests of the states in that region. So in regions
where interest in offshore shellfish aquaculture is expanding, we
expect to see a corresponding increase in the number of shellfish
aquaculture experts nominated to serve on that region's fishery
management council. Meanwhile, such experts may already serve on, and
increasingly apply to fill future vacancies on, Council Advisory Panels
and the Science and Statistical Committee and influence the future
development of aquaculture fishery management plans.
While we have not specifically asked the governors to nominate
shellfish aquaculture experts to serve on regional fishery management
councils, it is likely that some members who represent commercial
fishing, seafood businesses, academia, tribes, and state and Federal
agencies do have relevant expertise in shellfish aquaculture.
Observer Data
Question 9. Information collected by fisheries observers represents
an important source of data for fishery conservation and management.
For instance, observer data is used in many fisheries to track a
fishing fleet's level of by-catch against its overall by-catch limits.
Certain fishermen, such as scallop industry participants, are required
to pay for their own observers, and that can be very expensive. I
understand it can take many months for NOAA Fisheries to be able to
compile and analyze data obtained from observers so these data can be
used to estimate by-catch levels. As a result, fishermen can end up
``flying blind'' during the fishing season in terms of knowing where
their catches are in relation to by-catch limits. What more can NOAA
Fisheries do to ensure observer information is accurate?
Answer. Observer data is critical to our scientific and management
needs. NOAA has developed important processes and procedures, described
in more detail below, to ensure observer information is accurate. Our
thorough quality assurance/quality control process can take time and we
are continuing to explore and invest in ways to increase the efficiency
of our data collection efforts, such as through the use of electronic
reporting. Currently, observer data does not take an excessive amount
of time to process, but the synchronization of additional data streams,
such as electronic reporting of catch by fishermen, video monitoring to
track catch, recording of landings by dealers, and other data
collection mechanisms allow managers to track catch during the fishing
season to prevent overfishing or exceeding catch limits, and can be
used to increase the accuracy and availability of data to managers.
NOAA has developed national minimum eligibility standards for
observers.\4\ These requirements are designed to ensure that observers
are fully qualified and have the appropriate background and education
needed to perform the necessary duties of an observer and to collect
timely and accurate information. For example, observers are required to
have a bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university with
a major in one of the natural sciences and a minimum number of course
credits in the biological sciences and math or statistics. This policy
may also have the benefit of improving retention of observers through
selection of high quality individuals, thereby reducing training costs,
providing greater continuity in operations, and improving data quality.
All observers are required to pass a rigorous 3-week training program
with a minimum score of 80 percent on written or oral tests developed
by the program. Some programs, such as the Northeast Fisheries Observer
Program, require a passing score of 85 percent. The National Observer
Program Advisory Team, comprised of observer program managers from
across the country including NOAA staff, routinely reviews the national
standards to determine if improvements are needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/Assets/Observer-Program/pdf/
Eligibility_Procedural_
Directive.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to these requirements, all data collected by observers
must go through a thorough quality assurance/quality control process.
This is achieved through a debriefing process in which senior staff,
referred to as debriefers or data editors, review the data submitted by
the observer following each observed trip. The Northeast Fisheries
Observer Program recently implemented a new policy requiring a minimum
of two annual debriefings to occur in person at the NOAA observer
program facility.\5\ This policy is intended to improve communication
and feedback between the observers and debriefers and to improve
observer retention and data quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/program_review/backgroundpapers/
FSBportfolio.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fostering an environment for collaboration and support of the
observer program can lead to better communication, higher data quality,
more efficient vessel placements, better representation of true fishing
activity, and shared understanding of prioritizing assignments and data
collection to best inform fisheries management and scientific research.
Work is also underway to streamline the interconnectedness of fishery-
dependent data collections, such as Vessel Trip Reports and Dealer
Reports, which would hasten the data processing and analysis and
improve quality of results.
Question 10. What more can NOAA Fisheries do to ensure that
observer information is available in time to be useful to the fishermen
who are paying for it?
Answer. As described above, all data collected by observers must go
through a quality assurance/quality control process to ensure the
accuracy of the data. While timeliness is important, observer programs
strive to provide accurate data as quickly as possible, and would not
want to sacrifice accuracy for the sake of timeliness. In the
Northeast, observers submit electronic data, paper logs and worksheets,
biological samples, and digital photographs within timelines specific
to each program and trip type. For trips targeting groundfish
(including all At-Sea Monitor trips), Atlantic herring or mackerel, or
Atlantic squid, observers must electronically enter and upload haul and
species information within 48 hours of the trip landing. For other trip
types, a shorter trip summary of critical elements must be uploaded
within 48 hours. Paper logs from all At-Sea Monitor and Northeast
Fisheries Observer Program trips must be received by the Fisheries
Sampling Branch within 5 calendar days by priority and tracking
shipment.
Electronically recorded data are reviewed (edited) and observers
debriefed (if necessary) the same day data are received. After this
preliminary review, data are made available to end-users with approved
access, sector managers (for groundfish data), and permit holders, via
an inter-relational Oracle database and user-friendly website. Once the
paper logs arrive, the editor reviews all data, compares it to the
electronic data uploads for correctness, and debriefs the observer as
necessary. If there are questionable data based on electronic data or
other feedback, the paper logs would be reviewed as soon as they
arrive. The data turnaround time is monitored and evaluated to ensure
that all is being done efficiently while meeting multiple mandates and
monitoring goals within an expected standard. As an example, for the
Northeast Fisheries Observer Program, from January to April of 2013,
groundfish trip edits were fully loaded and audited within 15 days of
trip landing (average from 626 trips), and non-groundfish trips were
completed within 29 days of trip landing (average from 404 trips).
The Northeast Fisheries Observer Program and other observer
programs are looking into additional ways to collect and submit data
electronically in order to make information available more quickly to
fishermen. For example, the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program and
other observer programs across the country have begun incorporating
handheld devices such as rugged iPads and toughbook computers to record
and submit observer data electronically through wireless networks and
satellite. Data confidentiality, IT security, and manageable costs are
also taken under consideration.
From a national perspective, NOAA recently approved a policy
regarding the adoption of electronic technology solutions in fishery-
dependent data collection programs. This policy states:
``It is the policy of the National Oceanic & Atmospheric
Administration's (NOAA's) National Marine Fisheries Service
(NOAA Fisheries) to encourage the consideration of electronic
technologies to complement and/or improve existing fishery-
dependent data collection programs to achieve the most cost-
effective and sustainable approach that ensures alignment of
management goals, funding sources and regulations.''
The NOAA policy requires each region to evaluate the adoption of
electronic technologies for the fisheries in their areas of
responsibility. The core principle is a regionally-driven focus to
promote shared information and improve coordination across regions to
improve overall Agency data collection efficiency and effectiveness.
The goal is to obtain the appropriate amount and quality of data at the
least cost in time and money over the long term.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Edward Markey to
John K. Bullard
Rebuilding Timeframe Flexibility
Question 1. Concerns are often raised about the 10 year rebuilding
time-frame for overfished stocks, but the law appears to provide
flexibility for determining these timeframes. The law states that a
time period for rebuilding the fishery shall ``not exceed 10 years,
except in cases where 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.''
In developing rebuilding plans for fish stocks in the Northeast,
has NOAA used this flexibility to set rebuilding times periods that are
longer than 10 years?
Answer. Yes, we have used that flexibility many times in the
Northeast to set rebuilding time periods that are longer than 10 years
for the following stocks:
1. Atlantic cod--Georges Bank cod, 22 years;
2. Atlantic halibut--Northwestern Atlantic Coast, 52 years;
3. Yellowtail flounder--Cape Cod/Gulf of Maine, 19 years;
4. Yellowtail flounder--Georges Bank, 26 years;
5. Thorny skate--Gulf of Maine, 25 years; and
6. Acadian redfish (which rebuilt in 8 years but was scheduled for
over 10 years).
Climate Impacts on Fisheries
Question 2. In your written testimony you indicate that the
President's Budget request for Fiscal Year 2014 includes a $10 million
increase for NOAA to fund research on the impacts of climate on
fisheries, with a focus on Northeast groundfish. What does NOAA hope to
accomplish by undertaking this research and how could that help improve
stock assessments and ultimately benefit fishermen?
Answer. Dramatic changes in environmental conditions have been
observed on the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf over the last several
decades. In 2012, the highest water temperature levels in over 150
years of continuous observation were recorded. This temperature pattern
extended to the subarctic region and has been linked to broad-scale
climate change. NOAA's Northeast Fisheries Science Center has been
monitoring changes in environmental and climate conditions and related
ecological trends over the last several decades.\6\ Changes in the
distribution patterns of fish and shellfish populations in relation to
these changes and other anthropogenic factors have been documented.
Earlier analyses at the Northeast Fisheries Science Center demonstrated
that up to two thirds of fish populations tracked by research vessel
surveys moved further north, to deeper water, or both. A paper just
released in the journal Science \7\ has confirmed and extended these
results for the northeast and examined patterns throughout North
America based on surveys conducted by NOAA and the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans Canada. This work shows that local climate
conditions, described by the rate and direction of change in
temperature, can explain a significant part of the observed changes in
distribution. These local climate conditions differ in different
regions of the coast and, combined with constraints imposed by
coastlines and other topographic features, control the direction of
change. It is important to note, however, that not all species are
changing distribution, not all changes are northward/poleward, and that
factors other than climate are contributing to shifting distributions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/ecosys
\7\ M. L. Pinsky et al., Marine Taxa Track Local Climate Velocities
Science 341-6151:1239-1242 (2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These observations hold important implications for our fishing
communities. It is critically important for NOAA to work closely with
stakeholder groups to learn from their observations, to share
scientific information on observed changes, to attempt to provide
projections of future change and their consequences for both ecological
communities and human communities dependent on living marine resources.
Anticipating and planning for change will be critically important in
the ability of fishing communities to adapt to these changes in
fisheries. We are strongly committed to working to make this possible
and the funding levels provided for assessing the effects of climate
change on fishery ecosystems (including humans) reflects the urgency
and importance of this need. We can anticipate that if climate
projections hold, fishing communities will encounter altered ecosystems
in the Northeast, with an increasing dominance of species that prefer
warmer waters. The impacts of ocean acidification will potentially be
no less important. Good fishermen are good naturalists--they know the
behavior and ecology of the species they catch. In a climate-changing
world, the necessary adaptations by fishers will include learning the
behavior and ecology of a new suite of species. Management systems will
also have to adapt to the different mix of species encountered in the
fisheries and issues related to allocation.
Including climate information in stock assessments will be
critically important in understanding the synergistic effects of
fishing and climate change and their implications for setting
management targets that can account for these changes. Among the
exploited species in a region, we can anticipate `winners' and `losers'
with some species becoming more vulnerable to the joint effects of
fishing and climate while others are expected to increase in abundance.
Stock assessments that effectively incorporate the role of climate
change on the basic biology, ecology, and fishery characteristics of
shifting fish communities will be essential. Ultimately this will
benefit fishing communities by providing better forecasts of fish stock
sizes that can be achieved under changed ocean regimes.
The requested funding in the FY 2014 President's Budget is a
competitive grant program allowing a concerted effort by academic
scientists, government researchers, stakeholder groups, and others
working together to address an increasingly pressing need. The research
will advance the understanding and projection of the impacts of climate
variability and change on fishery stocks, their prey availability and
habitats, and the communities and economies that depend on them and
enhance the use and application of climate-related data and information
in fisheries management and decision-making. The rich scientific
resources in the Northeast will allow substantial progress to be made
on these fronts. To take the next steps in preparing for change we can
build on previous climate research and ecosystem programs in the region
such as the NOAA-NSF GLOBEC and CAMEO Programs and on recent climate-
fisheries modeling conducted with Atlantic cod, Atlantic croaker, and
cusk. Understanding the nature of expected changes and planning for
these changes will directly benefit fishing communities. The time
horizon for planning and adaptation is short given the changes already
observed but it is potentially feasible.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Marco Rubio to
John K. Bullard
Question. Should all fisheries managed under the Magnuson-Stevens
Act be considered sustainable fisheries or should a third-party
certification be required for a fishery to be deemed ``sustainable?''
Answer. Federal fishery management under the Magnuson-Stevens Act
is recognized as one of the strongest fishery management systems in the
world, and it results in sustainable fisheries. In 2008, the Fisheries
Centre at the University of British Columbia conducted an extensive
analysis of the most active fishing countries in the world.\8\ They
evaluated adherence to the United Nation's Food and Agriculture
Organization's Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, which covers
fisheries management, and ranked the U.S. number 2 overall out of 53
countries, second only to Norway, which has far fewer number and
diversity of fisheries to manage. U.S. seafood is responsibly harvested
under a collaborative, science-based management program that works to
both ensure sustainable fish populations and viable commercial,
recreational, and subsistence fishing activities. In the U.S., fishery
managers use the best scientific information available to prevent
overfishing, actively rebuild depleted stocks, and minimize bycatch and
impacts to habitat. Our process, based on 10 National Standards of
sustainability, is designed for continuous improvement, and has helped
the U.S. become a global leader in sustainable fisheries and seafood.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Pitcher, T.J., Pramod, G., Kalikoski, D. and Short, K. 2008.
Safe Conduct? Twelve Years Fishing under the. UN Code. WWF, Gland,
Switzerland. 66 pp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the U.S., our fishermen's commitment to and investment in
stewardship and sustainable resources has not come without sacrifice.
We need to build on their commitment and ensure these successes are
rewarded in the market place. Seafood wholesalers, retailers, vendors,
and consumers may be unaware of the sustainability of U.S. fisheries.
NOAA is taking a proactive role in telling the story of the success of
U.S. fisheries using a variety of approaches to highlight the value,
quality, and sustainability of U.S. harvested and farmed seafood.
FishWatch is the Internet-based informational platform the agency
uses to educate consumers on the responsible management of U.S.
fisheries under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the dynamic, science-based
process behind sustainability. FishWatch delivers neutral, regularly
updated information on seafood harvested in the United States. This
tool provides factual information about the biological and ecological
status of a fishery and lets users draw their own conclusions relative
to satisfying a purchasing standard, based on science provided by NOAA.
We continue to improve the content of FishWatch and explore
opportunities for expanding its reach. To assist sellers, NOAA, at its
discretion, issues declarative public statements in the form of letters
in response to requests from harvest sector groups on whether a
particular fishery is ``sustainably managed'' based on the Magnuson-
Stevens Act National Standards. In those letters, we highlight the fact
that, in the United States, we have virtually eliminated overfishing
and are rebuilding overfished stocks to sustainable levels in all
federally-managed fisheries.
In response to growing questions and concerns from our constituents
about third-party certification, last year, we asked our Marine
Fisheries Federal Advisory Committee (MAFAC) to conduct a policy study
of what role they believe NOAA should play in seafood certification.
The Committee is evaluating the pros and cons of an expanded agency
role, up to and including initiating some form of a consumer-facing
NOAA ecolabel for U.S. wild-caught and aquaculture products. MAFAC has
been seeking input from buyers and sellers of seafood and gathering
information from existing certification organizations to see what an
appropriate role for NOAA would be. MAFAC was scheduled to meet in
October 2013 to discuss its policy study, but that meeting was
postponed due to the government shutdown. MAFAC has not yet rescheduled
its meeting, and we do not expect a final report of the Committee's
work until after it is able to meet.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Mark Begich to
C.M. ``Rip'' Cunningham, Jr.
Challenges in New England Fisheries Management
Question 1. New England's fisheries have faced more challenging
management issues than other regions.
For example, New England has eight stocks ``subject to
overfishing'', and 13 categorized as ``overfished,'' including a number
of historically and commercially important species such as cod. By
contrast, the mid-Atlantic has none. What is the Council doing to
address the historical overfishing of iconic groundfish, such as
Atlantic cod and the resulting hardship to New England fishermen?
Answer. The Council has developed measures to eliminate overfishing
of cod and any other stocks with overfishing including reducing catch
limits to scientifically recommended levels. In terms of reducing
hardship to New England fishermen, please see the answer to the next
question below.
Ending overfishing on cod stocks has proven exceptionally
difficult. In part, this has been because of assessment uncertainty but
an additional factor is that the productivity of our cod stocks has
declined, perhaps due to warming ocean temperatures. As a result the
stocks have been slow to recover from years of excessive catches in the
late 1980s through the 1990s.
Question 2. Do you feel the Council has done as much as it can to
help fishermen in New England without undercutting the recovery of the
fishery?
Answer. Yes, the Council explored the legally available strategies
for gradually reducing fishing, improving flexibility and reducing
costs to fishermen by exploring increased access to closed areas,
allowing vessels to land smaller fish to reduce the amount of dead
discarded fish, increasing trip limits for alternative species within
responsible limits and other ways to give fishermen more flexibility to
respond to changing circumstances. Many of these recommendations
required approval by the National Marine Fisheries Service, and not all
have been implemented in the manner requested by the Council.
Question 3. What additional steps are needed to ensure we don't end
up with a fishery collapse similar to the one that occurred in
Newfoundland, Canada, in the 1990s?
Answer. Although perhaps not the main cause, scientific error or
errors in interpreting the science contributed to the collapse of the
northern cod stocks. In 2010 and 2011, Gulf of Maine cod catch limits
were based on a stock assessment that greatly overestimated small cod
entering the population due to a sampling problem. Also a review of
fish growth rate data revealed that earlier information about growth
rates used in projections of stock sizes and landings had been
systematically overestimated. Finally many recent stock assessments
have overestimated stock size and underestimated fishing mortality
(known as retrospective error). This also was a problem with
assessments for the Canadian Northern cod stock before its collapse.
The causes of retrospective error can include unaccounted for natural
mortality, fishing mortality or a change in catchability of fish in
scientific surveys. The amount of the error is virtually impossible to
predict, and the best that can be done is to adjust projections by the
level of historic retrospective error, which may be inadequate. The
Council relies on its Scientific and Statistical Committee, several of
whom have had experience with similar fisheries science and management
problems in Canada and other countries, to make catch level
recommendations taking into consideration such scientific
uncertainties.
The Council also is working with the Northeast Fisheries Science
Center to provide more timely stock assessment advice to inform catch
limits set by the Council. The Council needs more frequent assessments
of these critical stocks to make sure that appropriate catch limits are
set.
Question 4. New England has been plagued with stock management
issues more so than other regions, including the nearby mid-Atlantic.
Why has New England had so many problems? Do you believe that it's
primarily a management or a biological issue?
Answer. There are many reasons for the problems with the management
of some groundfish stocks, but others have responded well to management
efforts: redfish, Georges Bank haddock, Georges Bank winter flounder,
Atlantic sea scallops, monkfish, sea herring, whiting or Mid-Atlantic
species. Many New England groundfish stocks were subject to overfishing
long before the MSA was adopted. In some cases, overfishing and
depletion began in the 19th century and while others began with the
arrival of large foreign fleets in the 1960s. Other factors included
fishermen's resistance to scientific advice when fishing level
reductions were recommended, the failure of quota management in the
early 1980s because of the lack of adequate monitoring and a resistance
to economic rationalization despite high levels of excess capacity.
Adding to these problems have been environmental stress on inshore
stocks caused by development, increased natural mortality on some
species from protected predators and possible environmental stressors
such as warming ocean temperatures because Northeast multispecies
groundfish stocks are at the southern end of their geographical range.
As a result, I do not believe that the failure to rebuild some
groundfish stocks can be attributed solely to biology or management.
The two are inextricably linked. While I agree that some past decisions
have been faulty, over the last ten years most management decisions
were consistent with the scientific advice presented to the managers
and yet stocks have not responded as expected.
Follow-up on Touchstone Report on New England Fishery Management
Question 5. NOAA completed an independent assessment and review of
New England fishery management, conducted by the Touchstone Consulting
Group, ``A Review of the New England Fishery Management Process''. The
report primarily drew from stakeholder input and examined the
effectiveness of the New England Fishery Management Council, the
Northeast Fishery Science Center, and the Northeast Regional Management
Office. The recommendations made by the report include the need to
simplify, streamline, and eliminate many redundant management practices
that are seen by stakeholders as cumbersome and capricious, and the
formulation of a strategic vision and a balance between conservation
and service to the industry. In addition, the report noted the need for
improved quality and timeliness of data. Following the release of the
report, NOAA announced that it would adopt a series of immediate
actions and near-term plans to incorporate the report's
recommendations.
Chairman Cunningham, your predecessor, John Pappalardo, requested
that NOAA conduct a comprehensive review of the region's fishery
management process. In the two years since that report was issued, do
you feel the agency has taken adequate action on its findings? In your
view, have any needed reforms fallen through the cracks?
Answer. Although there has been progress on many of the
recommendations in the report and new NOAA/NMFS leadership in the
region is committed to improving collaboration with the Council,
progress on some important recommendations is slow. These include
reducing the redundancy created by NEPA and the MSA and improving early
guidance from the NMFS regional office on the development of management
actions by the Council. On the positive side, NOAA/NMFS and the Council
recognize the importance of these issues and continue working
diligently to make progress on them. In terms of involving
stakeholders, the Council has taken steps to improve participation by
and transparency for stakeholders by formally including participation
of advisory panel chairs in committee meetings, convening a workshop
with all advisors and the SSC on ABC control rules, initiating a
project to improve our website for all stakeholders and the public, and
holding collaborative meetings at the Committee level to tackle
problematic issues.
Improvements to Scientific-Based Management
Question 6. The MSRA added significant provisions that were
groundbreaking, elevating the role science plays in the fishery
management process. The resulting data and modeling needs were known to
be costly, and following enactment, Congress provided additional
funding to NMFS to implement these new requirements. Since that time,
however, funding for NMFS has steadily decreased, and the President's
request for NMFS in FY 2014 would continue that trend. It is an open
question whether current funding levels for NMFS are sufficient to
achieve the management goals envisioned by the MSRA.
How is the New England Fishery Management Council working with
scientists to strengthen fisheries science and how will that help the
Council establish accurate and timely catch limits and accountability
measures with buy-in from the industry?
Answer. Following the 2006 reauthorization of the MSA, the Council
has implemented annual catch limits (ACLs) for all managed stocks in
compliance with the acceptable biological catch (ABC) levels
recommended by its Scientific and Statistical Committee. Additionally
ACLs for all stocks must meet the approval NOAA/NMFS. Also as mentioned
in response to question 3, the Council also is working with the
Northeast Fisheries Science Center to provide more timely stock
assessment advice to inform catch limits set by the Council.
The most important step that can be taken to achieve industry buy-
in is to identify catch limits that actually meet mortality targets.
For many groundfish stocks this has proven elusive. Industry loses
confidence in the science when catches remain below quotas but
overfishing continues. We are working with the Northeast Fisheries
Science Center to address this problem.
Question 7. How can additional cooperative research successfully
support science-based fisheries management?
Answer. There are many areas in which cooperative research is
needed to support science-based fisheries management. Cooperative
research is essential for supplementing or providing information on
fish stock distribution under changing environmental conditions,
bycatch minimization and more detailed abundance information than can
be provided by current fishery-independent scientific sampling.
Finally, industry-based surveys can supplement our understanding of
population trends and build confidence in government surveys.
Question 8. Current funding levels only allow the Northeast
Fisheries Science Center to conduct annual updates for about ten to
twelve stocks, resulting in individual assessments that are often
separated by four or five years. How critical is it that we dedicate
more resources for data collection and improved and more frequent stock
assessments, particularly in the context of addressing the groundfish
fishery challenges in the medium term?
Answer. It is extremely important to have more frequent stock
assessments. The Council's Groundfish Plan Development Team and SSC
have evaluated the performance of groundfish stock projections and have
found them to be unreliable for setting catch limits if based on stock
assessments more than about two years old. If recent assessments are
not available, projections tend to rely heavily on models to predict
new recruitment and natural mortality rather than actual observations.
As a result they may include a lot of ``paper fish''--fish that are
projected to be available based on assumptions--instead of fish that
have been observed in the catch or through scientific sampling.
Additionally, it is virtually impossible to predict changes in natural
mortality due to predation and other causes.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Richard Blumenthal to
C.M. ``Rip'' Cunningham, Jr.
Northern Edge, Georges Bank Closed Area II
Question 1. The ``Northern Edge'' of Georges Bank Closed Area II is
home to tens of millions of pounds of scallops, but it has been closed
to scallop fishing for nearly twenty years. Georges Bank haddock are
fully rebuilt and highly abundant along the ``Northern Edge.'' Scallops
and haddock can be harvested in this area with less potential for by-
catch of rebuilding species such as Georges Bank yellowtail flounder.
High catch rates of target species, such as scallops and haddock, also
allow fisherman to spend less time with their fishing gear deployed on
the ocean bottom. What progress is the New England Council making to
open the ``Northern Edge'' to controlled fishing for abundant species
such as haddock and scallops?
Answer. The Council is developing an amendment to update essential
fish habitat (EFH) designations, EFH protection areas and dedicated
habitat research areas for all of its fishery management plans and
expects to approve a draft amendment in late 2013 or very early in
2014. The amendment will consider allowing more access for controlled
fishing for abundant species such as haddock and scallops on the
Northern Edge of Georges Bank while still protecting EFH. The need for
increased access will be balanced against the statutory requirement to
minimize the adverse effects of fishing on essential fish habitat.
Question 2. What changes can be made in the law to help fishery
management be able to react more quickly to changing resource
conditions?
Answer. The Council needs more frequent stock assessments to
support changes in specifications. Despite using multi-year
specification cycles, routine assessments often are not available to
support these actions. The result can be reliance on outdated
information or infrequent adjustments under changing stock conditions.
Also, the MSA should exempt routine adjustments in FMP
specifications (overfishing levels, ABCs, ACLs, annual catch targets
and other routine measures) from extensive NEPA analysis and provide
for a streamlined regulatory review process for these actions.
Question 3. What actions is the Council taking to shift towards
fishery management that is grounded in ecosystem considerations like
habitat, the role of forage fish, and changing ocean conditions due to
climate change and pollution?
Answer. The Council has been taking into account ecosystems
considerations in several ways. When stock assessments incorporate
information about ecosystems considerations, the information affects
the choice of reference points such as FMSY, ABCs, OFLs and
ACLs. This was the case for a recent assessment for Atlantic sea
herring, which is an important forage fish for many other fish and
marine mammals. Secondly, the Council has designated EFH protection
areas chosen based on their importance to various life stages for a
variety of fish species. The Council also provides input to the
Northeast Regional Ocean Council on regional ocean planning issues.
Additionally, the Council has explored a more formal approach to
ecosystem based management. Progress has been slow because of several
high priority challenges that needed to be addressed--such as the
recent efforts to end overfishing on cod stocks. The Council will
participate in a climate-change seminar with our neighbors, the Mid-
Atlantic Fishery Management Council, in the spring of 2014.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Edward Markey to
C.M. ``Rip'' Cunningham, Jr.
Ecosystem-Based Management
Question 1. In your written testimony, you indicate that there are
some provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act that limit the ability to
manage fisheries using an ecosystems approach. Please provide the
specific provisions you think hinder ecosystem management and your
suggestions of how to improve them.
Answer. National Standard 1 requires each stock to be managed to
achieve a biomass level (BMSY) of providing maximum
sustainable yield (MSY) on a long-term average basis and that if any
stock falls below \1/2\ the biomass target (BMSY) it must be
rebuilt within the 10-year time-frame if possible. Scientists have
informed the Council that this focus on single species management will
make it very difficult to manage stocks as a group and that it is
virtually impossible for all managed stocks to be at their target
levels simultaneously, particularly if there are predator-prey
interactions between stocks. For example, spiny dogfish may compete
with cod for food and marine mammals that depend on cod and herring as
major components of their diet.
There are also issues with who has the management authority. Under
EBFM, management should take into consideration large marine ecosystems
(LME's) as the management areas. Currently, jurisdiction is set up
under arbitrary regions. If true ecosystems based fisheries management
is to be put in place, management authority and process issues will
have to be addressed.
Building Trust in Fisheries Management
Question 2. Your written testimony also indicates that there has
been ``an erosion of trust in both the scientific advice and the
management system'' in recent years and the need for more stock
assessment advice. How can additional resources for science help the
New England Fishery Management Council work with scientists to
strengthen fisheries science and how will that help the Council
establish accurate and timely catch limits and accountability measures
with buy-in from the industry?
Answer. As mentioned above, the Council needs more frequent stock
assessments to support changes in specifications. Despite using multi-
year specification cycles, routine assessments often are not available
to support these actions. The result can be reliance on outdated
information or infrequent adjustments under changing stock conditions.
Also funding for cooperative research can improve buy-in from
industry. Industry-based surveys can supplement our understanding of
population trends and build confidence in government surveys and the
effectiveness of management measures
Seafood Sustainability Certification
Question 3. In your written testimony, you discussed the
possibility of creating a certificate of sustainability through the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. Is there something that prevents that from
happening under the current law?
Answer. Although there is nothing that prevents the creation of a
certificate of sustainability by NOAA/NMFS under the current law,
competing demands for scarce resources can prevent this from being a
priority without more explicit guidance from Congress.
Data Confidentiality
Question 4. In your written testimony, you indicate that there are
some data confidentiality provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act that
limit the ability managers and the public to understand the effects of
management decisions. Can you please provide the specific problematic
provisions and your suggestion of how to improve them?
Answer. SEC. 402. (b)(1) (Information Collection; Confidentiality
of Information) states that ``Any information submitted to the
Secretary, a State fishery management agency, or a marine fisheries
commission by any person in compliance with the requirements of this
Act shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed'' with several
exceptions including the following:
(E) when such information is used by State, Council, or Marine
Fisheries Commission employees to verify catch under a limited
access program, but only to the extent that such use is
consistent with subparagraph (B);
(F) when the Secretary has obtained written authorization from the
person submitting such information to release such information
to persons for reasons not otherwise provided for in this
subsection, and such release does not violate other
requirements of this Act;
(G) when such information is required to be submitted to the
Secretary for any determination under a limited access program;
. . .
However, there are no exceptions for making this information public
when the Council is developing limited access or catch share programs.
Because catch history is often used to allocate resources in catch
share systems, permit holders need to know the catches attributed to
their permits. It is often impossible for current permit holders to
obtain releases of information from individuals who may have had the
same permit in the past but who cannot be located by the current permit
holder. Therefore this provision makes it difficult for the Council to
develop limited access or catch share management programs or for permit
holders to support such programs because they cannot determine how
management alternatives might affect their quota allocations.
Suggestions that would eliminate this problem are: (1) allow all
previous catch history information associated with a current permit to
be released to the current permit holder(s); and (2) allow councils to
use this information in the development of management programs as long
as the information is not explicitly identified with a specific
individual, entity or permit.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Marco Rubio to
C.M. ``Rip'' Cunningham, Jr.
Correcting Comment by Mr. Cunningham: Senator Rubio asked me a
question at the hearing about flexibility and I somewhat misspoke in my
response. The NEFMC does not have a Council position on flexibility. I
was trying to give the sense of the Council. Flexibility is one of
those things that means different things to different participants in
the process. It was the Council sense that focusing on ending
overfishing was the most important and controllable aspect of the
management process. My own feeling on the flexibility issue is a little
more precautionary. Also, I applaud the creative way that the MAFMC was
able to find flexibility within the current MSA.
Question 1. As you know, it has become common practice for the
Administration to divert in their annual budget the Saltonstall-Kennedy
funds received by NOAA away from the authorized uses and into the
agency's Operations and Research fund. Do you agree with this diversion
or do you feel these funds should be used for their intended purposes
and in addition to the funds appropriated by Congress to NOAA for
fisheries research?
Answer. From my perspective and I believe the sentiment of the
Council, that research support and enhancement is at the top of the
list to maintain and improve the Council process. With that in mind, it
would be a real benefit if funding could be found to support the
regional science centers in their effort to support the Council's
requirements for real time science to support the mandated Annual Catch
Limits and Accountability Measures. I realize that we are in a fiscally
constrained time, so using S-K funding, which has research as one of
its objectives, seems to me to be reasonable.
Question 2. How would you prioritize National Standard 1 and
National Standard 8 against each other? Should one standard have higher
prioritization?
Answer. Again, from my perspective, the top priority of the Council
process should be to rebuild sustainable fisheries resources. Strong
resources will float all boats (pun intended). On the other hand if the
Council process fails to maintain sustainable resources, then every
fishing community will suffer. I would prioritize NS1 at the top.
Question 3. What policy changes are necessary to provide clarity on
how the National Environmental Policy Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Act
align?
Answer. The eight fishery management councils have tried to work
with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to reduce the overlap
and differences between the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
and the Magnuson-Stevens Act (M-S Act) with little success. Management
actions must be drafted with both laws in mind, and most fishery
management actions are accompanied by a NEPA document. As one
illustration of an inconsistency between the two laws, under the M-S
Act the NMFS can only approve, partially approve, or disapprove a
management measure submitted by the Council. But to comply with NEPA--
which is as an agency responsibility--NMFS is supposed to consider all
alternatives in the NEPA document, and is prohibited from making a
decision before the public process is completed. So NMFS publishes a
NEPA document that pretends any alternative can be selected when the
reality is that the agency's choices are constrained by the M-S Act
language and the Council's choice of a proposed action. There are also
different requirements for public input between the two laws that can
cause confusion. The M-S Act should also exempt minor regulatory
actions from the need for NEPA analyses. Finally, it should be
clarified that the NMFS cannot add alternatives to a document (under
the excuse that NEPA requires additional alternatives) that have not
been developed by the Council.
Question 4. Should all fisheries managed under the Magnuson-Stevens
Act be considered sustainable fisheries or should a third-party
certification be required for a fishery to be deemed ``sustainable?''
Answer. As outlined in my testimony, the NEFMC does not see any
need for third-party certification. MSA has the most stringent
management protocols of any country. A certification process should be
set up under NOAA that would put all U.S. fisheries on an equal
footing.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Mark Begich to
Richard B. Robins
Question 1. What role have the 2006 amendments to the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, specifically changes to require the fishery management
councils to follow the advice of scientists and to establish
accountability measures when setting annual catch limits, played in
helping end overfishing, rebuilding depleted fish populations, and
moving America's fisheries on a path toward sustainability?
Answer. On a national level, the 2006 reauthorization of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) has contributed to significant progress
toward ending overfishing and rebuilding depleted stocks. The Mid-
Atlantic Council has long considered scientific advice to be the
cornerstone of effective fisheries management. The requirements of the
2006 Amendment required significant changes for some of the regional
councils, particularly those that had been using input controls as
their primary form of management. In contrast, the Mid-Atlantic Council
had already implemented science-based catch level recommendations
through enforcement of hard quotas (which effectively controlled
fishing mortality) in response to the requirement of the 1996
Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) to rebuild overfished fisheries.
By the time the 2006 MSA reauthorization was approved by Congress,
the Mid-Atlantic Council had already ended overfishing and established
rebuilding plans for all of its fisheries prior to the 2006
reauthorization. As a result, bringing MAFMC FMPs into compliance with
the 2006 MSA reauthorization required only minimal changes with respect
to implementing Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) and (AMs) in Mid-Atlantic
fisheries. The Mid-Atlantic Council became the first regional fishery
management Council in the Nation to approve measures to comply with the
MSRA through adoption of its Omnibus ACL/AM Amendment in August 2010.
This amendment codified a framework for the specification of ACLs and
AMs and established a policy which provides guidance on the
specification of annual catch limits with regard to the risk of
overfishing.
It is important to note that rebuilding successes since 2006 should
not all be attributed to the stricter requirements of the 2006
reauthorization (just as failures since 2006 should not be attributed
to failure to comply with the requirements of the Amendment). Like the
Mid-Atlantic, a number of Councils began working to rebuild overfished
stocks following the passage of the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act, and
rebuilding was already well underway for many U.S. fisheries. However,
many of our Nation's fisheries had already become severely depleted by
that point, and rebuilding can be a slow process that has been
confounded in some U.S. fisheries by environmental conditions and other
anthropogenic factors that councils are unable to control.
Question 2. What benefits have Mid-Atlantic fishermen and their
communities enjoyed from ending overfishing and rebuilding fishery
stocks?
Answer. The benefits of ending overfishing and rebuilding
overfished stocks are generally manifested as greater stock
productivity and increased sustainable harvests, which typically result
in greater economic productivity and social stability in fishing
communities. For example, summer flounder stock rebuilding has allowed
for increases in allowable catches with attendant social and economic
benefits being accrued by the commercial sector. Likewise, the
recreational sector of this fishery has enjoyed greater access to the
resource via higher bag limits, greater retention of their catch
through size limit adjustments and longer fishing seasons.
In addition to the obvious social and economic benefits of
increased quotas when stocks are rebuilt, there are other more subtle
benefits to rebuilding fish stocks. First, fully rebuilt stocks are
generally comprised of a greater proportion of larger, older fish
relative to an overfished stock. This tends to increase the
reproductive capacity of the stock and also contributes to greater
stock stability since healthy stocks are less dependent on incoming
annual recruitment events to sustain harvests.
Second, healthy fisheries tend to be more resilient to the stresses
of temporary overfishing and environmental changes. This means that a
healthy stock is less likely to be significantly altered if the annual
catch limit (ACL) is set too high during a given year due to an
inaccurate estimation of stock size. The resilience of our fisheries to
environmental stressors will become increasingly important as we face
new challenges related to global climate change, such as ocean warming
and acidification.
Question 3. How can we better support fishermen struggling to make
ends meet as depleted stocks rebuild?
Answer. By nature of reducing total catch, all rebuilding plans
contribute to negative short-term economic impacts. The councils
recognize that a reasonably short rebuilding time is desirable because
healthy stocks provide higher catch levels than stocks that are
overfished, thus providing greater long-term socio-economic benefits.
However, there are always tradeoffs between biological, social, and
economic outcomes, and the councils need flexibility to evaluate the
tradeoffs associated with a wider range of timelines. However, the
councils are optimally positioned to develop strategies that will
rebuild depleted fisheries while minimizing adverse economic impacts.
Several modifications to the Magnuson-Stevens Act would help the
councils to support fishing communities more effectively:
1. Establish less prescriptive rebuilding timeline requirements.
Giving the councils slightly more flexibility in the
development of rebuilding plans would enable more thorough
evaluations of the social, economic, and biological tradeoffs
associated with a range of rebuilding plans and timelines. The
10-year rebuilding timeline often precludes any meaningful
evaluation of social and economic consequences associated with
an appropriate range of rebuilding timelines, and results in an
inconsistency in the treatment of species that can be rebuild
in less than 10 years relative to those that cannot be rebuilt
within that period. This inconsistency should be resolved by
establishing the maximum rebuilding timeline as
TMIN plus one mean generation time. Additionally,
councils should have additional flexibility in revising
rebuilding rates and dates when environmental conditions or
biological performance (e.g., recruitment) impede a stock's
rebuilding trajectory. These measures could potentially allow
the councils to mitigate some of the social and economic
consequences of rebuilding without jeopardizing the ability of
a stock to rebuild to its biomass target.
Successful management of U.S. fisheries should not be defined
narrowly in biological metrics. On the contrary, our fisheries
should be managed for biological, ecological, social, and
economic success. This could be enhanced during stock
rebuilding by providing carefully targeted flexibility and by
more effectively incorporating social and economic objectives
in stock rebuilding plans. Successful rebuilding in biological
terms does not guarantee successful social or economic outcomes
at the end of a rebuilding plan, particularly if that
rebuilding plan does not address the economic problems that are
often attendant at the outset of a rebuilding plan when a stock
is depleted.
2. Promote regulatory stability. For U.S. fisheries to be
productive, commercial and recreational fishing operations need
to be managed for enhanced stability and predictability to the
extent practicable. Frequent changes in regulations create
significant challenges, and often result in economic losses,
for commercial and for-hire fishermen in the Mid-Atlantic
region. Quotas must ultimately be aligned with stock
assessments, so some adverse outcomes are unavoidable in
certain fisheries that may have experienced chronic overfishing
and overcapacity. However, limited flexibility to eliminate
overfishing under certain circumstances over a multi-year
period would allow the councils to substantially mitigate
short-term social and economic dislocation in our managed
fisheries. This could be particularly important when a stock
assessment changes dramatically. Examples of stocks that were
rebuilt prior under these types of approaches prior to the 2006
reauthorization include King mackerel and Spanish mackerel in
the South Atlantic, which were rebuilt within a generation time
and still allowed a viable fishery to operate.
3. Establish and fund a national seafood certification for U.S.
fisheries managed under MSA. The U.S. has one of the strongest
fishery management programs in the world, and several councils
have voted to support establishing a U.S. fisheries
sustainability certification in the next reauthorization. In a
market transformed by globalization, the sustainability of U.S.
fisheries needs to be affirmed, and U.S. fishermen and
processors should be able to identify and label their products
as fish that were harvested responsibly and sustainably under
the gold standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. A public
affirmation of the core strengths of the U.S. management system
would be an important step to facilitate education, awareness,
and marketing for the benefit of U.S. fisheries.
Question 4. How is the Mid-Atlantic Council working with scientists
to strengthen fisheries science and how will that help the Council
establish accurate and timely catch limits and accountability measures
with buy-in from the industry?
Answer. The MAFMC works closely with scientists at the Northeast
Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) to continually improve the stock
assessments which form the basis for setting catch limits for Council
managed fisheries. This process begins with the identification of
research needs and data gaps during the specification of ABC by the SSC
and the subsequent specification of catch limits and accountability
measures by the Council. The Council then works with the SSC to
prioritize research needs to identify the most critical research needs
across our portfolio of managed species within the Councils five year
research plan. These research needs are then forwarded to the NEFSC for
consideration within the Center's research prioritization and planning
process. In many cases, research and analytical questions are
incorporated into the terms of reference for stock assessments and are
addressed directly when stock assessments are being conducted by the
appropriate assessment working groups.
In addition to working with NEFSC scientists, the Council
implemented an innovative Research Set Aside (RSA) Program in 2002
whereby the Council sets aside up to 3 percent of the annual quota for
each species to fund scientific research. The intent of the RSA program
is to conduct research projects cooperatively with the fishing industry
which directly address the research needs identified within the
Councils' five year research plan. Since its inception, the Council has
funded in excess of 10 million dollars in research which addressed a
wide range of research topics pertinent to Council related assessment
and management needs. The program has recently focused on funding the
Northeast Assessment and Monitoring Program (NEAMAP) which is a fishery
independent trawl survey designed to provide information on abundance
and distribution of fish stocks in the inshore waters of the Mid-
Atlantic not covered by the NEFSC trawl survey program. While the
NEAMAP time series is relatively short compared to other long term
surveys, the Council expects the NEAMAP data to be fully incorporated
into most of the stock assessments for Mid-Atlantic species. The
information from this survey has already been incorporated into several
stock assessment analyses and was utilized in assessing the status of
the Atlantic sturgeon population along the Atlantic Coast.
The NEAMAP survey is unique within the Mid-Atlantic since it is
conducted on a commercial fishing vessel operated by a commercial
fishing captain and crew. The onboard team of scientists from the
Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) monitor and collect the
survey data. This example of collaborative survey work enjoys an
exceptionally high degree of confidence from the fishing industry and
should serve as a model for cooperative research that should be
expanded strategically in the Northeast region of the U.S.
In addition, the Council has directly funded a Management Strategy
Evaluation study of ABC control rule performance which was conducted by
several SSC members through the University of Maryland. This work
evaluated the performance of a range of ABC control rules using
simulations of known or ``meta populations'' for both data ``rich'' and
data ``poor'' species. Additional funding to continue this work was
recently procured though the NMFS Office of S&T under the National
Stock Assessment Improvement Program. The expected benefits of this
research include an evaluation of the performance of various ABC
control rules under a range of stock conditions and information levels
which will directly inform the Councils current ACL/AM process recently
implemented to comply with the 2006 reauthorization of MSA.
Question 5. How can additional cooperative research successfully
support science-based fisheries management?
Answer. Cooperative research programs provide a means to improve
the accuracy of stock assessments while engaging stakeholders in the
research process. Despite the importance of these programs, many of
them face inadequate or uncertain funding from year to year. The
Northeast Cooperative Research Program should be expanded to include
additional funds for more research projects pertinent to the assessment
and management of Mid-Atlantic fish stocks.
The Mid-Atlantic Council has funded the Northeast Area Monitoring
and Assessment Program (NEAMAP) through its Research Set-Aside (RSA)
program for the past 6 years, but the allocation of these funds solely
to NEAMAP prevents us from funding other projects that address our
annual research priorities. NEAMAP has become a core monitoring program
in the Mid-Atlantic, and procuring dedicated, long-term funding from
Federal sources to ensure that the NEAMAP Program continues into the
future is the Council's top priority in terms of funding scientific
research. Saltonstall-Kennedy funds should be dedicated to permanently
secure the future of the NEAMAP survey and to expand cooperative
surveys and research strategically in the Mid-Atlantic. If long-term
dedicated funding is secured for the NEAMAP sampling program,
additional RSA funds could be made available to conduct fishery
research in other topic areas identified in the Council's five year
research plan and in many stock assessments for Mid-Atlantic species
Increased funding of existing cooperative research would help to
address important practical research and management questions
identified in our FMPs.
Question 6. Current funding levels result in individual assessments
that are often separated by four or five years. The status of a number
of Mid-Atlantic species cannot be determined because out outdated
information. How critical is it we dedicate more resources for data
collection and improved and more frequent stock assessments?
Answer. Analytical stock assessments form the foundation for the
proper specification of ACLs and ultimately determine the success or
failure of our Federal fishery conservation and management system.
Setting appropriate ACLs and AMs is challenging, if not impossible,
without adequate data, yet many federally managed fisheries continue to
be defined as ``data-poor.'' Improvement of stock assessments,
particularly for data-poor stocks, should be the highest research
priority of the National Marine Fisheries Service in both the Northeast
and throughout the U.S.
The new ACL/AM requirements have placed a major burden on the NEFSC
to provide the data and analysis needed to set appropriate catch levels
and track the performance of fisheries through time as required under
MSRA. In the Northeast region, the demands for stock assessments have
exceeded the NEFSC's ability to provide high-quality stock assessments
at the frequency needed to manage our fisheries as required under the
current mandates of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
As noted earlier, the Council implemented a risk policy with
respect to the implementation of its Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC)
control rules. The risk policy provides a probabilistic framework to
set ABC levels, and ultimately ACLs, relative to both the status of the
stock and the level of scientific uncertainty associated with an
assessment. Under this policy, the Council adopts more conservative
harvest levels if stock levels decline and/or if scientific uncertainty
increases. Allowable harvest levels--and hence, benefits to society--
could be set at higher levels if the stocks we manage were assessed
with a higher degree of frequency and certainty. Unfortunately, the
information and assessment levels of roughly half of the stocks are
insufficient for management under this probabilistic framework, meaning
that the SSC and Council must use ad hoc methods of setting ABCs for
those species, which is likely resulting in lost yield. Quotas set
under these ad hoc methods for data-poor stocks are also less
predictable and have resulted in a loss of stability and yield in some
of our most important fisheries. Major improvements in the assessment
of Mid-Atlantic stocks could be accomplished through increased funding
for data collection and analysis to support better and more frequent
stock assessments by the NEFSC.
Another critical issue relative to stock assessments is the lack of
public trust in the scientific data used to support management
decisions. Stakeholder engagement is a critical element of effective
fishery management, and improving the overall scientific foundation of
our management system will require that particular attention be paid to
addressing the lack of public trust in stock assessments through
clearer communication, greater transparency, and an increased
stakeholder involvement in data collection.
Question 7. Can you describe the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
Council's plan to adopt ``ecosystem approaches'' to fishery management?
Answer. For nearly a decade the Council has been steadily moving
toward a more ecosystem-based approach to managing Mid-Atlantic
fisheries. The Council developed its first single-species fishery
management plan for Atlantic surfclams in 1977. In the following years,
11 more species were added to the Mid-Atlantic Council's authority.
Through periodic amendments, several of the Council's FMPs have evolved
to become multi-species plans. The Council currently manages its 12
species under 6 management plans. Although the multi-species plans
allow the Council to take into account similarities and interactions
among closely related fisheries, the Council also faces an array of
broad ecosystem level issues that require a more integrated,
comprehensive management approach. This issue has been expressed as a
top priority among all stakeholder groups, including environmental
groups and commercial and recreational fishermen.
In October 2011, the Council hosted the Fourth National Scientific
and Statistical Committee Workshop, which examined the various
approaches being taken by the Councils nationwide relative to ecosystem
considerations in fisheries management. Following the workshop, the
Council voted to move forward with development of an Ecosystem-Approach
to Fisheries Management (EAFM) Guidance Document. This approach--which
the Council has described as evolutionary rather than revolutionary--
recognizes the biological, economic, social, and physical interactions
among the components of ecosystems and attempts to manage fisheries to
achieve optimum yield taking those interactions into account.
The purpose of the EAFM guidance document is to enhance the
Council's species-specific management programs with more ecosystem
science, broader ecosystem considerations, and coordination of
management across FMPs and the relevant ecosystems. The EAFM guidance
document will focus on four key areas relative to ecosystem
considerations:
1. Biological and ecological interactions, including management of
prey species and food web dynamics;
2. Ecosystem level habitat considerations-taking an ecosystem
approach to essential fish habitat designation/protection and
quantitatively linking habitat science and conservation to
fishery outcomes;
3. Systematic oceanographic change-identification of key factors
affecting the Mid-Atlantic Bight ecosystem including warming,
acidification, circulation patterns, etc.; and
4. Social and economic considerations--integration of social and
economic analyses into OY specifications.
The EAFM guidance document will provide a framework for considering
policy choices and trade-offs as they affect FMP species and the
broader ecosystems. Rather than drastically change the Council's
management approach, the final product will serve as a non-regulatory
umbrella document to guide policy decisions as the Council transitions
from single-species management toward an ecosystem-based approach
(i.e., the Council envisions a practical roadmap to ecosystem
approaches to fishery management).
Question 8. What is the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council
doing to protect critical fish habitats like deep sea corals and what
more should be done to protect fish habitat?
Answer. Habitat conservation is an important component of the
Council's Ecosystem and Ocean Planning program. Healthy fish habitat is
essential to sustainable, productive fisheries. Marine fish depend on
healthy habitats for survival, and many species require specific types
of habitats for spawning, breeding, feeding, and growth. The 1996
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (MSA) set forth new provisions which allowed for greater
involvement of the regional fishery management councils in the
identification and protection of important fish habitats. In
particular, it required the Councils to designate Essential Fish
Habitat (EFH) for all managed species and gave the Council authority to
designate Habitat Areas of Particular Concerns (HAPCs) for each
species.
In addition to identifying critical fish habitats for protection,
the Council is also responsible for ensuring that management measures
minimize, to the extent practicable, any adverse impacts to essential
fish habitat by fishing gears. The Mid-Atlantic Council has used a
variety of management measures effectively to minimize the impacts of
fishing activities. These measures include restrictive harvest limits,
gear-restricted areas for small-mesh fisheries, and closed areas in
selected canyons.
Deep Sea Corals
The Council is currently developing an amendment to protect deep-
sea corals from damage by bottom-tending fishing gear. Deep-sea corals
provide habitat for many commercially and recreationally important
species in the Mid-Atlantic. Generally fragile and slow-growing, deep
sea corals are particularly vulnerable to physical disturbances.
Several management measures are already in place to protect deep sea
corals, including Tilefish Gear-Restricted Areas (GRAs) in four canyons
(Lydonia, Oceanographer, Veatch, and Norfolk) and closures of two
canyons (Lydonia and Oceanographer Canyons) to the squid, mackerel, and
butterfish fishery.
In August 2012 the Council initiated Amendment 16 to the Atlantic
Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan to provide
further protection to deep sea corals from fishing gear. The amendment
will consider management measures to protect areas that are known or
highly likely to contain deep-sea corals. Areas being considered for
protection were initially identified during the development of the New
England Fishery Management Council's Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat
(EFH) Amendment. The draft amendment currently contains three groups of
alternatives, including options for spatial designations of deep sea
coral zones, options for management measures to be applied to such
zones, and options for potential modifications to these management
measures. In addition, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was
developed between the Mid-Atlantic, New England, and South Atlantic
Fishery Management Councils regarding areas of jurisdiction and broad-
scale coordination of management measures for deep sea corals.
Integration with Ecosystem-Approach to Fisheries Management
Since ecosystem based management involves the adoption of ``place-
based'' management strategies, habitat science will play a key role in
the Council's ecosystem based management program. The Council will
continue to pursue traditional approaches to addressing habitat issues,
including spatial/temporal mapping of habitat to inform the definition
of ecological production units for management consideration. The
Council has also endorsed the development of habitat assessments as
part of the development of an overall assessment of the state of Mid-
Atlantic ecosystems. In addition, the Council is pursing the
incorporation of regional habitat assessments into contemporary stock
assessments, both at the single-species and ecosystem levels.
Habitat considerations will also be important throughout the
anticipated future offshore wind energy development in the Mid-
Atlantic, which is expected to overlap significantly with the region's
fisheries. The Council has actively engaged with MARCO, the Mid-
Atlantic Regional Planning Body, and BOEM, and has consistently
supported the incorporation of fisheries resources, uses, and habitats
in the offshore planning process. The Council anticipates that it will
continue to play an active role on the issue of ensuring the future
protection and health of fisheries habitat relative to offshore ocean
planning.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Marco Rubio to
Richard B. Robins
Question 1. As you know, it has become common practice for the
Administration to divert in their annual budget the Saltonstall-Kennedy
funds received by NOAA away from the authorized uses and into the
agency's Operations and Research fund. Do you agree with this diversion
or do you feel these funds should be used for their intended purposes
and in addition to the funds appropriated by Congress to NOAA for
fisheries research?
Answer. I am strongly supportive of the current objective of the
Saltonstall-Kennedy Act, which is to address the needs of fishing
communities in optimizing economic benefits within the context of
rebuilding and maintaining sustainable fisheries and dealing with the
impacts of conservation and management measures.
In the Mid-Atlantic region, the need for this program is evidenced
by the large number of fishing communities struggling to regain
stability well after stocks have been rebuilt and quotas have increased
substantially. Successful, sustainable fisheries management under the
current science-based requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act depends
on having adequate surveys and stock assessments. The S-K Program can
effectively address these types of challenges by involving stakeholders
in fisheries research and development projects. In addition to enabling
stakeholders to make valuable scientific contributions to fisheries
management, S-K funded projects also have potential to strengthen
relationships between the industry, scientists, and managers.
Unfortunately, a large portion of S-K funds have not been dispersed
for their intended purpose, and despite several amendments to the S-K
Act, the program has not achieved its potential. While I am not in a
position to speak to the utility of the specific operational and
research activities being funded at NOAA with S-K funds, diverting
money from S-K to fund NOAA operations lacks transparency and may
prevent the S-K Program from providing support to the communities that
need it the most. Steps should be taken to increase accountability and
ensure that S-K funds are used for their intended purpose.
In addition to addressing administrative issues within the S-K
Program, I also recommend that Congress consider designating a portion
of the S-K funds for the Regional Fishery Management Councils to direct
towards cooperative research projects to address the Councils' research
priorities. In the Mid-Atlantic region, the Northeast Assessment and
Monitoring Program (NEAMAP) would be an ideal candidate for long-term
S-K funding. NEAMAP is a fishery independent trawl survey designed to
provide information on abundance and distribution of fish stocks in the
inshore waters of the Mid-Atlantic not covered by the NEFSC trawl
survey program. The information from this survey has already been
incorporated into several stock assessment analyses and has become a
core component of our fisheries monitoring programs in the Northeast
region.
The NEAMAP survey is unique within the Mid-Atlantic because it is
conducted on a commercial fishing vessel operated by a commercial
fishing captain and crew. The onboard team of scientists from the
Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) monitor and collect the
survey data. This example of collaborative survey work enjoys an
exceptionally high degree of confidence from the fishing industry and
should be used as a model for cooperative research throughout the
entire Northeast region of the U.S. Unfortunately, funding has been a
major constraint for NEAMAP. For the six years since NEAMAP was
established, the Council's Research Set-Aside (RSA) program has been
the program's sole source of funding. The Council established the RSA
program in 2002 to fund research projects cooperatively with the
fishing industry which directly address the science needs identified
within the Councils' five year research plan. The Council's commitment
to funding NEAMAP has prevented us from funding other, potentially
valuable, research projects.
In order to ensure the continued operation of NEAMAP, and to enable
the Council to continue funding other research projects, I strongly
encourage members of Congress to consider either (a) amending the S-K
Act to designate a portion of funds for long-term research projects
with proven potential, or (b) amending the Magnuson-Stevens Act to
establish guaranteed funding sources for long-term collaborative and
cooperative research projects.
Question 2. Would you please elaborate on the Council's harvest
control rule and associated risk policy? What is the benefit of
harmonizing this policy across all federally managed fisheries under
the jurisdiction of the Council?
Answer. In 2012, the Council adopted a formalized harvest control
rule and associated risk policy to guide the specification of
Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) limits for Mid-Atlantic stocks. The
MAFMC regards its risk policy as way to specify the Council's tolerance
for overfishing. The determination of P* is a policy decision to be
made by the Council and informed by the SSC. The SSC applies the
Council's risk policy and associated harvest control rules when making
ABC recommendations to the Council.
The risk policy and associated harvest control rules are expressed
in terms of P*, which represents the probability of overfishing as a
function of stock health in relation to relative biomass (i.e., current
biomass/biomass target) (reference Figure 1.) The policy enables the
Council to set quotas at higher levels of risk when stocks are at or
above their biomass targets and progressively limits risk as stocks
decline below their biomass targets.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 1. MAFMC Risk Policy and Harvest Control Rule
Implementation of the risk policy and harvest control rule is a
two-step process. First the SSC assigns each stock assessment to one of
four levels. The stock assessment levels are summarized as follows:
Level 1--``Ideal assessment'': ABC is based on the distribution
of the OFL as provided from the assessment model; P* is based
on the Council's risk policy.
Level 2--``Preferred assessment'': uses an OFL distribution
proxy provided from the assessment workgroup; P* is based on
the Council's risk policy.
Level 3--``Acceptable assessment'': does not reliably
incorporate scientific uncertainty; uses an OFL distribution
proxy (with a proxy CV), P* is based on the Council's risk
policy or a default value of 75 percent of FMSY to set ABC.
Level 4--``Unreliable assessment'': lacks data on absolute
abundance and fishing mortality rates; no reliable OFL proxy
available; ABC set based on ad hoc, alternative approaches
(e.g., adjustment to long-term catch history or survey index
values).
In Levels 1 through 3, the SSC applies the Council's P* (risk
policy/harvest control rule) to the distribution of the overfishing
limit (OFL) to identify the acceptable biological catch (ABC.) This
process works well for assessments that have biological reference
points. The policy strikes an effective balance between maximizing
yields in fisheries while accounting for the uncertainty that is
inherent in fisheries stock assessments. For example, in Level 3 stocks
that are at or above their biomass targets, quotas are set at 81
percent of the overfishing limit.
The levels are designed to incentivize improvements in data quality
and stock assessments. The distribution in a level 3 stock is typically
based on a lognormal distribution of the OFL, using a coefficient of
variation (CV) of 100 percent. This results in a relatively wide
distribution of the OFL value, whereas a Level 1 stock assessment would
be expected to have a tighter distribution of the OFL, resulting in a
smaller buffer between OFL and ABC. All of the Council's stocks are
currently classified as Level 3 or Level 4 assessments.
In Levels 1 through 3, the ABC's are derived directly from the
Council's P* as it is applied to the stock assessment's estimate of
stock biomass. This results in a transparent, consistent, and
predictable approach to accounting for risk and scientific uncertainty.
By contrast, in Level 4 stocks, the ABC recommendations have been less
consistent and have destabilized some fisheries.
Developing and implementing a risk policy has been a challenging
process for the Council, but it has also yielded a number of positive
outcomes. Most notably, the risk policy has enabled the Council to
manage fisheries with greater consistency, which ultimately results in
greater stability for fishing communities.
Having a clearly defined risk policy has also provided us with a
better means of communicating our needs to the science center. The fact
that we have no Level 1 or Level 2 stocks should be a clear indicator
of our desire for better data. As part of our recently approved
strategic plan, we intend to begin working with the science center in
2014 to develop a path for improving Mid-Atlantic stock assessments.
Question 3. Should all fisheries managed under the Magnuson-Stevens
Act be considered sustainable fisheries or should a third-party
certification be required for a fishery to be deemed ``sustainable?''
Answer. Yes--all fish and shellfish harvested legally from U.S.
fisheries managed under the MSA should be considered sustainable. The
Magnuson-Stevens Act is touted as one of the most effective fishery
management laws in the world. One of the greatest strengths of the law
is that it establishes a common standard of sustainability which is
applied consistently across all U.S. fisheries, and over the last 37
years, managers, scientists, and fishermen have worked tirelessly to
bring all U.S. fisheries up to this high standard. Despite our success,
the social and economic outcomes of rebuilding marine fisheries have
not been entirely positive for our region's fishing communities. Many
members of the commercial fishing industry struggle to regain their
footing in U.S. and international markets even as quotas increase.
There is also a lingering and sometimes demoralizing sense that U.S.
fisheries and fishermen are still negatively associated with
overfishing, despite the high standards that they are already held to
under the existing requirements of the MSA.
These problems deserve to be addressed--U.S. fishermen fishing
under today's Magnuson Act should be standing tall among their
international peers. In a market transformed by globalization, the
sustainability of U.S. fisheries needs to be affirmed, and U.S.
fishermen and processors should be able to identify and label their
products as fish that were harvested responsibly and sustainably under
the gold standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
A U.S. fisherman catching fish in a fishery managed under the MSA
should not have to make a hefty investment in a third-party
certification in order to sell his fish to U.S. consumers, much less to
the vendors of the U.S. Park Service. Within the global market, there
will always be a need and a role for third-party certifiers for
sustainability and food safety, but within the U.S. this role should
largely be filled by the MSA.
I would be very concerned about shouldering NMFS with an unfunded,
complicated certification program. Rather, I think the focus should be
kept simple and should give the agency the authority to confirm that
fisheries subject to Federal management are sustainably managed,
consistent with the legal requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
This would allow fishermen and processors to label and market their
product accordingly. Such a designation may or may not satisfy a
European retail chain, but a public affirmation of the core strengths
of the U.S. management would be an important step toward better
marketing of U.S. fisheries products.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Mark Begich to
Captain Nick Muto
Question 1. Mr. Muto, could you tell us how fishermen participating
in electronic monitoring pilot programs have responded to the
technology? How has it impacted their business and interactions with
enforcement officers?
Answer. Local fishermen see value in electronic monitoring. It is a
cost-effective, safe, and unbiased way to implement a comprehensive
monitoring program.
Electronic monitoring offers significant cost-savings compared to
human at-sea monitors in the event that the fleet is required to cover
this cost. In past years, NOAA has identified money to fund existing
observer coverage requirements, and they recently announced the
availability of funds to cover the 2014 fishing year as well. This
support is appreciated by commercial fishermen who, given the
disastrous state of the fishery, would be unable to afford to pay for
observers at an estimated cost of $1,200 per day. However, NOAA's
ability to fund this program has been decided on an ad-hoc basis, and a
lack of funds in the future could tie the fleet to the dock.
Electronic monitoring also addresses the liability and safety
concerns associated with carrying a human observer on fishing vessels.
Observers' level of comfort and know-how on boats varies from person to
person, and an inexperienced observer in rough weather is dangerous to
himself as well as the captain and crew. This type of situation leaves
the door open for inconsistent sampling and human error; conversely,
cameras can be positioned in several locations on a boat to collect
complete, unbiased catch information without interfering with fishing
operations.
For these reasons, the fleet has always supported electronic
monitoring. Several local fishermen participated in a pilot program
with NOAA to advance this technology, but we are no closer to
implementing electronic monitoring than we were when the program began
a decade ago. This lack of progress has been frustrating for program
participants and other local fishermen, but we are still hopeful that
an electronic monitoring program will be put in place in the near
future.
Question 2. How would electronic monitoring impact your bottom line
in needing to balance the ledger?
Answer. This is a tough time to be a fisherman in New England.
Groundfish stocks are at an all-time low and fishermen are struggling
to keep their businesses afloat. Every penny counts. A requirement for
the fleet to fund observer coverage at roughly $1,200 per day could
mean the difference between staying afloat and going under for many
fishing businesses in New England.
Given the high cost of observer coverage and the uncertainty
regarding the availability of government funds each year, it is
important that we pursue an affordable solution that holds the fleet
accountable. Electronic monitoring could be that solution--it would
allow for the collection of comprehensive, unbiased data while
dramatically decreasing costs. This would allow fishermen to fish
profitably.
Question 3. Needless to say, New England fishermen have had at
times strained relationships with enforcement, particularly in the wake
of revelations of enforcement abuse. How do you think electronic
monitoring could help repair these relationships?
Answer. We need effective enforcement. Otherwise, our regulations
are useless. Comprehensive monitoring, catch accountability, and
enforcement are all necessary parts of a management system that works
to rebuild fish stocks and support profitable fisheries. Electronic
monitoring wouldn't replace enforcement, but it would facilitate
accountability and streamline what is currently an overcomplicated and
slow-to-adapt system. This would result in improved relationships
between fishermen and enforcement, which is in the best interest of the
fishery.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Mark Begich to
Captain John McMurray
Question 1. How do the Magnuson-Stevens Act's conservation
requirements, including the 10-year rebuilding timeline, annual catch
limits, and accountability measures, benefit industry in the region?
What is your perception of the Sustainable Fisheries Act?
Answer. As I made clear in my written and oral testimony, I believe
the MSA's conservation requirements embodied in the 1996 SFA and
solidified the 2006 reauthorization, have been, overall, beneficial to
the fishing industry. The 10 year rebuilding timelines really did force
the Mid Atlantic Council to bite the bullet, implement sometimes very
restrictive measures despite political pressure to allow unsustainable
fishing, and as a result, species like summer flounder have recovered
to levels we haven't seen in decades. This is particularly beneficial
to the recreational fishing industry. Because we use the least
efficient gear and have the least range, we depend on such abundance.
``If you build it, they will come''. And so when reports of abundant
stocks and good catches begin to get out there, people want in on the
action. They book charter and party-boat trips. Or they fuel their
boats, buy bait, tackle etc. This is not just perception, it is fact.
As I mentioned in my testimony:
``In the Mid-Atlantic, according to the National Marine
Fisheries Service, recreational fishermen caught some 2.7
million summer flounder in 1989. In 2011, after rebuilding,
that number jumped to more than 21 million fish. That's a 700
percent increase! NOAA fisheries service's numbers show angler
trips over the last decade along the Atlantic Coast up 41
percent from the 1980s. In the Mid-Atlantic alone, according to
the fisheries service, by the mid 2000s, that has brought in an
additional $1.4 billion in economic activity and supported
18,660 jobs. On the commercial side, the success story is
similar. Gross commercial revenues for summer flounder are up
more than 60 percent since 2000, when the rebuilding plan was
put in place. And, in total, all of the rebuilt fish stocks
brought in, on average, $585 million in gross commercial
revenues every year from 2008-2010.''
Question 2. What lessons have you taken from observing the
rebuilding of fisheries like striped bass, bluefish, and summer
flounder? What lessons can be taken from the mid-Atlantic region and
translated for New England?
Answer. Striped bass is interesting as, when ASMFC finally clamped
down and put the moratorium in place, there was a lot of debate on what
the causes for such a decline were. Managers simply couldn't pinpoint
them. Fishing mortality was really the only thing they could control,
so that is what they controlled. . .and it worked! The stock did indeed
come back. So the old but recurring argument from fishermen that we
don't have enough data to determine the cause of the decline is a
precarious one. Likewise, the argument that declines are due to
environmental factors rather than fishing, so they should be able
continue to fish hard on a declining stock, make little sense. The fact
of the matter is that natural mortality, plus fishing mortality equals
total mortality, and it's total mortality that matters. So if higher
levels of natural mortality are occurring, it means that it is even
more important to reduce fishing mortality not only because of its own
impact on the stock, but to compensate for higher levels of natural
mortality as well. Fishing mortality becomes a greater, not a lesser,
problem given an increase in natural mortality. The recovery of striped
bass, and the decision to take action in the face of uncertainly,
illustrates this well.
Yet striped bass now remains ASMFC's only notable ``success'', even
though the real success took place 18 years ago after things got so bad
that they had to do something. Striped bass was recovered under a
management plan that protected 95 percent of the spawning stock. Yet,
the current outlook for striped bass is not good. There are very few
serious striped bass anglers left who don't agree the striped bass
population has declined precipitously. That view has been validated by
the 2013 Benchmark stock assessment, which was just peer-reviewed. That
assessment shows just such a decline since 2004, says that without any
reduction in fishing mortality, overfishing is a virtual certainty in
2014, and notes there is an increased chance of an overfished stock by
2015/2016. The Commission initiated an action, but only after voting
down, by a large margin, a motion to take immediate action for the 2014
season, to avoid overfishing. The point is that ASMFC tends to kick the
can down the road. They rarely take immediate action to avert a crisis.
Unconstrained by Federal law, it generally waits until stocks are on or
beyond the threshold of disaster before action is taken.
In regards to the New England Council., Summer flounder, and the
other fisheries managed by the Mid Atlantic Council, provide a good
example of how the Mid Atlantic Council took the right approach to
management. They set hard catch limits and enforced them, despite the
political pressure brought by some narrow economic interests. The New
England Fishery Management Council, on the other hand, relied on input
controls such as trip limits, days at sea, etc. because that's what the
fishermen wanted in order to avoid setting hard poundage limits/quotas,
which likely would have meant less fishing. And so they never were able
to effectively reduce harvest. Now truly painful measures are needed.
I think the point here is that we need to have a strong law that
requires managers to make the hard but necessary decisions, set the
required hard quotas despite the short term pain they will likely
cause, and manage fisheries with the future of sustainable fishing
communities in mind, instead of just dictating fisheries management in
light of to narrow economic interests that want to harvest as many fish
as they can now.
Improving Science-Based Management
Question 3. From your experience, how important is it that regional
fishery management councils set annual catch limits based on the
scientific advice of their Scientific and Statistical Committees?
Answer. I think that it's critical to have SSC's set Acceptable
Biological Catch (ABC). Allowing scientists to make such a
determination effectively takes the politics out of the decision-making
process in the beginning, thereby ensuring we have an objective
estimation, taking into account scientific uncertainty, of how many
fish we can take out of a stock while allowing it to be healthy an
flourish. Having been a manager for five years, I know that there is a
tremendous amount of political pressure/pressure from constituents to
allow fishing at unsustainable levels. History is pretty clear that
when we gave Councils such leverage they failed to manager
sustainability. We really need scientists making that initial
determination.
Question 4. What is your perspective on the current level of
investment in fisheries research? Where should additional investments
be directed in order to improve fisheries management?
Answer. Everyone agrees we need better science, to reduce the
scientific and management uncertainty and to give us better, real-time
estimates of fish stocks so we can react appropriately. Where
specifically investments to improve such science should go, I don't
know. That would be a question for the NMFS Fisheries Science Center
and the Council SSCs.
Question 5. Current funding levels result in individual assessments
that are often separated by four or five years. The status of a number
of Mid-Atlantic species cannot be determined because of outdated
information. How critical is it we dedicate more resources for data
collection and improved and more frequent stock assessments?
Answer. Hugely critical . . .
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Marco Rubio to
Captain John McMurray
Question. Please elaborate on the need for statutory language
requiring a periodic review of the allocation between sectors for
federally managed fisheries.
Answer. Councils are generally loath to look at reallocation
between sectors (e.g., between recreational and commercial) as the
dynamics of a fishery change. For example, more recreational
participants, less commercial . . . or, such as in the case with scup
in the Mid-Atlantic the economics of a fishery change. Currently, in
the scup fishery there are times of the year where the price of scup is
so low it doesn't pay to fish for them. Meanwhile, anglers and
particularly charter/partyboats have to fish under increasingly small
quotas. In such cases Councils should look at/do a full analysis of
potential reallocation between sectors. In the case of scup that's
precisely what we are doing, however in general, because such
reallocation discussions are often contentious, the Councils tend to
shy away from such discussions. Statutory language would require the
councils to look at such allocations on regular basis (every 5 years of
so) to make sure such allocations provide the greatest overall benefit
to the Nation. My constituency, the recreational fishing community, has
been asking for this for a very long time.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Mark Begich to
Patrick Paquette
Recreational Fisheries Management Under Magnuson-Stevens
Question 1. What are the biggest challenges to recreational
fisheries management and can these challenges be addressed under the
current Magnuson-Stevens Act?
Answer. Although recreational fisheries management poses several
big challenges, these challenges can be met and addressed through the
existing MSA requirements. The root of the management challenge lies in
the simple fact that millions of people engage in recreational fishing
every year, and access is generally open with some limited
restrictions. The challenge is not only in managing behavior of
independent anglers, but also in overcoming the difficult task of
collecting real-time, accurate data in order to inform timely
management decisions.
The 2006 MSA reauthorization established the Marine Recreational
Information Program (MRIP) to improve recreational fisheries data
collection. MRIP includes vast improvements over the previous system,
though its implementation has been delayed and wrought with problems.
Although there are major challenges with MRIP, especially the data it
produces for management, we do not need to amend the MSA to solve the
problem. Rather, we need a redoubled effort to fully implement and
improve MRIP by expanding the types of data that can be incorporated
into the system, improving data collection methodologies and ensuring
that data is analyzed and incorporated into management decisions in a
timely manner. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) must
prioritize and ensure strong stakeholder engagement from the
recreational fishing community for MRIP to be successful. In addition,
Congress must ensure a robust and steady funding stream for
recreational data collection, monitoring and stock assessment. The
number of jobs and the both direct and indirect economic contribution
of recreational angling demands this commitment to significant
investment in data collection.
The health and viability of recreational fish populations, and the
economies that depend on those resources, will not be sustainable over
the long-term unless we adhere to science-based management. The MSA
requires managers to end and prevent overfishing based on the best
available science, including the establishment of annual catch limits
and accountability measures. These science-based requirements provide
the critical legal structure that is needed to maintain sustainable
recreational fisheries, and should not be weakened as Congress
considers reauthorization. However, as noted previously, getting more
reliable and timely data on recreational fish populations is the key to
making the system function smoothly and will encourage buy-in by
stakeholders. As we look to the next reauthorization, we must build
upon the existing requirements of the MSA and consider additional
factors, such as by catch and forage fish protection that have
historically been a lower priority for commercial fisheries, but can
have major implications for not only recreational, but for commercial
species populations as well. The best science demands a holistic look
at the entire ecosystem and that is where a reauthorized MSA must
focus.
Question 2. How do the Magnuson-Stevens Act's conservation
requirements, including the 10-year rebuilding timeline, annual catch
limits, and accountability measures, benefit businesses in the region,
and can you give examples?
Answer. The MSA's conservation requirements are necessary to end
and prevent overfishing, and history has shown that short-term economic
interests will prevail if hard rebuilding deadlines, accountability
measures and catch limits are not required by law. Business interests
can, and will benefit as stocks recover and are managed at healthy
levels. Look no further than NOAA's research that predicted that
rebuilding all federally-managed stocks would result in an additional
$31 billion in sales activity and 500,000 new jobs. Businesses want
certainty or at least predictability so they can plan for the future.
Weakening the MSA requirements may yield short-term gains for a few
individuals or fisheries, but it will only further destabilize coastal
communities that will suffer when the resource is depleted and can only
support limited and/or single species dependent economic activity.
Improvements in fisheries science should translate into more certainty
for Councils as they evaluate different management alternatives, and
ultimately this will provide more certainty/predictability for
businesses. Some examples follow:
CAPT. JOHN MCMURRAY discusses summer flounder as a success
in his testimony. ``In the Mid-Atlantic, according to the
National Marine Fisheries Service, recreational fishermen
caught some 2.7 million summer flounder in 1989. In 2011, after
rebuilding, that number jumped to more than 21 million fish.''
Recreational fishing related businesses spend the off-season
making business decisions based on expected supply and demand.
With an unstable or low abundance of fish available to catch
and without regulations that allow for an expected catch of
enough fish to justify cost and effort (whether for sport or
harvest) the demand for bait, tackle, lodging and support
services will also be low. This translates into less sales of
rods, reels, hotel rooms, maintenance supplies and all manner
of support services. The trickle out economic effect due to low
abundance of fish or lack of predictability of their presence
is significant. Only long-term stable & sustainable populations
of fish coupled with regulations that allow for reasonable cost
benefit considerations will allow recreational fishing business
to maintain its contribution to both the local and national
economy.
In most cases individuals plan fishing trips based on
allotted time for recreational activities. The choice to go
recreational fishing is based on cost benefit. Inconsistent
availability whether that is by presence of fish in specific
locations or availability/opportunity by regulation frequently
dictates an anglers decision to fish or not, and this
translates into the decision to spend or not. A recent history
of low abundance (prior lack of actual fish to catch) coupled
with regulations that allow for only a small amount of fish
allowed to catch put potential angers in the position of
choosing to not go fishing and spending. Long term abundance of
fish stocks means more stable stocks which effects
predictability and regulation and translates into spending
which supports the many businesses that rely on recreational
fishing.
Question 3. What steps should NMFS take to enhance recreational
fisheries data and management? Specifically, what are the biggest
challenges to ensure recreational fishery data is collected, analyzed,
and incorporated into management in a timely fashion?
Answer. See answer to Sen. Begich Question 1.
In addition to my comments above, I suggest the current NMFS
regime may be stuck in a ``this is how we do it'' mentality.
The tackle industry uses advanced methods to predict how many
rods, reels, line, lures etc. to manufacture. A key part of
this manufacturing process is to predict effort, which
ultimately is tied to the health of target species. Many
millions of dollars are on the line for the industry and I
suggest that if the tackle manufacturers can make
determinations on effort that have real world monetary
consequences, NMFS should be able to use similar methodologies
to manage recreational fisheries. If adequately funded and
directed via and reauthorized MSA, NMFS should be able to use
more modern technology to obtain better data that can be used
to better manage the economic engine that is recreational
fishing.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Richard Blumenthal to
Patrick Paquette
Question 1. Recent actions by the Mid-Atlantic and New England
Fishery Management Councils have made progress towards protecting
forage fish. How is the protection of forage fish vital to the recovery
of fish populations like bluefish, and how does it ensure the health of
the fishing industry? What more should be done?
Answer. Forage fish play a critical role as prey for valuable fish
stocks and in turn increase the availability of targeted predator
species. This is particularly important for recreational species,
including bluefish or striped bass that rely on forage fish as a
primary source of food. We can never expect to rebuild and achieve
healthy sustainable fisheries, and fishing communities, unless adequate
protection measures are in place to prevent the decline in forage
species. This is ecosystem based fishery management at a basic easily
understood by all fishers of all sectors.
Under the existing authority of the MSA, some Councils are moving
forward in developing policies to improve the management of forage
fish. For example, in June 2012, the New England Fishery Management
Council (NEFMC) approved Amendment 5 which included important new
measures to protect river herring, a key forage species for both
striped bass and bluefish, through increased monitoring and limits on
by catch. Unfortunately, despite Council efforts to work with the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on implementation and
overwhelming public support, on July 18th, NMFS rejected several of
these measures, including requirements for 100 percent observer
coverage on trawlers and limits on slippage caps. NMFS should not be a
roadblock to proactive management measures for forage fish, and
Congress should institute a legal requirement to require that plans are
in place to protect the role of forage species. Once again this type of
requirement is an easy to understand step toward (EBFM) where all sides
agree we need to go with the science of fishery management.
A reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Act should recognize the importance
of forage species by requiring that ecosystem functions be included in
scientific assessments and fishery management plans. The critical
ecological role of forage fish and the needs of predators should also
be accounted for when catch limits are set. One specific way Congress
can make these ecosystem safeguards a reality, and consistent across
the country, through the next MSA reauthorization would be by requiring
that broader fishery ecosystem plans be developed and integrated into
all individual fishery management plans. Congress should ensure that
such plans are in place prior to the development or expansion of any
fishery for forage species.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Edward Markey to
Patrick Paquette
Improving Recreational Fishing Data And Management
Question 1. What steps should NMFS take to enhance recreational
fisheries data and management? Specifically, what are the biggest
challenges to ensure recreational fishery data is collected, analyzed,
and incorporated into management in a timely fashion?
Answer. See answer to Sen. Begich Question 1.
Climate Impacts on Fisheries
Question 2. The President's Budget request for Fiscal Year 2014
includes a $10 million increase for NOAA to fund research on the
impacts of climate on fisheries with a focus on Northeast groundfish.
Do you think it is necessary to have some dedicated funding for
research to understand the impact of climate change on fish stocks and
that this research could help improve stock assessments and ultimately
benefit fishermen?
Answer. Yes. Over the past fifty years, average water temperatures
around New England have risen between two and four degrees Fahrenheit,
and fishermen are witnessing firsthand the impacts on fish populations.
Species including cod, black sea bass, scup, and others appear to be
moving north in search of cooler water temperatures, and these changes
in the ocean also have potential to impact distribution and
availability of prey. More research is needed to determine how climate
change is impacting fish stocks and that information should be
incorporated into stock assessments. Such data and analysis would serve
as an important step toward accounting for ecosystem considerations in
our fisheries and optimizing management for the long term. As fish move
to cooler and deeper waters, new opportunities to catch fish not
historically found in New England & Mid Atlantic waters may arise. It
is important to assess populations, then consider and establish
management measures before fisheries are allowed to commence so we
avoid creating management problems we will have to address later.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Marco Rubio to
Patrick Paquette
Question. Would you please elaborate on your idea regarding ``a
more equitable distribution of stakeholders on councils?''
Answer. Section 302(b)(2)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act requires the Secretary of Commerce
(Secretary) to report annually to Congress on the achievement, to the
extent practicable, of a ``fair and balanced apportionment, on a
rotating or other basis, of the active participants (or their
representatives) in the commercial and recreational fisheries under the
jurisdiction of [each Regional Fishery Management.
According to NOAA's own data contained within the publication
``Fisheries of the United States 2011''; Commercial fisherman in New
England harvested 353.4 million pounds of finfish in 2011 compared to
23.9 million pounds of fish caught by recreational anglers. Commercial
landings of species that matched those of anglers were worth $182.8
million. Including multiplier effects, this revenue generated $720.8
million in sales, $258.4 million in income, $360.3 million in value
added (GDP), and supported over 16,608 jobs.
Anglers spent over $1.1 billion in 2011. Including multiplier
effects, these purchases resulted in $1.2 billion in sales, $388.3
million in income, $602 million in value added (GDP) and supported
8,723 jobs.
Although the Mid Atlantic council has achieved a fair and balanced
apportionment the New England Council has for many years failed to meet
any standard of fair and balance apportionment as ``suggested'' in MSA.
The 2012 NMFS Report to congress detailed apportionment on all
regional councils. That document showed the following for the New
England Fishery Management Council:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Commercial Recreational ``other'' Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010 7 3 2 12
2011 8 3 1 12
2012 7 3 2 12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(In addition many in the recreational sector have openly questioned
one of the seats reported as recreational as not being a recreational
representative and should be included in the ``other'' category. To
support this claim I offer the following: In 2012 the NMFS North East
Regional Office co hosted (w/the Rhode Island Salt Water Anglers Assn.)
a Southern New England Recreational Fishing Symposium in RI. Only two
members of the NEFMC were invited because only two members are viewed
as recreational. The member I am referring to holds a seat in RI but
was not invited because in general and with no disrespect intended that
member is not considered a recreational member of the NEFMC.
To make matters worse, in 2013 one of the two members commonly
recognized as being from the recreational sector reached term limit and
the 2013 appointee was a former life long NMFS retired employee. There
are now only two reported and I suggest the reality is that there is
currently only ONE recreational member out of the 12 seats on the New
England Council.
No matter how the number of recreational members is viewed, the
harvest and economic statistics above dictate that the New England
Council has been and continues to be outside what can be considered a
``fair and balanced apportionment''.
Simply put, I suggest that a reauthorized MSA should have stronger
language that sets a standard and further defines ``fair and balanced
apportionment'' of representation.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Mark Begich to
Dr. John Boreman
Science-Based Management Under Magnuson-Stevens
Question 1. Why do you support the expansion of industry-based
surveys for stock assessments? How would this improve scientific
uncertainty and assist sound fishery management?
Answer. The fishery-independent surveys conducted by NOAA survey
vessels are valuable sources of data for many of our Nation's stock
assessments, but certainly not all. Because of the relatively few
vessels involved, NOAA vessel surveys are limited both spatially and
temporally, and also by the sampling gear they deploy. We have found in
the mid-Atlantic region that some of the species managed by the Mid-
Atlantic Fishery Council (MAFMC) may not be adequately sampled by the
NOAA bottom trawl survey, thus leading to a higher than usual level of
uncertainty in the survey data. The Scientific and Statistical
Committee (SSC) believes some of the managed species, such as the
squids, spiny dogfish, and Atlantic mackerel, venture much further out
to sea than the offshore limit of the NOAA survey. The ability of the
NOAA vessel survey to capture other species, such as scup, is dependent
on the timing of the survey versus the timing of the stock's movement
patterns. These factors may be the reason we see higher year-to-year
variability (and thus higher uncertainty) in the stock biomass indices
generated by the NOAA vessel surveys for these species.
Use of industry (commercial and recreational) fishing vessels to
supplement and complement the NOAA vessel surveys allows sampling of a
much broader expanse of the ocean, and sampling more intensively in
areas of high concentrations of stock biomass where the NOAA survey
vessels are incapable of covering because of timing, depth and gear
limitations, and other factors. If the industry-based surveys are
conducted in a statistically-robust fashion, the additional data
gathered by these surveys will help reduce the variance in estimates of
stock biomass and recruitment (which is directly related to the number
of representative samples taken), as well as help test for potential
bias in the sampling being conducted by the NOAA survey vessels by
providing alternative insights into stock dynamics.
A limited number of industry-based surveys are already helping to
reduce the scientific uncertainty in stock assessments. For example,
the inshore Northeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program (NEAMAP)
survey, conducted by a commercial fishing vessel in collaboration with
the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, is already reducing the
degree of scientific uncertainty in stock biomass and recruitment
estimates for species such as summer flounder. An industry-based trap
survey, conducted in collaboration with the University of Rhode Island,
is helping to reduce the uncertainty in estimates of the abundance of
scup in the New England and Mid-Atlantic regions.
Question 2. How have the 2006 amendments to Magnuson-Stevens, such
as scientifically based decision making and the establishment of annual
catch limits, improved fisheries management in the U.S.? And to what
degree do you believe that inaccurate science and resulting catch
limits contributed to the New England fishery disaster?
Answer. From a science perspective, the most significant aspect of
the 2006 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) is the
recognition that we cannot wait for achievement of 100 percent
certainty before using scientific advice for managing our nations
fisheries. Fisheries science can never be 100 percent accurate,
especially when sampling is conducted in an environment where we cannot
easily ascertain the presence and movement of targeted species. Recall
the lyrics from a 1970s song: ``The ocean is a desert with its life
underground and a perfect disguise above.'' For most of my career my
experience with marine fisheries management has been one of
frustration. The frustration grew out of the tendency of fisheries
managers to push catch limits to the edge, willing to take the risk
that 50 percent of the time (or even more in some cases) they were
instituting management measures that would lead to overfishing and slow
the recovery of overfished stocks. Now, with the requirement added in
2006 that annual catch limits cannot exceed acceptable biological catch
levels set by their SSCs, Councils have become more risk-averse in
their management actions.
In reference of the New England fisheries, as well as fisheries in
all the Nation's regions, inaccurate science can lead to unintended
mismanagement. However, the requirement now contained in the National
Standard 1 Guidelines that a buffer between the overfishing limit and
the acceptable biological catch (ABC) level be established that is
directly proportional to the degree of scientific uncertainty about a
stock's dynamics greatly reduces the chance of that happening.
Inaccuracy and imprecision of scientific information are just two
factors that can lead to unintended mismanagement. There is also the
uncertainty associated with implementation of management measures,
termed management uncertainty, which could be an even greater factor
than scientific inaccuracy and imprecision in causing unintended
mismanagement. When fishing regulations are established through the
management process to limit catch levels or fishing mortality rates, a
level of uncertainty exists between what the regulations are intended
to do and what they actually cause to happen. Our experience in the
mid-Atlantic region has been that management measures to limit marine
recreational catch of some species, like scup and black sea bass, have
been much less successful than management measures employed on the
commercial side. In some cases, recreational catch limits have been
exceeded by more than 100 percent in a given fishing year. The
existence of management uncertainty has been recognized by all the
SSCs, and many have supported management strategy evaluations to assist
them in providing advice to the Councils on how to minimize it.
In summary, the fishery situation in New England has likely been
caused by incomplete understanding of the dynamics of the fisheries
stocks (and the relationship between those population-level dynamics
and the dynamics of the ecosystems within which they reside), and the
inability of management measures to totally control how the fisheries
operate.
Question 3. A recent study by NOAA scientists found that Atlantic
cod recovery may be hindered by a decline in their food supply. How can
fisheries management better incorporate considerations of the broader
ocean environment, including climate change conditions and complex food
webs?
Answer. Incorporating ecosystem considerations into ABC
determinations was a principal focus of the most recent National SSC
Workshop, hosted by the MAFMC. One of the conclusions of that workshop
was that a national investment in ecosystem modeling and a management
strategy evaluation of approaches used for ecosystem-based fisheries
management is warranted. Modeling can provide a cost-effective means of
exploring the structure, function, and variability (scientific
uncertainty) of ecosystems and the expected range of responses of those
systems to natural and human-induced perturbations.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Seagraves, R., and K. Collins (editors). 2012. Fourth National
Meeting of the Regional Fishery Management Councils' Scientific and
Statistical Committees. Report of a National SSC Workshop on Scientific
Advice on Ecosystem and Social Science Considerations in U.S. Federal
Fishery Management. Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council,
Williamsburg, VA. 94 pp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlike modeling of fisheries stocks, which has a foundation well
steeped in theory that has evolved over the past 80 years, theory
supporting ecosystem-level modeling is still in the early stages of
development. Although not widespread at the moment, ecosystem
conditions and their impacts on stock dynamics are starting to be
incorporated into stock assessments--more so on the West Coast.
Fisheries scientists are using the relationship between oceanographic
conditions and the distribution of fishery stocks to develop better
estimates of stock biomass based on survey data. Uncertainty is also
being reduced in estimates of natural mortality rates that are used in
stock assessments by using food habits data to refine estimates of
predation loss. With a better understanding of the effects of
temperature on the distribution of fishery stocks, their predators, and
their prey, and how changes in those distribution patterns can affect
predation-prey interactions and thus fishery stock dynamics, scientists
will be better able to understand the anticipated effects on climate
change on our Nation's fisheries and the economies they support. We are
not there yet, but we are certainly moving in the right direction.
Question 4. Frequent stock assessments are necessary to make
accurate annual catch limits, however, they are also costly and
complex. How many stock assessments are too many? And how should we
prioritize species for stock assessments?
Answer. Fisheries scientists currently use two forms of stock
assessments in the Mid-Atlantic and New England regions. A benchmark
assessment is one that incorporates new methodologies and new data sets
that require independent scientific review prior to their use.
Assessment updates use the same methodology or methodologies and data
sets that have passed independent peer review in benchmark assessments,
and simply add the most recent data to the time series--often referred
to as ``turn-of-the-crank.'' Peer review of assessment updates is not
as rigorous as it is for benchmark assessments, nor does it need to be,
and the time period and level of personnel resources needed to complete
updates are much less. However, even assessment updates can divert
attention away from competing priorities for assessment scientists, and
are getting more and more difficult to undertake on an annual basis for
our managed species. To address the problem of competing demands for
stock assessments, the MAFMC SSC is currently in the process of
developing a ``rumble strip'' approach to monitoring stock trends by
using only a few key and easy-to-obtain measurements to determine if
stock characteristics are staying within acceptable bounds. This
approach will require even less effort than assessment updates, and
will allow assessment scientists to devote more time to developing new
methodologies and data sets for benchmark assessments.
Priority for conducting a benchmark assessment should be based on
the following factors for the stock in question: (1) the likelihood
that a new methodology or alternative data sets will better represent
the dynamics of the stock; (2) the amount of time that has elapsed
since the last benchmark assessment, relative to the mean generation
time for the species (species with shorter generation times have the
potential for greater change from year-to-year in their population
dynamics); (3) indications that trends in the stock are not following
projections based on the benchmark assessment, suggesting the wrong
methodology is being used or the representativeness of the data sets
needs to be re-examined; and (4) the status of the stock--stocks that
are overfished or still being rebuilt should take priority over stocks
that are at sustainable levels.
Question 5. Rebuilding timelines have been called arbitrary by
some, but don't they have some basis in science? How important are the
established rebuilding timelines for fishery management? Why are these
timelines important for sustainable management?
Answer. Rebuilding timelines are important in that they hold
fishery managers accountable for restoring fishery stocks to
sustainable levels. Contrary to what some scientists claim, the
rebuilding timeline of 10 years that was established by the Sustainable
Fisheries Act of 1996 is based on science. The timeline is based on the
recognition that mean generation times for many of our managed fish and
shellfish range from three to five years (the MSA already provides an
exemption for long-lived species that may not have sufficient time to
replenish the spawning stock during a 10-year span). To make the 10-
year timeline more workable, the rebuilding clock should start when the
rebuilding regulations begin to be implemented, not immediately when
the Secretary of Commerce approves the rebuilding plan.
What the established rebuilding timelines fail to take into
account, however, is the ability of the fishing industry and their
supported economies to re-adjust their capacity to a timeline based on
biology, and do it immediately upon implementation of the rebuilding
plan. If properly constructed, stock-rebuilding plans should allow for
gradual rebalancing of fishing effort to match the ability of a fishery
stock to sustain exploitation once the stock is rebuilt. As long as
stock rebuilding continues along an upward trajectory and is closely
monitored, the rebuilding timeline should be set to take into account
not only the biology of the target species, but also the anticipated
economic and social impacts of stock rebuilding on the commercial and
non-commercial fishing industries, markets, and fishing-dependent
communities.
Question 6. Since the 2006 amendments to Magnuson-Stevens Act, how
have the conservation requirements to follow scientific advice,
establish annual catch limits and accountability measures, and end
overfishing improved fisheries management in the U.S.?
Answer. Since 2006 fisheries management in the U.S. has become more
science-based. Managers now have a more formal and consistent way in
which to apply scientific advice in establishing annual catch limits,
and must now specify beforehand how much risk of overfishing they are
willing to assume when they set those limits. The scientific advice, in
the form of ABC recommendations, is required to have more explicit
supporting documentation, especially when established control rules
cannot be followed due to lack of data or an unacceptable stock
assessment. The process created by the 2006 amendments of establishing
overfishing limits, acceptable biological catch levels, annual catch
limits, and accountability measures ensures that the best available
science plays an integral role in fisheries management decisions.
Question 7. What more should we be doing to consider the broader
ocean environment in fisheries management?
Answer. Expanding the use of oceans for renewable energy and
aquaculture, along with increasing pressure on the marine environment
brought about by human population growth and climate change, are
prominent challenges to conservation of habitats within marine
ecosystems that support production of marine fisheries resources.
When we conducted our National SSC Workshop on ecosystem
considerations (referenced in the answer to question #3), it became
obvious that each fishery management council is striking out on their
own path in ecosystem-based fisheries management. One example of the
problems this causes is the lack of a uniform definition of forage
species across the councils, which serve as the building blocks of
marine food webs, and how forage species are being treated in setting
ABC recommendations by the SSCs. Furthermore, there is a tenuous link
between habitat conservation, addressed by the essential fish habitat
(EFH) provisions of the MSA, and ecosystems-based fisheries management
(EBFM). The MSA encourages the regional fishery management councils to
pursue EBFM, but the direction given in the MSA offers no clear
guidance as to how changes to local habitats supporting fisheries
resources are to be considered in the broader ecosystem context.
Finally, the MSA does not offer guidance for integrating habitat
conservation into coastal and marine spatial planning (CMSP),
essentially leaving it up to the individual fishery management councils
to figure out how to get the habitat conservation (EFH) foot into the
slowly-opening CMSP door.
NOAA Fisheries should be encouraged to develop national guidelines
for plans addressing EBFM that ensure adherence to the national
standards contained in the MSA. The guidelines should also contain
definitions of terms, such as forage species, and provide means to link
protection of EFH to broader marine ecosystem effects.
Currently, the MSA requires that fishery management plans developed
by the regional councils, and ultimately approved by the Secretary of
Commerce, must adhere to ten national standards. To strengthen the
habitat conservation requirements of the MSA, Congress should consider
adding a new, eleventh national standard:
Minimize adverse impacts on essential fish habitat to the extent
practicable.
The implications of this proposed addition are far-reaching.
Depending on how the associated guidelines are written, it could give
the Secretary of Commerce regulatory authority (i.e., veto power) over
federally licensed or permitted projects that may adversely affect EFH.
This veto power would be akin to the veto power currently held by the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency over Federal
projects that could adversely affect water or air quality. The
guidelines could also require identification and monitoring of
activities that could potentially negatively impact EFH (or positively,
for that matter). Finally, NOAA Fisheries and the regional councils
would be able to move from their current consultative role to a role
that is more active and cooperative, perhaps even pre-emptive, as they
work in closer cooperation with other regulatory agencies.
Is establishment of such a national standard for habitat
conservation justified? Absolutely. Once approved by the Secretary of
Commerce, fishery management plans, plan amendments, and framework
actions, are considered public policy. My experience has been that
public policy carries a lot of weight in federally approved actions and
associated judicial rulings. Furthermore, rebuilding fishery stocks and
maintaining them at sustainable levels involves much more than
addressing overfishing; habitats must be capable of supporting the
renewed production of fishery stocks, especially if those stocks are at
or near their historically highest levels of abundance.
Finally, strengthening the habitat conservation provisions of the
Act would provide a greater guarantee that objectives of fishery
management plans can actually be achieved. Establishing a national
standard for habitat conservation would elevate the importance of
identifying EFH, focus habitat-related research and monitoring,
facilitate operational improvements to the Federal process involved
with habitat conservation, including closer coordination between and
among regulatory and resource conservation agencies, and help the
regional councils refine their habitat conservation objectives for
fisheries management. Also, the new national standard would give the
Department of Commerce more clout in reviewing offshore projects that
are federally licensed or permitted. A habitat conservation national
standard would facilitate integrating habitat-level assessments into
EBFM and, on a broader scale, further facilitate CMSP by having a clear
set of objectives that help define essential ecosystem services in
support of fisheries management.
On the negative side, adding a new national standard would very
likely increase the probability of litigation, as managers try to
address (and balance) the new standard with the ten existing ones.
Furthermore, following the guidelines that will be established for the
new standard may lead to additional delays in approvals of fishery
management plans and plan amendments. Finally, a stronger and broader
base of scientific support will also be required, which may be
difficult in the current era of shrinking budgets for state and Federal
agencies.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Edward Markey to
Dr. John Boreman
Constraints on Cooperative Research
Question. In your written testimony, you say that there are
constraints in the cooperative research grants process that hinders
collaboration between NOAA fisheries scientists and fishermen at the
early stages of program development. Can you provide the specifics of
those constraints and suggestions of how they might be changed to
improve collaboration?
Answer. Major constraints affecting collaboration among the fishing
industry, academia, and state and Federal resource agencies in the
conduct of cooperative research are: (1) the inability, and in some
cases unwillingness, of the parties to work closely together during the
early stages of project development so that data collection and
analysis are undertaken in a statistically robust and scientifically
defensible manner; and (2) the current project-by-project and year-to-
year approaches to funding cooperative research at the Federal level
cause surveys to be piecemeal and not comprehensive in nature, and
force investigators to re-apply for funding each year.
To overcome these constraints, region-based and theme-specific
cooperative agreements for surveys and cooperative data collection
should be established and funded with multi-year appropriations. A
model for this type of agreement is the Industry & University
Cooperative Research Program (I/UCRC) of the National Science
Foundation (NSF). The I/UCRC program was established to bring
participants from industry, government, and other organizations in need
of science-based solutions into contact with academic scientists
capable of providing that expertise under an organizational structure
that permits active participation in the science agenda in exchange for
participant financial support. An I/UCRC program was recently
instituted through the University of Southern Mississippi and the
Virginia Institute of Marine Science to address urgent scientific
problems limiting sustainable fisheries in the Mid-Atlantic region.
Another model is the theme-based NOAA Cooperative Institute Program,
which has a five-year funding authorization, and which promotes direct
participation by multiple universities and industry participation in an
advisory capacity.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Marco Rubio to
Dr. John Boreman
Question. What specific policy changes would you recommend to
achieve an adequate expansion of industry-based cooperative research
surveys and cooperative data collection programs in all fisheries in
the United States?
Answer. Current policy, as expressed through the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, should be changed from one that encourages cooperation between
industry and government agencies in the conduct of research on topics
of mutual interest to one that promotes working partnerships on a much
broader scale. Although the Magnuson-Stevens Act contains a number of
provisions that promote cooperative surveys and data collection
projects, major constraints still exist that inhibit effective
collaboration among the fishing industry, academia, and state and
Federal resource agencies in the conduct of cooperative research. These
constraints are: (1) the inability, and in some cases unwillingness, of
the parties to work closely together during the early stages of project
development so that data collection and analysis are undertaken in a
statistically robust and scientifically defensible manner; and (2) the
current project-by-project and year-to-year approaches to funding
cooperative research at the Federal level that cause surveys and
research projects to be piecemeal and limited in scope, forcing
cooperative researchers to re-apply for funding each year by using the
often cumbersome and protracted government grants process.
To overcome these constraints, region-based and theme-specific
partnerships for surveys and data collection should be established and
funded with multi-year appropriations. One model for this type of
partnership is the Industry & University Cooperative Research Program
(I/UCRC) of the National Science Foundation (NSF). The I/UCRC program
was established to bring participants from industry, government, and
other organizations in need of science-based solutions into contact
with academic scientists capable of providing that expertise under an
organizational structure that permits active participation in the
science agenda in exchange for participant financial support. An I/UCRC
program was recently instituted through the University of Southern
Mississippi and the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (Science
Center for Marine Fisheries, www.scemfis.org) to address urgent
scientific problems limiting sustainable fisheries in the Mid-Atlantic
region.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Mark Begich to
Dr. Joshua B. Wiersma
Magnuson-Stevens Act Flexibility
Question 1. In your testimony, you advocate for additional
flexibility in rebuilding timelines to end overfishing through a
gradual ``step down'' approach. The Magnuson-Stevens Act currently
states that a time period for rebuilding the fishery shall ``not exceed
10 years, except in cases where 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.''
How has this flexibility to set rebuilding periods that are longer than
10 years been used in developing rebuilding plans for fish stocks in
the Northeast?''
Answer. Samuel Rauch III, Acting Assistant Administrator for the
National Marine Fisheries Service, did a thorough job answering this
question in his testimony before the Committee of Natural Resources of
the United States House of Representatives at the hearings about the
Magnuson-Stevens Act on September 11, 2013.\1\ The following
information was provided as part of his testimony, but I reference you
to his full testimony for more detailed information than what is
provided below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/documents/. . ./
rauch091113.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Specific Current rebuilding time periods for stocks with active
rebuilding plans range from four years to more than 100 years. Of the
43 active rebuilding plans with a target time to rebuild, 23 of them
(53 percent) are set longer than 10 years due to the biology of the
stock (slow reproducing, long lived species) or environmental
conditions. For example, Pacific yellow eye rockfish has a rebuilding
timeline of 71 years. The remaining 20 rebuilding plans are set for 10
years or less. Of the 33 stocks rebuilt since 2000, 18 stocks were
rebuilt within 10 years. Two additional stocks in 10-year plans were
rebuilt within 12 years.''
Yes, rebuilding plans can be longer than ten years. That's not the
problem. The problem arises when the dynamic conditions the dictate
rebuilding change after the plan is in place. What is lacking is a
dynamically responding rebuilding plan, so that when science methods
change (e.g., switching research vessels from the Albatross to the
Bigelow 8 years into a rebuilding plan for Cod) or when dynamic
environmental conditions (like global warming) create unpredicted and
sometimes unprecedented shifts in the ecosystem--rebuilding plans can
be flexible enough to account for these phenomena.
What I argued for is a step down approach to drastic cuts in ACL
from year to year if dynamic conditions in the bio-economic ecosystem
change after the plans are in place. A step down approach helps to
hedge the risk that science is wrong, but more importantly, it helps to
hedge the risk to fishermen and shore-side infrastructure from economic
losses associate with wild swings in ACL--which is a mandate of
National Standard 8.
Reducing Requirements on Over Fishing
Question 2. Over the past year, many New England fishermen have
been unable to catch even half of their allotted quota of groundfish,
suggesting that lack of fish, not overly-burdensome quota limits, has
caused the economic hardship currently faced in New England fisheries.
With this in mind, how do you propose that reducing requirements on
overfishing would help ease the burden of the current fishery
disaster?''
Answer. Quota limits may or may not be overly burdensome, but there
needs to be a process for quota limit adjustment that is linked to
dynamic changes in the bio-economic ecosystem. The bio-economic
ecosystem would rebuild fish stocks at a rate that is both sustainable
to the stock, but also to the fishermen and communities that rely on
those stocks. When quota limits are set in a bio-economic ecosystem,
they would consider how changes in the level of allowable catch on one
stock affects fishermen's ability to target other groundfish stocks
caught in conjunction with that stock. If it is a significant economic
burden to prosecute healthy stocks given the quota constraint placed on
a less healthy stock, then the quota limit on the unhealthy stock
should be raised to alleviate and balance some of the burden to
fishermen and communities.
Fishermen fish a fish complex, which is comprised of a portfolio of
species that have to be selectively managed and fished together. Under
sector management, we must stop fishing for everything if we run out of
our allocation of one stock. So science can no longer operate in a
vacuum based on single stock assessments. Instead, it must look at the
entire interactive fish ecosystem and develop some overall maximum
biomass indicator level of health (rather than focusing solely on
single species biomass maximization). A large reason why fishermen
can't fully prosecute their quota limits is because they are
constrained by low quota limits on unhealthy stocks called ``choke
stocks'' or by very high quota limits set on healthy stocks that affect
the harvest rate of lower quota stocks, ``limiting stocks''.
Choke stocks are non-target species that are caught jointly with
target species that force fishermen to either stop fishing for their
primary target species too early, or avoid targeting it all together.
This phenomenon is problematic because fishermen lose money from the
loss of opportunity to fish the healthy stocks. When quota limits are
set too high on a stock, other stocks caught in conjunction with that
stock become ``limiting'' because they are exhausted too quickly in
conjunction with the primary stock, and fishing effort is unevenly
distributed throughout the year resulting in ``pulse fishing'' and wild
fluctuations and unpredictability of market prices. Uneven distribution
of fishing effort also results in greater competition from imported
stocks as dealers prefer consistency and predictability of supply.
Either way, poor science and inflexible quota limits result in
inefficient portfolio harvest, loss in social welfare, and risks of
losing domestic markets.
Therefore, quota limits need to be able to adapt and change based
on information gathered each year about new science, about behavioral
changes in fishing effort (e.g., spatial redistribution of effort, more
or less use of fishing gear, changes in number, type and scale of
fishing trips), and about abnormal and unexpected swings in quota
prices. Not only can information about behavioral changes in fishing
effort and changes in quota prices from year to year help predict
losses in social welfare as a result of choke or limiting stocks; but
it can also be used to predict and ground truth estimates of the
biomass of the stock complex, and the expected change in stock
abundance and distribution as a result of abnormal changes in
environmental conditions.
Along with new scientific information about stock abundance and
about global temperature changes, information about changes in fishing
effort and quota prices from year to year can be used to set limits
from year to year that are better able to direct fishing effort to more
of a joint bio-economic equilibrium. To facilitate this, not only do
rebuilding timelines need to be established based on new reference
points incorporating localized temporal and spatial information about
changes in water temperature--but they also need to be more flexible,
even if it means extending a rebuilding timeline previously put in
place. Ultimately, this means moving away from single stock biomass
assessments to an ecosystem based indictor that incorporates dynamic
changes in both environmental conditions and in fishing behavior and
effort.
Abnormal Environmental Conditions
Question 3. Can you expand on these ``abnormal'' conditions and
phenomena? How might these conditions relate to climatic changes taking
place? How do you think these conditions are complicating the recovery
of New England fish stocks?''
Answer. Researchers have shown that fish move in relation to
temperature changes, and that long term trends of warning waters can
have lasting impacts on the distribution and location of global fish
stocks (for good examples, see Pinsky et al., 2013; Fogarty et al.,
2008; Drinkwater 2005). What isn't clear is how dynamic this change is
(how fast it will occur), and what this change means for the long term
yields from the fishery.
Pinsky et al., talk about ``climate velocity'' to explain why as
many as 60 percent of land and sea species have deviated from the
expectation that rising global temperatures would drive animals toward
cooler high latitudes and elevations, or deeper waters, the researchers
report. Instead, animals follow local temperatures, which over the next
few decades may warm or cool even as global temperatures overall are
rising.
Ocean temperature changes depend on currents, changes in the
atmosphere, and geological features on the shore and in the ocean.
Species-preferable water temperatures have tended to move toward the
poles, but not in a single wave. In some cases, local changes in water
temperature move away from the poles, or to deeper waters. As a result,
researchers found that 73 percent of species that moved south; and 75
percent of species that relocated to shallower waters were following
discrete, localized water temperature changes.
This has implications for fisheries management. I believe that
fisheries managers need to immediately adapt to this information and
calculate a new set of reference points for the current warm water
regime. It is widely documented that unfavorable environmental
conditions reduce productivity, increase mortality, and result in a
negative impact of cod biomass (Drinkwater 2005, Rothschild 2007,
Fogarty et al., 2008).
In fact, a full reassessment of biological reference points on all
New England stocks should be done based on the expected re-distribution
of fish as a result of expected local temperature changes--which are
easier to predict than long term temperature changes. The new ``warm
water'' reference points should then be used to calculate new
``acceptable biological catch'' (ABC) and new ``annual catch limits''
(ACLs)--with mechanisms in place to ensure flexibility and adaptability
to dynamic water temperature changes and large changes in social
welfare as a result of ``choke stocks'' or ``limiting stocks''.
Investment In Collaborative Research
Question 4. Is our current investment in fisheries data and
research sufficient to ensure sustainability, and if not, what are your
recommendations for improvement? How can additional cooperative
research successfully support fisheries management? How would making
collaborative fishery management more industry-driven help to achieve
better science-based decision making outcomes?''
Answer. The level of investment in collaborative research has been
both inadequate and inconsistent. The inconsistency of funding is just
as problematic as the overall level of funding. Fisheries science
depends upon long term, time series information about the environment,
about stock biology and abundance, and about the efficiency and
effectiveness of new gear technology.
Federal funding for collaborative research has historically been
constrained to 2 year projects, which severely limits the usefulness of
the projects as well as the engagement of a broad number of industry
participants. As a result, data from collaborative research projects is
very rarely used in fisheries management for stock assessments, and new
selective and efficient gear technology is rarely transferable industry
wide.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The most notable exception to this is the ``ruhle trawl'', also
known as the ``eliminator trawl'', which allows fishermen to target
haddock and avoid cod based on a unique net design that takes into
account the behavior of captured fish. If utilizing this technology,
fishermen are allowed to fish with a different discard rate than if
utilizing other gear, and are allowed exemptions to previously closed
fisheries. More investment in transferable gear technology like this
will be a critical part of sustaining a healthy bio-economic ecosystem
moving forward.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second national standard of the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries
Conservation and Management Act (M-S Act) mandates that fishery
conservation and management be based on the best scientific information
available (DOC 1976). Although advances in science and technology over
the last thirty years have significantly improved scientists' ability
to evaluate and to predict the future performance of fishery resources
(NRC 2002), current marine science is still riddled with uncertainty.
The M-S Act (2007) calls for the establishment of regionally based
cooperative research and management programs to address the needs
identified under the M-S Act, and to address any other marine resource
laws enforced by the Secretary of Commerce (DOC 2007). Specific
cooperative research project priorities were outlined, and are listed
below:
(1) Projects to collect data to improve, supplement, or enhance
stock assessments, including the use of fishing vessels or
acoustic or other marine technology;
(2) Conservation engineering projects designed to reduce by-catch,
including avoidance of post-release mortality, reduction of by-
catch in high seas fisheries, and transfer of such fishing
technologies to other nations;
(3) Projects for the identification of habitat areas of particular
concern and for ecosystem conservation (SEC. 318-319 16 U.S.C.
1867, DOC 2007).
The M-S Act (2007) specifies that these research priorities be
addressed through cooperative research projects--where fishermen and
scientists work together in all phases of the project, including the
research question development, the project design, the performance of
research, the analysis of the results and the dissemination of study
findings.
It should be emphasized, that on this end of the research spectrum
the scientists are onboard chartered fishing vessels, side by side with
commercial fishermen. Commercial fishermen act as co-principle
investigators, who exchange ideas and information with scientist
partners. Collaborative research gives fishermen a direct voice in the
science and management process as well as an intimate understanding of
how and why the data collected will be used by fisheries managers. Much
of the research aimed at addressing the priority needs of the M-S Act
(2007), especially in New England, should be collaborative in nature
(NEFMC 2009).
Wiersma (2011) looked at the preferences of commercial fishermen to
supply collaborative research to determine what factors motivate New
England commercial fishermen to participate, as co-principal
investigators, in the three types of priority collaborative research
specified in the M-S Act of 2007 (biology and ecosystem projects, stock
assessment research, and gear technology projects). The major finding
of this research is that different commercial fishermen have different
preferences for the types of collaborative research executed aboard
their vessel. In general, fishermen prefer stock assessment and
monitoring projects over both gear conservation and biology/ecosystem/
habitat studies--and would be willing to accept less money to
participate on their preferred research project.
Therefore, the efficiency and cost effectiveness of expanded
cooperative research programs may be improved if policy makers utilize
knowledge of fishermen's priority for research, and take into account
their willingness to trade in-kind donations to complete the type of
research that they feel is valuable. Aligning fishermen's preferences
for research with a dedicated pool of money for collaborative research
provides a valuable tool that can subsidize and augment traditional
scientific data to develop better stock assessment models with a
greater accuracy of prediction of annual maximum allowable catch.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Edward Markey to
Dr. Joshua B. Wiersma
Annual Catch Clearinghouse
Question 1. You note in your written testimony that the non-
transparent market for buying, selling and trading annual catch
entitlements (ACE) has resulted in a marketplace with no central
clearinghouse that fishermen can go to in order to gather information
about ACE prices or to lease, sell or trade ACE. Is a clearinghouse
something the fishing industry can develop on its own or does it
require regulation or legislative changes?
Answer. The current regulations for sectors under Amendment 16 say
that the Federal government allocates ACE to sectors, and that
accountability measures are to prevent overharvest of ACE by sector
groups. Therefore, the government only regulates and records trading
between sectors. However, on the ground level, the fishery operates as
an individual transferable quota system. Individual fishermen fish or
trade their ``individual allocations'', which are equal to the amount
of ACE and individual brings into the sector.
The sector manager really operates as a broker for ACE transactions
both within sector and between sectors, and therefore needs access to
real time information about ACE listings and prices. Currently,
information about ACE listings and prices is gathered though e-mail
chains between sector managers. But, this information is often
outdated, the delivery is inconsistent, and it is insensitive to
marginal changes in demand or supply.
A central clearinghouse where sectors could post how much ACE they
have available and negotiate price through a ``bid''/``ask'' trading
platform would greatly reduce inefficiency inherent in the current
market place for ACE transactions and result in greater utilization of
sector ACE. The reason that this type of trading platform is unlikely
to develop via private sources is because sectors aren't technically
considered a limited access privilege program under Amendment 16.
Therefore, fishermen can't buy and sell ACE on their own. They have to
act through the Sector manager.
The National Marine Fisheries Service could develop a type of ACE
trading clearing house that is driven by fishermen, but operated by
sector managers. I think this would improve economic efficiency in the
fishery, and provide a valuable source of information regarding the
shadow value of the resource that can be used in fishery forecast
models.
Electronic Vessel Trip Reports
Question 2. In your written testimony you discuss the development
of electronic vessel trip reports (E-VTRs). What are the benefits of
using electronic reporting and what support is needed to expand the use
of this type of reporting?''
Answer. As I testified, Electronic Vessel Trip Reports (VTRs) are
replacing paper VTRs, and fishermen are starting to use real time,
wireless applications at sea to document by-catch hot spots. In New
Hampshire, about half of our fishermen now use E-VTR, and we have
entered into a pilot project with the Gulf of Maine Research Institute
to test a by-catch reporting hot spot tool for harbor porpoise
sightings. E-VTR has advantages over traditional paper VTR in regards
to the efficiency of complying with the requirement to submit a VTR
after every trip. It minimizes the risk that the VTR is not accounted
for, and provides cost savings to fishermen because they save on paper
and postage.
Investment in overhauling the Fleets hardware, like old computers
and other electronics would significantly help the broad transition
towards things like E-VTR. Computer hardware takes a beating at sea,
and programs that could help recycle old electronics for new ones would
help greatly. A good example is the Gulf of Maine Research institute
who has provided a free new lap top to all fishermen who transition to
E-VTR.
Real time VTR information also benefits management, marketing and
value added purposes. Currently, managers, dealers and fishermen are
disparate entities that don't fluidly communicate with one another.
What is needed is an integrated and real time network of data flow and
communication that connects Trip IDs with dealer reported trip landings
to government and sector records. The sustainability of today's fishing
communities depends on the move towards this type of ``ecosystem
approach'' to data collection, management and integration.
An integrated information management system would channel single-
entry landings information in real-time within an information network
of software services and devices that enable efficient reporting and
compliance, improved dealer business management, more efficient ACL
utilization, improved by-catch avoidance, and enhanced marketing
capacity by facilitating locally branded, traceable and immediately
available harvest inventory to community marketing efforts. The system
should manage the flow of information efficiently so that data can be
modified and used concurrently by multiple users without disrupting
existing reporting protocols. This information network would form the
infrastructure for a multiple interface with existing software
platforms (e.g., Sector or business management tools).
In addition, this real time ``ecosystem approach'' to data
collection and management is a pre-requisite for a robust trading
platform. First, we need ``real time landings information'' flowed
continuously to the National Marine Fisheries Service and to the
commercial fishing industry via sectors. This is a necessary condition
for a successful ACE trading clearinghouse because in order to execute
trades in real times, it is necessary for individuals to have knowledge
of their remaining ACE allocations in real time. Currently, this
information is 8 days lag. Legislative changes requiring more frequent,
or preferably, real time dealer reporting would benefit the fishery and
society in the following three ways:
(1) it would create a more efficient ACE trading platform,
(2) it would provide better information about the continuous and
dynamic shadow value of the resource
(3) it would benefit society through greater resource utilization,
and the associated value added and multiplier effects of extra
fish sales.
References
Drinkwater, K.F. 2005. The response of Atlantic Cod to future
climate change. ICES. J. Mar. Sci. 62, 1327-1337.
Fogarty, M. Incze, L. Hayhoe, K., Mountain, D., Manning, J. 2008.
Potential climate change impacts on Atlantic cod off the northeastern
USA. Mitig. Adapt. Glob. Change. 13, 453-466.
Pinsky, B., Fogarty, M., Sarmiento, H., and Simon A. Levin.
Science. Vol. 341 no. 6151 pp. 1239-1242
Wiersma 2010. The Preferences of Commercial Fishermen to Supply
Collaborative Research in New England: A Welfare Analysis.
Dissertation. University of Rhode Island.