[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 3070, ``EEZ CLARIFICATION ACT''; AND H.R. 4245, TO EXEMPT
IMPORTATION AND EXPORTATION OF SEA URCHINS AND SEA CUCUMBERS FROM
LICENSING REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, POWER AND OCEANS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
__________
Serial No. 114-29
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
98-457 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
___________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Louie Gohmert, TX Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Doug Lamborn, CO Jim Costa, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
John Fleming, LA CNMI
Tom McClintock, CA Niki Tsongas, MA
Glenn Thompson, PA Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY Jared Huffman, CA
Dan Benishek, MI Raul Ruiz, CA
Jeff Duncan, SC Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Matt Cartwright, PA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA
Doug LaMalfa, CA Norma J. Torres, CA
Jeff Denham, CA Debbie Dingell, MI
Paul Cook, CA Ruben Gallego, AZ
Bruce Westerman, AR Lois Capps, CA
Garret Graves, LA Jared Polis, CO
Dan Newhouse, WA Wm. Lacy Clay, MO
Ryan K. Zinke, MT
Jody B. Hice, GA
Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS
Thomas MacArthur, NJ
Alexander X. Mooney, WV
Cresent Hardy, NV
Darin LaHood, IL
Jason Knox, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
David Watkins, Democratic Staff Director
Sarah Parker, Democratic Deputy Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, POWER AND OCEANS
JOHN FLEMING, LA, Chairman
JARED HUFFMAN, CA, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Jim Costa, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Ruben Gallego, AZ
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Jeff Duncan, SC Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Paul A. Gosar, AZ CNMI
Doug LaMalfa, CA Raul Ruiz, CA
Jeff Denham, CA Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Garret Graves, LA Norma J. Torres, CA
Dan Newhouse, WA Debbie Dingell, MI
Thomas MacArthur, NJ Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, February 2, 2016........................ 1
Statement of Members:
Courtney, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Connecticut, prepared statement on H.R. 3070...... 34
Fleming, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Louisiana......................................... 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Gosar, Hon. Paul A., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 5
Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 3
Pingree, Hon. Chellie, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Maine............................................. 6
Poliquin, Hon. Bruce, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Maine............................................. 8
Zeldin, Hon. Lee M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New York.......................................... 5
Statement of Witnesses:
Leask, Joseph, Diver and Chairman, Maine Department of Marine
Resources, Sea Urchin Zone Council, Rockwood, Maine........ 12
Prepared statement on H.R. 4245.......................... 13
McBride, Joe, Legislative Representative, Montauk Boatmen &
Captains Association, East Hampton, New York............... 27
Prepared statement on H.R. 3070.......................... 28
McMurray, John, Owner, One More Cast Charters, Oceanside, New
York....................................................... 24
Prepared statement on H.R. 3070.......................... 26
Morris, Daniel, Deputy Regional Administrator, Greater
Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, National Marine
Fisheries Service, Gloucester, Massachusetts............... 21
Prepared statement on H.R. 3070.......................... 22
Tamaki, Atchan, Founder, ISF Trading Inc., Portland, Maine... 17
Prepared statement on H.R. 4245.......................... 19
Woody, William, Chief, Office of Law Enforcement, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC....................... 14
Prepared statement on H.R. 4245.......................... 15
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Congress of the United States, House and Senate Delegation of
Connecticut, Letter in opposition of H.R. 3070............. 35
Gilbert, Joseph, Southern New England Fishermen and
Lobstermen's Association, Letter in opposition of H.R. 3070 36
Klee, Robert J., Commissioner, Connecticut Department of
Energy & Environmental Protection, Letter in opposition of
H.R. 3070.................................................. 38
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 3070, TO CLARIFY THAT FOR PURPOSES OF ALL
FEDERAL LAWS GOVERNING MARINE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT, THE LANDWARD
BOUNDARY OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE BETWEEN AREAS SOUTH OF MONTAUK,
NEW YORK, AND POINT JUDITH, RHODE ISLAND, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``EEZ
CLARIFICATION ACT''; AND H.R. 4245, TO EXEMPT IMPORTATION AND
EXPORTATION OF SEA URCHINS AND SEA CUCUMBERS FROM LICENSING
REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973
----------
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John Fleming
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Fleming, Gosar, Graves, Bishop;
Huffman, Costa, and Lowenthal.
Also present: Representatives Poliquin, Zeldin; Courtney,
and Pingree.
Dr. Fleming. The Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans
will come to order. The subcommittee meets today to hear
testimony on H.R. 3070, sponsored by Mr. Zeldin, and H.R. 4245,
sponsored by Ms. Pingree.
Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral statements at hearings
are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member,
and the Vice Chair and a designee of the Ranking Member. This
will allow us to hear from our witnesses sooner, and help
Members keep to their schedules.
Before we begin, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Zeldin,
Ms. Pingree, Mr. Poliquin, and Mr. Courtney be allowed to join
us on the dais and participate at the appropriate time in the
hearing, if their time permits.
[No response.]
Dr. Fleming. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
Now I yield myself 5 minutes to make my opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN FLEMING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
Dr. Fleming. The subcommittee meets today to consider two
bills that promote commercial and recreational fishing access
and help provide more seafood availability for domestic and
international seafood customers and consumers. Both of these
bills make common-sense adjustments to Federal law to correct
regulatory nightmares and inconsistencies. It is my hope that
the agencies before us today are willing to work with us on
solutions.
H.R. 3070, introduced by our colleague, Lee Zeldin from New
York, corrects a unique navigational issue in Block Island
Sound, off the coasts of Long Island and Rhode Island. As we
will hear today, this small strip of federally controlled
waters poses regulatory confusion for fishermen who are trying
to abide by both state and Federal fisheries laws, but are
challenged by navigational boundaries that are not visually
apparent around Block Island.
Mr. Zeldin's legislation, which has bipartisan beginnings
since a prior bill was introduced by his predecessor, makes a
small adjustment to the Federal/state water boundaries to
resolve this fisheries management issue.
The second bill we will consider today is H.R. 4245,
introduced by our Maine colleagues, Chellie Pingree and Bruce
Poliquin. This bipartisan bill exempts two species from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's seafood licensing
requirements, a correction that has been supported by the
National Marine Fisheries Service.
This is a classic case of where the left arm of the Federal
Government is acting against the wishes of the right arm. This
inconsistency has nothing to do with making seafood safer, but
it has a lot to do with feathering an agency's nest with import
and export fees that are passed on to the consumer, or result
in delayed or even spoiled shipments.
It is my hope that today we can work with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service on a path forward to correct this
inconsistency with these species, as well as squid and octopus.
This, too, is a bipartisan problem that deserves a solution.
We will hear more about these bills from the experts we
have before us today. I want to welcome our non-committee
colleagues and the witnesses for being here. I look forward to
hearing from all of you today, and learning more about these
important issues.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Fleming follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. John Fleming, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Water, Power and Oceans
The subcommittee meets today to consider two bills that promote
commercial and recreational fishing access and help provide more
seafood availability for domestic and international seafood consumers.
Both of these bills make common-sense adjustments to Federal law to
correct regulatory nightmares and inconsistencies. It is my hope that
the agencies before us today are willing to work with us on solutions.
H.R. 3070, introduced by our colleague Lee Zeldin from New York,
corrects a unique navigational issue in Block Island Sound, off the
coasts of Long Island and Rhode Island. As we will hear today, this
small strip of federally-controlled waters poses regulatory confusion
for fishermen who are trying to abide by both state and Federal
fisheries laws but are challenged by navigational boundaries that are
not visually apparent around Block Island. Mr. Zeldin's legislation,
which has bipartisan beginnings since a prior bill was introduced by
his predecessor, makes a small adjustment to the Federal/state water
boundaries to resolve this fisheries management issue.
The second bill we will consider today is H.R. 4245, introduced by
our Maine colleagues Chellie Pingree and Bruce Poliquin. This
bipartisan bill exempts two species from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's seafood licensing requirements--a correction that has been
supported by the National Marine Fisheries Service.
This is a classic case of where the left arm of the Federal
Government is acting against the wishes of the right arm. This
inconsistency has nothing to do with making seafood safer, but it has a
lot to do with feathering an agency's nest with import and export fees
that are passed on to the consumer or result in delayed or even spoiled
shipments.
It is my hope that today we can work with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service on a path forward to correct this inconsistency with
these species, as well as squid and octopus. This, too, is a bipartisan
problem that deserves a solution.
We will hear more about these bills from the experts we have before
us today. I want to welcome our non-committee colleagues and the
witnesses for being here. I look forward to hearing from all of you
today and learning more about these important issues.
______
Dr. Fleming. The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member,
Mr. Huffman, for his statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, and
thanks to my colleagues from Maine, New York, and Connecticut
for coming to educate us on the bills before the subcommittee
today.
But, first I want to put in a little plug for California
uni, also known as ``California Gold,'' much of which is
harvested off the coast of my district. The sea urchin fishery
in my state is actually thriving. It supports 200 commercial
divers, generates roughly 10 million in dockside sales, and
provides our restaurants and others around the world with a
product that many people say is delicious. I'm not one of them.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Huffman. But the fishery is thriving, and it appears to
be a very sustainable fishery. I am interested to hear about
the sea urchin fishery in Maine, to see if we can help you
folks be more like California.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Huffman. But in all seriousness, we do want to better
understand the issues that are reflected in H.R. 4245. We want
to learn from the Fish and Wildlife Service about its role in
inspecting product that is destined for the export market.
I am also eager to hear from our witnesses today on the
other bill, H.R. 3070. I think of striped bass on the East
Coast much the same way as I think of Chinook salmon back home
in California. Obviously, an iconic species which has, at
times, supported legendary commercial and recreational
fisheries; but also a species that faces a lot of challenges.
Both of these fish live at sea but spawn in rivers. They
are anadromous, so they spawn where there is pollution, habitat
degradation, and other factors that make reproduction a
constant struggle. Both are highly sought after, obviously, as
food and sport, to the point that demand, apparently, will
always outstrip supply. For those reasons, careful,
conservative--yes, you heard that word from me--management is
just as important for striped bass as it is for salmon on the
Pacific Coast.
Unfortunately, the Atlantic striped bass fishery is not
doing very well. The best available science showed that the
stock was on the brink of becoming overfished in 2013. That
required the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Council to reduce
striped bass harvest by more than 20 percent beginning last
year. That is a shame, because it negates a lot of good work
that was done to rebuild this stock between the mid-1980s and
the mid-2000s. And I am, frankly, puzzled why the Majority did
not invite someone from the Atlantic Council to testify today,
given that it is that body and not NOAA that is responsible for
striped bass management.
Nevertheless, one of the keys to rebuilding striped bass
populations the first time around was the moratorium on harvest
in the exclusive economic zone, or the EEZ. Stripers face
intense fishing pressure close to shore, and that area beyond 3
miles is the only true refuge that they have. It has been an
effective refuge, one that has the support of most
stakeholders. This was evidenced by the fact that in 2006, when
there was a proposal to open the EEZ to striped bass fishing,
97 percent of the commenters opposed that proposal.
This bill would not only open an area of the EEZ, but would
also continue a disturbing trend of Congress ceding to states
Federal waters which belong to all Americans. Not only is this
unnecessary and inappropriate, it will also have unintended
consequences which will make things worse for fishermen, not
better.
An ill-conceived appropriations rider recently extended
state jurisdiction for fisheries management from 3 to 9 miles
off Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. That move, we know,
was intended to create more access to the red snapper fishery.
But it will likely result in the complete closure of Federal
waters in the Gulf of Mexico to snapper fishing, as the entire
quota is going to be consumed in state waters.
In the example before us today, divvying up part of the EEZ
between New York and Rhode Island would leave Connecticut
commercial fishermen, including the state's lobstermen, out in
the cold because those states prohibit them from setting pots
in their waters. I think we will hear some more about that from
my colleague, Joe Courtney.
Further, this bill, as written, would actually transfer a
significant portion of the state waters around Block Island and
a piece of that island itself from state to Federal management.
Given those issues and the fact that anglers are already
permitted to transport striped bass caught in state waters
around Block Island through the EEZ, I am skeptical that this
bill is ready for prime time.
But I do look forward to hearing from the witnesses today.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Dr. Fleming. Let me say I, for one, am glad the Ranking
Member is moving in a conservative direction, as incremental as
it is.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Fleming. With that, the Chair now recognizes Dr. Gosar.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL A. GOSAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's
hearing.
Although my home state of Arizona contains blue ribbon
trout fisheries due to the cold water produced by multi-purpose
dams, it is not generally known as the fishery capital of the
world. Wait for those sand sharks, that might be something. So,
you might wonder why I should care about the two bills
introduced by my colleagues from New York and Maine.
Here is why. Today's bills are solutions aimed at
modernizing and eliminating outdated Federal regulations. Mr.
Zeldin's bill, H.R. 3070, attempts to reduce regulatory
confusion that may unintentionally make criminals out of law-
abiding striped bass fishermen. A simple boundary change, as
outlined in the bill, would help alleviate this problem.
Testimony submitted against this legislation unfortunately
appears apocalyptic and fearful of any change. Federal laws and
regulations are not sacrosanct, and must be updated when
necessary.
I commend Mr. Zeldin for his leadership on this issue. It
is my hope that we can resolve this matter, and this bill, as
much as needed, is a first step in that direction.
The bill authored by Ms. Pingree and Mr. Poliquin is a
bipartisan effort to right a bipartisan wrong. In regulations
created by an outgoing George W. Bush administration and
carried on by this Administration, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service has imposed unnecessary fees and duplicative and costly
inspection requirements on what was once a growing industry
that aims to export niche seafood to overseas markets. Even the
National Marine Fisheries Service, a bastion of Federal
regulatory growth, disagrees with its sister agency on this
matter.
The stories of spoiled food shipments, loss of jobs, and
bureaucratic indifferences embody the arrogance of an agency
gone wild. This bill preserves and promotes jobs.
I thank the witnesses for being here today, and look
forward to working with these legislative proposals. With that,
I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields back.
Our first panel of the day will include some of our
colleagues. First we will hear from Mr. Zeldin of New York on
H.R. 3070. Then we will hear from Ms. Pingree and Mr. Poliquin,
both from Maine, on H.R. 4245.
Each of you will be recognized for up to 5 minutes. And we
will begin with Mr. Zeldin.
You are recognized, sir.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. LEE M. ZELDIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Zeldin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank
you for giving H.R. 3070, the ``EEZ Clarification Act,'' a
hearing in this subcommittee. I also want to thank Chairman
Bishop, Subcommittee Ranking Member Huffman, and Congressman
MacArthur for coming to my district in December for an
oversight hearing addressing important issues facing Long
Island fishermen. That field hearing was an important
opportunity for this body to hear firsthand the issues faced by
my constituents, who rely upon fishing as a way of life. The
EEZ Clarification Act addresses one of those major concerns, so
thank you to the Chairman for putting this on this morning's
agenda.
Long Island's anglers and boatmen are in urgent need of a
clarification on the boundary of the Exclusive Economic Zone,
or EEZ, between Montauk Point, New York, and Block Island,
Rhode Island. Since 1990, striped bass fishing has been banned
in the EEZ. But what works for fishery management at 30 or 300
miles off the coast is rarely what works in local waters. To
put it simply, law-abiding, responsible fishermen should not be
punished for doing their jobs.
The unique geography of our region means that making the
15-mile journey via boat from Montauk Point to Block Island
requires passage through a small strip of waters considered
part of the EEZ. For recreational anglers or charter boat
captains, this shift in jurisdiction can mean the difference
between a nice day on the water and committing a Federal
offense.
A recreational angler or charter boat captain on the water
off of Montauk Point, New York could easily go from fishing
legally and responsibly in state waters to violating Federal
law once they pass over this arbitrary boundary. Many of these
individuals lack the expensive GPS technology to know if and
when they have crossed the boundary, and there are no buoys to
warn them. These are responsible men and women who have the
greatest vested interest in preserving the striped bass
fishery, but they also desperately need relief from arbitrary
government regulations.
The EEZ Clarification Act in no way lifts the ban on
fishing for stripers in the EEZ. What it does is clarify for
fishery management purposes the boundary of the EEZ, and puts
the area between Montauk and Block Island under the
jurisdiction of the states and the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission. Restoring local jurisdiction over striped
bass fishing in this limited area means that sound science and
current data will be utilized to make the appropriate fishery
management decisions.
It is also imperative that in any reform affecting these
waters we protect the access of all anglers who are already
fishing there. I am committed to working with our Connecticut
and Rhode Island neighbors to ensure this. This legislation is
about increasing access and local control, not restricting it.
I yield back.
Dr. Fleming. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Pingree for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHELLIE PINGREE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MAINE
Ms. Pingree. Thank you very much, Chairman Fleming, and
thank you, Ranking Member Huffman. I appreciate very much your
having this hearing today, and I am glad to be here with my
colleagues. I appreciate that Ranking Member Huffman is
familiar with the species we are talking about. I will say that
Maine is kind of a provincial state. We don't usually say we
want to be more like California. But I appreciate your
familiarity, even if you don't enjoy consuming these.
Thank you to all the other distinguished members of the
committee who are taking the time to be here today. I am very
honored for this opportunity to discuss H.R. 4245, a bill that
I recently introduced along with my colleague from Maine, who
is here with me today. Representative Poliquin and I constitute
the entire Maine House delegation. We are happy to be here.
Last fall I was contacted by the Maine Sea Urchin and Sea
Cucumber Association, which includes eight processors and
shippers of these species in the Gulf of Maine. As some of you
here may not know, sea urchins are imported from Canada to
processors in Maine, but they are also harvested in the Gulf of
Maine and, once processed, are sent overseas to a large
consumer market in Asia.
The industry has voiced their concerns to me and to
Congressman Poliquin regarding the fact that their members are
being required to give inspection agents 48 hours' notice of
their shipment coming to the port, to obtain a Federal import/
export license, and pay fees. Of great concern is that the
inspectors are actually causing delays in the shipment of this
highly perishable product, which has about a 10-day shelf life.
The value is usually between $5,000-$15,000, so that is a
critical issue. And that shelf life is from when they come out
of the water to reaching someone's dinner table across the
globe. We, in my office, have been working tirelessly on this
issue over the past 14 months, and have reached out to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
And I do want to say, in spite of some of the concerns that
have been raised, I want to be on record that we have had an
open and honest line of communications with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service from Director Ashe and his staff at the
headquarters in DC to the wonderful folks at their regional
office in the Northeast. I have really appreciated their
efforts on this issue.
But the reality is, despite a year of effort, I am still
hearing about the requirements and the delays that the sea
urchin processors are facing. That is why I urge the committee
to bring up H.R. 4245 before the committee for a markup, and to
the House Floor for a vote.
There is a shellfish exemption that dates back to the
1970s, and that allows shellfish to be imported and exported
without Fish and Wildlife Service inspection. It is my
understanding that there is no particular risk sea urchins are
posing that makes sea urchins and sea cucumbers require
inspection before the export.
The goal of my bill is simply to put echinoderms, which is
the scientific term for sea urchins and sea cucumbers, on the
same standing as other edible marine species who enjoy this
exemption, such as lobsters, clams, mussels, and scallops.
Again, these are live and perishable shipments. Even though
we have been told that the Fish and Wildlife Service gives
those their first priority, with stretched budgets, staffing
limitations, I know that it is still taking too long for the
shipments to be inspected and released.
In particular, just this past weekend I heard about a
problem that the processors in Maine were facing which is
similar to many stories that I have heard. Even though it is my
understanding that this particular shipment was not a
perishable product, it was dried, this past Sunday a sea
cucumber product was delayed an extra 5 days at the JFK
airport. When processors are trying to get their product across
the world for consumption, as you can imagine, every day
counts.
There is also a 48-hour notice period that the processors
are required to give the Fish and Wildlife Service before the
product will be inspected. That adds 2 days automatically to
the timeline for the product to leave the United States. And
although that 48-hour requirement, I am told, is typical for
inspection, for this species it is added on top of other
unreasonable delays.
I also want to mention that it is an unpredictable fishery.
We have a lot of bad weather days in Maine, so fishermen don't
always know when they are going out to fish. The processors
don't always know when the urchins will be coming in. So, it is
not as if they can make a lot of plans about how this is going
to happen, which makes this even more critical to the fishermen
who are on the boats and the processors, as well.
H.R. 4245 is very clear to state that if urchins or
cucumbers are ever threatened or endangered under the ESA, the
exemption in the bill would not apply. But that is not the case
now. These shipments are being inspected with good reason, and
the process is putting this industry at risk.
Just to reinforce, the harvesters and processors of these
sea urchins represent a critical part of Maine's fishing
industry. We are, of course, known for our lobster and other
delicious seafood, but also our very vibrant working waterfront
communities. The regulations that have been recently imposed on
the sea urchin and sea cucumber industry are impacting them and
600 Mainers who rely on this industry for their families and
their livelihoods.
Again, I urge the committee to make sea urchins exempt from
inspection, as shellfish currently are, by passing this
legislation.
Thank you very much for this hearing today and for taking
the time to hear our testimony.
Dr. Fleming. I thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Poliquin, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRUCE POLIQUIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MAINE
Mr. Poliquin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member Huffman, for holding this hearing. I appreciate it very
much. And I want to thank you very much for responding so
quickly to my letter to put this hearing together.
All of us here in the House spend a lot of time talking
about spending, national debt, national security, and keeping
our families safe. However, this issue is an issue of fairness
and compassion. Ms. Pingree and I, in this case, we represent
about 650 very hard-working, honest Mainers up and down the
coast. And I am very, very grateful for you taking this time to
hear our plea.
When you catch lobsters, you catch them in a trap; when you
harvest clams, you dig them out of the flats; and you drag for
scallops. But when you harvest sea urchins and sea cucumbers,
for the most part, you have to dive for them.
Mr. Leask is going to be testifying soon. He is one of our
great urchin divers from down east Maine. Fellows like this get
up very early in the morning, strap on tanks, and go in dark,
cold water at tremendous risk to their own personal safety, as
the folks do out in California, I am sure, but the water out
there, Mr. Huffman, is much warmer. We understand that. We are
much more rugged in the state of Maine.
But in any event, in the state of Maine we have two zones.
The first zone, which is in the southern part of the coast that
Congresswoman Pingree represents, has only about a 15-day
harvest period per year. The second zone that I represent,
which is further down east, has about 38 days per year. So, it
is a very short period of time that these folks, these 650
folks that harvest and also process, have to make this part of
their living. And a lot of these folks are lobstermen who
supplement their income in the off-season by diving for
urchins.
Now, as Congresswoman Pingree just mentioned, this is a
very perishable critter. You cannot have these cucumbers and
urchins sitting in a warehouse or on a tarmac somewhere, while
having a problem. So, think about someone that goes and dives
down east Maine, has to get the product on the boat, has to get
the boat to the dock, has to get it off the dock into a truck,
down to Portland, processed there, back out of the facility, on
a truck, down to JFK, and then fly the critters from JFK to
Hong Kong and Asia, or wherever else they might be.
The good news is that we already have the state of Maine,
the folks at the Department of Marine Resources, who already
are inspecting these critters, and also making sure that they
are safe. And I might also add, Mr. Chair, that every year
there is a survey dive right in our district. So, we get folks
from Maine going under water, rather, to make sure we are not
overfishing this terrific part of our fishery in Maine.
Now, here are a couple of concerns I have. Back in
November, we had a shipment going out of Portland that went
down to JFK and was sitting on a pallet. Each of these
shipments, as Ms. Pingree said, are in the neighborhood of
$15,000-$20,000 per shipment, and represents a lot of hard work
from fellows like this. Now it is sitting on a pallet waiting
to go on a plane, where the space has been reserved, and the
airfare has been purchased. And the folks from Fish and
Wildlife come in and yank it off. They yank it off because they
haven't inspected it yet. Then they take the next day off
because they are hanging out at Veterans Day parades, or
whatever they are doing. This is a perishable foodstuff that
needs to get to market as quickly as we can.
Just last week, as Ms. Pingree mentioned, there was another
example of a shipment sitting down at JFK that was pulled, and
it was 5 days they were told before it could be inspected.
Thank goodness the processor was able to sell it domestically.
That is absolutely unacceptable, in my opinion. It is unfair to
the people who are working really hard to provide for their
families and to provide folks around the world this tremendous
delicacy from Maine and California.
I believe this is all about compassion and fairness. We
already have an inspection process in Maine, and it works.
There is absolutely no reason why the Feds need to get involved
in this. It is working just fine, as far as the health of the
fishery, as far as getting this product to market quickly. It
is all about these 650 individuals that, under great peril,
produce this product, and then harvest this product, and then
get it to market.
So, with that, I ask you please, please, for your
consideration, to support this bill. It is a good bill, it
protects jobs, and it is all about fairness and compassion to
our people in Maine.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Dr. Fleming. I thank the gentleman. And if there are any
questions on the dais, speak up. Otherwise, I will be--oh, we
do have a question. Yes, the Chairman has a question.
The Chairman. Yes, a couple of them, very quickly.
Mr. Zeldin, thank you for being here with your bill. It
looks rational. And the most important part is you only took 2
minutes of your 5 minutes.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. That is a good quality. We don't get that
here very often.
Ms. Pingree, you said you had already contacted the Fish
and Wildlife Service a year ago on this issue. Is that
accurate?
Ms. Pingree. Yes, it is, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman. And to date there has been no satisfactory
result of that?
Ms. Pingree. Yes.
The Chairman. All right. So, Mr. Poliquin, you also said
the state of Maine is inspecting this.
Mr. Poliquin. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The 48-hour delay that you talked about, that
is standard in almost all inspections that are done on the
Federal level?
Mr. Poliquin. I believe so, sir. It is a 48-hour notice,
yes.
Ms. Pingree. They have to give notice to the inspectors to
guarantee that they will appear there, but it does not always
work with our timing, as Representative Poliquin----
The Chairman. So, what you are saying is, especially with
this species, that is really an ugly species----
Mr. Poliquin. That is a matter of opinion, Mr. Chairman.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. No, Bruce, that is not a matter of opinion;
that is ugly. But anyway----
Mr. Poliquin. We are all God's creatures.
The Chairman. One size fits all just does not always fit
all.
Mr. Poliquin. That is correct.
The Chairman. I appreciate you bringing these bills to our
attention. They are good bills; I hope we can move them as
quickly as possible. Thank you for being here.
Mr. Poliquin. Thank you, sir. I appreciate it very much.
Dr. Fleming. OK, the Chairman yields back. Anyone else?
Yes?
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much. I appreciate the bipartisan
effort on the legislation from our colleagues from Maine.
The efforts that you have made in trying to move the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service to understand the nature of this
perishable commodity or these products, I suspect, based on
your testimony, has been nothing less than frustrating.
Ms. Pingree. Well, I would say we don't exactly see eye to
eye on it. And, on the inspection side, I am certainly very
sympathetic to the fact that they have a lot of things that
they have to inspect. And, frankly, the way I look at it,
they----
Mr. Costa. But under that understanding, wouldn't it be
cause to prioritize, and this is a commercial product that is
already being covered at the state level? Common sense would
tell you that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ought to be
prioritizing their efforts.
Ms. Pingree. I guess that is the way I look at it, that
they have plenty of endangered species that they do need to
watch out for. It is very unlikely someone is going to sneak an
endangered species in a box of urchins that is valuable in and
of itself, and they want it to get right to the customer. So,
it seems to me this does not need to be their highest priority.
And also, since we exempt some----
Mr. Costa. And custom agents also have the responsibility
in this country, as products both coming in and going out, to
deal with material that might be being used to avoid
inspection, or to avoid our custom loss. Right?
Ms. Pingree. They are subject to a Customs inspection, as
well.
Mr. Costa. Right. It is a classic over-reach. And this
common-sense legislation that you are providing from the good
citizens of Maine is an attempt to try to deal with this over-
reach.
Ms. Pingree. Particularly since other shellfish are exempt,
so this is kind of uniquely set aside when lobsters and clams
are not.
Mr. Costa. So, it is consistent with that. Has the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service opined on this legislation?
Ms. Pingree. We have had some communication back and forth,
and do not necessarily see eye to eye as to why this should be
an equivalent species----
Mr. Costa. Are they officially opposing it, or are they
neutral on it?
Ms. Pingree. I think they will; so far we have not been
able to come to an agreement.
Mr. Costa. You are probably going to save them some money,
as well, I would suspect, if they are no longer required to
provide the inspection.
Ms. Pingree. That is true.
Mr. Costa. Yes. Well, I support the legislation, Mr.
Chairman. I think bipartisan efforts like this are important,
and I think we ought to move the legislation forward.
Mr. Zeldin, I am somewhat familiar with Block Island and a
bit of the zone because I have friends who have places there
and I like to sail in that area, but I am reminded of your
efforts here to try to deal with a host of species that we have
throughout the continental United States, as we try to save
species that are listed, including those that are either native
or non-native.
We have a striped bass population in California, as was
noted by my colleague, that is not native, was introduced into
California waters in 1879 from the state of New Jersey, and it
has had up-and-down cycles. It is not faring as well these days
as some would like. But it also competes against native
species, and trying to get it right, or us trying to be Mother
Nature, I find frustrating and conflicting.
I had, anecdotally, some friends who took some of the
members of the San Francisco Giants fishing a year ago for
striped bass in the delta. Within a 2-hour period, they had 110
strikes and were letting them go because they were trying to
determine which was the largest size they could catch under the
limits. Yet these non-native species that were introduced in
1879 are an attractive sports fish, clearly, and I think
scientists have indicated--compete for native species in
California.
With climate change, as we try to rework the way of the
world, I think we need to sit back and determine what makes
sense and what doesn't make sense, especially when we see that
the native species are really having very, very difficult
problems in the case of salmon in California.
So, I am sympathetic to your efforts in trying to figure
out, Mr. Zeldin, how we get this right. And clearly, you
haven't gotten it right in New York, and we haven't gotten it
right in California or Connecticut. So good luck.
Dr. Fleming. OK, the gentleman from California yields. Any
other questions?
[No response.]
Dr. Fleming. OK, the panel is excused. Thank you so much
for your valuable testimony today. We will ask the second panel
to go ahead and take their place.
As the next panel moves forward, I will begin to introduce
them.
First is Mr. Joe Leask, Diver and Chairman of Maine's
Department of Marine Resources, Sea Urchin Zone Council from
Rockwood, Maine; next is Mr. William Woody, Chief of the Fish
and Wildlife Service's Office of Law Enforcement, based in
Washington, DC; Mr. Atchan Tamaki, Founder of ISF Trading in
Portland, Maine; Mr. Daniel Morris, the Deputy Regional
Administrator with the National Marine Fisheries Service for
the Greater Atlantic Region, based in Gloucester,
Massachusetts; Captain John McMurray, Owner of One More Cast
Charters in Oceanside, New York; and, finally, if we can find
room, Captain Joe McBride, Legislative Representative of the
Montauk Boatmen & Captains Association from East Hampton, New
York.
Let me remind the witnesses that, under Committee Rules,
they must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but their
entire statement will appear in the record.
When you begin, the light will be green. After 4 minutes of
testimony, it will turn yellow. That is a caution light, of
course. When it turns red, if you have not already ended your
statement, we ask that you quickly end it. Otherwise, I will
have to gavel. And I would rather you end it on your terms,
rather than mine. But having said that, no matter how long it
is, it will be entered into the written statement. Then,
afterwards, we will have questions.
I now recognize Mr. Joe Leask, Diver and Chairman of
Maine's Department of Marine Resources, Sea Urchin Zone Council
for his testimony.
You have 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH LEASK, DIVER AND CHAIRMAN, MAINE DEPARTMENT
OF MARINE RESOURCES, SEA URCHIN ZONE COUNCIL, ROCKWOOD, MAINE
Mr. Leask. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To my understanding, we
are actually going to start with a CNN video that was done. It
would help people that haven't seen the sea urchin process
actually see what goes on underwater.
[Video shown.]
Mr. Leask. Are we holding other hearings, cancer and what
not? That would probably be better.
Well, it seems I only have a minute left, and I am not
known for being brief. I will do my best. As Chairman of the
Maine Sea Urchin Zone Council, we work closely with the
Department of Maine Resources to not only monitor, but to
really work hard at increasing our biomass.
In Maine, our urchin populations are actually rebounding
and growing. And I have personally pioneered stateside, as far
as I know, ways of farming urchins. I have had great success
bringing urchin populations back in areas that never, or that
haven't had them for many years. I have much evidence on my own
Web site to that end.
This inspection process right now is what we are here for.
It is hard on our bottom line. In simplicity, it takes money
out of a pocket which takes money out of my pocket. We regulate
the urchins in Maine strictly. Log books are kept, log books
are filed with the state; you cannot get a license unless you
fill these log books out every year.
The process of tracking them is really good, in simplicity.
I don't want to really elaborate on that, but it is. I can give
you more information, but as I am known to go way beyond my
talking time, I will cut it off here and be glad to field
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Leask follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joseph Leask, Chairman, Maine Department of
Marine Resources, Sea Urchin Zone Council on H.R. 4245
My name is Joseph Leask. I am the Chairman of the State of Maine
Sea Urchin Zone Council. I have been a sea urchin diver for 25 years. I
am also a cucumber diver. I have at times been the common pool
representative to the New England Management Fisheries Council. I am
the Captain and owner of the fishing vessel, November Gale, a trawler
from Portland, Maine. I have trawled for 20 years. I also own Misty
Morning Cottages, year round vacation rentals right on the shores of
Moosehead Lake.
In my position as Chairman of the State of Maine Sea Urchin Zone
Council, I chair the council which works closely with the State of
Maine Department of Marine Resources to regulate our industry. We set
seasons, promote safety, work to increase biomass, while preparing for
the addition of new entrants to the fishery.
The sea urchin and sea cucumber industry has been stable and slowly
growing. The sea urchin biomass is growing, an experimental sea
cucumber harvest has been implemented, and our domestic market has
grown greatly. In the near future there will be new jobs added in this
industry. The State of Maine Sea Urchin Zone Council and DMR are
currently preparing for these new entrants.
In recent years, we have implemented strict catch limits. Log books
for both harvesters and buyers are mandatory. These catch reports must
be filed with the state of Maine before urchin harvesting licenses are
renewed. Strict monitoring is kept by the State of Maine Department of
Marine Resources.
Recently an item of great concern has increasingly affected sea
urchin and sea cucumber harvesting. Our American caught product
competes globally. The Department of Inland Fish and Wildlife now
inspects all shipments of sea urchins and cucumbers from this country.
This process hinders shipments. The highly perishable seafood depend on
immediate shipment for best quality. Any delay sending these fresh
seafood products from New York to Japan is costly and potentially
harmful to consumers. In addition these inspection costs are passed on
to harvesters and buyers alike. This results in lower wages for state
of Maine fisherman and lower profits for small businesses. In some
cases it could jeopardize market position resulting in the loss of that
market to foreign competition as well as the loss of jobs.
______
Dr. Fleming. OK. Thank you, Mr. Leask, for your testimony.
Now I recognize Mr. William Woody, Chief of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service's Office of Law Enforcement.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM WOODY, CHIEF, OFFICE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT,
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Woody. Good afternoon, Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member
Huffman, and members of the subcommittee. I am William Woody,
Chief of Law Enforcement for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you
today on H.R. 4245, which would exempt the import and export of
sea urchins and sea cucumbers from licensing requirements under
the Endangered Species Act.
The Service is the primary Federal agency responsible for
enforcing U.S. laws and treaties that address international
trafficking and protect U.S. and foreign species from
unsustainable trade. The Office of Law Enforcement has a
workforce comprised of special agents and wildlife inspectors.
This workforce is relatively small, compared to the volume of
wildlife trade and crimes they are tasked to monitor and
investigate.
The Service's 125 inspectors work at major ports across the
Nation to check inbound and outbound shipments for wildlife and
wildlife products. Wildlife inspectors facilitate legal trade
and serve as the Nation's primary defenders against illegal
international trade in wildlife and wildlife products. Although
they are relatively small in number, they are responsible for a
large volume of inspections. Each year our wildlife inspectors
process over 180,000 declared shipments of wildlife and
wildlife products worth about $5 billion.
The Endangered Species Act provides the Service broad
authority to regulate import/export of fish and wildlife. This
includes licensing of importers and exporters, inspection of
shipments, and charging and retaining reasonable fees for
processing applications and performing inspections. This
comprehensive system is designed to protect foreign and
domestic species from illegal trafficking, and to guard against
the introduction of injurious species.
The ESA exempts the import of certain shellfish and
fisheries products that are intended for consumption from the
law's trade regulation requirements. The exemption, however, is
narrow to discourage smuggling and illegal trade in protected
species, invasive species, and other wildlife, and to protect
the legal trade community.
There was one CITES Appendix III listed cucumber species.
The Service's role in import/export permitting allows us to
monitor international trade in order to prevent over-
exploitation. Internationally, the data the Service collects
through its import/export program is relied upon to inform
CITES listing determinations.
In 2014, the Administration established the Presidential
Task Force on Combating Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated
Fishing and Seafood Fraud. As part of this effort, NOAA will
soon release a proposed rule that may include sea cucumbers
and/or sea urchins in a list of at-risk species, thereby the
need to regulate such species under 50 CFR Part 14 might be
necessary. However, the Department cannot support the bill
until the proposed seafood import monitoring program is in
effect. Our goal is not only to ensure compliance with the law,
but to facilitate lawful trade.
We place a priority on inspections of live and perishable
wildlife and wildlife products. The Service published guidance
to the wildlife inspectors that specifically instructs
inspectors to give priority to these shipments. We make every
effort to have a wildlife inspector available to inspect and
clear shipments. Because of that, we require a 48-hour
notification that we can ensure that wildlife inspectors are
available to clear shipments in a timely fashion. This allows
us to review documents, resolve paperwork problems before
inspection, and to expedite upon arrival or departure. Live and
perishable shipments typically are cleared the same day they
are declared to us.
The Service has worked closely with the trade community to
ensure both an understanding of our requirements and to
facilitate the lawful trade in fish and wildlife. We are happy
to work and continue to work closely with the sea urchin and
sea cucumber industry to address their concerns and ensure the
timely clearance of shipments. I appreciate the opportunity to
testify before you today, and I look forward to your questions.
Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Woody follows:]
Prepared Statement of William Woody, Chief, Office of Law Enforcement,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior on H.R. 4245
introduction
Good afternoon Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Huffman, and
members of the subcommittee. I am William Woody, Chief of the Office of
Law Enforcement for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), in
the Department of the Interior. I appreciate the opportunity to testify
before you today on H.R. 4245, ``to exempt importation and exportation
of sea urchins and sea cucumbers from licensing requirements under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973.''
The Service's Office of Law Enforcement focuses its resources and
efforts on significant threats to wildlife resources--illegal trade,
unlawful commercial exploitation, habitat destruction, and
environmental hazards. The Office of Law Enforcement investigates
wildlife crimes; regulates wildlife trade; helps Americans understand
and comply with wildlife protection laws; and works in partnership with
international, Federal, state, and tribal counterparts to conserve
wildlife resources. The Service is the primary Federal agency
responsible for enforcing U.S. laws and treaties that address
international wildlife trafficking and protect U.S. and foreign species
from unsustainable trade.
The Service's Office of Law Enforcement has a workforce comprised
of special agents and wildlife inspectors. This workforce is relatively
small compared to the volume of wildlife trade and crimes they are
tasked to monitor and investigate. Our 195 special agents conduct
investigations to detect and document international smuggling and
crimes involving the unlawful exploitation of native and foreign
species in interstate commerce. These agents are on the front line of
combating the illegal slaughter of elephants in Africa and the
lucrative trafficking of elephant ivory that provides significant funds
for organized criminal organizations.
The Service's 125 wildlife inspectors work at major ports of entry
across the Nation to check inbound and outbound shipments for wildlife
and wildlife products. These uniformed wildlife inspectors facilitate
legal wildlife trade and serve as the Nation's primary defenders
against illegal international trade in wildlife and wildlife products.
They ensure that wildlife trade complies with the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES) and U.S. laws. Although they are relatively small in number,
they are responsible for a large volume of inspections. During fiscal
year 2014, Service inspectors processed over 183,000 declared shipments
of wildlife and wildlife products worth more than $4.9 billion.
the service's role in import/export of echinoderms
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) provides the Service broad
authority to regulate the import and export of fish and wildlife. This
includes licensing of importers and exporters, inspection of shipments,
and charging and retaining reasonable fees for processing applications
and performing inspections. This comprehensive system is designed to
protect foreign and domestic wildlife from illegal trafficking and
guard against the introduction of injurious species. The Service also
works closely with stakeholders in the U.S. business community to
ensure compliance with applicable laws and facilitate the lawful trade
in fish and wildlife.
The ESA exempts the import of certain shellfish and fishery
products that are intended for human or animal consumption and that are
not listed as endangered or threatened, protected under CITES, or
listed as injurious under the Lacey Act, from the law's trade
regulation requirements. This exemption is reflected in Service import/
export regulations found in 50 CFR Part 14, which waive import/export
license, declaration, and inspection requirements for these
commodities. The exemption, however, is purposefully narrow to
discourage smuggling and illegal trade in protected species, invasive
species and other wildlife, and to protect the legal trade community.
Sea urchins and sea cucumbers do not meet the Service's definition
of a shellfish or fishery product, and are therefore not exempt from
the Service's import and export requirements related to wildlife. In 50
CFR Part 10.12, the Service defines ``shellfish'' as an aquatic
invertebrate having a shell including but not limited to oysters,
clams, other mollusks, lobsters or other crustaceans. Sea urchins and
sea cucumbers, which are not mollusks, do not have a shell and do not
qualify as shellfish. A ``fishery product'' is defined as a non-living
fish of one of the following classes: Cyclostomata, Elasmobranchii and
Pisces; and includes any part, product, egg or offspring whether or not
included in a manufactured product or a processed product.
In addition, there is one CITES Appendix III listed sea cucumber
species. The Service's role in import/export permitting allows us to
monitor international trade in order to prevent overexploitation.
Internationally, the data the Service collects through its import/
export program is relied upon to inform CITES listing determinations.
We note that on June 17, 2014, the White House released a
Presidential Memorandum entitled ``Establishing a Comprehensive
Framework to Combat Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing and
Seafood Fraud.'' Among other actions, the Memorandum established a
Presidential Task Force on Combating Illegal, Unreported, and
Unregulated (IUU) Fishing and Seafood Fraud (Task Force). The Task
Force was directed to provide ``recommendations for the implementation
of a comprehensive framework of integrated programs to combat IUU
fishing and seafood fraud that emphasizes areas of greatest need.''
Pursuant to those recommendations, the National Marine Fisheries
Service will soon release a proposed rule to establish data reporting
and related operational requirements at the point of entry into U.S.
commerce for imported fish and fish products of species at particular
risk of IUU fishing and seafood fraud. This list of at-risk species and
the principles applied to determine this list were developed through a
process of extensive public comment. Together, the requirements already
in place for products of U.S. domestic fisheries and the requirements
proposed in the rule for imported fish and fish products will provide a
framework for the designated at-risk species to trace seafood, whether
domestic or imported, back to the point of harvest to verify that
seafood entering U.S. commerce is both legally caught and not
fraudulently represented. The proposed rule may include sea cucumbers
and/or sea urchins in the list of at-risk species thereby obviating the
need to regulate such species under 50 CFR Part 14; however, the
Department cannot support the bill until the proposed seafood import
monitoring program is in effect.
addressing illegal wildlife trade and population declines of
echinoderms
International wildlife trafficking is a growing concern and
unregulated sea cucumber shipments compound this problem. The Service,
working with government partners in Mexico and other Central American
nations, has identified a highly profitable black market for
transshipment of sea cucumbers through the United States to Asian
markets. Sea cucumbers worldwide are primarily harvested for human
consumption in Asia. Growing demand in these markets has increased sea
cucumber prices globally to up to $500.00 (U.S.)/ kilogram, or more,
for dried product.
Initially, fishery productions increased to meet this demand, but
now overfishing and unregulated fishing has taken hold. Globally, 66
species are overexploited because of poor regulations or lack of
enforcement, causing a dramatic decrease in their populations. Many
domestic sea cucumber populations face a steady decline from
unsustainable harvests. Because they are sedentary and live in shallow
water, some of the most valuable species are easily overharvested.
Overharvest of these valuable species has led to the use of some non-
preferred species as a substitute to match supply for the overall
increased demand for this product. Sustainable regulated harvest is
essential to preserve the economic interests of those involved in the
industry, and for the preservation of the delicate marine ecosystems in
which the sea cucumber is an integral species.
facilitating legal trade of echinoderms
The Service has worked closely with the trade community to ensure
both an understanding of our requirements and to facilitate the lawful
trade in fish and wildlife. While we understand the applicable laws and
regulations may be new to some importers and exporters, the
requirements have been in place since the mid-to-late 1970s.
The current standard requires that sea urchin and sea cucumber
imports and exports travel through ports as listed in the Code of
Federal Regulations. Shipments must be declared and the Service
requires 48-hour notice prior to arrival and inspection primarily to
ensure that inspection staff members are available to clear shipments
in a timely fashion. The 48-hour notification requirement also allows
wildlife inspectors to review documents and resolve paperwork problems
before inspection, thus expediting shipments upon arrival or departure.
Shipments typically go out on time and are cleared the same business
day they are declared.
The Service charges modest fees for processing applications and
performing inspections. For example, the inspection fee for a shipment
of sea urchins would be $93. By comparison, our review of a sample of
20 shipments of sea urchins out of Maine shows that the average
declared value was about $23,000 per shipment.
We consider the key to ensuring proper clearance and compliance is
close communication between the importer/exporter or their broker, and
the Service inspectors at the port where clearance is requested. Our
goal is not only to ensure compliance with the laws but to facilitate
lawful trade.
conclusion
The Service's role in monitoring the import and export of wildlife,
including echinoderms, is integral to the success of conservation. The
Service is the only agency monitoring and physically inspecting the
export of wildlife from U.S. ports. As with other domestically managed
species, state fish and wildlife agencies rely upon the Service
inspection process to deter interstate smuggling efforts. An exemption
for echinoderms would provide greater opportunity for international
smuggling of these valuable species and other wildlife, while limiting
the Service's ability to work with states and international government
partners to detect and deter unsustainable, illegal trade.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I would be happy to
answer any questions that you have and will continue to work with
Congresswoman Pingree, Congressman Poliquin, and the subcommittee on
this important issue.
______
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Woody.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Atchan Tamaki, Founder of ISF
Trading, for his testimony.
STATEMENT OF ATCHAN TAMAKI, FOUNDER, ISF TRADING, PORTLAND,
MAINE
Mr. Tamaki. Good afternoon. My name is Atchan Tamaki. I am
a founder and the president of the ISF Trading, Inc., which is
located on the pier on Portland, Maine's working waterfront,
and is Maine's largest processor of sea urchins and sea
cucumbers.
I am also the president of the Maine Sea Urchin and Sea
Cucumber Association, and I am a member of the Maine Department
of Marine Resources Sea Urchin Zone Council, which advises the
Commissioner of Marine Resources on issues relating to sea
urchin conservation.
I moved to the United States from Japan in 1978 to attend
college. After earning a business degree from the University of
Montana, I moved to Maine. I have had amazing opportunities in
Maine. So, I raised my family there, and have been able to grow
my business and provide jobs to Maine workers. I am proud to
say that along the way I became a naturalized U.S. citizen.
After moving to Maine, I began working in the lobster
business, which introduced me to sea urchins and sea cucumbers.
I saw tremendous opportunity in that market. In 1989, I began
buying, processing, and shipping sea urchins and sea cucumbers,
and my business took off as the industry's pioneer in Maine.
I have built my business from scratch. It now employs
approximately 60 people, many of them Asian immigrants with
limited English language ability who otherwise would have
difficulty finding jobs. Indirectly, my business employs many
more people. Several hundred people who make a living by
harvesting urchins in remote Washington County in Maine, and
those who transport the product to processors like me in
southern Maine rely on us for their income.
With this background, I am here today to testify about a
grave threat that is facing our industry and putting hundreds
of Maine jobs at risk. For approximately 30 years, lobsters and
shellfish have been exempt from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service import/export fee and inspection regimen. This means
that, for decades, shipments of lobsters, mussels, clams,
scallops, and oysters, among others, have been imported to, and
exported from, the United States without any interference from
Fish and Wildlife.
In 2013, Maine's lobster exports totaled $245 million, and
not a single shipment of it required the payment of fees to, or
inspection by, Fish and Wildlife. By contrast, Maine's entire
annual urchin harvest, for both domestic consumption and
export, is worth about $5.4 million. But each shipment requires
the payment of over $225 in fees to Fish and Wildlife, in
addition to $60-$70 in fees to U.S. Customs, plus time-
consuming and delay-inducing inspections. This includes the
particularly onerous requirement that we notify Fish and
Wildlife 48 hours in advance of every shipment, despite the
fact that the urchin catch is brought to shore less than 24
hours before we process and ship it.
It is worth noting that the U.S. Custom Service also
inspects our products. They run a seamless, 24/7 process. When
the exemption for lobsters and shellfish was enacted in the
1980s, the sea urchin and the sea cucumber market were in their
infancy. It is clear that the obscure nature of the industry at
that time is the sole reason that sea urchins and sea cucumbers
were not included within the exemption.
This anomaly made little difference until about 2 years
ago, when for the first time Fish and Wildlife began requiring
our industry to submit to the fees and the inspection program
for exports. The result has been that my business and my
competitors' businesses have had to pay tens of thousands of
dollars and endure debilitating delays as we have had to deal
with Fish and Wildlife, a new and particularly burdensome
source of red tape.
Our highly perishable product routinely ends up wasting
away in a warehouse at JFK Airport as we wait for Fish and
Wildlife to clear it for export. Lost paperwork, unexplained
delays, and the lack of response by overworked Fish and
Wildlife Service employees in New York has often led to spoiled
product, unhappy customers overseas, and a dramatic hit to my
company's bottom line.
In the approximately 2 years during which we have been
subject to this process, it has only gotten worse, particularly
when Fish and Wildlife, unlike U.S. Customs, shuts down
entirely over the December holidays. That is our busiest season
of the year.
By adopting H.R. 4245 and extending the longstanding
exemption for lobsters and shellfish to sea urchins and sea
cucumbers----
Dr. Fleming. Mr. Tamaki, I am sorry, we are out of time.
But your entire statement will be contained in the record.
Mr. Tamaki. Thank you
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tamaki follows:]
Prepared Statement of Atchan Tamaki,President, I.S.F. Trading, Inc.;
President, Maine Sea Urchin and Sea Cucumber Association on H.R. 4245
Good afternoon. My name is Atchan Tamaki, and I am the founder and
president of I.S.F. Trading, which is located on a pier on Portland,
Maine's working waterfront and is Maine's largest processor of sea
urchins and sea cucumbers. I am also the president of the Maine Sea
Urchin and Sea Cucumber Association and I sit on the Maine Department
of Marine Resources Sea Urchin Zone Council, which advises the
Commissioner of Marine Resources on issues relating to sea urchin
conservation.
I moved to the United States from Japan in 1978 to attend college.
After earning a business degree from the University of Montana (there
is not much seafood processing in Montana!), I moved to Maine. I have
had amazing opportunities in the United States, and particularly in
Maine. I raised my family there and have been able to grow my business
and provide jobs to Maine workers. I am proud to say that along the way
I became a naturalized U.S. citizen.
After moving to Maine, I began working in the lobster business,
which introduced me to sea urchins and sea cucumbers. I saw tremendous
opportunity in that market. So, in 1989, I began buying, processing,
and shipping sea urchins and sea cucumbers and my business took off--
you could say that I was the industry's pioneer in Maine. Many
Americans are not aware that sea urchins are a common food item. Sea
urchin roe can be found on many sushi menus as ``uni.'' It has long
been a delicacy in Asia and demand in the domestic market has been
steadily increasing. I also process sea cucumbers, which are very
popular in Korean and Chinese markets. After a bout of overfishing in
the early 1990s, Maine and other states aggressively and very
successfully regulated the fishery, and it is now a sustainability
success story.
I have built my business from scratch. It now employs approximately
60 people, many of them Asian immigrants with limited English-language
ability, who otherwise would have difficulty finding work. Indirectly,
my business employs many more people. My competitors--who also employ
dozens of people--and I purchase every urchin that is landed at ports
along Maine's coast. The several hundred people who make a living by
harvesting urchins in remote Washington County and those who transport
the product to processors like me in southern Maine rely on us for
their income. It is important to note that in an era in which almost
all seafood processing activity has left New England for Canada,
Maine's sea urchin processors have bucked the trend. Canadian
processors have been unsuccessful at conducting the labor-intensive and
skilled work involved in processing sea urchins, and as a result, most
urchins landed in eastern Canada are shipped to Maine for processing.
This is a source of tremendous pride in my industry and for me
personally.
With this background, I am here today to testify about a grave
threat that is facing my industry and putting hundreds of Maine jobs at
risk. For approximately 30 years, lobsters and shellfish have been
exempted from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service import/export fee and
inspection regimen. This means that for decades, shipments of lobsters,
mussels, clams, scallops, and oysters--among others--have been imported
to, and exported from, the United States without any interference from
Fish and Wildlife. In 2013, Maine's lobster exports totaled $245
million--and not a single shipment of it required the payment of fees
to, or inspections by, Fish and Wildlife. By contrast, Maine's entire
annual urchin harvest, for both domestic consumption and export, is
worth about $5.4 million, but each shipment requires the payment of
over $225 in fees to Fish and Wildlife (in addition to $60-$70 in fees
to the Customs Service), plus time-consuming and delay-inducing
inspections--including the particularly onerous requirement that we
notify Fish and Wildlife 48 hours in advance of every shipment, despite
the fact that the urchin catch is brought to shore less than 24 hours
before we process and ship it. It is worth noting that the Customs
Service also inspects our products and we have had no problems in that
regard--they run a seamless, 24/7 process.
When the exemption for lobsters and shellfish was enacted in the
1980s, the sea urchin and sea cucumber markets were in their infancy.
It is clear that the obscure nature of the industry at that time is the
sole reason that sea urchins and sea cucumbers were not included within
the exemption. This historical anomaly made little difference until
about 2 years ago, when for the first time Fish and Wildlife began
requiring my industry to submit to its fee and inspection program for
exports. The result has been that my business and my competitors'
businesses have had to pay tens of thousands of dollars and endure
debilitating delays as we have had to deal with Fish and Wildlife, a
new and particularly burdensome source of red tape. Our highly
perishable product routinely ends up wasting away in warehouses at JFK
Airport as we wait for Fish and Wildlife to clear it for export (a
duplication of the existing Customs process).
Lost paperwork, unexplained delays, and lack of responsiveness by
overworked Fish and Wildlife Service employees in New York has often
led to spoiled product (or ``dead loss''), unhappy customers overseas,
and a dramatic hit to my company's bottom line. In the approximately 2
years during which we have been subjected to this process, it has only
gotten worse--particularly when Fish and Wildlife, unlike Customs,
shuts down entirely over the December holidays, our busiest season. All
of this disruption is due to inspections that similar and far more
prominent seafood products, such as lobster, avoid entirely--and this
disparity has no basis with respect to science or sustainability.
The debilitating impact of the Fish and Wildlife fee-paying and
inspection process has thrown what had been a steady and growing
business into a state of uncertainty--with fees, delays, and spoiled
shipments suddenly cutting into my bottom line, I have reduced my
hiring, as have my competitors. This is having a direct impact on
Maine's economy and surely also on the economies of other states where
this industry is prominent, such as California, Oregon, and Washington.
With this constant drag on hiring and profitability, I honestly cannot
tell you what the future holds for my industry. This would not have
been the case before Fish and Wildlife inserted itself into my business
and those like it.
I will share with you just one recent example of the burdens
imposed by this fee-payment and inspection process: In November, my
company submitted an application to renew our Fish and Wildlife import/
export permit well in advance of its December 31 expiration. This
permit is absolutely vital to my business given its extensive import/
export activity. Throughout November and December, we repeatedly
followed up with Fish and Wildlife to inquire about the status of our
application. We could not get an answer and were simply told, ``it can
take a long time.'' Come January, we still had not received our renewed
permit and, as a result, Fish and Wildlife rejected two of our
shipments to Asia, with a value of $30,000. Finally, during the second
week of January, our permit arrived, but only after 2 weeks' worth of
damage was done to our business.
By enacting H.R. 4245 and extending the longstanding exemption for
lobsters and shellfish to sea urchins and sea cucumbers, Congress would
be correcting an historical oversight and providing predictability and
growth to an essential coastal industry--all without putting our
environment or natural resources at risk. It would allow my business
and those like it to go back to focusing on what we do best: Processing
these highly perishable products and shipping them, packed in ice, to
Asia within the short window before spoilage occurs. By treating our
products like its peers--lobsters, mussels, clams, and the like--
Congress would allow our business to return to a state of steady growth
and hiring.
Thank you for considering this measure and for providing me with
the opportunity to make these comments in support of H.R. 4245.
______
Dr. Fleming. Thank you. Next we have Mr. Daniel Morris, the
National Marine Fisheries Service's Deputy Regional
Administrator for the Greater Atlantic Region.
You have 5 minutes, sir.
STATEMENT OF DANIEL MORRIS, DEPUTY REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR,
GREATER ATLANTIC REGIONAL FISHERIES OFFICE, NATIONAL MARINE
FISHERIES SERVICE, GLOUCESTER, MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. Morris. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
members of the committee. I am Daniel Morris, the Deputy
Regional Administrator for the Greater Atlantic Regional
Fisheries Office within the Commerce Department's National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Thank you for the
opportunity to come before you today to discuss H.R. 3070, the
EEZ Clarification Act. My comments will focus only on H.R.
3070, as H.R. 4245 is not within NOAA's jurisdiction.
The Federal Government and the states have a long history
of successful collaboration in managing sustainable fisheries.
Two statutes guiding our collaborative management include the
Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act and the Atlantic Coastal
Fisheries Cooperative Management Act. The former focuses
specifically on striped bass conservation and management by the
states, while the latter provides a vehicle for Federal and
state cooperation by establishing the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission.
Atlantic striped bass are managed under state
jurisdictions, as coordinated by the Commission. Historically,
the striped bass fishery was one of the most important on the
Atlantic coast. Overfishing and environmental degradation led
to its decline in the 1980s. But through the state's effective
management, the stock recovered and was declared rebuilt in
1995.
In 1990, NOAA Fisheries implemented a Federal ban on the
commercial and recreational harvest and possession of striped
bass in the U.S. EEZ to aid in its recovery. In 2006, we
reviewed that ban and analyzed the potential effects of opening
the EEZ to striped bass fishing. At that time, we invited
public comment and received approximately 8,500 comments, of
which 97 percent favored continuing the closure, which is what
we did at the conclusion of the review.
The unique geography of Eastern Long Island Sound creates
an area of Federal waters landward and to the west of the state
waters around Block Island. To accommodate fishermen, NOAA
Fisheries modified the EEZ restrictions to allow possession of
striped bass in the area known as the Block Island Transit
Zone, provided that no fishing takes place from the vessel
while in the EEZ and that the vessel is in continuous transit.
In October 2008, Executive Order 13449 affirmed as policy
of the United States the goal of conserving striped bass for
recreational, economic, and environmental benefit of present
and future generations. NOAA Fisheries determined that the EEZ
striped bass fishing and possession prohibitions were
consistent with that order.
Then, in 2009, the Commission reviewed the idea of opening
the Block Island Transit Area to fishing, but decided not to
request adjustment of the Federal EEZ prohibitions at that
time.
In 2015, a new stock assessment of striped bass showed
downward trends in the coastal stock. Accordingly, the
Commission adopted management measures to reduce fishing
mortality along the coast and in the Chesapeake Bay. The
changes to the EEZ proposed under H.R. 3070 would have
implications for the management of the stock for both
commercial and recreational fisheries. The Commission's
continued effective and well-coordinated management of the
fishery will be essential if we are to sustain the striped bass
resource for the many commercial and recreational interests
that depend upon it.
Aside from striped bass, other fisheries occur in the Block
Island Transit Zone. Recreational and commercial fisheries for
summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, winter flounder, and
squid may occur in the area. All are under very effective
management through the collaboration of NOAA Fisheries, the
states, the Commission, and the Mid-Atlantic or the New England
Fishery Management Councils.
Given the joint management structure, changing jurisdiction
of the waters adjacent to Block Island from Federal to state
would have some impact, but a small impact on the management of
these fisheries, as regulations are typically consistent across
the jurisdictions. However, bringing this area of EEZ under
state jurisdiction may affect the fishing opportunity for
vessels and for fishermen that currently work in Federal
waters, but do not hold state permits from Rhode Island or New
York.
NOAA understands the importance of the striped bass and
other fisheries for fishermen and the states along the Atlantic
Coast. If H.R. 3070 is enacted, we would have some work to do.
Subsequent efforts will be required by NOAA Fisheries and our
partners to ensure that the harvest in this area is equitably
divided and fully accounted for. We will continue to work with
our constituents, the states, and the Commission on this
important issue to ensure the best possible management of the
resource.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I will do my best to respond
to any questions that you and the Members may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Morris follows:]
Prepared Statement of Daniel Morris, Deputy Regional Administrator,
Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, National Marine Fisheries
Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on H.R. 3070
introduction
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I
appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today about a number of
the bills before the committee. My name is Daniel Morris and I am the
Deputy Regional Administrator for the Greater Atlantic Regional
Fisheries Office, within the Department of Commerce's National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Thank you very much for the
opportunity to come before you today to discuss H.R. 3070 and H.R.
4245. My comments will focus only on H.R. 3070, as H.R. 4245 is not
within NOAA's jurisdiction.
The Federal Government and the states have a long and successful
history of partnering to manage fisheries in a sustainable manner and,
when necessary, resolve fisheries issues. Two notable examples guiding
this management include legislation such as the Atlantic Striped Bass
Conservation Act and the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative
Management Act. The Striped Bass Act focused specifically on striped
bass conservation and management, while the Atlantic Coastal Act
provided a way for the states and the Federal Government to partner on
a wide range of fisheries issues of mutual concern.
atlantic striped bass
Atlantic striped bass are managed directly by the state
jurisdictions through the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
(ASMFC). Historically, the fishery for striped bass was one of the most
important on the Atlantic coast. Overfishing and poor environmental
conditions led to the decline of the fishery in the 1980s. Through
effective management and cooperation by the states under ASMFC, The
Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act, and the Atlantic Coastal
Fisheries Cooperative Management Act, the stock was rebuilt in 1995.
In 1990, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) implemented a
Federal ban on the harvest and possession of striped bass, both
commercially and recreationally, in the U.S. EEZ to support the efforts
of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) to aid
in the recovery of striped bass along the East Coast. In 2006, NMFS
reanalyzed potential effects of opening the EEZ to Atlantic striped
bass harvest, and invited public comment. NMFS received approximately
8,500 comments, of which 97 percent favored continuing the closure. To
ensure that both commercial and recreational fishing pressure did not
increase in the EEZ and ensure the long-term conservation of Atlantic
striped bass, NMFS maintained the closure.
NMFS understands the unique fishing area adjacent to Long Island
and Block Island, and modified the no-possession requirement of
Atlantic striped bass to allow for possession of striped bass in the
area known as the Block Island Sound transit zone, provided that no
fishing takes place from the vessel while in the EEZ and the vessel is
in continuous transit.
In October 2008, Executive Order 13449 affirmed as policy of the
United States the goal of conserving striped bass and red drum for the
recreational, economic, and environmental benefit of present and future
generations. NMFS determined that the current prohibitions on fishing
for striped bass and red drum in the EEZ are consistent with the
Executive Order.
In 2009, the Commission reviewed the idea of opening this area to
fishing, but did not take any action, allowing the continuation of the
EEZ prohibitions.
In 2015, based on a new stock assessment which showed downward
trends in the striped bass coastal stock, the Commission adopted new
management measures to reduce fishing mortality including a 25 percent
reduction on the coast and a 20 percent reduction in Chesapeake Bay
harvests. Changes to the EEZ, as proposed under H.R. 3070 would have
implications for the management of the stock, both for commercial and
recreational fisheries. Continued careful and coordinated management of
this important fish stock through management programs implemented by
the Commission is essential if we are to sustain the resource and the
many commercial and recreational interests that depend on striped bass
fishing.
federally managed stocks
There are no fisheries, apart from striped bass, that are expected
to be affected significantly by the opening of the area proposed by
H.R. 3070. Active recreational and commercial fisheries for summer
flounder (fluke), scup (porgies), black sea bass, winter flounder, and
potentially squid can seasonally occur within the areas that would be
opened by proposed H.R. 3070. Summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass
are jointly managed between NMFS and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council in Federal waters and the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission and Rhode Island in state waters. Given the joint
management structure, it is unlikely that changing the Demarcation Line
between state and Federal waters adjacent to Block Island would have a
significant impact on these fisheries as management rules are typically
consistent across the jurisdictions. Similarly, winter flounder is
collaboratively managed between state and Federal management partners.
Although there have been some differences in state and Federal
management measures for winter flounder, changes in the demarcation
line should not appreciably alter the winter flounder commercial or
recreational fisheries. Squid are managed by NMFS and the Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council in both state and Federal waters, but the
proposed opening by H.R. 3070 would not change the existing management
regulations that are effective for state and Federal waters and, by
extension, would not change the existing fishery.
conclusion
NOAA understands the importance of the striped bass and other
recreational and commercial fisheries to the states and fishermen along
the Atlantic coast. We would only note that if H.R. 3070 was to be
enacted, subsequent efforts will be required by NMFS, the Commission,
and Councils to ensure the harvest in this area is equitably divided
among the adjacent state's recreational and commercial fishermen and
adequately accounted in both recreational and commercial quotas. We
will continue to work closely with our constituents, the states, and
the Commission on this important issue to ensure the best management of
this important resource.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to respond to any
questions that you, or members of the committee, may have.
______
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Morris.
I now recognize Captain John McMurray, owner of One More
Cast Charters.
STATEMENT OF JOHN McMURRAY, OWNER, ONE MORE CAST CHARTERS,
OCEANSIDE, NEW YORK
Mr. McMurray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee. I do appreciate being invited here today to give my
perspective on the EEZ Clarification Act. That is all I will be
commenting on. Frankly, I know nothing about Maine's sea
urchins, but I do agree with the Congressman that, yes, they
are indeed ugly.
Again, my name is John McMurray. I run a charter business
in Long Island, and I have done so for 15 years. I sit on the
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, which is one of the
eight Federal Management Councils. I am also a member of the
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's Striped Bass
Advisory Panel, and I am the Director of Grant Programs at the
Norcross Wildlife Foundation. I want to be clear that today I
am speaking solely as a fisherman and a small business owner
from New York.
As you are likely aware, the EEZ, the area off our coast
from 3 nautical miles out to 200, has been closed since 1990.
That moratorium was put in place to protect new year-classes
entering the spawning population, and to help with the
rebuilding of a resource that was recovering from nearly two
decades of overfishing.
In 2006, NOAA Fisheries re-evaluated that Federal ban. They
received approximately 8,500 comments, almost all supporting a
continued closure. The agency decided to maintain the
moratorium to ensure fishing pressure did not increase. Today,
the EEZ effectively serves as a badly needed buffer for an
adult striped bass population. Outside of 3 miles, stripers are
temporarily protected from the sometimes immense pressure they
face in state waters.
Our nautical charts, as well as GPS units, that show
Eastern Long Island, Block Island and Rhode Island, the EEZ is
clearly delineated, indicating a boundary that lies 3 miles off
of all relevant points of land. Because Block Island is
approximately 9 miles from Rhode Island and 14 miles from
Montauk Point, there is a large swath of water between Montauk,
Block Island, and Point Judith--approximately 155 square miles
that is Federal water and closed to striped bass fishing.
Those familiar with the area understand that such water,
usually from June to October, holds a lot of striped bass,
which are generally large ones. The EEZ Clarification Act, if
it were to become law, recreational fishing for striped bass
will be allowed in such an area.
While it is easy to think that this is not a big deal, and
we are just considering opening a small area between two points
of land, the reality is that we are talking about 155 square
miles of what is really prime striped bass habitat,
particularly for those older, larger fecund females. And it is
in very close proximity to some of the biggest recreational and
commercial fishing ports on the East Coast. If such an opening
were to occur, a lot more big, fecund females would presumably
be harvested.
As far as I know, there has been no biological analysis
conducted by NOAA Fisheries, ASMFC, or other managing agencies
of what sort of impact this might have. Such analysis should
actually be a requirement before considering any such opening.
Regardless, it seems very likely that opening this water to
striped bass fishing would result in an increase--probably a
significant one--in overall fishing mortality.
Currently, things are not exactly rosy with striped bass.
The stock has been in steady decline since 2006. And while the
latest assessment, completed in 2013, found that it wasn't
quite yet overfished, such an assessment clearly warned that it
very well could become overfished in 2015.
Just about everyone with any real time on the water will
tell you that the striped bass resource has been trending
downward, and it is certainly not at the level that it was,
even just a few years ago.
Each year it seems to become harder and harder to find
striped bass in their usual haunts. Certainly there is still
good fishing to be had, but it is sporadic and hard to predict.
Those who fish from shore, surf catchers, have suffered from
the decline the most. The Montauk Blitz, those classic striped
bass feeding frenzies right off the beach of Montauk, which
really characterize that area from September to October each
fall, seem to be a thing of the past.
It is my opinion that the last thing we should be
considering at this point is a likely increase in fishing
mortality. Any such regional opening would also interrupt a
uniform and consistent EEZ closure along the striper coast. You
could be fairly sure that if such a bill were to become law,
Massachusetts, Virginia, North Carolina, et cetera, would be
carving out their own preferred areas of the EEZ to open. And
there would be justification, because if New York can do it, so
can they.
Finally, the bill intends to open up areas landward from
``a continuous line running from a point 3 miles south of the
southernmost point of Montauk to a point 3 miles south of the
southernmost point of Block Island, Rhode Island, and from a
point 3 miles south of the southernmost point of Block Island,
Rhode Island, to a point 3 miles south of the southernmost
point of Point Judith.''
Now, if you get out a chart and actually draw those lines,
you will see that it cuts off the entire southeast corner of
Block Island. Unless I am misunderstanding something, this
means that, technically, if you are fishing from the beach on
that southeast corner, you would be in violation of Federal
law.
So, in short, the EEZ moratorium is and has been an
important component of striped bass conservation efforts. It
has kept fishing mortality down, particularly in those older,
larger fish that compose a spawning stock and appear to
frequent Federal waters. Such a closure over the years has,
without question, helped to protect the striped bass resource
from over-harvest.
The Montauk and Rhode Island party and charter fleet
appears to be arguing that such a regional opening would
provide economic benefits. Perhaps it might. But the larger
question is whether such potential economic benefits----
Dr. Fleming. Sorry, Mr. McMurray, we are going to have to
conclude. But thank you. Your entire statement will be in the
record.
Mr. McMurray. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McMurray follows:]
Prepared Statement of Captain John McMurray, Owner/Operator, One More
Cast Charters on H.R. 3070
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for inviting
me to share my perspective on H.R. 3070, the ``EEZ Clarification Act.''
I've run a relatively successful fishing charter business in Long
Island, NY for 15 years, employing three boats and three captains when
the striped bass resource was at its high point. I sit on the Mid
Atlantic Fishery Management Council, one of eight regional fishery
management councils in the United States. I'm also a member of the
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's Striped Bass Advisory
Panel. Last, I'm the Director of Grant Programs at the Norcross
Wildlife Foundation, which has distributed over $20 million in
equipment grants, much of that to organizations focused exclusively on
fisheries and marine habitat protection.
I want to be clear that I'm here today speaking solely as a
fisherman and small business owner from New York.
As you are likely aware, the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)--the
area off our coast from 3 nautical miles out to 200--has been closed to
striped bass fishing since 1990.
Such moratorium was put in place to protect new year-classes
entering the spawning population and to help with the rebuilding of a
resource recovering from nearly two decades of overfishing.
In 2006, NOAA Fisheries re-evaluated the Federal ban. After
receiving approximately 8,500 comments, almost all supporting a
continued closure, the agency decided to maintain the moratorium to
ensure fishing pressure did not increase.
Today, the EEZ effectively serves as a badly needed buffer for an
adult striped bass population. Outside of 3 miles, stripers are
temporarily protected from the sometimes immense pressure they face in
state waters.
On nautical charts that show Eastern Island, Block Island and Rhode
Island the EEZ is clearly delineated, indicating a boundary that lies 3
miles off of all relevant points of land.
Because Block Island is approximately 9 miles from Rhode Island,
and 14 miles from Montauk Point, there is a large swath of water
between Montauk, Block and Pt. Judith--approximately 155 square miles--
that is Federal water, and thus closed to striped bass fishing. Those
familiar with the area understand that such water, usually from June to
October, holds A LOT of striped bass. Generally large ones too.
While it is legal to be in possession of striped bass in such
``transit zones'' while steaming between Block Island and Montauk or
other nearby ports, anglers may not actively fish for stripers in such
area.
If H.R. 3070, the ``EEZ Clarification Act'' were to become law,
recreational fishing for striped bass would be allowed in the ``transit
zone.''
While it's easy to think this is not a big deal, and that we're
just considering opening a small area between two points of land, the
reality is that we're talking about 155 square miles of what is really
prime striped bass habitat, particularly for those older, larger,
fecund females, in close proximity to some of the biggest recreational
and commercial fishing ports on the East Coast. If such an opening were
to occur, A LOT more big fecund females would presumably be harvested.
As far as I know, there has been no biological analysis conducted
by NOAA Fisheries, ASMFC or other managing agency of what sort of
impact this might have. Such an analysis should be a requirement before
considering any such opening. It seems very likely that opening this
water to striped bass fishing would result in an increase, probably a
significant one, in overall fishing mortality.
Currently things are not exactly ``rosy'' with striped bass. The
stock has been in steady decline since 2006. And while the last
assessment (completed in 2013) found that it wasn't quite yet
overfished, such assessment clearly warned that it very well could
become overfished in 2015.
Just about everyone with any real time on the water acknowledges
the decline in abundance of striped bass (unless they have a financial
stake in harvesting more fish of course). Each year, it seems to become
harder and harder to find striped bass in their usual haunts. Certainly
there is still good fishing to be had, but it is sporadic and hard to
predict. Those who fish from shore (``surfcasters'') have suffered from
the decline the most. The ``Montauk Blitz'' (striped bass feeding
frenzies) that characterized the Montauk shoreline in September and
October, and made Montauk a famous striped bass destination appear to
be a thing of the past.
It is my opinion that the last thing we should be considering at
this point is a likely increase in fishing mortality.
Any such regional opening would interrupt a uniform and consistent
EEZ closure along the striper coast. You can be fairly sure that if
such a bill were to become law, Massachusetts, Virginia, North
Carolina, etc., would be carving out their own preferred areas of the
EEZ to open. And there would be justification, ``If New York and Rhode
Island can do it, then we should be able to also.''
There is a fairness issue to consider as well. Given the EEZ was
permanently closed to commercial striped bass fishing pursuant to an
Executive Order issued by President George W. Bush, such an area would
presumably be open to recreational fishing only. If that were the case,
and it was determined that the increase in fishing mortality required a
reduction, such an across-the-board reduction would affect commercial
fishermen negatively even if they had little to do with the overage.
Finally, the bill intends to open up areas landward from ``a
continuous line running from a point 3 miles south of the southernmost
point of Montauk to a point 3 miles south of the southernmost point of
Block Island, Rhode Island, and from such point 3 miles south of the
southernmost point of Block Island, Rhode Island, to a point 3 miles
south of the southernmost point of Point Judith.''
If you get a chart out and actually draw those lines, you'll see
that it cuts off the entire southeast corner of Block Island. Unless
I'm misunderstanding something, this means that technically, if you
were to be fishing from the beach at Sand Bank, or Cat Rock, you'd be
doing so illegally.
In short, the EEZ moratorium is and has been an important component
of striped bass conservation efforts, keeping fishing mortality down,
particularly on those older large fish that compose the spawning stock,
and appear to frequent Federal waters. Such a closure has over the
years, without question, helped to protect the striped bass resource.
The Montauk and Rhode Island party/charter fleet appears to be
arguing that such a regional opening would provide economic benefits.
Perhaps it might. But the larger question is whether such potential
economic benefits, for what appears to be a narrow special interest,
trump the long-term health of a public resource. And should those fish
be available to such special interests at the expense of the great
majority of anglers, particularly those surfcasters and near shore
fishermen?
The answer seems pretty simple to me.
This concludes my testimony. Thank you for the opportunity to
provide these comments.
______
Dr. Fleming. Next the Chair recognizes Captain Joe McBride,
Legislative Representative of the Montauk Boatmen and Captains
Association, for 5 minutes.
Take your time, sir. We won't start the clock until you get
set.
STATEMENT OF JOE McBRIDE, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, MONTAUK
BOATMEN & CAPTAINS ASSOCIATION, EAST HAMPTON, NEW YORK
Mr. McBride. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Captain Joe
McBride. I have spent 40 years as a charter boat captain in the
Montauk area, and I am very familiar with the areas,
geographically and historically, in regard to the fishing. It
is not in my written statement, because I didn't think it was
important, but I do have to lend some credibility to my
opinions on the issue before us, Congressman Zeldin's bill.
In any case, I would like to thank Chairman John Fleming
and Congressman Lee Zeldin for allowing us to present our
issues to the Committee on Natural Resources. We appreciated
Chairman Bishop and other Members taking time to come to
Riverhead in December for a field meeting. You are to be
commended, all of you, and to be thanked by the fishermen on
Long Island, for taking the time to come out and hear our
problems, whatever the resolve will be. Again, I would
personally like to thank Congressman Zeldin for arranging these
particular meetings.
We have a longstanding problem with the Transit Zone
between Block Island, Rhode Island, and Montauk Point, New
York, and between Block Island and Point Judith, Rhode Island.
The unintended consequence of this restriction is that New York
State and Rhode Island have lost over 60 percent of the
historical striped bass fishing areas in the Transit Zone.
When the zone was first set up in approximately 1990, no
one enforced it for 10 years. No one even paid attention to it
for 10 years. Somewhere after 9/11 we began to see a number of
Coast Guard vessels from Boston, from New London, and from New
York enforcing the 3-mile law. Most people didn't even know,
including the captains, because it was not delineated on the
regular charts. It was on special charts pertaining to the
fishing and to the laws that were aforementioned.
It is a very onerous thing for us, because not only is the
area an important historical part of our fishing grounds, they
contain all of our striped bass, or a good portion, 60 percent
of our striped bass rips, as they call them, the places we fish
for striped bass. So we are putting up with it, trying to see
what we could do to rectify it.
I had a meeting with the Coast Guard commandants from New
London, New York, and Boston in New York, and they pointed out
to me, ``Joe, we are police officers of the sea. We are told to
enforce the law. We have to enforce the law. It is nothing we
want to penalize Montauk,'' which I was concerned was something
going on that we didn't know about. ``The law is the law. You
have to change it.'' We have been trying to change the law in
an equitable fashion. Not unequal, not to take something from
anybody else.
But if you look at the coast of the United States, going
from South Carolina, 3 miles is more than adequate for our
fisheries. Bass fishing is a coastal fishery. Beyond the
anomaly is the area between Montauk Point and Block Island, and
Block Island and Point Judith.
Now, we would like to be able to fish for striped bass in
that area by any means that does not do any harm to any other
fishery or any other group of fishermen. And we would rely on
both Congressman Zeldin to lead the charge and, hopefully, with
the Congressman from Connecticut, they can work together to
adjudicate this problem and come up with a bill that will
present us with the opportunity to restore historical fishing.
I sort of summarized--I am running out of time here--I
summarized pretty much what you have in the written report. I
want to thank you again for your considerations of our
requests.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McBride follows:]
Prepared Statement of Captain Joe McBride, Legislative Representative,
Montauk Boatmen & Captains Association (MBCA) on H.R. 3070
The MBCA would like to thank Chairman John Fleming and Congressman
Lee Zeldin for allowing us to present our issues to the Committee on
Natural Resources. We appreciated Chairman Bishop and other Members
taking the time to come to Riverhead in December for a field hearing.
We have a longstanding problem with the Transit Zone between Block
Island, RI and Montauk Point, NY, and between Block Island and Point
Judith, RI. The unintended consequence of this restriction is that New
York State and Rhode Island have lost over 60 percent of their
historical striped bass fishing areas in the Transit Zone.
This anomaly exists only in this area because of the extended
distance between Montauk Point, NY to Block Island, and is the same for
Point Judith to Block Island. The distance from Block Island to either
Montauk Point or Point Judith is approximately 15 miles. We having been
trying for many years to correct this problem with no success.
The impact of sport fishing on Long Island is very important to our
economy, especially in Montauk. According to the 2001 survey Sea Grant,
a branch of Cornell University, the economic impact of sport fishing is
as follows:
1. At least $2 billion to our economy
2. Over 1 million sport fishermen
3. 10,000 full or part time jobs on Long Island
4. The above are exclusive of the sale of boats and equipment for
the industry
To correct this unintended problem we respectfully request:
1. Sport fishing for striped bass be allowed in the Transit Zone be
allowed as soon as possible
2. You support H.R. 3070 to change the EEZ area to 3 miles south of
Block Island and Montauk Point and the same for the area
between Block Island and Port Judith, RI
Thank you for your consideration of our requests.
______
Dr. Fleming. I thank you gentlemen for your valuable
testimony. At this point, we will begin our questions for the
witnesses. Members are limited to 5 minutes for their
questions. And we can have more than one round, depending on
the number of questions, of course.
Mr. Woody, I have a question for you. You have heard
testimony--several, in fact, make note of the fact that
oftentimes the sea urchins are brought in and the inspections
are not timely, there is spoilage, loss of revenue. When that
happens, I am not hearing that anybody gets fined. In private
business, when you do things like that, you get fined, lose
customers, or lose your crop, or whatever it is. But if the
inspectors fail to do their job, what is done to them? And then
how do you make it up to the industry for allowing their
product to spoil?
Mr. Woody. First, sir, I am not aware of any spoilage
dealing with this. I have heard that testimony, but I am not
aware of any spoilage. One thing that we do require is when we
asked industry for the 48 hours, that is to move the paperwork
through.
For example, the one that was spoke to over the weekend,
there were another five shipments of live and perishable
wildlife or product that came through. All of those shipments
went through, no problem. There wasn't an issue with them at
all.
This other particular shipment that we are talking about,
my staff told me that they were told that we could get to it
Monday. It was not a perishable shipment. We gave priority to
those other ones, and we moved this other one through.
Dr. Fleming. Do you have a system where you track your
success at timely inspections?
Mr. Woody. How do you mean?
Dr. Fleming. Well, you say you are not aware of it, but
that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. If you are not asking, you
are not going to know.
Mr. Woody. Correct. We worked very closely with Ms.
Pingree's staff on looking at some of the issues that they had,
and we make every effort, every effort to make sure that we
have somebody----
Dr. Fleming. An effort, sir, is not a system. I am
wondering what system do you have. And I will open it to the
other panelists who say that you have experienced spoilage
issues with perishables. Is there a network or a system in
which you can file a complaint, a timely complaint, and get
quick response? Anyone?
[No response.]
Dr. Fleming. OK. So, if there isn't a way for them to know,
or for you to know, and certainly intervene when your
inspections have not taken priority, then, obviously, it sounds
like to me, that that is a system failure.
Mr. Woody. And again, sir, I am not aware of anything
sitting on the tarmac or being spoiled.
Dr. Fleming. Right. But again, if you are not aware, that
doesn't mean it doesn't happen. That is the whole point here.
Mr. Woody. I would think that if a $20,000 shipment spoiled
on the tarmac, oh, I would hear about it.
Dr. Fleming. OK. So you are saying--and again I will open
it up to the panel. Gentlemen, do you complain when these
things happen, or do you just say nothing? Anybody?
Mr. Tamaki. Yes, we have several times. That is we ask for
the inspections. For example, 2 years ago, when the main season
is closed, shut down, we import from Chile for the fresh sea
urchin. That is the first time that--it was products at the JFK
Airport, and it was 90 degrees, and the Fish and Wildlife New
York Office told me they need to inspect. ``OK. Can you do as
soon as possible? '' They said they don't have enough staff.
Meanwhile, we have to just leave it there. That is
perishable product in the 90 degree heat. Absolutely, it is no
good.
Dr. Fleming. Right. But let me interrupt you for just a
second, because I will run out of time. My question is, when
that happens, do you have a method, an immediate method, in
which you can complain? Is there a 1-800 number, a hotline,
somebody you can go to with the inspection agency that you can
complain to? Or is there some way of adjudicating that?
Mr. Tamaki. No, I didn't know an 800 number, but that is--I
am sorry, I didn't know at the time----
Dr. Fleming. So you called, you were told there wasn't
enough staff.
And, Mr. Woody, you say you are not aware these things
happen. But nobody here is telling me that there is a
communication route in which complaints can be made.
Mr. Woody. Yes, we have our resident agent in charge there,
a number of inspectors. I mean they make themselves available
for those calls. And again, sir, I have not heard of an issue
where we have had----
Dr. Fleming. Well, you heard one just a moment ago. Just
now you heard one.
Mr. Woody. And we are not aware of that issue, sir.
Dr. Fleming. OK. Well, again, I would have to submit to you
that this is what the American people are very upset about, is
the bureaucracy in America that seems to be self-serving, and
not listening to the American people.
With that, I yield to the Ranking Member.
Mr. Huffman. Mr. Chairman, I will defer to my visiting
colleagues from Maine and Connecticut to start us off, perhaps
starting with Ms. Pingree, if she has some questions.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you very much. Thank you for yielding to
me, and thank you to everyone for their testimony. I know
nothing about Long Island Sound, so I won't be asking you any
questions, but I appreciate all of you.
Mr. Woody, I do want you to understand that we appreciate
how much back-and-forth we have had with Fish and Wildlife,
with the enforcement, around the science. I probably have more
distinct concerns about the science, because I do think we
could come together on this. But I also know that is really a
congressional issue, it is not easy for your Department to do
that.
And I just want to reinforce that, while I am in favor of
the Endangered Species Act, and I appreciate the job that the
Department does to make sure many species are safe, and what is
imported and exported is appropriate, it does seem to me that
if this was removed from one of the items that needed to be
inspected--you guys basically are overworked and have plenty of
things that have a real need for inspection. We don't have a
lot of examples of concerns about what is being exported or
imported into Maine, and it just seems to me it would be more
useful for the Department to concentrate on things such as
overfishing or a pattern of illegal harvesting.
Do you have concerns about the sort of priority of this?
Mr. Woody. I do. If I may, I want to give you some facts. I
mean you guys know Maine much better than I do, you guys are
the experts. But let me tell you about what is going on in the
United States, and what we are seeing as a whole with the Fish
and Wildlife Service, even with sea urchins and sea cucumbers.
I pulled some stats for 2014 and 2015. Exported shipments
of sea cucumbers and sea urchins going out of the United States
were a little over 2,321. Import or transported through the
United States there were over 8,021 shipments, for a total of
10,300 shipments. There is an estimated number of licensees
holding that for both sea cucumbers and sea urchins. There are
314. The total amount of pounds that went out was about 26
million pounds. The declared value was $218 million going
through.
Now, if you will, a lot of that comes up from South America
and through into Mexico. We seize shipments all the time. There
have been about 253 shipments coming up from that part of the
world that we have seized out of this, and that is the small
percentage that--we do not inspect all of them. If they don't
declare--remember, these are declared shipments--many of those
shipments get through. So there are quite a few others that
come through, as well.
But globally, there are a lot of those shipments that come
through, and we want to inspect those and make sure that those
are legal shipments that come through, as well. Again, what we
have in Maine you guys know very well, but the rest, and what
is being put in those shipments, everything from totoaba to
shark fin and other things. That is what we look for, as well.
So, it is very hard for us to separate out sea urchins in
Maine to the sea urchins and what is going on down in Mexico
and coming up through that part of the country, as well, in the
Gulf.
Ms. Pingree. I have never seen the reports of shipments
that have had to be seized coming into the country, and I don't
know the mechanics of all this. But given that our biggest
concern is about the exports leaving Maine, I don't think we
have ever had an incident of something going out in a shipment
from Maine that was an illegal shipment, an invasive species,
an endangered species, and----
Mr. Woody. Not that I am aware of.
Ms. Pingree. So, we would be particularly interested in
what happens with the exports.
I guess the other question is about this 48-hour rule. I do
understand the mechanics of why you need a certain amount of
time to make sure the inspectors are available. But given the
comparison to Customs, which clearly has more resources and is
open 24/7, and sometimes the inability to just make the
shipments, why do we have to apply that to a perishable
shipment, when there are others that aren't perishable?
Mr. Woody. On the 48-hour rule?
Ms. Pingree. Yes.
Mr. Woody. We can inspect it. If, in fact, it is coming
through like that, we want to make sure that we clear it. If
there are any paperwork issues, any clerical issues, we want to
make sure that moves through quickly, because as these
gentlemen already spoke to, I mean, they already have the bills
of laden, it is going on the plane. We want to look at it. We
may choose to look at it, and then it goes through and out.
So, we need that notification. And again, we have put out
policy and direction to our inspectors to make sure that those
are a high priority on perishable items.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you. I am out of time, but I appreciate
your answer.
Dr. Fleming. OK. The gentlelady yields. And next, Mr.
Poliquin is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Poliquin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
Mr. Leask, you showed that terrific video. And it was very
clear to me and everybody else in the room that you are
intentionally not trying to over-harvest, which would, of
course, be a detriment to your livelihood and others in the
state of Maine. You are clearly showing that you are collecting
those urchins in a bag--you weren't clearcutting--correct?
Mr. Leask. Correct.
Mr. Poliquin. OK. You mentioned that one of the things that
you want to make sure you support is sustainable trade. When
you are looking in a crate at sea urchins, is there a way to
determine by looking at it and inspecting it, if there has been
overfishing in the state of Maine? Mr. Woody?
Mr. Woody. Sir, I am sorry, I missed that. I thought you
were speaking----
Mr. Poliquin. If you look in a crate to inspect it, can you
tell if that has been overfished?
Mr. Woody. No, sir.
Mr. Poliquin. OK. And I am also guessing that you probably
have a hard time determining if the urchin is from Canada, from
Nova Scotia, or from Maine, correct?
Mr. Woody. I don't know if we have the paperwork going
through on that.
Mr. Poliquin. OK. We are chewing up a little bit of time
here.
Mr. Woody. OK, sure.
Mr. Poliquin. OK, thanks. When we inspect the sea floor in
our annual survey dives in the state of Maine, I am guessing
you are comfortable that we are doing everything we can to
assure there is sustainable fishery in Maine, is that correct?
Mr. Woody. That is correct.
Mr. Poliquin. OK, good. Let's talk about the inspections.
My heart goes out to you folks. You mentioned that you have
about 180,000 inspections per year with 125 inspectors.
Mr. Woody. You are breaking out really bad, sir.
Mr. Poliquin. Your numbers indicated that you do about
180,000 inspections per year, you have 125 inspectors. That is
about, roughly, 1,500 inspections per person, per year, which
comes down to roughly 300 per week, or 60 a day. But you don't
work every day, so it is maybe--so in an hour, you are probably
doing one inspection every 6 minutes.
Now, where I am going with this is the following point. How
do you do this? You have already said that you can't. So my
question, Mr. Chair and, Mr. Woody, to you, is why are you
picking on sea urchins and sea cucumbers? I mean up until 2012
we treated them the same way as lobsters and clams.
Mr. Woody. We treat sea urchins and sea cucumbers like we
do all other wildlife.
Mr. Poliquin. No, you do not. That is not the case, sir. Up
until 2012, sea cucumbers and sea urchins had an exemption--you
were not going through the rigmarole that these folks now have
to go through to get the product, very perishable, highly
valuable, to market. Since 2012, you have been doing something
different, right?
Mr. Woody. No, that is not correct.
Mr. Poliquin. That is not correct?
Mr. Woody. I am not familiar with what happened, what you
are referring to in 2012.
Mr. Poliquin. So the process that you go through with
inspections has been the same for the last 20 years?
Mr. Woody. That is correct.
Mr. Poliquin. OK. That is not my understanding. My
understanding is that we are trying to make sure the sea
cucumbers and sea urchins continue to have an exemption, like
they always have had for the past 20 years. Am I mistaken here?
Ms. Pingree. Mr. Chair, my understanding is that it was not
enforced until 2012. They did not have a specific exemption,
the exemption has been the same since the 1980s. But our
understanding is there was no application of this, so they were
not inspected, there were no charges made prior to that. But
the Department has gone for back-charges for that period of
time.
Mr. Poliquin. Thank you very much. It sounds like to me,
Mr. Woody, that this is a solution looking for a problem. It
was working fine up until 2012 is my understanding.
Mr. Woody. Sir, we passed out our import/export of
shellfish and fisheries products, and what we talk about, on
the inspections that we do. This goes back to 2008. We have
always--I hear what you are saying, but nothing changed in
2012.
Mr. Poliquin. Clearly, given the workload that you folks
have, and the perishable nature of the product that we are
trying to harvest, process, and export from Maine--there will
be incidents, I am guessing--otherwise, these folks would not
have taken the time to come down here and tell us of having a
real hard time getting their product quickly to market.
Do you folks, in your inspections process, do you factor in
the potential loss of income and jobs when you go through your
process? Is that part of your deliberation?
Mr. Woody. No. I hear what you are saying. No, sir, we do
not.
Mr. Poliquin. Why not?
Mr. Woody. Well, I am not aware of jobs being lost because
of our inspection process.
Mr. Poliquin. Mr. Leask, or Mr. Tamaki, would you like to
weigh in here?
Mr. Leask. Yes, Mr. Poliquin, thank you. In the last 2
years this inspection process has ramped up. To my knowledge,
there were no inspections done prior to that, even if it was
policy. There was nothing mentioned by buyers. I deal with five
different buyers. I have talked to all of them about this, and
this process has commenced in the last 2 years.
Mr. Tamaki. Yes, that is true, since 2012 the Fish and
Wildlife has got involved, for the fees and the inspections.
But I really didn't know what they are inspecting for
because of the--if it is import/export, U.S. Customs, they
inspect. And then FDA also inspects. So----
Mr. Poliquin. No, thank you, Mr. Tamaki. If I may, because
my time is running out, Chairman, if I may ask one last
question?
Mr. Woody, do you have other incidents, other examples of
inspecting other wildlife around the country that are already
inspected by the state?
Dr. Fleming. Mr. Poliquin, we are just way over time. We
will do another round.
Mr. Poliquin. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Dr. Fleming. OK. Next, Mr. Courtney is recognized.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I want to
thank you for the courtesy of having me here today, along with
the Ranking Member. And thank the witnesses for your testimony.
First of all, I have a written statement that I would ask
to be admitted to the record. I also have a joint letter from
the Connecticut House and Senate Delegations, along with
letters of opposition from the Southern New England Fishermen
and Lobstermen's Association and from Commissioner Robert Klee
with the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental
Protection. I would appreciate the courtesy of those being
admitted to the record as well.
Dr. Fleming. Yes, without objection, so ordered.
[The information provided by Mr. Courtney for the record
follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joe Courtney, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Connecticut on H.R. 3070
Chairman Fleming and Ranking Member Huffman, thank you for the
opportunity to participate in today's hearing on the proposed remapping
of the exclusive economic zone in eastern Long Island Sound. As you
know, on January 29, 2016, I joined the entire Connecticut
Congressional Delegation requesting that you include stakeholders from
Connecticut on your panel of witnesses for this legislative hearing.
While that request was not granted, I appreciate that your subcommittee
is offering me a chance to speak on behalf of Connecticut fishermen and
state officials alike.
Environmental, economic, and recreational management of Long Island
Sound has long been a collaborative partnership between Connecticut and
New York. The Congressional Long Island Sound Caucus is a clear example
that our Congressional offices have a rich history of working across
both state and party lines to support our common interest in this rich
natural resource. This is why I am so disappointed that zero
Connecticut stakeholders were contacted about the EEZ Clarification
Act, legislation that will directly affect their livelihoods.
The goal of this misguided legislation is simple--to move the
current boundary of the EEZ east as a means to award Rhode Island and
New York 150-square miles of waters that are currently managed
federally. This change will require Connecticut's small fishing vessels
to travel over 20 miles further to reach the newly proposed EEZ. While
some ships may be able to harvest certain fish stocks with New York and
Rhode Island permits, Connecticut lobstermen who rely on the EEZ will
be barred from waters handed over to Rhode Island due to state law that
does not allow non-residents to harvest lobster in Rhode Island state
waters.
In addition to blocking Connecticut fishermen from these
historically fished Federal waters, the EEZ Clarification Act will harm
the striped bass population in Long Island Sound. While fishing of
striped bass is allowed in state waters, a ban in Federal waters has
allowed the declining stock to maintain a stable adult population. A
conversion to state waters will once again open up the striped bass
stock to the threat of overfishing.
Put simply, this legislation is bad for the Connecticut fishing
industry and bad for the environment. This bill, marketed as a
clarification of water boundaries, would only lead to greater confusion
of waters managed by the New England Fisheries Management Council since
1976. The Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Energy and
Environmental Protection, Rob Klee, and members of the Southern New
England Fishermen and Lobstermen's Association have written to me in
strong opposition of this legislation. I submit their letters for the
record. I strongly oppose H.R. 3070 and thank the subcommittee for the
opportunity to speak today.
______
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC,
January 29, 2016.
Hon. John Fleming, Chairman,
House Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans,
1324 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
Hon. Jared Huffman, Ranking Member,
House Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans,
1324 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Fleming and Ranking Member Huffman:
It has come to our attention that the House Water, Power and Oceans
Subcommittee plans to hold a legislative hearing on H.R. 3070, the EEZ
Clarification Act. This legislation seeks to remap the exclusive
economic zone (EEZ) in Long Island Sound to a new landward boundary
between Montauk, New York and Point Judith, Rhode Island. However, for
the Subcommittee to fully understand the scope of this legislation, we
believe that it is prudent to invite stakeholders from all areas
impacted by the EEZ change--including the state of Connecticut.
As you know, this legislation would transfer 150 square miles of
the EEZ in and around Block Island Sound to the states of New York and
Rhode Island for fisheries management. This transfer of fisheries
control will deny Connecticut fishermen from harvesting in these waters
which they have fished for decades. The New England Marine Fisheries
Council has been managing fisheries in this EEZ since 1976 and this
change would result in confusion and subsequent fines for Connecticut
fishermen who have historically fished in these waters. While
supporters of this legislation contend that it will empower local
fishermen by restoring access to fish stocks and allowing state
management of waters, we believe it is imperative to underscore the
major economic losses that the Connecticut fishing industry would face
as a result of this misguided bill.
In addition to negatively impacting our fishing industry, this bill
would serve a major blow to the rebuilding of the striped bass stock.
In a letter from the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental
Protection, Commissioner Robert Klee contends, ``(t)he waters around
Block Island seem to be holding an unusually large proportion of the
adult striped bass population in recent years. Converting these federal
waters to state jurisdiction will expose these reproductive age fish to
significant mortality which our public hearings on striped bass
management tell us would be opposed by the vast majority of anglers.''
Furthermore, this conversion to state fisheries management and
subsequent increased striped bass harvest would contradict an approved
2014 addendum by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
(ASMFC) which directs states to reduce striped bass harvests by 25%.
It is our belief that this legislation was narrowly crafted to
benefit selected states. With Connecticut state government officials
and local fishermen alike vocally opposing H.R. 3070--including
Connecticut members of the Southern New England Fishermen and
Lobstermen's Association--we strongly urge you to include an opposing
witness from Connecticut at the legislative hearing to better
understand the full scope of this bill. Attached to this letter, you
will find letters of opposition from Connecticut Department of Energy
and Environmental Protection Commissioner Rob Klee and Southern New
England Fishermen and Lobstermen's Association member Joe Gilbert. We
will continue to monitor the progress of this legislation. If you have
any questions, please contact Alexa Combelic in Congressman Courtney's
office at 202-225-2076 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
JOE COURTNEY RICHARD BLUMENTHAL
Member of Congress United States Senator
JOHN B. LARSON CHRISTOPHER MURPHY
Member of Congress United States Senator
ROSA L. DeLAURO JAMES A. HIMES
Member of Congress Member of Congress
ELIZABETH H. ESTY
Member of Congress
______
January 25, 2016
Hon. Joe Courtney, Congressman,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Subject: Legislative Hearing on H.R. 3070 (Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-NY),
``EEZ Clarification Act''
Dear Congressman Courtney:
My name is Joseph Gilbert and I am an owner of a fleet of
commercial fishing vessels based out of Stonington, Connecticut as well
as an active member of the Southern New England Fishermen and
Lobstermen's Association. I have engaged my colleagues and fellow
fishermen regarding H.R. 3070 and we collectively oppose the passage of
this bill. H.R. 3070, if passed, would result in approximately 150
square miles of the Exclusive Economic Zone in and around Block Island
Sound being transferred to the states of New York and Rhode Island for
the purposes of fisheries management. This transfer of authority over
such a vast area of the Exclusive Economic Zone constitutes a land grab
by New York and Rhode Island in addition to the improper reallocation
of fishing rights amongst current users. For these and the following
reasons, we oppose H.R. 3070:
H.R. 3070 will have a direct negative economic impact on
the Connecticut fishing industry. For example, the
commercial lobster and trawling fleets of Stonington and
New London, Connecticut have historically frequented and
enjoyed access to this 150 square mile area of the EEZ. If
New York and Rhode Island are transferred the authority for
the management of fisheries in this area, then Connecticut
fishermen will be disenfranchised from the use and
enjoyment of the area unless they possess a license from
the new state management regime.
There is no need to clarify the boundary of the EEZ for
the purposes of fisheries management in this area. The New
England Marine Fisheries Council is charged with conserving
and managing the fisheries resource in this area since
1976. If there is a need to change or amend the fishing
regulations, then the appropriate channel is through the
NEMFC process and not through the transference authority to
New York and Rhode Island. If passed, H.R. 3070 would
essentially reallocate 155 square miles of bottom to state
jurisdiction without conforming to the National Standard 4
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
H.R. 3070 would disrupt the uniform harvest prohibition of
striped bass in the EEZ from Maine to North Carolina,
thereby making a relatively small exemption for a small
fraction of users. The Block Island Sound transit zone is
not the only region within the striped bass management unit
where stakeholders have expressed a desire to open portions
of the EEZ for directed striped bass harvest. These efforts
have been denied by federal agencies due to the potential
impacts on the overall stock and the challenges associated
with enforcing small exempted areas. H.R. 3070 would
initiate a move toward a patchwork management of striped
bass in federal waters and would set a dangerous precedent
for other states to annex nearby federal waters in order to
access what would otherwise be protected stocks of striped
bass under federal management.
There has been no analysis conducted to determine the
biological, conservation or economic impacts that would
occur if Block Island Sound were opened to the directed
fishing of striped bass. H.R. 3070 allegedly seeks to
eliminate regulatory confusion for anglers trying to abide
by state and federal law by annexing a large portion of the
EEZ to the states' control and thereby opening up the area
to directed fishing for striped bass by state licensed
fishermen. Given the migratory nature of striped bass
populations, this change could also negatively impact the
local Connecticut striped bass fishery. In addition, under
current federal management, the boundary lines of the EEZ
promote conservation by excluding the taking of striped
bass from the certain areas around Block Island known as
the Southwest Ledge. If this area, which is home to a
robust population of striped bass, falls under state
control through the passage of H.R. 3070, additional
fishing pressure will be brought upon the striped bass
population by opening up to harvest what is in effect a
near shore sanctuary for striped bass.
Regulatory confusion over striped bass possession in
federal waters has already been addressed through the
establishment of transit zones and thus there is no need to
eliminate regulatory confusion through the clarification of
the EEZ. Current federal regulations prohibit the
possession of striped bass in federal waters and concerns
have been raised in the past about striped bass regulations
while in federal waters. For example, the prohibition
prevents fishermen from Montauk from steaming to Block
Island to legally fish for striped bass in Rhode Island
state waters and then returning back to port with striped
bass onboard their vessels. An exemption for this was
already ratified in 2005 as contained in CFR Title 50 part
697.7(b)(3) which allows the transport of non-EEZ caught
striped bass in the permitted area or transit zone.
In conclusion, H.R. 3070 represents an attempt to disenfranchise
Connecticut fishermen from 150 square miles of ocean in Block Island
Sound for the alleged purpose of eliminating regulatory confusion for a
small subset of recreational striped bass fishermen. These striped bass
fishermen already have ample grounds to fish on within state waters and
have been exempted from possession prohibitions while in transit zones.
There is no reason why the commercial fleets of Connecticut should
suffer in return by being denied access to an area historically used
and enjoyed by them under current federal management.
Respectfully,
Joseph Gilbert,
Commercial Fishing Fleet Owner and
Member of the Southern New England
Fishermen and Lobstermen's Association.
______
Connecticut Department of
Energy & Environmental Protection,
Hartford, CT,
January 29, 2016.
Hon. Joe Courtney, Congressman,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Congressman Courtney:
Thank you for inquiring of the Connecticut Department of Energy and
Environmental Protection (DEEP) about the effects to the state should
H.R. 3070, the EEZ Clarification Act, be enacted into law. DEEP's
concerns are such that I write to express strong opposition to the
bill.
Connecticut's objections to this bill extend well beyond striped
bass management which seems to be at the core of this bill. Connecticut
commercial fishermen operate in what are now federal waters (EEZ) under
federal fishery permits. If these federal waters become state waters
divided between the states of New York (NY) and Rhode Island (RI),
access to these waters will be lost to these Connecticut Commercial
fishermen. This is already the case for lobstermen fishing in any
waters that fall under RI jurisdiction as that state prohibits non-
residents from fishing for lobsters in their waters. Connecticut
commercial fishermen who do not hold non-resident fishing licenses in
NY or RI for other fisheries will also be permanently excluded from
fishing in this area. In addition, commercial fishing for state quota-
managed species such as summer flounder, scup and black sea bass would
be greatly complicated by the fact that each state sets different daily
harvest limits to manage their state quotas. Presently, Connecticut
vessels fish these federal waters only under Connecticut's harvest
limits (there are no federal possession limits). If these federal
waters become NY and RI state waters, our fishermen would be held to
the most restrictive of the states' regulations, which is unfair and
counterproductive to our agency-industry cooperative approach to the
management of these quotas.
Striped bass conservation will also suffer since fishing for or
harvesting striped bass in federal waters is prohibited. Likewise,
Connecticut statutes prohibit commercial fishing for striped bass. The
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission just last year had to cut
daily recreational harvest limits in half due to concerns over the
declining striped bass stock size. The waters around Block Island seem
to be holding an unusually large proportion of the adult striped bass
population in recent years. Converting these federal waters to state
jurisdiction will expose these reproductive-age fish to significant
mortality rates. The vast majority of anglers have opposed these
changes at our public hearings on striped bass management. That is,
they would see this not as an opportunity, but as a threat to the long
term health of the species.
Transfer of these federal waters to NY and RI authority would also
complicate recreational fisheries management for some species. While
our three states have uniform management practices for some species, we
have not reached such agreements for other species due to the differing
desires of anglers in each state. Connecticut DEEP Marine Fisheries
holds public meetings and otherwise solicits public input when making
required annual adjustments to recreational harvest limits, minimum
size and open seasons for several species. Having productive, nearby
federal waters fall under NY and RI jurisdiction simply complicates our
efforts to provide the kind of opportunity anglers ask for, such as
time of open seasons, possession limits, and the like management of
these waters would reflect the interests of RI and NY, but not
necessarily CT anglers.
For these reasons, I ask that you work with the other members of
the Connecticut congressional delegation in opposition of this
legislation.
Sincerely,
Robert J. Klee,
Commissioner.
______
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Long Island Sound is a tidal estuary, which borders on
three states. It is probably one of the most densely populated
parts of the country, in terms of that fragile ecosystem that
people abut. And about $9 billion of economic activity takes
place on Long Island Sound. We have the largest operating
military operation, the Groton Submarine Base, that also
operates there. So it is an incredible balancing act, in terms
of trying to allow those livelihoods to continue to happen,
along with balancing the very fragile environmental priorities
of that region.
Mr. Zeldin and I are allies on the Plum Island preservation
bill, and I salute his work on that. It is an important
environmental treasure, and we want New York to be able to
preserve that for future generations. We also are allies in
terms of the Long Island Sound Restoration Act, because there
is more work to do in terms of cleaning up the water there. And
we have a Long Island Caucus, which is bipartisan and
bicameral, actually.
Unfortunately, this bill was not vetted by those
stakeholders. And, unfortunately, the state of Connecticut,
which has 3.3 million people, is not represented today, even
though it will have real impact in terms of our state.
Just to start with the most egregious impact--by redrawing
that line and putting a lot of those waters out of the Federal
Government's domain and into the state of Rhode Island's, my
lobstermen, by law, cannot get a non-resident permit to fish
for lobster in Rhode Island waters. So, in the name of rolling
back Federal Government over-regulation, the Federal
Government, in the form of the U.S. Congress, is basically
bankrupting people who right now are working on their boats and
are totally collateral damage in terms of the way this
legislation was drafted.
Mr. Gilbert, from the Southern New England Fishermen and
Lobstermen's Association, powerfully makes that argument.
Again, there was no consultation with his association in terms
of the drafting of this bill.
There is in place, as Mr. Huffman pointed out, the New
England Fisheries Management Council, which has kind of been
the referee in terms of dealing with these competing interests
that exist in the Sound, and have dealt with a number of the
issues in terms of striped bass.
Again, Mr. McMurray, I applaud your testimony, which I had
a chance to read here. You took the long view, which is that
the Long Island Sound is a precious asset, and we really have
to be careful about balancing important commercial fishing
interests. We have great shellfish out there now, and we have a
lot of groundfish that people are out there selling every
single day. But without that balance, basically everyone is
going to be sort of put at risk. And, unfortunately, this
legislation, as you point out, really does not appear to have
any biological analysis in terms of backing it up. Again, I
applaud the fact that you stepped forward today to make those
comments.
So, from NOAA's standpoint, I just want to maybe see if we
could clarify the point that if this legislation were to pass,
and that 155 square miles of sea bottom is basically ceded to
the states of Rhode Island and New York, fishermen would
basically be in the position where they have to get non-
resident permits from the state of Connecticut if they want to
continue to fish in those waters, that today they are allowed
to do, subject to Federal rules, in the EEZ. Can you answer
that question?
Mr. Morris. Thank you for the question, sir. Under H.R.
3070, if the jurisdiction shifts from Federal to state, then
fishermen who are currently active and have ease of access to
the EEZ to participate in Federal fisheries would, if they were
to go into those grounds again, be subject to state
jurisdictions and state regulations to include those that you
have cited, sir.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you. And again, that means you have to
basically participate in an auction as a non-resident in the
state of New York. So, as a Rhode Island lobsterman, you are
shut out in terms of being able to get a permit. This is
damaging people's livelihood, and I think we need to be a lot
more careful in terms of how we, as a Congress, treat Federal
jurisdiction and people's rights in terms of reliance on their
ability to make a livelihood. I yield back.
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Courtney. Next, Mr. Zeldin is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Zeldin. Thank you, Chairman. And to the witnesses here
testifying on this legislation, Mr. Morris, Captain McMurray,
Captain McBride, and also thank you to Mr. Courtney for being
part of today's hearing.
It is clear that there are important points and issues that
are on various sides of this particular topic being discussed
in this hearing. I look forward to working with the Ranking
Member and Mr. Courtney and the Connecticut Delegation because
there are--my mind is spinning with the very easy fixes to help
address your constituents. And I want to let you know, that is
something that is going to remain a top priority of mine,
because it is important.
And just like it is important for me to be able to fight
for my fishermen and for my district, I respect your desire and
your need to be able to fight for your constituents, your
fishermen, and for your district. So I look forward to working
with you, Mr. Courtney.
I think that, while it may be clear to everyone here, for
individuals who might just be learning about the bill for the
first time in the days or the weeks ahead, one thing that is
greatly important to be noted is that this does not eliminate
the management of these fisheries. There is a change of
jurisdiction over the management of the fisheries, but it is
not eliminating the management all together. One point worth
noting is that the legislation does not just open up the EEZ
and there is no management and now we are all going to go out
and fishermen can harvest whatever they want.
But I wanted to ask Mr. Morris, just to touch on a point
that Captain McBride brought toward the end of his testimony
about his concern, which I appreciate the captain sharing,
about any other fishery and any other fishermen, and the desire
for those who are advocating for a fix here with the EEZ, the
sensitivity and the desire to be able to pursue the solution
without adversely impacting any other fishermen and any other
fishery. What are your thoughts on that, and what can we do to
address those concerns of the people who are supporting the
legislation?
Mr. Morris. Yes, sir. Thank you very much for the question.
There are, as I noted in my oral testimony, a number of
fisheries that occur in the area that is currently EEZ, the
Block Island Transit Zone. In addition to striped bass, there
are lobsters, summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, winter
flounder, and even squid. And they are all under effective
management.
We can specify what the bodies are, but those that are
under the Magnuson Act and the Atlantic Coastal Act, they are
limited and they are managed in a very sustainable and
cooperative way between the bodies, between NOAA Fisheries and
fulfilling our role, as well as the Council on Coordination
Committee. It is difficult at times, but it is successful.
If this area were ceded to state management, there would be
fishing mortality that occurs in there that would then have to
be accounted under the state's part of the management, and
there would have to be adjustments to management at the state
level made accordingly.
Mr. McMurray mentioned the possibility of having analysis
beforehand that would indicate what the effects might be, and
that could be done under a regulatory approach, rather than a
legislative approach, in which case we would estimate that
afterwards. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Zeldin. Would either of the two captains like to say
anything with regards to that point?
Mr. McBride. Thank you. Yes, two things, anecdotally. In a
10-year period from roughly 1990--probably closer to 2005--
before they began to enforce the Transit Zone restrictions on
the public, we had a growth of striped bass up and down the
East Coast because we all took measures to preserve them and
protect them. And no one was more at the front of conservation
than the Montauk Boatmen and Captains Association. Our history
speaks for itself in the area.
It is just the uniqueness of this one geographic area----
Mr. Zeldin. Captain McBride, if you want to hold that
thought, just for the sake of time, there is going to be
another round of questioning.
We will get back to the two captains so we could finish
this important point. I yield back.
Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields back. Ms. Pingree.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for giving me
a second chance here.
Just to be clear, going back to the mission of the Fish and
Wildlife Service, I just want to reiterate that I appreciate
the value of what you do. I appreciate the huge issues we have
on invasive species and endangered species, and that is a very,
very important part of this mission.
I think it is really hard, from the perspective of a Maine
processor or a fishermen, understanding in some ways what seems
like unfairness and redundancy here--they are subject to
inspections by Customs, there is a FDA component to this, and
this just seems like another layer, another charge that, as far
as we know, has done nothing to enhance the Maine fisheries or
protect some other species that we are concerned about. And I
understand the one-size-fits-all issues, that there are
problems in other places, but it is very hard to go back and
explain to people why we have to defend this practice.
I know it comes up sometimes about the management of the
fisheries, and I just wanted to ask Mr. Leask to talk about
this a little. I appreciated the video you showed us, which
reminds us both how difficult the work you do is, but also how
charming it is, that there are so many amazing people who go
down and risk their lives in difficult conditions or have a lot
of challenges in making this line of work successful.
I served in the state legislature in the 1990s, I was
there, and I also live in Penobscot Bay, I live on an offshore
island of North Haven. So, I saw a lot of urchin fishermen come
and go, and the boom and the bust in that fishery. It was a
really challenging time, because there was money to be made for
a while, and the fishermen wanted all the capacity they could
possibly get. Then we realized that at one point the urchins
were gone, and this great addition to the fisheries was not
there.
So, I think the fishermen, working with the legislature and
the Maine Department of Resources, have done a phenomenal job
of regulating the fisheries appropriately. And I think you
mentioned that in your testimony. But there has been a pretty
healthy comeback, and now it is a stable fishery. I am sure
everybody would like more days, and they would certainly like
more days in my zone than they get in your zone, but we are
happy that we are in this place.
If you could talk a little bit about the other kind of
redundancy here, and that is that the Maine Department of
Resources and the fishermen themselves are very engaged in the
management of this fishery. I am just making this point to
reiterate that there is not a management concern about people
trying to sneak out more urchins than they should, because you
cannot, frankly, get them beyond the DMR to violate the law.
Can you talk a little bit about what you have seen happen
in the industry, and also a little bit about the regulation
that the DMR enforces on you.
Mr. Leask. Sure. I am actually just out your back door. I
dive around North Haven almost exclusively.
Ms. Pingree. What color is your boat?
Mr. Leask. It is white, like most of them.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Pingree. All right. What is the name of your boat?
Mr. Leask. Amber Mist and November Gale.
Ms. Pingree. Oh, yes.
Mr. Leask. Just to be brief, our industry is heavily
regulated. We have strict catch limits, strict days at sea. I
am actually sacrificing a day, which is a considerable amount
of money, to come here today. So any donations will be gladly
accepted.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Leask. But in all seriousness, the industry is really
tightly regulated. It is bouncing back really well, and we can
probably help out California with their end of things in a few
tricks that we have to get these urchins to do what they
naturally do, and that is to eat and reproduce. That is all
they do.
In a nutshell, I can read--management of the Maine sea
urchin fishery is a joint responsibility of Maine state
legislature and the Maine Department of Resource, with advice
from our sea urchin council, which I chair. Our goal is to
develop a sustainable fishery, which we have done. We are on
the cusp of actually adding new jobs. We are discussing right
now, at the council level, what we are going to do about new
entrants. We have concerns about safety, we have concerns about
how they harvest, because we don't want to repeat the mistakes
of the past.
So, we are moving ahead with those things. And you can
likely see a number of new entrants in the somewhat near
future.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you.
Mr. Leask. Did I cover----
Ms. Pingree. You did. And I just, again, want to appreciate
that we are all very excited to see that this has become a
viable industry again. And we know that the state and the
fishermen have worked really hard to manage it. So, thank you.
I yield back.
Dr. Fleming. The gentlelady yields back. I believe we have
finished the first round. Therefore, I now recognize myself for
5 minutes for the second round.
This question is for Mr. Woody. I understand the U.S. squid
industry is currently subject to these same inspection
requirements by the Service, even though these products are
also destined for human consumption.
Can you please explain to the subcommittee why a U.S.
company that processes squid caught by U.S. fishermen off our
own coast, and then exports that same cleaned, frozen product
for human consumption, is subject to the same excessive fees
and aggressive inspection requirements as products that are
actually dangerous to the environment, or highly protected,
such as those listed under the Lacey Act, CITES, and the
Endangered Species Act?
Mr. Woody. OK. Under our service regulations, under
shellfish and fishery products, they do not fall under our
regulations. What we have is the exemption does not apply to
aquatic invertebrates and other animals that may be imported or
exported for human or animal consumption. Essentially, the
definition of shellfish or fisheries product such as squid,
octopus, cuttlefish, land snails, sea urchins, sea cucumbers,
they don't apply. They do not fall under that exemption, under
our regulations.
Dr. Fleming. But your regulations could be changed, right?
You don't require an Act of Congress to do that?
Mr. Woody. Our regulations could be changed, correct.
Dr. Fleming. All right. Why not change them?
Mr. Woody. Because we think they are sufficient right now.
Dr. Fleming. But why? I know you think that, but why?
Mr. Woody. Because we think what we have right now, under
shellfish and fisheries product, under the exemptions that we
give those particular things, we think that covers a broad
base. Adding on these other exemptions can add on to other
issues as well. In other words, anything possibly from wildlife
trafficking to other invasive species coming in. We have not
added anything on to that, under the exemptions.
Dr. Fleming. So, you are concerned that it opens the
floodgates to other types of critters that might be involved
with the Endangered Species Act or----
Mr. Woody. Potentially it opens up other smuggling avenues.
Correct, sir.
Dr. Fleming. OK. Why is domestic calamari from our own
waters defined the same way as these other dangerous or
protected products?
Mr. Woody. It does not fall under the exemption, sir.
Dr. Fleming. So it is the same answer, basically.
Mr. Woody. That is correct.
Dr. Fleming. OK. Mr. Morris, NOAA and the regional councils
managed the domestic harvest of hundreds of metric tons of
squid. To your knowledge, is U.S.-caught squid a dangerous
threat to our environment, or is it protected under the ESA?
Mr. Morris. Thank you for the question, sir. Yes, the
domestic-caught fish and squid are sustainably harvested. They
are under proper management and catches are set and managed at
appropriate levels. They are not listed under the Endangered
Species Act.
Dr. Fleming. And they are not a danger to the environment?
They are not invasive species or anything of that sort?
Mr. Morris. No.
Dr. Fleming. So, would it--and I will open this to the
panel. Does anyone else have any comment about this? It does
not get the same protections as shellfish, the same waiver. But
yet in many ways, it is similar to the shellfish, in that it is
not under the Lacey Act, it is not an endangered species, it is
not an invasive species. Any thoughts from anyone else on the
panel about that?
[No response.]
Dr. Fleming. OK, all right. Well, that is all the questions
I have. I yield to Mr. Huffman.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Woody, I think the work you do, inspecting many of
these products, especially those coming through the United
States from Chile, Mexico, as you described, is very important.
We know that there are shark finning industries in many of
these countries, and there are all sorts of products that we
don't want to see going through our ports and our markets. So I
get it. I get why you do that.
But I don't understand why, in the case of this artisan
fishery in Maine that is destined for export, a fishery that
has never had a problem like that, that is already inspected by
state officials and others, why anything more than an
occasional random inspection would be necessary. It just seems
like dramatic overkill. And I hope that the message you are
taking away from this hearing and this legislation today is
that maybe you ought to take a look at that and find a better
way to work with these folks with a little bit of common sense.
Toward that end, I wanted to ask you about NOAA's seafood
traceability process. You touched on it very briefly. But what
I am wondering is, if that is fully implemented, is it possible
that that might obviate the need for even a bill like this?
Mr. Woody. I don't know that NOAA wants me to talk about
that right now.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Huffman. Well, I do.
Mr. Woody. Possibly. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Huffman. Could you elaborate on that?
Mr. Woody. If, in fact, there is going to be a system where
you can keep track of those on a larger scale, that possibly
could. But we would have to take a look and see how that is
written out in the end.
Mr. Huffman. OK. Thank you. I want to turn to Dr. Morris.
We heard a lot in support of H.R. 3070, we heard a lot
about how the current Block Island Transit Zone creates
confusion, leads to frequent finds for anglers, how a nice day
on the water fishing can turn into a nightmare if someone
innocently and inadvertently drops a line just over this
invisible boundary that is hard to detect for normal fishermen.
I get that theory and that concept of why that might be a
problem. But I also understand that, of the 54 cases of illegal
fishing or possession of Atlantic striped bass in the EEZ since
2013, I am told that only one occurred in the Transit Zone. I
want to ask you about whether this scenario of a day on the
water ruined for innocent fishermen is more theory than
reality.
Mr. Morris. Your information is mostly correct, sir. Of the
Federal enforcement actions that I have information on, it is
over the last 5 years there have been 54 notice of violations
for striped bass, EEZ violations, only one of which has
occurred in the striped bass transit area.
NOAA Fisheries collaborates very carefully with our state
partners in enforcement, and there may be state citations that
have been handled at the state level, and not transferred to
the Federal officials for adjudication. They are just not on my
radar.
Mr. Huffman. All right. Thank you. Captain McMurray, I know
that you ran a little short on time, if I recall, but I think
your perspective on this is very important. I wonder if you
have anything to add to this discussion about the wisdom or the
necessity of making this change, and what the real implications
would be for the striped bass fishery, from your perspective.
Mr. McMurray. Thank you for that question. There are two
real issues, as I see them, and I think if you went out to the
public now and did a survey, you would find the same results
that NOAA got in 2006, that 97 percent of anglers, people that
care about this resource, don't want to see this happen.
The first issue is, of course, fishing mortality. I don't
see how this will not increase fishing mortality. And nobody is
talking about increasing fishing mortality now, we are talking
about reducing it. Because, without a doubt, the striped bass
resource has declined significantly.
The second issue, as I see it, is access. What we are
essentially talking about--at least what I am thinking we are
talking about--is that we are allowing access to a pretty small
group of stakeholders here, possibly at the expense of
everybody that fishes from the beach, everybody that fishes
near shore, everybody that doesn't have a boat big enough to
get out there. And a lot of us don't. I mean that area is
pretty gnarly, and you are not going to get out there on a 20-
foot boat if there is any wind.
So, there are those two things. And I think the general
public doesn't want this. I think we all have to understand--
and this is something that you guys don't often hear--there is
a huge industry that thrives off of striped bass: the beach
guys, the light tackle guys. The fly fishing industry didn't
even exist 10 years ago, and now it is thriving. So, you really
have to manage this resource with the entire public in mind,
not just a small portion of it. Thank you.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you.
Dr. Fleming. OK. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Poliquin is
now recognized.
Mr. Poliquin. I want to thank you again, Mr. Chairman and
Mr. Ranking Member, for this hearing. This is a very, very
valuable--I really appreciate it.
Mr. Woody, I would like to go back and ask you a few more
questions, make sure I understand this. As we have learned from
everyone's testimony today, sea urchins and sea cucumbers are
not exempt like clams, lobsters, and scallops. However, over
the past 40 years they have been treated as such. In other
words, based on the testimony we have heard, there has been an
increased activity in the inspections for these two types of
wildlife where in the past it has not been so active. Is that
correct?
Mr. Woody. There have been--there are inspections going--
I'm trying to think. Yes, there are more inspections going on
in the Northeast.
Mr. Poliquin. OK.
Mr. Woody. That is a fair statement.
Mr. Poliquin. OK. Lobster in Maine is a thriving fishery--
about $450 million, if I am not mistaken, last year. And they
are inspected and regulated by Mainers, same with clams. It is
about a $19-$20 million industry that is healthy, and inspected
and regulated by Mainers.
Don't you think that, with all of the work that your 125
inspectors have inspecting 180,000 crates last year, don't you
think it makes sense to include those two little buggers, those
cucumbers and those urchins, in the same exemption that you
give for scallops, lobsters, and clams, such that our folks can
go on with their lives, manage the process, and manage the
fishery, which is healthy? Doesn't that make sense? Isn't that
a good compromise?
Mr. Woody. You are very convincing, sir. However, look at
Mexico. Look what is coming up in Mexico. Separate those for
me. We have a lot of shipments of sea urchins, sea cucumbers
coming up in there. How do you separate those?
Mr. Poliquin. Well, you could figure that out, I am sure. I
can't. But, as Congressman Pingree mentioned a minute ago, we
are much more concerned in representing our district in the
great state of Maine--and if you have not vacationed here, Mr.
Woody, I know you will--making sure that Mr. Leask and
everybody else in Maine is well taken care of, such that the
Feds don't do things they don't need to do.
Isn't there a way that you can inspect the product coming
in from the south of the border, and leave us alone up in
Maine?
Mr. Woody. Sir, do you consider all of those shipments that
come up from Mexico and South America that don't get licensed
and everything else, don't you consider that hurts Maine's
industry, when those people ship things up and bring them in,
no regulations on it, anything else, and they just move them
through? To me, sir, that competes against what these gentlemen
are doing.
Mr. Poliquin. Mr. Leask, would you like to comment on that,
sir?
Mr. Leask. Well, I asked Mr. Woody about granting waivers,
or possibly expediting the process. It is obvious we have a
bottleneck here. And, frankly, I think it would be right to
separate Mexico from Maine, because we do not have an issue
right now, other than when it gets to JFK.
The Department of Human Resources has law enforcement that
monitor size limits, catch limits, so those are not exceeded.
They strictly monitor any shipments coming in, and Customs
does, as well. As valuable as inland fisheries are, it would
seem that the resources there could be directed toward what is
coming in from Mexico. That seems like a great idea. At the
same time, seeing as Maine is well taken care of, is there a
way to--like you and I were kind of discussing--grant the
waivers, expedite the process?
Mr. Woody. I hear what you are saying, but it is very hard
to do. I only use Mexico as an example, because I can go to the
Caribbean, same issue there. I go to Africa, what comes in from
fisheries products, or what is labeled as fisheries products
from over there, a lot of smuggling is tied into that. That is
very hard to separate out Maine--and you guys do a tremendous
job and you represent your constituents very well, both of you.
But at the same time, for me, please understand, it is very
hard to separate that out.
Mr. Poliquin. Mr. Woody, I know it is hard, I bet it is
hard, but I know you can do this. If Mr. Leask can dive down
and harvest in the cold, dark waters of Maine, I am sure you
folks can figure out a way to do this, so our 650 jobs in Maine
are not penalized, sir. I am sure you can do it. Thank you.
Mr. Woody. Thank you, sir.
Dr. Fleming. That will have to be the last word. Next, Mr.
Zeldin. I am sorry, excuse me. Ms. Pingree.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you again, Mr. Chair, and thank you for
indulging us in a second round and offering so much time to
this topic. It is complicated and confusing, and I do
understand the concerns about the Caribbean and Mexico.
I appreciated Ranking Member Huffman's suggestion--of all
the possibilities, wouldn't it be possible to do this as a spot
check, you know, once in a while look into this?
My understanding is that when these shipments get to JFK, a
lot of what the inspection process is is looking at the
paperwork. Very few of these boxes are actually opened and
examined on the inside. So, to say that this is a vital
inspection to figure out if something sneaks through I am not
sure is completely true. I may have a misconception here, but
that is the way I have understood it, is that a lot of it is
looking up the lading and the paperwork and making sure
everything is in line. And that does not give any of us a
guarantee that the things that you are concerned about happen.
I do think again--we are talking about the separation
here--about whether this is an import into Maine for processing
and an export from Maine. We do have some real differences that
could be managed. My understanding is that the bulk of any
import that comes into Maine is actually Canadian that comes
down through when there is more available to be processed in
Maine, and we know that they have a very good track record,
too.
I guess I would go back to the issue again--aren't we just
looking at the paperwork here? We are not really opening most
of these boxes. So, it is somewhat of a spot-check now.
Mr. Woody. That is correct. Some we do and some we don't. I
think the issue, too--I mean if we are still having issues--and
again, I was not aware of any until the one you spoke of
earlier over the weekend on this non-perishable shipment that
went through that was supposed to be checked on Monday. But
again, I am not hearing anything on shipments being held.
And I go back to, Congresswoman Pingree, over the week
there were five perishable shipments that went through just
fine. I have heard nothing on that. So, I hear what you are
saying, but at the same time what I am seeing is these
shipments are going through and there is not an issue.
Ms. Pingree. My other concern--and I will ask you, and then
I will ask Mr. Tamaki about this--I talked to you about how to
defend to our constituents this fundamental unfairness. And
when someone in Maine hears that lobsters, clams, mussels, and
scallops--combined, a much, much bigger industry, and we know
the volume of lobsters that leave Maine, and we also know that
there are more opportunities for some challenging things to go
on in some of those fisheries--so I still get this stuck in my
craw. What is the possible argument in the science here?
I have provided your Department with University of Maine
scientists who have analyzed this to say, just because they are
an echinoderm--and I get it, it is a slightly different kind of
species--but at that point we are kind of splitting hairs. It
is a fundamental unfairness, because there is another layer of
paperwork and there are more fees involved. And how is a
gigantic lobster fishery--and, believe me, I don't want them
changed, but they are not subject to all of this.
And again, you are not the only point of inspection. We
have Customs, we have the DMR, we have the FDA. It just seems
so cumbersome for something that we haven't experienced
problems with.
Mr. Woody. Customs does not inspect exported shipments of
wildlife going out of the United States.
Ms. Pingree. Well, let me just stick with the science. What
is it about the science that we cannot come to an agreement on
that?
Mr. Woody. We have it set up under our regulations under
the definition, is what we have.
Ms. Pingree. Mr. Tamaki, you were very eloquent before, and
I know you have been a really important kind of pioneer in this
industry, and you have others who are doing it. How much of an
economic burden and challenge is this, not just to your
business, but when you look collectively at this, what we hope
is a growing industry and a good market for Maine, and
important to the fishermen, important to the processors, how
much of an economic challenge is this for you?
Mr. Tamaki. To tell the truth, I cannot come up with how
much economic challenge.
Ms. Pingree. I am just saying--how much of an impediment is
having to go through this to you and other businesses like
yours?
Mr. Tamaki. OK. The only thing that is--Fish and Wildlife
is stopping us. U.S. Customs is always open, 24/7. But Fish and
Wildlife is always closed. I mean they are open during regular
business days, but holidays and after 3:00 p.m. Friday they
leave. So, we cannot even book the shipment. That is really
bothering me.
And when I think about how much it would cost, sometimes we
lose entire shipments because of that. Sometimes it goes
through, sometimes it does not. We always have to think about
how we can do that.
Ms. Pingree. Well, thank you. The Chair has been very kind
to us. I yield back what time I don't have any more, anyway.
Dr. Fleming. I thank the gentlelady. And then, finally, Mr.
Zeldin.
Mr. Zeldin. Thank you, Chairman. Captain McBride, when we
ran out of time during the first round I had to cut you off,
but would you like to finish your thought?
Mr. McBride. Yes. Let me finish with some of the things
about conservation. It is, in our opinion, the people who live
on the east end of Long Island, not a transit type of captain
who comes out with a boat toward the fall and utilizes the runs
of fish when they exist in the fall, that spreading out the
fishery over our traditional grounds will reduce mortality
because instead of 200 boats--I don't want to go into the
geography, I will do it very quickly--on the point, at the
elbow, where you are reaching one of the limits of the
boundaries for striped bass within the 3-mile limit, you pile
the boats up there, accidents happen, fights occur because one
boat is on top of the other. If we spread them out, as we do
historically on the other fishing grounds, the bag limit is the
same. The mortality is the same. But we spread it out, and we
have a more viable fishery.
Second, the charter boat industry is a mechanism for the
public to utilize their resource, the fish. It does not belong
to any of us, individually, whether it is a charter boat with
six passengers, a single boat with five fishermen on it, that
is another method, and a head boat with up to 100 passengers on
it, it provides a means for the public to utilize the fish,
particularly the striped bass, in a manner in which they can
afford.
And these fish belong to all of us. It is not an elitist
group. We work very hard, year after year, in the Montauk area
to preserve our fish. What we are asking for in this Transit
Zone--and there might be other mechanisms not to infringe upon
the rights of some of our colleagues fishing different
methods--is to do things like just allow striped bass fishing
in the Transit Zone because of the anomaly. No place else--and
we have examined this up and down the coast--does the problem
go beyond 3 miles. Our case, it is roughly 15, 16 miles to
Block Island from Montauk, and roughly 14, 15 miles from Block
Island to Point Judith.
But we do not want to do any other industry harm, and we
hope that you gentlemen can work out a program that will
provide New York State and Rhode Island with their historical
fishing grounds, and be fair to all the user groups.
Mr. Zeldin. I thank you for those comments, Captain
McBride. You have this area of state and local waterways
because of Block Island becoming part of EEZ and being managed
by the Feds. This area that we are talking about, it is just
important to reiterate that we are not advocating for there not
to be management of fisheries in this area. We are advocating
for the state and local waterways to be managed by the state
and regional partners, and the decisions being made at a local
level.
But the fisheries still need to be managed. I think
something that is very important for people who may just be
learning about this bill for the first time, either today or in
the days and weeks after this hearing, that no one is here
advocating for, that we are pointing to this area around
Montauk Point and Block Island and we are saying, ``OK,
everyone can go out and catch whatever you want, keep whatever
you want, bring as much of it as you want home.'' No one is
advocating for that, and this bill does not do that.
As to Mr. Courtney's points, I am looking forward to
working with him and the Connecticut Delegation because, as has
been stated multiple times during this hearing, Chairman, no
one should get hurt by this proposal. As a matter of fact,
there is a way to do this where everyone is happy. And this
should not have any negative impact on any other fishermen, on
fisheries. There are different ways to fish.
As Captain McMurray is bringing up important points toward
other types of fishermen, I look forward to working with
Captain McMurray, as well, to find a solution to solve this
problem you have: state and local waterways that should be
managed by the state and regional partners, but should still be
managed.
And thank you again, Chairman, for having this hearing.
Dr. Fleming. OK, the gentleman yields. I want to thank the
witnesses today for your valuable testimony. And I want to
thank the subcommittee staff for all their hard work and
research that they do in preparing for things.
Under Committee Rule 4(h), the hearing record will be held
open for 10 business days for any responses that you may
provide to additional questions that we may submit to you in
writing.
If there is no further business, then without objection the
subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:17 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]