[Senate Hearing 114-523]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 114-523
THE MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT AT 40: SUCCESSES, CHALLENGES, AND THE PATH
FORWARD
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, FISHERIES, AND COAST GUARD
of the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 23, 2016
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
23-227 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking
ROY BLUNT, Missouri MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
MARCO RUBIO, Florida CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
TED CRUZ, Texas RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
JERRY MORAN, Kansas EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska CORY BOOKER, New Jersey
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin TOM UDALL, New Mexico
DEAN HELLER, Nevada JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
CORY GARDNER, Colorado GARY PETERS, Michigan
STEVE DAINES, Montana
Nick Rossi, Staff Director
Adrian Arnakis Deputy Staff Director
Rebecca Seidel, General Counsel
Jason Van Beek, Deputy General Counsel
Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
Chris Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
Clint Odom, Democratic General Counsel and Policy Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, FISHERIES,
AND COAST GUARD
MARCO RUBIO, Florida, Chairman CORY BOOKER, New Jersey, Ranking
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
TED CRUZ, Texas EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin GARY PETERS, Michigan
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 23, 2016................................ 1
Statement of Senator Sullivan.................................... 1
Statement of Senator Booker...................................... 3
Statement of Senator Nelson...................................... 4
Statement of Senator Cantwell.................................... 16
Statement of Senator Ayotte...................................... 18
Statement of Senator Schatz...................................... 20
Statement of Senator Blumenthal.................................. 22
Statement of Senator Markey...................................... 24
Witnesses
Hon. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce......................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Appendix
Hon. Marco Rubio, U.S. Senator from Florida, prepared statement.. 35
Written Testimony on behalf of the Alaska Longline Fishermen's
Association (ALFA), the Alaska Marine Conservation Council
(AMCC), the Central Bering Sea Fishermen's Association (CBSFA),
the City of Saint Paul Island, AK, (the City), and the Halibut
Association of North America (HANA)............................ 35
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Samuel D. Rauch
III by:
Hon. John Thune.............................................. 40
Hon. Roger F. Wicker......................................... 42
Hon. Kelly Ayotte............................................ 45
Hon. Bill Nelson............................................. 46
Hon. Cory Booker............................................. 52
Hon. Richard Blumenthal...................................... 54
Hon. Gary Peters............................................. 62
THE MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT AT 40:
SUCCESSES, CHALLENGES, AND
THE PATH FORWARD
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2016
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and
Coast Guard,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:36 p.m. in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Dan Sullivan,
presiding.
Present: Senators Sullivan [presiding], Wicker, Ayotte,
Nelson, Booker, Cantwell, Blumenthal, Markey, Schatz, and
Peters.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Sullivan. The Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere,
Fisheries, and the Coast Guard will now come to order. Good
afternoon.
The purpose of today's hearing is to recognize the 40th
anniversary of the enactment of what is known as the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the MSA, as we
call it in Alaska, and to examine this law's impacts on
managing our Nation's fisheries, its successes, and possible
areas of improvement.
As I have mentioned at this committee many times before,
Alaska's fisheries are by far the largest in the Nation. I know
my colleague from Massachusetts was just here. We refer to
ourselves as the superpower of seafood. Almost 60 percent of
all landings in America come from the shores of Alaska or
Alaskan waters.
But this was not always the case. Before President Ford
signed the MSA legislation on April 13, 1976, residents in many
of Alaska's coastal communities could see a wall of lights off
their shores emanating from the large foreign ships that were
catching Alaska's fish, America's fish, and taking our economic
potential as a state and as a country back home with them.
The MSA has successfully Americanized our fisheries and
built the fishing industry in the United States that today is
one of our largest employers certainly in Alaska and in many
other States throughout the country.
Through the MSA's guiding principles, the 10 National
Standards as applied by the eight regional fishery management
Councils who manage the fisheries off America's coasts in a
science-based and open and transparent stakeholder-driven
process, the MSA has resulted in the world's best managed
fisheries, particularly in Alaska where we have no overfished
stocks resulting from fishing.
Nationally the impacts have been similar. Today the Council
and NMFS manage 469 stocks through 46 fishery management plans
and only a small fraction of these are impacted by overfishing,
fewer than ever before. The value derived from harvesting these
species in our country is near an all-time high.
Bottom line, today's hearing is about a good news story.
Congress recognized a problem, studied it, focused on balancing
economic and sustainability issues, and acted in a bipartisan
long-term way that has dramatically and positively impacted our
Nation.
Today maintaining economics without jeopardizing
conservation is the great charge that Congress has assigned to
NMFS and all of the councils, and it is a requirement that can
obviously be a strained balancing act. But we must ensure that
our Nation's fisheries management system supports a stable food
supply, recreational opportunities, and plentiful fishing and
processing jobs for vibrant coastal communities.
Conservation and management must go hand in hand, and we
cannot allow a desire for preservation to replace a productive
domestic seafood industry. Already today under the law, the
North Pacific and other Councils are managing with conservation
in mind, considering habitat protections, ecosystems
management, and time, area, and gear closures to protect other
fisheries and protected species. While some regions have had
better and more abundant science than others and some Councils
function more effectively than others, separating fish politics
from science and allowing those closest to the fisheries to
make decisions rather than someone back in Washington, D.C. is
a true hallmark of the MSA. And it is Congress' job to provide
the tools and resources to get this job done.
The MSA has gone through two major reauthorizations, one in
1996 and another in 2006. And like anything else, from time to
time, it may be appropriate and necessary for updates to
respond to current conditions. Last year, the House of
Representatives did just that with its MSA Reauthorization Act.
Similarly, NMFS has proposed rules to update the National
Standards guidelines, but the National Standards guidelines are
not law and only serve as guidance to the councils. It is also
worth mentioning that NMFS updates track similar issues as what
is proposed in the House bill.
At the same time, I have heard from Alaska's fishermen that
our role as the steward of the MSA should largely be that of a
doctor practicing the mantra ``first do no harm.'' And that is
a great testament to the vision and hard work of those who
crafted the act 40 years ago, including the dozens of Alaskans
that camped out in the offices of Don Young and Ted Stevens
back in the 1970s as they and others like Congressman Gary
Studds of Massachusetts and Senator Warren Magnuson of
Washington crafted the law that would manage our Nation's
fisheries for future generations. And as Congressman Young is
fond of saying, the Young-Studds Act has a much better ring to
it than the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
[Laughter.]
Senator Sullivan. But we did not call it that.
Finally, this past year, this committee proved that we can
do very important work on fisheries that is bipartisan and
brings together support from industry and the environmental
community as well. After almost a decade, we passed
legislation, comprehensive legislation, to curb illegal,
unreported, and unregulated fishing, the IUU fishing problem
that the President signed a few months ago.
With that, I would like to thank our witness, Mr. Sam
Rauch, the Deputy Administrator for NMFS, for being here and
recognize now my good friend and ranking member for any opening
statement that he may have.
STATEMENT OF HON. CORY BOOKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
Senator Booker. I am really, really grateful to Chairman
Sullivan for having this hearing and for his leadership on this
subject and for always looking for a way to bring Senators
together on issues of this kind of importance.
The success of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act has been considerable to date, and I am
happy that we are here to see how we can make the act even
better and stronger moving forward.
I would like to welcome our witness, Mr. Rauch. And am I
pronouncing that right?
Mr. Rauch. Yes.
Senator Booker. Thank you very much. And thank him for his
testimony today.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act seeks to prevent overfishing and
to rebuild overfished stocks. On both fronts, again, the MSA
has been successful. NOAA's most recent status of U.S.
fisheries report to Congress shows that the number of domestic
fish stocks listed as overfished or subject to overfishing has
dropped to an all-time low. As of December 31, 2015, 91 percent
of stocks for which we have assessments are not subject to
overfishing, and for our rebuilt stocks, we are seeing many of
them generate substantially more revenue now than they did when
they were being overfished.
The commercial fishing industry nationally employs more
than one million people. Recreational fishing adds an
additional 327,000 jobs. A recent report by the National Ocean
Economics Program found that the ocean economy shows overall
growth in the United States of America, actually outpacing our
national economy. So continuing to build on the success of the
MSA is critical not only for the health of our fisheries but
also to the health of our great American economy.
Ocean fish have inherent value beyond fishing and seafood,
though. Fish populations are an integral part of a larger
marine ecosystem, which includes corals, seabirds, marine
mammals, and sea turtles, important living resources that
provide ecological benefits, as well as economic value, for
activities such as tourism.
But our oceans and our fisheries currently face many, many
threats. One threat is bycatch. Bycatch results in the death of
millions of fish, sea turtles, whales, dolphins, and other
marine mammals each and every year, wasting important food
resources, damaging the economic success of our fisheries, and
threatening the future of inherently vulnerable, though
valuable, marine species.
Another threat is climate change. Climate change is causing
our oceans to warm and become more and more acidic. Numerous
climate studies have shown that the oceans are warming. A new
study, released just last week, demonstrates how warming waters
have increased the prevalence of diseases that are killing
lobsters by burrowing under their shells and causing lesions.
According to the study, the outbreaks are so lethal that the
lobster fishery, already decimated in southern New England, may
soon be threatened in Maine as well.
Thirty percent of carbon dioxide released into the
atmosphere ends up in oceans, leading to acidification, which
is harming shell-forming organisms such as coral, sea urchins,
mussels, clams, and plankton, all of which depend on balanced
chemical conditions within our waters to form their structures.
These species are critical to the future health of our
fisheries because they serve as food, and corals provide a
critical habitat.
Last year, in order to protect sensitive areas of deep sea
corals, the Mid-Atlantic Council moved to designate over 38,000
square miles of Federal waters off limits to bottom tending
fishing gear. The Council relied on authority included in the
last reauthorization of the MSA and provides Councils the
discretion to protect deep sea coral habitat, provisions
championed by the late Senator Lautenberg. Just last week in a
fitting tribute, the Council named the area for Senator
Lautenberg, whose multiyear efforts to protect cold water
corals culminated in the enactment of this important MSA
authority.
Important MSA provisions such as these must be preserved
and strengthened as we move forward. Mr. Chairman and my
friend, the MSA Act has a long history of bipartisan
cooperation. I appreciate the sentiment with which you are
advancing the cause, and I look forward to working with you on
these issues and hope to hear some really important things from
our witness. Thank you.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Senator Booker.
I now want to welcome our main witness, Sam Rauch, the
Deputy Assistant Administrator----
Senator Booker. Mr. Chairman, if I may ask if it is
possible to let the Ranking Member from Florida maybe have
some----
Senator Sullivan. Absolutely. No problem.
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Nelson. Just to what you gentlemen have said, it
was Maggie and Ted in 1976 that passed this, signed into law by
President Ford. It has been so important, and we have got to
rebuild on it to make sure that we save the fish.
Thank you.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Senator Nelson. And I think
you will see here the interest of this issue already with a
strong bipartisan group of Senators.
So without further ado, our main witness will have 5
minutes to deliver his oral statement, and I believe a longer
written statement will be included in the record.
STATEMENT OF HON. SAMUEL D. RAUCH III, DEPUTY
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR REGULATORY
PROGRAMS, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE,
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Mr. Rauch. Thank you and good afternoon, Chairman Sullivan,
Ranking Member Booker, members of the Subcommittee. Thank you
for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Sam Rauch. I
am the Deputy Director of NOAA's National Marine Fisheries
Service.
And I echo everything that you both said about the success
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. We have been at this for 40 years.
Congress laid down an important structure that has been
preserved for us today. It is the strength of the structure,
the dedicated nature of the participants that have led to the
success.
Currently the United States fisheries are among the world's
largest and they are the most sustainable. For 40 years, the
Magnuson-Stevens structure that Congress put in place has
taught us that dynamic, science-based management process,
transparent stakeholder engagement is fundamental for managing
fisheries to be sustainable.
This is not something that the National Marine Fisheries
Service does alone. The bulk of the work is done through the
fishery management councils. They are the key linchpin to all
the successes that we have done. The states participate through
the Council process. The states are a key partner in every
facet from data collection to policy setting. The stakeholders
are present. It is an open and transparent and science-based
process, and it is because of that process that we have
achieved the success that we have.
I do want to echo some of the great things. Every year we
do set near records, either records or near records, in recent
years in terms of landings, in terms of economic value from the
fisheries, in terms of jobs from the commercial and
recreational sector of the fisheries. There is over $100
billion in revenue generated by the commercial and recreational
fishery, around two million jobs generated by those two
sectors. And at the same time, as was indicated, we continue to
meet standards for ending overfishing, for rebuilding stocks.
We have rebuilt a record number of stocks since the early
2000s.
My testimony today will focus on the progress we have made
toward implementing the key provisions and talk about the
National Standard guidelines.
One of the things that we have done that I wanted to focus
on is rebuilding. We take stocks that have been overfished or,
for whatever reason, are depleted, and through the partnership
that I mentioned, we have achieved success. One of them is the
Atlantic sea scallops. In the early 1990s, the abundance of sea
scallops was near record lows, and the fishery mortality rate
was at a record high. Working through the Council process, we
implemented a number of measures to allow the stock to recover,
including an innovative management system which allowed the
fishermen to rotate where they fish. Through this process, the
stock was declared rebuilt in 2001, and in real terms, the
gross revenues in New England increased almost sevenfold from
44 million in 1998 to 298 million in 2014.
Another example is the Bering Sea snow crab. In 1999,
scientists found that the snow crab was overfished. In
response, the managers reduced harvests to a level that would
allow the stock to rebuild, and the stock was declared rebuilt
in 2011. And in subsequent fishing years, managers have been
able to actually increase that limit by 65 percent, to nearly
66,000 metric tons, such that in 2013 revenue from the fishery
was at $236 million, an almost threefold increase from its low
in 2005 before being rebuilt.
As part of the process, we periodically host a large
meeting called Managing Our Nation's Fisheries in which we
canvas our partners, the States, the NGO communities, the
fishermen to find out how we are doing in terms of the Magnuson
Act, whether things need to be changed. We hosted one several
years ago. Traditionally this is a venue for people to argue
for congressional changes. We were very pleased that at the
last meeting, the vast, overriding sentiment was that the
Magnuson Act was working, the structure was inherently good.
There are certain fisheries in certain parts of the country
that experience difficulties. I am sure we will talk about some
of those. But in general, the fishery nationwide is a success
and it should be preserved.
There were some things that people suggested that we
change. We looked at the numbers of suggestions. Most of them
could be done through regulation, which was the genesis for why
we decided to go through what we call National Standard 1 and
provide guidance to the Councils on different ways that they
could do--different things that they could do to help promote
more stability and more flexibility while at the same time
preserving those critical pieces that led to the success that
we have. We were absolutely adamant that we will continue to
end overfishing. We will not allow it to occur. We will rebuild
stocks. That is the basis for which everything is based on, and
we will continue to do that.
So that rule was out for comment. We are hoping to finalize
it in the coming months, and I look forward to continuing to
work with Congress as it decides what it wants to do on the
remaining issues in front of us today.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rauch follows:]
Prepared Statement of Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries
Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce
Introduction
Good afternoon, Chairman Rubio, Ranking Member Booker, and Members
of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you
today about the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and proposed revisions to the Act's National
Standard 1 guidelines. My name is Samuel D. Rauch and I am the Deputy
Assistant Administrator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in the
Department of Commerce. From daily weather forecasts, severe storm
warnings, and climate monitoring to fishery management, coastal
restoration, and supporting marine commerce, NOAA's products and
services support economic vitality and affect more than one-third of
America's gross domestic product. NOAA's dedicated scientists use
cutting-edge research and high-tech instrumentation to provide
citizens, planners, emergency managers, and other decision makers with
reliable information they need when they need it. Today, I will
describe our work under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which sets forth
standards for conservation, management, and sustainable use of our
Nation's fisheries resources.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act has been a success. U.S. fisheries are
among the world's largest and most sustainable. For forty years,
Magnuson-Stevens has taught us that a dynamic science-based management
process is fundamental for managing fisheries to be sustainable. The
goal of fisheries management is to achieve fisheries that are both
environmentally sustainable and economically important. In partnership
with the regional fishery management councils, interstate fishery
commissions, and our stakeholders, and driven by the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), the agency has ended
overfishing and made significant progress rebuilding domestic fish
stocks. By preventing overfishing and rebuilding stocks, we are
strengthening the value of fisheries to the economy and communities,
and also ensuring that marine ecosystems are able to provide a
sustainable supply of seafood for the Nation in the future.
Marine fish and fisheries--such as tropical tunas in the Western
and Central Pacific, salmon in the Pacific Northwest, halibut in
Alaska, cod in New England and red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico--are
vital to the prosperity and cultural identity of coastal communities in
the United States. U.S. fisheries play an enormous role in the U.S.
economy. Commercial fishing supports fishermen, contributes to coastal
communities and businesses, and provides Americans with a valuable
source of local, sustainable, and healthy food. Non-commercial and
recreational fishing provides food for many individuals, families, and
communities; is an important social activity; and is a critical
economic driver of local and regional economies, as well as a major
contributor to the national economy. Subsistence and ceremonial fishing
provides an essential food source and has deep cultural significance
for indigenous peoples in the Pacific Islands and Alaska and for many
Tribes on the West Coast.
Our most recent data show that after adjusting for inflation the
landed volume and the value of commercial U.S. wild-caught fisheries
remained near the high levels posted in 2011. U.S. commercial fishermen
landed 9.4 billion pounds of seafood valued at $5.5 billion in 2014,
the third highest landings value over the past decade and in nominal
terms, the second highest landings value on record.\1\ The seafood
industry--harvesters, seafood processors and dealers, seafood
wholesalers and seafood retailers, including imports and multiplier
effects--generated an estimated $142 billion in sales impacts and $40
billion in income impacts, and supported 1.4 million jobs in 2013, the
most recent year economic impact numbers are available. Jobs supported
by commercial businesses increased 6 percent from the previous year.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See NOAA Annual Commercial Fisheries Landings Database,
available at http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/
commercial-landings/annual-landings/index.
\2\ See Fisheries Economics of the U.S. 2013. NMFS Office of
Science & Technology, available at: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/
economics/publications/feus/FEUS-2013/fisheries_economics
_2013
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the same time, recreational catch remained stable. Recreational
fishing generated an estimated $52 billion in sales impacts and $18
billion in income impacts, and supported 370,000 jobs in 2013. Jobs
generated by the recreational fishing industry represented a 13 percent
increase over 2010.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Fisheries Economics of the U.S. 2013. NMFS Office of
Science & Technology, available at: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/
economics/publications/feus/FEUS-2013/fisheries_economics
_2013
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The advancement of our science and management tools has resulted in
improved sustainability of fisheries and greater stability for
industry. Key requirements in the 2007 reauthorization mandated the use
of science-based annual catch limits and accountability measures to
better prevent and end overfishing. The reauthorization provided more
explicitly for market-based fishery management through Limited Access
Privilege Programs, and addressed the need to improve the science used
to inform fisheries management.
The U.S. has many effective tools to apply in marine fisheries
management. Yet, as we look to the future, we must continue looking for
opportunities to further improve our management system. While
significant progress has been made since the 2007 reauthorization,
progress has not come without a cost to some. Challenges remain.
Fishermen, fishing communities, and the Councils have had to make
difficult decisions and absorb the near-term cost of conservation and
investment in long-term economic and biological sustainability.
We all share the common goal of healthy fisheries that can be
sustained for generations. Without clear, science-based rules, fair
enforcement, and a shared commitment to sustainable management, short-
term pressures can easily undermine progress toward restoring the
social, economic, and environmental benefits of a healthy fishery.
Although challenges remain in some fisheries, the benefits for the
resource, the industries it supports, and the economy are beginning to
be seen as fish populations grow and catch limits increase.
My testimony today will focus on NMFS' progress in implementing the
Magnuson-Stevens Act's key domestic provisions, how our proposed
revisions to the National Standard 1 guidelines could further
facilitate, provide additional flexibility, and improve compliance with
the Act, and some thoughts about the future.
Progress in Implementation
Working together, NMFS, the Councils, coastal states and
territories, treaty fishing tribes, and a wide range of industry groups
and other stakeholders have made significant progress in implementing
key provisions of this legislation.
Ending Overfishing and Rebuilding Fisheries
U.S. fisheries are producing sustainable U.S. seafood. The Federal
fishery management system has effectively ended overfishing and is
rebuilding overfished fisheries. We continue to make progress toward
long-term biological and economic sustainability and stability. Since
its initial passage in 1976, the Magnuson-Stevens Act has charted a
groundbreaking course for sustainable fisheries. When reauthorized in
2007, the Act gave the eight Regional Fishery Management Councils and
NMFS a very clear charge and some new tools to support improved science
and management. We are now seeing the results of those tools. As of
December 31, 2015, 91 percent of stocks for which we have assessments
are not subject to overfishing, and 84 percent are not overfished. The
number of stocks subject to overfishing was highest in 2000, when 47
stocks were on the overfishing list. In 2002, 55 stocks were
overfished. Nationally, we have rebuilt 39 stocks since 2000.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ These statistics were compiled from the quarterly stock status
reports at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/fisheries_eco/
status_of_fisheries/status_updates.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We expect the number of stocks on the overfishing list to continue
to decrease as a result of management under annual catch limits. Ending
overfishing allows stocks to increase in abundance, so we expect to see
further declines in the number of overfished stocks and increases in
the number of rebuilt stocks.
Flexibility is inherent in the Magnuson-Stevens Act's rebuilding
requirements. The Act requires that the period to rebuild a stock not
exceed 10 years, but it permits a longer time period in certain cases
where the biology of the fish stock, management measures under an
international agreement in which the United States participates, or
other environmental conditions dictate otherwise, although this period
still must be as short as possible. Current rebuilding time periods for
stocks with active rebuilding plans range from four years to more than
100 years. Of the 36 active rebuilding plans with a target time to
rebuild, 22 of them (61 percent) are set longer than 10 years due to
the biology of the stock (slow-growing, late-reproducing, long lived
species) or environmental conditions. For example, Pacific yelloweye
rockfish has a rebuilding timeline of 71 years. The remaining 14
rebuilding plans are set for 10 years or less. Of the 39 stocks rebuilt
since 2000, 35 stocks were rebuilt within 10 years or less.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides flexibility to adjust rebuilding
plans when a stock is failing to make adequate progress toward
rebuilding. In these situations, the Councils can amend the rebuilding
plan with revised conservation and management measures. The Act
requires that the revised plan be implemented within two years and that
it end overfishing (if overfishing is occurring) immediately upon
implementation.
Rebuilding plans are also adaptable when new scientific information
indicates changing conditions. For example, the target time to rebuild
Pacific ocean perch off the Pacific Coast was lengthened based on
information within a rebuilding analysis. The rebuilding analysis,
conducted in 2011, revised our understanding of the Pacific ocean perch
stock status and productivity and showed that, even in the absence of
fishing, the time it would take to rebuild the stock would be longer
than the previously established target time to rebuild. Given this
information, NMFS worked with the Pacific Fishery Management Council in
2012 to modify the rebuilding plan and extend the target time for stock
rebuilding from 2017 to 2051.
Rebuilding timelines can also be shortened based on new
information. As one example, the original rebuilding plan for cowcod, a
Pacific Coast groundfish, was 95 years. The rebuilding time has been
modified based on updated scientific information, and is currently 67
years.
Rebuilding fisheries brings significant biological, economic, and
social benefits, but doing so takes time, persistence, sacrifice, and
adherence to scientific information. Of 26 rebuilt stocks for which
information is available, half of them now produce at least 50 percent
more revenue than they did when they were overfished. Seven stocks have
current revenue levels that are more than 100 percent higher than the
lowest revenue point when the stock was overfished.
Atlantic sea scallops provide one example of rebuilding success. In
the early 1990s, the abundance of Atlantic sea scallops was near record
lows and the fishing mortality rate was at a record high. Fishery
managers implemented a number of measures to allow the stock to
recover, including an innovative area management system. The stock was
declared rebuilt in 2001. In real terms, gross revenues in New England
increased almost seven-fold from $44 million in 1998 to $298 million in
2014, making New Bedford the Nation's top port by value of landings
since 2000.
Another example of rebuilding success can be seen with Bering Sea
snow crab. In 1999, scientists found that Bering Sea snow crab was
overfished. In response, managers reduced harvests to a level that
would allow the stock to rebuild, and the stock was declared rebuilt in
2011. In the 2011-2012 fishing year, managers were able to increase the
harvest limit by 65 percent to nearly 66 thousand metric tons. In 2013,
revenue from the fishery was $236 million, an almost three-fold
increase from its low in 2005 prior to being fully
rebuilt.\5\,\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Garber-Yonts, B., and J. Lee., 2014. Stock Assessment and
Fishery Evaluation Report for King and Tanner Crab Fisheries of the
Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Regions: Economic Status of the BSAI
Crab Fisheries, 2014. P. 79.
\6\ North Pacific Fishery Management Council. 2015. Stock
Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report for King and Tanner Crab
Fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Regions: 2015 Final
Crab SAFE. P. 12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits of Annual Catch Limits
One of the most significant management provisions of the 2007
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act was the mandate to
implement annual catch limits, including measures to ensure
accountability and to end and prevent overfishing in federally managed
fisheries by 2011 (an annual catch limit is an amount of fish that can
be caught in a year such that overfishing does not occur;
accountability measures are management controls to prevent annual catch
limits from being exceeded, and to correct or mitigate overages of the
limits if they occur). This is an important move away from a management
system that could only be corrected by going back through the full
Council process in order to amend Fishery Management Plans--often
taking years to accomplish, all while overfishing continued.
Now, when developing a fishery management plan or amendment, the
Councils must consider, in advance, the actions that will occur if a
fishery does not meet its performance objectives. As of December 31,
2015, overfishing had ended for 70 percent of the 33 domestic U.S.
stocks that were subject to overfishing in 2007 when the Magnuson-
Stevens Act was reauthorized.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Fish Stock Sustainability Index. This report was the source
for the underlying data, but the numbers presented here were compiled
specifically for this hearing. The report is available at: http://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/2012/fourth/
Q4%202012%20FSSI%20Sum
mary%20Changes.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ending overfishing is the first step in rebuilding. Prior to the
implementation of annual catch limits, a number of rebuilding plans
experienced difficulty in ending overfishing and achieving the fishing
mortality rate called for in the plan. As a result, rebuilding was
delayed. Conversely, stocks where overfishing has ended quickly have
seen their stock size increase and rebuild more quickly. For example,
Widow rockfish in the Pacific was declared overfished in 2001. Fishing
mortality on Widow rockfish was immediately substantially reduced
resulting in a corresponding increase in stock size. The stock was
declared rebuilt in 2011, ahead of the rebuilding deadline.
Most major reductions in allowable catch experienced by fishermen
when stocks enter rebuilding plans are predominantly from the
requirement to prevent overfishing--which is now required through
annual catch limits for all stocks, not just those determined to be
overfished. When unsustainably large catches have occurred due to high
levels of overfishing on a depleted stock, large reductions in catch
will be needed to end overfishing, and the stock must rebuild in
abundance before catches will increase.
Because ending overfishing is essential to rebuilding, annual catch
limits are a powerful tool to address prior problems in achieving
rebuilding. Overfishing has ended for nine of the 14 stocks currently
in 10-year (or less) rebuilding plans. Annual catch limits, which are
now in place as a mechanism to control catch to the level specified in
the rebuilding plan, are working and we anticipate the next stock
assessments for these species to confirm that overfishing has ended.
With that result, we will begin to see stronger rebuilding for these
stocks. In addition, preliminary data show that annual catch limits
have been effective in limiting catch and preventing overfishing for
the majority of stocks. Fisheries have successfully stayed within their
annual catch limit for 89 percent of the stocks for which we have catch
data.
Ensuring Transparency and Stakeholder Engagement
The Magnuson-Stevens Act created broad goals for U.S. fisheries
management and a unique, highly participatory management structure
centered on the Councils. This structure ensures that input and
decisions about how to manage U.S. fisheries develop through a ``bottom
up'' process that includes fishermen, other fishery stakeholders,
affected states, tribal governments, and the Federal Government. By
working together with the Councils, states, tribes, and fishermen--
under the standards set in the Magnuson-Stevens Act--we have made great
strides in ending overfishing, rebuilding stocks, and building a
sustainable future for our fishing-dependent communities.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act guides fisheries conservation and
management through 10 National Standards. These standards, which have
their roots in the original 1976 Act, provide a yardstick against which
all fishery management plans and actions developed by the Councils are
measured. National Standard 1 requires that conservation and management
measures prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis,
the optimum yield from each fishery, which is the average amount of
harvest that will provide the greatest overall ecological, economic,
and social benefits to the Nation, particularly by providing seafood
and recreational opportunities while affording protection to marine
ecosystems.
The Councils can choose from a variety of approaches and tools to
manage fish stocks to meet this mandate--e.g., catch shares, area
closures, and gear restrictions--and, when necessary, also determine
how to allocate fish among user groups. These measures are submitted to
the U.S. Secretary of Commerce for approval and are implemented by
NMFS. Thus, the Councils, in developing their plans, must carefully
balance the need for stable fishing jobs, ecological conservation, and
societal interests to create holistically sustainable fisheries. A key
aspect of this effort is to ensure that overfishing is prevented, and
if it occurs, to end it quickly and rebuild any stock that becomes
overfished. Other National Standards mandate that conservation and
management measures be based upon the best scientific information
available, not discriminate between residents of different states, take
into account variations in fisheries and catches, minimize bycatch, and
promote the safety of human life at sea.
Effects on fishing communities are central to many Council
decisions. Fishing communities rely on fishing-related jobs, as well as
the non-commercial and cultural benefits derived from these resources.
Marine fisheries are the lifeblood of many coastal communities in the
Pacific Islands and West Coast regions and around our Nation.
Communities, fishermen, and fishing industries rely not only on today's
catch, but also on the predictability of future catches. The need to
provide stable domestic fishing and processing jobs is paramount to
fulfilling one of the Magnuson-Stevens Act's goals--to provide the
Nation with sources of domestic seafood. This objective has even
greater purpose now than when the Act was passed, as today U.S.
consumers are seeking--more than ever--options for healthy, safe,
sustainable, and local seafood. Under the standards set in the
Magnuson-Stevens Act--and together with the Councils, states, tribes,
territories, and fishermen--we have made great strides in maintaining
more stocks at biologically sustainable levels, ending overfishing,
rebuilding overfished stocks, building a sustainable future for our
fishing-dependent communities, and providing more domestic options for
U.S. seafood consumers in a market dominated by imports. Thanks in
large part to the strengthened Magnuson-Stevens Act and the sacrifices
and investment in conservation by fishing communities across the
country, the condition of many of our most economically important fish
stocks has improved steadily over the past decade.
Successes and Challenges
There are many examples of what fishermen, scientists, and managers
can do by working together to bring back a resource that once was in
trouble. In the Pacific Islands Region, NMFS, the Western Pacific
Fishery Management Council, the State of Hawaii, and fishing
communities have ended overfishing of the Hawaiian archipelago's deep-
water bottomfish complex--a culturally significant grouping of seven
species of snapper and grouper. This has enabled NMFS to increase
annual catch limits for these stocks for both commercial and
recreational fishermen and ensure these fish are available year-round.
On the West Coast, NMFS and the Pacific Fishery Management Council,
the fishing industry, recreational anglers, and other partners have
successfully rebuilt a number of once overfished stocks, including coho
salmon, lingcod, Pacific whiting, widow rockfish, canary rockfish, and
petrale sole. These and other conservation gains, including
implementation of the West Coast groundfish trawl rationalization
program, enabled NMFS to increase catch limits for abundant West Coast
groundfish species that co-occur with groundfish species in rebuilding
plans.
In the Southeast Region, NOAA, the Gulf of Mexico and South
Atlantic Fishery Management Councils, the fishing industries,
recreational anglers and other partners have successfully rebuilt a
number of once overfished stocks, including red grouper and king
mackerel in the Gulf of Mexico, black sea bass in the South Atlantic,
and yellowtail snapper, which is shared by both the Gulf of Mexico and
South Atlantic regions. These and other conservation gains enabled NMFS
to increase catch limits for six stocks or stock complexes and
eliminate or reduce two fixed seasonal closures over the last year. The
additional harvest opportunities attributed to rebuilding the South
Atlantic black sea bass stock alone have increased 2013 gross ex-vessel
revenues for commercial fishermen and annual profits for for-hire
vessels by about $1 million and $15 million, respectively, relative to
their low point prior to being fully rebuilt.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ SAFMC (South Atlantic Fishery Management Council). 2013.
Regulatory Amendment 19 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper
Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region. South Atlantic Fishery
Management Council, 4055 Faber Place, Ste 201, North Charleston, S.C.
29405.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many fisheries in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic are also a
significant part of the national success story. Of the 39 stocks
rebuilt nationally since 2000, 21, more than half, were rebuilt by
NOAA, the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils, the
fishing industries, recreational anglers, and other partners on the
Atlantic coast. In addition to Atlantic sea scallops, these include
other important stocks such as summer flounder and Atlantic swordfish.
But meeting mandates to prevent and end overfishing and implement
annual catch limits can be very challenging where data is scarce, which
is the case for many of the stocks in the Pacific Islands region and
the Caribbean, particularly those species being fished in the coral
reef ecosystem. We also face formidable challenges managing recovering
stocks to benefit both commercial and recreational user groups with
fundamentally different goals and objectives.
Looking to the Future
Remaining Challenges
Amid these successes, challenges remain. It is critical that we
continue meeting the mandate of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to end
overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks. Annual catch limits have
been an effective tool in improving the sustainability of fisheries
around the Nation, but managing fisheries using annual catch limits and
accountability measures was a major change for some fisheries, and the
initial implementation has identified some areas where we can improve
that process.
To address these issues, the agency has begun the process of
revising the National Standard 1 guidelines, which were modified in
2009 to focus on implementing the requirement for annual catch limits.
This was a major change in how many fisheries were managed, and we want
to ensure the guidance we have in place reflects current thinking on
the most effective way to meet the objectives of National Standard 1
and builds on what we, together with the Councils, have learned. In
January 2015, NMFS requested public comment on a proposed rule to
revise National Standard 1 guidelines (and related guidelines) to
enhance their utility for managers and the public. The objective of
these proposed revisions is to improve and streamline the National
Standard guidelines, address concerns raised during the implementation
of annual catch limits and accountability measures, and provide
flexibility within current statutory limits to address fishery
management issues.
The proposed rule included the following significant proposed
revisions:
A recommendation that Regional Fishery Management Councils
reassess the objectives of their fisheries on a regular basis,
Consolidated and streamlined guidance on determining which
stocks are in need of conservation and management,
Additional flexibility in rebuilding plans and managing data
limited stocks,
A recommendation on the use of indicator stocks within stock
complexes,
Guidance on the use of aggregate maximum sustainable yield
and a definition for depleted stocks, and
Revised guidance on optimum yield, accountability measures,
and Acceptable Biological Catch control rules to provide
additional flexibility in carrying over unharvested catch to a
subsequent year and providing more stability in catches from
year to year.
The agency received a significant amount of input on our proposed
rule and we are in the process of responding to the comments and
developing a final rule.
We will continue to work with the Councils to achieve the best
possible alignment of science and management for each fishery to attain
the goals of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. We will continue to develop our
science and management tools, improve our stock assessments and
monitoring efforts, and create more effective annual catch limits and
accountability measures. In so doing, we must continue to ensure solid,
science-based determinations of stock status and better linkages to
biological, socioeconomic, and ecosystem conditions.
We value the important partnerships we have formed with the states,
territories, tribes, fishermen, and other interest groups in helping
address these challenges. These partnerships are critical to developing
successful management strategies. Together with our partners, we
continue to explore alternative and innovative approaches that will
produce the best available information to incorporate into management.
It is also increasingly important that we better understand
ecosystem and habitat factors, such as the effects of climate change,
interannual and interdecadal climate shifts, ocean acidification, and
other environmental regime shifts and natural disasters, and
incorporate this information into our stock assessments and management
decisions. The agency has recently taken steps to further address these
challenges. In August, NMFS finalized a Climate Science Strategy as
part of a proactive approach to increase the production, delivery, and
use of climate-related information in fulfilling our mandates.
In September 2015, we also released a draft policy, which outlines
a set of principles to support implementation of Ecosystem-Based
Fisheries Management at NMFS. We are currently reviewing comments and
will finalize the Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management policy in the
coming months. Resilient ecosystems and habitat form the foundation for
robust fisheries and fishing jobs. The Magnuson-Stevens Act currently
provides flexibility for bringing ecosystem considerations into
fisheries management. This flexibility in the Magnuson-Stevens Act is
one of the Act's strengths, allowing us to meet our responsibilities
under the Act in concert with related legislation, such as the Marine
Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act, to reduce bycatch
of protected species to mandated levels. The alignment of measures to
conserve habitat and protected species with measures to end overfishing
and rebuild and manage fish stocks will be a key component of NOAA's
success in implementing ecosystem-based fisheries management.
NOAA supports the collaborative and transparent process embodied in
the Councils, as authorized in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and strongly
believes that all viable management tools should continue to be
available as options for the Councils to consider when developing
management programs.
Conclusion
Because of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the United States is
sustainably and responsibly managing U.S. fisheries, to ensure that
stocks are maintained at healthy levels, fishing is conducted in a way
that minimizes impacts on the marine ecosystem, and fishing
communities' needs are considered in management decisions. Fisheries
harvested in the United States are scientifically monitored, regionally
managed, and enforced under 10 National Standards of sustainability.
But we did not get here overnight. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, our
Nation's journey toward sustainable fisheries has evolved over the
course of 40 years.
In 2007, Congress gave NOAA and the Councils a clear mandate, new
authority, and new tools to achieve the goal of sustainable fisheries
within measurable timeframes. Notable among these were the requirements
for annual catch limits and accountability measures to prevent, respond
to, and end overfishing--real game changers in our national journey
toward sustainable fisheries that are rapidly delivering results.
This progress has been made possible by the collaborative
involvement of our U.S. commercial and recreational fishing fleets and
their commitment to science-based management, improving gear-
technologies, and application of best stewardship practices. We have
established strong partnerships with states, tribes, Councils, and
fishing industries. By working together through the highly
participatory process established in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, we will
continue to address management challenges in a changing environment.
To understand where we are, it is important to reflect on where
we've been. We have made great progress but our achievements have not
come easily, nor will they be sustained without continued attention.
This is a critical time in the history of Federal fisheries management,
and we must move forward in a thoughtful and disciplined way to ensure
our Nation's fisheries are able to meet the needs of both current and
future generations. When final, we expect the revisions to our National
Standard guidelines to address concerns raised during the
implementation of annual catch limits and accountability measures and
provide additional flexibility within current statutory limits to
address fishery management issues. We look forward to working with
Congress on fisheries management issues in a holistic, comprehensive
way that builds on its success and considers the needs of the fish,
fishermen, ecosystems and communities.
Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss implementation
progress of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. We are available to answer any
questions you may have.
Senator Sullivan. Great. Let me start off with a few
questions.
Do you have a more specific timeline with regard to the
final rule in terms of the National Standard guidelines that
you were just talking about?
Mr. Rauch. Yes, sir. It has to go to OMB for review. We
hope to do that in the coming month or so. That will be for a
90-day internal review period, and we hope to have it out by
June or July--the final rule.
Senator Sullivan. Great.
You mentioned the stakeholder model as a really key element
of the success of the MSA, and I think another key element that
we can all agree on is that the management decisions are based
on the best available data. But as you know, in data-poor
regions or data-poor stocks, sometimes that can result in
artificially low annual catch limits or even closures. Is there
something that Congress can do to assist in ensuring that there
are robust stock surveys and assessments in all the different
regions? And if there are specific regions that you think have
challenges with robust data, it would be good for us to know.
Mr. Rauch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Every year, we have to allocate the fishery resources we
have to try to match the survey, the science resources to the
areas of the greatest need where we see either the most
important commercial and recreational fisheries or the biggest
conservation challenges. We do that. We are recently going
through a stock assessment prioritization process where we are
trying to, working with the Councils and the states, align our
stock assessments to match the needs of the stakeholders and
the councils.
Senator Sullivan. And do Councils come to you and say we
are data-poor here, we need more data for our best decisions?
Mr. Rauch. They do. Every Council has a research plan which
identifies their highest research priorities. We work with them
to try to meet those needs. We could always use more effort,
but we think that we are largely meeting the kind of needs in
response to the Councils for their highest priority actions. We
work with them. For instance, in the Northeast, we meet every
month--not every month, but periodically with the states, the
two councils, the Atlantic States Marine Fishery Commission and
try to plan out when we are going to do these stock
assessments, which ones are the highest priorities. We plan our
surveys along with the states. Many of our surveys are joint
between the Federal Government and our State partners. And so
we work with them closely on when we are going to do which
surveys and how often we are going to do them. So we work very
closely to do that.
We understand that not every fishery has the same amount of
emphasis put on it, but we do try to give the most resources to
the fisheries that are of the highest economic commercial and
recreational value or present the biggest problems.
Senator Sullivan. And are there assurances that you can
provide the Committee that the agency will not redirect funds
from well managed fisheries to data-poor fisheries? Is that a
challenge that you have to deal with?
Mr. Rauch. That is often a challenge that we----
Senator Sullivan. How do you address that?
Mr. Rauch. We try to be very transparent about that. I was
articulating there are situations in which we have--let me back
up, sir. We have just gone through with our science centers an
extensive process in which we look at the science streams that
are coming in and try to determine which streams are serving
management purposes well and which are not. It is possible that
through that process we identify data streams that we no longer
need. So we would take those resources and shift them around.
We do that in a very public and transparent process.
So I cannot guarantee you that the science that we are
doing today we will always do, but what I can guarantee you is
that we will try to be very transparent about our decisions,
include all the stakeholders, and try to, with the resources
that are available to us, make sure that they are maximized to
meet the greatest need of the country.
Senator Sullivan. Let me talk about the maximum sustainable
yield issue real quick as my final question. Your written
testimony reported that in 2014, that was the third highest
commercial landing in terms of value that we have had in the
past decade. So again, I think that goes to the broader theme
here of well managed fisheries based on the MSA.
Are you able to generate an estimate of what the
precautionary management has cost in terms of the inability to
achieve maximum yield on a continuing basis? So in other words,
are we under-harvesting any stocks that are not achieving the
maximum sustained yield to any significant degree particularly
due to the amendments that were passed in 2006?
Mr. Rauch. I do not know that we can provide any such
numbers on a national level.
Senator Sullivan. Can you do it on a Council or----
Mr. Rauch. Well, I think in Alaska they can tell you that
if you make an investment in the science and you can decrease
the scientific uncertainty surrounding their estimates, they
can actually put a dollar figure to that so that you can--for
that fishery, the Alaska pollock fishery, which is the second
largest fishery in the world, they can articulate what an
investment in science will give you in terms of economic
return, and vice versa, what not investing in that science will
mean. I have not seen us been able to do that for any other
fishery of that level, but we can do it for the Alaska pollock
fishery. I have seen those numbers. I do not have them with me
off the top of my head, but we have made those.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you.
Senator Booker?
Senator Booker. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that.
Mr. Rauch, as mentioned in my opening remarks, I am pleased
that our region was the first to use the coral habitat
protection authority to protect and preserve 38,000 square
miles of Federal waters. This is critical. The Lautenberg
provision in the MSA is something I think has been wonderful
and has been codified in law for about 10 years.
And I guess my question is, given the importance of
protecting habitat, are there opportunities to establish
similar protected areas elsewhere in the United States waters?
And broadly speaking, do you think we are doing enough to
protect fish habitat under current law?
Mr. Rauch. So every council, I believe, has a suite of
closed areas that they have been managing for years for various
purposes. For instance, much of the fishable territory in the
Pacific Islands is closed to bottom trolling. You can fish on
the surface, but you cannot disturb the bottom. In Alaska,
there are closed areas. Those are to prevent fishing for a
certain stock of fish.
The unique thing about the Mid-Atlantic canyon is nobody
was fishing for them. This was a precautionary preservation to
eliminate the potential that fishing could destroy these unique
characteristics at the bottom.
There are potentials to do that elsewhere. Many Councils
are interested in and continue to look through those kind of
lenses at things. We see the Councils time and again willing to
close areas that are sensitive to protect them from fishing.
The Mid-Atlantic canyon is unique in terms of the size and
scope and the purpose of it, but it is not unique in that it is
the only fishery closed area. There are many, and the Councils
have expressed willingness time and again----
Senator Booker. But I guess my question is do you think we
could be doing more under current law.
Mr. Rauch. I think the law is sufficient under that. I
think the issue there is--we did not know 10 years ago that
many of these resources existed out there. And so we survey for
a lot of them. As we find them, the Councils have been very
willing to protect them. But knowing where these deep water
corals are is something we were not even looking for a decade
ago. So this is a really new area of research, and so we are
looking to find them. But as we find them, I think the law is
sufficient to protect them.
Senator Booker. OK.
The recent proposed guidance for National Standard 1
included a proposal to remove accountability requirements for
fish populations that are so dangerously low that their annual
catch limit has been set at zero. I am concerned that
eliminating reporting requirements on the zero catch fish
populations will result in missing things like bycatch or
accidental take of the most dangerously low fish populations.
Can you address this at all?
Mr. Rauch. I do not think we ever meant to eliminate any
reporting requirements. Most of these are fisheries for which
we have--there are only a very few fisheries in the country
which are so dangerously low that we ban fishing for them
entirely. For those, the accountability measures--there is
nothing that the fishermen can do because they are prohibited
from catching them. If they start catching them, we will have
to deal with other issues.
I do not believe that we ever intended that the reporting
be obviated for those. I think almost every fisherman in the
country is required to report their catch in some manner. We
would continue to do that for these species. The question is do
we preset a management response if there is illegal fishing
going on, and what we told the Councils is they did not have to
presume illegal activity. If that occurs, we will deal with it
through other enforcement mechanisms, but we do not necessarily
need the Council to take an action and say if there is
widespread illegal activity, because fishing is banned for
these, then here is what happens.
Senator Booker. Just real quick. I am concerned about the
problem of bycatch in some of our Nation's fisheries. In
October, several of my Senate colleagues and I sent a letter to
your agency regarding the overfishing of the dusky sharks. In
that letter, we urged the agency to quickly take action and
steps to halt and reverse the species' disastrous decline and
asked the agency to let us know when we can expect the agency
to implement strong measures, including establishing an annual
catch limit and accountability measures so that the North
Atlantic dusky shark population can have a chance to rebuild.
What actions does the National Marine Fisheries Service
intend to take to help the dusky shark to rebuild and to
prevent further bycatch?
Mr. Rauch. So in bycatch in general, I think we share your
views about the significance of bycatch. And I would encourage
you that in the next week or so I think we plan to release our
national bycatch strategy, the newest iteration, in which we
echo some of the things that you have just articulated about
bycatch. The Councils in general have been dealing with bycatch
and trying to minimize those for some time.
In dusky sharks, the situation was in 2012 we implemented
some measures for duskies that it remains to be seen exactly
how effective they will be. We believe that although they were
not directed at dusky sharks, they have had a lot of beneficial
effect about limiting bycatch. Nevertheless, we continue to
look at that. We know that additional measures may be warranted
we hope this year--in the coming months actually--I should not
say ``this year''--in the coming few months to actually
promulgate I think it is amendment 5B--I think that is right--
which would address those concerns that you have raised for the
dusky sharks.
Senator Booker. My time has expired. I want to be
respectful of my colleagues. I just want to say if we could get
a formal response to the letter that we sent with part of that
strategy, I would really appreciate it.
Mr. Rauch. Yes, sir.
Senator Booker. Thank you.
Senator Sullivan. Senator Cantwell?
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think for both
you and I, when it comes to fisheries management policy, there
is probably no more important words than Magnuson-Stevens and
making sure that we continue the tradition of good fisheries
management for both our states.
For us, the issue of salmon is particularly important, and
I wanted to ask Mr. Rauch particularly about the issue of our
hatcheries and making sure that we have good plans in place to
review our hatchery system. So you know that we have had
unbelievable requirements as it relates to both protecting wild
and producing hatchery salmon. And yet, we have had something
like only 52 plans reviewed. So do you think that this is a
challenge and a threat if we do not have these plans reviewed
by NOAA?
Mr. Rauch. Thank you, Senator, for the question.
We are concerned about the hatcheries for many respects. A
significant portion of the wild ocean harvest for salmon comes
from these hatchery programs. And so the hatcheries are key to
promoting economic viability, but they also, if they are not
managed correctly, can pose a threat to our wild salmon.
Recently there have been a lot of major improvements in the
hatcheries such that they are managed correctly.
Since 2006, we have required under various different types
of authorizations that the hatcheries have hatchery genetic
monitoring plans, to make sure that they are operated at the
highest levels so they minimize the impact. They were supposed
to come in and get those approved for many years. For various
reasons, those issues were delayed, and now we have got 328
plans that all came in at the same time. We have managed to
clear through 50 of them, but we are having trouble clearing
through all of them. We increased our staff such that we could
increase the throughput to about 55 a year. The President's
recent budget proposal, which just came out, asked for
additional funds to increase our staff again to help clear
these out. We do understand the importance of hatcheries to the
region for various issues, and we do want to clear these out.
We have been working with the states and the various
entities to try to prioritize which ones do you want to see us
do first. So we hope to get the very important ones out first,
but we are behind. And I do not expect that by the end of the
year we will get all of them done, but I do expect that we will
increase the throughput.
Senator Cantwell. What are the consequences of not getting
them done? And do you think that NOAA has the funds it needs to
proceed in a timely manner? Because at 55 a year, that would
take us another 6 years to process those.
Mr. Rauch. We do not have the funds, which is why the
President has asked for an additional--I do not remember the
exact number, but there is an increase in the salmon budget to
help us process through this. We did get a small increase last
year, which we are going to use for processing through this. So
we do not have the current resources that we need to address
these.
There is some risk to the salmon, the risk that they have
been facing for a while, if the plans are not approved. But the
real issue is have the hatcheries actually made the changes. If
the hatcheries have made the changes and are just seeking the
approval of the changes, then the risk is relatively minor. If
the hatcheries have not made the changes that we look for, some
of these others, then the risk to the salmon could be greater.
But we have seen a number of lawsuits, not brought by us
but brought by third parties, seeking to stop hatchery
production. That is of concern to us. We are a co-defendant
with the states on----
Senator Cantwell. Which would bring havoc on a lot of
different issues, and that is why it is important to have the
funds. So I will look forward to following up with you on a
question about how that budget would actually affect a timeline
so that we can look at this and look at an answer.
A second related question is just on the issue of ocean
acidification. My colleague, Senator Wicker, and I have been
proposing legislation to make sure that ocean acidification's
impact on our fisheries jobs is well understood particularly as
it relates to salmon and a food source. Do you think we have
all the information we need there to make assessments about how
ocean acidification is going to impact the food chain?
Mr. Rauch. I do not think we have all the--I cannot tell
you right now how it will affect the food chain. I know that we
are very concerned, particularly with shellfish. The shells
themselves are very susceptible to ocean acidification. I think
we do not have as good an idea as to how ocean acidification
will affect other fish stocks.
We work with other colleagues at NOAA and throughout the
Government on ocean acidification and looking at those kind of
issues. I think we share the sentiment that we do not know
enough about those. I do not know that the administration has a
position on the bill, but this is an issue that the Fisheries
Service takes seriously. We are concerned about the impacts. We
have worked with industry like we worked with the Washington
State shellfish industry when their shellfish reproduction was
harmed by----
Senator Cantwell. I see my time has expired. So thank you
so much for that.
And I am going to submit a question about financing of
fishing vessels and making sure that people do not believe that
we are overcapitalized and that way we should not invest. I
want to make sure that we get a financing that works. But I
will submit that for the record. Thank you.
Mr. Rauch. Thank you.
Senator Sullivan. Senator Ayotte?
STATEMENT OF HON. KELLY AYOTTE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Ayotte. Thank you.
Mr. Rauch, we have heard a lot today of discussion about
the success of the MSA, but I can assure you that for my ground
fishermen, it has been an unmitigated disaster. Literally as I
look at what my ground fishermen have faced--and I think about
putting out of business people who have often fished our waters
for generations and really are so hard-working. I have had the
chance to visit them personally.
But as of March 1, your agency has announced that you are
not going to fund the at-sea monitoring. And just to put this
into perspective, for your average ground fisherman in New
Hampshire, which, for example, on cod over the last 4 years has
faced a 95 percent reduction in what they can catch, on top of
that, now they are going to have to pay at-sea monitoring,
which is contrary to what I think many of us believe the 2015
appropriations provided. In fact, your agency received a letter
from many of us describing that.
To put it in perspective, average fisherman. I catch $1,500
worth of fish. After covering all my boat's expenses and paying
my crew, I take home $300. That is not a lot, but I make a
living. But then when you put an average of $710 per trip, a
cost for at-sea monitoring, that they now have to put in place,
60 percent of my ground fishermen cannot make any money. They
lose money. So we want to talk extinction. This is extinction
of fishermen.
And so I want to ask you--I look at your budget, $5.4
billion for 2015, and you cannot find $3.78 million to fund at-
sea monitoring which is consistent with what many of us have
written in the 2015 appropriations bill for you. I think you
have gotten a letter from myself, Senator Collins, Senator
Markey on this committee, Senator Warren, Senator Reed, many of
us.
As far as I can see, there are articles of the MSA that
require you to think about the economic impact. I believe
article 1 does.
So can you explain to me why we cannot find this small
amount of money, $3.78 million, for fishermen that are going
out of business that we have dramatically reduced their shares?
These are not large fishermen. Talk about too big to fail. I
have said this before. But this is essentially going to put the
little guy out of business. So tell me why can we not fund
this.
Mr. Rauch. So we are very concerned about the declining
status of the cod fishery. We believe that it is caused by many
factors, including the fact that the Gulf of Maine has been the
warmest it has ever been.
Senator Ayotte. I do not have a lot of time. But why can we
not fund the $3.78 million of monitoring so they do not go
altogether out of business? That is what I need to know.
Mr. Rauch. The other provision of the Magnuson Act that is
relevant to this is that we have to provide for standardized
bycatch reporting methodology, and we lost a court case. We
have been traditionally funding this amount of money.
Senator Ayotte. So no other place in this agency you can
find this money so that these fishermen do not go out of
business. And by the way, I think we have written you the
letter saying that that should not be prioritized based on the
appropriations bill over at-sea monitoring.
Mr. Rauch. I understand that, Senator, but----
Senator Ayotte. So are you telling me there is no other
place in this agency we can find $3.7 million so fishermen do
not cease to exist in my community?
Mr. Rauch. The court found that we have to spend the money
on other priorities before we spend it on at-sea monitoring.
Senator Ayotte. But anywhere else in your budget, you
cannot find $3.78 million to keep fishermen in place because
otherwise I say the Magnuson-Stevens Act is an absolute failure
in this regard.
Mr. Rauch. As I said, the court said we have to fund other
priorities.
Senator Ayotte. So just the question, yes or no, there is
no place else in this budget you can find that.
Mr. Rauch. Not that we are allowed to fund.
Senator Ayotte. OK. Well, please submit for the record what
language we need to put in to give you the authority to make
sure that these people have the at-sea monitoring funded
because I cannot believe that we would have a system where we
are going to put iconic fishermen out of business, no longer in
business. The large folks--they are going to be fine. The small
fishermen--they are done. Seven hundred bucks is more than they
make after this. So I would ask for a follow-up on that.
And I have a number of follow-up questions. I would like to
know with regard to the reauthorization, what specific language
is necessary to ensure that National Standard 1 and National
Standard 8 are considered with equal importance.
Mr. Rauch. If you are asking for technical drafting
assistance, I would imagine----
Senator Ayotte. Well, there are two provisions, National
Standard 1 and National Standard 8. And as far as I can see for
the fishermen that I represent, they are not being weighted
equally. And when it comes to the economic impact on our
fishermen, if you combine the dramatic cut in shares, if you
combine the concerns they have about the science, if you
combine the fact that they now have to fund this at-sea
monitoring system themselves, I do not see how their economic
vitality is being taken into consideration at all here.
Mr. Rauch. So it is clear that National Standard 8 is
subordinate to National Standard 1 based on the terms of it. If
you would like us to provide you language that would alter
that, I think we could do that.
Senator Ayotte. I think that it would be reasonable for
this committee, as we look at this reauthorization, to put
forward language that does not put every small ground fisherman
in my state and the New England States out of business because
that would be doing a real disservice to the fishery as a
whole. So thank you.
I have some additional questions that I am going to submit
for the record.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Senator Ayotte, and I share
your concerns on the monitoring and the balance between the
different National Standards. So I appreciate that line of
questioning.
Senator Schatz?
STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII
Senator Schatz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to ask about National Standard 1, which we all
know is essentially to prevent overfishing and achieve optimum
yield. And I want to understand how you see aquaculture fitting
into that because on a sort of common sense level, to the
degree and extent that recognizing that different regions have
different concerns regarding aquaculture, that this seems to be
a strategy that could achieve optimum yield and prevent
overfishing. And I am wondering how we might pursue amendments
to MSA in the future that would enable aquaculture to flourish
where the FMPs and where the different regions think that is a
good strategy.
Mr. Rauch. Thank you, Senator.
We have just worked through this issue in the Gulf of
Mexico where we did the first-ever large-scale commercial
aquaculture permit in Federal waters. We do believe that
aquaculture is fishing. So it is part of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act purview to regulate. We did have to set optimum yield for
aquaculture. It is a little bit awkward to do that because
usually you set optimum yield trying to determine how much of
the fishery you can take out of the otherwise wild population.
Aquaculture is not really that same metric. You take a little
bit out of the wild population and then you sort of create
another population.
But we did work through that. We set an overall cap on the
amount of fishing, 20 large-scale operations in the entire Gulf
of Mexico, with the understanding that if we actually achieve
that limit, you go back to the Council, we might increase it.
So we have been able to work through that issue. It was not
without some difficulty trying to conceptualize it, but we do
think within the Magnuson Act, as it is currently written, you
can regulate aquaculture. You can do things like setting
optimum yield. It is important to the country to continue to do
that.
Senator Schatz. Do you need any clarification from the
Congress in terms of this optimum or maximum yield question
when it comes to aquaculture? Because I guess it seems to me a
little bit of a square peg in a round hole.
And then the other question is do you feel like it is
settled that aquaculture is fishing rather than farming.
Mr. Rauch. For us, it is settled. There are a number of
fishery management plans going back 2 decades or so that
include aquaculture, that authorize aquaculture, nothing on the
scale of the Gulf. But as the Senator may be aware, we are
subject to a lawsuit that challenges that very principle. And I
am not aware, other than some very preliminary rulings, that we
have had any court uphold us. From our perspective, though, it
is a position we have had for well over a decade, and we think
it is settled.
We do think, as I said, it works well within the Magnuson
Act, that there is no need to change the statute to give us
that, but if Congress would like to work with us, I am sure it
could be clearer.
Senator Schatz. OK, thank you.
The second question I have is regarding coastal habitats.
As you know, they face increasing pressure from growing
populations and environmental damage. As coastal habitat
degrades, fisheries suffer. But on the positive side,
obviously, maintaining healthy coastal habitats will help
fisheries to be more productive.
So how can MSA reward stewardship, and what other agencies
need to be involved in this conversation?
Mr. Rauch. We do know that there is a close link between
habitat and fishery production. We have an entire habitat
division within the Fisheries Service that is designed toward
protecting coastal habitat with the aim towards increasing
fishery production.
Currently the Magnuson Act includes an authorization for
the community-based restoration programs so that we can work
with local communities to do that. It also includes essential
fish habitat provisions such that we can work with other
agencies, agencies like the Corps in terms of their Clean Water
Act dredge and fill permits. As they try to assess the amount
of modification that is allowable, they come and consult with
us so that we make sure that the fishery impacts are working
well.
So we work well with a number of agencies. It is the
agencies that you would expect, the Corps, the military, those
folks that work on the coastal development. And we have a
really good working relationship with them to make sure that as
they authorize projects, they are taking into account the
fishery needs.
Senator Schatz. Thank you.
Senator Sullivan. Senator Blumenthal?
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT
Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
This hearing is vitally important to Connecticut and our
country, particularly so because the Magnuson-Stevens Act can
be effective only if the latest science is brought to bear on
decisions that are made and only if the people who are affected
by this law have representation so they can bring a real-world
sense of what is happening to bear on these decisions.
I have met often over the past years, when I served as
Attorney General and most recently as Senator--last week with
our Connecticut fishing community, I met with them in a town
hall in Stonington and heard their perspectives and concern as
they relate to the Magnuson-Stevens Act. And frankly, I
strongly believe that the goals of conserving and rebuilding
fish populations and promoting the growth of the fishing
industry are two goals that should be and are compatible, not
mutually exclusive.
But unless the best science is brought to bear and unless
the views of that fishing industry have some say, the system
will run amok. And right now, it is running amok in their view.
And I think their views are very persuasive and convincing.
They tell me that the sea bass and flounder, among other
species, have migrated north, are available in much greater
abundance than ever before because of the effects of warming.
And so the system that gives primary say in determining the
catch numbers permissible to the Mid-Atlantic Council and
management organization is not only inequitable but
ineffective. And their industry is under extreme economic
stress, and that matters to the entire state of Connecticut.
The commercial and recreational fishing industries involve
6,600 jobs in my state and has an economic output of $763
million. These are numbers that are approximate, but even if
they are off by a little bit, the magnitude of the effect is
certainly significant.
So my hope is that we can have smarter, more efficient
targeting of resources in these programs and greater effort to
take into account the effects of climate change and shifting
fish populations and other environmental issues and we can make
this system work well for fishermen and protect and rebuild
vulnerable species at the same time.
So my question to you is, what can be done to take account
of those moving fish populations? I know I am probably stating
it in imprecise layman terms, but the sea bass and the flounder
do not speak our language anyway. They are just going to do
what they are going to do based on water temperatures, and
those water temperatures are driving more of them north.
And here is the really egregious and unacceptable outcome.
These fishermen are throwing overboard tons of fish that are
dead when they hit the water. So they are of no use to anyone,
least of all people who are hungry, literally hungry in
Connecticut and around the country, who could benefit by having
those fish available. So there is extraordinary unnecessary
waste in this system right now, and I want your view about what
we can do about it.
Mr. Rauch. So there are two aspects of that question.
One is on the science side, all the science that we work
with in this instance is done through the Northeast Fisheries
Science Center which serves both Connecticut, the Mid-Atlantic.
So there is some uniformity there so we can make sure that the
science views are not influenced by the technical geography,
which Council is managing it.
In terms of the Council, the actual management advice--as
you know, the Council boundaries are set by statute. There are
some provisions--and you are absolutely correct that the stocks
appear to be moving north. There are some other ones that are
moving south. The fish are moving, and we are not sure why. We
suspect it is climate change. That is going to create over
time--this may be the first of many of these kind of issues in
which you have fish showing up where they traditionally were
not, and we have to set appropriate management measures. And
these are issues that both the Councils work with.
Under the Magnuson Act, we have two main tools to do that.
The Council of jurisdiction--as I said, it is not something
that we can change, but we can make sure that the New England
and the Mid-Atlantic Council are working together. They do have
liaisons. We have traditionally designated a lead council. In
this case, it is the Mid-Atlantic. There is always opportunity
to change the lead council. I am not sure that would be
advisable here. But occasionally we also require joint
management plans. This happens a lot in the Keys where the fish
do not care particularly whether they are in the north or
south, whether they are being regulated by the Gulf Council or
the South Atlantic. And we have a number of joint plans where
we have asked the Councils to work together on those kind of
things.
So all of those are options that are available as this
continues, and my suspicion is this is not the only instance in
which this is going to occur. The stocks are moving all over
the country, and we will see this happen more and more.
Senator Blumenthal. But you would agree with me that the
system right now has really run amuck and needs to be set
right.
Mr. Rauch. I do not know how long-term this is. I do know
that there are issues with new fishing opportunities in old
fishing grounds and we have to deal with those. We are working
through the Council process. I think the tools are there. But
it is an issue that all the Councils have to start facing.
Senator Blumenthal. And the fishing opportunities, to use
your euphemism, which means to me there are fish to be caught,
they are being thrown overboard, they are hitting the water
dead, they are wasted, and fishermen are deprived of their
livelihoods and people's lives are diminished because they go
unnecessarily hungry--would you disagree with that summary?
Mr. Rauch. I do not know that that is what is happening
with summer flounder or black sea bass. I know that is one of
the reasons we are very concerned about bycatch issues in
general, that we would like to avoid those kind of wasted
situations. And we are required to minimize bycatch. I would
rather minimize it by increasing fishing opportunities for
those. I mean, if they are going to be dead anyway, we might as
well look for opportunities to catch them.
Senator Blumenthal. In other words, increase the catch
quotas.
Mr. Rauch. If that scientifically can be done. These are
thorny issues in terms of what the implications for increasing
catch quotas might mean for others. You cannot just increase
catch quotas without there being consequences. It is often a
zero sum game. Somebody would have to decrease somewhere. And
that is an issue traditionally that we work out through the
Council process, often where two Councils meet together and try
to reach an agreement on what should happen.
Senator Blumenthal. Well, I would just emphasize for what
it is worth as a message to take back to NOAA and to all the
agencies that have authority here that science has a very
important role to play. These decisions ought to be fact-based
and founded in good science, but clearly in the real world what
is happening is unacceptable because fishermen are losing
livelihoods and people are losing food that otherwise could be
extraordinarily nourishing and healthy. And I want to make sure
that we in no way compromise the goal of preserving and
enhancing the populations of fish, consistent with good
environmental science, but common sense dictates a change here.
So thank you.
Senator Sullivan. Senator Markey?
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Markey. Thank you, Chairman Sullivan, very much.
And thank you for mentioning Massachusetts, along with Alaska,
as the seafood superpowers in the United States.
Senator Sullivan. I will note that next time. Oh, I did.
Senator Markey. You complimented Massachusetts.
Senator Sullivan. Absolutely. No doubt about it.
Senator Markey. He went to Harvard. So maybe he is
subconsciously doing it and then forgetting that he did it. But
in your opening statement, Alaska and Massachusetts were
mentioned.
Senator Blumenthal. Should I get in the middle here?
Senator Markey. A Yale man in the middle.
[Laughter.]
Senator Markey. And the truth is that my mother is a
Sullivan. You are a Sullivan. We were probably fishing in
Ireland. Then we went to the two states.
Senator Sullivan. Probably, once the potatoes ran out.
[Laughter.]
Senator Markey. And then we went to the two states that are
the seafood superpowers.
So our story, though, is one of the declining seafood, and
we have to basically try to do our best to figure out the issue
because the namesake of the iconic arm of Massachusetts is the
cod that is found just off of the Cape's coast. Cape Cod and
the rest of Massachusetts have a strong and a rich history of
fishing and science. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act brings together these two subjects to
support healthy fisheries and the fishermen and coastal
communities that depend upon them.
We have seen how fishermen, managers, and scientists have
worked together to revive the Atlantic sea scallop fishery. Due
to their success, New Bedford continues to be the leading U.S.
fishing port based on dollar amount of fish and seafood landed.
And I hope that this model of collaboration can extend to the
other fisheries that are struggling in New England and support
a vibrant seafood industry in Massachusetts in the 21st century
and beyond.
But given the immense challenges we face with the ever-
growing effects of climate change and ocean acidification,
today we must begin to acknowledge that we cannot solely plan
on what happened in the past. Cod, which used to be so
plentiful, is less so now. There is an ever-important need to
focus on science and provide fisheries managers with the proper
data to make well informed management decisions.
There are many challenges, though. Carbon dioxide levels in
the atmosphere are the highest in recorded history. We have
reached over 400 parts per million. The last time carbon
dioxide levels were this high, the world was a very different
place. The earth is warming and our oceans are too. Not only
are our oceans taking up some of the global warming, but carbon
dioxide dissolving in our oceans is causing them to acidify.
Study after study details the changes occurring in our climate
in the Gulf of Maine in New England and are looking at some of
the most adverse changes in the near future. Without action to
reduce carbon pollution, we could face a New England without
lobsters and a Cape without cod.
But there is hope. Our fishermen have made it through many
past challenges, and the hearing today is exploring ways that
we can ensure a strong, vibrant fishing industry and healthy
oceans for generations to come.
So, Mr. Rauch, as you know, New England ground fishermen
have faced significant economic challenges in recent years, and
Senator Ayotte raised the cost of at-sea monitoring earlier.
Can NOAA prioritize certain fisheries for standard bycatch
reporting methodology coverage at a higher rate?
Mr. Rauch. Thank you, Senator.
In New England, we set the priority for standardized
bycatch reporting methodology through the system laid out by
the Council in their fishery management plan amendment. So they
have articulated--we are required by statute to establish a
standardized bycatch reporting methodology for the fisheries in
New England. We do not believe it has to be the same for every
fishery, but it does have to be standardized.
Senator Markey. Would you need changes to Magnuson-Stevens
to enable the agency to prioritize certain fisheries for SBRM
coverage?
Mr. Rauch. I do not believe you would need it to--you
might. I do not know the answer to that question. I do know
that the answer--given the court cases up there, if we wanted
to prioritize at-sea monitoring over SBRM, we would need that.
I do not know that we would need that to prioritize SBRM
funding, but it would take at this point Council action because
we do have a Council amendment that dictates how we were going
to do that.
Senator Markey. And what criteria would NOAA use to
identify priority fisheries?
Mr. Rauch. I think we would look at--you would look at
which fisheries have a history of bycatch, which fisheries is
the bycatch that you are concerned about. There are some stocks
that are healthy that you would be less concerned about bycatch
and some stocks that, if you catch them, you would be very
concerned. So you would make an assessment about the different
fisheries, if you had limited bycatch monitoring resources,
which we do, and decide which ones you want to allocate those
resources to. So those are the kinds of criteria that we would
look at, but it would be largely with the Councils that we
would be doing that.
Senator Markey. Well, the New England fisheries are already
feeling the effects of climate change. The Gulf of Maine sea
surface temperature is rising faster than almost anywhere in
the entire world. And these changes pose significant challenges
to our fisheries.
How does NOAA plan to allow for adaptation of management
strategies to changes in ocean conditions due to climate
change?
Mr. Rauch. We just put out a report which echoes much of
what you just said and which indicates that certain stocks are
perhaps more susceptible than others. And we were very
concerned that the economic driver behind New Bedford is the
scallop fishery. They have calcium carbonate shells, and so
they are potentially very vulnerable to climate change.
So we have articulated which ones are perhaps the most
vulnerable. I think it is imperative there--the Fisheries
Service does not control climate change, but we can work with
the fishermen to try to diversify portfolios to try to make
sure that they account for potential downturns if they are
going to be in those fisheries.
Senator Markey. Well, the cod and lobster--they need cold
water.
Mr. Rauch. Exactly.
Senator Markey. And the lobster are voting with their claws
as they move northward, and the cod are voting with their fins
as they move northward. And so as they chase the colder water,
as our water becomes warmer, it becomes a real issue
economically for our region.
So what additional or new data would NOAA require to help
understand the different causes of changing fish populations?
Mr. Rauch. We have invested a lot of money recently. I
think last year we invested about $3 million in Northeast
climate science to try to get at that exact question. By virtue
of the Fisheries Service placed within NOAA, we have a lot of
access to our partners who do the environmental monitoring that
can monitor temperature and other conditions. We are
integrating all that now.
I think it is hard to determine why a fish stock reacts the
way it does, but we are investing a significant amount of
resources now and we will continue to do so trying to improve
our understanding about the way that these stocks may react to
various climate scenarios.
Senator Markey. Mr. Chairman, can I have an additional two
minutes, if you do not mind?
Senator Sullivan. Absolutely. Take as many as you want.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Researchers at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth
are working on a new video system that will count cod to
improve the accuracy of the scientific assessment. This is just
one example of technological innovation with implications for
fisheries management.
Can you speak to how technological innovation, such as the
one I mentioned, can improve stock assessments not just in New
England but around the country?
Mr. Rauch. We think it is very important to work with third
parties that develop these new systems like that one to work
them into the science enterprise. It is important for trust. It
is also important to have a transparent system, so we need to
be open to this kind of new information.
We have a study fleet where we have employed the fishermen.
They put cameras on the study fleet that look at where--we tell
them go catch fish where you think the fish are. And then they
will take the environmental conditions and reports and we will
incorporate that into our data set. All that is very important.
So we invest a lot of money in our partners to do these. Even
if we did not fund the initial research, we try very hard to
incorporate that data into our assessment of the stocks.
Sometimes it takes a while to incorporate the data into the
stocks. Sometimes it is very easy to do that. And we work very
well with the state of Massachusetts and the various
institutions there to do those kind of things.
Senator Markey. So it is important for fishermen and women
and the fisheries management people to have the information----
Mr. Rauch. Absolutely.
Senator Markey.--so they can make timely decisions about
the future.
And finally--thank you, Mr. Chairman--illegal, unreported,
and unregulated fishing may account for up to $23 billion per
year loss to the global fishing industry. This directly affects
the fishermen of Massachusetts. However, seafood fraud affects
every State. Alaska and Massachusetts, of course, would be at
the top of the list just because of how massive our fishing
industries are.
In order to protect American consumers and fishermen, are
there specific provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act that can
be enhanced to combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated
fishing?
Mr. Rauch. There are. And we are currently using the
Magnuson-Stevens, as you may be aware, to create a traceability
system for both foreign imports. We have a wonderful
traceability system in the United States. We can as the
government agency. It is not publicly available. But as
regulators work with our states, we basically know where the
fish was caught, when it was caught up to the point of entry
into the market. Using the Magnuson Act, we are imposing
similar requirements on foreign imports to level the playing
field. Our fishermen should not be at a disadvantage to that.
The Magnuson Act right now is not a particularly good tool
for the seafood fraud part. We have other tools. We are working
with our enforcement agencies. That is mainly economic fraud
that is going on, and we work with States and local governments
to help prosecute that. We have some tools available. We are
very concerned about that.
Senator Markey. Do you need additional regulatory authority
that the Magnuson Act can provide?
Mr. Rauch. We have indicated that if we are fully going to
achieve the vision of enforcing against illegal fish and fraud,
that additional enforcement authorities that would allow us to
enforce beyond the point of entry--we can do a very good job
enforcing at the docks. That is where the NOAA fisheries
enforcement agents go. Once it leaves the docks and enters in
the chain of commerce domestically, we have very few tools to
deal with that.
Senator Sullivan. Does the IUU legislation that I mentioned
in my opening statement, recently signed by the President--does
that provide you enough authority?
Mr. Rauch. It helps us with certain things. It does not
provide that authority from the point of entry, once it is into
the United States, to guard against market fraud that might
happen at a local distributor. It does not do that. It is a
very powerful tool protecting us up to the borders and making
sure that what is coming into the United States is good and
sustainable. But the Fisheries Service at least would have to
rely on our State and Federal partners for that enforcement
beyond the chain. We do not have any authority right now to do
that.
Senator Markey. And I have been working with Senator Wicker
on this issue trying to find a bipartisan way in which perhaps,
Mr. Chairman, we could work together as we are going forward.
Senator Sullivan. Great.
Senator Markey. So I thank you.
And can I ask a question? My mother's family is from County
Kerry. Where are your Sullivans from?
Senator Sullivan. That is County Kerry as well. So maybe we
were fishing together.
Senator Markey. Maybe we are cousins.
[Laughter.]
Senator Markey. Maybe destiny has brought us here to work
together.
Senator Sullivan. Well, I look forward to working with
Senator Markey as we did last year on an amendment that was
signed into law just recently by the President with regard to
helping move forward the fisheries in Alaska, in Massachusetts,
and throughout the country. In all seriousness, I think we had
a lot of work.
Senator Markey. I agree with you. My mother always said the
Sullivans are a very intelligent people. So this is just
further proof of that as we work together in the future on new
amendments.
[Laughter.]
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Sullivan. So, Mr. Rauch, I just have a few more
questions, if that is all right, since I have you hostage here.
I am going to follow up on a couple questions Senator
Markey talked about, that Senator Ayotte talked about. The
first one relates to Senator Ayotte's questions on the ranking
of the different National Standards.
Is National Standard 1 ranked above all others, and if so,
how does that position allow you to achieve balance?
Mr. Rauch. Thank you, Senator.
There have been a number of judicial interpretations of the
various National Standards. Some of them are explicitly subject
to the overarching conservation rationales and others. National
Standard 8 is one of those that by its own terms--and I do not
have it in front of me--refers to the conservation objectives
of the Magnuson Act, and so the courts have interpreted that to
be subordinate to National Standard 1. National Standard 1 says
we are to prevent overfishing while achieving the optimum
yield. There is a lot of material in there. We are supposed to
be conservation-minded but, at the same time, achieve the
maximum benefit that we can while making sure we do not cross
over the conservation objectives.
Other ones are not so subordinate like the requirement to
use the best available science. That is not subordinate.
Senator Sullivan. How about the economic impact?
Mr. Rauch. The economic one, which is in National
Standard----
Senator Sullivan. Because you are seeing that among the
Committee members. It is a concern.
Mr. Rauch. The current wording of National Standard 8 does
make it--you consider the economic--economic flexibility--you
consider it once you have made sure that you have not allowed
overfishing. And so it has been viewed and the Fisheries
Service would view it now as subordinate to the requirement to
make sure that you do not allow overfishing.
But that still gives an awful lot of flexibility to try to
create economic opportunity. So I do not want to leave the
impression that it is meaningless. It is quite powerful. We are
in the Commerce Department. We take it seriously that we are
trying to achieve the most economic value we can and the least
economic harm to our coastal communities in everything that we
do. It is just that there is a line about overfishing that we
will not cross.
Senator Sullivan. Let me turn to the issue of the
monitoring system. And you know, it is a big issue. Obviously,
Senator Ayotte was very strong and forceful in her comments to
you. You know, in Alaska, we actually have a bit of a different
issue, but in some ways it is similar where the monitoring
situation--and I have seen this with our fishermen. The
requirement of a human observer particularly for small-boat
fishermen--so for some of the smallest vessels, there is a huge
burden. Right? I mean, literally just space in terms of the
burden that we have. I do not believe anyone in our fishing
fleet gets subsidized or has been subsidized by the Federal
Government on monitoring. So there is a bit of an equity issue
that I will not go into right now. But as you know, different
monitoring programs have been treated differently in terms of
the way the Federal Government has actually helped pay for
those. We have never been paid for at all. So there is a
fairness issue there I believe.
But also in terms of electronic monitoring, I know that you
have been working for years to develop that kind of program,
but I will tell you there is just a real strong interest in
Alaska for you to get to a point where we can deploy electronic
monitoring. No one is trying to avoid monitoring, but as I
mentioned, it is a real burden when you have to have human
observers particularly on small vessels.
Where are we on that, and can I tell my constituents that
we are getting to a spot where we can have electronic
monitoring sometime not in the far, distant future?
Mr. Rauch. So you are absolutely right that we are
struggling with the small boat fleet up there. The Council has
determined that we need to start--that fleet had been
unmonitored for a long time, and there needs to be some sort of
monitoring. And the initial technology is a human observer,
which creates all these space issues. And we have struggled for
years with that fishery because, as you said, there is only a
limited number of spaces, and in order to have a bunk space for
an observer, you might have to have a crewman sleeping on deck,
which is not a good solution.
Senator Sullivan. And that happens, as you know.
Mr. Rauch. Yes.
So we worked for a while on various mechanisms. At the
moment, we are offering an experimental arrangement where if
they agree to take a camera in lieu of an observer, they do not
have to take the observer. We have got, I think, 59 boats
signed up for that process right now, give or take a few. We
hope to get up to 90 next year before the system is fully
operational in 2018. Our long-term vision is exactly the same.
I would much rather have this fishery observed with cameras----
Senator Sullivan. Yes.
Mr. Rauch.--than with human observers.
Senator Sullivan. So would we.
Mr. Rauch. And I think they are working through the
technology, but right now, my understanding is if you sign up
for this program, you can take a camera instead of a human
observer. And many of the folks have done that. There are some
people that are still not part of that system, and we continue
to work with that segment of industry.
Senator Sullivan. Well, if you can commit here to
continuing to focus on accelerating that, I think that goes to
some of the burdens that we have been talking about, certainly
a burden on the industry in Alaska.
Mr. Rauch. Senator Ayotte is no longer here, but we are
continuing to work to develop a camera system in New England
similar to that in Alaska to decrease some of the costs that
she identified.
Senator Sullivan. Good.
Let me turn to eco-based fisheries management. In your
testimony, you talked about that being used in concert with
protected species conservation. And I believe you are familiar
with the experience we have had in Alaska with regard to the
stellar sea lion and Alaska fisheries. And it seems to me that
a risk-averse ecosystem policy in certain cases could possibly
make things worse for fishing communities in my state, given
that example.
Do you agree with that or do you disagree and why?
Mr. Rauch. I think it is important to recognize the role of
the fish stock that the fishermen fish for in the ecosystem, as
the Council has done, as the fishing industry has done. I have
talked to many of the fishermen in Alaska, and they are
conservationists at heart, many of them.
Senator Sullivan. Absolutely, they are. That is for sure.
Mr. Rauch. And they are willing to make certain sacrifices
if they believe the science is there, and they have done so.
The Council--our latest iteration on the stellar sea lion was
to approve the Council's proposal, which the fishermen
supported to address that.
But like many things, there is often only so many fish to
go around. And so you do have to weigh the balances between the
fish that we remove versus the fish that you allow to stay.
My experience has been that once the Councils in general
embrace this idea, they are perfectly willing, if they can
understand the science behind it, to set aside what the
ecosystem may need because in that case, we are talking about
stellar sea lions, but in other cases we are talking about
fisheries that may grow bigger and feed another segment of the
fishery. So you are not setting it aside. You are setting it
aside for other fishermen. And so these are kinds of ecosystem
considerations, how removing the stock from one part of the
ecosystem affects another one, that the Councils have been very
willing to address and in general have been willing to work
through these issues. And it is not always that we are setting
it aside for a native species. Many times we are setting it
aside for other fishermen down the line.
Senator Sullivan. Let me ask another question that has
caused a lot of concern or potential concern with regard to the
President's authorities under the Antiquities Act. And as you
probably know, when the President uses the Antiquities Act,
there is no requirement to consult with any stakeholders that
are adversely affected, including States, including Members of
Congress, including even NMFS. And as you also know, that is
completely different than the structure, the MSA, where it is a
robust and transparent public process that develops the
fisheries management plans including, as you just mentioned,
conservation measures.
Do you think the Antiquities Act could benefit from similar
requirements to be modeled in some ways where there is more
input? There are a lot of concerns that certain areas of the
North Pacific region are going to have a unilateral,
unbeknownst to anybody, especially the stakeholders,
antiquities designation by the time the President leaves. And
that really cuts against the entire structure of the MSA which
has been stakeholder-driven, transparency-driven, and
stakeholder-approved.
Mr. Rauch. So the Marine Fisheries Service does not
implement the Antiquities Act.
Senator Sullivan. You do not even get consulted either.
Mr. Rauch. I do not have a view on the Antiquities Act.
But I will say in terms of preserving land and presenting
harm to large sections of the ocean from fisheries impacts, the
Magnuson Act has been a wonderful tool to that.
Senator Sullivan. Exactly.
Mr. Rauch. We heard about the Mid-Atlantic Council, which
was a very open and transparent stakeholder process. The one
limitation there is that--and the Councils sometimes express
frustration--it is limited to fishing impacts. We can close an
area to fishing. We can regulate fishing in areas, and that is
all that the Fisheries Service really can do.
Senator Sullivan. Well, let me ask a favor, as I wrap up
here. And I appreciate you taking the time to answer additional
questions. But as this Antiquities Act issue starts to maybe
rear its head, if you can weigh in with the other Federal
agencies and say, look, we have an act where it is open, it is
transparent, where the conservation of the stakeholders is
undeniably clear when they have the information. And a blind-
side antiquities designation certainly is not going to help or
get a lot of buy-in in my region, but I think in most other
regions. And I think if agencies like yours can remind the
other agencies or the White House about this that things are
working on a conservation objective right now, that that could
be helpful.
Mr. Rauch. So I think we continue to discuss with our
partners in the administration and with the administration as a
whole the value of the Magnuson Act, the value of the
structure, the transparency, and the strengths of the structure
throughout the system.
Senator Sullivan. Well, I appreciate that. If you can
continue to do this in the final year of this administration,
that would be helpful.
Let me ask one final question. In the North Pacific region,
many have expressed support for a NEPA sufficiency process
within the MSA to reduce redundancy and the programmatic
burden. Does the agency have a position on such a provision?
Mr. Rauch. The Council chairs at one point developed a
proposal led in part by the North Pacific Council. The agency
did not take a position itself on that one, although I
personally have pointed out some of the, I think, difficulties
in working through that system.
We did take a position on the NEPA language in the House
bill, which we opposed. We thought it was unnecessary. We think
that the Councils have largely made NEPA work, that many of the
supposed ills that they cite are not actually true. They cite a
lengthy EIS process from the mid-2000s that we have never done
since. We do not anticipate doing again. NEPA has not been an
impediment to the Councils to do their job. In fact, it has
provided important environmental analytical capabilities that
are very similar to the Magnuson Act. Most of the Council
documents now are integrated NEPA fishery management plan
objectives. You cannot tell where NEPA stops and the fishery
management begins. They have integrated them very well. And so
we think it is unnecessary to have sufficiency language, and
that is why we opposed the House bill. But we did not any
particular official position on the Council Chairs' position.
Senator Sullivan. Well, listen, I want to thank you again.
I think you presented us outstanding testimony. And obviously,
a lot of members on both sides of the aisle are very interested
in this issue. We look forward to working with you and the
agencies as we look at the importance of this issue with regard
to the MSA. Again, I want to thank you for your patience and
very thorough answers to everybody's questions.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:58 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of Hon. Marco Rubio, U.S. Senator from Florida
The Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) set ten principles, called National
Standards, for fishery management and conservation. Today, we analyze
National Standard 1, which stipulates our fishing ``measures shall
prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum
yield (OY) from each fishery for the U.S. fishing industry.'' It is in
the national interest to prevent overfishing while producing an optimal
yield. However, the underpinning of this goal can only be accomplished
with sound science. All can agree that timely and accurate data
benefits both the recreational and commercial sectors. Together, they
contribute significantly to the national economy, employing millions of
Americans and providing sustenance to all fifty states and abroad. It
is because of their importance that I led a bipartisan congressional
request to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to examine
current data practices used in determining stock assessments. The
report found that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) ``does
not have a comprehensive strategy to guide the implementation of its
various efforts. . .Moreover, without clearly communicating the
strategy to its stakeholders, NMFS may find it difficult to build
trust, potentially limiting its ability to effectively implement MRIP
improvement initiatives that rely on data collection partners.'' On
December 14, 2015, I wrote to Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker
urging the Department of Commerce use the necessary resources to
implement GAO's recommended changes as soon as possible and to begin to
rebuild the trust with key stakeholders. I remain hopeful the
department will take tangible actions to address these issues.
As I have stated before, it is because of the charter, commercial
and recreational industries' importance that fisheries elicit strong
emotions. Our nation has a solid foundation of fishermen. Livelihoods
and favorite past times are spent on the water and whether it's
supplying seafood to our restaurants or to our families' dinner tables,
decisions affecting our fisheries must be made by taking all sectors
into account. Just last year, this committee reported the Florida
Fisheries Improvement Act, legislation I authored that would strike a
balance and improve fisheries management in the Gulf of Mexico and
South Atlantic regions. The bill would amend the Magnuson-Stevens Act
to give the Regional Management Councils greater flexibility in setting
rebuilding timelines, require the Secretary of Commerce to create a
stock assessment plan to better prioritize stock assessments and report
to Congress on how to improve data collection from stakeholders. It
would also increase the availability of funding for stock assessments,
surveys and data collection efforts. Should the committee move forward
with an MSA reauthorization bill, I urge the inclusion of this vital
bill.
I thank Senator Sullivan for chairing this important hearing.
______
Written Testimony on behalf of the Alaska Longline Fishermen's
Association (ALFA), the Alaska Marine Conservation Council (AMCC), the
Central Bering Sea Fishermen's Association (CBSFA), the City of Saint
Paul Island, AK, (the City), and the Halibut Association of North
America (HANA)
Mr. Chair, Ranking Member, and members of the Subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to submit comments on the Magnuson-Stevens Act
at 40.
These comments are submitted on behalf of the Alaska Longline
Fishermen's Association (ALFA), the Alaska Marine Conservation Council
(AMCC), the Central Bering Sea Fishermen's Association (CBSFA), the
City of Saint Paul Island, AK, (the City), and the Halibut Association
of North America (HANA). Together these associations, organizations,
community development quota (CDQ) groups, and local governments
represent a diverse group of halibut users including commercial,
recreational, and subsistence fishermen, and halibut dependent
communities--from the Bering Sea, to the Gulf of Alaska to Southeast
Alaska--that are concerned with the conservation and management of the
North Pacific halibut resource.
The primary strength of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) is its
commitment to long- term conservation of marine fisheries and
resources. While achieving optimal yield from the fisheries is clearly
important, managers ``must give priority to conservation measures.''
\1\ The signatories to this letter share this priority and oppose any
action that weakens this long-term commitment to resource conservation
and sustainable fisheries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Daley, 209 F.3d 747, 753
(D.C. Cir. 2000)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That said, legal and policy frameworks must evolve to reflect
changed conditions, participation, and uses over time. The Magnuson-
Stevens Act (MSA) is no different. While the MSA through the balancing
of the National Standards has clearly had many successes in its forty
years of existence that have resulted in improved management,
conservation, and participation by stakeholders in the nation's
fisheries, our comments will be focused on areas that require
recalibrating or rebalancing. These comments are based on recent
challenges in the conservation and management of the North Pacific
halibut fishery, which exemplify the shortcomings of current National
Standards, as well as the need for additional guidance--either through
Agency input or Congressional reauthorization--on how regional councils
are to apply the ten National Standards.
I. The North Pacific Halibut Fishery
Halibut is considered one of the world's premium whitefish. It is
popular with consumers and seafood restaurants throughout the United
States and around the world. Along with red king crab and salmon, it is
emblematic of Alaska's wild fisheries and a key
commercial, recreational, and subsistence fishery in communities
from Alaska through British Columbia, to California. Since 1923, the
U.S.-Canada International Halibut Commission (IPHC) has managed the
North Pacific's halibut stocks, a testament to its historic and
commercial importance to communities throughout its international
range.
There are currently 2,714 halibut Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ)
holders in the United States--and 1,965 of the IFQ holders are
Alaskans, who employ other Alaskans. In addition, there are a total of
1,157 vessels in the halibut IFQ and CDQ fleets. The CDQ fleet is based
out of 39 Western Alaska villages. The directed halibut fishing vessels
made IFQ landings in 32 different community ports in 2014. There are 77
distinct registered buyers that purchase halibut in these ports.
In addition, halibut is a key subsistence fishery. Residents of 118
rural Alaskan communities and areas, and members of 123 tribes, are
eligible to participate in the federal subsistence fishery. In 2011,
4,705 individuals subsistence fished for halibut. Those individuals
harvested an estimated 38,000 halibut, comprising 700,000 pounds--a
vital source of food and a critical cultural component for dependent
villages and individuals, which must be protected. This is particularly
important in areas where salmon has been all but removed from the
traditional subsistence diet in an effort to conserve Chinook.
II. A Distorted Use of the Halibut Resource
Over the last 15 years, the IPHC has steadily reduced directed
halibut catch limits as a necessary conservation measure in response to
a declining available halibut resource. This has resulted in the
directed halibut fishermen undergoing extreme cuts in their quotas.
Meanwhile, until last year, the bycatch users in the Bering Sea
groundfish fisheries have been permitted by regulation to catch and
discard halibut up to the limit set more than 20 years ago, when the
halibut resource was double what it is now. In effect, a dramatic
reallocation of halibut from the directed halibut fisheries to bycatch
users has taken place in recent years.
The impact of BSAI halibut bycatch is felt throughout the range of
this great fish, but in particular by the directed halibut fishermen in
the commercial, recreational, and subsistence sectors. These fishermen
are primarily based in coastal, and economically less-diversified,
Alaskan communities. IPHC studies reveal that halibut undertake
lifelong migrations from nursery areas in the Eastern Bering Sea to the
Gulf of Alaska and beyond. Of the under 26-inch--or juvenile--halibut
tagged in the Bering Sea, 10-30% of the recovered tagged fish were
recovered in the Bering Sea, while 70-90% were recovered in the Gulf of
Alaska.
The current Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands (BSAI) halibut bycatch
limit of 3,515 Metric Tons (round weight, or weight of the entire fish)
legally allows up to 5.81 million pounds of halibut (net weight,
without heads and entrails) to be caught and discarded overboard as
bycatch mortality in groundfish fisheries. Meanwhile, this year,
directed commercial halibut fishermen in the BSAI are limited to 4.19
million pounds (net weight). In 2015, BSAI trawl fisheries caught and
discarded nearly 7 times more halibut than the directed fishery landed
in the BSAI. BSAI trawl bycatch mortality was 3.99 million pounds--at
an estimated average net weight of 3.675 pounds/fish, a total of
1,088,000 halibut.\2\ The directed fishery landed 3.57 million pounds--
at an average weight of 21.7 pounds/fish, a total of 164,000
halibut.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Int'l Pac. Halibut Comm'n, 2015 Report of Assessment and
Research Activities, 251, 323
\3\ Int'l Pac. Halibut Comm'n, 2015 Report of Assessment and
Research Activities, 34, 96
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note the differences in average weight between bycaught
halibut and those landed by the directed fishery. The longline fleet is
constrained from catching halibut less than 32-inches long. Trawl
fisheries have no such constraint. Of all halibut bycatch in Area 4CDE,
76% is less than 32-inches. These are two to seven-year-old halibut
that have not yet spawned. These small fish are the future of the
halibut stock, and must be protected.
III. Halibut Bycatch Reduction and the National Standards
In June of 2015, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council
(NPFMC), which manages the groundfish fisheries and the associated
Prohibited Species Catch (PSC) or bycatch, took action to reduce
overall halibut PSC limits by 21%. This reduced actual bycatch by only
1%. Nevertheless, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) recently
approved the action and will be issuing a final rule in the spring of
2016.
Collectively, the NPFMC action and the corresponding NMFS approval
of that action, demonstrate some of the current limitations of the
National Standards, as interpreted and applied by the NPFMC and NMFS. A
more detailed discussion follows.
a. The NPFMC and NMFS placed too much emphasis on the economics of the
groundfish fishery when applying the National Standards
i. National Standard 1
National Standard 1 requires that the NPFMC and NMFS establish
harvest limits that prevent overfishing while ensuring, on a continuing
basis, the optimum yield from each fishery.\4\ The analysis and
deliberations from the June meeting continuously mentioned the need to
balance bycatch reduction with the mandate to achieving optimum yield
on ``a continuing basis.'' Both the MSA and the National Standard 1
Guidelines make clear that optimum yield is a blend of factors. The MSA
defines ``optimum,'' with respect to the yield from a fishery, as the
amount of fish that ``will provide the greatest overall benefit to the
Nation, particularly with respect to food production and recreational
opportunities, and taking into account the protection of marine
ecosystems''; and ``is prescribed as such on the basis of the maximum
sustainable yield from the fishery, as reduced by any relevant
economic, social, or ecological factor.'' \5\ The National Standard 1
Guidelines also provide a non-exhaustive list of potential
considerations, which include social, economic, and ecological
factors.\6\ Yet, both the NPFMC and NMFS largely limited their optimum
yield analyses to the financial needs of the groundfish fleet.\7\ In
doing so, they failed to consider optimum yield within the full context
of MSA requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1851(a)(1).
\5\ 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1802(33).
\6\ 50 C.F.R. Sec. 600.310(c)(3)(iv).
\7\ See, e.g., N. Pac. Fishery Mgmt. Council, Fishery Management
Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management
Area 56 (2015) (explaining that the Council rejected ``reductions in
excess of [the Preferred Alternative] level [as] no longer be
practicable as they would seriously affect jobs and revenue'')
[hereinafter EA/IRFA].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economic considerations in the groundfish fishery cannot override
other priorities in the MSA. While achieving optimum yield is an
important objective, nowhere does the MSA suggest that optimum yield
should be prioritized over bycatch minimization measures that are
otherwise feasible. Rather, the MSA is conservation focused, and
conservation standards should be prioritized when applying the National
Standards.\8\ NMFS ``must give priority to conservation measures. It is
only when two different plans achieve similar conservation measures
that the Service takes into consideration adverse economic
consequences.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. NMFS, 421 F.3d 872, 879
(9th Cir. 2005) (``The purpose of the Act is clearly to give
conservation of fisheries priority over short-term economic
interests.''); Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Daley, 209 F.3d 747,
753 (D.C. Cir. 2000).
\9\ Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Daley, 209 F.3d 747, 753
(D.C. Cir. 2000)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, neither the NPFMC nor NMFS acknowledged that optimum
yield is fluid concept--the average of ``a long-term series of
catches.'' \10\ By assuming that optimum yield is a fixed amount, the
NPFMC and NMFS at least implicitly give National Standard 1 priority
over the other National Standards.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See 50 C.F.R. Sec. 600.310(f)(3)(i)(B) (``In [National
Standard 1], use of the phrase ``achieving, on a continuing basis, the
optimum yield from each fishery'' means producing, from each stock,
stock complex, or fishery: a long-term series of catches such that the
average catch is equal to the OY. . . .'').
\11\ It is also worth noting that BSAI groundfish optimum yield is
statutorily capped at 2 million metric tons each year, which is
generally well below the sum of acceptable biological catches for the
groundfish species (i.e., where the NPFMC could set the optimum yield).
For example, in 2015, the sum of acceptable biological catches was
equal to 2.85 million metric tons, while the NPFMC set total allowable
catch quotas well below the ABC levels due to optimum yield
constraints.\11\ Thus, the NPFMC never considered the fact that Optimum
yield can still be achieved because of the 2 million metric ton cap on
optimum yield in the BSAI. OY of the groundfish harvest is never
achieved because of this cap. The NPFMC and NMFS could increase other
target species to account for reduced groundfish harvest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. National Standard 4
National Standard 4 mandates that allocative measures must not
discriminate between residents of different states and must reflect
consideration of other factors, including present participant and
coastal community dependence and recreational fishing
opportunities.\12\ The NPFMC and NMFS' analysis of the bycatch
reduction action fails to account for the de facto reallocation that
had been occurring for the past 10 years under the existing regulations
thus skewing its analysis of economic effects of bycatch reduction. In
2014, for example, halibut PSC accounted for 77% of all BSAI halibut
removals.\13\ This allocation disproportionately benefited Washington
residents at the expense of Alaskan residents: Washington State
residents own 89% of the trawl catcher processors and 75% of the
catcher vessels in the BSAI groundfish fishery.\14\ Washington State
also received the vast sum of revenues from the trawl sectors--the
largest recipient of PSC allocation.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1851(a)(4); 50 C.F.R. Sec. 600.325(c)(3)(iv).
See also 16 U.S.C. Sec. 303(a)(15)(when conservation measures are
necessary, NMFS must consider the economic impact of harvest
restrictions and recovery benefits for each sector, and allocate the
costs or benefits ``fairly and equitably among the commercial,
recreational and charter fishing sectors.'').
\13\ Int'l Pac. Halibut Comm'n, 2015 Annual Meeting Handout
(Bluebook) Appx IV 240 (2015).
\14\ N. Pac. Fishery Mgmt. Council, Appendix C Proposed Bering Sea/
Aleutian Islands Halibut Prohibited Species Catch Limit Revisions:
Community Analysis 14-15 (2015).
\15\ See id. at 11, 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. National Standard 8
National Standard 8 requires the NPFMC and NMFS to establish
harvest limits that account for the importance of fishery resources to
local fishing communities by providing for the sustained participation
of local fishing communities, and that fishery management decisions be
tailored to minimize the economic impacts on communities that depend on
fishery resources.\16\ NMFS and the NPFMC improperly applied this
standard. Under the National Standard 8 Guidelines, NMFS and the NPFMC
should have prioritized the sustained participation of Area 4CDE and
other halibut dependent communities.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1851(a)(8).
\17\ 50 C.F.R. Sec. 60.345(c)(4)(``any particular management
measure may economically benefit some communities while adversely
affecting others''); 50 C.F.R. Sec. 600.345(b)(4)(``sustained
participation means continued access to the resource within the
constraints of the conditions of the resource'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead, they overestimated the economic dependency of Seattle, by
treating the large metropolitan area as a fishery dependent community
(despite the fact that the analysis acknowledged that Seattle's
community dependence on fisheries is not even a ``salient issue''
\18\). This is contrary to the National Standard 8 Guidelines, which
define a ``fishing community'' as one ``that is substantially dependent
on or substantially engaged in the harvest or process of fishery
resources to meet social and economic needs.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ EA/IFRA at 55, 57.
\19\ 50 C.F.R. Sec. 600.345(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By contrast, the NPFMC and NMFS undervalued the dependence of
halibut-dependent communities in the Bering Sea by failing to consider
``direct or indirect community impacts that may have already occurred
due to changes in the status of halibut,'' and underestimating ``the
number of communities [that are] dependent on halibut and those levels
of dependency.'' \20\ The Science and Statistical Committee (SSC) noted
that the analysis treated the PSC and halibut user groups unevenly,
using metrics that failed to fully capture the level of engagement
among Alaskan communities.\21\ With respect to subsistence use, the SSC
stated that the treatment of subsistence use of halibut in the analysis
``remains insufficient and likely underestimated'' the potential
impacts'' \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Report of the Scientific and Statistical Committee, June 1-3,
2015, at 9.
\21\ Id. at 9-10.
\22\ Id. at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMFS and the NPFMC also treated the National Standard 8 requirement
that it ``provide for the sustained participation of [fishing]
communities'' \23\ as if it were qualified by ``to the extent
practicable'' and therefore subordinate to National Standard 1. The
maker of the NPFMC's amended motion, for example, explicitly
acknowledged that the bycatch reductions he was proposing would not get
the fishing communities of the Bering Sea where they needed to be for
sustained participation in the fishery. This is contrary to the plain
language of the statute and begs for further clarification by the
agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1851(a)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iv. National Standard 9
National Standard 9 provides that NMFS and the NPFMC ``shall, to
the extent practicable, minimize bycatch.'' \24\ The recent halibut
bycatch action highlights the difficulties that regional councils and
NMFS have in applying National Standard 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1851(a)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The term ``practicable'' is inherently ambiguous, and, in light of
that ambiguity, it has become an industry driven standard that places
more weight on the economic costs of bycatch reduction than any other
factors. For example, the scenarios modeled in the NPFMC's analysis
predicted that bycatch could not be reduced without closing groundfish
fisheries--an assumption the NPFMC's SSC identified as an ``unrealistic
characterization'' because the model does not reflect likely behavior
changes in the groundfish fishery. NMFS similarly states more stringent
PSC reductions are not practicable because of the foregone harvests and
revenues in the groundfish fishery.\25\ This interpretation that the
groundfish fleet's revenue set the boundary of practicability does not
comport with the MSA. As an Alaskan representative on the NPFMC said in
voting against the minimal bycatch reductions, ``[National Standard 9]
doesn't mandate bycatch reduction at all cost, but it also doesn't
mandate bycatch reduction at no cost.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering
Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area; American Fisheries Act;
Amendment 111, 80 Fed. Reg. 71,650, 71,668 (proposed Nov. 16, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. The NPFMC and NMFS did not take a comprehensive approach to
balancing the National Standards
Both the NPFMC and NMFS noted ``[a]n inherent tradeoff in this type
of action is between National Standard 1 and National Standard 9, where
the [NPFMC] and NMFS use management tools such as halibut PSC mortality
limits to minimize bycatch in the groundfish fisheries to the extent
practicable, while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield
from the groundfish fisheries.'' \26\ The analysis also found tension
``between National Standard 8, which requires provision for the
sustained participation of and minimized adverse economic impacts on
fishing communities, and National Standard 4, which states that
management measures shall not discriminate between residents of
different states, and requires allocations of fishing privileges to be
fair and equitable to all fishery participants.'' \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ ER/IRFA at 376.
\27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While it is true that any fishery management action requires the
NPFMC and NMFS to find balance between the National Standards, the
approach taken by the agency here improperly restricts that balancing
test (e.g., the need to only find balance between National Standards 1
and 9). What should also be required, and clarified by Congress when
the MSA is reauthorized, is for NMFS and the NPFMC to explicitly take a
holistic view at how the National Standards interrelate. In this case,
the National Standards 4, 8, and 9 all weigh heavily in favor of more
stringent reductions to halibut PSC limits in the BSAI groundfish
fishery; however, because of the way NMFS and the NPFMC structured
their balancing test, this did not come out in the analysis or
rationale.
V. Recommendations
It is clear from this experience, that a recalibration,
clarification, or rebalancing of how the National Standards are
weighted is required in order to conserve the resource and restore
balance among the various stakeholders and user groups. Specifically,
we recommend that:
NMFS produce guidance on how the regional councils and
agency are to balance the relationship between National
Standard 1 and the other National Standards.
National Standard 1 Guidelines already do this, but
the guidance is focused on the how the requirement to
prevent overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks relates
to the other standards. As demonstrated above, NMFS and the
NPFMC place continuous achievement of optimum yield as the
priority. Additional guidance is needed to determine how
that priority fits with the other standards.
NMFS and the regional councils be more explicit in how they
factor social, economic, and ecological factors into its
National Standard 1 calculation.
National Standard 8 be given more weight when sustained
participation of fishery dependent communities is threatened
due to bycatch in other fisheries.
NMFS provide additional guidance as to how practicality is
determined with respect to bycatch reduction. Consistent with
the MSA, this guidance should include more than economic
factors. Reducing bycatch to the maximum extent practicable
should involve consideration of a suite of alternative options
such as prioritizing catch for gear types with low bycatch or
modifying the behavior of the fisheries with high bycatch.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Thune to
Hon. Samuel D. Rauch III
Cooperative Management
Question 1. Cooperative management tries to achieve more effective
and equitable systems of resource management. With respect to fishery
cooperative management, representatives of user groups, the scientific
community, and government agencies may share knowledge, power, and
responsibility of the fishery. What legislative and/or administrative
barriers exist to implementation of cooperative management strategies
under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(MSFCMA)?
Answer. For several years, NOAA Fisheries has carried out
cooperative management and cooperative research under several statutes
including MSA. NOAA Fisheries recently completed a White Paper on this
issue that can be found here:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/op/docs/
cooperative_research_and_mgmt.pdf
NOAA Fisheries determined that successful cooperative management
and cooperative research activities have several key attributes. These
include:
A clear legal framework.
An organized stakeholder group, with leadership.
Clear roles for partners, stakeholders, and NOAA Fisheries
personnel.
Clear goals.
Buy-in of partners and stakeholders.
Trust between stakeholders and NOAA Fisheries personnel.
Transparent and clearly understood decision-making process.
Strong and regular communication.
Matching the scale of the cooperative management system with
the distribution and mobility of the managed species.
Use of results to make fishery management decisions.
Funding.
NOAA Fisheries is currently implementing the recommendations in
this White Paper.
Electronic Monitoring
Question 2. The National Observer Program (established in 1999) is
composed of 11 regional observer programs that use a combination of
trained biologists and at-sea monitors to collect catch data, document
fishing gear, conduct safety inspections, and monitor fishing efforts.
The data collected through the program aids fishery managers in
conducting stock assessments, reducing bycatch, and obtaining necessary
information for many other decisions. Since the establishment of the
program, the cost to collect fishery-dependent data has risen
dramatically and the number of fisheries to observe has increased.
Disproportionate growth between cost and the number of fisheries
observed has led some stakeholders to call for alternatives to the
traditional observer program such as electronic monitoring (EM). In the
United States, there are five active EM programs--four in the Alaska
groundfish fisheries that are funded by the fishing industry, and one
for the Atlantic Highly Migratory Species that is funded by NOAA
Fisheries. What legislative and/or administrative barriers exist to a
more complete or full implementation of EM under the MSFCMA?
Answer. NOAA Fisheries doesn't believe significant legislative or
administrative barriers exist that are preventing electronic monitoring
(EM) implementation. Expansion to other regions of the fee authorities
in Section 313 of the MSA could simplify implementation of EM programs
however, it is not absolutely necessary. Developing thoughtful
solutions to the cross-cutting issues and numerous fishery-specific
challenges requires planning, which is why NOAA Fisheries and the
Regional Fishery Management Councils are taking a systematic and
regional approach toward adopting these new technologies. We have
implemented EM in five fisheries, and planned for implementation in six
more, which would bring total EM programs to as many as 11 fisheries by
2018. Some of the outstanding issues affecting the pace of EM
implementation include: (1) efficiently transferring and storing the
large quantities of EM data involved, (2) determining costs associated
with different EM program designs, (3) determining who is responsible
for paying the costs of EM programs, (4) gaining acceptance of EM by
the fishing industry, and (5) developing new technologies such as
automatic image recognition systems to allow automated fish counts and
weight estimation for catch and bycatch accounting.
Overlap with the National Environmental Policy Act
Question 3. H.R. 1335 would add provisions to change the
relationship between MSFCMA and other environmental laws such as the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The bill would require
councils to develop fishery management plans and amendments, which
would satisfy and replace NEPA requirements. In what ways can NOAA help
reduce the duplicative NEPA and Fishery Management Plan requirements?
Answer. As outlined in the May 19, 2015 Statement of Administration
Policy, the agency strongly opposes provisions in H.R. 1335 that would
change how the MSA interacts with other important statutes. NOAA has
worked closely with the councils to integrate the processes and
analyses required by other statutes such as the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) into an overall framework that is both timely and
effective. Section 7 of the bill would incorporate some aspects of this
statute into the MSA and could potentially alter the manner in which
they apply to fishery management actions. Specifically, the bill would
establish a new set of standards for environmental analysis that are
similar to the requirements under NEPA. We believe this provision is
unnecessary because it is unclear what substantive problem specifically
related to NEPA the language seeks to solve.
On February 23, 2016, the agency issued final NEPA Procedures for
MSA Actions (MSA NEPA Procedures) which clarify roles and
responsibilities of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and
the Regional Fishery Management Councils (Councils), explain timing and
procedural linkages, provide guidance on documentation needs, and
foster partnerships and cooperation between NMFS and Councils on NEPA
compliance. The MSA NEPA Procedures represent a very successful
collaboration between NMFS, the Council on Environmental Quality, and
the Councils that resulted in a consensus document that has broad
support from many of our constituents. The agency believes these MSA
NEPA Procedures represent the appropriate mechanism for integrating
NEPA requirements into the MSA fishery management process. You can find
more information about these Procedures at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
sfa/laws_policies/msa/nepa.html.
Lionfish
Question 4. Two lionfish species (Pterois volitans and Pterois
miles) represent the first non-native marine finfish to become
established in Atlantic waters of the United States, including the Gulf
of Mexico and Caribbean. During the course of their nearly three-decade
invasion, lionfish have demonstrated how challenging a marine invasive
can be to control once it becomes established. Lionfish are proficient
opportunistic predators, consuming a wide variety of prey which has led
to drastic declines in the abundance and richness of native reef fish
species. Should lionfish be regulated by MSFCMA, and if so, how?
Answer. NOAA Fisheries does not believe it is appropriate to
regulate invasive lionfish through the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA). One
of the central purposes of the MSA is to ``achieve and maintain, on a
continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery.'' If lionfish
were to be regulated under the MSA, NOAA Fisheries would be required to
maintain a fishable population of lionfish rather than act to eradicate
the species.
Fisheries Buyback Program
Question 5. My staff has inquired as to what statutory authorities
NOAA requires to make and refinance buyback loans in their Fishing
Capacity Reduction Programs. Their initial inquiry was in January of
2015. My staff has followed up several times. Please provide the reason
that you have not been responsive to my staff's questions as well as
when I can expect you to provide a response to them.
Answer. (Note: NOAA will also follow-up the response below with a
buyback loan brief which provides additional details.)
The Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation Act and the fishing
capacity reduction framework regulations authorize NOAA to implement an
industry funded capacity reduction program. The Merchant Marine Act, 46
U.S.C. Chapter 537, allows the Secretary to make a loan for a capacity
reduction program.
Neither the Magnuson-Stevens Act nor the Merchant Marine Act
authorizes the refinancing of existing buyback loans. This would
require explicit Congressional authorization and appropriations
language that includes loan limits, subsidy costs, and the cost to
refinance.
Section 312 (b)-(e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation
Act (P.L. 94-265, as amended by P.L. 109-479) (Magnuson-Stevens Act)
and the fishing capacity reduction framework regulations, originally
published in 2000 and revised in 2010 (50 CFR Part 600, Subpart L),
provide authority to implement a buyback program.
Civil Penalties for Gulf Red Snapper
Question 6. Senator Thune along with Senators Wicker, Sessions,
Cassidy, and Cornyn submitted a letter to Dr. Sullivan dated January
19, 2016 inquiring about NOAA's position to not issue civil penalties
for Mexican fisherman caught illegally fishing for red snapper in U.S.
waters. This letter builds on prior staff inquires that first began
over 7 months ago. The Committee has still not been informed of the
justification for the decision to not pursue civil penalties, and
whether NOAA will reverse this position. Please follow up with the
information requested in our letter, or a timeline for when we can
expect to be informed of NOAA's position.
Answer. The letter is in the final stage of clearance and will be
sent shortly.
Violation of Federal regulations in New England
Question 7. Last month, Carlos Rafael, the owner of one of the
largest commercial fishing businesses in the northeastern U.S. was
arrested on charges of conspiracy and submitting falsified records to
the Federal Government to evade Federal fishing quotas. Northeast
fisheries managers believe that the case has singlehandedly impacted
the resource, and the lack of monitoring and enforcement it highlights
are a threat to the future of fishing in the Northeast. Currently NOAA
is monitoring very few New England fishing boats. The switch to more
cost-effective electronic monitoring would increase confidence among
fishermen that everyone is playing by the same rules. What impacts on
Northeast fishery stock assessments does NOAA see as a result of the
Rafael case, and does this case highlight the need for increased
electronic monitoring outside of pilot programs in New England? Also,
please provide the total amount of Federal fishing disaster funds that
Carlos Rafael has received.
Answer. The case involving Carlos Rafael is an ongoing
investigation, therefore we cannot comment on or speculate as to
whether and how the allegations in the Rafael case may have impacted
Northeast Multispecies stock assessments.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roger F. Wicker to
Hon. Samuel D. Rauch III
Question 1. There seems to be a remarkable disconnect between the
Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observing System ICOOS Program and the
National Marine Fisheries Service. How effective has MSA been with
respect to availability of monitoring and observing technologies
authorized under programs such as ICOOS?
Answer. The Integrated Coastal Ocean Observation System Act (ICOOS
Act), signed by President Obama in March of 2009, established the
statutory authority for development of the U.S. Integrated Ocean
Observing System (IOOS). By integrating and coordinating a variety of
oceanic data sources, IOOS provides public access to data streams that
can contribute to the science needed for better understanding and
managing the Nation's living marine resources. NOAA Fisheries utilizes
these data in a variety of ways, namely in research and development to
better our understanding of the oceanic processes that affect fish
stock productivity. Thus, IOOS data complements NMFS' primary data
collection efforts (fishery-independent surveys for estimating stock
abundance and fishery-dependent programs to estimate catch and
discards). Further, NOAA continues to promote partnerships for
integrating long-term surveys and ocean observation systems. NOAA is
routinely evaluating how best to deploy its limited days-at-sea aboard
oceanographic vessels to support NOAA's survey and ocean observation
requirements.
Question 2. Do you think that the observation monitoring programs
and data established under ICOOS should be explicitly referenced in MSA
for the purposes of fisheries management and stock assessments?
Answer. We feel that ICOOS or IOOS do not need an explicit
reference in the MSA. The current statute allows the incorporation of
ecosystem and environmental data into the fisheries management process,
and there are numerous data sources, some of which are hosted by IOOS,
that fit within this context. However, increasing total information
will only improve the fisheries management process, so NOAA Fisheries
supports any efforts to increase monitoring and observing of oceanic
systems.
Question 3. Are there deep water species and habitats currently not
included in previous MSA language regarding deep sea coral research
that are potentially important to the management of living resources?
Answer. No, the MSA's broad definition of ``fish'' includes deep-
sea sponges and sponge habitats: ``The term `fish' means finfish,
mollusks, crustaceans, and all other forms of marine animal and plant
life other than marine mammals and birds.'' In addition, the MSA
section on the Deep Sea Coral Research and Technology Program provides
authority ``to conduct research . . . on deep sea corals and related
species,'' which also covers sponges and their deep-sea habitats.
Because these deep-sea benthic habitats potentially attract fish
and their prey, they are of concern to the management of living
resources. The lack of explicit mention of sponges and other deep-sea
species in MSA does not prohibit NOAA and the Fishery Management
Councils from managing some fishing impacts to these habitats such as
bycatch, in particular, as laid out in the 2010 NOAA Strategic Plan for
Deep-Sea Coral and Sponge Ecosystems. Regional Fishery Management
Councils have made significant progress on deep-sea coral conservation
since the 2007 reauthorization.
Question 4. What technologies or technology development programs
are required to improve understanding of non-coral deep water
environments, species, or habitats for fisheries management?
Answer. NOAA Fisheries believes that increased development and use
of advanced technologies is key to improving our understanding and
management of deep water species and the environments they inhabit.
New, more capable and cost-effective technologies are needed to address
the mismatch between the very small areas of deep seafloor that can
currently be surveyed in detail and the relatively large deep-sea areas
we manage. These environments are difficult to access, expensive to
study, and conventional survey gear such as trawls cannot provide the
necessary comprehensive ecological information. In addition, these
gears can destroy sensitive organisms that form many deep-water
habitats, such as large benthic invertebrates, including sponges,
bivalves, and tube worms. Thus, we depend on remote sensing and
sampling technologies to work in these areas. These technologies
include:
Acoustics, such as advanced sonars for counting fish and
mapping seafloor habitat;
Optics, such as high-resolution video and still cameras that
can operate in low light or total darkness;
Sample collections and analyses, including genetic
techniques that can aid in identifying species and populations;
and
Platforms for deploying these instruments, such as
autonomous underwater vehicles, remotely operated vehicles,
towed bodies, and manned submersibles.
In many cases we need to use a combination of technologies. For
example, we can map seafloor using sonar, and then use that information
to target follow-up camera surveys in areas with characteristics that
make them potentially suitable for the habitats of interest. In
addition, these instruments produce extremely large volumes of data,
creating needs for improved data processing capabilities, such as
automated species recognition and measurement from optical data, and
improved data management to enable our scientists and the public at
large to efficiently access the latest advanced data products.
NOAA Fisheries is working with partners across NOAA, other Federal
agencies, and research institutions through our Deep Sea Coral Research
& Technology Program to identify, coordinate and apply technologies for
use in deepwater environments. This program conducts multi-year surveys
to map and characterize deep-sea habitats and their associated
fisheries resources in order to provide fisheries managers with
information needed to conserve vulnerable biogenic habitats formed by
sponges, bivalves, tube worms in addition to corals. These surveys
regularly combine advanced acoustic, optical and sampling technologies
deployed off a variety of vessels, as well as analyses of deepwater
organisms caught as bycatch on commercial fishing trips or in NOAA
Fisheries' scientific trawl surveys. This program does not, however,
include resources for technology development but is well situated to
apply these types of advanced technologies developed by others.
NOAA Fisheries is also actively working to advance our survey
capabilities through our Advanced Sampling Technology (AST) program.
Many deep-sea technologies have been developed for purposes other than
fisheries, so our AST program is often working on research and
development to adapt technologies to meet our needs. For example, many
platforms that can operate in these environments work well for mapping
seafloor habitat. However, some platforms, such as towed bodies, lack
sufficient ability to avoid the obstacles that may be encountered on
rough bottoms, and many platforms are far too intrusive to accurately
survey fish, which may be frightened away by, or sometimes are actually
attracted to, these devices. Thus, we are working on platforms that are
stealthy and can avoid obstacles, and we are developing analytical
methods that can account for fish behavior.
NOAA Fisheries is working as effectively as possible to address our
technology research and development needs.
Question 5. Has NOAA or any other government agency developed or
applied technologies that can be used in the enforcement of fishing
violations on the high seas?
Answer. NOAA currently uses several systems that collect and
analyze identifying information broadcasted by fishing vessels on the
high seas that help determine the vessels location and possible
activity. These systems collect technological information from both
cooperative and non-cooperative equipment. Cooperative sensing
equipment (VMS/ERS) are technologies that vessels are aware that they
are broadcasting and have agreed to share their vessel information with
regulating authorities. Technologies using non-cooperative sensing
equipment (AIS/Radar) identify vessels without their direct knowledge.
Some raw data sources include information collected from:
Vessel Monitoring System (VMS)
Automatic Identification System (AIS)
Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR)
Coastal Radar
Maritime Safety and Security Information System (MSSIS)
Acoustic
Classified Sources
It is important to note that detecting fishing activity is only one
step in the enforcement process. In many areas, fishing in and of
itself is not illegal, but the use of certain types of gear or fishing
practices, or the retention of certain species may be prohibited.
Technologies that simply confirm the location of a boat are unable to
provide much value in these circumstances. In addition, there are
limitations with many of these data sources that prohibit them from
being able to be used in a criminal/civil trial.
Question 6. What technologies should be developed to assist
agencies with reducing fishing violations on the high seas?
Answer. NOAA OLE has been using SeaVision, a Department of Defense
(DOD) front-end system that consolidates multiple data sources into one
display; however DoD recently let its contract with its largest
provider of AIS datasets lapse, which significantly reduces its
coverage of fishing vessels on the high seas. This gap in data presents
us with the need for an unclassified front-end system that is able to
ingest various data sources (AIS/VMS/SAR/Coastal Radar/MSSIS etc.) and
run analyses on the data.
Also, most fishing vessels are not required to transmit any signals
while fishing on the high seas, which presents one of our largest
hurdles. The current IMO regulation exempts fishing vessels from having
to carry AIS, although individual nations may be able to enforce
stricter regulations on vessel that sail under their flag.
Recommendation 3 of the Presidential Task Force on Combating IUU
Fishing and Seafood Fraud directs the Secretaries of Defense and
Homeland Security to include IUU fishing threat analysis and monitoring
as a component of U.S. and international efforts to increase overall
maritime domain awareness.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Kelly Ayotte to
Hon. Samuel D. Rauch III
Question 1. As you know, Congress is currently considering
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA). In your written
testimony, you spoke extensively about the successes of the MSA--
however, we know the law is not performing as intended in many regions.
As I understand it, New England groundfish fishermen have not exceeded
their NOAA Fisheries-approved catch quotas in over a decade. Catch
shares are destroying small boat fishing communities and my home state
of New Hampshire may be entirely removed from the fishery if
substantial changes to the MSA are not soon implemented. How will NOAA
offer leadership in authoring changes in MSA to put more flexibility in
the fishery management tool box so that regions, like New England, with
multispecies fisheries can achieve Optimum Yield across the suite of
species, not on a single species basis?
Answer. The Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) has been the driver of our
success in sustainably managing our Nation's valuable commercial,
recreational, and subsistence fisheries for the past forty years. The
science-based, regional system outlined in the requirements of MSA is
recognized as a global model for responsible fisheries management; the
flexibility and adaptability built into the MSA requirements are key
components to our success.
Last year, NOAA Fisheries issued a proposed rule to revise the
National Standard 1 guidelines to address concerns about the
implementation of annual catch limits and enhance flexibility to
address fishery management challenges. The proposed rule includes
revisions to expand flexibility in rebuilding plans and provide for
more stable fisheries with guidance on how to phase in results of new
stock assessments and carry over any unused portion of annual catch
limits to subsequent years. In addition, the proposed rule offers
guidance on using aggregate maximum sustainable yield estimates to
account for multi-species interactions and other relevant factors. With
these aggregate estimates, managers can specify fishery level optimum
yield and facilitate ecosystem-based fisheries management. When final,
we expect the revisions to the National Standard guidelines will
provide additional flexibility in the fishery management toolbox.
Question 2. As you know, there are ten National Standards included
in the MSA. By law, according to National Standard 8, NOAA is directed
to sustain both fishing stocks and fishing communities. I remain deeply
concerned about the future of New Hampshire's historic fishing
industry, which is critically important to our local seacoast
communities and our economy. When I talk with fishermen in New
Hampshire, it seems that NOAA is prioritizing National Standard 1 and
disregarding the other nine standards. What specific language will NOAA
offer to make National Standard 1 and National Standard 8 of equal
importance in the reauthorization of MSA for regional fishery
management councils?
Answer. The Magnuson-Stevens Act's (MSA) ten National Standards
embody different policy goals with which fishery management plans and
implementing regulations must be consistent. 16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(1)-(10).
NMFS and the Councils give serious consideration to all of the National
Standards. However, the plain language of National Standard 8 clearly
gives priority to conservation concerns, as numerous court cases have
confirmed. For example, in Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v.
Daley, 209 F.3d 747, 753 (D.C.Cir. 2000), the court examined National
Standards 1 and 8 and stated that ``[i]t is only when two different
plans achieve similar conservation measures that the Service takes into
consideration adverse economic consequences.'' National Standard 8
explicitly refers to conservation and management measures being
``consistent with the conservation requirements of this Act (including
the prevention of overfishing and rebuilding of overfished stocks).''
16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(8). National Standard 8 also has the caveat that
measures shall minimize adverse economic impacts on communities ``to
the extent practicable.'' Id.
Under this construct, the Magnuson-Stevens Act has been a success.
The occurrence of overfishing and status of overfished stocks in the
U.S. are at historic lows--with only 17 percent of stocks determined as
overfished and no new stocks added in 2014. This investment in
environmental stewardship is paying off. We understand that some
fishing communities are struggling economically as we work to rebuild
stocks to sustainable levels. However the 2013 Fisheries Economics of
the U.S. report states that overall, commercial and recreational
fisheries contributed $195 billion per year to the U.S. economy and
supported 1.7 million jobs. In 2013, U.S. fishermen landed 9.8 billion
pounds of fish and shellfish--an increase of 245 million pounds from
2012--worth $5.5 billion, an increase of $388 million over 2012. These
numbers illustrate MSA's success in balancing conservation and
economics. Given this overall success, NOAA Fisheries believes the
current construct of the National Standards, which give priority to
conservation concerns, is appropriate.
At this time, NOAA does not plan to put forward a legislative
proposal to make National Standard 1 and National Standard 8 of equal
importance.
Question 3. I continue to hear from fishermen in New Hampshire
regarding the serious disconnect between what they are seeing on the
water and what NOAA science is reporting related to fishing stocks.
Recreational and commercial fishermen alike tell me the only folks who
aren't seeing fish off the coast of New England are Federal regulators.
In light of the continued and enormous difference in opinion in the
status of stocks, especially Gulf of Maine cod, should congress remove
the money for government trawl surveys from the budget and use that
money to fund industry-based surveys, as I understand is the case in
other fisheries? If not, why not?
Answer. NOAA determines stock status using scientific analyses
(stock assessments) that incorporate numerous sources of data,
including fishery catches as well as data collected by government
surveys (where available). Thus, a variety of factors influence stock
status determinations, and on-the-water observations alone are not
sufficient for assessing the health of a fish stock. In fact, there are
several reasons why perceptions by fishermen may differ from the
results of a stock assessment. For example, fish stocks may consolidate
their aggregations. In other words, some fish may be readily available
in specific fishing grounds but absent from other parts of their range
where they were previously abundant, meaning they remain accessible to
fishermen where they are fishing but their overall abundance is
reduced. Also, some fishing vessels may have higher catch rates than
NOAA trawl survey vessels, which may be perceived as the survey
``missing fish''. These lower survey catch rates do not reduce the
accuracy of a stock assessment however, because assessments account for
the catch efficiency of trawl surveys. In fact it is more important
that a survey maintain consistent methodology over time than it is for
the survey to catch fish at a high rate.
The time series of consistent trawl survey data is critical for
fish stock assessments, as well as for informing other research on
changes in marine ecosystems in response to climate change and other
pressures. Further, NOAA ships have equipment and capabilities for
research that are often not available on fishing vessels. Nevertheless,
we are actively working with industry stakeholders through our recently
reconvened Trawl Survey Advisory Panel and through our cooperative
research Study Fleet to incorporate industry input into our surveys as
well to provide more industry-collected data to our assessments and
research.
NOAA places a high value on cooperative research, and in fact
relies on chartered fishing vessels to conduct surveys of many stocks.
However, where there is stronger reliance on chartered vessels (e.g.,
the northwest and North Pacific), surveys were established in the 1970s
when there was not sufficient time available on NOAA ships in these
regions. Thus, chartered vessels can be used to fulfill requirements
for limited types of data collection, but we focus on use of NOAA ships
because they are configured to support large, multi-disciplinary groups
of researchers with all of their specialized gear, instrumentation and
data processing requirements.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to
Hon. Samuel D. Rauch III
Question 1. State Management of Red Snapper in the Gulf of
Mexico.--Mr. Rauch, the Gulf Council met at the end of January to
consider a number of different measures, one of which was Amendment 39
to the Reef Fish Management Plan. That amendment would allow for
management of the recreational red snapper fishery in Federal waters by
Florida and the other four Gulf Coast states. Ultimately, because the
state regulators and other voting members of the Council couldn't agree
on how to allocate red snapper among the states for management
purposes, the Council voted to indefinitely postpone further
consideration of this amendment. Meanwhile, a few of our colleagues in
the House and Senate have been pushing legislation to turn management
of Gulf red snapper over to some sort of state-run red snapper
management council. This begs a couple of questions that I'd appreciate
your thoughts on.
If Amendment 39 can already provide the Gulf Coast states an avenue
to manage red snapper in Federal waters, why would anyone think this
red snapper legislation is even needed?
Answer. NOAA Fisheries agrees legislation is not required to
establish a regional management system for red snapper in the Gulf of
Mexico because the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act already provides the regional fishery management councils and NOAA
Fisheries authority to develop such a system. We continue to support
regional management in concept as a way to resolve the current
challenges created by inconsistent state regulations and better meet
diverse management objectives across the Gulf, and believe the best way
to develop an effective regional management strategy that withstands
the test of time is through the regional fishery management council
process. The Magnuson-Stevens Act established that process to ensure
fishery management decisions are developed from the bottom up,
stakeholder-based, transparent, and consistent with all applicable law.
We believe it is a good process for working through the types of
difficult decisions that regional management requires.
Question 2. If the Gulf Coast states can't agree on how to allocate
red snapper among themselves under Amendment 39, why would anyone think
they can agree sitting on a state-run red snapper council?
Answer. The various bills proposing state management of the Gulf of
Mexico red snapper fishery are unclear as to how the red snapper quota
would be allocated among the states and how such allocation decisions
would be made. NOAA Fisheries believes allocation decisions are best
made through the open, public Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act process which requires such decisions to be fair and
equitable to affected fishermen, reasonably calculated to promote
conservation, and prevent individual entities or corporations from
obtaining excessive shares. NOAA Fisheries worked closely with all
eight regional fishery management councils over the last several years
to develop policy guidance regarding when and how to conduct allocation
reviews that meet these criteria, including best practices to ensure
allocations remain current and relevant.
Question 3. South Atlantic Black Sea Bass.--Mr. Rauch, when we look
at the red snapper fishery in the Gulf of Mexico, we see a stock that
has historically been overfished but is now rebuilding itself as the
Council has imposed science-based catch restrictions in the fishery.
Unfortunately, this has led to some fishermen placing pressure on the
Council and Congress to increase catch limits before the stock is fully
rebuilt, and that reminds me of a similar situation on our east coast
of Florida just a few years ago. Black sea bass was a species in the
South Atlantic that was experiencing similar levels of overfishing,
from both the commercial and recreational sectors, leading to severe
restrictions in harvest. As the species rebuilt itself, I remember
similar pressure from some fishermen to increase catch limits. The
South Atlantic Council was resolute in maintaining harvest
restrictions, because although the numbers of black sea bass were
increasing, they were not yet of the optimal size and maturity to
produce enough juvenile fish to maintain the stock. The Council trusted
the science, and as a result in 2013 the stock was declared fully
rebuilt, with an allowable annual catch more than doubling from 847,000
pounds to 1,814,000 pounds, and with fisherman reporting they are
catching more large black sea bass than they've ever seen in their
life. What does the story about black sea bass in the South Atlantic
say to you about the value in holding to the rebuilding plan for red
snapper in the Gulf of Mexico?
Answer. The South Atlantic black sea bass rebuilding plan is indeed
a success story. The catch increase made possible by rebuilding that
species increased economic benefits to commercial and recreational
fishermen by hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars. The Gulf of
Mexico red snapper rebuilding plan differs from the black sea bass plan
in many respects. Black sea bass are relatively short lived compared to
red snapper ( 9 years versus 55 years), so the black sea bass
population was rebuilt on a much shorter schedule ( 10 years versus 31
years). That is one reason the South Atlantic Council adopted a
rebuilding strategy for black sea bass that delayed the distribution of
recovery benefits until the end of the rebuilding schedule by holding
catches constant as the stock rebuilt.
In contrast, the red snapper rebuilding strategy is designed to
distribute rebuilding benefits throughout the rebuilding schedule by
allowing catches to increase as the stock rebuilds. NOAA Fisheries has
increased the combined (commercial and recreational) red snapper catch
limit from 5 million pounds to about 14 million pounds since the
rebuilding plan was last revised in 2007. In addition to increased
catches, fishermen are encountering more and larger red snapper than
many have seen in their lifetimes--and in places they have not been
seen in decades--as the population expands back to its historic range.
For that reason, we do not expect the red snapper rebuilding plan to
have a similar impact on catch levels at the end of the rebuilding
period. However, we do expect to see a much healthier number of older
larger fish in the population when the stock is rebuilt, which will
make the population more resilient to both fishing pressure and
environmental variables.
Question 4. South Atlantic Red Snapper.--Mr. Rauch, with so much
interest and discussion concerning the red snapper fishery in the Gulf
of Mexico, I want to turn some attention to the same fishery on the
east coast of my home state of Florida, where fishing is closed
entirely this year because red snapper catch exceeded the allowable
harvest last year by roughly100,000 fish--nearly twice the allowable
catch. The number of dead discards, the fish that had to be tossed
overboard dead because they could not be legally kept, was 163,000
fish, nearly four times as many fish as were kept. The dead discards
alone exceeded the total quota for red snapper. Do you have any
thoughts on what we can do to reduce this unintentional bycatch of red
snapper in these fisheries where fishermen are targeting other species
that live in the same habitat?
Answer. Minimizing bycatch in multi-species fisheries, such as the
South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery, is one of our most challenging
mandates. Several years ago, the South Atlantic Fishery Management
Council initiated a stakeholder-driven visioning project to evaluate
and refine current management goals and objectives for the snapper
grouper fishery. One of the resulting recommendations was to better
align fishery opening and closure dates in a way that best balances the
need to minimize discards while providing fishing opportunities. We
will continue to support the Council in evaluating these and other
measures to reduce bycatch, and in exploring the potential uses of new
technologies, like descending devices, to better minimize the mortality
of bycatch that cannot be avoided.
Question 5. Billfish Conservation Act Implementation.--Mr. Rauch,
back in 2012 Congress enacted the Billfish Conservation Act, which
prohibits the sale of marlin and certain other billfish species. The
Act made an exception to this prohibition for billfish landed in Hawaii
and U.S. territories and possessions in the Pacific, in order to
protect the traditional fisheries and markets there. Here we are, four
years later, and the Administration still hasn't implemented the
Billfish Conservation Act. Some say the delay is due to confusion about
whether Congress intended for Hawaiian-landed billfish to be sold on
the U.S. mainland, but commercial sale of billfish to the U.S. mainland
has never been a part of Hawaii's traditional billfish fisheries or
markets. Can you comment on whether there is any truth to this question
of Hawaiian sale to the mainland holding up NOAA's rulemaking?
Answer. NMFS published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on
April 4, 2013 (78 FR 20291). We received comments from academia,
recreational fishing interest groups, environmental non-governmental
organizations, individual citizens, industry, states and one regional
fishery management council. The comments centered around six major
themes: (1) whether billfish caught by U.S. fishing vessels and landed
in Hawaii or Pacific Insular Areas can be sold on the mainland United
States; (2) the interplay between international trade law and the BCA
section 4(c)(1) exemption; (3) the impact of the BCA on recreational
billfish activities; (4) the effectiveness and cost of the billfish
certificate of eligibility (COE) for identification and tracking
purposes; (5) the impact of the BCA on recreational versus commercial
fisheries; and (6) degradation of conservation benefits of the BCA due
to the exemptions from the general prohibition on sale of billfish.
NMFS has been carefully considering all of these issues in preparing
the proposed rule.
Question 6. When can we expect to see a final rule issued to
implement the Billfish Conservation Act?
Answer. NMFS is still working to develop a proposed rule to
implement the Billfish Conservation Act. Although rulemaking is
ongoing, the provisions of the Act have been in effect since it was
enacted in October 2012, and sale of billfish, except as specifically
provided for by the statute, has been prohibited since that date.
Question 7. Preventing Overfishing.--Mr. Rauch, the Magnuson-
Stevens Act clearly states in National Standard 1 that fisheries
management measures ``shall prevent overfishing.'' 16 U.S.C.
1851(a)(1). This is a cornerstone to the success of the law. U.S.
fishery exports command higher prices and more respect in the global
marketplace because of our firm commitment to well-managed stocks. But
the agency's newly proposed guidance for how to implement National
Standard 1 would allow some years of overfishing to go unaddressed, and
would allow managers to make riskier decisions when managing stocks.
Doesn't the proposed guidance conflict with the Act by increasing the
risk that overfishing will occur, and jeopardize our international
reputation for stellar management?
Answer. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA), the U.S. has become
an international leader in fisheries management and we are committed to
continuing our successful efforts to prevent overfishing and rebuild
overfished fisheries. To this end, the proposed revisions to the
National Standard 1 (NS1) guidelines are designed to both strengthen
and clarify existing guidance on preventing overfishing.
The proposed revisions to the NS1 guidelines, if finalized, would
allow managers to consider multiple years of data in order to make a
more accurate determination of whether a stock is subject to
overfishing. This provision would not increase the risk that
overfishing will occur because it pertains strictly to reporting
requirements. Furthermore, this provision, in no way, would allow
overfishing to go unaddressed because the management measures such as
annual catch limits must be established to prevent overfishing every
year. Instead, the proposed revisions would give managers greater
certainty when reporting that a stock is subject to overfishing and
will help avoid the potential negative market impacts of listing a
stock as subject to overfishing based on a single year of uncertain
data. In developing a final rule, NOAA is carefully considering all
comments on the proposed rule including those concerning whether a
stock is subject to overfishing.
Question 8. Rebuilding Overfished Stocks.--Mr. Rauch, the Magnuson-
Stevens Act states that the Secretary is to review rebuilding fisheries
every two years, and determine if adequate progress is being made in
recovering overfished stocks. 16 U.S.C. 1854(e)(7). The agency's
proposed guidance for National Standard 1 seeks to define ``adequate
progress,'' but the proposed language only examines whether the plan is
being implemented as intended, or if there is ``unexpected'' new
information.
This guidance lacks any consideration of whether the health of the
stock is actually improving. How does the agency defend suggesting that
rebuilding plans can be making adequate progress even if no rebuilding
is occurring?
Answer. The Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) has established a rigorous,
science-based management system that successfully rebuilds overfished
fisheries. Since 2000, 39 fish stocks have been fully rebuilt to
sustainable population levels. Biomass is the key factor in determining
if a stock is rebuilt. However, during the rebuilding plan, increases
in biomass are often not steady, but are more irregular--several years
of poor recruitment may yield little biomass increase, followed by a
strong year or two that significantly increases the biomass. Experts,
including the National Research Council in its 2013 evaluation of stock
rebuilding mandated by the 2007 Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act,
have concluded that rebuilding plans should focus on adequate control
of fishing mortality. By focusing on controlling fishing mortality,
managers can avoid issues with updating rebuilding timelines that are
based on biomass milestones, which are subject to uncertainty and
changing environmental conditions that are outside the control of
fishery managers.
Further, NMFS has found that, in most cases where biomass does not
increase significantly toward rebuilding goals, fishing mortality rates
have remained too high. Therefore, NMFS believes that emphasizing
achievement of the rebuilding plans' fishing mortality goals is
essential to ensuring adequate progress in rebuilding. In the small
number of cases where fishing mortality is fully controlled to the
planned level, but the stock fails to increase in biomass, the
environmental conditions causing poor stock productivity need to
improve before rebuilding will succeed. These cases, where a rebuilding
plan is being implemented correctly, but the biomass of the stock is
not responding with increased biomass, would be considered
``unexpected'' and under this circumstance, the proposed National
Standard 1 guidance still allows NMFS to determine that the rebuilding
plan is not making adequate progress towards rebuilding which would
require the Council to re-evaluate the rebuilding plan. In developing
final revisions to the guidelines, NOAA is carefully considering all
comments on the proposed guidelines, including those concerning
rebuilding plans.
Question 9. Timelines for Rebuilding Overfished Stocks.--Mr. Rauch,
The Magnuson-Stevens Act says that overfished stocks are to be rebuilt
in as short a time as possible. 16 U.S.C. 1854(e)(4). Proposed changes
to the National Standard 1 guidelines offer new ways to calculate the
maximum length of time for a rebuilding plan for those stocks that take
longer than 10 years to rebuild. Under the new proposal, managers would
have three different methods to calculate the maximum rebuilding time.
However, the agency fails to provide any advice for how to choose
between the three options. This new slate of choices allows managers to
choose the most risky option, which could undermine rebuilding
successes and would be counter to the requirements of the law. How does
the agency intend to ensure that rebuilding is occurring in as short a
time as possible under the newly proposed guidelines?
Answer. The Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) and National Standard 1
(NS1) Guidelines require that when a fish stock is determined to be
overfished, a plan be put into place to rebuild the stock. This is
accomplished through rebuilding plans that, pursuant to the MSA, must
specify a target time period for rebuilding that is as short as
possible, taking into consideration certain factors, such as the
biology of the stock and the needs of fishing communities. To calculate
this target time period, the National Standard 1 Guidelines provide for
identifying a minimum time to rebuild (i.e., where there is no fishing
mortality) and a maximum rebuilding time, and state that the target
time period shall not exceed the maximum time period and shall be based
on the statutory factors. NMFS emphasizes that management measures for
rebuilding stocks are developed and implemented based on the shortest
time possible in which the stock can rebuild (i.e., the target
rebuilding timeline), not the maximum allowable time.
Traditionally, calculating a maximum time for a stock to rebuild
requires reliable information on the life history of the stock. Such
information is not available in all cases, and even if available, might
have a much higher level of uncertainty than other sources of available
data such as fishing mortality. Thus, the proposed revisions to NS1
guidelines provided two additional scientifically supported methods to
calculate a maximum allowable time to rebuild that are intended to
provide Regional Fishery Management Councils and their Scientific and
Statistical Committees options to use a calculation method that is
based on the best scientific data available. Based on internal
analyses, NMFS does not expect that the three calculation options will
produce drastically different estimates. Furthermore, the selection of
a calculation method must be based on what sources of data are
determined to be the best scientific information available, rather than
the outcome of the calculation. In developing final revisions to the
guidelines, NOAA is carefully considering all comments on the proposed
guidelines including those concerning rebuilding timelines.
Question 10. National Standard 1.--While the agency has proposed
revising guidelines for how to achieve the goals of National Standard 1
in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the revisions are silent on how to
confront climate change and other enormous challenges that our
fisheries face. How does the agency expect Councils to achieve optimum
yield and ensure fisheries provide the greatest overall benefit to the
Nation without revising the guidance to confront these challenges?
Answer. Climate-related changes are affecting the Nation's valuable
living marine resources and the people, businesses, and communities
that depend on them. However, NMFS is taking proactive steps to both
produce and use climate-related information to fulfill our statutory
mandates in a changing climate. The existing National Standard 1 (NS1)
guidelines establish an adaptive, science-based Federal fisheries
management system that allows Regional Fishery Management Councils
(Councils) to respond to these environmental changes that may that
inhibit their ability to achieve optimum yield (OY) on a continuing
basis.
Optimum yield is prescribed on the basis of a stock's maximum
sustainable yield (MSY) as reduced by ecological, economic, and social
factors. The existing NS1 guidelines are designed to be responsive to
changing environmental conditions and other emerging challenges in
Federal fisheries management and set forth examples of how to apply
ecological factors related to climate change when setting a stock's OY.
In fisheries where councils are aware of climate change impacts that
affect the yield available from a stock, they can, and should,
reevaluate the OY specification for the fishery, consistent with the NS
guidelines and the best scientific information available.
Question 11. Are the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the guidelines
properly equipped to deal with climate change?
Answer. The Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) and the existing National
Standard 1 (NS1) guidelines establish an adaptive, science-based
Federal fisheries management system capable of responding to changes in
environmental conditions, including changes caused by climate change.
To further strengthen this system, NMFS proposed revisions to the NS1
guidelines which instruct Councils to manage their fish stocks
according to the changing needs of the fishery, which would encompass
necessary management adjustments in response to climate change. In
developing final revisions to the guidelines, NOAA is carefully
considering all comments on the proposed guidelines including those
related to ensuring management responds to changing ocean conditions.
Question 12. Recently, NOAA Fisheries released a draft Ecosystem-
Based Fisheries Management (EBFM) policy, under which managers weigh
existing data about where fish live, what they eat, what eats them, and
what impacts they face from various threats, including climate change.
The draft policy intends to and repeatedly highlights EBFM's usefulness
in optimizing the benefits from fishery resources, evaluating trade-
offs, and making better decisions. Why wasn't this important tool
included in the NS1 guideline revisions to better address climate
change and other considerations into management?
Answer. NMFS supports the incorporation of ecosystem-based
fisheries management (EBFM) into Federal fisheries management; the
implementation of EBFM practices can occur within the current
management framework and are supported by the National Standard 1 (NS1)
guidelines. Further, NMFS' proposed revisions to the NS1 guidelines
include several new provisions that facilitate the incorporation of
EBFM into Federal fisheries management, including a provision that
allows Councils to take into account multi-species interactions within
their management frameworks. However, implementing EBFM, as described
in the draft NMFS EBFM policy, spans multiple national standards within
the MSA and the implementation of multiple statutes. While the NS1
guidelines can accommodate many specific EBFM approaches, they are not
the only source of guidance for implementing a broader EBFM approach.
Question 13. Fisheries Enforcement.--Mr. Rauch, how do fisheries
dependent data, such as catch history, inform the stock assessment
process? If a participant in a fishery with significant catch history
regularly and chronically over-reported or underreported catch of a
species, or misreported one species as another species, can you
describe how those actions might affect the accuracy of the stock
assessment process? What kind of biases might this introduce into the
process?
Answer. Stock assessments rely on accurate information about total
catch over time to determine the historical effects of fishing. Thus,
any misreporting or errors in the catch history can result in biases in
stock assessment results. In particular, estimates of stock size and
fishing mortality are most susceptible to these biases. However, the
magnitude and the direction of biases cannot be generalized and can
only be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. There are many factors that
would affect how biased an assessment result would be, including the
degree of misreporting, the time over which misreporting was occurring,
stock-specific biology and productivity, and potential interacting
effects of changing ecosystems and fishing strategies.
Question 14. Fisheries Enforcement.--Mr. Rauch, NOAA's fisheries
enforcement officers, special agents, Coast Guard boarding officers,
and state enforcement officers operating under a Joint Enforcement
Agreement are out there, every day, doing the tough work of ensuring
compliance and a level playing field for our fishermen by enforcing our
complex Federal fisheries regulations, and I commend their dedication
and bravery. However, since 2010 we have seen the number of NOAA law
enforcement personnel steadily decline--from 187 in 2010 to just 89
today. In the Northeast Region, NOAA has issued zero Notices of
Violations from 2010-2013, and only a few in the past two years,
despite handling over 700 investigations in 2015. Has the decrease in
fisheries law enforcement capacity in the U.S. opened opportunities for
nefarious individuals to operate?
Answer. The total staff of NOAA's Office of Law Enforcement (OLE),
including both sworn and non-sworn members, has gone from 234 in 2010
to 189 today. OLE is in the process of hiring 31 new enforcement
officers. OLE will continue to manage its resources to enforce the
Federal statutes under NOAA's purview to deter violations. OLE
continues to conduct investigations of illegal activity and has a
number of recent successes with both international and domestic
investigations. These successes also demonstrate the level of expertise
we can bring to bear with current resources.
Question 15. Are there opportunities for better strengthening
relationships with partner agencies (i.e., the Coast Guard and JEA
partners) to better utilize existing enforcement resources?
Answer. OLE works continuously with our JEA partners to ensure we
are maximizing appropriated funds provided to our State partners to
help OLE meet its ever expanding mission. We recently met with all of
our State partners at a joint meeting to discuss process and mission
priority identification improvements in order to continue to improve
the program. OLE continues to have a good cooperative and collaborative
relationship with our Federal partners including the Coast Guard and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Question 16. What is NOAA's plan for hiring new enforcement
officers and placing them out into the field?
Answer. NOAA is using both the normal hiring process as well as
special hiring authorities like the Veterans Recruitment Act (VRA) to
speed up the process of bringing on board additional enforcement
officers. OLE has recently conducted a staffing analysis that has
identified the highest priority locations for new enforcement officers.
Question 17. Do NOAA OLE personnel feel they have the support and
tools they need to do their job? If not, what could we do to help?
Answer. Through the Presidential Task Force on Combatting IUU and
Seafood Fraud, the Administration recommended broader search and
inspection authority, detention authority, administrative subpoena
authority and additional prohibitions to address trafficking in IUU
fish and fish products. These authorities would help OLE combat IUU
fish that has entered into the U.S. stream of commerce and that
promotes unfair trade practices and directly affects and competes with
lawfully harvested domestic product from the U.S. fishing industry.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Cory Booker to
Hon. Samuel D. Rauch III
Question 1. Protecting our Waters.--Mr. Rauch, at the hearing you
indicated that you believe current law is adequately protecting fish
habitat. At the same time, you also said that fisheries managers are
limited to only addressing impacts of fishing on such habitat. Can you
explain what tools exist for Councils to impact other activities that
could have adverse effects on fish habitat?
Answer. The Essential Fish Habitat Program under the Magnuson
Stevens Act has successfully conserved the habitats that are the
foundation of the Nation's fisheries for the past 20 years. Fishery
Management Councils seize opportunities through this program by
commenting on proposed Federal activities with recommendations to NOAA
Fisheries and other Federal agencies to protect habitat that could be
impacted by activities unrelated to fishing. Several Councils have an
active interest in reviewing these activities and have procedures in
place to improve coordination with NOAA Fisheries on such comments.
Fishery Management Councils also have a voting seat in the Regional
Ocean Planning Bodies. These Bodies develop regional ocean plans to
address healthy ocean ecosystems, sustainable ocean uses, and
coordinated management. They provide an opportunity for Councils to
work with scientists and other stakeholders to develop and test
applications of ecosystem based management and influence decisions on
ocean development.
Question 2. If a Council or NOAA Fisheries raises concerns about
activities that occur under the oversight of another agency, how does
that agency have to respond? Do they need to take any regulatory
action?
Answer. While Federal agencies are not required to implement our
advisory conservation recommendations, when they choose not to do so,
they are required to send a written justification explaining why they
are permitting the proposed project in a way that is inconsistent with
NOAA's advice. Strong relationships between NOAA Fisheries and other
Federal agencies, however, frequently result in applicants
incorporating conservation measures during the pre-application, early
project-planning stage, leading to efficient and effective habitat
conservation. This collaborative process relieves the Federal agency
from the burden of lengthy, expanded consultations, inspires smart
development, and allows activities to move forward with as minimal
impact to fish habitat as possible.
Question 3. Do you think there would be a benefit for our fisheries
if NOAA and the Councils were given additional opportunities to
participate in decisions regarding non-fishing activities, such as oil
and gas exploration and development that affect fisheries and marine
habitats?
Answer. Councils currently have opportunities to provide this kind
of input, and many Councils have taken advantage of this. Several
Councils have coordination procedures with NOAA Fisheries or explicit
policy statements on non-fishing activities. For example, the North
Pacific Fishery Management Council and NOAA Fisheries' Alaska Regional
Office have an agreement to coordinate comments on Federal activities
that could have major impacts to essential fish habitat or would
conflict with fishing operations. The Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic
Fishery Management Councils have developed policy statements on various
coastal and offshore development activities to guide our comment
letters and to inform other Federal agencies of the Councils' habitat
conservation priorities.
Question 4. Mr. Rauch, under current law, Councils are required to
work with NOAA Fisheries to identify essential fish habitat (EFH) in
their regions and minimize adverse effects from fishing, but only ``to
the extent practicable.'' How does this practicability caveat impact
the designation and protection of EFH?
Answer. The practicability clause has no influence on EFH
designations. Councils are required to identify EFH based on the best
available science. Practicability must be taken into account when
considering EFH protection. NOAA Fisheries and the Councils struggle to
quantify the habitat conservation benefits of measures when seeking to
minimize fishing impacts (e.g., gear modifications), which makes it
difficult to evaluate tradeoffs between habitat conservation and
impacts to the fishing industry.
Question 5. Does the practicability caveat result in important
fisheries habitat from not being protected?
Answer. In some cases, without quantitative data on habitat
conservation benefits, the available data on the economic impact to the
fishing industry may lead Councils to find habitat protection measures
not practicable.
Question 6. Dusky Shark Bycatch.--What actions does the National
Marine Fisheries Service intend to take to help the dusky shark to
rebuild and to prevent further bycatch?
Answer. Both the commercial and recreational harvest and retention
of dusky sharks has been prohibited since 2000. The stock has been
under a rebuilding plan since 2008 when Amendment 2 to the 2006
Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management
Plan (FMP) was implemented. Amendment 2 modified and established
regulations in the shark fishery that dramatically changed how the
directed shark fishery operates and took additional measures to reduce
fishing mortality on dusky and other sharks. These regulations
included, but were not limited to: requiring fins remain naturally
attached, reducing the commercial trip limit from 4,000 pounds (dressed
weight) to 36 \1\ non-sandbar large coastal sharks (LCS) per trip, and
prohibiting the retention of sandbar sharks--the primary species
targeted by the directed shark fishery at that time--outside a limited
shark research fishery. These measures have greatly reduced dusky shark
mortality in the directed shark fishery, in large part because dusky
sharks are often caught in areas where sandbar sharks are caught.
However, only two years of data under these regulations (2008 and 2009)
were incorporated in the most recent stock assessment for dusky sharks
that was finalized in 2011 through Southeast Data Assessment and Review
(SEDAR) 21. That stock assessment showed that the dusky shark
population was overfished and experiencing overfishing. Since the 2011
assessment, updated information and analyses conducted for an
Endangered Species Act Status Review in 2014 and for the HMS Advisory
Panel meeting in 2015, show positive trends in abundance of dusky
sharks and reductions in fishing mortality of dusky sharks, signifying
a significant improvement for the dusky shark population. An update to
the stock assessment, which incorporates data through 2015, is underway
and is expected to be completed in August 2016. Once stock assessment
update results are finalized, NMFS will take additional action, as
appropriate, to continue to rebuild the dusky shark population in
Amendment 5b to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Final Rule for Amendment 6 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP
(80 FR 50073; August 8, 2015) changed the non-sandbar LCS trip limit to
a default of 45 sharks per trip with a range that can be adjusted from
1 to 55 sharks.
Question 7. Recreational Fishing.--What specific, tangible changes
is NOAA making in their fisheries management in line with the new
recreational fisheries policy adopted last year?
Answer. NOAA Fisheries is working diligently to achieve the goals
of the National Policy for Saltwater Recreational Fisheries by
fulfilling commitments identified in the supporting Recreational
Fisheries Implementation Plan. The National Implementation Plan
identifies more than 60 specific commitments that support the
objectives and goals of the Saltwater Recreational Fisheries Policy.
The examples of recent progress supporting the national recreational
saltwater fisheries policy cited below represent a limited portion of
ongoing work. Progress includes:
NOAA Fisheries worked closely with anglers, states, and the
Pacific Fisheries Management Council to expand recreational
fishing opportunities with the recent approval a new six month
mid-water long-leader fishery for rockfish of the coast of
Oregon.
NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission will jointly host a national workshop examining the
potential of artificial reefs as a management tool to support
or enhance sustainable recreational fisheries June 9-10, 2016
(Alexandria, VA).
NOAA Fisheries is finalizing a new fisheries allocation
policy jointly developed by the Federal Fishery Management
Councils' Coordinating Committee and NOAA Fisheries
(anticipated Spring 2016). Of substantial interest to
recreational anglers, the policy will facilitate periodic
council review of catch allocations.
NOAA Fisheries awarded approximately $2.2 million in grants
to recreationally fishery focused research projects through the
Saltonstall Kennedy Grant Program in FY15.
NOAA Fisheries released regionally tailored recreational
policy implementation plans in late April 2016. These plans,
developed with the input anglers, states and councils, step
down the national policy and plan and facilitate identification
and resolution of regionally specific recreational issues where
anglers live and fish.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Richard Blumenthal to
Hon. Samuel D. Rauch III
Question 1. Black Sea Bass and Summer Flounder in New England.--Mr.
Rauch: Warming ocean temperatures are having a significant impact on
species distribution on the Atlantic coast. Fish that were
traditionally in mid-Atlantic waters are now migrating further north as
ocean temperatures climb. Two of these species that have noticeably
grown in numbers in waters off of the coast of CT are black sea bass
and summer flounder.
Just last week, I had the opportunity to meet with the Connecticut
Seafood Council and other representatives of the fishing industry and
community within my state. What fishermen in Connecticut tell me is
that while the number of black sea bass and summer flounder found off
the coast of Mid-Atlantic States is dwindling, New England is
experiencing an increase in these species. I don't want to contradict
what conservationists and NOAA's scientists and observers are telling
us about the reasons for this shift. And whether the cause is due to a
recovery of the species or a shift northward of species that have yet
to fully recover is a separate issue. My concern is that, if there are
environmental and ecological forces at play that are resulting in a
different distribution of fish and in waters of a fishery that doesn't
have oversight of the management of those species, does MSA adequately
account for those changes.
In November of last year I led a letter to NOAA on this topic. The
letter was signed by the entire Connecticut and Rhode Island
delegations. The letter called for NOAA to consider ways to use its
ecosystem-based fishery management practices to give the New England
Fishery Management Council more of a say when population distributions
shift. NOAA responded in a letter that MSA provides authority to
determine when joint management between councils is necessary, but I
think this issue is worth revisiting in this forum.
Despite the agency's assurances that MSA has a mechanism to allow
for joint management, the fishing community in New England still feels
underrepresented in the management decisions for black sea bass and
summer flounder. Can you explain the process by which MSA allows for
joint management?
Answer. MSA section 304(f) states that in situations where the
fishery in question extends beyond the geographical area of any one
Council's jurisdiction, the Secretary may either designate one Council
to prepare the FMP or may require a joint FMP. The appropriate
management approach for shared stocks varies depending on specific
circumstances. Ideally, the associated Councils and NMFS work together
to determine when joint management is appropriate or should be
considered, like in the case of black sea bass and summer flounder.
These species are currently jointly managed through the Mid-Atlantic
Council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
(Commission). The Mid-Atlantic Council's area of responsibility
includes areas seaward of states specified in the MSA, and voting
members of the Council include officials from each of those states. The
Commission is made up of representatives from all Atlantic states,
including the New England states; any decisions made about the
management of black sea bass and summer flounder are reviewed by all
members of both the Commission and Mid-Atlantic Council.
Question 2. Should this process be re-examined to allow for a
quicker adoption of joint management plans if species distributions
rapidly shift?
Answer. Joint management requires management measures to be
approved by both Councils concerned, and thus often result in a slower
and more arduous management process. MSA section 304(f) specifies that,
``no jointly prepared plan or amendment may be submitted to the
Secretary unless it is approved by a majority of the voting members,
present and voting, of each Council concerned.'' Therefore, creation of
a joint management plan may not be appropriate for situations that
require a rapid management response, including situations where fish
stocks rapidly expand or drastically alter their ranges.
Question 3. In regard to summer flounder and black sea bass, is
joint management the answer to this issue? Do you have any other
recommendations to make sure all parties feel adequately represented?
Answer. While summer flounder and black sea bass are not jointly
managed by the New England and Mid-Atlantic Councils, these stocks are
jointly managed through the Mid-Atlantic Council and the Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission). Given that the
Commission includes representatives from all Atlantic states, including
the New England states, the current management approach allows
significant input from New England states. Significant stock-wide
decisions, including allocations decisions, are made by all the
Commission members, including those representatives of the New England
states, as well as all members of the Mid-Atlantic Council.
Through the Commission, the states implement management measures
for their commercial and recreational fisheries, tailored to individual
state needs. In response to an increased abundance of black sea bass
off of New Hampshire and Maine, the Commission has recently added New
Hampshire and Maine to the Black Sea Bass Management Board.
The Mid-Atlantic Council and Commission are currently developing a
comprehensive summer flounder amendment to review the Fishery
Management Plan (FMP) in its entirety. This action may result in
changes to the state-by-state quotas. When established, these
allocations were based exclusively on historical proportion of catch.
The Commission has discussed options for updating allocations that take
into account the current distribution of the stock, but are still
working to determine the appropriate actions to take. All states are
represented in the Commission, and as such, any decisions to adjust
allocation formulas for summer flounder will be reviewed and considered
by all members of the Commission.
Question 4. Structure of Fisheries Management.--Mr. Rauch, NOAA's
response to my letter also mentioned that summer flounder and black sea
bass are co-managed by the mid-Atlantic Fisheries Council--which
governs Federal fisheries--and the Atlantic State Marine Fisheries
Commission which handles state fisheries management and on which
Connecticut is represented. The response letter also mentions that the
New England Council has a liaison to the mid-Atlantic Council, which
provides the New England region with input toward the management of
mid-Atlantic species.
However, members of the Connecticut fishing community have
explained to me that the Commission's authority is subordinate to that
of the mid-Atlantic Council and that in areas of dispute, the Council's
determination prevails. Additionally, although the New England Council
has a liaison to the mid-Atlantic Council, it is one liaison for the
entire region. And while we are a region that shares many issues, there
are concerns and conditions specific to each New England state and its
fishing industry. Can you provide more detail about the co-management
relationship between the mid-Atlantic Council and the Atlantic States
Commission?
Answer. The Mid-Atlantic Council and the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission (Commission) have a joint fishery management plan
(FMP) for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass. For stock wide
decisions, including setting catch limits, the Council and the
Commission carefully consider the issues collectively and make final
recommendations together. For example, in setting the overall level of
catch for each species, the Mid-Atlantic Council's Scientific and
Statistical Committee (SSC) makes a recommendation called the
``acceptable biological catch'' (ABC). Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, the Council cannot recommend a catch level that exceeds the
fishing level recommendations (i.e., ABC) of its SSC, and the
Commission typically votes in coordination with the Council's
recommendation. Changes to the state-by-state allocations of summer
flounder must be approved by both the Council and the Commission before
being implemented. In the case of black sea bass, however, the
Commission has sole responsibility for the state-by-state allocations.
As such, any changes to that measure would only require consideration
and action by the Commission.
Question 5. Can you provide more detail about the New England
liaisons role to the mid-Atlantic Council?
Answer. The primary role of the New England Council liaison to the
Mid-Atlantic Council is to attend Mid-Atlantic Council meetings and
report on activities of interest or jurisdictional overlap to the New
England Council. In some instances, including for summer flounder and
black sea bass specifications and management decisions, the New England
liaison participates as an equal member of the Mid-Atlantic Council
with voting privileges. The New England Council liaison can also
participate as a member of management boards and committees, like the
Mid-Atlantic Council's Demersal Committee and Black Sea Bass Management
Board.
Question 6. In instances where fish populations shift from the
waters of one region to another, is the current system adequate to
provide representation to each or fair representation to the region
that is experiencing the influx of new species?
Answer. The MSA provides a variety of options to ensure
representation of the appropriate regions when fish populations shift
across Council jurisdictions. For example, as described above, MSA
section 304(f) states that in situations where the fishery in question
extends beyond the geographical area of any one Council's jurisdiction,
the Secretary may either designate one Council to prepare the FMP or
may require a joint FMP. Councils also include liaisons from adjacent
Councils to ensure appropriate representation on issues of
jurisdictional overlap. MSA section 302(g) provides the Councils with
considerable latitude to appoint needed experts to advisory bodies and
its scientific and statistical committees. Already, some Councils,
particularly on the East Coast, share Science and Statistical Committee
(SSC) members. This practice can be expanded as the need arises to
ensure adequate representation as stocks shift.
Question 7. Environmental Impacts on Species Distribution.--Mr.
Rauch, I want to again stress that we should let the best science
dictate catch limits and that rebuilding stocks and vulnerable species
have the ability to recover are imperative priorities. My argument is
that if certain species distributions are shifting, that the new region
where the species are found should be able to contribute its research,
scientific findings, and expertise in determining what the proper and
appropriate catch limit should be.
In NOAA's response letter to me, the agency indicated that while
black sea bass appears to be recovering, uncertainty still exists as to
the full recovery of the species. The agency also state that summer
flounder abundance is still decreasing although the distribution may be
changing. It seems that experts of New England's waters and conditions
in the region could help fill out the picture of changes these species
are undergoing as well as the health status of the populations.
Connecticut produces tremendous research at UConn and Mystic Aquarium,
among other institutes and research facilities. The fishermen in
Connecticut who are experiencing these conditions daily can also
provide much needed perspective and deserve to have their voices heard.
My letter was in response to NOAA's proposed ecosystem-based
fishery management policy, which calls for the reliance on
environmental and ecological indicators to determine management
decisions.
I know that it is early in NOAA's development of the ecosystem-
based fishery management policy and that the agency is still reviewing
the feedback it received during the public comment period, but are
there any preliminary data or findings that you can share that could be
useful in guiding our MSA reauthorization process?
Answer. In our work to develop a national policy for ecosystem-
based fishery management, it is increasingly apparent that a lot is
already being accomplished with the authorities we have under the
Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) and other statutes, such as Endangered
Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Fishery management
councils have developed 10 Fishery Ecosystem Plans around the country
and are tackling a variety of ecosystem-related issues through their
regular fishery management process, including issues like deep sea
coral protection, multi-stock interactions, forage fish, and the
impacts of climate change.
Question 8. Are changing environmental conditions like climate
change and sea temperature rise adequately provided for in MSA as it
currently stands?
Answer. The Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) currently contains several
provisions that provide mechanisms for addressing climate change
impacts. For example, the Act requires that fishery management councils
specify optimum yield for the fishery and defines optimum yield, in
part, as being prescribed on the basis of maximum sustainable yield, as
reduced by any relevant economic, social and ecological factors.
Changing ocean conditions resulting from climate change is an
ecological factor that could be addressed in the setting of optimum
yields. The Act also includes direction (MSA section 304(f)(1)) for
fisheries that cross multiple Council jurisdictions, which could help
guide decisions as stocks shift due to changing ocean conditions.
Question 9. How can we improve the inclusion of expertise from new
regions as those regions see a larger share of certain species?
Answer. The Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) section 302(g) provides the
Councils with considerable latitude to appoint needed experts to
advisory bodies and its scientific and statistical committees. Already,
some Councils, particularly on the East Coast, share Science and
Statistical Committee (SSC) members. This practice can be expanded as
the need arises. Further, fisheries management operates within a public
forum and we encourage stakeholder participation in that process. All
data and observations are welcome for consideration in stock
assessments; however, any data source (NOAA or external) is subjected
to the same peer-review process to ensure its quality and that it is
used appropriately.
Question 10. MSA and Aquaculture.--Mr. Rauch: The impact of
aquaculture to the United States economy is enormous. However, while
the United States is a major generator of research and aquaculture
related innovations that contribute to the growth of the industry
globally, our seafood trade deficit has ballooned to over $11 billion
annually. Half of the seafood consumed in the United States is produced
through aquaculture, but only 5 percent of our seafood is produced
domestically.
Despite NOAA declaring aquaculture priority for the Nation's marine
economy, less than one percent of the agency's budget goes to
aquaculture research. The nation's largest contributors to aquaculture
research, like the NOAA Northeast Fisheries Science Center in Milford,
CT are pioneering groundbreaking aquaculture techniques while falling
victim to budget cuts and personnel shifting.
In 1993, through a legal interpretation, it was determined that
aquaculture fell under the definition of fishing under MSA, thus giving
NOAA authority over permitting and other oversight activities regarding
aquaculture. Yet, aquaculture is not specifically mentioned in MSA
statute. This has led to uncertainty in the permitting process,
discouraging commercial investment and has allowed resources to be
shifted away from aquaculture research even while NOAA is stating that
aquaculture is a priority. What is NOAA's official stance on the
importance of aquaculture and its role in the United States seafood and
fishing industry?
Answer. The National Aquaculture Act of 1980 declared that it is
``in the national interest, and it is the national policy, to encourage
the development of aquaculture in the United States.'' NOAA's Next
Generation Strategic Plan (2010) aligns with this mandate and declared
that maintaining sustainable fisheries and safe marine-origin foods is
a priority for NOAA and that a key component of this objective is the
development and implementation of a national aquaculture policy that
provides information and guidance to implement ecologically and
economically sustainable aquaculture programs. NOAA's Marine
Aquaculture Policy (2011) states that aquaculture is an important
component of NOAA's efforts to maintain healthy and productive marine
and coastal ecosystems, protect special marine areas, rebuild
overfished wild stocks, restore and conserve marine and coastal
habitat, and enable the production of safe and sustainable seafood.
Question 11. What does NOAA currently do to demonstrate that
aquaculture is the priority that the agency claims it is?
Answer. NOAA reaffirmed its commitment to promoting sustainable
aquaculture development in the United States in its Marine Aquaculture
Policy (2011) and supports a number of important regulatory, research,
and technology transfer activities including the following:
NOAA is implementing the first comprehensive regional regulatory
program for offshore aquaculture in Federal waters under the Magnuson-
Stevens Act.
In January, NOAA published a final rule to implement an
aquaculture fishery management plan developed by the Gulf of
Mexico Fishery Management Council.
NOAA Fisheries' Southeast Regional Office has developed
guidance for permit applicants and is ready to accept permit
applications and engage in a coordinated permit review process
with other Federal regulatory agencies in the region.
The Gulf regulatory program provides an example for other
regions interested in developing a similar regulatory program.
NOAA staff, research, and grant funds support the advancement of
aquaculture around the country. Examples include:
The National Shellfish Initiative, which was launched in
2011 to get more oysters, clams, and mussels into our marine
waters through shellfish farming and restoration.
Since 2011, industry, NGOs, and state, tribal, and
Federal agencies have been working together through state
initiatives in Washington, Connecticut, Alaska, Oregon, and
California. Other states and regions are considering
similar initiatives. Although each state effort is somewhat
different, common objectives include improving regulatory
efficiency, science to address ocean acidification and
study ecosystem services, public education, and habitat
restoration.
The annual Milford Aquaculture Seminar (ongoing since 1975),
which transfers information and technology from NOAA's Milford,
Connecticut lab to the aquaculture industry, the scientific
community, and the public.
Long-standing collaboration of the Milford Laboratory with
two regional aquaculture high schools, which helps train the
next generation of aquaculture scientists in shellfish and
finfish aquaculture.
Federal reviews of shellfish farm permits and programmatic
approaches to shellfish permitting in Washington and California
(e.g., Humboldt Bay).
New off-bottom culture of shellfish in Mississippi and
Alabama.
The first offshore mussel farms off Massachusetts and
California.
A workshop of scientists, regulators, and shellfish farmers
to examine potential whale and turtle interactions with
offshore mussel farms in New England.
Siting and water column/benthic impact models for use in
permit decision making for fish farms in Hawaii and California.
The new Kenneth Chew Center for Shellfish Research and
Restoration at the Manchester Research Station in Washington, a
partnership with the Puget Sound Restoration Fund to restore
the native Olympia oyster in cooperation with other NGO,
university, tribal, state, and Federal partners.
NOAA also engages in technology transfer, including:
External aquaculture grant awards in 2015 through Sea Grant
($4.4 million), Saltonstall-Kennedy ($4.8 million), and two
Phase 1 and one Phase 2 Small Business Innovation Research
grants.
Cooperative Research and Development Act (CRADA) agreements
to transfer probiotics and algal culture techniques developed
at NOAA labs to the private sector.
An annual course in algal culture methods for shellfish
hatchery technicians at the Milford, Connecticut Lab.
Question 12. What is NOAA's role in the oversight of the
aquaculture industry and its management of commercial aquaculture
siting and promotion of aquaculture research?
Answer. NOAA's role in oversight and management. Under several
Federal laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act,
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Marine
Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Coastal Zone
Management Act, and the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, NOAA is
responsible for considering and preventing and/or mitigating the
potential adverse environmental impacts of planned and existing marine
aquaculture facilities through the development of fishery management
plans, sanctuary management plans, permit actions, proper siting, and
consultations with other regulatory agencies at the federal, state, and
local levels.
In Federal waters of the Exclusive Economic Zone, NOAA has a
direct permitting role where there is an aquaculture fishery
management plan in place or if an aquaculture facility requires
an exemption from harvest, size, gear, season or other
restrictions under a Federal fishery management plan. NOAA also
has a direct permitting role in National Marine Sanctuaries
where applicable management plans do not preclude commercial
aquaculture activities.
For all aquaculture in both State and Federal marine waters,
NOAA engages in consultations with other Federal permitting
agencies (mainly the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental
Protection Agency) under the authority of the Endangered
Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Essential
Fish Habitat provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act, the National Environmental
Policy Act, and other statutes. NOAA also works with other
Federal agencies, states, tribes, and local government on
coordinating permit review processes.
NOAA's aquaculture management role includes the review and approval
of state coastal management programs which have aquaculture components,
oversight of Federal consistency with these programs under the Coastal
Zone Management Act, and development of models, tools, and analyses to
assist coastal managers and regulators in identifying appropriate
sites, evaluating proposed aquaculture projects, and monitoring
impacts.
NOAA's role in research. NOAA is working to address the technical
and scientific barriers to marine aquaculture in a number of ways
including through in-house research at science centers, grants and
cooperative agreements with academic and other stakeholders, and by
coordinating research with other Federal agencies.
NOAA's aquaculture science portfolio comprises complementary
and coordinated efforts in three NOAA line offices. Together
these efforts are critical to achieving the Administration's
goal of supporting sustainable marine aquaculture. The
Fisheries Service focuses on developing science-based ``tools
for rules'' to help inform permitting and other regulatory
decisions, as well as working with industry partners on a range
of topics such as hatchery techniques and disease management.
The Ocean Service develops coastal planning and management
tools and services. The Sea Grant program at the Office of
Ocean and Atmospheric Research provides grants to external
partners for industry development, as well as technology
transfer and extension. These efforts and those of other
Federal agencies (e.g., USDA) are coordinated under the 2014
Strategic Plan for Federal Aquaculture Research, published with
NOAA's assistance and leadership by the White House's Office of
Science and Technology Policy.
Two laboratories house the bulk of the Fisheries Service's
aquaculture science portfolio--the Northeast Fisheries Science
Center's Milford, CT lab and the Northwest Fisheries Science
Center's Manchester, WA lab. Milford has traditionally been a
shellfish aquaculture lab (e.g., siting tools, disease
management, ecosystem services) and Manchester has been a
finish aquaculture lab (e.g., feeds development, finfish
hatchery and grow-out methods). However there is growing
coordination and collaboration in certain areas such as some
aspects of feeds research. Detailed information for each lab's
research portfolio may be provided upon request.
NOAA also supports aquaculture research through its
competitive Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and
Saltonstall-Kennedy grant programs. The SBIR grant program
encourages small businesses to leverage Federal funds to invest
in innovative technologies and next-generation products and
processes that may lead to commercialization. The Saltonstall-
Kennedy grant program funds as a priority research projects
that encourage the development of environmentally-and
economically-sound aquaculture.
Question 13. What benefits will come of incorporating aquaculture
into MSA reauthorization? What recommendations do you have for this
committee in terms of what that should look like?
Answer. It has been NOAA's longstanding interpretation that the
Magnuson-Stevens Act provides NMFS the authority to regulate
aquaculture as ``fishing'' and, thus, that regional fishery management
councils have the authority to prepare fishery management plans
covering all aspects of aquaculture in EEZ waters under their
respective jurisdictions. NOAA is working within the context of current
laws and regulations to address barriers to permitting of aquaculture
in Federal waters.
Question 14. At-Sea Monitoring.--Mr. Rauch: I have spoken with
fishermen in Connecticut who have said that the cost of the At-Sea
Monitoring program, or ASM, could completely erase the total profit
from a day of fishing. While it is necessary to ensure that catch
limits are being adhered to and that discards and other issues are
limited, the ASM program is in need of reform to be less of a financial
burden on fishermen in depressed and recovering fisheries. The fishing
community in Connecticut has conveyed to me that ASM is not only
extremely costly, many times the monitors assigned to boats lack
adequate training.
I recently joined a letter with my New England Senate and House
colleagues urging NOAA to adopt the New England Council's
recommendations for improving the ASM system in the New England
groundfish fishery, such as a more strategic allocation of resources
from areas of low by-catch to areas of higher by-catch.
The New England groundfish fishery still has disaster declaration
status. It is my hope that industry cost sharing will continue to be
deferred until reforms can be made to limit the financial burden on New
England's fishermen. What steps is NOAA taking to reform ASM and reduce
the financial burden on fishermen?
Answer. NMFS approved Framework Adjustment 55 to the Northeast
Multispecies Fishery Management Plan, which became effective on May 1.
This action modifies the method used to set the target coverage level
for the industry-funded ASM program to addressing groundfish monitoring
program objectives while making the program more cost-effective. These
changes include removing ASM coverage for a subset of groundfish trips
that catch little to no groundfish, using more years of data to predict
the coverage level, and basing the coverage level on stocks that have
the least risk tolerance for error in discard estimates.
The changes approved in Framework 55 result in a target coverage
level of 14 percent for the 2016 fishing year, including coverage for
the standardized bycatch reporting methodology paid in full by our
Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP). Assuming NEFOP covers 4
percent of trips as we have in recent years, this will result in
sectors paying for ASM on approximately 10 percent of their vessels'
trips in 2016.
Question 15. Will you give NOAA's commitment to continue to work
with the New England delegation to strengthen the ASM program so that
it is more efficient, effective, and less costly for fishermen and the
fishing industry?
Answer. We support efforts to evaluate groundfish monitoring
programs through our membership on the New England Fishery Management
Council, its Groundfish Plan Development Team, and its Groundfish
Oversight Committee. The Council made evaluation of groundfish
monitoring a priority for 2016, and is expected to initiate a new
amendment to consider more extensive changes to the groundfish
monitoring program. The Council's Plan Development Team is already
working on analysis to inform this action.
We also remain committed to working directly with the fishing
industry to reduce costs where possible through improved administration
of the ASM program.
Question 16. By-Catch.--Mr. Rauch: In my discussions with the
Connecticut fishing industry, an issue that was frequently raised was
the high levels of by-catch that many of them are experiencing. Because
of the discrepancy between the numbers of black sea bass and summer
flounder the quota setting mid-Atlantic Council observes and the
population levels that are in New England waters, fishermen in New
England often end up with high levels of fish that they must discard in
order to stay below the quota limit.
By-catch is a significant issue that has far-reaching consequences.
By-catch disrupts the connectivity and health of entire ecosystems,
slows progress in stock rebuilding, and is economically harmful to the
fishing industry. What steps can be taken by NOAA or at the Council
level to reduce and eliminate by-catch?
Answer. NMFS agrees that bycatch is an important issue and can be a
problem in some fisheries. NMFS and the Councils have a long history of
addressing bycatch with notable success over the last forty years
through improved gear technology and bycatch monitoring. We acknowledge
that there is more work to do. In February this year, the agency
released a draft National Bycatch Reduction Strategy aimed at
improvements in bycatch research, monitoring, management
implementation, enforcement, evaluation and communication. The goal of
the draft strategy is to coordinate NMFS' efforts under multiple
mandates to reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality and increase
utilization of discards to maintain sustainable fisheries and recover
protected species. The draft strategy is available for public comment
until June 3, 2016, and once finalized, NMFS will work with our
regional stakeholders, including the Councils, to develop regionally-
specific implementation plans. (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/
fisheries_eco/bycatch/index.html)
Question 17. Can an increase in communication and cooperation
between Councils lead to a reduction of by-catch?
Answer. Cross-Council communication can help improve efforts to
address bycatch in several ways. First, Councils can learn about
effective approaches and gear solutions from each other and apply those
in their own fisheries as necessary. For example, in 2004, the U.S.
began requiring the use of circle hooks, which are designed to reduce
sea turtle and mammal bycatch, in the HI longline fishery for swordfish
and the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery. Circle hooks are now widely
used across the country by both commercial and recreational fishermen.
Another example of the success of cross-Council communication is in New
England, where scallop fishermen use an early warning system similar to
an approach used in Alaska to avoid salmon bycatch in the Alaska
Pollock fishery. The program uses real time communications with fishing
vessels to determine the location of `bycatch hotspots' to help
fishermen more accurately target their scallop allocation without
triggering bycatch closures. Similar programs in the Pacific Islands
help fishermen avoid turtle hotspots. Additionally, cross-Council
communication is critical when fisheries managed by different Councils
are contributing to bycatch of the same stock or species.
Question 18. Seafood Fraud--Mr. Rauch: In October of last year,
Oceana issued a report that revealed wide-spread salmon labeling fraud.
This issue is not only limited to salmon, but occurs with other species
of fish as well. Not only is this problem misleading for consumers, as
they pay more for what they think is higher quality fish, it also harms
fishermen and seafood sellers who are supplying fresh caught, local
seafood.
I have called for additional steps to be taken to limit seafood
fraud and I have encouraged consumers to ask questions and educate
themselves on the origins of the seafood they are purchasing, as well
as to buy fresh, locally caught seafood.
Last Congress, I cosponsored S. 520, the Safety and Fraud
Enforcement for Seafood Act. That bill would have required NOAA to
increase inspections of seafood shipments, strengthened coordination
with sea grant colleges--like UConn--on consumer outreach activities,
and established penalties under MSA for seafood fraud. What is NOAA
currently doing to prevent and eliminate seafood fraud? What
improvements can be made to NOAA's efforts?
Answer. The NOAA Seafood Inspection Program offers professional
inspection services assuring compliance with all applicable food
regulations on a fee-for-service basis, for seafood in all forms and
regardless of location. The Program works in support of the mandatory
Food and Drug Administration inspection activities for seafood. The
Seafood Inspection Program has an active Memorandum of Understanding
with FDA to work collaboratively to cover the large area of seafood
certification, plant, and product inspection. The Program focuses on
the buyer-supplier relationship and as a result a main function of the
inspections would be to determine if seafood fraud is present; either
in simple mislabeling, species substitution, low net weights, or added
water. This service was mentioned in a 2009 GAO report on seafood fraud
where the use of this voluntary program was encouraged. Whenever
seafood fraud is detected through Program inspection, and Program
personnel cannot secure correction of the issue, the product is held
and referred to the proper enforcement authority for action.
NOAA was a co-lead on the Presidential Task Force on IUU Fishing
and Seafood Fraud and currently serves as co-chair of the National
Ocean Council Committee on IUU fishing and seafood fraud. In this role
it is responsible for, among other things, the promulgation of
rulemaking to implement a risk-based program to trace seafood, both
imported and domestic, from point of harvest to entry into U.S.
commerce. Publication of the final rule implementing the Seafood Import
Monitoring Program (NOAA already has access to the traceability data
from harvest by domestic fishing vessels to entry into U.S. commerce)
is expected to occur in late summer of 2016. When implemented, the
Program will serve as a valuable tool in identifying fraudulently
represented seafood presented for entry into the U.S.
Further, NOAA Fisheries personnel, through the Office of Law
Enforcement and the Seafood Inspection Program, are working to bolster
efforts of fraud detection at the border and within commerce in the
United States.
Question 19. What level of consumer outreach and education is being
coordinated by NOAA?
Answer. In addition to weekly e-news from NOAA Fisheries related to
all agency activities, including implementation of Task Force
recommendations, NOAA Fisheries established and maintains a webportal
(www.iuufishing.noaa.gov) dedicated exclusively to implementation of
Task Force recommendations for combating IUU fishing and seafood fraud.
With regard to the broad spectrum of ``seafood fraud'' activities that
can occur along the supply chain, NOAA Fisheries also maintains a
public information site, FishWatch, focused on U.S. fisheries and
seafood, including descriptions of the most common forms of seafood
fraud (http://www.fishwatch.gov/eating-seafood/fraud).
Question 20. What enforcement and penalty authority does NOAA
currently have in deterring seafood fraud?
Answer. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has primary
Federal authority to prevent seafood fraud \1\ under the Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act \2\ (FD&CA) which, among other things, prohibits the
mislabeling or adulteration of seafood.\3\ FDA's authority extends to
seafood imports as well as domestically-harvested seafood. In
exercising its authority, FDA inspects imported seafood products,
domestic and foreign seafood processors and importers, and assists
state and local governments in their efforts to regulate retail
establishments, including restaurants. FDA also maintains a list of
acceptable market names for seafood sold in interstate commerce to
assist processors and distributors with proper labeling of seafood
products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In this section, the term ``seafood fraud'' refers to the false
identification of seafood by species, e.g., species substitution and
intentional mislabeling of seafood. Other types of fraud, including the
falsification of catch documentation, trade tracking and other
documents, are not addressed here.
\2\ 21 U.S.C. Sec. 301 et seq.
\3\ 21 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 342 and 343.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the Lacey Act, NOAA also has authority to address
fraudulently-labeled seafood, including aquaculture products, which
have entered interstate or foreign commerce. Violators are subject to
civil and criminal enforcement, and fish imported in violation of the
Lacey Act is subject to forfeiture. OLE conducts periodic inspections
of imported fish and fish products in collaboration with Federal and
state law enforcement partners to ensure compliance with the Lacey Act
and other statutes administered by NOAA.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has authority to
address seafood fraud at the time of import or export. ICE Homeland
Security Investigations (HSI) special agents have authority to
investigate cross-border violations including violations of Chapter 27
of Title 18,\4\ and Title 19, of the U.S. Code. ICE and CBP also have
authority under Title 19 to pursue seizures, penalties, and civil
forfeiture. ICE has authority under the Lacey Act and frequently
cooperates with OLE in Lacey Act cases. Notably, with regard to seafood
fraud, a Lacey Act violation may serve as a predicate offense for
violations involving misclassification, fraudulent importation
documentation, and importation or exportation contrary to law.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 18 U.S.C. Sec. 541 et seq.
\5\ 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 541, 542, 545 and 554.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to these authorities, the NOAA Seafood Inspection
Program (SIP) conducts voluntary fee-for-service inspections of seafood
products and processing facilities under the Agricultural Marketing Act
of 1946.\6\ In the course of these inspections, SIP may identify cases
of suspected seafood fraud, typically involving species substitution or
incorrect net weight. Where appropriate, SIP refers cases to the FDA,
OLE, or State authorities, for investigation under their respective
authorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 7 U.S.C. Sec. 1621 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Response To Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to
Hon. Samuel D. Rauch III
Question 1. The USGS Great Lakes Science Center has historically
led the science program for Great Lakes fisheries. Therefore, its role
is somewhat analogous to one of the six NOAA Fisheries Regional Science
Centers (Alaska, Northeast, Northwest, Pacific Islands, Southeast and
Caribbean, Southwest) that perform fisheries research to support marine
fisheries management decisions. What is the average funding level, and
the range of funding, that supports fisheries research at individual
NOAA Fisheries Regional Science Centers (FY15, FY16, and proposed for
FY17)?
Answer. NOAA Fisheries operates six regional science centers
throughout the country to conduct the required science to prevent and
eliminate overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, support sustainable
aquaculture, recover and conserve protected species, and protect and
restore critical habitat. Working with government, academic and other
partners, NOAA scientists provide the information needed for effective
fisheries management and protected species conservation including
assessments of ecosystem conditions, fish stocks, protected species
populations, and socioeconomic analysis.
Please see below for the FY 2015 actual funding and FY 2016
estimated funding based on the proposed spend plan by NOAA Fisheries
Science Center.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
($ in Millions)
---------------------
Science Center FY 2015
Actual FY 2016
Funding Estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northeast $65.7 $53.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southeast $63.7 $51.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northwest $60.6 $42.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest $44.6 $39.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska $72.6 $61.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Islands $29.4 $23.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Science and Technology (Headquarters)* $38.9 $91.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* A large portion of the funding allocated to the Headquarters Office of
Science and Technology will be distributed throughout the execution
year to the regions in accordance with science priorities. As seen in
the FY 2015 actual funding, regional science center receive a large
portion of these funds from the Office of Science and Technology, as
well as other regional fishery management offices or headquarters
offices.
Science center funding for the FY 2017 President's Budget Request
is expected to be similar to the FY 2016 level, with the addition of
the following FY 2017 science request initiatives below. The specific
regional breakout of these proposed initiatives have not been
determined for FY 2017.
Increase of $5.9 million for Ecosystem-based Solutions for
Fisheries Management for the NMFS component of this integrated,
cross-disciplinary, and cross-line office (National Ocean
Service) scientific initiative that will fill information gaps
in habitat science and connections to fisheries management, and
provide economic information that can be used to better inform
decision making to benefit stewardship and resilience of
inshore ecosystems and the living resources and human
communities that depend on them.
Increase of $0.9 million for the Distributed Biological
Observatory to expand data archiving and visualization
capabilities for the Distributed Biological Observatory, a
joint project among Federal agencies and international partners
supporting science to improve detection of changes to Arctic
marine ecosystems.
Increase of $1.1 million for Observers & Training to provide
accurate and timely information and analyses on the biological,
economic, and social aspects of the Nation's fisheries
resources. The scientific data collected by observer programs
are critical inputs for fisheries stock assessments and to
population assessments of threatened and endangered species,
and for effective management of the Nation's fish stocks. The
requested funding will provide 1,000 additional sea days of
observer coverage in twelve regional fishery observer programs
to increase the number of fisheries with adequate observer
coverage.
Question 2. NOAA is not directly involved in Great Lakes fisheries
management, because the Great Lakes fisheries are excluded from
management under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. However, a strong fisheries
research program is still important since it informs fisheries
management in the region. How does NOAA coordinate with other entities
in the Great Lakes, such as the USGS Great Lakes Science Center, to
support Great Lakes fisheries research?
Answer. The Great Lakes Fishery Commission has partnered with other
agencies, including NOAA, to advance the scientific understanding of
the dynamic environments and the ecology of the Great Lakes in support
of resource use and management decisions. Research into applicable
technologies is advanced by academic partners supported, in part, by
the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act. The NOAA Great Lakes
Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL) supports environmental
observing systems in partnerships with the Great Lakes Observing System
(GLOS), a regional member of NOAA's Integrated Ocean Observing System
(IOOS). GLERL provides a wide variety of data products that are
important to fish stocks and to fishing activities. These include
hydrology, climate, ice cover, algal blooms, hypoxia, and invasive
species. GLERL's Great Lakes Coastal Forecasting System provides
predictions on several parameters that affect fish stocks and fishing,
such as water temperature, currents, and ice. GLOS and the Great Lakes
Fishery Commission launched the Great Lakes Acoustic Telemetry
Observing System (GLATOS) tool to answer fisheries management and
ecology questions in the Great Lakes. The system can track more than
1,700 fish of four species--lake trout, walleye, sea lamprey, and lake
sturgeon--tagged between 2010 and 2013. The GLOS system also provides
access to a wide variety of historical and real-time environmental
monitoring data.
Question 3. We must ensure that fisheries research and management
adapt to future challenges, such as climate change and habitat loss.
One way to achieve this is to find solutions through development of new
and advanced research technologies. Are there any advanced
technologies, either in use or in development for marine fisheries that
you think could also be applied to fisheries research in the Great
Lakes?
Answer. Technologies used in the Great Lakes are generally similar
to those used in marine fisheries. These include underwater acoustics
(sonar) for seafloor mapping, habitat characterization, and estimating
the population of fish in the water column. In the Great Lakes, fishery
trawl surveys routinely use acoustic technologies, and are conducted
collaboratively between NOAA, U.S. Geological Survey, and state
agencies. NOAA acoustic experts have provided assistance with multi-
frequency acoustic methods to improve fish abundance estimates. The
NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory and NOAA's
Integrated Ocean Observing System support ocean observation systems
(moored and unmanned platforms) to improve the understanding of the
dynamic environments and ecosystems of the Great Lakes for resource use
and management decisions. Fish tagging, airborne sensors, satellite
remote sensing are also utilized. Acoustic seafloor mapping has also
been used for documenting historical ship wrecks in the Thunder Bay
National Marine Sanctuary, and acoustic telemetry technologies have
been used for documenting the distribution patterns of fish.
NOAA Fisheries is developing and adapting several technologies for
data collection in marine systems that could also have application in
the Great Lakes. One promising example is automated image analysis, in
which digital video and stereo still images of fish in their native
habitats are analyzed for species identification and measurement. This
approach is particularly valuable for assessing fish species that
aggregate on physical structures, such as reefs. Another developing
technology is unmanned platforms, which can serve as the primary system
for deploying acoustic and/or cameras, or serve as ``force
multipliers'' by augmenting surveys conducted from conventional
platforms such as ships. Towed systems are particularly useful for
surveying bottom-dwelling species with no or limited mobility. For
example, NOAA's Northeast Fisheries Science Center has implemented an
optical survey for Atlantic scallops using a towed stereo camera system
called the Habitat Mapping Camera System (HabCam V4). NOAA Fisheries is
also conducting research on how towed systems affect fish behavior,
which is a key step in using data from these systems for stock
assessments. (Some fish are frightened away by these systems, while
others are attracted to them.) Underwater Autonomous Vehicles (UAV) can
augment ship-based surveys and operate in rough or very deep habitats
that preclude the use of conventional gear such as trawls (these
systems also affect fish behavior). Unmanned surface platforms (e.g.,
the Waveglider) have also been investigated for expanding survey
coverage both spatially and temporally, since they can operate for
extended periods without human intervention.
Question 4. Can you elaborate on potential barriers to developing
and deploying new fisheries research technologies?
Answer. We are constantly reviewing new technologies to determine
suitability for deployment and for transitioning promising technologies
into broader use. We will adopt these technologies as resources and
competing priorities allow.
[all]
This page intentionally left blank.
This page intentionally left blank.
This page intentionally left blank.