    [Senate Hearing 115-432]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 115-432

                    REAUTHORIZATION OF THE MAGNUSON-STEVENS
                    FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT:
      OVERSIGHT OF FISHERIES MANAGEMENT SUCCESSES AND CHALLENGES (PART 2)

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

                                 FIELD HEARING

                                   before the

         SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, FISHERIES, AND COAST GUARD

                                     of the

                             COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
                          SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                AUGUST 23, 2017

                                   __________

        Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                    Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov

                               _______________

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    34-304 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2019

           SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                       JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman
    ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi         BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking
    ROY BLUNT, Missouri                  MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
    TED CRUZ, Texas                      AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
    DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
    JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
    DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
    DEAN HELLER, Nevada                  CORY BOOKER, New Jersey
    JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma               TOM UDALL, New Mexico
    MIKE LEE, Utah                       GARY PETERS, Michigan
    RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin               TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
    CORY GARDNER, Colorado               MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire
    TODD YOUNG, Indiana                  CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
                           Nick Rossi, Staff Director
                     Adrian Arnakis, Deputy Staff Director
                        Jason Van Beek, General Counsel
                     Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
                  Chris Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
                          Renae Black, Senior Counsel
                                     ------

                SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, FISHERIES,
                                AND COAST GUARD

    DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska, Chairman       GARY PETERS, Michigan, Ranking
    ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi         MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
    DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
    JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma               BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
    MIKE LEE, Utah                       EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
    RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin               CORY BOOKER, New Jersey
    CORY GARDNER, Colorado               TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
    TODD YOUNG, Indiana

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on August 23, 2017..................................     1
    Statement of Senator Sullivan....................................     1

                                   Witnesses

    Dan Hull, Chairman, North Pacific Fishery Management Council.....     4
        Prepared statement...........................................     6
    Sam Cotten, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish and Game.....    15
        Prepared statement...........................................    16
    Reed Morisky, Member, Alaska Board of Fisheries..................    18
        Prepared statement...........................................    19
    A.G. ``Spud'' Woodward, Director, Coastal Resources Division,
      Georgia Department of Natural Resources........................    21
        Prepared statement...........................................    22
    Glenn Reed, President, Pacific Seafood Processors Association....    36
        Prepared statement...........................................    39
    Ben Speciale, President, Yamaha Marine Group, Yamaha Motor
      Corporation, USA...............................................    40
        Prepared statement...........................................    42
    Linda Behnken, President, Halibut Coalition; and Executive
      Director, Alaska Longline Fishermen's Association..............    57
        Prepared statement...........................................    58
    Ragnar Alstrom, Executive Director, Yukon Delta Fisheries
      Development Association........................................    63
        Prepared statement...........................................    64
    Ben Stevens, Director, Hunting and Fishing Task Force, Tanana
      Chiefs Conference..............................................    67
        Prepared statement...........................................    68
    Shannon Carroll, Deputy Director, Alaska Marine Conservation
      Council........................................................    96
        Prepared statement...........................................    98
    Julie Bonney, Executive Director, Alaska Groundfish Data Bank....   102
        Prepared statement...........................................   103
    Lori Swanson, Executive Director, Marine Conservation Alliance...   104
        Prepared statement...........................................   106
    Duncan Fields, Gulf of Alaska Coastal Communities Coalition......   107
        Prepared statement...........................................   109
    Liz Ogilvie, Chief Marketing Officer, American Sportfishing
      Association....................................................   113
        Prepared statement...........................................   114

                                    Appendix

    Rebecca Skinner, Executive Director, Alaska Whitefish Trawlers
      Association, prepared statement................................   127
    Ernest Weiss, Natural Resource Director, Aleutians East Borough,
      prepared statement.............................................   128
    Ryan P. Mulvey, Counsel, Cause of Action Institute, prepared
      statement......................................................   128
    A.G. ``Spud'' Woodward, Director, Coastal Resources Division,
      Georgia Department of Natural Resources, prepared statement....   133
    Letter dated March 15, 2017 to Members of the 115th Congress from
      the MSA Working Group..........................................   134
    Letter dated August 22, 2017 to Hon. Dan Sullivan from Kevin R.
      Wheeler, Executive Director, Seafood Harvesters of America.....   147
    Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Roger F. Wicker
      to Elizabeth Ogilvie...........................................   148

                        REAUTHORIZATION OF THE MAGNUSON-
                        STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND
                          MANAGEMENT ACT: OVERSIGHT OF
                         FISHERIES MANAGEMENT SUCCESSES
                            AND CHALLENGES (PART 2)

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 23, 2017

                                   U.S. Senate,
    Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and
                                           Coast Guard,
            Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
                                                          Soldotna, AK.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:03 p.m. in
    Room 102, Kenai Peninsula College, Hon. Dan Sullivan, Chairman
    of the Subcommittee, presiding.
        Present: Senator Dan Sullivan [presiding].

                OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

        Senator Sullivan. Well, good afternoon, everybody.
        The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation will
    now come to order.
        You may have seen that the title of today's hearing is the
    ``Reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
    and Management Act: Oversight of Fisheries Management Successes
    and Challenges.''
        I am Senator Dan Sullivan. I want to thank everybody for
    being here.
        I had the good fortune of being named, at the beginning of
    this most recent Congress, the Chairman of the Senate's
    Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere,
    Fisheries, and the Coast Guard, which has jurisdiction over our
    Nation's fisheries and Federal waters. This is the first field
    hearing that the Subcommittee is doing anywhere in the United
    States. And, of course, you are not surprised that we are doing
    it here in Alaska.
        With me today, I have two professional staff members from
    the Senate Commerce Committee, Emily Patrolia and Cindy
    Qualley; along with staff members in my office, Tom Mansour,
    who is a Coast Guard officer on detail to my office; Scott
    Leathard, who is the Staff Director of the Subcommittee; Elaina
    Spraker, who many of you know from my Kenai office.
        My Chief of Staff in Washington, D.C., Joe Balash, who some
    of you may know on a very different, but important topic to the
    State of Alaska, has recently been named by the President to be
    the Assistant Secretary of Interior in charge of all oil, gas,
    minerals, onshore, and offshore; not only for Alaska, but the
    entire country.
        So Joe will be going through his confirmation hearing in
    the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee chaired by
    Senator Murkowski in a couple of weeks. So we will be losing
    Joe, but America and Alaska will be gaining a strong advocate
    for our state and the country on some very, very important
    issues that we are not going to be talking about today, but I
    just wanted you to know that.
        Today's hearing is the second in a series of hearings that
    I am chairing, which focuses on the long overdue
    reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation
    and Management Act--we short-handedly refer to it as the MSA--
    to examine this law's impact on managing our Nation's
    fisheries, its successes, of which there are many, and areas of
    improvement.
        Again, I first want to start by thanking our hosts. Gary,
    thank you, and the Kenai Peninsula College. I also want to
    thank the Kenai River Sporting Association for their help in
    organizing this important event.
        This year, the Kenai River Classic celebrates 25 years of
    raising funds for conservation, education, and other projects
    in South Central Alaska, and I wish the organizers another very
    successful event week.
        I also want to thank everybody for being here today. We
    have an all-star list of witnesses who are going to be
    testifying on three different panels today. This is an
    important hearing.
        I know that many of you traveled throughout parts of Alaska
    to be here and some of you have traveled, literally, thousands
    of miles from the Lower 48, to be here. I want to personally
    thank everybody for the travel, sacrificing their time, even
    sacrificing their time out on the water to fish.
        Earlier this month, I chaired a hearing in Washington, D.C.
    that solicited testimony from the Regional Fisheries Management
    Councils and NOAA. Today, our intention is to have the
    opportunity to broaden the amount of testimony, and witnesses,
    and different points of view dramatically from all kinds of
    different stakeholders in our fisheries.
        One of the things that I just want to emphasize: this is an
    area where I see significant bipartisan opportunities. One
    thing when I am back home, I try to talk about what is going on
    in Washington and you often only hear about the conflict and
    where things are not working. There are also a lot of things
    that are working from a bipartisan perspective. I will just
    mention one that relates to fisheries.
        We had a bill called the Save Our Seas Act that recently
    passed the Senate. That came out of the Committee that I chair.
    It was a bill that I authored, but it had numerous Democrats
    and Republicans dealing with a really important issue that
    relates to this topic and that is the issue of ocean pollution,
    ocean debris. You cannot help but see that throughout our
    state. So there is progress there.
        We want to make sure that as we look at reauthorizing this
    bill that we hear from as many impacted stakeholders as
    possible, to make sure that we can build consensus, and to make
    sure that the next generation of young men and women in our
    fisheries, whether in Alaska or throughout the country, have
    opportunities for strong, sustainable fisheries and strong bi-
    run coastal communities.
        So when you look at the witness list, it literally covers
    the Pacific Northwest, the southeast United States, and every
    corner of Alaska from southeast, to the interior and Kodiak,
    and everywhere in between.
        We are fortunate today to host a robust group of witnesses
    representing both geographic diversity and, importantly, a
    diversity of experiences and perspectives.
        In addition, I am eager to hear from our State and regional
    Federal managers to gain their views on management successes,
    challenges, and how Congress can provide additional direction
    or tools to further their mission and enhance State and Federal
    coordination, which is so, so critical with regard to our
    fisheries to enable them to thrive for the next generation,
    whether they are commercial, recreational, charter, or
    subsistence.
        The MSA has successfully Americanized our fisheries and
    built the fishing industry into Alaska's largest private
    employer--a lot of people, even in Alaska, do not realize
    that--more than any other industry. As I constantly and perhaps
    annoyingly remind my Senate colleagues back in Washington, D.C.
    Alaska's fisheries are, by far, the largest in the Nation
    accounting for well over 50 percent of all total domestic
    landings in the country.
        We literally are the super power of seafood and probably
    considered the best managed fishery--certainly not without its
    challenges--but the best managed fishery in the United States
    and probably in the world.
        At the same time, we know that we have challenges, and we
    know that we have opportunities and see them. Even this summer,
    like most Alaskans, I have been out doing my fair share of
    fishing this summer. I was on the Yukon River where my wife's
    family has had a subsistence fish camp for generations. I saw a
    strong run there. I was out fishing in Seward and saw a lot of
    opportunities out there. And just yesterday, I was in King Cove
    and saw a strong fishery there.
        In 2017, we saw a near record sockeye run in Bristol Bay.
    Meanwhile, southeast Alaska is experiencing unprecedented
    closure of sport and commercial king salmon fisheries, and the
    sport king fishery in the Upper Copper River was closed this
    year. As I noted, the Yukon River saw the best king fishery
    since 2003, while the Kuskokwim saw few kings, but an abundance
    of reds and chums. The Gulf of Alaska saw an early closure for
    some groundfish species.
        These are just a few observations, some challenges related
    to management, while others are a function of biology. And I
    think our witnesses are going to help us understand these
    better.
        The key is providing the greatest overall benefit to the
    U.S., the entire country, to recreational opportunity and
    seafood harvest without jeopardizing conservation. And that is
    the greatest responsibility that Congress has assigned to our
    fishery managers through the MSA.
        This requirement is often a strained balancing act and we
    recognize that, and it forces tough choices between competing
    interests. But again, I think what we are trying to do here is
    look at ways to achieve consensus.
        At a recent hearing in Washington, Chris Oliver, the newly
    appointed Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries, the
    Director of the National Marine Fishery Service, NMFS, and I am
    proud to say the first-ever Alaskan to permanently hold that
    position, testified as follows: ``I believe there are
    opportunities to have it both ways. To maximize our domestic
    harvest potential without compromising the long term
    sustainability of the resources we manage.''
        So for many Alaskans and their families, fishing is a way
    of life. As Congress considers the reauthorization of the MSA,
    we are focused on seeking the sort of solutions that Chris
    Oliver has confidence exists. I hope today's hearing will
    further guide us toward that goal.
        I am committed to ensuring that our Nation's fisheries
    management system supports a stable food supply, recreational
    subsistence opportunities, and plentiful fishing and processing
    jobs that provide for vibrant coastal communities here in
    Alaska, but also across the United States.
        And with that, I would like to get started and turn to our
    first panel, which consists mostly of State and Federal
    officials in the public management bodies that make decisions
    with regard to our fisheries.
        I want to welcome our witnesses, Dan Hull, who is the Chair
    of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council.
        Commissioner Sam Cotten, who is the Commissioner of the
    Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
        Reed Morisky, Member of the Alaska Board of Fisheries.
        And Spud Woodward, Director of the Coastal Resources
    Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Dr.
    Woodward, I think you might get the award for traveling the
    furthest. So we want to thank you for being here as well.
        Each of you will have 5 minutes to deliver an oral
    statement. A longer, written statement will be included in the
    record for this hearing, if you so wish.
        That also reminds me, this hearing will be open in terms of
    the record for 2 weeks and we would encourage any and all--we
    will leave the contact information for additional testimony
    from any members of the audience--who would like to submit
    written testimony that we will look at and read, I promise you,
    and consider as part of this hearing, even though you were not
    able to testify as one of the witnesses today.
        So each of you, as I mentioned, will have 5 minutes. We
    look forward to an interesting discussion and again, I want to
    thank all of the witnesses for being here.
        Dan, can you please kick it off?

        STATEMENT OF DAN HULL, CHAIRMAN, NORTH PACIFIC FISHERY
                           MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

        Mr. Hull. Good afternoon, Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member
    Peters, and members of the Committee.
        First, thank you for holding this field hearing in Alaska
    and for the opportunity to testify on the reauthorization of
    the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act,
    or MSA, as we say in shorthand.
        My name is Dan Hull and I am Chairman of the North Pacific
    Fishery Management Council.
        Fisheries are extremely important to the economies, coastal
    communities, and cultures in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest.
    And we have developed a sustainable fisheries management
    program in Alaska over the last 40 years.
        Thus, the North Pacific Council believes that the current
    MSA and the ten national standards already provide a very
    successful framework for the conservation and management of our
    Nation's fisheries resources.
        Nevertheless, we also recognize the potential benefits of
    increased flexibility in some circumstances to allow regional
    councils the opportunity to optimize their management programs
    with the appropriate cautionary notes.
        We agree with, and support, the Council Coordinating
    Committee's consensus positions on MSA reauthorization provided
    by Dr. John Quinn recently, and I encourage the Committee to
    take advantage of the collective wisdom of the CCC as work on
    reauthorization moves ahead.
        I want to highlight several issues in particular, beginning
    with modifications to the ACL requirements, which we believe
    are the cornerstone of sustainable fisheries management.
        The process for setting ACLs through the Council's
    scientific and statistical committees includes accounting for
    uncertainty, articulating policies for acceptable risk, and
    establishing necessary precautionary buffers. We continue to
    believe that the SSCs are the appropriate gatekeepers for
    making those determinations.
        Any changes to the law providing additional flexibility
    must continue to ensure that fundamental conservation and
    management principles are upheld, and should not create
    incentives or justifications to overlook them for the sake of
    preserving all economic activity over the short term.
        Second, more specific to the North Pacific region, we
    believe an amendment to remove the August 1, 1996 date from MSA
    section 306(a)(3)(C) is essential to effective management and
    enforcement of the fisheries. This would ensure that the
    delegation of salmon management in the EEZ to the State of
    Alaska would include vessels not registered with the state.
        Mr. Chairman, I also want to correct my written statement
    on the recusal issue to reflect that continuation of the full
    attribution policy is a NOAA agency decision and not a decision
    by NOAA G.C. alone.
        Next, incorporating the national Environmental Protection
    Act requirements into the MSA to achieve a single guiding
    statute for fisheries management is consistent with the
    longstanding views of our Council and the CCC.
        However, we are concerned that the ultimate result will be
    contingent upon implementing regulations, and realized benefits
    could be marginal relative to the creation of new complexities
    and costs. In our view, this issue certainly deserves closer
    scrutiny.
        Last, we concur with the CCC's concerns regarding the
    challenges that councils face to meet important new national
    policy directives and the adequacy of funding to continue at-
    sea surveys and stock assessments.
        In the North Pacific, the high quality and coverage levels
    of fishery surveys and stock assessments have been essential in
    achieving sustainable fisheries for so long. With reductions in
    surveys and stock assessments, it becomes harder to achieve
    optimum yield in the fisheries as defined in National Standard
    1.
        Greater uncertainty in estimates of abundance typically
    results in more conservative approaches to management and lower
    harvest levels to buffer against the potential for error and
    maintain conservation goals.
        My written testimony also includes four examples of
    successful fisheries management in the North Pacific under the
    existing MSA: Chinook salmon bycatch management in the Bering
    Sea, the Observer Program and development of electronic
    monitoring, the management of halibut allocations between the
    commercial and charter sectors, and the development of
    ecosystem based fisheries management.
        No management program is perfect upon implementation and
    all of them require review and revision over time. But all of
    these actions have been possible under the existing structure
    of the law, and there are several important underlying themes
    in all of them.
        First, the significance of a well-structured national
    policy framework that provides broad objectives with sound
    guidance, recognizing regional differences in allowing for the
    development of regionally based solutions.
        Second, is the critical importance of science and analysis,
    stock surveys, assessments, fisheries dependent data collection
    and monitoring, and research including social and economic
    research.
        And finally, ensuring accountability in all that we do
    through monitoring and data collection in the fisheries, review
    of catch share and other management programs, and broad
    stakeholder participation.
        Chairman Sullivan, thank you again for the opportunity to
    testify. That concludes my remarks and I will do my best to
    answer any questions you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Hull follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Dan Hull, Chairman,
                    North Pacific Fishery Management Council
        Good afternoon Chairman Sullivan, ranking member Peters, and
    members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on
    reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
    Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act, or MSA). My name is Dan Hull, and
    I am the Chairman of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. I
    have served as one of Alaska's representatives on the Council for eight
    years and as Chairman for the last three, and I am honored to
    participate in this hearing and offer our perspectives on
    reauthorization.
        Because the North Pacific Council has not met in session since
    receiving the invitation to testify and to provide suggestions for
    improving the MSA, my comments are confined primarily to previous
    discussions we've had about issues raised in current and prior draft
    legislation. My comments also include examples that highlight important
    elements of the MSA and illustrate the success of the law in the North
    Pacific as written. As this subcommittee and Congress work to
    reauthorize the law and request further review and comment from us, we
    stand ready to share our perspectives independently and in concert with
    the other Regional Fishery Management Councils to improve and
    strengthen the MSA.
    Fisheries in the North Pacific
        The North Pacific Fishery Management Council, through its
    partnerships with NOAA Fisheries (NMFS) and other agencies, develops
    regulations for groundfish in the Gulf of Alaska, Bering Sea, and
    Aleutian Islands. Groundfish include cod, pollock, flatfish, Atka
    mackerel, sablefish, and rockfish species harvested by trawl, longline,
    jig, and pot gear. The Council also makes domestic allocation decisions
    and establishes domestic management programs for halibut, as part of
    our coordinated management of the halibut resource with the
    International Pacific Halibut Commission, which sets directed fishery
    catch limits and season dates, and manages biological aspects of the
    resource for U.S.-Canada waters. Other large Alaska fisheries such as
    salmon, crab, scallops and herring are managed jointly with the State
    of Alaska.
        Fisheries are extremely important to the economies, coastal
    communities and cultures in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest. More than
    50 percent of the seafood harvested in the United States comes from
    Alaska. The fisheries provide tens of thousands of jobs for commercial
    fishermen, processing workers, sport fishing guides, gear suppliers and
    other support industries. There are over 1,500 vessels fishing
    commercially in the federally managed groundfish fisheries, hundreds of
    other vessels participating in State managed commercial fisheries,
    another 1,000 or so charter vessels participating in the halibut sport
    fishery, and a large number of privately owned boats that participate
    in recreational fisheries for halibut, groundfish, and salmon. The
    commercial fisheries annually catch is about 3 million metric tons of
    fish off Alaska, which generates approximately $2 billion in ex-vessel
    revenue (the amount paid to fishermen at delivery, prior to value added
    processing). The groundfish fisheries account for a majority of the
    catch and value, but the halibut, salmon and crab fisheries also
    contribute substantially.
        The Council recognizes that its management of marine resources in
    the North Pacific is also critical to subsistence uses of fish,
    shellfish and marine mammals throughout Alaska's coastal communities,
    whether directly or indirectly.
        We have developed a very successful fisheries management program in
    the North Pacific, resulting in profitable and sustainable fisheries.
    For the past 40 years, annual groundfish catches have ranged from 3 to
    5 billion pounds, with no stocks overfished or undergoing overfishing.
    There is no question that sustainable, science based conservation and
    management of the living marine resources in the North Pacific is
    critically important to the economies and communities in our region.
    Views on MSA Reauthorization
        The North Pacific Council believes that the current MSA already
    provides a very successful framework for sustainable fisheries
    management, and major changes are not necessary at this time.
    Nevertheless, we also recognize the potential benefits of increased
    flexibility in some circumstances, and amending the Act to provide for
    such flexibility could provide all the regional councils additional
    opportunities to optimize their fishery management programs, with
    appropriate cautionary notes. In short, any changes to the law
    providing additional flexibility must continue to ensure that
    fundamental conservation and management tenets are upheld, and should
    not create incentives or justifications to overlook them.
        We agree with and support the Council Coordinating Committee's
    consensus positions on issues, which were detailed in the testimony
    provided by John Quinn at the hearing earlier this month. As your
    subcommittee and Congress works to reauthorize the MSA, we encourage
    you to take advantage of the collective wisdom of the Council
    Coordination Committee, as well as individual Councils, to assess how
    best to navigate challenging issues. We believe that the CCC is well
    positioned to review and understand regional differences and
    complexities in management, and if requested, offer guidance as well
    potential solutions to new challenges and proposed changes to the MSA.
    The following are the North Pacific Council's views and comments on
    some specific issues and provisions raised in various proposed
    amendments to the MSA, and in separate discussions with NMFS.
    Modifications to the ACL requirement
        Regarding annual catch limits (ACLs), ACLs have been used in the
    North Pacific for the past 40 years, and we believe that such limits
    are a cornerstone of sustainable fisheries management. We also believe
    there are situations where some flexibility in the establishment of
    ACLs is warranted, particularly in the case of data poor stocks.
    Consideration of the economic needs of fishing communities is critical
    in the ACL setting process, and while the current MSA allows for such
    consideration, we recognize the desire for a more explicit allowance
    for these considerations. We must be careful however, not to jeopardize
    long term fisheries sustainability, and associated community vitality
    and resiliency, for the sake of short term preservation of all economic
    activity associated with a fishery. Accounting for uncertainty,
    articulating policies for acceptable risk, and establishing the
    necessary precautionary buffers, are all explicit outcomes of the ACL
    process, and we believe that the Councils' Scientific and Statistical
    Committees (SSCs) are the appropriate gatekeepers to establish the
    upper limits of `safe' fishing mortality, which we believe to be at the
    Acceptable Biological Catch level. We also believe that authorization
    for multi-species stock complexes and multiyear ACLs, as well as the
    provisions regarding ecosystem component species, will also provide the
    Councils greater flexibility to apply ACLs consistent with other
    aspects of management for a given species.
        Alternative management measures for recreational fisheries (or
    other fisheries, such as subsistence) such as extraction rates,
    mortality targets, and harvest control rules could provide additional
    tools and flexibility to fisheries managers in all U.S. regions. It is
    unclear, however, whether such alternative measures are intended to be
    in lieu of ACL requirements, or in some other context. This is one
    example where maintaining accountability to scientific principles is
    appropriate, and I believe the CCC's comments to this Subcommittee
    reflect this, stating ``ideally such exceptions would be codified in
    the MSA along with guidance regarding applicable circumstances in
    National Standard guidelines''.
    Stock Assessment Science
        Stock assessments provide the fundamental information necessary to
    successfully manage sustainable fisheries. As such, the Council
    believes the requirements for the Secretary to develop plans and
    schedules for stock assessment will enhance fisheries management
    nationally. However, we have some serious concerns with the provision
    to incorporate information from a wide variety of non-governmental
    sources, and potentially require that information to be considered
    `best information available'. In the North Pacific Council the public
    has opportunity to provide input into the science and scientific peer
    review of all issues through testimony and discussions at the SSC and
    Plan Team meetings, and these bodies regularly hear the views of
    stakeholder groups, oftentimes in detailed data-based presentations.
    And we are working to incorporate traditional knowledge into our
    understanding of the ecosystem. We are concerned that complying with
    this provision will increase burdens on our staff and our Scientific
    and Statistical Committee, and invite potential litigation. This makes
    it especially difficult for the Council to fulfill its responsibilities
    under MSA. The implementing guidelines for when such information would
    be utilized will be critical to its veracity and usefulness to
    managers.
    Rebuilding Plans
        Regarding potential changes and increased flexibility for stock
    rebuilding plans, our Council believes that further flexibility,
    particularly in cases where the 10-year rule does not make sense due to
    the particular aspects of the stock in question, would appropriately
    increase the ability to maximize harvest opportunities while still
    effecting rebuilding of fish stocks. In some cases, the somewhat
    arbitrary 10-year requirement can result in overly restrictive
    management measures, with unnecessary, negative economic impacts, with
    little or no conservation gain. Allowing for rebuilding to occur in as
    short a time as ``practicable'', as opposed to as short a time as
    ``possible'', appears to be an appropriate mechanism for additional
    flexibility. The use of alternative rebuilding strategies such as
    harvest control rules and fishing mortality targets is consistent with
    this increased flexibility. Finally, allowing the Councils' SSCs to
    determine whether a rebuilding plan is no longer necessary seems an
    appropriate role for the SSCs.
    Distinguishing between overfished and depleted
        When a fish stock abundance drops below a certain threshold, it is
    deemed `overfished', regardless of whether or not fishing caused the
    change in abundance. In the North Pacific the example of Pribilof
    Island Blue King Crab, a fishery for which there has been no allowable
    fishing for decades, and a species which is only occasionally taken as
    bycatch in other fisheries, highlights the need to differentiate stocks
    for which an ``overfished'' status has no relation to fishing
    activities. Replacing the term ``overfished'' with the term
    ``depleted'' may be an effective way to address this problem.
    Additionally, legislation should consider exempting depleted fisheries
    from development of a rebuilding plan in cases where fishery management
    actions would not effect, or substantially affect, stock rebuilding.
    Transparency
        All decisions made by the Council and its advisory bodies are done
    through a transparent, open public process. Meeting materials, agenda
    and schedule, and public comment letters are all posted in advance of
    the meeting on a ``live agenda'' on the Council website. During the
    meeting, this ``live agenda'' is continuously updated with minutes that
    are drafted by the SSC, AP and Committees, motions on which the Council
    has acted, and new material that is pertinent to the agenda items.
        Regarding the requirements to provide website access to audio,
    video, or written transcripts of all Council and SSC meetings, this is
    already provided for meetings of the Council, including live webcast
    (to the extent possible) and full searchable audio transcripts. While
    SSC meetings are not live webcast or recorded, they are open to all the
    public and very detailed meeting minutes are developed and are
    accessible on our website. Requiring live webcast or full audio
    transcriptions of SSC meetings would impose added costs to the Council,
    with both monetary and personnel commitments, with minimal benefit to
    the public. Additionally, our Council meetings are sometimes held in
    remote Alaska coastal communities that may have less than ideal
    Internet connectivity necessary for audio (or video) webcasting. The
    Council agrees with the Council Coordinating Committee recommendation
    to require the use of webcasts ``to the extent practicable'' will
    achieve greater transparency within budget and operational constraints.
        In addition to openness and transparency, it is worth noting the
    evolution of representation on the North Pacific Council and its
    subsidiary bodies over time. As new challenges arise, management
    programs become more complex and intertwined, and stakeholder interests
    broaden, the composition of the North Pacific Council and its
    subsidiary bodies has arguably become more representative of the
    diverse commercial, subsistence and recreational fisheries,
    communities, environmental and other stakeholder interests than in the
    past.
    NEPA Compliance
        Incorporating the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA)
    requirements into the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and realizing a single
    guiding statute for fishery management actions, is consistent with
    long-standing intent of the Council and the Council Coordinating
    Committee generally. However, we are concerned that the ultimate result
    will be contingent upon implementing regulations, and the realized
    benefit could be marginal relative to creation of new complexities and
    challenges. These new complexities and challenges include the
    development of potentially complex and contentious regulations, and
    creation of a new body of litigation relative to fishery management
    actions. Our specific concerns are as follows:

       Proposed new requirements would not alter the current
            breadth and scope of environmental, economic, and social impact
            analysis requirements, so we would not anticipate any decrease
            in the overall resources necessary to satisfy the new
            requirements.

       Councils, subject to approval by the Secretary, would be
            required to ``prepare procedures'' to comply with the new
            fishery impact statement requirements--as with many recent MSA
            amendments, this means development of potentially complex,
            controversial, interpretive regulations, or at least
            `guidelines', which would in essence be subject to approval by
            NMFS and NOAA GC.

       Presently the onus for completion of NEPA requirements
            technically lies with NMFS (even though our current process
            attempts to incorporate most of that within the Council
            process). Under a revised process all of the onus for
            compliance with the new provisions will lie with the Councils
            under the MSA process, except for NMFS' final review and
            approval authority. Shifting this responsibility could require
            substantial realignment of resources.

       We have become quite proficient at the NEPA process (albeit
            cumbersome), and we have an established track record with
            regard to litigation of fisheries actions under NEPA. While
            this section could streamline the process in the longer term,
            it could also create grounds for a new body of litigation and
            case law on fisheries management actions, based on an as-yet-
            unwritten set of implementing regulations, and/or attempting to
            extend previous NEPA case law to the new MSA process.

       To the extent Councils are experiencing timing/delay issues
            between the time of final Council action and actual transmittal
            of the package for Secretarial review, incorporating NEPA
            requirements into the MSA will not directly address or rectify
            that problem; i.e., the determination of `adequacy' of the
            amendment package for transmittal will still be determined by
            the agency.
    Catch Share Programs
        The North Pacific Council has several catch share programs.
    Programs for some fisheries were mandated by Congress (American
    Fisheries Act pollock cooperatives, BSAI Crab fisheries cooperatives)
    and others were developed and implemented by the Council (Halibut and
    Sablefish IFQ program, Gulf of Alaska Rockfish Cooperative Program,
    BSAI Amendment 80 groundfish trawl cooperative program). These programs
    were aimed at eliminating the race for fish and minimizing the
    associated negative impacts to fisheries resources, as well as to the
    social and economic well-being of the industry and fishing communities.
    The objectives originally established for all catch share and IFQ
    programs are largely being met (reduced bycatch and waste, extended the
    fishing seasons, increased efficiency, increased utilization, improved
    safety at sea, etc.).
        Full program performance reviews for all catch share and IFQ
    programs are conducted on a regular periodic basis (every 7 years). The
    Council also annually reviews the performance of the cooperatives, and
    considers adjustments to the programs as needed to better meet program
    objectives. As these catch share programs mature and the original
    social and economic contexts change, these full performance reviews and
    annual cooperative reports provide the Council with the assessments
    needed to address new problems and challenges that may not have been
    initially anticipated, as well as improve our understanding of how
    additional catch share programs might be structured. This continues to
    be an area of ongoing work by the Council.
    Exempted Fishing Permits
        The North Pacific fisheries management program has greatly
    benefited from the use of exempted fishing permits (EFPs), including
    multi-year EFPs, to test (under field conditions) solutions to
    management problems. In recent years, for example, fishermen have
    successfully tested different trawl gear configurations to allow
    escapement of salmon in the pollock fishery, tested and quantified
    reductions in mortality of halibut sorted on deck and discarded alive
    from vessels trawling for flatfish, and tested the efficiency and
    effectiveness of different electronic monitoring devices on longline
    vessels. Each EFP proposal undergoes scientific peer review by the
    Alaska Fisheries Science Center and the Council's SSC to ensure that it
    is scientifically sound, and each proposal is also evaluated by the
    Council prior to approval by NMFS. A multi-year EFP allows testing
    across seasons to evaluate inter-and intra-annual impacts. A NEPA
    Categorical Exclusion may be issued in cases where no additional
    catches are requested. The Council is concerned that language requiring
    EFP applications to provide information on the economic effects of the
    EFP ``in dollars'' and in terms of lost fishing opportunities for all
    sectors would elevate the analysis to a full Environmental Analysis
    just to examine the effects on all sectors. This would greatly reduce
    the industry's ability to get EFPs developed and approved in a timely
    manner. The Council also believes that multi-year EFPs can be critical
    to testing some solutions to fishery management problems.
        The current EFP process is working well for the Council, with a
    minimum of paperwork and process requirements, and the Council does not
    see a need for changes or new requirements. If there are problems with
    the current EFP process in particular regions of the country, then
    proposed legislation should be applicable only to those regions.
        In addition, it is worth noting significant voluntary efforts by
    the fishing industry to improve management outside the formal EFP
    process. These include efforts by the fixed gear pot fleet to conduct
    EM pilot projects; projects by the GOA trawl fleet and shore-side
    processors to account for incidentally caught Chinook salmon for
    sampling by NMFS/AFSC to improve stock of origin data collection and
    analysis; and halibut bycatch reduction efforts by the Amendment 80
    trawl cooperatives to increase harvest levels by the directed longline
    fleets in the BSAI.
    Alaska-Specific Issues
    North Pacific Management Clarification
        MSA Section 306(a)(3)(C) contains provisions related to State
    jurisdiction to manage fishing activity in the absence of a Federal
    fishery management plan. Removal of the August 1, 1996 date in this
    paragraph would ensure that the delegation of salmon in EEZ to the
    State of Alaska would include vessels not registered with the State of
    Alaska. The Council strongly believes this change, thereby allowing
    regulation of fishing in these areas by the State of Alaska, would
    better align the Council with its management authorities and
    responsibilities under MSA and is essential to the responsible and
    effective management and enforcement of these fisheries.
    Limitation on harvest in North Pacific Pollock Fishery
        Proposed legislation in the House (HR 200) would provide allowance
    for the Council to change the pollock harvest cap as stipulated in the
    American Fisheries Act (currently 17.5 percent), but not to exceed 24
    percent. NMFS has raised the issue of whether the Council or NMFS might
    already have the authority under the American Fisheries Act to revisit
    the harvest cap. The Council has taken no position on this provision at
    this time, but may in the future upon a better understanding of the
    intent, need, and potential impacts of such action.
    Subsistence fishing
        The Council believes that providing a definition for subsistence
    fishing is a proper addition to the MSA to reflect the full range of
    marine resource uses in the EEZ. Additionally, adding subsistence as an
    appointment qualification for Council membership is a beneficial
    clarification to the MSA, with the understanding that it would not
    require or direct the appointment of a subsistence representative as a
    Council member.
    Arctic Community Development Quota
        Proposed legislation in the House (HR200) would require that if the
    Council establishes annual catch limits for Arctic fishing, a minimum
    of 10 percent Community Development Quota to be available for coastal
    villages north and east of the Bering Strait. The Council has no
    opinion on this issue, but notes that it may be useful to the Council
    if Congress provided more specificity with regard to eligible villages.
    Council member recusal determinations
        An area of concern to the North Pacific Council that we bring to
    your attention, but that has not been discussed in draft legislation to
    reauthorize MSA, is the process that NOAA General Counsel employs to
    determine whether Council members have a financial conflict of interest
    on a particular action and must therefore recuse themselves. We have
    communicated with NOAA over various aspects of this process in recent
    years, and have resolved some issues, but question whether the specific
    interpretations are consistent with the intent of conflict of interest
    statute and regulations. The current interpretations make it
    challenging for the Council to fully exercise its collective voice as
    intended under the MSA.
        The MSA was designed to allow people who actively participate in
    the fisheries to be voting members of regional fishery management
    councils. To address concerns about members voting to improve their own
    financial situation, the MSA has long required Council members to
    disclose financial interests. Prior to 1996, as long as council members
    disclosed their financial interests, there was no prohibition on voting
    on any matter. In 1996, Congress added the recusal provision, which
    required not only disclosure but also that an affected individual not
    be allowed to vote on council decisions that would have a significant
    and predictable effect on a member's financial interest. The MSA
    language left the issues of significant and predictable effect open for
    interpretation, so NMFS developed a regulation that set a 10 percent
    threshold for a significant effect, which is the basis for determining
    whether a recusal is required. The primary problem is the way in which
    NOAA General Counsel (NOAA GC) calculates a member's financial
    interests in determining whether the 10 percent thresholds are
    exceeded. The NMFS policy is to attribute all fishing activities of a
    company--even partially owned by an associated company--in calculating
    an individual Council member's interests. The North Pacific Council
    believes that this attribution policy is inconsistent with the intent
    of the conflict of interest statute and regulations.
        The following example helps to explain this issue: Joe Councilman
    works for Fishing Company A, which owns 50 percent of Fishing Company
    B, which in turn owns 3 percent of Fishing Company C. NOAA GC uses ALL
    harvesting and processing activity by ALL three of these companies in
    determining whether Joe Councilman exceeds any of the 10 percent
    thresholds. The North Pacific Council believes that this is an unfair
    and illogical interpretation of the recusal regulations, and results in
    unintended recusals of Council members. The North Pacific Council
    believes that NOAA GC should use only the amount of harvesting or
    processing activity equivalent to the Council member's percentage of
    ownership. Using this proportional share approach, NOAA GC would use
    100 percent of the harvesting and processing activity of Fishing
    Company A, 50 percent of the harvesting and processing activity of
    Fishing Company B, and 1.5 percent of the harvesting and processing
    activity of Fishing Company C to determine whether Joe Councilman
    exceeds any of the thresholds. At our request, NOAA GC revisited the
    attribution policy, but declined to make changes.
        The full attribution policy causes particular problems for the
    North Pacific council members who represent the Community Development
    Quota groups because they have been prohibited from voting on many very
    critically important management issues. The MSA established the CDQ
    program to allocate up to 10.7 percent of fish quotas to the groups,
    with the intent the groups invest broadly in the fishery. These CDQ
    groups have been very successful over the past 25 years, and have
    become full or partial owners of many fishing companies, and
    participate in virtually all of the Bering Sea groundfish, halibut, and
    crab fisheries and sectors. Hence a CDQ representative is very
    knowledgeable about the fisheries, so their input and vote is extremely
    important for a fully effective and participatory fishery management
    program as envisioned by the MSA. Under the full attribution policy
    however, all of the various ownership structures are additively
    applied, resulting in NOAA GC determining that the CDQ representative
    is recused from voting. The CDQ representative on our Council has been
    recused far more frequently in the last two years than any other
    Council member, resulting in what we believe is a frustration of
    Congressional intent for this program.
        We have not decided on a specific fix through MSA to suggest and
    will continue to review the recusal determination process with NOAA
    General Counsel.
    Council Resources
        We agree wholeheartedly with the CCC's comments regarding the
    challenges that Councils face to meet important new NMFS policy
    directives without adequate resources, and CCC concern over adequate
    funding to continue at-sea surveys and stock assessments. In the North
    Pacific, the high quality and coverage levels of fishery independent
    trawl surveys and stock assessments have been essential to achieving
    sustainable fisheries for so long. The Alaska Fishery Science Center
    (AFSC) recently alerted the Council that reductions to the Gulf Of
    Alaska groundfish survey efforts are planned for 2017, and possibly for
    the Eastern Bering Sea Slope survey in 2018 as a result of budgetary
    concerns (``Implications of reducing and eliminating AFSC groundfish
    survey effort in 2017 and 2018'', AFSC, April 7, 2017). Reductions in
    groundfish surveys increase the uncertainty in stock assessment
    estimates, diminishes the quantity and quality of data needed to track
    changing environmental conditions in the ocean and the effects on
    species abundance and distribution, and affects the quality of
    information in a variety of documents critical to the Council process,
    such as EA and EIS documents, Biological Opinions and Fishery Ecosystem
    Plans. For the Council, a very direct consequence is that it becomes
    harder to achieve Optimum Yield in the fisheries as defined under
    National Standard 1, during the annual process of setting harvest
    specifications. It also introduces greater uncertainty and variability
    from year to year. Greater uncertainty in the estimates of stock
    abundance typically result in more conservative approaches to
    management and lower harvest levels to buffer against the potential for
    error. There is the potential for real and direct economic losses to
    the fishing fleets and communities associated with survey reductions
    over time.
    Examples of Management Actions and Programs Relevant to the Success of
            the MSA
        We understand that there are several contentious management issues
    in other regions that have initiated development of draft legislation
    to revise MSA. It is our hope that any modifications to the MSA would
    avoid across the board mandates, designed to address a problem in
    another region that could negatively affect the successful management
    program in the North Pacific.
        Below is a description of several management programs and actions
    that illustrate how we have addressed some of these major contentious
    issues (bycatch, observer monitoring, commercial/sport allocations, and
    ecosystem-based management) using the existing authorities already
    provided by the MSA.
    Minimizing Bycatch
        The Council has worked diligently to minimize bycatch in the
    groundfish fisheries. With implementation of catch share programs in
    the Bering Sea, the percent of catch discarded was reduced from 14
    percent in 1999 to only 3 percent in 2016. The Council has also made
    great strides in minimizing the bycatch of halibut and salmon, which
    are important species taken as subsistence, recreational, and directed
    commercial fisheries. Halibut bycatch limits for most gear types were
    recently reduced in the Gulf of Alaska by 15 percent and in the Bering
    Sea by 25 percent. The Council is currently evaluating ways to index
    the annual bycatch limits in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands based
    on halibut abundance. Chinook salmon bycatch, which primarily occurs in
    the pollock fishery, has been greatly reduced since the early 2000s. In
    the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands, overall limits and performance
    standards have been established which provides incentives for each
    pollock fishery cooperative to minimize its salmon bycatch at all
    levels of salmon abundance. Limits are further reduced when salmon
    returns are projected to be low, based on an index of 3-rivers in
    Western Alaska that support critical subsistence and commercial
    fisheries for rural coastal communities. Individual vessels and Pollock
    cooperatives are accountable for maintaining low bycatch levels through
    Incentive Plan Agreements developed in accordance with objectives
    established by the Council. The pollock fleet works cooperatively to
    avoid salmon by establishing short term closure areas in hotspot areas,
    and developing and using pollock excluders in the trawl nets.
        Amendment 91 which established the Chinook salmon bycatch
    management program for the pollock fleet in the BSAI is an excellent
    example of the successful management that is possible through MSA, when
    the Council, fishing industry, agencies, and other affected
    stakeholders work together using sound science in an open and
    transparent process. While reducing Chinook salmon bycatch is the
    primary goal and the most visible outcome to the public, it is
    important to highlight other key elements and factors that make this a
    successful program. It includes a census and strict monitoring of all
    salmon taken as bycatch in the Pollock fishery. It includes sampling of
    those salmon by fisheries observers on the Pollock vessels to conduct a
    genetic stock identification of the composition of bycatch and thus
    determine the river drainage of origin. It entails assessments of the
    impact of that bycatch on Chinook populations and on the subsistence
    and small commercial fisheries in rural western Alaska communities, for
    whom Chinook salmon is a corner stone of culture and a source of much
    needed income in a region of very limited economic opportunities. And
    it requires detailed annual reporting by the Pollock cooperatives on
    the performance of the IPAs and the effectiveness of incentive measures
    in terms of Chinook avoided as well as the harvest of Pollock. The
    Pollock industry's willingness to explore an innovative approach that
    provides some delegation of accountability and responsibility under
    strict Council and NMFS guidance, and to effectively apply the
    Experimental Fishing Permit process (EFP) to test salmon excluders in
    the field is notable. All of this has been possible under the policy
    framework of MSA and guidance under the ten National Standards. None of
    this is possible without the cooperative efforts and trust required
    from diverse interests in the Council process, including scientists,
    managers, policy makers, the pollock industry and the subsistence and
    commercial salmon fishermen. And none of this is possible without
    adequate funding for the science and research and analyses conducted by
    the many outstanding members of the AFSC, the ADF&G, Council staff, and
    other partners in our Council process.
    Observer Program
        In Alaska, the at-sea observer program is almost entirely funded
    directly by industry, and for the majority of groundfish fishing
    activity in Alaska, an observer is onboard the vessel at all times. In
    2016, 89 percent of the total groundfish and halibut catch of almost
    2.3 million mt was caught on vessels with an observer onboard. In the
    Gulf of Alaska, there are vessels that are subject to partial coverage
    observer requirements to accommodate the challenges of deploying
    observers on thousands of smaller vessels. In 2013, the Council and
    NMFS restructured this component of the observer program to address
    sampling issues associated with non-random observer deployment on some
    vessels and fisheries, and cost inequality among fishery participants.
    The scientific sampling plans implemented since 2013 result in better
    spatial and temporal distribution of observer coverage across all
    fisheries, greatly improving the quality of data collected in Federal
    fisheries off Alaska and NMFS' ability to estimate catch and bycatch,
    and to evaluate and improve catch estimation procedures. The Council,
    with input from the Observer Advisory Committee, continues to work with
    the NMFS Observer Program to maintain robust coverage levels for all
    sectors and gear types at a time when fishing industry revenues and
    thus observer fee funds collected for the partial coverage fleet have
    decreased. In addition, Observer Program fees collected from industry
    have also been subject to annual sequestration, which makes achievement
    of coverage levels more problematic.
        In addition, the Alaska fisheries incorporate extensive electronic
    reporting, and in some fisheries, electronic monitoring (EM) for
    compliance. The Council and NMFS have also just recently implemented a
    groundbreaking amendment to allow use of electronic monitoring as an
    alternative tool for the fixed gear groundfish and halibut fisheries,
    in which there are operational and logistical challenges deploying
    human observers on smaller vessels. In these fisheries, the EM data
    will be used instead of human observers to collect catch and discard
    information that is critical in accounting for total removals of each
    species under ACLs and for the purpose of conducting stock assessments.
    The development of EM for the fixed gear halibut and groundfish
    fisheries is another excellent example of the collaborative efforts of
    the fishing industry and agencies within the Council process to address
    challenging issues. The fixed gear longline and pot fleets in
    communities across the Gulf of Alaska have initiated pilot projects and
    secured funding over several years in cooperative research efforts with
    NMFS Observer Program and EM providers to develop a data collection and
    fishery monitoring program that is a model for other regions in the
    Nation.
    Allocation of Commercial and Charter Halibut
        Halibut is a very important target species for commercial and
    recreational fisheries. Following a decade of efforts to control catch
    of halibut taken by the charter fleet, the Council established a
    limited entry permit program for charter vessels and established a
    catch sharing plan. The catch sharing plan defines an annual process
    for allocating halibut between the charter and commercial halibut
    fisheries in IPHC regulatory Areas 2C and 3A (Eastern and Central GOA),
    and establishes sector allocations that vary in proportion with
    changing levels of annual halibut abundance and that balance the
    differing needs of the charter and commercial halibut fisheries over a
    wide range of halibut abundance. The catch sharing plan describes a
    public process by which the Council develops recommendations for
    charter angler harvest restrictions (annual management measures) that
    are intended to limit harvest to the annual charter halibut fishery
    catch limit in each area. Charter permit holders can also lease
    commercial halibut annual fishing quotas for use by anglers on their
    boat, thereby compensating the commercial sector for increased harvest
    in the charter sector. The Council recently approved a Recreational
    Quota Entity (RQE) program to allow purchase of commercial halibut
    quota share to increase the entire charter allowance in each area.
    Under this market-based approach, a Recreational Quota Entity is
    authorized to purchase and hold a limited amount of commercial halibut
    quota share on behalf of guided recreational halibut anglers that may
    result in less restrictive annual harvest measures for guided
    recreational anglers in times of low halibut abundance. The Council is
    currently evaluating refinements to the charter halibut permit program.
    Ecosystem-based Fishery Management
        The North Pacific Council has utilized an ecosystem approach to
    fisheries management for many years. The Council considers the impacts
    of its actions to the ecosystem by establishing conservative catch
    limits; establishing sweeping closures to protect habitat, considering
    the impacts of fisheries on marine mammals and seabirds, minimizing
    bycatch, and precluding fishing on forage fish populations that support
    many species. These ecosystem-based fishery management protections are
    built into the fishery management plans and periodically evaluated and
    updated. The Council has articulated an ecosystem vision statement and
    comprehensive ecosystem-based goals and objectives for the groundfish
    fishery management plans. These ecosystem considerations are taken into
    account annually during harvest specifications, and the Council
    pioneered one of the first Fishery Ecosystem Plans in 2007 for the
    Aleutian Islands, and is currently developing a Fishery Ecosystem Plan
    for the Bering Sea that builds on the lessons learned from the first
    plans and other national experience.
        These examples illustrate the variety of successful management
    programs and approaches that the North Pacific Council has taken to
    manage fisheries resources within the existing structure of the MSA.
    This is not to suggest that development of these programs has been easy
    or non-controversial; on the contrary, each one has gone through
    periods of contention and controversy. No management program is perfect
    upon implementation, and all of them require review and revision over
    time; that is the nature of marine resource management. But they are
    all working successfully or poised to become effective additions to the
    North Pacific management system. And I want to highlight several
    important underlying themes in all of these examples for Congress to
    keep in mind as it works to reauthorize MSA and considers possible
    changes:

       A well-structured national policy framework that provides
            broad objectives with sound guidance, recognizing regional
            differences and allowing for the development of regionally
            based solutions.

       The critical importance of science and analysis--in stock
            surveys, assessments, fisheries dependent data collection and
            monitoring, research and other aspects--conducted by the many
            members of the NMFS/AFSC, ADF&G and other partner agencies to
            conserve and manage marine resources and to provide for
            sustainable fisheries.

       Ensuring accountability through monitoring and data
            collection in the fisheries, catch share and other management
            program reviews, and broad stakeholder participation.

       A process that fosters and encourages the cooperative
            efforts of diverse and often contentious interests that exist
            in the North Pacific, as in every region.
    General comments
        Finally, I would like to reiterate the Council Coordinating
    Committee's general thoughts regarding the reauthorization process,
    which were presented to the Senate Commerce Subcommittee by John Quinn
    three weeks ago on behalf of all of the regional councils. These
    represent some general tenets that we believe should be considered
    relative to any change in the MSA:

       Avoid across the board mandates which could negatively
            affect one region in order to address a problem in another
            region. Ensure that we have the ability to develop regional
            solutions to regional problems. Make provisions region-specific
            where necessary, or couch them as optional tools in the
            management toolbox rather than mandates.

       Legislation should allow for flexibility in achieving
            conservation objectives, but be specific enough to avoid
            lengthy, complex implementing regulations or ``guidelines''.

       Legislation should be in the form of intended outcomes,
            rather than prescriptive management or scientific parameters.

       Legislation should avoid unrealistic/expensive analytical
            mandates relative to implementing fishery closures or other
            management actions.

       Legislation should avoid constraints that limit the
            flexibility of Councils and NMFS to respond to changing
            climates and shifting ecosystems.

       Avoid unfunded mandates, and/or ensure that Councils and
            NMFS have the resources to respond to provisions of
            legislation.

       Preservation and enhancement of stock assessments and
            surveys should be among the highest priorities when considering
            any changes to the Act.

        Once again, thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments
    on behalf of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, and I look
    forward to our continued dialogue on reauthorization of the Magnuson-
    Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act that is so vitally
    important for our Nation's marine resources and to the people and
    communities that depend on them.

        Senator Sullivan. Great. Thank you, Dan.
        Commissioner Cotten.

                STATEMENT OF SAM COTTEN, COMMISSIONER,
                   ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME

        Mr. Cotten. Thank you, Senator, and thank you to you for
    holding the hearing here in Alaska. My welcome to the folks
    here who are visiting.
        I will supplement my written comments too, and I will note
    that, and I am sure you are well aware, that the seafood
    industry is extremely important to our State's economy, and
    especially to the economies of our fishing communities.
        Magnuson has worked well here in Alaska for the most part,
    and we would ask your Committee, and the U.S. Congress, to
    avoid imposing programs here in Alaska outside the Council
    process, neither this or other legislation that could result in
    promoting consolidation, restricting competition in the
    processing industry, making access to fisheries more difficult
    for our resident fishermen, or generally having a negative
    impact on our fishing communities' economies.
        We would ask you to seek the support of the state and our
    fishing communities before creating any new programs for
    Alaska.
        On the subject of State management of salmon, Tanner crab,
    ling cod, and some rockfish species in the economic zone. A
    recent court decision has caused us some concern, and the State
    of Alaska has appealed a Ninth Circuit Court decision that
    would require Federal intervention in the management of Alaska
    salmon fisheries.
        One key point in the case is when a Federal plan is
    required. Both Alaska and NMFS feel the interpretation of the
    law suggests that a Federal intervention is not needed as the
    fish are currently managed by the state. Both Alaska and the
    Council, and the National Marine Fisheries Service, currently
    feel that State management of salmon is satisfactory and meets
    all national standards.
        The court interpreted the statute to suggest that you
    always need a Federal plan if you are in the EEZ. So that is
    the difference of opinion there.
        We think it is not only important here in Alaska for
    salmon, but as I mentioned, the state also manages Tanner crab
    in the EEZ, ling cod, and two different species of rockfish. I
    am told that other states would face similar potential
    problems--specifically pink shrimp on the West Coast of the
    U.S. are managed by the states, but occur in the EEZ--and could
    also be subject to a challenge as we have seen in the salmon
    here.
        Just generally, Cook Inlet salmon management is fairly
    complicated, always controversial, and difficult to satisfy all
    10 or 12 different interest groups in those fish. To add the
    U.S. Government as a player in that, on that scene, I do not
    think would be helpful or a positive addition.
        On the recusal question my written comments, I think, cover
    the comments I wanted to make. I am led to believe that it is
    really a matter of NOAA policy guidance that is guiding those
    decisions on when members have to be recused. It got a little
    bit ridiculous at this last meeting when one of the members was
    required to be recused on an FMP that had to do with essential
    fish habitat that in no way would have benefited either him or
    his company personally.
        So we think that needs a stronger look and I am not sure if
    it needs legislation, but I would encourage you and your
    Committee to work with NOAA on that question.
        And finally, not on the subject of Magnuson itself, but on
    a related topic as far as the Council is concerned. We are
    looking at some money problems with observer coverage. A lot of
    programs in State Government and Federal Government, money is
    an issue.
        But it is really important, we feel, to improve and
    increase the observer coverage, especially in the Gulf of
    Alaska. Not just because we could get better information, but
    we would also improve the confidence that people would have in
    the statistics that we now see as a result of a very low level
    of coverage in some of our fisheries there.
        So I know it is a tough time for everybody as far as money
    is concerned, but this is a really important one. I wanted to
    highlight that one area that we could really use some help with
    funding.
        So with that, I will just say that, just on that subject.
    The Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission just finished
    their meeting today and they passed a resolution, supported
    unanimously by all five states, to also encourage additional
    funding for observer programs.
        So thank you again for being here and thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Cotten follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Sam Cotton, Commissioner,
                       Alaska Department of Fish and Game
        Good afternoon Senator Sullivan and thank you for the opportunity
    to provide comments on the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and
    Management Act (MSA). I am Sam Cotten and am the Commissioner of the
    Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and am a member of the North
    Pacific Fishery Management Council. I'd first like to thank you for
    holding a hearing here in Alaska. While the MSA is the signature piece
    of legislation governing Federal fisheries throughout the Nation, I'd
    like to start my comments today by focusing on its connection to the
    Alaskans who participate in these fisheries here in our local
    communities. While the Council and the MSA are focused on Federal
    fisheries, which are managed by National Marine Fisheries Service
    (NMFS), many of the actions taken by the Council and the provisions
    within the MSA have a significant impact on Alaskans throughout the
    State. Here in Alaska it is well known that the commercial fishing
    industry is the largest private employer in the state. Nearly every
    coastal community in Alaska, and many inland communities, have some
    level of participation in Federal fisheries. In addition to the actual
    boots on deck, there are thousands more Alaskans working in processing
    plants, gear and net shops, welding shops, and many others businesses
    that support these fisheries. These same permit holders, crew, and
    support facilities help Alaska have the Nation's top three ports by
    volume, and three of the Nation's top five ports by value. These
    statistics are in large part due to the success of the MSA, the
    Regional Council process, and underscore the importance of maintaining
    the core structure of the Act.
        However, as we dig into the statistics it becomes apparent that
    while many Alaskans participate in and enjoy economic benefits from the
    seafood industry, the vast majority of the groundfish catch volume (83
    percent) was made by vessels with primary owners that were not Alaska
    residents, (economic SAFE report 2016).\1\ Alaska waters, state and
    federal, are open to all U.S. fishermen, as it should be. One of our
    goals here in Alaska is to enhance opportunity for our resident
    fishermen and improve the economies of our fishing communities. We
    would ask that any changes to MSA are given consideration as to the
    impacts on our fishing families and communities.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.afsc.noaa.gov/REFM/Docs/2016/economic.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Federal v. State Management of Fisheries in the EEZ
        Several species of fish and tanner crab are harvested in the
    Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) while being managed by the State of
    Alaska. These fisheries have been effectively managed by the State of
    Alaska; this practice should continue. A recent decision by the 9th
    Circuit Court of Appeals (now under appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court)
    would require a Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for salmon management and
    could have implications for other species as well. The state agreed
    with the NMFS that an FMP is not needed either legally or for proper
    management of salmon. The result would be a lengthy, difficult, and we
    feel unnecessary burden for the North Pacific Council. We have concern
    that the precedent for requiring a FMP may have implications for Tanner
    crab, ling cod, and some rockfish species.
        There is also some concern about unintended consequences such as
    closures that would not have otherwise occurred. We would ask that the
    MSA reauthorization provide the North Pacific Council the discretion to
    develop an FMP for fisheries in the EEZ that are currently managed by
    the State of Alaska.
    Council Recusal Process
        Finally, the State of Alaska encourages this committee to examine
    the recusal process for Council members. Currently, MSA generically
    outlines when and why a Council member should not vote;\2\ however,
    there is not accompanying guidance as to how National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) should determine that a Council
    member should be recused. Due to this lack of specific direction, NOAA
    has implemented policy guidance that not only the State of Alaska
    questions, but that the North Pacific Council recently requested NOAA
    review.\3\ The policy relies on an attribution method that attributes
    all fishing activities of a company, or partially owned companies, to a
    Council member when considering whether recusal thresholds have been
    exceeded. The problem with this approach is that it results in recusals
    that have no logical connection to the directives in MSA. For example,
    recently a North Pacific Council member was recused from voting on an
    action to re-designate essential fish (EFH) habitat in the Bering Sea/
    Aleutian Islands. Re-designating EFH does not change the total amount,
    timing, or location of harvest, or the distribution of harvest among
    participants. Given that, it is inconceivable how this action would
    have a significant and predictable effect on the financial interest of
    the Council member, as MSA states as a cause for recusal. This current
    NOAA policy guidance is particularly troubling, not only due to the
    apparent lack of linkage to MSA, but also because it weakens the
    Council process by unnecessarily recusing Council members from voting.
    Given these issues, the State of Alaska encourages this Committee to
    work with NOAA to ensure that a thorough review of the conflict of
    interest regulations, and any subsequent policy interpretations of
    those regulations, takes place prior to MSA reauthorization.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ MSA Section 302(j)(7)
        \3\ https://www.npfmc.org/wp-content/PDFdocuments/CM/2017/071017/
    0620_Recusalletter
    .pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In conclusion, the State of Alaska supports Congressional
    reauthorization efforts, and encourages this committee to maintain the
    core structure of the MSA, while ensuring modifications don't harm or
    unnecessarily burden existing programs in Alaska.

        Senator Sullivan. Well, thank you, Commissioner Cotten.
        Mr. Morisky.

                  STATEMENT OF REED MORISKY, MEMBER,
                       ALASKA BOARD OF FISHERIES

        Mr. Morisky. Thank you, Senator and good afternoon,
    everyone.
        Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony
    regarding potential improvements to the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        For introduction, my name is Reed Morisky. I am one of
    seven members of the Alaska Board of Fisheries. I live in
    Fairbanks, Alaska where I have operated a sport fishing guide
    service for 34 years. I live almost 400 miles from the nearest
    saltwater. That makes some people happy; others it gives them
    concern.
        I have a close family member who has been involved in the
    commercial fishing industry in Alaska for several decades.
        The reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
    Conservation Act offers an opportunity to address issues that
    affect Alaskans and others that depend on our fisheries
    resources.
        Questions relating to possible suggestions for how the
    current management of the MSA could be improved include: will
    this reauthorization process incorporate provisions for
    flexibility in the management of the sport fishery?
        There is concern that the current management structure is
    too rigid and does not allow for variables that the industry
    has requested, while accommodating conservation principles.
        Will there be an improvement in conducting comprehensive
    stock assessments to include real time sport fish catch
    reporting?
        There is consensus in the sport fleet that the initial
    allocations in many fisheries did not adequately reflect what
    was being taken by the sport fleets, nor did it account for
    competition between user groups.
        Currently, every region collects different levels of
    information differently and giving answers is typically
    voluntary. The provided information is not easily accessible to
    the average fisherman. Will this be addressed?
        Will the current data collection program that would assist
    in resolving these concerns receive adequate funding?
        A great deal of additional information is needed by all
    user groups in the waters covered by the MSA. Will this
    reauthorization process address the need for better catch data
    and the economic value of the sport fisheries, both direct and
    indirect?
        There is a concern that future allocations and dedications
    of budget, personnel, and management efforts should be made
    with this economic information available.
        If the Federal Government takes over management of the EEZ
    that--since statehood--has been managed under State law, are
    they ready to determine the harvest limits for each sector?
        How would the differing management standards be
    coordinated? How would Federal management mesh the national
    standards with State management? Should the national standards
    reflect the significant presence of sport fishing and other
    users?
        The National Marine Fisheries Service has found that the
    Magnuson-Stevens Act's concept of optimum yield is equivalent
    to the State's sustained yield principle. The State of Alaska
    mandates the fisheries resources are for the maximum benefit of
    people. Should the MSA be amended to accommodate multiple
    users?
        Coupled with this issue, should the MSA provide for
    research for freshwater fisheries? Should the MSA National
    Standards incorporate the State of Alaska's escapement goal
    management strategy?
        In summary, although they have similar economic impacts,
    recreational and commercial fishing are fundamentally different
    activities. Recognizing that the commercial fishing industry is
    economically important to the U.S. economy, there are over 11
    million Americans who enjoy saltwater recreational fishing. The
    sport contributes over $63 billion to the Nation's economy
    annually and supports over 439,000 American jobs.
        Thank you again for this opportunity to testify on these
    important reauthorization issues.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Morisky follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Reed Morisky, Member, Alaska Board of Fisheries
        Good afternoon everyone. Thank you for this opportunity to provide
    testimony regarding potential improvements to the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        For introduction--my name is Reed Morisky. I am one of seven
    members of the Alaska Board of Fisheries. I live in Fairbanks, Alaska
    where I have operated a sport fishing guide service for 34 years. I
    live almost 400 miles from the nearest saltwater. That makes some
    people happy, others, it gives them concern. I have a close family
    member that has been involved in commercial fishing in Alaska for
    several decades.
        The reauthorization of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation
    Act offers an opportunity to address issues that affect Alaskans and
    others that depend on our fisheries resources.
        Questions relating to possible suggestions for how the current
    management of the MSA could be improved, include:

       Will this reauthorization process incorporate provisions for
            flexibility in the management of the sport fishery? There is
            concern that the current management structure is too rigid and
            does not allow for variables the industry has requested, while
            accommodating conservation principles.

       Will there be an improvement in conducting comprehensive
            stock assessments, to include real time sport fish catch
            reporting? There is consensus in the sport fleet that the
            initial allocations in many fisheries did not adequately
            reflect what was being taken by the sport fleets, nor did it
            account for competition between user groups. Currently, every
            region collects different levels of information differently
            (and giving answers is typically voluntary). The provided
            information isn't easily accessible to the average fisherman.
            Will this be addressed?

       Will the current data collection program, (that would assist
            in resolving these concerns), receive adequate funding?

       Much needed, additional information is needed by all user
            groups in the waters covered by the MSA. Will this
            reauthorization process address the need for better catch data
            and the economic value of the sport fisheries, both direct and
            indirect? There is a concern that future allocations/
            dedications of budget, personnel, and management efforts should
            be made with this economic information available.

       If the Federal Government takes over management of the EEZ
            that since state hood has been managed under state law, are
            they ready to determine the harvest limits for each sector? How
            would the differing management standards be coordinated? How
            would Federal management mesh the national standards with state
            management? Should the national standards reflect the
            significant presence of sport fishing and personal use users?

       The National Marine Fisheries Service has found that the
            Magnusun-Stevens Act's concept of optimum yield is equivalent
            to the State's sustained yield principle. The state of Alaska
            mandates the fisheries resources are for the maximum benefit of
            people. Should the MSA be amended to accommodate multiple
            users? Coupled with this issue, should the MSA provide for
            research for freshwater fisheries? Should the MSA National
            Standards incorporate the state of Alaska's escapement goal
            management strategy?

       Recreational fisheries are open access. Because of this, it
            is not possible to manage the annual catch down to the last
            pound caught each year. It is virtually impossible to predict
            how many anglers will participate in these fisheries in
            advance. The current management structure that results in rigid
            catch limits, often based on limited stock assessments, can
            artificially restrict the sustainability of sport fishing-
            related businesses and limit the public's access to public
            trust resources. Will these issues be addressed in the
            reauthorization process?

       MSA was originally designed to address commercial fishing
            and has been effective in rebuilding many stocks.

       However, there is a concern that MSA has never properly
            addressed the importance of other fishing sectors;
            specifically, the Alaska centric sectors of Subsistence,
            Personal Use and Sport/Recreational fishing. There is a concern
            that this has, or will, lead to shortened or even cancelled
            seasons, reduced bag limits, and unnecessary restrictions.

       Recreational fishing and commercial fishing are two
            fundamentally different activities needing distinctly different
            management tools.

       Management strategies are in desperate need of an update and
            more emphasis needs to be put on recreational fishing.

       Some potential changes to consider when amending the MSA
            are:

       Require allocation reviews on a regular basis (3-5 years).
            Develop clear, objective criteria for those reviews to allow
            the process to be less controversial.

       Allow for the use of alternative management approaches for
            non-commercial fishing, similar to state-based models that
            better align with the nature of non-commercial fishing and
            available data.

       Poundage-based quotas are difficult to implement with
            anglers and harvesting MSY is not their goal.

       Provide flexibility in rebuilding timelines that are
            applicable to the biology of the stock and incorporate the
            needs of the fisheries-rebuilding schedules are not ``one size
            fits all'' as is currently mandated with the 10-year timeline.

       Improve recreational fisheries data by considering;
            supporting and incorporating data from qualified third-party
            data collection systems, including modern sources such as from
            smartphones, to provide for improved accuracy and timeliness of
            harvest information. The time lag in data submission makes
            timely management decisions difficult.

       In summary . . .

       Although they have a similar economic impact, recreational
            and commercial fishing are fundamentally different activities.

       Recognizing that the commercial fishing industry is
            economically important to the U.S. economy, over 11 million
            Americans enjoy saltwater recreational fishing. The sport
            contributes $63.4 billion to the Nation's economy annually and
            supports 439,242 American jobs.

       Thank you again for this opportunity to testify on these
            important reauthorization issues.

        Senator Sullivan. Thank you.
        Dr. Woodward.

        STATEMENT OF A.G. ``SPUD'' WOODWARD, DIRECTOR, COASTAL
      RESOURCES DIVISION, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

        Dr. Woodward. Thank you, Chairman Sullivan.
        I appreciate the opportunity to be here and it was a long
    trip, but a pleasant one. Thank you.
        I have worked in the field of fisheries management at the
    State level for 30 years. I have served on the South Atlantic
    Fishery Management Council and I am currently Georgia's
    Administrative Commissioner to the Atlantic States Marine
    Fisheries Commission.
        While our state is the largest east of the Mississippi, we
    have a relatively small coastline, about 100 miles, but it is
    one rich in natural treasures largely thanks to the visionary
    leadership of State lawmakers who passed laws in the 1970s to
    protect our estuaries and our barrier islands.
        I would like to comment from a State perspective about
    another landmark law of the 1970s, the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        I will start by stating the obvious. The Act has
    accomplished its original intended purpose very well, which was
    to protect our ocean resources from foreign fishing fleets and
    unregulated domestic fishing. Amendments in 1996 and 2006 were
    intended to keep pace with changes in domestic fishing and
    advances in fishery science and management. As a whole, those
    changes were positive and there have been notable and
    measurable successes in the South Atlantic: Black Sea bass, red
    porgy, king and Spanish mackerel, and protection of long-lived
    and slow growing deepwater corals.
        However, the prescriptive nature of the Act has also
    created unintended consequences in the southeast. Five years of
    a red snapper harvest moratorium and a total of 17 days of
    allowable harvest since 2010 have left our citizens who fish
    the south Atlantic totally dismayed.
        The same can be said for the thousands of Georgians who
    fish the Gulf of Mexico for red snapper when they learned the
    Federal waters were only going to be opened for three days in
    2017. Fortunately, State and Federal authorities reached an
    agreement to extend that season.
        However as of today, the south Atlantic remains closed to
    the harvest of red snapper despite a marked increase to the
    point that discards and now not-harvest is actually the
    management challenge. Estimates of dead discards, albeit
    imprecise, have actually exceeded the annual catch limit and
    perpetuated closures leading to lost fishing opportunities.
        Adding to our frustrations, NOAA fisheries closed Federal
    waters in the south Atlantic to the recreational harvest of
    Atlantic migratory group cobia this year. This decision was
    made as a precautionary measure to prevent the recreational
    harvest from exceeding the annual catch limit of 620,000
    pounds. It is important to know that cobia are not overfished.
        The cobia fishery in Georgia is almost exclusively in
    Federal waters and accounts for about 15 percent of the annual
    recreational catch. By comparison, over 80 percent of the
    recreational catch of the Atlantic migratory group occurs in
    the State waters of North Carolina and Virginia, which remained
    open to harvest.
        So the closure through the Magnuson Act was, in essence, a
    de facto allocation of cobia to those states made in full
    recognition of the uncertainty associated with recreational
    catch estimates. So our anglers lost a fishing opportunity
    without there being a commensurate conservation benefit or
    need.
        The Act, as currently applied, has made it difficult for
    the regional councils in the southeast to adapt fishery
    management to the needs of a very diverse recreational fishery.
    We deal with dozens and dozens of species and mixed
    populations. Council members need flexibility and alternative
    management measures in their toolbox.
        I predict that you will hear from some that flexibility and
    alternative management measures are simply ways to avoid making
    difficult, but necessary, management decisions. I disagree. I
    think they are necessary tools.
        Council members and staff also need more assessments that
    are both timely and suitable as a basis for management
    decisions. Stock assessments are the backbone of good fishery
    management, but it is important to point out that there is one
    NOAA fishery science center supporting three councils, ICAT,
    and highly migratory species in the southeast.
        Finally, it is time for a realistic acknowledgement that
    for many species, the Marine Recreational Information Program
    simply lacks the temporal and special resolution, accuracy, and
    precision needed for sophisticated stock assessment models and
    for recreational quota monitoring. We need more advanced tools.
        Congress has an opportunity to amend the Act to improve the
    ability of regional councils to manage the Nation's marine
    recreational fisheries. We know that you, and your colleagues,
    have many issues competing for your time and attention. And we
    very much appreciate those who have introduced and sponsored
    bills to amend the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        We look forward to working with Congress to see them to
    fruition.
        Thank you for the opportunity to be here.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Woodward follows:]

        Prepared Statement of A.G. ``Spud'' Woodward, Director, Coastal
          Resources Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources
        Good afternoon, Chairman Sullivan and Members of the Subcommittee.
    My name is A. G. ``Spud'' Woodward, and I am the director of the
    Coastal Resources Division of the Georgia Department of Natural
    Resources. I have served in this position since 2009 following eight
    years as chief of marine fisheries management and fourteen years as a
    marine fisheries biologist. I am a past member of the South Atlantic
    Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) and currently serve as Georgia's
    administrative commissioner on the Atlantic States Marines Fisheries
    Commission. I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony about the
    Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) and how
    it has affected the citizens of the State of Georgia.
        While it is the largest state east of the Mississippi River,
    Georgia has a small coastline--100 miles--but one rich in natural
    treasures. For centuries, the occupants of this area have depended on
    the estuaries and adjacent Atlantic Ocean for their sustenance. Today,
    recreational and commercial fishing are economically and socially
    important aspects of life along our coast generating a half billion
    dollars of economic impact to the region and contributing to a $2
    billion tourist economy. While the monetary value of our saltwater
    fishing is small compared to that of our neighbor Florida and certainly
    when compared to the Pacific Northwest, I think it important to
    consider that the true value of recreational saltwater fishing cannot
    be measured solely in dollars and cents. Instead, the true value must
    be measured in the currency of fishing stories told and retold,
    photographs of memorable catches, the fresh seafood meal shared with
    family and friends, and the excitement that comes with anticipation of
    a day on the water. This value arises from opportunity and access to
    public trust waters and resources.
        Yet, when we do look at the dollars and cents for our state, they
    are significant. Recent statistics released by the Outdoor Industry
    Association indicate that 58 percent of Georgians participate in
    outdoor recreation each year and that Georgia residents are more likely
    to participate in fishing than the average American. Outdoor recreation
    attracts millions of visitors to our state and many come for the
    fishing opportunities. Ultimately, outdoor recreation accounts for
    $27.3 billion in consumer spending, $8.1 billion in wages and salaries,
    and $1.8 billion in state and local revenue. Anything that eliminates
    or degrades these outdoor recreational opportunities adversely affects
    both the economy of Georgia and the quality of life of Georgians.
        The Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is the state
    agency responsible for managing saltwater fishing as part of its
    mission to promote wise and sustainable human use of living marine
    resources and their habitats. The citizens of Georgia through their
    elected officials have done an exemplary job of protecting our coastal
    environment from the habitat loss and degradation that has occurred in
    many other Southeastern states. We are proud to say that we have one
    third of the saltmarsh remaining along the Atlantic Coast. Thanks to
    this abundance of habitat and proactive conservation measures, our
    tidal waters provide diverse and satisfying angling opportunities. We
    currently manage 30 species or species groups of saltwater fishes
    through state law using a flexible system that allows timely decision
    making based on sound science and public input. While our fishers are
    not always happy with the decisions made by our state legislature and
    board of natural resources, they are more willing to accept them as
    valid since they understand the process and have easy access to the DNR
    staff who are collecting and analyzing the data and making the
    recommendations.
        Conversely, our anglers are very frustrated with Federal fishery
    management. Five years of a red snapper harvest moratorium and this
    year's unprecedented closure of Federal waters to the harvest of
    Atlantic migratory group cobia have left those who fish the South
    Atlantic totally dismayed. Ditto the thousands of Georgians who fish
    the Gulf of Mexico for red snapper. To them, Federal fishery management
    has become nonsensical and overly legalistic. Sometimes it seems that
    way to those of us who work in marine fishery management at the state
    level. I do not fault the employees of the regional fishery management
    councils and the NOAA Fisheries as they are charged with managing a
    multitude of species over wide geographic areas in a fishery management
    system that is highly prescriptive and appears to put fish ahead of
    people.
        As the committee is well aware, previous efforts to address the
    unintended consequences of the 2007 revision of the MSA have been
    unsuccessful. Thus, regional council members and NOAA Fisheries
    employees remain unable to exhibit the flexibility needed to ensure
    management decisions properly balance fish stock health and the needs
    of humans. I would like to offer two specific examples of why the MSA
    must be amended.
    South Atlantic Red Snapper
        In the South Atlantic region, the red snapper is an iconic species
    prized by seafood lovers and targeted by anglers and commercial
    fishers. For many years, the species was managed through a combination
    of size and creel limits, and the stock was considered to be in a
    healthy condition. However, in 2008, an assessment conducted through
    the Southeastern Data Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process indicated
    that overfishing was occurring. Reductions in harvest were necessary to
    end overfishing despite evidence that the stock status was improving in
    the most recent years of the data series used in the assessment.
    Management options to reduce fishing effort and rebuild the stock while
    allowing some level of harvest were identified. However, those options
    were not available to the SAFMC because they would have resulted in
    continued overfishing beyond the date mandated by the requirements of
    the revised MSA. Recreational and commercial fishers vehemently
    challenged the validity of the stock status determination and the
    necessity of a total harvest moratorium and possible large-scale area
    closure of the Atlantic Ocean to all bottom fishing.
        A South Atlantic red snapper stock assessment conducted in 2010
    confirmed that biomass was increasing due to a strong year class
    entering the population. The SAFMC was able to avoid the large-scale
    area closures but still had to reduce harvest with draconian measures
    in order to comply with the MSA. From 2010 to 2016, NOAA Fisheries
    allowed 17 days of recreational harvest of red snapper from the South
    Atlantic with all harvest of red snapper prohibited in 2010, 2011,
    2015, and 2016.
        A 2016 assessment of South Atlantic red snapper was conducted
    through the SEDAR process in an effort to update the status of the
    stock. Council members and fishers were hopeful the assessment would
    reveal an improvement in stock status and fishing opportunities could
    be restored. The analytical model used to assess the red snapper stock
    relied on estimates of recreational fishing catch and effort--surveys
    of saltwater fishing guides and head boats and surveys of private
    recreational anglers through the Marine Recreational Information
    Program (MRIP). Yet, there had been no legal harvest of red snapper in
    the South Atlantic since 2014 and minimal harvest since 2010. So,
    recreational fishing data available as model input was extremely sparse
    including the estimates of red snapper discards. Yet, these data were
    used. Although the assessment was impaired by acknowledged data
    deficiencies it was considered ``the best scientific data available''
    leading to the conclusion that the status of the stock was unchanged--
    overfished and undergoing overfishing. In fact, the estimates of dead
    discards were considered to have exceeded the annual catch limit. Thus,
    NOAA Fisheries prohibited the harvest of South Atlantic red snapper
    again in 2017 exacerbating the already existing problem of data
    deficiencies and denying fishing opportunities to the citizens of
    Georgia for another year.
        Since red snapper occur as part of a mixed-species fishery, it is
    impossible for anglers to avoid incidental catches especially when
    abundance of the species is increasing. Anglers are perplexed that
    despite all indications that the South Atlantic red snapper stock has
    rebounded they still cannot harvest a fish. Rather, they have two
    choices--discontinue fishing for bottom fish in habitats where red
    snapper occur or continue to discard an increasing number of
    incidentally-caught red snapper, a percentage of which will be
    considered as dead and counted against the annual catch limit. To their
    credit, an increasing number of anglers are voluntarily using
    descending devices to reduce the mortality of incidentally-caught red
    snapper. In fact, the marine industry and management are working
    collaboratively to increase descending device use and to insure the
    benefits of those devices are considered during the red snapper stock
    assessment process. However, these efforts will be for naught as long
    as we remain trapped in a situation where the SAFMC and NOAA Fisheries
    are bound by the rigid requirements of the MSA.
        If these rigid requirements, especially timelines for ending
    overfishing and stock rebuilding, had not been in place in 2008, the
    SAFMC could have recommended a management approach to reduce fishing
    mortality and start the South Atlantic red snapper stock on the pathway
    to a more sustainable condition while still allowing some harvest.
    Instead, they were faced with difficult decisions that have resulted in
    unnecessary socio-economic costs, an increase in dead discards and
    associated waste of this valuable public resource, and a loss of
    confidence in Federal fishery management. The ultimate solution to the
    South Atlantic red snapper conundrum is a change in the MSA to allow
    alternative management options for saltwater recreational fishing
    coupled with a realistic acceptance of the limitations of the data
    sources available for stock status determinations.
    Atlantic Migratory Group Cobia
        The cobia is a pelagic migratory species prized for its tenacity
    when hooked and as table fare. Found along the Atlantic Coast and
    throughout the Gulf of Mexico, the species is managed cooperatively by
    the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council and SAFMC. The dividing
    line between the Gulf migratory group and the Atlantic migratory group
    is the Georgia/Florida boundary. New York is the northern boundary of
    the stock. In 2014, an annual catch limit of 620,000 pounds for the
    recreational sector was established for the Atlantic migratory group.
    The annual catch limit for the commercial sector is 50,000 pounds. This
    stock is not considered overfished or undergoing overfishing.
        In recent years, MRIP recreational catch estimates for Atlantic
    migratory group cobia have been increasing and exceeded the annual
    catch limit in 2015 and 2016 by a wide margin. However, it must be
    stated that these catch estimates are imprecise due to the fact that
    cobia are encountered rarely by dockside survey clerks. For example,
    during the most recent 10-year period DNR creel survey clerks
    encountered a total of 49 cobia. Harvest estimates for the period
    ranged from 0 to over 250,000 pounds. Further confounding the situation
    is the fact that from 2011 through 2015, over 80 percent of the
    estimated recreational harvest of Atlantic migratory group cobia
    occurred in the state waters of North Carolina and Virginia.
        In 2016, responding to concerns about cobia harvest in state
    waters, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission initiated
    development of an interstate fishery management plan for cobia pursuant
    to the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act. As a
    proactive measure, the states of North Carolina and Virginia took
    measures to reduce harvest during the 2017. Yet, NOAA Fisheries made a
    determination that predicted levels of recreational harvest during 2017
    would again exceed the annual catch limit. NOAA Fishery Bulletin 17-
    004, Atlantic Cobia (Georgia to New York) Recreational Fishing Season
    is Closed in Federal Waters, was issued January 25, 2017. This decision
    was made in full recognition of the high degree of uncertainty
    associated with the MRIP estimates.
        Unlike the states of North Carolina and Virginia, cobia fishing in
    Georgia is prosecuted almost exclusively in Federal waters. Cobia occur
    only sporadically in state waters and when caught are typically smaller
    than the state-law-mandated 33-inch minimum-length limit. Over the past
    10 years, Georgia has accounted for 15 percent of the estimated
    Atlantic migratory group harvest by number, 13 percent by weight and 5
    percent of the trips reported to have caught cobia. The Federal fishery
    management plan for Atlantic migratory group cobia was not intended to
    allocate the cobia resource in favor of one state over another.
    However, the 2017 closure did just that in direct conflict with the
    language of National Standard 4 of the MSA. It is the position of DNR
    that closing Federal waters was a de facto allocation of the annual
    catch limit to North Carolina and Virginia where anglers would still be
    able to catch and harvest cobia from their respective state waters
    during 2017.
        It is also the position of DNR that the closure conflicted with MSA
    National Standard 8 by creating unnecessary negative economic impacts
    to the for-hire sector who rely on cobia fishing as a significant
    portion of their income during late spring. Furthermore, it can be
    argued that not allowing the harvest of cobia will increase regulatory
    discard mortality in conflict with National Standard 9 and would
    thereby ``increase substantially the uncertainty concerning total
    fishing-related mortality.'' As the National Standard Guidelines
    suggest, increasing bycatch mortality ``makes it more difficult to
    assess the status of stocks, to set the appropriate OY and define
    overfishing levels, and to ensure that OYs are attained and overfishing
    levels are not exceeded.''
        DNR and the Georgia House of Representatives requested NOAA
    Fisheries reconsider the closure based on aforementioned information.
    These requests were refused, and Georgia anglers were denied an
    opportunity to harvest cobia without a commensurate conservation
    necessity or benefit. The Georgia General Assembly recognizes that
    fishing is a valued part of our heritage and plays an essential role in
    the state's economy. Fishing is so highly valued that the citizens'
    right to fish is protected under state law (Official Code of Georgia,
    Annotated 27-1-1). By closing Federal waters to Georgia fishermen, the
    actions of NOAA Fisheries violated the rights of Georgia fishermen.
        The situation with Atlantic migratory group cobia is illustrative
    of the fact that annual catch limits for recreational fisheries are
    impractical. It also illustrates how it is inappropriate to use
    estimated recreational catches with questionable accuracy and precision
    to determine compliance with annual catch limits. As this testimony is
    being prepared, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission has
    approved a draft interstate fishery management plan for cobia for
    public comment. As originally conceived, the intent was for this plan
    to compliment the Federal plan. However, the commission is now
    requesting that NOAA Fisheries transfer management authority for
    Atlantic migratory group cobia to the commission by removing it from
    the SAFMC Coastal Migratory Pelagics Fishery Management Plan. The
    commission is requesting this because it realizes that as long as
    Atlantic migratory group cobia are managed through the MSA as currently
    written and interpreted there will be the threat of a Federal waters
    closure when recreational catch estimates exceed the annual catch
    limit. Given the historic variability of recreational catch estimates,
    this is likely to occur despite the efforts of states to control
    harvest. If this transfer were to happen, it would be the
    responsibility of the commission and not NOAA Fisheries to ensure that
    state regulations are such that the Atlantic migratory group is
    harvested at a sustainable level. This is similar to the approach taken
    for Atlantic-coast red drum, which was formerly managed under the MSA.
    Recommendations
        Despite our frustrations and those of our citizens, DNR
    acknowledges that we are better off with the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA)
    than without it. There are notable and measurable successes in the
    South Atlantic--black sea bass, red porgy, king and Spanish mackerel,
    and protection of long-lived and slow-growing deep-water corals. There
    are others where it is difficult to determine success such as the
    creation of marine protected areas and spawning special management
    zones. However, in terms of management of recreational fishing,
    especially red snapper and cobia, we see the MSA as a failure. It is
    the position of DNR that changes must be made to improve management of
    marine recreational fishing through the MSA. I offer some
    recommendations from a state perspective.
    Restoring Flexibility
        As evidenced by the examples I have presented, the 2007 MSA
    reauthorization has made it very difficult and in some cases impossible
    for the regional councils and NOAA Fisheries to apply the principle of
    adaptive management in managing fisheries. It has also forced them to
    set unrealistic goals such as ending overfishing within two years and
    rebuilding depleted stocks within 10 years. While it is admirable to
    set goals that are uniform across all federally-managed fisheries, the
    ``one size fits all'' approach to managing marine species with widely
    varying life cycles, habitat requirements, and vulnerability to fishing
    mortality cannot work when applied from the Western Pacific to the
    South Atlantic. Rather than set prescriptive goals, the MSA should
    allow the decision makers to use their best judgement to determine how
    best to eliminate overfishing and rebuild stocks without eliminating
    all opportunities for access to the fish. When created by the original
    MSA, the regional councils were designed for that very purpose.
    However, under the current version of MSA they cannot fulfill that
    purpose.
    Annual Catch Limits
        In theory, annual catch limits are a reasonable way of preventing
    overfishing and rebuilding stocks that are overfished. However, we now
    know that using annual catch limits in recreational fisheries is not
    the best approach. As previously mentioned, MRIP has been improved but
    still lacks the temporal and spatial resolution and accuracy and
    precision needed for recreational quota monitoring. MRIP and its
    predecessor, the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey were
    designed to produce high-level trend information, not data with the
    resolution needed to monitor harvest with state or regional specificity
    to the pound and day of catch. Yet, since MRIP is often considered
    ``the best scientific information available'' it is used to determine
    compliance with annual catch limits. We find ourselves in a situation
    where a fishery may be open one year and severely restricted or closed
    the next due to wide swings in recreational catch estimates. This is
    very frustrating to state resource managers and to fishers, especially
    the commercial and for-hire sectors who depend on predictability when
    making their business plans. A change in the MSA is needed so
    alternative management approaches are available that are better suited
    for managing recreational fisheries.
    Stock Assessments
        I think we all can agree that fishery management plans should be
    based upon the best scientific information available. We have a system
    where sophisticated stock assessments are the benchmark for ``best''.
    However, this ``best'' is sometimes woefully inadequate when decisions
    are being made that affect livelihoods and fishing communities. While
    great strides have been made to improve recreational catch-and-effort
    data collection, there are still deficiencies that cannot be mitigated
    by the sophisticated modeling approaches currently favored for stock
    status determinations in the Southeast. A three-prong approach is
    needed--continued improvement in recreational data collection through
    increased funding and methodological advances, more reliance on
    fishery-independent data sources, and acceptance that sophisticated
    modeling approaches are not a panacea.
        Currently, 75 species are managed by the SAFMC, with 55 in the
    snapper-grouper complex. However, stock assessment capacity in the
    Southeast through the SEDAR process is been low when compared to other
    parts of the country. In fact, there is one NOAA Fisheries Science
    Center to serve three regional councils in the Southeast--Gulf of
    Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean. In 2017, only three assessments
    of SAFMC-managed stocks are scheduled to be completed under the SEDAR
    process. If we continue using a fishery management system that depends
    on stock assessment results as a measure of success or failure, then
    stock assessment capacity in the Southeast must be improved. DNR has
    one staff person out of the twenty working in marine fisheries
    management who is knowledgeable about modern fish stock assessment
    methods. The priority for this person is not to actually do stock
    assessments but rather to represent Georgia when interstate and Federal
    fishery management stock assessments are being conducted to ensure that
    our data and perspectives are considered during the process.
    Effecting Change
        DNR is encouraged by the efforts of Congress to amend the MSA so
    that we can manage marine fisheries in a manner that places equal value
    on people and fish. We commend Congressman Don Young (R-AK) for
    sponsoring H.R. 200, Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing
    Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act, which offers the following
    improvements which are considered priorities by DNR:

       Basing fish stock rebuilding timeframes on biology rather
            than on an arbitrary, one-size-fits all deadline;

       Providing flexibility in ceasing a rebuilding plan when it
            is determined to no longer be necessary;

       Giving regional management councils the flexibility to use
            ecosystem changes and economic needs of fishing communities
            when setting annual catch limits;

       Exempting certain stocks where annual catch limits may not
            be appropriate, such as spiny lobster and dolphin;

       Providing flexibility in the management of recreational
            fisheries, such as fishing mortality rate targets and
            alternative rebuilding strategies;

       Repealing Section 407(d) because this section is outdated
            and should be removed given it addresses creation of an
            Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) program and catch limits for red
            snapper. Gulf red snapper has an IFQ program, and catch limits
            are now addressed elsewhere in the Magnuson Stevens Act.
            Removal of this section also would allow the Council to
            consider needed modifications to the red snapper IFQ program
            without always needing a referendum.

       Increasing public involvement and transparency when
            scientific data are developed;

       Prioritizing improvements to data collection and stock
            assessments, particularly in the Southeast;

       Forming a federal-state partnership program to improve data
            collection for recreational anglers; and

       Adding a definition for ``depleted'' and requesting NOAA to
            indicate why a species is depleted, which might not be related
            to fishing.

        In addition to H.R. 200, H.R. 2023, the Modernizing Recreational
    Fisheries Management Act, has been introduced by Congressmen Graves (R-
    LA), Green (D-TX), Webster (R-FL), and Wittman (R-VA). The companion S.
    1520 has been introduced by Senators Wicker (R-MS), Nelson (D-FL),
    Blunt (R-MO), Schatz (D-HI), Kennedy (R-LA) and Manchin (D-WV). These
    include the following reforms of importance to DNR:

       Repealing Section 407(d) of Magnuson and giving Councils the
            authority to use alternative fishery management measures for
            recreational fisheries;

       Instituting a moratorium on LAPP for mixed-use fisheries in
            the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic. Basing rebuilding time
            frames on biology, stock status, and the needs of fishing
            communities;

       Giving regional fishery councils the flexibility to consider
            changes in ecosystem and economic needs of communities when
            setting annual catch limits and removing annual catch limit
            requirements for certain criteria.

       Including affected states in review of proposed exempted
            fishing permits to ensure the proposed activity is consistent
            with management and conservation objectives, and that social
            and economic impacts are minimal;

       Creating best practices for state-administered recreational
            data collection programs and providing funding for improvement
            of state data collection programs;

       Facilitating greater incorporation of data, analysis, stock
            assessments, and surveys from state agencies and non-
            governmental sources and following through with recommendations
            of the NAS for evaluation of whether MRIP use is compatible
            with current management; and

       Within 90 days of enactment, Secretary of Commerce must
            enter into agreement with NAS to review if MRIP is compatible
            with the needs of in-season management of annual catch limits,
            including whether in-season management of annual catch limits
            is appropriate for all recreational fisheries.
    Conclusion
        Throughout my career as a manager of public trust resources, I have
    tried to adhere to the ethical doctrine of the medical profession,
    ``first, do no harm''. Just as physicians have discovered that, when
    taken literally, this is an impossible task, so I have discovered that
    it is impossible to manage a fishery without harm, either perceived or
    real, to someone. This harm may come in the form of lost wages for a
    commercial fisher or disappointment on a child's face when they can't
    keep the first fish they catch because of harvest regulations. However,
    like my peers, I believe that the harm is far outweighed by the
    ultimate benefit of sustainable fisheries and fishing opportunities in
    perpetuity.
        DNR believes that the MSA has done more good than harm for the
    citizens of Georgia and the United States. However, as with all things
    in life we must learn from our mistakes and make changes. It is our
    sincere hope that these changes will better align the letter of the law
    with the spirit of the law and set a new course for managing the
    Nation's fisheries through the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Mr. Chairman,
    thank you again for the opportunity to testify.

        Senator Sullivan. Great. Well, thank you again, Dr.
    Woodward for traveling all the way from Georgia. I hope you get
    a little opportunity to go out fishing on the Kenai here.
        Dr. Woodward. At 5:30 in the morning, I hope.
        Senator Sullivan. There we go. Good, good.
        Well, listen, let me begin with just a very open-ended
    question, but in many ways, it is the key issue that we are
    looking at in this hearing. I will just open it up to any or
    all of the witnesses to begin with.
        What do you hope to see in an MSA reauthorization? What
    issues, in particular, would you see as your top priorities
    with regard to an MSA reauthorization?
        We have heard from different user groups saying, ``It is
    working well. Do no harm.'' Others have had a very different
    view in terms of what they want out of this.
        So I just really want to open that up to begin with for all
    the witnesses here today. And again, I want to thank the
    witnesses for their testimony, and we want to continue to work
    with all of you as we move forward in this process.
        Dr. Woodward. I think one of the primary concerns we have
    is the prescriptive nature in terms of ending overfishing and
    rebuilding.
        The Act, when it was amended in 2006 and reauthorized in
    2007, had very good intentions to set measurable goals.
        The problem is we are applying those goals across very
    diverse fish species and fish populations. Sometimes it is
    simply impossible to rebuild some of these stocks back,
    especially if they are long-lived species in the period of time
    allocated and mandated by the law.
        And to do that, if it is even feasible, oftentimes comes
    with socioeconomic costs that are devastating and you still
    cannot necessarily accomplish your goal, but you are inflicting
    great harm. And so, I think that is where the flexibility comes
    in.
        Regional councils were created to be a composite body of
    informed decisionmakers, and they do need flexibility in their
    ability to do that. I think the Act, for all of its good
    intentions, has taken away some of that flexibility and keeps
    them from being able to do the best job they can.
        Senator Sullivan. So your focus is on more flexibility to
    the Council in terms of decisionmaking that relates to specific
    quota allocations?
        Dr. Woodward. Let us remove annual catch limits when they
    are not necessarily the appropriate tool. And let us give
    flexibility to build stocks back over longer periods of time to
    properly balance the socioeconomic cost with rebuilding.
        And then we also need better information. I mean, you have
    heard from Mr. Cotten about funding. We have one fishery
    science center and the states in the southeast have various
    levels of funding.
        We do not have the capacity, necessarily, to produce those
    kinds of stock assessments, but they are the currency of modern
    fishery management. So we have got to have that too.
        Senator Sullivan. Great. Others want to comment on the
    first question? Dan.
        Mr. Hull. Thank you, Senator.
        I did touch on one specific issue in my oral comments on
    the North Pacific Management and clarification related to
    provisions over State jurisdiction to manage fishing activity
    in the absence of an official fishery management plan.
        We, as a Council, have not met since the invitation to this
    hearing. So my oral and written comments are based on our
    previous discussions of Magnuson issues generally, and we have
    not taken the opportunity to more specifically identify changes
    that we would offer.
        With respect to flexibility and rebuilding plans, we do
    identify the need to look into that in such a way that, again
    as I said in my oral testimony, we can provide the regional
    councils with some of the flexibility that they need to rebuild
    stocks and to meet the scientific principles surrounding ACLs,
    but also the social and economic objectives that each region
    experiences differently. And we have heard that and seen that
    from other councils with respect to fisheries.
        Again, we are noting some caution about how those might be
    changed. Those are issues generally that we see are worth
    exploring.
        Senator Sullivan. Great. Commissioner Cotten.
        Mr. Cotten. Thank you, Senator.
        I think I am probably in the camp of working well and do no
    harm as reflected in a lot of my testimony. But I will take
    this opportunity to do another pitch on budget items.
        In the State of Alaska, as I am sure everybody is aware, we
    are facing some constraints on revenues and, as a result, all
    budgets are under close scrutiny. I think the legislature this
    year has treated our budget fairly well and have come to the
    recognition that in order for us to do our job, we do need
    those financial resources. As you take them away, we are less
    able to do a good job, and the same is true here. And I think
    the gentleman from Georgia pointed out a similar concern from
    that part of the country.
        So again, appreciate the strong attention to the budget. I
    know there is a push to make reductions in the Department of
    Commerce and that will affect us.
        So I know you are aware of this, but I just wanted to echo
    and emphasize our concern for certainly the potential for
    reductions and, at least in one case, we are interested in
    additional resources.
        Thank you.
        Senator Sullivan. Well, I can assure you that, at least
    from my perspective, full funding for NOAA and NMFS and
    particularly the research and data collection component of what
    they are doing for our fisheries has been something that I have
    been advocating for since I got to the Senate.
        As you all know, you cannot manage a fishery well if you do
    not have accurate and robust data. And so, I will continue to
    press for that, but I appreciate you raising it here.
        Mr. Morisky, do you have any issues, again, with regard to
    a broader hope to see in an MSA reauthorization and from your
    perspective, what would be most important?
        Mr. Morisky. I will also confirm budgetary issues in regard
    to what I am seeing. That on the State level, and hearing also
    about the Federal level, the lack of funding for science and
    research, in particular on fish runs, will equate to less
    accurate management and default to a more conservative
    management regime. So I am concerned about that as well.
        Senator Sullivan. Let me turn to another issue that, Mr.
    Hull, you mentioned, and Commissioner Cotten, you touched on,
    but there has been a notable uptick on the North Pacific
    Council's decisionmaking with regard to recusals.
        Can you just give the Committee, and others, a sense of how
    that complicates the work of the Council? You both touched on
    it. Do you believe that is a NOAA regulatory approach that
    could address that or is that something you think we need to
    look at from a legislative perspective, if you think it is a
    problem at all? We have been hearing, of course, a number of
    concerns about that.
        Mr. Hull. Thank you, Senator.
        Yes, there does seem to have been an increase in the
    recusals specifically, or especially, for the CEQ
    representatives on our Council.
        Senator Sullivan. Is it not a bit ironic? Because is it not
    part of the reason to have the Council put together that you
    want to choose members who actually are involved in the
    industry, and involved in fisheries issues, and know a lot
    about it, which raises the issue of recusal even though it also
    raises the issue of knowledge?
        Mr. Hull. That is correct, Senator. They have been
    successful over the past 25 years getting involved in all the
    fisheries. Therefore, they do bring a perspective that is both
    unique and very broad for the Council. And not allowing them to
    add their voice to our collective decision making frustrates,
    we believe, the congressional intent for the program.
        Senator Sullivan. Yes, Commissioner Cotten.
        Mr. Cotten. Thank you. Yes, I think I really appreciate the
    fact that you are asking a question on that. It suggests that
    you are aware of the problems here.
        In the past, there have been other people that have been
    told that they would be required to be recused. What they did
    to fix that was they shuffled their employment status, removed
    themselves as an employee, and became a consultant or some
    other method. It is the same person sitting there with the same
    financial interests, and they were able to avoid it.
        Senator Sullivan. And that worked previously?
        Mr. Cotten. That did work.
        Senator Sullivan. OK.
        Mr. Cotten. And I apologize if I am paraphrasing in a way
    that might have missed a couple of important points there, but
    that was my observation at the very least.
        CEQ organizations do not have a designated seat on the
    Council, but somebody from a CEQ organization typically sits on
    the Council. It is a very important part of the economy in
    Alaska, and especially to western Alaska.
        So that is the person that has most often been recused and
    it is possible that whoever sits there representing CEQ groups
    would face the same kind of problem. So it is a very important
    seat.
        Parochially, the original design of the Magnuson Act gave
    Alaska six votes.
        Senator Sullivan. Yes.
        Mr. Cotten. Recognizing that out of the 11 votes, that
    gives Alaska a majority if we all decide to vote the same way
    that is, but it does not always work out that way.
        But by having the CEQ member be the one that is typically
    recused that threatens Alaska's ability to have a strong voice
    on these issues.
        Senator Sullivan. So you certainly want us to look at it,
    but you think that it is something we should explore whether
    that be regulatory, or talk to NOAA, or is it something that we
    need to define more clearly in the statute?
        Mr. Cotten. My recommendation, Senator, would be to
    continue to push for a NOAA policy guidance change. If that is
    not successful, then certainly we would support a change to the
    statute.
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you.
        Let me ask, and this again, could go to either Mr. Hull or
    Commissioner Cotten. You mentioned western Alaska. I was out in
    Shishmaref the other day and we did a town hall meeting there.
        One of the questions that came up was the broader issue of
    the closure, or non-fishing, of the Arctic waters that extends
    north of where they are. And yet, from their perspective, some
    of the people asked the question, just seeing more migration,
    more fish. I get this question asked a lot. I am sure all of
    you do at the Council.
        But what kind of data, what kind of information, what kind
    of process do you need as you continually evaluate more
    northern waters in Alaska in terms of what the Council would
    recommend in terms of opportunities or maybe not enough data to
    understand the ecosystem there in terms of fishing there?
        I got a couple of questions on that just two days ago, and
    I told them I would have the opportunity to ask the experts and
    that I would pitch the question to you. So over to both of you
    for that question which, at least for me, comes up quite a lot
    when I am talking to Alaskans.
        Mr. Hull. Thank you, Senator. I will take a crack at it.
        I cannot recall offhand what kind of surveys are currently
    being done in those Arctic waters that are currently closed
    under our Arctic FMP to better understand what the status of
    stocks is, what is the abundance, how it has been changing.
        Senator Sullivan. And they are closed primarily because we
    just do not think we have the information to make intelligent
    decisions on any kind of management regime?
        Mr. Hull. In essence, yes. And so, until we have that
    information, and are better able to structure some kind of
    management program that would satisfy the provisions of
    Magnuson, the decision has been not to open.
        Senator Sullivan. But are we not seeing a migration of fish
    stocks north, or is that just anecdotal?
        Mr. Hull. Senator, I apologize. I am not able to answer
    that specifically.
        I would add, however, that the North Pacific Research
    Board, of which I am Chairman as well, it has initiated an
    integrated ecosystem research plan for the Arctic waters. Not
    specifically to address the issue of what is the stock
    composition and abundance in the Arctic waters, but to
    understand the process for the production of resources in that
    region that are particularly important to the people in that
    area.
        So that is a three-year-plus endeavor. It has just begun
    this year, but that is an example of some of the work that I am
    aware of that is going on.
        Senator Sullivan. Commissioner Cotten, do you have any
    views on this?
        Mr. Cotten. Thank you very much, Senator.
        It was a relatively easy decision to close the Arctic. For
    one reason, nobody was fishing there. So we really did not take
    anything away from anybody.
        But we did say that it could be opened under certain
    conditions and we would have to show healthy stocks that could
    be harvested.
        One thing about the fishing industry in Alaska is they are
    seldom shy about advancing proposals, ideas, and applications
    for experimental fishing permits. So I would expect to hear
    from industry as far as interest.
        They would contribute to the research and do the
    exploration, I think, if they were allowed and if they had the
    interest. If there was a good thought that there might be some
    money to be made in the Arctic.
        Senator Sullivan. OK. Thank you. Let me ask, Commissioner,
    one other question.
        Are there any changes in the MSA that could benefit the
    relationship, and Dr. Woodward, this would be to you as well,
    between State fish and game regulators, and organizations, and
    NMFS, and NOAA? Do you see that relationship as working well?
    Do you see any kind of structural issues that might be
    addressed in the MSA to make that more of a cooperative
    relationship?
        Dr. Woodward. Thank you, sir. That is a very good question,
    Senator, and one that is fundamental to the effectiveness of
    our fishery management.
        As you are aware, there have been efforts in the southeast
    to extend State jurisdictions out to manage resources in the
    EEZ with the belief being that the State agencies had a better
    understanding of those fisheries and an ability to collect the
    data. That is a slippery slope because that does put a burden
    back on the states to be able to collect that data.
        From a perspective of a state like Georgia, our territorial
    waters extend out to 3 miles. We have very little bottom fish
    habitat until you get 20 to 40 miles offshore.
        So if we were going to change that relationship to realign
    jurisdictions, it would be a pretty significant move that would
    have, obviously, far reaching ramifications for more than just
    fish.
        Senator Sullivan. Yes.
        Dr. Woodward. But at the same time, I can say that,
    especially in a situation like we are dealing with, with cobia,
    I have been encouraged that the southeast region has accepted
    that perhaps it is better for states to manage cobia given the
    preponderance of the catch that occurs in State waters than to
    keep it under a Federal system.
        And I think that is where the relationship really can
    benefit the most is a willingness for NOAA to divest itself of
    management responsibilities when there is a justification for
    it. We have done it in other species. We have reduced the
    number of species from being managed under Federal management,
    which is already stressed for resources, as I have already
    alluded to.
        I do not know that anything particular needs to be put in
    the Act other than maybe some language that encourages the
    councils to look critically at what is in their portfolio and
    to look for opportunities to pass that to the states.
        Senator Sullivan. Commissioner Cotten, do you have any
    views on that?
        Mr. Cotten. Just to say generally the State of Alaska has
    felt that we have worked very well with National Marine
    Fisheries Service and their representative in Alaska, and now
    anticipate even a stronger working relationship----
        Senator Sullivan. Yes, I agree with that.
        Mr. Cotten. With the leadership nationally.
        Senator Sullivan. Good news.
        Mr. Cotten. And thank you for your support on that.
        Senator Sullivan. Well, by the way, just so everybody
    knows, he was supported by every council and every region. So
    we had a strong Alaskan candidate and I am glad we got him in
    there.
        Mr. Cotten. And I think many of the other people that have
    held that office were certainly well-qualified and competent,
    but I think few have had the experience that Mr. Oliver has had
    directly, hands on with councils. And so, I think that is
    really going to be a benefit to not just our Council, but
    nationally.
        Senator Sullivan. Yes.
        Mr. Cotten. We have had some areas that we have not agreed
    on. Typically, with the ESA issues, marine mammals, for
    example, especially Steller sea lions, we have come to
    different conclusions on a regular basis on some of those
    issues. But I still feel overall, I would give high marks on
    the working relationship between State and National Marine
    Fisheries Service.
        Senator Sullivan. Let me ask Mr. Morisky a related question
    with regard to coordination that exists between the North
    Pacific Council and the Board of Fish.
        Are there ways that that coordination can be improved? I am
    kind of putting you and Mr. Hull on the spot here. I am sure
    you are going to say in the testimony that it is all going
    swimmingly. But if it is not, what would you recommend?
        Mr. Morisky. Well, perhaps more frequent interaction. I
    have been on the Board four years now and have not had an
    opportunity to have the Board officially interact with the
    North Council.
        Senator Sullivan. Well, I am glad we could bring you guys
    together today, yes.
        Mr. Morisky. Well, thank you for that. So perhaps a more
    frequent involvement would benefit both of us, especially with
    the issues that have been raised here and in other venues.
        Senator Sullivan. Do you think right now that the
    management tools the State and the Board of Fish possess are
    beneficial from the NMFS' and Councils' perspective to have in
    their toolbox to manage both the Federal and State fisheries?
        Obviously in Alaska, more than most states, there is an
    interaction. There is an overlap. Commissioner Cotten has
    mentioned a couple of areas where the State manages stocks in
    Federal waters. Obviously, you also mentioned the Kenai, which
    has its own very distinctive history in that regard.
        Do you think that there are enough proper authorities and
    tools to enable that relationship to work, particularly at the
    intersection?
        Mr. Morisky. Well, one of the comments that I have heard
    from my fellow Board members is that it is interesting that the
    North Council has their own staff back-up for information
    gathering, and research, and whatnot.
        The Board, although we have access to the Department, it
    would be nice--and this is not to criticize our state structure
    here, but I am just relaying something and I have also the same
    sentiment--that perhaps down the road if we could have more of
    a staff on the State side for things that we may research that
    are Board-centric.
        Senator Sullivan. OK. Good. Thank you.
        Let me close with just one final question. I quoted Chris
    Oliver in his hearing just last month in Washington, D.C. where
    he talks about, ``There are opportunities to have it both ways.
    Where for additional flexibility in how we apply annual catch
    limits, subsequent accountability measures, and in those
    rebuilding plans where we can achieve some flexibility that
    people are seeking without rolling back our conservation
    successes in having additional overfished stocks.''
        He thinks we can achieve that balance, as you mentioned,
    Commissioner, as someone who comes to that position with a lot
    of experience.
        Is that something that all of you would agree with the new
    Director of NMFS that we can hit that balance and sweet spot?
        I will open this. This is the final question for this
    panel. So if you want to answer it or have any other comments,
    please feel free to make them.
        Mr. Hull. If I might, first make the comment regarding the
    State Board of Fisheries and our Council interaction.
        Senator Sullivan. Sure.
        Mr. Hull. We do have a joint protocol committee between the
    Board of Fisheries and our Council, a subset of each body.
        We have not met for, I think, it has been close to seven or
    eight years now. So we have recognized on our side the need to
    interact at times, but have not followed through. I think that
    there is, given certain circumstances now, I think we have
    discussed that that warrants a joint meeting.
        Senator Sullivan. Well, maybe that can be one positive
    outcome of this hearing, since we have two of the key players,
    actually three of the key players, to do that.
        Mr. Hull. We also, our staff does brief the Board of Fish
    on issues that are going through our Council that are relevant
    to issues that they have taken up. So there is some interaction
    that goes on in between.
        But with respect to your question on Mr. Oliver's
    statement, I think that there are potential opportunities for
    improving that, perhaps the harvest side of the equation.
        I do want to say that it does require an increased
    monitoring of our fisheries, improvements in our stock
    assessment because the more information we have about the
    abundance of stocks, their distribution, their life history,
    the better able we are to make those decisions about harvest
    levels. The more monitoring we have of the fisheries, the
    better able we are to understand the consequences of harvest,
    or the impacts of harvest on those stocks.
        So yes, I think that there are some ways to do that, but it
    will not come easily, I can say that as well, so.
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you. Any other panelists want to
    comment on that final question that I posed that quotes the new
    Director of NMFS on what he thinks we can achieve?
        Dr. Woodward. I will. Thank you, Senator.
        I will, just for the record, let you know that Mr. Oliver's
    origins were in the southeast. He may be an Alaskan but.
        Senator Sullivan. Well, I think he claimed Texas initially,
    but we claim him now, so he has a lot of connections.
        Dr. Woodward. So we have a little pride of ownership of him
    too.
        Senator Sullivan. Good.
        Dr. Woodward. I do think what he has said is achievable. I
    think it is going to take a lot of work. I think it is more
    than just amending the Magnuson Act.
        I think it is leadership within NOAA. I think it starts at
    the regional level and how regional administrators guide their
    staffs to apply the Magnuson Act and how they interact with the
    regional fishery management councils. I mean, we see this quite
    often in our State-Federal agency interactions that, as you
    move geographically, oftentimes the code of Federal regulations
    is interpreted differently from place to place.
        Senator Sullivan. Right.
        Dr. Woodward. And sometimes that is good, and sometimes it
    is not so good. I think it is going to take both and it is
    going to take a commitment of resources.
        I mean, we are trying to do very advanced fisheries
    management in this country, and we have got to support it with
    the resources necessary to perpetuate the billions of dollars
    of benefit it brings.
        The legislation currently before the Senate and the House,
    the Modern Fish Act, they have great potential. Obviously, we
    have got to look at them with close scrutiny, but I do think it
    is achievable.
        I think if the Act is amended to show the states that the
    National Marine Fisheries Service is extending the olive
    branch, so to speak, to try to bridge the gap and correct some
    of these problems. So there is a willingness on both sides.
        Senator Sullivan. Good. Thank you.
        Commissioner Cotten.
        Mr. Cotten. Thank you, Senator.
        I just wanted to say I agree with Mr. Hull and Dr. Woodward
    that that statement reflects something that really is
    achievable. I think the big difference, and I already mentioned
    this, is the experience that our new Director has, the
    leadership and that service is so important.
        And while we certainly would not want anybody to abandon a
    cautionary approach to a lot of fisheries management
    challenges, that kind of knowledge and base would allow for, I
    think, a bolder advance on a lot of things that we are all very
    interested in.
        Senator Sullivan. Great. Thank you.
        Mr. Morisky, I will give you the wrap up, final word here.
        Mr. Morisky. Thank you for conducting this hearing today
    and giving us all this opportunity to speak. Thank you.
        Senator Sullivan. Great. Well, listen. How about a round of
    applause for our first panel?
        [Applause.]
        Senator Sullivan. I want to thank the witnesses again and
    ask our second panel to please come up to the dais. Thank you.
        [Pause.]
        Senator Sullivan. I really want to thank everybody for
    being here.
        I think the Committee, and people observing this hearing
    saw a distinguished first panel. Our next two panels are going
    to be just as distinguished, representing a wide group of
    stakeholders from different regions, different areas.
        And so again, I will ask each of our witnesses that will be
    recognized for 5 minutes to give an opening statement, and if
    you have a longer statement, we can submit that for the record.
    I would like to introduce our panel of witnesses.
        First, we have Glenn Reed who is the President of the
    Pacific Seafood Processors Association.
        Ben Speciale is the President of Yamaha Marine Group.
        Linda Behnken, who is the President of the Halibut
    Coalition and the Executive Director of Alaska Longline
    Fishermen's Association.
        Ragnar Alstrom, who is the Executive Director of the Yukon
    Delta Fisheries Development Association.
        And Ben Stevens, the Director of the Hunting and Fishing
    Task Force for the Tanana Chiefs Conference.
        Each of you will have 5 minutes.
        Mr. Reed, we will begin with you. Thank you.

                  STATEMENT OF GLENN REED, PRESIDENT,
                 PACIFIC SEAFOOD PROCESSORS ASSOCIATION

        Mr. Reed. Thank you, Chairman Sullivan.
        On behalf of the member companies of the Pacific Seafood
    Processors Association, or PSPA as we call ourselves, I would
    thank you for convening today's hearing on reauthorization of
    the MSA.
        My name is Glenn Reed, and I serve as the President of
    PSPA. Our nonprofit trade association represents the shared
    policy interests of nine seafood processing companies active in
    all major commercial fisheries in Alaska.
        PSPA members collectively purchase and send to markets
    several hundred million pounds of fish landed in Alaska,
    including salmon, pollock, crab, cod, halibut, sablefish, and
    other fisheries that continue to achieve sustainable management
    under the MSA.
        To accomplish this, PSPA members have invested hundreds of
    millions of dollars in their operations, including 3 at-sea
    motherships, 31 shore-based facilities in 18 Alaska coastal
    communities, from Ketchikan to Dutch Harbor to Togiak. Our
    members support local economies, bolster the tax base of rural
    communities, and provide thousands of jobs and infrastructure
    in remote locations.
        I want to highlight the interdependencies between
    commercial harvesters and seafood processors, which define our
    role as key fisheries management stakeholders.
        The harvesting sector operates under management measures
    developed through the regional fishery management council
    process, and they must be able to sell their fish quickly. PSPA
    members and other processors develop markets, buy those fish,
    and turn them into value-added products. Yet, the value of the
    product largely depends on consumer demand in highly
    competitive seafood markets around the world.
        The influence of global seafood markets on primary
    processors, including their ability to invest in capacity and
    in equipment necessary to remain globally competitive, must be
    understood and considered in management decisions, in order to
    achieve optimum yield.
        Congress defined ``optimum yield'' as the harvest level
    that provides the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, and
    it remains the core tenet of the MSA.
        Congress also defined ``fishing communities'' to include
    harvesters and processors, and this relationship is critical to
    realizing the benefits of optimum yield, which are further
    distributed throughout coastal communities and the Nation.
        To sustain this system, PSPA members support management
    that ensures fisheries' harvests are sustainable. This is the
    purpose of the MSA and it has been remarkably effective. The
    mandate to utilize the best available science ensures that
    decisions are based on facts and evidence, which drives
    performance.
        Overall, the MSA is achieving its goals in the North
    Pacific and is not in need of reform. Of course, we recognize
    there are ways to further update, improve, or streamline the
    Act. We also recognize there are regional differences that must
    be addressed and potential benefits of increased flexibility in
    some circumstances. But any changes should preserve, and only
    build upon, what already works in the Act.
        As PSPA reviews and considers any changes to the Act, we
    are guided by the following principles and find that any
    changes should ensure the following.
        First, preservation and enhancement of stock assessments
    and surveys must be maintained or expanded. This serves as the
    basis for all fishery management plans.
        This requires the cooperation from congressional
    appropriators, and we find it absolutely necessary for
    realizing optimum yield in all fisheries and responding to
    changes in stocks and the environment.
        New mandates included in any reauthorization should not
    come at the expense of reduced funding for fundamental stock
    assessments and survey responsibilities.
        Second, data utilized in stock assessments and surveys can,
    and should, come from many different sources, but they must
    continue to meet the high scientific standards demanded in any
    rigorous, peer reviewed process.
        The Act, which already requires use of the best available
    science, should not allow lower quality data to receive the
    same use in management, because doing so would have the effect
    of increasing sources of error and uncertainty.
        Third, flexibility is necessary for councils to address the
    unique and changing circumstances that arise between stocks,
    sectors, economies, environments, fishing communities, and
    other regional needs. Managers benefit from having more tools
    in the toolbox and flexible, adaptable options for implementing
    them.
        The North Pacific has several examples of cooperative
    management programs that have benefited from flexibility,
    allowing for higher utilization, increased value, lower
    bycatch, reduced environmental impacts, and more responsive
    monitoring and management, largely driven by fishery
    participants in response to Council objectives.
        Sustainable fisheries should achieve optimum yield through
    flexible and adaptable performance-based management, not
    prescriptive regulation.
        Fourth, any rigid mandates directing how management must be
    conducted should target specific needs without setting broader
    precedent. Congress should avoid across the board mandates in
    order to solve a specific problem in one region.
        Fifth, management systems and regulatory processes should
    be streamlined to the greatest extent possible. Any unnecessary
    duplication of analyses or extra administrative steps that do
    not add value should be minimized.
        Sixth, council management systems should be transparent and
    promote accountability. Reasonable public access to, and fair
    representation by, participants that operate in fisheries
    regulated by the Council is vital for achieving more effective
    outcomes.
        Finally, we find that any changes to MSA should not erode
    the core tenet of ensuring sustainable harvests. Alaska's
    fisheries are certified as sustainable through various
    international benchmarking programs, due in large part to the
    governance systems at State and national levels.
        All U.S. fisheries that have achieved the goal of
    sustainability must not backtrack, because doing so would not
    only affect thousands of fishery-dependent businesses, but it
    would harm consumer confidence that is increasingly important
    to seafood buyers around the world.
        In closing, I am grateful for the opportunity to share our
    input with you. I applaud your efforts to ensure that the MSA
    remains the bedrock of sustainable fisheries management.
        I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Reed follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Glenn Reed, President,
                     Pacific Seafood Processors Association
        Chairman Sullivan, on behalf of member companies of the Pacific
    Seafood Processors Association, or ``PSPA,'' I thank you for convening
    today's hearing on reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. My name
    is Glenn Reed, and I serve as President of PSPA. Our non-profit trade
    association represents the shared policy interests of nine seafood
    processing companies active in all major commercial fisheries in
    Alaska.
        As you know, Alaska's commercial fisheries harvest more than 60
    percent of all U.S. commercial fishery production. The U.S. economic
    output related to Alaska's seafood industry is about $14.6 billion,
    with $5.9 billion in economic activity in Alaska.
        PSPA members collectively purchase and send to markets several
    hundred million pounds of fish landed in Alaska, including salmon,
    pollock, crab, cod, halibut, sablefish, and other fisheries that
    continue to achieve sustainable management under the Magnuson-Stevens
    Act, or ``MSA.'' To do so, PSPA members have invested hundreds of
    millions of dollars in their operations, including 3 at-sea motherships
    and 31 shore-based facilities in 18 Alaskan coastal communities, from
    Ketchikan to Dutch Harbor. Our members support local economies, bolster
    the tax base of rural communities, and provide thousands of jobs and
    infrastructure in remote locations.
        As a representative of the seafood processing sector in Alaska, I
    want to highlight the interdependencies between commercial harvesters
    and seafood processors, which define our role as key fisheries
    management stakeholders. The harvesting sector operates under
    management measures developed through the regional fishery management
    council process, and they must be able to sell their fish quickly and
    at a profit. PSPA members and other processors develop markets, buy
    those fish, and turn them into value-added products, yet the value of
    the product largely depends on consumer demand in highly competitive
    seafood markets around the world. The influence of global seafood
    markets on primary processors, including their ability to invest in
    capacity and equipment necessary to remain globally competitive, must
    be understood and considered in management decisions, in order to
    achieve optimum yield. Congress defined ``optimum yield'' as the
    harvest level that provides the greatest overall benefit to the nation,
    and it remains a core tenet of the MSA. Congress also defined ``fishing
    communities'' to include harvesters and processors, and this
    relationship is critical to realizing the benefits of optimum yield,
    which are further distributed throughout coastal communities and the
    Nation.
        To sustain this system, which delivers healthy and affordable
    proteins to the world, PSPA members support management that ensures
    fisheries harvests are sustainable. This is the purpose of the MSA, and
    it has been remarkably effective. The council process promotes
    transparency, regionally-based decision-making, and inclusion of vital
    interests, which drives accountability. The mandate to utilize the best
    available science ensures that decisions are based on facts and
    evidence, which drives performance. Overall, the MSA is achieving its
    goals in the North Pacific and is not in need of reform. Of course, we
    recognize there are ways to further update, improve, or streamline the
    Act. We also recognize there are regional differences that must be
    addressed and potential benefits of increased flexibility in some
    circumstances. But any changes should preserve and only build upon what
    already works in the Act.
        As PSPA reviews and considers any changes to the Act, we are guided
    by the following principles and find that any changes should ensure the
    following:

       First, preservation and enhancement of stock assessments and
            surveys must be maintained or expanded. This serves as the
            basis for all fishery management plans. While this requires
            cooperation from Congressional appropriators, we find it is
            absolutely necessary for realizing optimum yield in all
            fisheries and responding to changes in stocks and the
            environment. New mandates included in any reauthorization
            should not come at the expense of reduced funding for
            fundamental stock assessment and survey responsibilities.

       Second, data utilized in stock assessments and surveys can
            and should come from many different sources, but they must
            continue to meet the high scientific standards demanded in any
            rigorous, peer reviewed process. The Act--which already
            requires use of the best available science--should not allow
            lower quality data to receive the same use in management,
            because doing so would have the effect of increasing sources of
            error and uncertainty.

       Third, flexibility is necessary for councils to address the
            unique and changing circumstances that arise between stocks,
            sectors, economies, environments, fishing communities, and
            other regional needs. Managers benefit from having more tools
            in the toolbox, and flexible, adaptable options for
            implementing them. The North Pacific has several examples of
            cooperative management programs that have benefitted from
            flexibility, allowing for higher utilization, increased value,
            lower bycatch, reduced environmental impacts, and more
            responsive monitoring and management, largely driven by fishery
            participants in response to Council objectives. Sustainable
            fisheries should achieve optimum yield through flexible and
            adaptable performance-based management, not prescriptive
            regulation.

       Fourth, any rigid mandates directing how management must be
            conducted should target specific needs without setting broader
            precedent. Congress should avoid across-the-board mandates in
            order to solve a specific problem in one region.

       Fifth, management systems and regulatory processes should be
            streamlined to the greatest extent possible. Any unnecessary
            duplication of analyses or extra administrative steps that do
            not add value should be minimized. Sources of unnecessary cost,
            delay, and uncertainty must be avoided.

       Sixth, council management systems should be transparent and
            promote accountability. Reasonable public access to and fair
            representation by participants that operate in fisheries
            regulated by the Council is vital for achieving more effective
            outcomes, as well as maximizing stakeholder support of those
            outcomes.

       Finally--and by no means the least important--we find that
            any changes to MSA should not erode the core tenet of ensuring
            sustainable harvests. Almost all of Alaska's fisheries are
            certified as sustainable through various international
            benchmarking programs, due in large part to the governance
            systems at state and national levels. All U.S. fisheries that
            have achieved the goal of sustainability must not backtrack,
            because doing so would not only affect thousands of fishery-
            dependent businesses, but it would harm consumer confidence
            that is increasingly important to seafood buyers around the
            world.

        In closing, I'm grateful for the opportunity to share our input
    with you, and I applaud your efforts to ensure that the MSA remains the
    bedrock of sustainable fisheries management. I look forward to your
    questions.

        Senator Sullivan. Great. Thank you, Mr. Reed.
        Mr. Speciale.

      STATEMENT OF BEN SPECIALE, PRESIDENT, YAMAHA MARINE GROUP,
                     YAMAHA MOTOR CORPORATION, USA

        Mr. Speciale. Good afternoon and thank you so much for
    allowing us to talk today. We really appreciate the opportunity
    to share our insights.
        Again, my name is Ben Speciale. I am the President of the
    Yamaha Marine Group.
        My thousand team members are responsible for the outboard
    motor business, as well as five marine manufacturing facilities
    in the United States. We provide products and services to 120
    independent boat companies and 2,000 independent retail
    dealerships, 19 of which are here in the State of Alaska.
        I personally have been in this industry all my life. We
    bring a unique perspective to fishery conservation as our
    products are used in commercial, charter, as well as
    recreational fishing.
        Conservation is a key part of our mission as a company. It
    is also a true passion for us in the marine industry. We
    support, and are active members, in the American Sportfishing
    Association, the Coastal Conservation Association, the
    Recreational Fishing Alliance, the Theodore Roosevelt
    Conservation Partnership, as well as the Kenai River
    Sportfishing Association here in Alaska.
        Mr. Chairman, Yamaha and our customers continue to advocate
    for the bill that you and Senator Corey Booker introduced, the
    Save Our Seas Act. We support these and other initiatives
    because we want a lot of fish in the ocean, and we want to
    ensure healthy fish stocks for future generations of anglers
    and our children.
        Today, I would like to focus on the economic impact of
    recreational saltwater fishing, underscoring the need to amend
    the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        According to the data provided by the National Marine
    Fisheries, in 2015 over 9 million saltwater recreational
    anglers took over 60 million fishing trips, spending over $28
    billion. These activities directly support 439,000 jobs and
    contribute $36 billion to the U.S. GDP.
        While impressive, these numbers do not begin to tell the
    complete story of the marine recreational saltwater economy and
    its national impact. It is not just coastal. It touches all 50
    states.
        I am going to give two examples.
        One, we operate a foundry in Indianapolis, Indiana where we
    have 130 Yamaha employees producing 60,000 stainless steel
    propellers per year, most of which are used in saltwater
    fishing boats. The waxes used in the investment casting process
    are supplied out of Cleveland, Ohio. The stainless steel is
    supplied out of Oil City, Pennsylvania. The minerals used in
    our alloys are mined in places like Climax, Colorado or Eagle
    Mine in Michigan's Upper Peninsula.
        At our Skeeter boat factory in Kilgore, Texas, we have 280
    Yamaha employees manufacturing fishing boats many of which are
    used in the Gulf of Mexico by recreational anglers for red
    snapper and other saltwater species.
        The gel coats that we use in our resins come out of Kansas
    City, Missouri. The fuel tanks and live wells that are used in
    our boats come out of Sparta, Tennessee. The aluminum
    components used in a boat comes from Lake Zurich, Illinois and
    the electronic components come out of Arkansas.
        The materials and subcomponents used in saltwater
    recreational fishing boats come from all over our great Nation.
    This is another reason why it is so important we properly amend
    MSA so it takes into account the full economic impact of the
    saltwater recreational fishing economy.
        Recreational and commercial fishing are simply two
    fundamentally different activities needing distinctively
    different management tools.
        The original MSA law was enacted to govern commercial
    fishing sectors. It has done well there. However, the current
    one-size-fits-all approach has led to many problems for
    saltwater anglers that are unnecessarily burdensome, have huge
    restrictions, and reduced economic output for our industry.
        Simply stated, you do not buy a fishing boat and tackle if
    you cannot go fishing.
        The management strategies are in desperate need of an
    update. Critical improvements in MSA are included in the Senate
    Bill 1520, the Modern Fish Act, and will allow Federal
    fisheries managers to use alternative management approaches for
    recreational fishing, similar to the State-based models that
    simply much better align with the nature of recreational
    fishing.
        We, all of us, are responsible for protecting the
    livelihoods of those who depend upon the recreational saltwater
    fishing economy. Our laws should be written for the good of the
    Nation, not necessarily the good of one, single industry.
        I hope I have shown that recreational fishing supports a
    large number of jobs in a wide variety of industries and
    states.
        I want to thank you again for the opportunity today and I
    really look forward to answering any questions that you may
    have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Speciale follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Ben Speciale, President, Yamaha Marine Group,
                         Yamaha Motor Corporation, USA
    Introduction
        Good afternoon, Chairman Sullivan 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). My name is Ben Speciale, and I am the President of Yamaha
    Marine Group, a business unit of Yamaha Motor Corporation USA. The
    marine group is accountable for the management of five marine
    manufacturing facilities in the United States, and we have more than
    1,000 employees. Our company sells, markets, and services Yamaha
    outboard motors and related parts and accessories through a
    distribution network of 120 independent boat builders. Those boats, as
    well as individual motors, are retailed through 2,000 dealers in the
    United States; 19 dealers are here in Alaska. These individual small
    businesses in our distribution network employ anywhere from a handful
    of employees to hundreds, and they have a sizeable footprint in all 50
    states.
        Conservation is a key part of our mission as a company. We support
    and are very active with the leadership of the Center for Sportfishing
    Policy. We are members and supporters of the American Sportfishing
    Association, the Coastal Conservation Association, the Recreational
    Fishing Alliance, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and
    the Kenai River Sportfishing Association here in Alaska. Earlier this
    year, Yamaha was honored by the International Game Fish Association for
    our efforts in the area of conservation. Mr. Chairman, I also know you
    are aware that Yamaha supports and has asked its customers to advocate
    for the bill that you and Senator Corey Booker introduced, the Save Our
    Seas Act. Getting plastic debris out of our oceans is very important
    part of protecting our ocean resources. At Yamaha, we know that our
    business and the businesses of all boat builders and dealers, rely on a
    healthy and abundant resource. To summarize, we want a lot of fish in
    the sea, and we want to ensure healthy fish stocks are protected for
    generations to come.
        I believe I can bring a unique perspective to the fisheries
    management conversation because Yamaha Marine's products are used by
    commercial, charter, and recreational fishermen. With this in mind, we
    are focused on fair and equitable fisheries management policies that
    bring about the greatest benefit to the Nation.
        Today, I would like to focus on the economic impact of recreational
    salt water fishing and thereby underscore the need for amending the
    Magnuson-Stevens Act to allow for increased management flexibility for
    recreational fisheries.
    The Impact from a Statistical view
        Recreational saltwater fishing contributes greatly to the economy.
    According to data provided by the National Marine Fisheries Service,
    the Nation's nine million saltwater recreational anglers took more than
    60 million fishing trips in 2015, spending $28.7 billion. $24 billion
    of that was spent on durable goods, such as what we and our boat
    builder customers produce. Totals sales impact was $63 billion, which
    supported 439,000 jobs, and contributed $36 billion to the U.S. gross
    domestic product. Using NMFS numbers, total contribution to the economy
    by recreational fishing is about equal to the impact of commercial
    fishing.
    Economic Impact from a Manufacturer's View
        While impressive, these numbers don't begin to tell the whole story
    of the marine economy. There are two points that everyone gathered here
    may not know. The impact of saltwater fishing isn't just coastal, and
    it likely touches all fifty states. Let me give you a few examples.
        Yamaha owns and operates a foundry in Indianapolis, Indiana, which
    produces more than 60 thousand stainless steel propellers each year
    that are used on Yamaha and other outboard motors. More than a third of
    those props are used in saltwater boat applications despite the fact
    that they are manufactured in a landlocked state.
        We employ 130 hardworking Americans in Indianapolis. The employees
    there are skilled and proud of what they do. Many of the jobs involve
    precise, careful finish work. The propellers they make are of high
    quality and are in great demand. On average, our production employees
    make more than other manufacturing employees in the area. They have the
    very same benefits package and health care options that are available
    to all Yamaha employees. In short, these are good jobs in a good
    industry.
        However, the economic impact of our propeller plant doesn't end in
    Indianapolis. Let's take a look at the raw materials that go into those
    Yamaha propellers. The waxes used in the investment casting process are
    shipped to Indianapolis from factories in Muskegon, Michigan or
    Cleveland, Ohio. Stainless steel is shipped to Indianapolis as ingots
    from Oil City, Pennsylvania and from Muskegon, Michigan. The various
    minerals used in the alloys are mined in a number of places, including
    Climax, Colorado, a state not known for saltwater fishing. Nickel used
    in the alloy likely comes from the Eagle Mine on Michigan's Upper
    Peninsula. Furthermore, once the propellers have left our Indianapolis
    plant, they go on to support small businesses in all fifty states
    through our boat-builder and dealer networks.
        We see the extensive impact of saltwater recreational fishing at
    our Skeeter boat company factory in Kilgore, Texas. While Texas
    certainly has a lot of coastline, Kilgore is pretty far from it. The
    city is better known for its contribution to the oil industry in the
    1930s, with oil derricks still standing as historic markers. With 281
    employees, Skeeter is now the second largest private employer in
    Kilgore, ranking just behind General Dynamics and just ahead of
    Halliburton. The brand is known as a manufacturer of high-performance
    fishing boats, may of which are used in the Gulf of Mexico by a wide
    variety of customers, including many recreational anglers who use them
    to fish for red snapper and other salt water species. Most of the
    resins used in those boats come from a company in Marshall, Texas. Some
    of the gelcoats are from Kansas City, Missouri. Fuel tanks and
    livewells come from factories in Bristol, Indiana and Sparta,
    Tennessee. Aluminum for use in some panels, from Lake Zurich, Illinois.
    Electronic components are from Conway, Arkansas. Decals and emblems are
    manufactured in Wichita, Kansas. All boats, not just Skeeter's, use a
    lot of wiring these days. Many of the wiring harnesses for boats come
    from Michigan. The truth is that many of the raw materials and semi-
    finished products used for salt water recreational fishing boat
    production come from factories, mines and suppliers in the interior of
    our great nation.
        That salt water recreational fishing economy is much more far
    reaching than we think, and that's why it is so important that we amend
    the Magnuson-Stevens Act to take into account the needs of the
    recreational fishing economy. Recreational fishing and commercial
    fishing are two fundamentally different activities needing distinctly
    different management tools.
    Supporting the Salt Water Recreational Fishing Economy
        How do we make sure we maintain the salt water fishing economy that
    is so important to every state in our nation? The current law has never
    properly addressed the importance of recreational fishing. The original
    MSA law was enacted to govern the commercial fishing sector, and the
    bill has done so with great success over the decades. However, the
    current one-size-fits-all approach has led to problems for the
    recreational angler including shortened or even cancelled seasons,
    reduced bag limits, and unnecessary restrictions. Recreational anglers
    are very concerned about the process for granting Exempted Fishing
    Permits, the actual impacts EFPs have on anglers who remain excluded,
    and the potential impacts EFPs will have on species conservation--as
    explained in the attachment to this testimony. Management strategies
    are in desperate need of an update and more emphasis needs to be put on
    recreational fishing.
        We believe that some critical improvements are included in S. 1520,
    the Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act of 2017, which is
    currently pending before this committee. If enacted, the provisions of
    that bill will provide some of the statutory tools needed to better
    manage recreational anglers.
        Specifically, the Modern Fish Act will allow Federal fisheries
    managers to use alternative management approaches for recreational
    fishing, similar to state-based models that better align with the
    nature of recreational fishing and available data. Among other
    innovations, it will improve recreational fisheries data by considering
    modern third-party data collection systems, such as from smartphones.
    These legislative changes take nothing away from other sectors while
    leveling the playing field for the recreational angler.
    Conclusion
        At Yamaha, we see the breadth and depth of the salt water
    recreational fishing economy. We see it in our own facilities and in
    those of the 120 boat builders and 2,000 dealers we work with every
    day. Here is an important fact: 70 percent of those who boat, fish. You
    cannot separate boating from fishing. In many ways, an outboard motor
    is just a tool for fishing, not unlike the tackle used by our
    customers. Every element and every bit of material that goes into the
    boat and everyone who adds value to it is part of the salt water
    recreational economy. The impacts go beyond manufacturers, suppliers,
    and retailers; they affect hotels, gas stations, restaurants, travel
    services, and coastal communities that benefit from recreational
    saltwater fishing trips every single day of the year.
        We, all of us here, are responsible for protecting the livelihood
    of the many who depend on recreational fishing. Our laws are written
    for the good of the nation, not the good of a single industry. I hope I
    have shown that the sport of recreational fishing supports a large
    number of jobs in a wide variety of industries in states all across our
    nation: artisans who put the shine in our propellers, technicians who
    design tooling, miners who bring us our raw materials, painters,
    laminators, salespeople, marketers, accountants, everyone. Each one of
    these jobs represents an American family that depends on the sport of
    recreational fishing for their financial security, and dozens more
    American families that are able to bond across generations through time
    together on the water with a fishing rod in their hands.
        At Yamaha, we support the Modern Fish Act, and we support the
    organizations that have worked so hard to get the recreation community
    this far today. There are others here on this panel today that can do a
    much better job of defining the specific statutory changes that will be
    necessary to support the economy that I hope I have helped to
    illuminate. I look forward to their testimony.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss the Magnuson-Stevens
    Act. I am available to answer questions you may have.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Sullivan. Great. Thank you.
        Ms. Behnken.

                 STATEMENT OF LINDA BEHNKEN, PRESIDENT,

               HALIBUT COALITION; AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

                ALASKA LONGLINE FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATION

        Ms. Behnken. Good afternoon, Chairman Sullivan and thank
    you for this opportunity to testify.
        My name is Linda Behnken. I fish commercially on a 38 foot
    boat with my family out of Sitka. I am President of the Halibut
    Coalition, which includes 13 member groups and over 400
    individuals who provide halibut to U.S. consumers. I am also
    the Executive Director of the Alaska Longline Fishermen's
    Association and represent both groups with my comments today.
        Before addressing specific issues, I would state overall
    that in Alaska and other regions around the country from our
    perspective, the Act is working. I would ask that any changes
    be guided by a firm commitment to conservation.
        While today I will focus on strengthening the Act to better
    support coastal fishermen and fishing communities, we believe
    this goal can only be achieved by maintaining strong
    conservation requirements across all sectors.
        By way of an example in Alaska, we spent 15 years grappling
    with the conflicts between a rapidly increasing guided sport
    halibut harvest and a rapidly declining halibut resource. After
    Alaska's commercial halibut fishermen took up to a 76 percent
    reduction in their individual quotas, the courts ruled in favor
    of shared conservation and annual catch limits for both
    sectors. Halibut stocks are now rebuilding to the benefit of
    all.
        On a national level, rebuilding requirements have
    contributed to restoring 40 overfished stocks, which increased
    the value of commercially landed seafood by 18 percent,
    benefiting not only in fish and fishermen, but also the larger
    seafood economy: chefs, restaurants, retailers, and consumers.
        We are on the right course, but 38 important fish
    populations remain at unhealthy levels. We respectfully ask
    that the Committee uphold MSA mandates and hold all sectors
    accountable for their catch.
        Even as we recognize these successes and recommit to
    healthy fisheries, our coalition believes more must be done to
    address the challenges faced by coastal fishermen, especially
    young fishermen. In Alaska as elsewhere, commercial fisheries
    are a critical and sustainable source of employment, income,
    and cultural identity.
        Commercial fishing uniquely allows self-sufficient people,
    businesses, and communities to flourish in places where other
    economic opportunity is scarce. Losing access means losing a
    way of life, and ultimately, losing community.
        Young fishermen today face staggering entry level costs and
    a level of risk that is equivalent to buying a starter hotel
    instead of a starter house as your first step in homeownership.
    These costs, along with a nationwide focus on reducing the size
    of fishing fleets, has created a crisis in rural fishing
    communities. In Alaska, the problem is now too few fishermen,
    not too few fish.
        We have found that the conservation and management benefits
    commonly attributed to limited access can be achieved with
    limited consolidation of fishing fleets, and that more
    fishermen making a living is better for our communities.
        In addressing the provisions of the Act, we ask that you
    and the Committee focus on supporting, rather than reducing,
    fleet size.
        Promoting and sustaining the access of community-based
    fishermen also demands regulations be designed to work for
    small boats. At-sea catch monitoring provides a prime example.
        Small boats do not have room to accommodate an observer,
    but they can fit electronic monitoring devices, which capture
    the data needed for fisheries management. In Alaska, we now
    have an alternative for small boats. Hence, coastal fishermen
    can comply with at-sea monitoring requirements.
        To assist other areas, we have provided recommendations in
    our written comments, but I would highlight here the importance
    of developing programs at the regional level with the full
    engagement of stakeholders to ensure that programs are fleet
    compatible, cost effective, and designed to meet management
    objectives specific to that fishery.
        To summarize, the MSA created a successful management
    structure for our Nation's fisheries. We believe the effective
    and comprehensive application of MSA requirements across all
    sectors is essential, and we ask the Committee to recommit to
    these long-term conservation goals.
        We also ask that the Committee address the significant
    challenges faced by young fishermen and the growing impact to
    rural communities of lost fishing access.
        Our communities need relatively large fleets that provide
    jobs, revenue, and long-term viability. Young fishermen need
    affordable entry level opportunities and a regulatory system
    that accommodates the scale of their operations.
        We urge that you and the Committee help our communities
    realize the promise of National Standard 8. Not by compromising
    resources and health, but providing coastal residents with
    sustained access to local communities.
        I want to thank you for allowing me to testify and also to
    recognize your leadership in introducing the Young Fishermen's
    Development Act, and to thank you for that.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Behnken follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Linda Behnken, President, Halibut Coalition and
          Executive Director, Alaska Longline Fishermen's Association
    Introduction
        Good afternoon Chairman Sullivan and members of the Committee. I
    appreciate this opportunity to speak with you about the reauthorization
    of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, which
    has enjoyed notable success here in Alaska. I would like to start by
    thanking Senator Sullivan for his leadership on fisheries and ocean
    issues. In addition to legislation such as the Save Our Seas Act and
    the IUU Fishing Enforcement Act, we greatly appreciate his introduction
    of the Young Fishermen's Development Act (S. 1323).
        My name is Linda Behnken and I am the President of the Halibut
    Coalition which represents thirteen commercial fishing groups and 400
    individuals involved with the Alaska halibut fishery. I also serve as
    one of the three U.S. Commissioners to the International Pacific
    Halibut Commission (IPHC) and served on the North Pacific Fishery
    Management Council (Council) for nine years. In addition, I am the
    Executive Director of the Alaska Longline Fishermen's Association
    (ALFA), which is a member of the Halibut Coalition, the Fishing
    Community Coalition and the Marine Fish Conservation Network. I am
    representing the Halibut Coalition and ALFA with my testimony today.
        I have fished commercially for over 30 years and currently fish
    with my family out of Sitka. We longline for halibut and black cod and
    troll for salmon from our 38-foot boat. Commercial fishing supports our
    family and provides the economic mainstay of Sitka's economy. In 2015,
    Sitka was ranked 15th of all U.S. fishing ports in terms of dollar
    value of commercial landings. There are more than 500 commercial
    fishing vessels in our island community of 9,000 residents, with
    approximately 1/3 of the population directly involved in catching or
    processing fish and virtually every business in the community
    benefitting from commercial fishing.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ http://www.ufafish.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/28.-Sitka-
    2015-v6.1.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Alaska's commercial groundfish and halibut fisheries are widely
    considered to be among the best-managed fisheries in the world.\2\ Each
    year, more than 1,100 vessels ranging in size from small skiffs to 300-
    foot catcher processors conduct more than 13,000 fishing trips in
    Alaska to harvest more than 2 million tons of groundfish and halibut.
    The North Pacific Council and the IPHC have a successful record for
    responsible stewardship that is founded on scientifically based stock
    assessments generating annual catch limits. The National Marine
    Fisheries Service (NMFS) ensures that these fisheries adhere to catch
    limits by using in-season, fishery dependent data from vessels and
    processing plants.\3\ Commercial fleets abide by scientifically
    established catch limits even when those limits cause short term
    economic pain. Both fishermen and managers understand that in the long
    run no one wins if the resource loses. We are proud of this legacy, and
    committed to further improvement in the fishery management process.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Fissel et al., 2014; https://www.afsc.noaa.gov/refm/docs/2014/
    economic.pdf
        \3\ http://www.npfmc.org/wp-content/PDFdocuments/resources/
    SpeciesProfiles2015.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Before I get into specific issues, I would like to give my overall
    view on the Magnuson-Stevens Act re-authorization process. In Alaska,
    and in the other regions around the country, the Act is working, and I
    would suggest that any changes to it be guided by a commitment to
    conservation. The Halibut Coalition firmly support the conservation
    provisions in the Act, including rebuilding requirements, bycatch
    provisions and habitat protections. While with this testimony I will
    ask that this Committee strengthen the Act and the implementation of
    the Act to support community-based fishermen, we firmly believe that
    maintaining productive fisheries through resource conservation is step
    one in that process.
    Maintain Strong Resource Conservation Measures
        Alaska's commercial fisheries are a critical and sustainable source
    of employment, income, and cultural identity. A $6 billion-dollar
    industry employing over 30,000 people, fisheries have been the economic
    engine of Alaska's coastal communities for over a century. Commercial
    fishing uniquely allows self-sufficient people, businesses, and
    communities to flourish in places where other economic opportunity is
    scarce. Alaskans want--and in many places, need--access to sustainable,
    vibrant fisheries. Once fishing jobs are lost, families must relocate
    to seek employment elsewhere. Working with fishermen from outside
    Alaska, I see the same dependence in the rural areas of Maine, Oregon,
    and North Carolina--in fact, all around our country. Losing access
    means losing a way of life and, ultimately, losing community. Alaska,
    and the rest of the country, cannot afford to lose these jobs, these
    small businesses, or these coastal communities.
        And yet, efforts to weaken MSA stock rebuilding requirements do not
    protect coastal fishing communities in the long run--fishing
    communities can neither thrive nor survive without fish. Overfishing is
    not ``modern'' and ``flexibility'' should not be code for overfishing.
    Although rebuilding requirements have imposed a measure of short-term
    economic pain, the requirements have also contributed to restoring more
    than 40 overfished stocks to healthy, sustainable levels since 2000.
    Rebuilding these stocks has had significant ecological and
    socioeconomic benefit, including an 18 percent increase in the value of
    commercially landed seafood nation-wide between 2005 and 2014 (adjusted
    for inflation).\4\ Current language in the Act allows exceptions to the
    10 year rebuilding timeline and allows managers to tailor rebuilding
    plans to a fish stock's specific biological and ecological needs. In
    practice, the average time period in rebuilding plans is almost 20
    years.\5\ In short, the Act provides reasonable flexibility while still
    prioritizing resource health and we firmly support that balance and
    mandate.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ NOAA Fisheries, ``Fisheries Economics of the United States
    2014; https://www.st
    .nmfs.noaa.gov/Assets/economics/publications/FEUS/FEUS-2014/Report-and-
    chapters/FEUS-2014-FINAL-v5.pdf
        \5\ NRDC, ``Bringing Back the Fish,'' 2013.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Rebuilding fish populations benefits not only fish and fishermen,
    but also those who are part of the larger seafood economy, including
    the chefs, restaurants, retailers, and other seafood businesses that
    rely on a steady supply of seafood. As U.S. consumers increasingly
    demand sustainably managed and caught seafood, the conservation
    requirements of the MSA are a win for both business owners and their
    customers. In 2014, U.S. consumers spent an estimated $91.7 billion for
    fishery products, $61.4 billion of which went to restaurant and other
    food service establishments.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ NOAA Fisheries, ``Fisheries of the United States 2014; http://
    www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/Assets/commercial/fus/fus14/documents/FUS2014.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The benefits of ending overfishing and rebuilding overfished
    populations are far-reaching, and the costs of delaying rebuilding are
    significant. In 2011, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA) estimated that rebuilding all U.S. fish stocks
    would generate an additional $31 billion in sales, support an
    additional 500,000 jobs, and increase the revenue that fishermen
    receive at the dock by 2.2 billion dollars.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Eric Schwaab, Assistant Administrator, National Marine
    Fisheries Service, ``Written Statement on Eight Bills That Would Amend
    the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act before the
    House Committee on Natural Resources,'' December 1, 2011,
    www.legislative.noaa.gov/Testimony/Schwaab120111.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I would emphasize that successful rebuilding of a fishery resource,
    and sustainable management more generally, demands well-funded stock
    assessment, accurate catch accounting across all sectors, and a
    commitment from all sectors to share in conserving the resource. In
    Alaska, we spent 15 years grappling with the conundrum of a rapidly
    increasing charter or guided sport halibut harvest juxtaposed on a
    rapidly declining halibut resource. After Alaska's commercial halibut
    fishermen took a 50 to 76 percent reduction in their individual quotas,
    the courts ruled in favor of shared conservation and a rational halibut
    management plan that bases annual catch limits for both commercial and
    guided sport sectors on resource abundance. I understand from fishermen
    in other areas that Alaska is not alone in confronting recreational
    allocation overages--the Gulf snapper battles are legendary, and in the
    Gulf of Maine the recreational sector exceeded its cod allocation last
    year by 92 percent. Again--there is no future for any sector if one
    sector continues to overfish or exceed resource allocations. All
    sectors must conserve in times of low abundance. Of course, catch
    accounting across all sectors must also be accurate and allocation
    management effective. With this in mind, the Coalition respectfully
    asks Congress remain committed to sustainable fisheries management that
    holds all sectors accountable for catch, and that efforts to exempt
    certain fisheries or sectors from MSA mandates be rejected.
    Support Young Fishermen and Community-based Fisheries
        Even as we recognize these successes and recommit to healthy
    fisheries, our Coalition maintains that more needs to be done to
    address the challenges faced by independent fishermen and coastal
    fishing communities. Young people face daunting obstacles to entering
    and being successful in today's fisheries. Limited access programs have
    raised costs and reduced fleet size, Council analysis quantifies
    economic returns but struggles to capture social and cultural values,
    and regulations designed for industrial fisheries are unworkable on
    small family operations. And yet, fishing is the life blood of coastal
    Alaska and of coastal communities around the nation, and neither our
    state nor our Nation can afford to lose these jobs and this economic
    driver. Strong, resilient and profitable fisheries and fishing
    communities must be a goal of this reauthorization. Congress has
    established National Standards and guidelines that highlight the
    importance of small fishing businesses and coastal communities, but we
    have not yet realized the promise of these mandates.
    Too few fishermen
        Prior to the implementation of limited access programs, young
    people needed a boat, some fishing gear, and a sense of adventure to
    get started in the fishing business. Today young fishermen face
    staggering entry level costs and a level of risk that is equivalent to
    buying a starter hotel, instead of a starter house, as the first step
    in home-ownership. These costs, along with the nation-wide focus on
    reducing the size of fishing fleets, has created a crisis in rural
    fishing communities. Using Alaska as an example: since 1995, when the
    Alaska halibut/sablefish individual fishing quota program was
    implemented, the number of vessels participating in Alaska's halibut
    and sablefish fisheries has dropped by over 50 percent, with most of
    that loss coming from rural communities.\8\ Reductions in the Bering
    Sea crab fleet were even more dramatic and happened far more quickly.
    Reduced fleet size means less job on boats, less jobs in support
    sectors and less product delivered to smaller more remote ports--in
    short, socioeconomic bankruptcy for isolated communities.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ https://www.npfmc.org/wp-content/PDFdocuments/halibut/
    IFQProgramReview-ExecSum
    _1216.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Experience has established that the conservation and management
    benefits associated with limited access can be achieved with limited
    consolidation of the fleet and limited consolidation of access
    privileges. With a rational framework for fishing that eliminates the
    race for fish, a healthy resource can support a relatively large fleet,
    which in turn supports harvesting and support sector jobs and coastal
    economies. On a national level, more emphasis needs to be placed on the
    fishery management goal of healthy fishing fleets supporting thriving
    fishing communities. From our perspective, the emphasis on reducing
    fleet size has overshot what is best for our fishing communities and
    ultimately our Nation. In addressing the Limited Access Provisions in
    the Act, we ask that the Committee refocus directives on supporting,
    rather than reducing coastal fishing fleets.
    Balancing National Standards
        Congress recognized the importance of community-based fishing
    fleets and fishery dependent communities in National Standard 8 and in
    the Limited Access Privilege Provisions. When the Act was last
    reauthorized, Congress added requirements for cumulative socioeconomic
    impact assessments. In practice, we find that when National Standards 8
    or 9 conflict with National Standard 1, the scales are tipped toward
    National Standard 1 and economic returns rather than toward National
    Standard 8 and providing for fishery dependent communities. Not
    surprisingly, the council analytical system is far better at
    quantifying economic impact than at capturing cultural value and
    socioeconomic dependence. As a result, these social values do not drive
    council decision-making.
        To provide another example from Alaska, three years ago, the stage
    was set for the traditional halibut fishermen of the Pribilof Islands
    to be shut down while groundfish fisheries took all the available
    halibut resource as bycatch immediately off the coast of these isolated
    Bering Sea islands. This unacceptable situation was caused by the
    mismatch of a dramatically declining abundance of halibut in the Bering
    Sea, generally static trawl bycatch caps, and a management process that
    awards available halibut resource to bycatch uses as a priority over
    the directed fishery.\9\ In response, the North Pacific Council
    initiated action to reduce bycatch caps and launched an analysis. The
    analysis assumed a bycatch cap reduction would result in forgone
    groundfish harvest and quantified the potential economic cost, but
    quantifying the socioeconomic and cultural dependence of Bering Sea
    communities on the halibut resource was beyond the scope of the
    analysis and largely missed.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ The IPHC does not control bycatch in the groundfish fisheries,
    hence estimated or forecast bycatch is annually deducted from the
    available halibut harvest before catch limits for the directed halibut
    fisheries are set.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As you know, the Pribilof Islands are surrounded by the Bering Sea;
    the 75 square miles of land are occupied by less than 600 people and
    lie approximately 200 sea miles from the closest land. A fisherman who
    cannot fish has very few alternative economic opportunities, and the
    family dependent on that fishermen likewise has few options. And yet
    this extreme dependence, as well as the importance of this fishery to
    other Bering Sea halibut fishermen, was largely missed in the Council's
    analysis. The Council adopted a moderate reduction that left the
    traditional fishermen at great risk. Thanks to the voluntary bycatch
    reductions achieved by the flatfish trawl fleet, the Pribilof fishermen
    were able to harvest a modest amount of halibut, but their future is
    still in jeopardy. The Council is currently considering an abundance-
    based bycatch management amendment, but we are concerned that this
    analysis will once again fall short of capturing the cultural
    importance and socioeconomic dependence of the Bering Sea fishing
    community on the halibut resource. We believe the management process on
    a national level would be significantly strengthened by more robust
    socioeconomic analysis, and that the future of our coastal fishermen
    depends on it.
        In reauthorizing MSA, we request that the Committee emphasize the
    necessity of collecting robust socioeconomic data and performing
    comprehensive socioeconomic analysis. We also ask that you provide
    guidance regarding competing objectives and standards, and that
    heightened importance be placed on National Standard 8.
    At-sea monitoring and electronic monitoring
        Promoting and sustaining the access of community based fishermen
    also demands regulations be designed to work on small boats. Commercial
    fishermen operate in a highly-regulated environment, and one that seems
    increasingly challenging to small businesses. At-sea catch monitoring
    provides a good example.
        The North Pacific has an industry funded observer program that was
    restructured in 2013. Among other changes, the restructured observer
    program expanded coverage to include the halibut fleet and sablefish
    vessels under 60 feet in length. NMFS clarified that the agency's
    ``primary monitoring need'' for the halibut/sablefish fleet was ``total
    catch composition and species discards, to complement the existing IPHC
    dockside monitoring program.'' \10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc/PDFdocuments/
    conservation_issues/Observer/311_
    OACreport.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Small boats represent 90 percent of the vessels directly regulated
    under the restructured observer program, and placing human observers on
    these vessels presents special problems. Living space on small boats is
    cramped at best. Fishermen, fisher women, and fishing families spend
    months living in a space that is roughly equivalent in size to a
    station wagon. Fishing time is weather-dependent, and boats can wait in
    town for weeks for fishable weather. Few boats have an extra bunk to
    offer an observer, and almost none can provide privacy. Observers need
    space for their sampling equipment and room to work both on deck and in
    cramped living quarters. In sum, human observers impose costs, safety
    issues, disruptions for small fishing boats and their crews.
        In contrast, electronic monitoring systems (EM) collect necessary
    data without any of these issues. An EM unit sits idle while the boat
    waits for safe fishing weather, requiring neither a hotel nor food. EM
    units do not get seasick, they do not need bunk space, nor are they
    precluded from working on deck by safety concerns during particularly
    rough weather.\11\ Vessel owners do not have to buy additional safety
    equipment or purchase liability insurance for EM units. EM
    automatically turns on when a boat sets or hauls gear, providing an
    accurate and re-creatable record of catch. In short, EM is the small
    boat solution to at-sea monitoring and an essential alternative where
    at sea monitoring of catch is required.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Publications/AFSC-TM/NOAA-TM-AFSC-
    213.pdf. See page 54.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We suggest that Congress direct NMFS to work with the councils and
    stakeholders to develop catch monitoring programs that are: (1) cost
    effective, (2) fleet compatible, and (3) designed to meet management
    objectives specific to the fishery. Where small boats are involved, we
    believe an EM alternative is imperative. When EM is incorporated,
    regions should clarify whether the primary use of the technology is
    catch accounting or compliance/enforcement. When a program is designed
    to support catch accounting, EM data storage requirements should not
    exceed one year. Storage beyond one year is unnecessary for catch
    accounting purposes, since catch information annually informs the
    following year's quota setting process, but significantly increases
    costs. If catch accounting is the primary purpose of the program, then
    any compliance/enforcement function associated with the program should
    be designed to occur within the one-year time frame.
        Finally, as Councils evaluate how to restructure at-sea monitoring
    programs and develop options appropriate for coastal fishermen, stable-
    supplemental funding to assist Councils through the process is critical
    for success. To facilitate planning, we suggest that each Council
    develop and submit for review a transition work plan that identifies
    priority species for at-sea monitoring, target coverage levels, target
    funding sources, and a timeline for implementation. It should be
    recognized from the start that evaluating and improving at-sea
    monitoring is an iterative and evolving process demanding periodic
    updating to reflect evolving program goals and timelines. Including
    target coverage levels and potential funding sources will aid in
    identifying supplemental funding needs. To ensure transparency and
    stakeholder acceptance, these documents should be developed using the
    Council process and should not be internal NMFS documents.
        All stakeholders benefit from good at-sea monitoring data through
    improved stock assessments and reliable catch accounting. Given the
    magnitude of guided sport catch in many parts of the country, the
    Halibut Coalition recommends the Committee consider extending at-sea
    monitoring requirements to this segment of the recreational sector. EM
    systems are likely the appropriate tool to consider for guided sport
    boats, but a catch monitoring system should be designed with the full
    engagement of the guided sport operators. As is the case with our small
    boat sector, cost effectiveness and operational compatibility are
    critical to securing quality data while minimizing cost.
    Summary
        To summarize, the Halibut Coalition recognizes that the MSA created
    a successful management structure for our Nation's fisheries and that
    we have benefited from that success in the North Pacific. The
    heightened emphasis on resource rebuilding that was central to the last
    reauthorization is still essential to long-term resource health and we
    ask that Congress recommit to conservation goals. We believe that
    effective, comprehensive and well supported application of MSA
    requirements across all sectors is essential. Comprehensive stock
    assessment, representative catch monitoring and accurate catch
    accounting across all sectors should be a goal of this reauthorization.
        We ask that the Committee also recognize and address the
    significant challenges faced by young fishermen and the growing impact
    to rural communities of lost fishing access. Decision-makers would
    benefit from more robust socioeconomic analysis that captures cultural
    importance and community dependence on fisheries. Coastal fishing
    communities need relatively large fleets that provide jobs, revenue and
    long-term viability. Young fishermen need entry-level opportunities,
    sustained access, and a regulatory system that accommodates the scale
    of their operations. We urge the Committee to consider amendments that
    improve socioeconomic data collection, and direct NMFS to work closely
    with stakeholders to design cost effective and fleet compatible
    regulations; for example, including EM as an alternative to observers.
    Finally, we urge the Committee to help our fishery dependent
    communities realize the promise of National Standard 8--not by
    compromising resource health but by heightening the importance of
    coastal residents' access to local fisheries and effectively providing
    for that access.
        Again, thank you for this opportunity to testify.

        Senator Sullivan. Sure. Thank you. Well, thank you, Ms.
    Behnken, for your testimony and I agree one hundred percent
    with the next generation idea that you were talking about for
    our fishermen, not only in Alaska, but throughout the country.
        Mr. Alstrom.

     STATEMENT OF RAGNAR ALSTROM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, YUKON DELTA
                   FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION

        Mr. Alstrom. Senator Sullivan, my name is Ragnar Alstrom. I
    am the Executive Director of the Yukon Delta Fisheries
    Development Association, a Community Development Quota group. I
    would like to thank you for inviting me to testify today.
        Since its inception, the Community Development Quota
    program has been successful in delivering benefits and economic
    development to its communities. And that is whether those
    communities are in Atka, with Atka Pride Seafoods providing a
    market and a viable economy to that village, or whether it is
    in the village, one of my villages, Emmonak, which provides a
    market for 500 salmon fishermen and 500 employees.
        The program is widespread across western Alaska with
    varying conditions. I think the benefit of the CDQ program has
    been successful in bringing those benefits offshore onshore.
        Western Alaska, as you know, Senator, a lot of the projects
    in western Alaska have to be subsidized. Maybe subsidized is
    not the right word. The return on investment is not as great as
    what we look to offshore.
        If it was not for the program, I will speak to the Yukon
    Delta, there would be nothing there. I mean, it is scary. Not
    to denigrate or say anything bad about the regional Native
    corporations, or the village corporations, or the
    nongovernmental nonprofits there.
        The only thing that has been working is the CDQ program. It
    does not matter if it is in Norton Sound, or if it is in Yukon
    Delta, or if it is in Bristol Bay. What has been working for
    the average person on the street is this program. I can ramble
    for more than 5 minutes on this.
        When I see a young person, they actually get taller because
    we provide them training, a job, or other benefits there. I can
    go on forever. There are dire needs out there. We have a very
    young population out there in any one of those regions.
        High poverty rates, social problems leading to suicides. We
    had two young ladies in the last 6 weeks in Mt. Village, 19 and
    23, commit suicide. Another young man in Alakanuk, my village,
    that committed suicide. Alcoholism rates are high. But when you
    provide training and you provide jobs, which the CDQ does, we
    are not addressing all of the problems, but it is the program
    that is working the best.
        How is the Magnuson-Stevens Act working for us? I think one
    thing the groups can agree on is we would like to see an
    overall program. We would like to see stability. Now that is
    not to say there are problems out there. There are some CDQ
    groups that would like to revisit allocations based on
    population. Or another might want to revisit allocations based
    on proximity to the resource.
        Yukon Delta, we can hang our hat on that we would like to
    revisit allocations based on poverty. I think I am the only one
    in here that we have infrastructure needs in our villages. I am
    the only one in here that uses a honey bucket, for instance. I
    know we got good Federal money coming for that, but that is
    just an example.
        But getting back to the reallocation of this, when
    allocations were set, there were 20 criteria, and to go through
    and pick one or the other; maybe it is time. It has been 25
    years since the program started. Maybe it is time to do that.
    But maybe the forum is not here. Maybe the forum is at the
    Western Alaska Community Development Association within that
    CDQ panel group, there may never be agreement on reallocations.
    For one, you have to take from someone else and so it is
    extremely controversial.
        I can go on. I see my time is up. Thank you, Senator.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Alstrom follows:]

           Prepared Statement of Ragnar Alstrom, Executive Director,
                 Yukon Delta Fisheries Development Association
        Mister Chairman:

        My name is Ragnar Alstrom, Executive Director of Yukon Delta
    Fisheries Development Association. Senator Sullivan, I would like to
    thank you and the members of your committee for inviting me to testify
    today. I would also like to thank the other five CDQ organizations for
    allowing me to represent them in this hearing. It is an honor and a
    privilege.
        For the past 25 years, I have been fortunate to witness and
    participate in the community development quota program from its
    inception in 1992, when I was one of the founding board members of
    YDFDA, to its present state today.
        The CDQ Program started in the fall of 1992 based on a North
    Pacific Fishery Management Council motion that created the CDQ Program,
    State of Alaska emergency regulations and quickly drafted National
    Marine Fishery Service regulations. The goal was to allow the six newly
    created CDQ groups to have their new pollock harvesting partners start
    pollock fishing in December, 1992 such that they could get badly needed
    cash and start their work doing economic development in their
    communities. We have come a long way since then.
        The premise of the CDQ program is to ensure that Bering Sea coastal
    communities and their residents should have an opportunity to benefit
    from the vest Federal fishery resource adjacent to their geographic
    location. The North Pacific Fisheries Management Council, as well as
    many in Alaska and in Washington, D.C. believed that at least some of
    the benefits of these Bering Sea fisheries should come onshore to
    benefit western Alaskans, instead of allowing most of the benefits to
    flow to fleet owners far from Alaska. The Alaska Congressional
    delegation advanced the CDQ program into the Magnuson Stevens Act in
    1996. We are all formed as IRS 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) Alaska non-profit
    entities.
        25 years ago, our communities and their residents lacked the
    capital to invest in the fishing industry taking place right off their
    coast. It is different today. The CDQ program has enabled western
    Alaska communities and their residents to directly participate in the
    Alaska commercial fishing industry, either individually or through
    their CDQ organization. Now, on an annual basis, the CDQ program
    provides more than 5,500 jobs for local residents and over $60 million
    in wages and other income. Much more in addition is spent each year
    providing training and scholarships for vocational and higher
    education.
        The genius of the CDQ program, and its effectiveness in providing
    real benefits in our region, is that, through the CDQ fishery
    allocations as set forth in the MSA and our subsequent investments in
    the fisheries, our communities have actual ownership of the fishery
    allocations to do with as they saw fit, instead of an outside, top-down
    imposition of an economic development plan that may not be appropriate
    for an individual region. That is a huge difference as each groups'
    board of directors and administration decide how to use the fishery
    allocation revenue stream instead of being told how to use it.
        The CDQ program is also the largest Alaska presence in the BSAI
    fisheries. While the BSAI fleet is consolidating across the board, from
    20 offshore factory trawlers in 2000 to 14 today and from 230 crab
    vessels in 2001 (pre-rationalization) to only approximately 79 today,
    the CDQ program represents the primary Alaska ownership in the BSAI
    fisheries. We bring the revenue from this ownership onshore to Alaska
    with benefits to our residents in western Alaska, as well as benefits
    across the state to other employees, suppliers and industry
    professionals.
        We are also embedded in the Seattle fleet as co-owners and co-
    participants in the fishing industry. We are proud to be a part of the
    Seattle-based fishing industry and count many good friends there.
        However, being big or important is not our goal. Our goal is to
    make an impact in our 65 communities. The need in our communities is so
    great. Our poverty measurement statistics are some of the worse in the
    United States and even exceed the poverty metrics in New Orleans' lower
    9th ward. In Alakanuk, where I live, 44.6 percent live below the
    national poverty level poverty, the median household income is $32,917,
    and perhaps most telling, 52 percent of the people over 16 are not in
    the labor force. (All sources 2015 American Community Survey).
        YDFDA's communities are 95 percent Alaska native. Other CDQ groups
    have a similar makeup. However, unlike Alaska Native Corporations and
    the tribal entities in our region, the CDQ program is not race based.
    The CDQ program's benefits are available to all residents of our
    eligible communities regardless of race. This is an important
    distinction.
        Another important distinction is that the CDQ program's purpose is
    to provide economic development in our communities, and not to serve as
    a transfer payment center or an adjunct funding source for local
    municipalities. With many of our communities growing in population, and
    with state and Federal funding decreasing, our role has become more
    central in our communities and perhaps irreplaceable. For example, in
    2016 YDFDA provided 615 jobs, and fishing opportunities for 498
    fishermen. Overall last year, YDFDA directly impacted 1,493 of our
    region's 3,200 residents through jobs, training and scholarships,
    investing $10,217,706 into our communities and the surrounding region
    last year. YDFDA is the largest private employer in our region.
        YDFDA is doing, and all of the other 5 CDQ groups are doing,
    exactly what they were intended to do by Congress, provide real
    economic development opportunities in Western Alaska in a self-directed
    manner.
        On issues of significance to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, we have the
    following comments:
    Program Stability
        The MSA is working well for the CDQ program and for the State of
    Alaska. Through the MSA's Council process, resource and allocation
    issues are painstakingly analyzed and acted upon with an open and
    transparent process. Stability is key when participating in a capital
    intensive and dynamic business like the global fishery market and our
    stable statutory and regulatory process make it possible for our
    program and the BSAI fisheries to be productive.
    Maintain CDQ Program Structure
        This basic structure of the CDQ program, to benefit western Alaska
    communities from the Aleutians to Cape Prince of Wales that border the
    Bering Sea and inland fifty miles remains sound. Any change to the
    structure would weaken the CDQ program's support and potentially
    jeopardize the program.
    Council Recusal Legislation
        All six of the CDQ groups are in support of Congressional action to
    address the fisheries council recusal process. Present regulations and
    interpretation require that if a Council member's employer has any
    interest in a fishing company or companies, and those companies
    represent 10 percent or more of the total harvest or vessels used for a
    harvest in a fishery that is the subject of an action, he or she is
    forced to recuse themselves from voting on such an action. In our
    opinion, this regulatory structure is outdated, not evenly applied and
    has recently preventing several voting members of the North Pacific
    Fishery Management Council from voting on important issues such as
    halibut bycatch.
        Recently, the council members affected by these attribution
    prohibitions are Alaskan and often times they include the Council
    member that is employed by a CDQ company. Each Council member is
    appointed to the Council because they have a financial conflict: we
    want people with relevant experience guiding our fisheries. There are
    very strong arguments that an employee of a company such as a CDQ group
    is often less conflicted than other Council member personally invested
    in a fishery such as IFQ halibut. However, the current regulatory
    approach is not evenly applied, it effectively serves to exempt from
    this regulatory oversight certain fishery sectors and positions, such
    as consultants, while applying to other sectors. We ask that the
    Congress work with affected parties and NMFS to see of if there are
    meaningful changes to the recusal and conflict regulations that would
    protect the integrity of the council process while still allowing the
    input from Alaska that was intended by the MSA when creating the
    council system.
    CDQ Functionality
        In 2006, Congress amended the MSA by adding and changing several
    provisions that govern the CDQ program. One of the most important was
    the creation of the CDQ Panel also known as the Western Alaska
    Community Development Association or WACDA. WACDA was empowered to
    govern all aspects of the CDQ Program not specifically addressed in
    statute. More broadly, we also intended it to act as the representative
    body for interaction with Congress, regulatory agencies and the public.
        When it was formed, WACDA developed protocols and interpretations
    of the MSA's statutory requirements. In keeping with our broader goals,
    WACDA hired executive directors, engaged with State and Federal
    agencies, partners in the fishing industry, and charitable
    organizations, and participated heavily on behalf of the CDQ Program
    with regulatory bodies such as the National Marine Fisheries Service
    and the North Pacific Fishery Management Council.
        Over time, WACDA's unanimous consent requirement in the MSA has
    proven to be problematic and WACDA has ceased to function in any
    meaningful way. However, recently, all six groups met and agreed that
    they had to reestablish WACDA as an effective organization to fulfill
    the goals set out in the MSA. While the exact methodology for working
    together has not yet been agreed upon, we are heartened by the desire
    of all six groups to make WACDA functional again.
    Conclusion
        Today, the six CDQ organizations serve as owners or joint venture
    partners in shoreside seafood processing facilities, at-sea catcher
    processor vessels, large and small shoreside catcher vessels, seafood
    marketing companies, and a host of other businesses directly related to
    the commercial fishing industry. In many instances, these investments
    are located at the community level, where they generate local
    employment, wages, pay community taxes, and stimulate the local
    economy. To the extent that investments are outside of the our
    individual regions, they generate revenue to the CDQ company for
    overall use within the program and serve to stabilize the CDQ
    corporation by diversifying investments. They also provide significant
    employment and career path opportunities for local residents.
        None of this would have been possible without the CDQ program. Our
    main message to you today is that the MSA is working well for us now
    and we hope that in your reauthorization efforts you will seek to
    maintain stability in the MSA to allow the CDQ program to continue to
    do its work in western Alaska.
        Thank you again for providing me with the opportunity to testify
    today.

        Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Alstrom.
        Mr. Stevens.

     STATEMENT OF BEN STEVENS, DIRECTOR, HUNTING AND FISHING TASK
                    FORCE, TANANA CHIEFS CONFERENCE

        Mr. Stevens. Senator Sullivan, thank you very kindly for
    the opportunity.
        My name is Ben Stevens. I am from Stevens Village, Alaska.
    Stevens Village is north of Fairbanks on the Yukon River. I
    serve the people of the interior as the Director of the Hunting
    and Fishing Task Force at Tanana Chiefs. We represent some 37
    villages and tribes that also include a little over 40
    communities. I also serve on the advisory panel to the North
    Pacific Fisheries Management Council.
        I am what is considered a tribal subsistence fisher person,
    fisherman. Essentially the way that I see that is just a guy
    that takes the fish out of the water and puts it on the table
    for his family. So I am a little different in terms of what I
    think the Council is used to.
        I am here to talk about that perspective being reflected in
    the new Magnuson-Stevens Act. Last month, we had the privilege,
    I call it a privilege, to take our families and some tribal
    members out to our family's fish camp. In fact, I think I ran
    into you at the Yukon River Bridge. You were going downriver to
    your camp. I was going upriver to mine. And we saw a whole new
    picture of the people.
        Some of the tribal members we took, like you can probably
    relate to, are just in a rough way, in a very rough way. And
    the way that we interact on the land, on the river is something
    that gives people hope, and that is what we saw, what I saw out
    there as is normal for me, but it goes beyond that.
        Our kids are learning that fish camp culture. They are
    learning the traditions. I had one kid move from the gutting
    station to the filleting table. Another kid moved from that
    filleting table over to the cutting table where we do the
    salmon strips. These kids are growing. They are 12, 13 years
    old and they are packing rifles, and they are protecting the
    camp. So I am seeing so much good and I hear you. We are seeing
    so much good to that.
        Some guy I pulled off the street in Fairbanks. He sat on
    the bank and enjoyed the peace and the safety of the camp, so
    far from the hazards of being homeless on the streets of
    Fairbanks. There are so many more benefits that I can expound
    upon, but I only have a few seconds here.
        We were lucky this year because our family was able to
    fully participate in the process of harvesting and cutting the
    fish and drying it. Since, I mean, the past decade, we have had
    problems. Five families were at our fish camp. They, in turn,
    took their share and went back to their extended families, and
    it just multiplied that love of the fish camp, the subsistence
    fish camp.
        I believe that this is a sector itself and I do not think
    that this sector is adequately represented in Magnuson-Stevens
    Act. And what I am thinking is that I truly believe that
    fisheries management could benefit from the indigenous
    perspective.
        First, we have generations of knowledge about the land and
    the animals that goes beyond our understanding. It is just a
    matter of us trying to figure out a way to fit that with
    western science.
        Second, we do have a stake in the fisheries. Salmon is a
    staple of our people, constituting the majority of the
    subsistence harvest of fish annually. According to the Federal
    Subsistence Management program, the State's rural residents
    harvest about 18,000 tons of wild foods a year; so a little
    under 300 pounds per person, 56 percent of that is fish.
        Nowhere else in the United States is there such a heavy
    reliance upon wild foods. That is putting your hand on the
    fire. That is one of the reasons why I think that we may be
    underrepresented.
        And my final point is that fish goes far beyond feeding us,
    far beyond sustenance. I think it touches our wellness as
    Alaskan Native people because it does get us around the
    disenfranchisement with the land and the animals.
        With that, sir, I thank you for your time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Stevens follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Ben Stevens, Director, Hunting and Fishing Task
                        Force, Tanana Chiefs Conference
        Senator Thune, Ranking Member Nelson and members of the Committee,
    thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Ben Stevens,
    I am Koyukon Athabascan and a lifelong subsistence fisherman from the
    community of Stevens Village, on the Upper Yukon River. I grew up
    spending summers at my family's fish camp 30 miles upriver from Stevens
    Village and today I spend summers there with my own children,
    harvesting the winter's supply of fish. Salmon is a deep part of my
    heritage and culture, and fish camp is an integral part of this, where
    we live the values of caring for family and community, self-
    sufficiency, hard work and sharing.
        I am speaking from that perspective: that of the subsistence
    fisherman, taking a fish from the water and putting it on my family's
    dinner table. I also speak from my role as the Director of the Hunting
    and Fishing Task Force for Tanana Chiefs Conference, the regional non-
    profit and tribal consortium for 40 villages, including 37 Tribes of
    Interior Alaska in the Yukon and Kuskokwim watersheds. I also currently
    serve on the Advisory Panel to the North Pacific Fishery Management
    Council, but my comments do not represent the opinion of the AP or
    Council.
        I'm here to ask that you include the Subsistence sector into the
    new Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) and for continued vigilance.
    Why include Subsistence and Tribal Interests in the Fishery Management
            Process?
        Subsistence is an economy; it is a sector. There have been attempts
    to quantify subsistence harvest into economic terms with varying
    degrees of success; however, it is an economy of immense importance to
    the people of Alaska. According to the Federal Subsistence Management
    Program, ``Subsistence fishing and hunting provide a large share of the
    food consumed in rural Alaska. The state's rural residents harvest
    about 18,000 tons of wild foods each year--and average of 295 pounds
    per person. Fish makes up about 56 percent of this harvest statewide.''
    Nowhere else in the Unites States is there such a heavy reliance upon
    wild foods. This fact itself begs serious consideration for
    representation at the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council (the
    Council).
        Furthermore, while our region may live far from the ocean, the
    species we depend on as primary components of our livelihoods are
    inextricably linked to the productivity and health of our marine
    environment and fisheries. In Alaska, the Council manages many
    fisheries including several groundfish fisheries which impact important
    subsistence species, such as salmon and halibut as bycatch. The
    fisheries managed by the Council also have significant habitat and
    ecosystem impacts on important subsistence species, including both fish
    and marine mammals.
        The Council--and the MSA--therefore has direct management impacts
    on species of importance to tribal subsistence users. However,
    subsistence is notably absent from the current Act: the word
    ``subsistence'' only appears once (in reference to the West Pacific),
    and subsistence users are not represented throughout the Council
    system. While Washington tribes have a designated seat on the Pacific
    Council, tribes in the North Pacific do not have a designated seat. We
    recommend that the MSA be amended to include subsistence throughout and
    provide for tribal/subsistence representation on the North Pacific
    Council.
        This would also provide an opportunity for inclusion of indigenous
    knowledge throughout the Council process. At a minimum, subsistence
    interests should be one of the groups Council membership must be
    balanced between, in addition to commercial and recreational fisheries.
        Overall, we support the current MSA; however, we believe that the
    MSA fishery management system can be strengthened through inclusion of
    subsistence, subsistence needs and traditional knowledge to supplement
    and fine-tune the science-based fisheries management.
    Science-based Fishery Management Works
        Overall, the MSA's framework for science-based fisheries management
    is working. The current Act has successfully ended overfishing in most
    American fisheries, and has successfully rebuilt 39 once-overfished
    stocks. For subsistence communities, long-term sustainability of our
    resources is critical, and this means using science to set catch
    limits, and requiring accountability measures to rebuild when needed.
    Setting catch limits based on science to prevent overfishing, and
    requiring rebuilding plans to rebuild depleted fish populations are
    common sense provisions which support healthy ecosystems, communities
    and fisheries. While this can mean a bit of pain now for communities
    reliant on fisheries for food and/or income, the long-term benefits of
    maintaining healthy fisheries are well worth it.
        For example, the Chinook salmon in our region have been in decline
    for over a decade, with record low returns in recent years. While this
    fishery is managed by the State of Alaska, not under MSA, the
    principles of rebuilding are well-illustrated here. Our communities
    have taken huge reductions in our subsistence harvest of Chinook salmon
    in recent years, with a harvest of zero in some years. Sacrificing our
    Chinook salmon harvests has been difficult, even painful, as we've lost
    not only an important source of food, but a key component of our
    culture as well. The sight of an empty fish camp is truly a tragic
    sight. Yet for our communities there is no doubt that we had to do
    this--when the fish aren't there, if you care about the long-term
    sustainability of the stock you need to give them a chance to recover.
    This is the heart of the science-based principles of the MSA.
        While we wholeheartedly oppose any attempts to weaken Science based
    Fisheries Management as the backbone of U.S. fisheries management we do
    believe it can be further strengthened by including the traditional
    knowledge and community based observations from subsistence users along
    the river.
    Strengthening Requirements to Reduce Bycatch
        In our villages, up and down the Yukon River, and in countless
    places throughout Alaska, our communities depend on salmon. While these
    salmon fisheries aren't managed under the MSA, the MSA does manage the
    groundfish fisheries which catch salmon as bycatch. Salmon bycatch in
    the Bering Sea Pollock fisheries has been a central concern for us for
    years and the degree to which bycatch played a role in historic
    declines of Chinook salmon is very much an open question. We are
    grateful that bycatch has been reduced significantly in recent years--
    from a high of 124,000 in 2007 to 22,000 in 2016--due in part to a
    response to a complex set of management regimes put in place by the
    North Pacific Fishery Management Council, noting the enormous efforts
    of the Pollock fishery and their attempts to avoid Chinook salmon.
    However, the high limit on permissible bycatch (up to 47,591 Chinook
    salmon unless it is a low abundance year, and as high as 60,000 Chinook
    salmon in 2 out of any 7 years), is still alarmingly high at a time
    when Chinook salmon stocks throughout Western Alaska are either
    continuing to rebuild or continue to be at dangerously low levels, as
    on the Kuskokwim River. While National Standard 9 requires that bycatch
    be minimized or mortality minimized, the statutory requirements clearly
    have been strong enough given the high levels of bycatch which have
    been and are permissible under this standard. This creates a grave
    inequity in fisheries such as the groundfish fishery where species of
    tremendous cultural, subsistence, commercial and recreational value
    such as salmon and halibut are caught as bycatch. Furthermore, the
    manner in which National Standard 9 is balanced against that of
    National Standard 1 to achieve optimum yield, results in a situation in
    which reducing bycatch is never the top priority. The MSA should be
    strengthened to require and prioritize bycatch reduction.
    Conclusion
        The North Pacific Fishery Management Council is renowned nationally
    and internationally as a leader in fisheries management, and we should
    all be proud of that. Our fisheries resources are a foundation of
    Alaska's culture and economy, and there is a reason the ``Alaska
    model'' of fisheries management was the basis for the 2006
    reauthorization. It is critical that the conservation and management
    provisions of the Act remain strong, and that we retain the commitment
    to science-based management on which our fisheries management system is
    based. In Alaska we've shown that science-based Federal fisheries
    management works, and we should continue as a nation to strive for that
    standard, rather than lowering the bar.
        Any changes in this reauthorization should move towards
    strengthening the Act, not weakening it further. Including subsistence
    and subsistence users in the Act will not only integrate an important
    user group which is currently left out of the Act, but will enhance and
    improve the current system of management.
        Thank you for considering my comments today.

    Enclosure: Proposed Amendment to MSA providing subsistence users an
    opportunity at appointment

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Stevens. It was good to
    see you on the Yukon and it is an amazing place, as we all
    know.
        Let me just offer up what I did to the first panel, a very
    simple, but basic, but important question for the purposes of
    this hearing and many of you have already touched on it in your
    testimony.
        What would you hope to see in the MSA reauthorization and
    what are the key issues from your perspective? And I will just
    open that up to all the panelists.
        Mr. Speciale. Thank you, Senator.
        When we look at it, we think we need recreational fishing
    needs identified within the MSA law just so it is specific in
    getting into it.
        Senator Sullivan. Mr. Speciale, you talked about needs. You
    also talked a lot about data and that was one of the questions
    I was going to ask you in particular. So maybe, I will just do
    it now.
        Are the needs mostly based on what you consider as a
    challenge, which is the lack of data as it relates to sports
    fishing and that management aspect?
        Mr. Speciale. Obviously, one part of what we would like to
    see, that is the third item we would say we would need to have
    is a more robust data system. I love coming up to Alaska
    because you guys seem to know everything about the data.
        Senator Sullivan. Is that true, Commissioner?
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Speciale. I struggle with a few areas of that part of
    it. But I think it needs a more robust system of data
    collection or at least reasonable management approaches because
    sometimes this concept of the best available data is not really
    good.
        Senator Sullivan. Yes.
        Mr. Speciale. Many times in business you see that happen,
    and you can over study things, and they come up with the data
    as opposed to having real information.
        We would like to see a fairer allocation methodology based
    off the economic output. The recreational fishing industry is a
    big, big industry. It is good for the economy of the United
    States. That does not take away from any other industries. It
    just needs to be identified because it is so different.
        I would like the word that the gentleman down here used
    about stability. We need consistency. A guy that buys a boat
    wants to go fishing. He does not want to know one year he is
    going to have a 3-day season, the next year he is going to have
    a 22-day season, and it is not going to be around in the fall.
    He wants to see some consistency in it.
        So I think that is the type of stuff we want to see is just
    identifying that recreational fishing is serious. Allow
    alternative management structures, allow for better data
    collection, and use more modern tools because we all have
    smartphones today. A fairer allocation based off of economics
    and avoid the peaks and valleys.
        Senator Sullivan. Great. Others?
        Ms. Behnken.
        Ms. Behnken. Thank you for that question, Senator.
        First off, our perspective is that the most important part
    of reauthorization has to be to maintain the strong
    conservation underpinnings of the Act.
        Senator Sullivan. Yes.
        Ms. Behnken. Nobody wins if the fish lose, whether you are
    a recreational fishermen, a subsistence fishermen, or a
    commercial fishermen. So that above all.
        And that as we talk about flexibility or alternative tools
    that that is not code for a Modern Fishing Act. There is
    nothing modern about overfishing and alternatives should not
    mean overfishing.
        I guess I would just point out that the average length in
    rebuilding plans right now is 20 years. There has been quite a
    bit of flexibility allowed to make those plans specific to the
    fish in question.
        So in looking at that aspect of the Act, I would certainly
    caution against allowing flexibility to compromise
    conservation.
        I think next, for us, relative to maintaining a great
    fisheries management system is adequate stock assessment. Stock
    assessment that is well-funded, monitoring of all fisheries,
    all sectors so that we know what is coming out of the resource,
    and doing that in a way that fits the fleets that are being
    managed. There are certainly tools, smartphones that were not
    around when we designed the existing monitoring systems that
    can be used with far less burden to the users.
        So we are seeing, as I think Mr. Cotten mentioned, a real
    need up here for additional funding for our observer program,
    for electronic monitoring as we get that program back to where
    it needs to be in terms of coverage levels. So those are very
    important pieces, to me, of this reauthorization process.
        And the last piece of that I would mention would be the
    need for stronger socioeconomic data collection.
        Senator Sullivan. Yes.
        Ms. Behnken. That really gets at this issue of dependency
    in small communities on the resource, whether you are a
    subsistence fishermen, a commercial fishermen, or a CDQ
    fishermen. In those communities, I do not feel like we are
    capturing that.
        As result, decisions are far too often driven by straight
    economics. And that very important culture and social
    dependence on the resource is not driving decisions to the
    extent it needs to do to keep our communities and those jobs in
    those communities healthy and viable.
        Senator Sullivan. Great. Thank you.
        Mr. Reed.
        Mr. Reed. Thank you, Senator. I am also going to talk about
    stock assessments, and surveys, and echo a few people before
    me.
        I think that in my career in seafood and from most peoples
    from Alaska wherever you go, you hear about how well-managed
    Alaska's fisheries are. Sometimes it seems like we might be
    talking to ourselves and it is bouncing back. But I think for
    the most part, it is everyone else we are talking to as well.
    And the reason for that is that we have strong scientific data
    and backup.
        I think the job of the agency is to manage fisheries and
    there are lots of other things that you can do with the money
    that you have available to you, but nothing is more important
    than stock assessments and surveys.
        Historically we have had situations where sometimes a
    politician steps in and is prescriptive in where money should
    be spent when not enough money is going to areas like stock
    assessments and surveys.
        We are supportive enough of those issues to stand up
    conservation, and to stand up our fisheries, and to make sure
    that the fish come first. That that is a good idea in our
    minds, I believe.
        I think I would agree that relative to rebuilding plans,
    there could be more flexibility than just the ten year plan.
    There needs to be more flexibility in rebuilding plans in
    general, but I think that in adding flexibility with
    rebuilding, you still have to put the health of the resource
    first.
        If there comes a time or comes years when fishing is
    curtailed or reduced, regardless of the user group, still put
    the fish first. Suck it up and take the hit so you have a
    resource in the future for those fishermen and their children.
        Senator Sullivan. Mr. Alstrom.
        Mr. Alstrom. Thank you, Senator.
        What we would like to see in the reauthorization as it
    relates to stability with the CDQ program. We would like to see
    the hardened performance caps in the pollock fishery, which
    seems to be working, but we would like to see a periodic review
    of the Yukon River's rebuilding as far as snook returns. But
    there seems to be a problem on the Kuskokwim. And ditto with
    the halibut bycatch limits.
        We are hearing from villages along the coast that halibut
    seem to be moving offshore because of maybe warming waters or
    other factors. We would hate to see that halibut bycatch
    increase. It needs to be continually monitored.
        We would like to see the pollock and crab sock assessments
    continue at a robust level. We would hate to see those testing
    mechanisms reduced.
        Specific to the CDQ program, stability would also include
    keeping that program as-is. The program was envisioned and
    written up to include only those villages which are in 50
    nautical miles that rely on the Bering Sea. Sometimes when you
    have a good program, you expand it, and then what you have is a
    weakened program for everyone. We would like to see that
    program as-is.
        And one last final note is that we would like to see the
    Western Alaska Community Development Association reinvigorated
    so it can, I think, do what Senator Stevens envisioned it would
    do, oversee the CDQ program.
        Senator Sullivan. Great.
        Mr. Alstrom. The CDQ implementation committee that was, I
    believe you directed, I think that is the road I will take in
    addressing that too. Thank you.
        Senator Sullivan. Great. Thank you.
        Mr. Stevens, any thoughts just on the overview question,
    priorities, and what you see as your priorities on MSA
    reauthorization?
        Mr. Stevens. Thanks, Senator.
        I think it is imperative that we include increased travel
    representation. When I first got to the North Pacific Council
    room, I realized right off the bat that it was very thin in
    terms of tribal DNA. There is very, very little. I say that
    with all due respect to the hardworking folks that run the
    operation. But it is what it is.
        And that is what I think that we would like to see. That
    and continued vigilance in terms of balancing sustainability
    and the needs of the world. And, of course, continued vigilance
    surrounding bycatch.
        Senator Sullivan. Good. Thank you.
        Let me get a little more specific. Mr. Reed, you were
    listening to the last panel. There was a lot of discussion on
    data. As a matter of fact, I think, we are seeing one area of
    consensus, data. Sustainability, very, very focused on accurate
    stock assessments as critical no matter what user group you are
    looking at.
        Let me ask you more specifically. You talked about, and in
    your written testimony, talked about provisions related to
    transparency and use of data included in any MSA
    reauthorization.
        There is also, I think, opportunities, but I would like
    your, or any of the witnesses' views to look at cooperative
    research programs that utilize State, or university, or other
    data. So the Feds are not the sole repositories of wisdom on
    the data.
        How do we integrate with other data, make it transparent,
    but also make sure it is reliable? So it has to be good data
    and good science, but to look at opportunities to expand it.
    There are tremendous research institutions that are not the
    Federal Government.
        What is the balance there? What would you like to see? And
    if anyone else has a view on that, I think we are seeing
    consensus on one issue, data funding, which I fully support.
    But also can we cast a broader net on better data that helps us
    all that is not just driven purely by NOAA and NMFS?
        Mr. Reed. Thank you, Senator.
        What I was trying to get at with my comments on that point,
    which I think is a very important point, is that there be
    transparency in the robustness of the data that you are using.
        Senator Sullivan. So that is Federal Government
    transparency? Or if an agency, State or Federal, is making the
    decision based on data, you want to know what that data was?
        Mr. Reed. Yes, sir.
        Senator Sullivan. Is that what you mean by transparency?
        Mr. Reed. It is, exactly.
        I want to know, is it a peer reviewed data set? Is it grey
    literature from an interest group? I think traditionally and
    historically, we look at who funded a study and make
    conclusions without ever reading the study, a lot of times.
        Senator Sullivan. Yes.
        Mr. Reed. And I think that is unfortunate, but I think it
    is true. I think if it is a peer reviewed study, as opposed to
    non-peer reviewed or grey literature, that makes a difference,
    and all of those things should be right out in the open
    regardless of whether it is the Government promoting the use of
    that data to back up their program----
        Senator Sullivan. Yes.
        Mr. Reed.--or whether it is someone from an interested
    sector coming forth and testifying and saying, ``Here is what
    you should do and here is the data that I am using to back it
    up.''
        I think we need to know as much as we can about that when
    we are using it and I think we need to stratify the value of
    that in a consistent way.
        Senator Sullivan. And do you think the current law or
    regulations do not emphasize that transparency enough?
        Mr. Reed. I think the current law emphasizes that.
        I understand there are some initiatives and some interest
    in changing that a little bit, and maybe putting more value and
    less transparency on using data that is not peer reviewed
    necessarily or that is coming from sources that are not
    necessarily required to be revealed.
        I think that what we should do is the opposite of that. We
    should just require the revelation of where it is coming from,
    how it was gathered, what the process was, and then we can fit
    it into the strata of robustness at the very least.
        Senator Sullivan. Let me ask a related question for Mr.
    Speciale. How do you think that Congress can help improve
    angler harvest data, which I know is an issue that you have
    raised?
        Mr. Speciale. We think there is an issue with the data, as
    I say, the output of the decisions and I hear the comments.
        I am not an expert on the legislative policy and regulatory
    processes that is involved with that. But we see the very poor
    output of the information or very weak information being used
    to make decisions. This concept of best available data and
    maybe allowing the standard deviation or allowing the error
    factor to be way, way too large and they are making decisions
    on it.
        Those decisions directly affect people who go boating and
    enjoy the livelihoods of their work and we need to get that
    more robustly built up.
        Senator Sullivan. Do you think particularly from the
    recreational industry side, that that is an issue that depends
    on the state? Is that something where the data is more State-
    driven or is it a combination? We believe that the data here is
    not perfect, but it is pretty strong. Is that driven by
    different state approaches?
        Mr. Speciale. I think your State agencies tend to do a
    better job at it than from the Federal level. What we see
    through the State agencies is they tend to manage the
    information better because they are directly communicating with
    the angler.
        The challenge you have with direct fishing is that there
    are millions and millions of people and it is ones, and twos,
    and threes, and fours versus commercial where you can measure
    it and really track it at a much higher level, which is
    wonderful.
        There are so many assumptions in the process that we come
    up with these crazy policies that pop out and that limit
    fishing. But you are going, ``The fish are really there. They
    are everywhere. You can see them.''
        Senator Sullivan. OK. Any other witnesses want to comment
    on just the issue of data sufficiency and collection
    opportunities?
        Ms. Behnken. If I could just briefly, Senator, I would, I
    think, refer back to Dan Hull's comment about the SSE has to
    remain the screen for data.
        As Mr. Reed pointed out, we need to know what the sources
    of that data are and how appropriate the data is. Ultimately,
    the SSE is qualified to review the information and to feed that
    information into the management process as being data to be
    trusted or data that is possibly not up to the usual standards
    for our management system.
        Senator Sullivan. Great. Mr. Alstrom.
        Mr. Alstrom. Thank you, Senator.
        As far as data and data collection, it starts with data
    collection. I will just give you an example, and this is
    probably true of all the groups.
        The Yukon Delta, we are fully funding a NOAA study on
    salmon out migrations at the mouth of the Yukon, a quarter of a
    million dollars there. In the past, we have worked with EDF and
    others to personally fund it, but this year it is fully funded.
    Then on the State level, at State cutbacks, we spent another
    quarter million on testnet for the summer and fall management
    strategy.
        It is not only Yukon Delta in this raw gathering of data.
    It is Norton Sound is the same thing. You start digging into
    it.
        So as Federal and State monies get cutback for one reason
    or another, they are looking for groups to step in. And a lot
    of times the groups that do step in are the CDQ groups.
        Senator Sullivan. Yes. Any others?
        Mr. Stevens, any thoughts on that?
        Mr. Stevens. Just briefly. We too are very interested in
    solid data. It may not pertain to exactly what we are talking
    about here, but we are trying to make sure that the information
    that the regulatory agencies are using to make these huge
    decisions, that they are using good, solid data.
        Down those lines, we are trying to work with the Yukon
    River Fish Commission to make sure that we are collecting good,
    solid data from each community along the River when it comes to
    the Chinook salmon so the agencies can have the best possible
    data that we could give them being on the ground.
        Senator Sullivan. Yes.
        Mr. Stevens. Yes. We do agree that data is critical
    especially when it has such huge implications to big decisions.
        Senator Sullivan. Let me ask a question, Ms. Behnken, on
    your issue. It is an issue that I have been very focused on,
    the issue of electronic monitoring.
        I am assuming you saw that NOAA published regulations to
    integrate the electronic monitoring into the North Pacific
    observer program that came out, actually, just this month. I am
    not sure if you have reviewed them, but I know you care about
    this issue a lot.
        Are you satisfied with those regulations or are you
    thinking that it is a step in a right direction? And is that
    something we need to take on? We have been pressing the
    agencies to do a much better and faster approach to that, as
    you have been advocating for, given some of our challenges
    here.
        What is your sense of the progress and satisfaction with
    that, particularly given that NOAA just promulgated new
    regulations on that?
        Ms. Behnken. Thank you, Senator.
        We are really pleased to see the progress in the North
    Pacific. It has been a long process to get to this point of
    really having an alternative for small boats. It is a place we
    probably would not be without support from our delegation, and
    also the supplemental grant funding from the National Fish and
    Wildlife Foundation.
        I think I would just emphasize that we are not quite there.
    This startup phase with electronic monitoring is the most
    expensive part of getting E.M. out there. It is when the
    equipment needs to be purchased. It needs to be installed on
    boats, and we really do need supplemental funding as we move to
    the point where it is fully funded by the fleet.
        Senator Sullivan. Yes.
        Ms. Behnken. If you look at the numbers, and you amortize
    the cost of that equipment over the 5-years that will be its
    lifespan, E.M. is functioning at about half the cost of an
    observer, but the upfront costs are fairly significant. So it
    is certainly important to have supplemental funding during this
    time.
        I think the other aspects of getting E.M. out on the water
    that we have found to be particularly critical are involving
    stakeholders in development of the program initially, but also
    in guiding what the research and development is for the E.M.
    programs of the future.
        Senator Sullivan. Yes.
        Ms. Behnken. And making sure that future E.M. systems are
    compatible with the fleet that they are being designed for.
    That they are cost effective and not some grand scheme of what
    a ``Star Wars'' E.M. might be at some point. So to have them be
    practical, to be fleet compatible.
        Then the last point I would make, E.M. quickly becomes not
    cost effective if data storage requirements become excessive.
        Senator Sullivan. Yes.
        Ms. Behnken. We have seen an interest from enforcement in
    being able to store that data for 5 years for the opportunity
    to maybe mine the data at some point in the future for
    enforcement purposes.
        Where E.M. is primarily implemented for catch accounting
    purposes or support catch and bycatch information, our view is
    that E.M. data storage needs to be one year. At the end of a
    year, you use that information to inform your stock assessment
    process, but that to require storage much beyond that quickly
    makes a program that was very effective, cost effective, and
    fleet compatible become unworkable.
        So we would look for some guidance from you on limiting
    that data storage requirement.
        Senator Sullivan. Well, I appreciate the comment and we
    certainly want to continue to work with you, and others, on
    this.
        We think, and I think you know, we have been pressing NOAA
    on this for at least a couple of years and we want to continue
    to work with everybody here on that issue as it is being
    implemented. But I think there are some important advancements
    on that. So I appreciate that comment.
        Let me turn to Mr. Alstrom. I wanted to dig down a little
    bit on two issues that you raised and that came up in the
    previous panel. I know in some ways you are impacted by it, so
    I want to give you the opportunity to mention it.
        Are there any aspects, and I appreciated your very
    constructive participation in that recent broader meeting we
    had with different CDQ groups, which I thought went quite well.
    But are there elements to the program, the CDQ program, that
    you think are in need of an update or revision?
        Second, what is your view on the recusal issue?
    Particularly because a lot of times that has seemed to become
    the focus on CDQ-related council members, and I think that is a
    problem.
        Mr. Alstrom. Senator, I will start with the easy one first.
        We support Commissioner Cotten's remarks on the recusal
    issue. Well, I will just read right from my written. We believe
    the regulatory structure is outdated, not evenly applied, and
    has recently prevented several voting members in the North
    Pacific District Management Council from voting on important
    issues, such as halibut bycatch.
        We ask that the Congress work with the affected parties and
    NMFS to see if there are meaningful changes to recusal and
    conflict regulations that would protect the integrity of the
    Council process, while still allowing the input from Alaska
    that was intended by the MSA when creating the Council system.
    There needs to be a change.
        Senator Sullivan. Yes.
        Mr. Alstrom. Senator, if I remember your first question
    correctly, you wanted to know if there was a way in MSA that we
    can--``we,'' the CDQ program--can make I more functional or
    easygoing.
        I think within the CDQ panel--which at least Yukon Delta
    identifies as the Western Alaska Community Development
    Association--the panel that was supposed to take over for the
    day-to-day oversight from the State and from the Federal
    oversight teams. I think there needs to be a change where that
    process does not need full unanimous support.
        I think a super majority of five out of six of the CDQ
    groups voting to move a rule forward, I think that would really
    help to make issues within the CDQ program that are
    controversial, at least we will continue to move forward.
        The program is so important. I feel amiss that I have not
    emphasized how important it is to western Alaskans this
    program.
        Senator Sullivan. Yes.
        Mr. Alstrom. But I think that would be a change we need.
        Senator Sullivan. Let me ask Mr. Stevens, you mentioned,
    and I appreciate your focus on the tribal and subsistence needs
    and emphasis for our Alaska Native population.
        Have you thought about looking at ways? MSA obviously
    applies nationally and lot of the different Councils do not
    have such a large population and the issues that we have in
    this state on those kind of issues, subsistence and otherwise.
        Have you thought about how, if we are looking at amending
    the Act in ways that relate to those issues? You could do it in
    a way that recognizes that it is a still a national law and in
    a lot of regions, those are not the prominent issues that are
    being raised.
        Mr. Stevens. Well, I do believe that it is of such
    significance that we cannot turn away from it.
        As I mentioned, the importance of subsistence is monumental
    to the Alaska Native people, the rural Alaskans. Considering
    the fact that we are basically the last in the Nation to be so
    heavily reliant upon this, I believe, begs some consideration.
        Senator Sullivan. Yes, I appreciate that. Any other
    thoughts on that just in terms of the way in which that would
    be more strongly influenced in a reauthorization, highlighted?
    Is there language or issues that you have or could recommend to
    us?
        Mr. Stevens. In our written testimony, we have an addendum
    with some language on it.
        Senator Sullivan. Great. Thank you.
        I will just open it up. Are there any final comments from
    any of the panelists as we turn to our third panel members; any
    last rounds that you want to mention? I want to give everybody
    a chance. I want to be respectful of our next panel, but to
    briefly just emphasize any final issues.
        Mr. Reed.
        Mr. Reed. Thank you, Senator.
        I just wanted to mention, on the issue of the electronic
    monitoring, the closely associated issue of observer coverage.
    I would like to state some support for observer funding in the
    North Pacific.
        We have paid our own way in the North Pacific in the
    fisheries that are observed and have been observed for many
    years. And it would be nice to have some of that paid, as in
    some areas of the country 100 percent of it is being paid by
    the Federal Government.
        Senator Sullivan. Yes, I know. It is an important issue. I
    am glad you raised that because it does seem uneven in
    different regions.
        Mr. Reed. Yes, I agree. And we would appreciate it.
        On the electronic side, I think that the future has a good
    helping of electronic monitoring in all of our fisheries for
    cost reasons and for the data needs that we have. And so I
    think that some funding may be transitioned in that regard. So
    we appreciate your consideration of that.
        I would also like to thank you again for having us here
    today and for doing the hearing. Thanks so much.
        Senator Sullivan. Anyone else? Mr. Alstrom.
        Mr. Alstrom. Senator, thank you.
        We do reach out to non-CDQ villages. We have workers, about
    100 of them from 18 non-CDQ villages, Upper Yukon and north of
    us, so all the groups try to reach out, outside of the regions
    to provide benefits. I did not want to imply this. We are
    reaching out.
        Thank you.
        Senator Sullivan. Mr. Stevens.
        Mr. Stevens. We are good. Thank you.
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you. Just real quick.
        Mr. Speciale. I would like to say thank you so much.
        We are very concerned about the next draft of MSA and how
    it goes through because we are watching what comes from the
    economic output of it. Of course, we want great conservation as
    a company. That is what we want. That is what our lifeblood is
    in this whole thing and the millions of communities that are
    affected by this. You have to keep that awareness.
        We are not as large as what we were pre-recession and we
    think this has been a big driver that has kept our middle
    markets from coming back to the saltwater area. So we would
    really like to see some positive outcome as we have outlined.
    So I want to thank you so very much for this time, again.
        Senator Sullivan. Sure, absolutely.
        Ms. Behnken, you have the final word.
        Ms. Behnken. I will just close by saying thank you. I
    really appreciate the opportunity. I think it has been a really
    great discussion.
        Senator Sullivan. Great. OK. Well, how about a round of
    applause for our second panel here?
        [Applause.]
        Senator Sullivan. We will ask the third and final panel to
    please come up to the dais. Thank you.
        [Pause.]
        Senator Sullivan. I want to begin our third and final
    panel. Thank you for being so patient. Again, we have a very
    distinguished panel representing several different stakeholder
    groups. We want to hear from all of you on your views on this
    important topic.
        The final panel of witnesses consists of Shannon Carroll.
    He is the Deputy Director of the Alaska Marine Conservation
    Council.
        Julie Bonney, the Executive Director of the Alaska
    Groundfish Data Bank.
        Lori Swanson, Executive Director of the Marine Conservation
    Alliance.
        Duncan Fields, Gulf of Alaska Coastal Communities
    Coalition.
        And Liz Ogilvie, Chief Marketing Officer of the American
    Sportfishing Association.
        So Mr. Carroll, why not begin with you? You have 5 minutes
    and if you have a longer written statement, that will be
    included in the record of this Senate hearing.

     STATEMENT OF SHANNON CARROLL, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ALASKA MARINE
                          CONSERVATION COUNCIL

        Mr. Carroll. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I will assume ``best for last'' for being put on panel
    three. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is
    Shannon Carroll. I am a former commercial fisherman and Deputy
    Director of the Alaska Marine Conservation Council.
        Our mission is to promote healthy fisheries, fishing
    dependent communities through sustainable fishing practices,
    and local stewardship. We are also a member of the Fishing
    Community Coalition, which is a national association of
    community based and small boat commercial fishing groups.
        Collectively, we support the MSA and respectfully offer the
    following comments on reauthorization.
        Before I do so, however, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman,
    for hearing from stakeholders at the outset of reauthorization.
    I think stakeholders are essential to the fisheries management
    process, and I appreciate the Committee for acknowledging that
    fact.
        I also want to thank you for your leadership on fisheries
    and oceans issues. In particular, we greatly appreciate your
    support and introduction of the Young Fishermen's Development
    Act.
        AMCC urges the Committee to take a ``do no harm'' approach
    to reauthorization. We continue to believe that many of the
    issues plaguing various fisheries across the country could be
    addressed by investing in better and more frequent stock
    assessments, data, research, and accountability measures.
        Alaska has demonstrated that such measures are, indeed, the
    cornerstone of effective fisheries management and I think the
    numbers speak for themselves. North Pacific fisherman harvest
    between 5 and 6 billion pounds of seafood annually supporting
    about 9,800 vessels, about 100 processing plants, and
    generating $14.6 billion in economic output.
        Recognizing this success, Congress amended the Magnuson Act
    to bring the Alaska model to the rest of the country. And of
    the 41 stocks that were listed as subject to overfishing at
    that time, only 14 remain in such condition. Today, we enjoy
    the lowest number of overfished stocks in history while landing
    revenue is up 18 percent since 2005.
        We certainly recognize that fisheries in other regions have
    struggled under these provisions, but before considering ways
    to weaken the Act, we ask that the Committee consider that in
    most cases, the root of the problem in these regions is poor
    data and poor accountability. Adding additional flexibility to
    annual catch limits may increase those limits in the short
    term, but it does not address the underlying issues in those
    fisheries and is therefore not a viable, long term solution.
        Rather than lower the bar, we urge the Committee to
    consider changes that raise the bar for all fisheries by
    strengthening the foundation upon which sustainable fisheries
    management rests: accountability and timely and accurate data.
        Here in the North Pacific, as elsewhere, that foundation is
    being threatened. Next year, for example, NOAA may be reducing
    the number of survey vessels in the Gulf and the Bering Sea, as
    well as the number of fishing vessels carrying observers due
    the declining or stagnant funding levels.
        This loss, among other things, will result in greater
    uncertainty in the data driving management decisions,
    potentially leading to more precautionary catch limits and less
    economic benefit from our fisheries.
        Congress can help fishermen and processors, coastal
    communities, and the thousands of small businesses that depend
    on wild caught American seafood by investing in the science
    that allows fisherman to harvest optimum yields on a continuing
    basis.
        I also understand the Committee has heard a lot from
    recreational fishermen, how the MSA is not working for them
    based on the premise that recreational and commercial fishing
    are fundamentally different.
        Well, we may agree that they have different objectives. The
    end result of both sectors is really the same: it is the
    harvesting of a public resource.
        So I would urge this Committee to ensure that sound science
    and individual accountability are the foundation of any new
    proposals. We do not believe that the Modernizing Recreational
    Fisheries Management Act accomplishes this goal to provide
    sport fishermen with more fish.
        It allows fishery managers to use alternative management
    measures. But, unfortunately, these measures ignore
    precautionary principles for data for stocks. They stymie
    research and innovation by making experimental and exemptive
    fishing permit processes unworkable, and undermine the 10-year
    stock rebuilding process.
        Last, I would like to highlight some of the challenges
    facing the next generation of commercial fishermen. They face
    daunting challenges including high cost of entry, limited entry
    opportunities, and declining opportunities for mentorship and
    training.
        In Alaska, these challenges are reflected in the declining
    number of young people entering the industry and the ongoing
    attrition of fishing rates from Alaska's fishing communities.
        Not long ago, the agricultural industry faced similar
    challenges and worked with Congress to create the Beginning
    Farmers and Ranchers Development Program. The Young Fishermen's
    Development Act is modeled after this successful concept and
    aims to create a national program exclusively dedicated to
    assisting, educating, and training the next generation of
    commercial fishermen.
        This bill would ensure America's fishing communities
    continue to thrive for future generations by supporting
    economic opportunity, jobs, and food security while preserving
    a proud heritage and a way of life.
        We want to thank you again for introducing this bill and I
    am happy to answer any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Carroll follows:]

            Prepared Statement of Shannon Carroll, Deputy Director,
                       Alaska Marine Conservation Council
        Thank you for your invitation to testify on the successes and
    challenges of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA or the Act). I am Shannon
    Carroll, a former commercial fisherman and current Deputy Director for
    the Alaska Marine Conservation Council (AMCC). AMCC's mission is to
    protect the integrity of Alaska's marine ecosystems and promote
    healthy, ocean-dependent coastal communities through sustainable
    fishing practices, habitat protection, and local stewardship. AMCC is
    also a member of the Fishing Communities Coalition (FCC), an
    association of community-based, small-boat commercial fishing groups.
    The FCC represents more than 1,000 independent fishermen and business
    owners from Maine to Alaska who share a commitment to the sustainable
    management of America's fishery resources. Because the FCC was formed
    to strengthen and unify the individual voices of our member
    organizations, my testimony today is endorsed by the FCC. Collectively,
    we strongly support the MSA and respectfully offer the following
    comments on reauthorization.
        Before I do so, however, I want to commend this Committee's process
    in moving forward towards reauthorization. Implicit, if not explicit,
    in the structure of the MSA, is the concept that stakeholders are best
    suited to effectively manage their regional fisheries. Past
    reauthorization efforts have also reflected this belief, with this
    Committee holding field hearings with stakeholders to inform
    reauthorization efforts. To that end, I appreciate the fact that this
    Committee is hearing from stakeholders at the outset of the
    reauthorization effort.
        I also want to thank the Chairman, Senator Sullivan, for his
    leadership on fisheries and ocean issues. In addition to legislation
    such as the Save Our Seas Act and the IUU Fishing Enforcement Act, we
    greatly appreciate his support for and introduction of the Young
    Fishermen's Development Act (S. 1323). As you know, the FCC and its
    member organizations--including AMCC and the Alaska Longline
    Fishermen's Association--have worked for nearly two years in designing
    a national program to help young and beginning fishermen. Some of the
    key components of the legislation are modeled after what we have done
    and are doing in Alaska. In fact, this state has done more to help and
    train young fishermen than any other state, but, as you know, much more
    needs to be done around the country to ensure that the next generation
    of commercial fishermen not only exists, but prospers.
    Raising the Bar for All Fisheries
        AMCC urges Committee to take a ``do no harm'' approach to
    reauthorization. We continue to believe that many of the issues
    plaguing various fisheries across the country could be addressed by
    investing in better and/or more frequent stock assessments, data,
    research, and accountability measures--all under the existing framework
    of the MSA. We believe this because for over forty years, Alaska has
    demonstrated that science-based annual catch limits, robust stock
    assessments and fisheries data, effective accountability measures, and
    a transparent public review process are the cornerstone of effective
    fisheries management. The numbers speak for themselves: North Pacific
    fishermen sustainably harvest between 5-6 billion pounds of seafood
    annually, which supports about 9,800 vessels and about 100 processing
    plants in coastal communities, and generates $14.6 billion in economic
    output (including direct and multiplier impacts). These figures do not
    include the thousands of jobs in other regions connected to our seafood
    production.
        Recognizing this success, Congress amended the MSA to bring the
    ``Alaska Model'' to the rest of the country, dramatically improving the
    overall health of our fisheries. Indeed, of the forty-one stocks listed
    as subject to overfishing, only fourteen remain in such condition.
    Today we enjoy the lowest number of overfished stocks in history and
    landings revenue is up eighteen percent since 2005. Rebuilding these
    stocks required the hard work and sacrifice of fishermen and fishing
    communities, and the dedication of fishery management councils and
    agency staff. These rebuilt fisheries have led to greater stability,
    opportunities for diversification, and new entrants into the industry,
    all of which directly benefits fishing communities.
        Reauthorization should not put that hard-earned progress at risk by
    weakening the core science-based management provisions of the Act. I
    recognize that certain fisheries and regions have struggled under these
    provisions. But before considering ways to weaken the Act, I ask that
    the Committee consider that in most cases the root of the problem in
    these regions and fisheries is poor data and accountability. Adding
    additional flexibility \1\ to annual catch limits may increase those
    limits in the short-term, but it does not address the underlying issue
    in those fisheries and therefore is not a viable long-term solution.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ I also ask the Committee to consider the high level of
    flexibility already provided for under the Act. Councils can presently
    consider the needs of fishermen and fishing communities in setting
    annual catch limits. The ten-year rebuilding timeline is based on the
    finding that most stocks can be rebuilt in five years, thus allowing
    for consideration of social and economic considerations. The revised
    National Standard 1 guidelines have also created additional flexibility
    in the annual catch limit and stock rebuilding requirements. Lastly,
    the current language in the Act allows exceptions to the ten-year
    rebuilding timeline and allows managers to tailor rebuilding plans to a
    fish stock's specific biological and ecological needs. In practice, the
    average time period in rebuilding plans to date is almost twenty years.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Rather than lower the bar to fisheries with the poorest data or
    weakest accountability measures, I urge the Committee to consider
    changes that raise the bar for all fisheries by strengthening the
    foundation upon which sustainable fisheries management rests:
    accountability, timely and accurate data, sound scientific research,
    and transparency. Here in the North Pacific, as elsewhere, that
    foundation is being threatened. Next year, for example, NOAA may be
    reducing the number of survey vessels in the Gulf of Alaska and the
    Bering Sea, as well as the number of fishing vessels carrying observers
    due to stagnant or declining funding levels. This loss will result in
    greater uncertainty in the data driving management decisions,
    potentially leading to more precautionary catch limits and less
    economic benefit from our fisheries.
        Congress can help fishermen, processors, coastal communities, and
    the thousands of small businesses that depend on wild caught, American
    seafood by investing in the science that allows fishermen to harvest
    optimum yield on a continuing basis. We support the move toward more
    robust annual stock assessments, effective accountability measures, and
    accurate and precise monitoring and reporting. Science-based catch
    limits and rebuilding timelines have been proven to work but we must do
    more to support this management framework and the resulting management
    decisions by mandating and funding better data collection and
    accountability measures.
        With that in mind, the remainder of my remarks highlight
    opportunities to promote and strengthen science-based decision making,
    to improve fishery data collection and accountability, and to better
    protect our vital commercial fishing communities. My comments also come
    directly from the MSA legislative package crafted and approved by the
    members of the FCC, with the full support of AMCC. With your
    permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit this legislative
    package for the record.
    Council Accountability, Transparency and Public Process
        The FCC MSA legislative package includes portions of HR 200--
    sponsored by Congressman Don Young--including requiring each Scientific
    and Statistical Committee (SSC) to develop advice in a manner that is
    both fully transparent and also allows for public involvement.
    Additionally, in the name of transparency, we would require Council
    meetings to be posted online and require Council and SCC meeting notes
    and transcripts to be maintained by the Council and made available to
    the public. To increases accountability of all Council members we would
    require all non-procedural votes at the Council be taken by recorded
    vote.
    Financing of Fisheries Monitoring Programs
        We propose to expand to all Councils the discretionary authority to
    impose fees presently only available to the North Pacific Fishery
    Management Council (NPFMC). This important tool has allowed the NPFMC
    to establish fees--the amounts vary from fishery to fishery--as part of
    a fisheries plan in order to partially offset monitoring costs. The
    program has been a great success in the North Pacific region by
    providing more comprehensive observer coverage at a lower cost to
    individual fishermen. Our legislative package would also create a
    dedicated regional fishery observer fund in the Treasury for each
    Council. Taking these steps should help strengthen important monitoring
    and data collection measures without increasing the cost to the Federal
    Government.
    Recreational Fishing
        Mr. Chairman, I understand your Subcommittee has heard a lot from
    recreational fishermen and boat and engine manufacturers about how the
    MSA is not working for them. AMCC and the FCC recognize and appreciate
    the attention Congress has devoted to finding a way to manage
    recreational fishing that is effective and fair but that does not undo
    the successes the MSA has had to date. Community-based commercial
    fishermen are sympathetic to the challenges and management dilemmas
    faced today by recreational fishermen. We have struggled through
    similar situations that have resulted in fewer fishing opportunities,
    stringent quotas, and the loss of fishing jobs and families. By
    fighting through those obstacles and working through the MSA and
    Council process, we have rebuilt many stocks, created healthy fishing
    businesses and sustainably harvested new and underutilized species. I
    would urge the recreational sector to work with the MSA process, rather
    than weakening it by working around it.
        The Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act of 2017 (S.
    1534), sponsored by Senator Wicker, is based on the premise that
    recreational and commercial fishing are fundamentally different
    activities and therefore require different management approaches. To
    provide sport fishermen greater access--i.e., more fish--to our
    Nation's marine fisheries, the bill allows fishery managers to use
    alternative management measures for recreational fisheries.
    Unfortunately, these measures weaken the science-based conservation
    standards and approach of the MSA. In weakening these standards, the
    bill ignores the precautionary principle for data-poor stocks; stymies
    research and innovation by making the exempted fishing permit process
    unworkable and burdensome; undermines the 10-year stock rebuilding
    requirement, and; establishes a moratorium on new catch share programs,
    thus taking away from the Councils an important tool from the
    management toolbox.
        Additionally, as the commercial sector has learned, greater
    access--more fish--brings with it greater responsibility and
    accountability. The commercial sector is subject to a high degree of
    accountability measures including licenses, permits, mandatory catch
    reporting, at-sea observers, electronic monitoring, vessel tracking
    devices, mandatory notification of fishing trips, and more. While S.
    1534 does include beneficial mandates for cooperative data collection,
    it does not address the fundamental challenge of tracking recreational
    catch and holding the recreational sector accountable for its catch.
        While we may agree with Sen. Wicker and others that recreational
    fishing and commercial fishing are different activities with different
    objectives, the end result of both sectors is the same: the harvesting
    of a public resource. I would urge this Committee to ensure that sound
    science and individual accountability are the foundation of any new
    proposal for best management practices for recreational fishing.
        Mr. Chairman, as you are aware the biggest challenge in managing
    the recreational sector is knowing how much fish is caught on a timely
    basis and when fishing should stop to avoid exceeding the allocation.
    To address this problem the FCC MSA legislative package includes a
    section that provides Councils the discretionary authority to require
    permits and catch reports from both commercial and recreational fishing
    vessels. Today, Councils can only require permits for commercial
    vessels fishing within the EEZ.
        In 2006, Congress attempted to address the lack of data from the
    recreational sector by requiring the Secretary to establish regional
    registries for recreational fishermen. While well-intentioned, these
    provisions (Sec. 401 (g)) lacked the essential requirement of catch
    reporting and provided for broad exemptions. We propose to amend the
    current regional registry program for recreational fishermen fishing in
    the EEZ by requiring the reporting of catch and landings information on
    a timely basis. This section also limits the exemption from the
    registry for State licensing programs to those State programs that
    require the reporting of catch.
    Forage Fish
        Having enough forage fish in the water is essential to maintaining
    healthy fisheries and ecosystems. Our legislative package requires the
    Councils to develop a list of unmanaged forage fish and prohibit the
    expansion or development of new commercial or recreational directed
    fisheries until the Council has had adequate opportunity to assess the
    scientific information and considered the potential impacts to existing
    fisheries, fishing communities, and the marine ecosystem. Science and
    data for new and emerging fisheries is vital, especially in light of
    shifting and mitigating fish stocks. Additionally, management plans
    need to be in place before any new fishery is opened in order to
    advance ecosystems approaches to fisheries management. The provision is
    modeled after the Mid-Atlantic Council's Unmanaged Forage Omnibus
    Amendment.
    Strengthening Fishing Communities
        When Congress reauthorized the MSA in 2006, it included a new
    section focused on limited access privilege programs (LAPPs). This
    section--303A--included provisions designed to allow fishing
    communities to participate in those programs. Unfortunately, after more
    than a decade, not one fishing community has been able to use these
    provisions to secure an allocation of fish. In response to this
    problem, our legislative package proposes to update and streamline the
    current, unsuccessful MSA provisions. This is an extremely important
    issue not only to fishing communities in Alaska but also in New England
    and other rural fishing communities on every U.S. coast. For example,
    in Alaska, the number of rural Alaskans holding local fishing permits
    in state fisheries has declined by 30 percent since 1975. Some regions
    like Bristol Bay have lost over 50 percent of their locally held
    permits. The same story is found at the Federal level as well: small,
    rural communities in the Gulf of Alaska have experienced a 53 percent
    decline in halibut quota holdings. We have learned the hard way that
    once fishing permits and quota migrate away from our fishing
    communities, they are gone forever.
        To improve the likelihood that fishing communities can actually
    participate in limited access privilege programs, we suggest
    establishing national standards for the minimum requirements of a
    community sustainability plan, allowing a community to submit a plan to
    the Council for approval, and requiring that when a Council creates a
    new LAPP, it must consider the needs of fishing communities and provide
    a process for communities to participate in the program.
    Next Generation
        Lastly, I would like to highlight the challenges facing the next
    generation of commercial fishermen. Despite the important role our
    industry plays in our Nation's economy, there is not a single Federal
    program devoted to supporting and developing entry-level commercial
    fishermen. And the time for such a program has never been greater. With
    the average age of U.S. commercial fishermen increasing, we are deeply
    concerned that the graying of America's fleet poses a substantial and
    growing threat to the future of our industry.
        The next generation faces daunting challenges, including high cost
    of entry, financial risks, and limited entry-level opportunities. In
    Alaska, these challenges are reflected in the declining number of young
    people entering the industry and the ongoing attrition of fishing
    rights from remote fishing communities. As I mentioned earlier, rural
    Alaskan communities have experienced significant loss of access to
    local fisheries, at both the state and Federal level. With the loss of
    local access comes the loss of local opportunity.
        Not long ago, the agriculture industry faced similar challenges and
    worked with Congress to create the Beginning Farmers and Ranchers
    Development Program. The Young Fishermen's Development Act (S. 1323),
    championed by Chairman Sullivan, is modeled after this successful
    program and aims to create a national program exclusively dedicated to
    assisting, educating, and training the next generation of commercial
    fishermen. Specifically, this innovative program would provide
    competitive grants to foster collaborative state, tribal, regional and
    local partnerships; promote mentorship opportunities for retiring
    fishermen and vessel owners; and provide support for regional training
    and education programs focused on accountable, sustainable fishing and
    sound business practices.
        This bill is an important part of ensuring fishermen in Alaska and
    other regions have the tools and education they need to enter into a
    successful and fulfilling career. It would also ensure American's
    fishing communities continue to thrive for future generations by
    supporting economic opportunity, jobs, and food security while
    preserving a proud heritage and way of life. I want to thank Chairman
    Sullivan again for introducing and championing this effort, and I would
    urge the Subcommittee to give its full consideration to this bill.
                                    *  *  *
        In closing, I would again like to sincerely thank the Chairman and
    this Subcommittee for holding this field hearing as well as for your
    goal to improve upon an already successful law. I am happy to answer
    any questions or provide more information or clarification, and look
    forward to working with the Members of this Committee and your staff on
    MSA reauthorization.

        Senator Sullivan. Great. Thank you.
        Ms. Bonney.

         STATEMENT OF JULIE BONNEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA
                          GROUNDFISH DATA BANK

        Ms. Bonney. Senator Sullivan, thank you for the invitation
    to testify on the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens
    Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
        My name is Julie Bonney and I am testifying on behalf of
    the trawl catcher vessels and shore-based processors who are
    members of the Alaska Groundfish Data Bank.
        For forty years, the Magnuson-Stevens Act has worked well
    for Alaska and for my home town, Kodiak, America's second
    largest port by volume and the third largest by value.
        The Act and its ten National Standards in their current
    form appropriately guide council decisionmaking. We do not
    support any changes, or any additions to the standards, or any
    major changes to the Act.
        The entire U.S. fishing industry has benefited from the
    flexibility of the Act. The North Pacific Management Council
    has solved many regional fishery management issues through its
    transparent, public, and science-based decisionmaking process.
        The best and most creative solutions to management problems
    have typically come from fishery participants working with a
    Council that understands and values the fisheries they
    regulate. Council makeup is, therefore, a key component of
    successful fishery management.
        Councils should include diverse representation with
    fisheries expertise and backgrounds. Stakeholders from a
    spectrum of fishing communities, fishermen, and processors
    affected by the fisheries regulated by the Council should all
    be represented.
        It is easy to name examples of management programs
    developed under the Act that benefit communities across Alaska.
    The Community Quota Entity program and the allocation of Fixed
    Gear Cod licenses were developed by representatives of small
    rural communities in the Gulf of Alaska.
        The highly successful Community Development Quota program
    benefits coastal communities in the Bering Sea and the Aleutian
    Islands. Regional delivery requirements were developed to keep
    rockfish coming across the docks in Kodiak and crab coming
    across the docks in the Pribilof Islands.
        In Alaska, we have benefited from catch share programs in
    several of our fisheries. These programs have greatly improved
    fishery data, helping our Alaskan fleets to self-fund over 50
    percent of the Nation's observer days.
        Alaska Groundfish Data Bank presently manages seven shore-
    based harvesting cooperatives in the Central Gulf of Alaska
    rockfish fishery. That catch share program stopped the race for
    fish, brought community benefits to Kodiak, reduced bycatch,
    increased harvest efficiencies, and increased fishery
    monitoring. Our catch share fishery has enjoyed 11 successful
    years.
        We agree with the Council Coordination Committee that catch
    share management needs to remain in the Councils' toolbox.
    Catch share programs are certainly not appropriate for every
    fishery, so the discretionary nature of the catch share
    management makes sense.
        A major theme of the August 1, 2017 MSA hearing was
    sustainably increasing wild harvests for our fisheries to
    provide greater benefits to the Nation. My members believe that
    the fishing industry can achieve this goal. However, care needs
    to be taken to make sure that the flexibility is not used to
    erode conservation objectives.
        Flexibility to address rebuilding timelines for overfished
    stocks, to allow harvests of choke species that impede harvests
    of other fish stocks, and relaxing management measures for data
    poor stocks are some of the concepts being promoted.
        NMFS revised the National Standard 1 guidelines just last
    year to provide tools to increase flexibility in rebuilding
    plans, better define ecosystem component species, and phase-in
    changes to catch levels. Whether these new flexibilities strike
    the right balance should be evaluated before amending the Act.
        AGDB members are well versed on the highly controversial,
    complicated, and polarizing topic of fisheries bycatch. All
    fisheries have bycatch; it is unavoidable. Regulating bycatch
    is important for equity and conservation, but we need to
    distinguish actions that achieve conservation objectives from
    those that are largely allocative.
        Actions that provide little or no benefit to stocks or
    competing fisheries--but reduce net benefits to the Nation--and
    prevent achieving optimum yield or increases costs to fishing
    fleets should be avoided.
        The 2006 reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act was an
    endorsement of the Alaska model. Some small tweaks may be
    necessary for other regions during this reauthorization
    process, but in general, it is working well in Alaska.
        Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I will be happy
    to answer any questions.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Bonney follows:]

            Prepared Statement of Julie Bonney, Executive Director,
                          Alaska Groundfish Data Bank
        Senator Sullivan,

        Thank you for inviting me to testify on the reauthorization of the
    Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). My name
    is Julie Bonney and I am testifying on behalf of the trawl catcher
    vessels and shore-based processors who are members of Alaska Groundfish
    Data Bank (AGDB). For 40 years, the MSA has worked well for Alaska and
    for my home town, Kodiak--America's second largest port by volume and
    the third largest by value. The Act and its ten National Standards in
    their current form appropriately guide council decision making. We do
    not support any changes or additions to the standards or any major
    changes to the Act.
        The entire U.S. fishing industry has benefited from flexibility of
    the Act. The North Pacific Council has solved many regional fishery
    management issues through its transparent, public and science based
    decision making process. The best and most creative solutions to
    management problems have typically come from fishery participants
    working with a council that understands and values the fisheries they
    regulate. Council make up is therefore a key component of successful
    fishery management. Councils should include diverse representation with
    fisheries expertise and backgrounds. Stakeholders from the spectrum of
    fishing communities, fishermen, and processors affected by the
    fisheries regulated by the Council should all be represented.
        It is easy to name examples of management programs developed under
    the Act that benefit communities across Alaska. The community quota
    entity program and the allocation of fixed gear cod licenses were
    developed by representatives of small rural communities in the Gulf of
    Alaska. The highly successful Community Development Quota program
    benefits coastal communities in the Bering Sea. Regional delivery
    requirements were developed to keep rockfish coming across the docks in
    Kodiak and crab coming across the docks in the Pribilof Islands.
        In Alaska, we have had benefited from catch share programs in
    several of our fisheries. These programs have greatly improved
    fisheries data, helping our Alaskan fleets to self-fund over 50 percent
    of the Nation's observer days. Alaska Groundfish Data Bank presently
    manages seven shore-based harvesting cooperatives in the Central Gulf
    of Alaska rockfish fishery. That catch share program stopped the race
    for fish, brought community benefits to Kodiak, reduced bycatch,
    increased harvest efficiencies and increased fishery monitoring. Our
    catch share fishery has enjoyed eleven successful years. We agree with
    the Council Coordination Committee that catch share management needs to
    remain in the Councils' tool box. Catch share programs are certainly
    not appropriate for every fishery, so the discretionary nature of catch
    share management makes sense.
        A major theme of the August 1st MSA hearing was sustainably
    increasing wild harvests from our fisheries to provide greater benefits
    to the Nation. My members believe that the fishing industry can achieve
    this goal. However, care needs to be taken to make sure that the
    flexibly is not used to erode conservation objectives. Flexibility to
    address rebuilding time lines for overfished stocks, to allow harvests
    of choke species that impede harvests of other fish stocks, and relaxed
    management measures for data poor stocks are some of the concepts being
    promoted. NMFS revised the national standard one guidelines just last
    year to provide tools to increase flexibility in rebuilding plans,
    better define ecosystem component species, and phase-in changes to
    catch levels. Whether these new flexibilities strike the right balance
    should be evaluated before amending the Act.
        AGDB members are well versed on the highly controversial,
    complicated and polarizing topic of fisheries bycatch. All fisheries
    have bycatch; it is unavoidable. Regulating bycatch is important for
    equity and conservation, but we need to distinguish actions that
    achieve conservation objectives from those that are largely allocative.
    Actions that provide little or no benefit to stocks or competing
    fisheries but reduce net benefits to the Nation, prevent achieving
    optimum yield, or increases costs to fishing fleets should be avoided.
        The 2006 reauthorization of the MSA was an endorsement of the
    ``Alaska model''. Some small tweaks may be necessary for other regions
    during this reauthorization process but in general, it is working well
    in Alaska.
        Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I will be happy to answer
    any questions.

        Senator Sullivan. Great. Thank you, Ms. Bonney.
        Ms. Swanson.

         STATEMENT OF LORI SWANSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MARINE
                         CONSERVATION ALLIANCE

        Ms. Swanson. Chairman Sullivan, thank you for the
    opportunity to testify today on the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
    Conservation and Management Act.
        My name is Lori Swanson. I am the Executive Director of the
    Marine Conservation Alliance, also known as MCA. Our
    organization is comprised of harvesters, processors, and
    fishing dependent coastal communities with interests in the
    Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands, and Gulf of Alaska. MCA is
    committed to supporting sound, science-based fisheries
    management in the North Pacific to promote sustainable
    fisheries and a healthy environment.
        I am here to talk about how the current Magnuson-Stevens
    Act has supported these goals and allowed a sustainable annual
    harvest of over 2 million metric tons of seafood in the Federal
    fisheries for decades.
        The MSA is built on ten National Standards which have
    inherent conflicts. This tension drives the balancing act that
    preserves the health of our fisheries and the environment that
    supports them.
        The hallmark of the MSA is the regional fisheries
    management council system, which recognizes that one size does
    not fit all and allows for solutions that are tailored to the
    specific problems encountered locally.
        MCA does not believe there are any systemic issues in the
    Act that needs to be addressed. It appears that most of the
    concerns that exist are regional in nature, so maintaining and
    expanding regional flexibility provides the best solution.
        For example, catch shares are very successful in the North
    Pacific, reducing bycatch, increasing monitoring levels, and
    allowing fine-scale catch management. The performance of these
    programs is reviewed regularly and modifications are made as
    necessary through a public process informed by detailed
    analyses. While we recognize the success of catch share
    programs in the North Pacific, we also acknowledge that catch
    shares may not be suitable for fisheries in all regions.
        Environmental concerns are also addressed at the regional
    level. The North Pacific Council has established numerous areas
    where fisheries or gear types are restricted or prohibited.
    These areas serve a variety of purposes, from protecting
    sensitive habitats to providing exclusive access to local
    fishery-dependent communities. The recent review of Essential
    Fish Habitat in our region determined that the impact from
    fisheries on habitat is less than 2 percent region wide.
        The North Pacific Council has been refining the practice of
    Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management, or EBFM, since the first
    committee was formed in 1996. Annual stock assessments update
    ecosystem components, and Allowable Biological Catches
    incorporate ecosystem considerations. The Council developed a
    Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the Aleutian Islands and is
    developing a similar plan for the Bering Sea.
        These plans require adequate data and a sound scientific
    base, are extremely time consuming, and are subject to numerous
    public and scientific reviews. Adding new mandates for FEPs may
    make the process untenable by putting management in front of
    science.
        We believe the development of FEPs, and their content,
    should both remain discretionary. EBFM will continue to be a
    critical component of our fisheries management.
        I would also like to comment on the use of best available
    science in fishery management. Sound science is the bedrock of
    sustainable fisheries. There are times when what is presented
    as ``the best science available,'' may be anecdotal, biased, or
    untested. It is very important to understand this information
    prior to using it. Any research, from any source, should be
    subject to intense scrutiny before being used in management
    decisions.
        Finally, while I recognize this hearing is not focused on
    scientific funding, I encourage you to maintain adequate
    funding for scientific research in the North Pacific. Our
    fisheries are supported by surveys which are conducted annually
    in many cases, but at least every third year, and annual stock
    assessments. It is impossible to overstate the importance of
    this work.
        Historic survey data provide a long term view of the
    effects of years of warm and cold water, changes in the amount
    of ice cover, and other factors which help scientists
    understand and predict future challenges. With increased water
    temperatures, fishers are moving between areas and depths, and
    current survey information is even more critical.
        Continued funding supports a decades-long database of
    oceanographic conditions in a region faced with climate change.
    Further, uncertainty requires more conservative catch limits
    and reduced harvest levels to ensure the stock is protected.
    Regular surveys provide increased certainty in the status of
    our stocks.
        In summary, the Magnuson-Stevens Act has worked well for
    over 40 years, and we believe that success must be recognized
    and protected. I encourage you to refrain from sweeping
    national changes, and to maintain the flexibility for each
    region to develop and improve upon management programs tailored
    to their specific needs.
        Thank you for the opportunity to comment, and I will be
    happy to take any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Swanson follows:]

            Prepared Statement of Lori Swanson, Executive Director,
                          Marine Conservation Alliance
        Chairman Sullivan,

        Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the Magnuson-
    Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. My name is Lori
    Swanson, and I am the Executive Director of the Marine Conservation
    Alliance, also known as MCA. Our organization is comprised of
    harvesters, processors, and fishing dependent coastal communities with
    interests in the Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands, and Gulf of Alaska. MCA
    is committed to supporting sound, science-based fisheries management in
    the North Pacific to promote sustainable fisheries and a healthy
    environment. I am here to talk about how the current Magnuson-Stevens
    Act (MSA) has supported these goals and allowed a sustainable annual
    harvest of over two million metric tons of seafood from our region for
    decades.
        The MSA is built on 10 national standards which have inherent
    conflicts. This tension drives the balancing act that preserves the
    health of our fisheries and the environment that supports them. The
    hallmark of the MSA is the regional fishery management council system,
    which recognizes one size does not fit all and allows for solutions
    that are tailored to the specific problems encountered locally. MCA
    does not believe there are any systemic issues in the Act that need to
    be addressed. It appears that most of the concerns that exist are
    regional in nature, so maintaining and expanding regional flexibility
    provides the best solution.
        For example, catch shares are very successful in the North Pacific,
    reducing bycatch, increasing monitoring levels, and allowing fine-scale
    catch management. The performance of these programs is reviewed
    regularly and modifications are made as necessary, through a public
    process informed by detailed analyses. While recognizing the success of
    catch share programs in the North Pacific, we also acknowledge that
    catch shares may not be suitable for all fisheries or regions.
        Environmental concerns are also addressed at the regional level.
    The North Pacific Council has established numerous areas where
    fisheries or gear types are restricted or prohibited. These areas serve
    a variety of purposes, from protecting sensitive habitats to providing
    exclusive access to local fishery-dependent communities. The recent
    review of Essential Fish Habitat in our region determined that the
    impact from fisheries on habitat is less than 2 percent region-wide.
        The North Pacific Council has been refining the practice of
    Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management (EBFM) since the first EBFM
    committee was formed in 1996. Annual stock assessments update ecosystem
    components, and Allowable Biological Catches incorporate ecosystem
    considerations. The Council developed a Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP)
    for the Aleutian Islands and is developing a similar plan for the
    Bering Sea. These plans require adequate data and a sound scientific
    base, are extremely time consuming, and are subject to numerous public
    and scientific reviews. Adding new mandates for FEPs may make the
    process untenable by putting management in front of science. We believe
    the development of FEP's, and their content, should remain
    discretionary. EBFM will continue to be a critical component of our
    fisheries management.
        I would also like to comment on the use of ``Best Available
    Science'' in fishery management. Sound science is the bedrock of
    sustainable fisheries. There are times when what's presented as the
    `best' science available may be anecdotal, biased, or untested. It is
    very important to understand this information prior to using it. Any
    research, from any source, should be subject to intense scrutiny before
    being used in management decisions.
        Finally, while I recognize this hearing is not focused on
    scientific funding, I encourage you to maintain adequate funding for
    scientific research in the North Pacific. Our fisheries are supported
    by surveys which are conducted annually in many cases but at least
    every third year, and annual stock assessments. It is impossible to
    overstate the importance of this work. Historic survey data provide a
    long-term view of the effects of years of warm and cold water, changes
    in the amount of ice cover, and other factors which help scientists
    understand and predict future challenges. With increased water
    temperatures, fish are moving between areas and depths and current
    survey information is even more critical. Continued funding supports a
    decades-long database of oceanographic conditions in a region faced
    with climate change. Further, uncertainty requires more conservative
    catch limits and reduced harvest levels to ensure the stock is
    protected. Regular surveys provide increased certainty in the status of
    our stocks.
        In summary, the Magnuson Stevens Act has worked well for over 40
    years, and we believe that success must be recognized and protected. I
    encourage you to refrain from sweeping national changes, and to
    maintain the flexibility for each region to develop and improve upon
    management programs tailored to their specific needs.
        Thank you for the opportunity to comment, and I will be happy to
    take any questions.

        Senator Sullivan. Well, thank you, for your testimony.
        And you raised a good point, which is although the hearing
    is not focused on the issue of Federal funding, I can tell you
    I am hearing that issue loud and clear from all the panelists.
    So thank you for emphasizing that as others have.
        Mr. Fields, the floor is yours.

    STATEMENT OF DUNCAN FIELDS, GULF OF ALASKA COASTAL COMMUNITIES
                               COALITION

        Mr. Fields. Thank you, Senator.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I have worked for
    about 30 years with the Gulf of Alaska small and rural
    communities. We define these communities as less than 1,500
    people without road access. These are truly fishing
    communities. That is the only economy in the communities.
        I was picking fish Monday morning. Lots of fish in the nets
    and I thought, ``Why am I coming to this hearing?'' Well, we
    were running Yamaha 2-stroke Enduros. They are great engines.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Fields. Why am I coming to this hearing? I am coming
    because I feel Magnuson has failed the smaller, rural fishery
    dependent communities in Alaska. And this is despite the great
    National Standard for providing for the sustained participation
    of the communities and to mitigate the economic harm to the
    communities. We see in the smaller communities in the Gulf of
    Alaska increased and continued separation from the Federal
    fisheries.
        We saw that initially in 1995 when the halibut and
    sablefish IFQ program came into effect. By 2000, we had already
    accumulated enough information, sociological and economic
    information, to see the halibut is migrating from rural
    communities.
        The Council acted. They enacted something called the CQE
    program, or the Community Quota Entity program, to provide
    opportunities for approximately 45 of these smaller, isolated
    communities to buy halibut and sablefish quota shares. Of those
    45 eligible communities, only 3 have been able to buy halibut
    shares and only a few shares at that.
        This program largely has been a failure, not because of
    anything the Council could have done, but because once quota
    share is issued, it is almost impossible for a rural community
    to catch up in terms of buying that quota share and paying the
    debt service based on the return from fishing the quota share.
        So I think if we have anything to add to the discussion,
    Senator, is that at the outset of any kind of Limited Access
    Privilege program, if you are going to protect communities,
    particularly rural communities, those communities are going to
    need to be awarded quota. And I think we have the CDQ program
    in western Alaska as an example of that paradigm and the need
    for the work quota.
        So when we go back to Magnuson-Stevens, and we look at the
    community protection provisions under the LAP Program, we have
    two primary provisions. One is for communities to develop a
    community sustainability plan. The second provision is a
    regional fishing association.
        Both of those provisions, from our experience, are flawed
    so that they are not workable. In fact, the last ten years, I
    am not aware of any Council anywhere in the country that has
    been able to use those provisions to protect those communities.
        So just very briefly, there are three aspects of those
    provisions that need to be revised. One is the burden used to
    be on the Council to show when they developed or initiated a
    LAP program, how that program is going to provide for the
    sustained participation of that community and the economic
    protection of that community.
        In the provisions of the LAP program, there are 11
    provisions. There needs to be something that says something to
    the effect of: how is this program going to protect
    communities?
        In addition to that, when you develop a community
    sustainability plan, there is Council-approved criteria that is
    supposed to be approved by the Secretary and published in the
    Federal Register. They are available to the communities. I am
    not aware of any council that has developed this criteria.
        There needs to be a mandate in this provision to say,
    ``Before you have a LAP program, a Council will develop these
    communities or these criteria so that the community knows the
    nature and tribe that is going to be judged.''
        Then finally, there is a contingent liability built into
    the current provision so that the Secretary may withhold or
    revoke quota share being fished by an individual that is owned
    by the community, and may or may not give it back either to the
    individual, but it does specify to the community.
        As I have talked to investors and NGOs that are interested
    in helping communities by quota share, they say, ``That is a
    showstopper. We cannot invest in quota that can be revoked and
    may or may not come back to the community.''
        So those are the three specific provisions that would help
    in the community protections.
        And then finally in my last 30 seconds, Mr. Chairman, the
    rural communities in the Gulf of Alaska are very concerned
    about the amount of discards that are continuing.
        We have Magnuson-Stevens and National Standards. We want to
    reduce bycatch. We want to reduce mortality by bycatch. But we
    are still throwing away tens of millions of pounds of dead fish
    that could enter the stream of commerce. And that is a
    violation, in my judgment, of National Standard 1 of optimum
    yield. In Alaska generally, we throw over 10 million pounds of
    halibut annually. We throw that away.
        This is fundamentally in conflict with the values of our
    rural communities. Why waste food? And so, Mr. Chairman, I have
    a number of other reasons that is a matter of national policy.
    We need to focus on the reduction of discards.
        The European community, by the way, is light years ahead of
    the United States on this and they have very strict guidelines
    or goals set for the reduction of regulatory and economic
    discards, Mr. Chairman.
        That concludes the testimony of the Gulf of Alaska Coastal
    Communities Coalition. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Fields follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Duncan Fields,
                  Gulf of Alaska Coastal Communities Coalition
        Chairman Thune, Distinguished Members of the Committee:

        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA)
    is good legislation, perhaps even great legislation. We are all aware
    of the many successful conservation and management accomplishments that
    the Act has enabled. Because of its success, many believe that the
    current reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens should mostly maintain the
    status quo. Why change what is working? While it feels like a ``safe
    harbor'' to keep Magnuson essentially the same, I cannot support a
    status quo MSA reauthorization. Here's why: America's fishery-dependent
    communities, especially the smaller rural communities in the Gulf of
    Alaska, are being excluded from the Federal fisheries. This is
    happening despite MSA's National Standard 8 that directs management
    Council to ``take into account the importance of fishery resources to
    fishing communities by utilizing economic and social data . . . in
    order to (A) provide for the sustained participation of such
    communities, and (b) to the extent practicable, minimize economic
    impacts on such communities.'' To be more specific, the Limited Access
    Privilege (LAP) provisions [Section 303(A)(c)] for community
    protection, the Community Sustainability Plan and the Regional Fishery
    Association are unworkable. Action must be taken during this
    reauthorization of the MSA to strengthen the community protections
    provisions of the act. Also, Alaska's smaller gulf communities believe
    that as a matter of National Policy, National Standard 9 should be
    expanded to encourage the reduction of discarded fish/bycatch.
        Under the Requirements for Limited Access Privilege Programs (LAPs)
    [Section 303(A)] I am suggesting three changes that will better protect
    fishery dependent communities:

      1.  Strengthen policy language to encourage management councils to
            initially allocate Limited Access Privileges to fishery-
            dependent communities and clearly identify criteria for Fishing
            Communities' community sustainability plans [303(A)(c)(1)(F)
            and 303(A)(c)(3)(A)(i)(IV)].

      2.  Limit the risks of losing LAP privileges/quota for Fishing
            Communities operating under a community sustainability plan and
            for Regional Fishery Associations. [303(A)(c)(3)(A)(ii) and
            303(A)(c)(4)(B)].

      3.  Revise the Regional Fishery Association definition so that it can
            include a larger group of stakeholders and also be considered
            for initial allocations of Limited Access Privileges.
            [303(A)(c)(4)(A)(iv).

        In addition, I am suggesting the Committee consider expanding
    National Standard 9, ``to the extent practicable (A) minimize bycatch
    and (B) to the extent bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality
    of such bycatch'', to include a provision that when bycatch occurs and
    mortality from the bycatch cannot be avoided, to minimize the
    regulatory discarding of dead fish to the extent practicable.
    [301(a)(9)]
        For the past 30 years I have worked on behalf rural Alaska
    fishermen from smaller fishery-dependent Alaska communities in the Gulf
    of Alaska. These communities formed the Gulf of Alaska Coastal
    Communities Coalition which identifies as communities of less than
    1,500 people without road access that have a fishing history, sometimes
    for thousands of years. The economy in each of these communities is
    almost exclusively based on fisheries: subsistence, commercial, sport
    and charter. Regulatory programs enacted under Magnuson-Stevens,
    particularly the Halibut/Sablefish IFQ program and the Bering Sea Crab
    program, have negatively impacted these communities. The North Pacific
    Fisheries Management Council has attempted to mitigate some of these
    adverse impacts by creating the Community Quota Entity program that
    allows communities in the Gulf of Alaska to purchase halibut and
    sablefish Individual Fishing Quota IFQs). However, the Community Quota
    Entity program has been largely unsuccessful because it is nearly
    impossible to purchase quota and pay the debt service AFTER the initial
    issuance of the quota. Only 3 of 45 eligible communities have been able
    to purchase even a small amount of quota. Communities, with limited
    resources and without other fishery revenue, just can't catch up by
    purchasing quota. In short, if trends continue, residents of most of
    these communities will be completely excluded from Federal fisheries
    within a generation.
        A reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
    Act must increase the emphasis for each of the eight regional
    management councils to consider smaller or isolated fishery-dependent
    communities as stakeholders at the outset of any Limited Access
    Privilege (LAP) program. Councils should use current sociological and
    economic studies, as referenced in National Standard 8, regarding
    impacts from past management programs to assess probable community
    impacts from any new LAP programs. Here in Alaska, virtually all of the
    social and economic assessments illustrate that Limited Access
    Privilege programs have had negative impacts on smaller Alaska
    communities. The reauthorized MSA should also encourage Councils to re-
    consider impacts on fishery-dependent communities whenever limited
    access privilege programs are reviewed and/or renewed and as part of
    the review, when needed, allocate Limited Access Privileges to fishery
    dependent communities to mitigate further harm.
        The eight Regional Management Councils have primarily assessed a
    vessel owner's historical participation in the fishery when awarding
    Limited Access Privileges. While vessel owners are clearly
    stakeholders, parallel stakeholders have often been overlooked.
    Councils must be encouraged to fully assess the community support
    structures that enable vessel owner participation in the fishery as
    well as the community fabric of fishing jobs and fishery opportunity
    that the fishery provides. Rural residents in many Gulf of Alaska
    communities cannot compete economically for quota especially when there
    are no ``owner on board'' or ``active participation'' requirements for
    quota holders. Experience has shown that the primary way to continue
    community engagement in the fishery is through the awarding of Limited
    Access Privileges to the community at the outset of a LAP program. See,
    for example, the Community Development Quota program in the Bering Sea.
        Under the Limited Access Privilege Program provisions for fishing
    communities, section 303(A)(c)(3) of MSA, the requirement of an
    approved community ``sustainability plan'' creates a classic ``catch
    22'' situation for fishery dependent communities wanting to be awarded
    LAP privileges. Communities appear to be expected to develop the
    community sustainability plans without fully knowing a regional
    Council's criteria for plan approval and/or whether the Secretary will
    approve the criteria. Our experience with the NPFMC's consideration of
    a LAP program for the Gulf of Alaska indicated that the Council was
    hesitant to consider LAP privilege/community quota allocation without a
    community sustainability plan but it was difficult for Gulf of Alaska
    fishery dependent communities to develop a sustainability plan without
    first having Secretary approved Council criteria for the community
    sustainability plan. (We recognize that part B lists participation
    criteria but the list in not exhaustive nor is it adopted or approved
    by any Council.) Regional Councils must be directed to develop Fishing
    Community sustainability plan criteria BEFORE considering a LAP
    program.
        Even with an approved Community Sustainability Plan and either the
    initial allocation or community purchase of quota, fishery-dependent
    communities are not protected. Under sub paragraph (ii) the secretary
    may deny or revoke ``privileges granted under this section for any
    person''. This language presents three problems. First, the privilege
    (quota) is revoked from an individual who is fishing the Community's
    privilege or allocation. Second, the Community may have little or no
    immediate control over that individual or the individual's fishing
    practices yet it is held responsible for the individual's misconduct.
    The quota is apparently removed from the individual AND the fishing
    community. Third, the removed quota ``may'' but also MAY NOT be
    reallocated to another individual eligible within the fishing
    community. There are two issues here: the quota can be entirely lost to
    the Regional Fisheries Association if it is not reallocated and the
    quota is reallocated to another individual and not back to the
    Community Fisheries Association. Several financial institutions and
    lenders have indicated that the deny/revoke provision creates too much
    ``risk'' for lending to a fishery dependent community to acquire LAP
    privileges/quota---even with an approved Community Sustainability Plan.
        Three changes to Magnusson-Stevens' LAP provisions for Fishing
    Communities could help further the National Standard 8 goal of
    protecting fishery dependent communities.

      1.  The LAP provisions outline eleven requirements (A-K) for
            implementation of a LAP program. Under section (F) the act
            requires a Council to ``specify the goals of the program.'' The
            following language should be added: ``including but not limited
            to goals for protecting fishery-dependent communities located
            within the management area of the relevant Council and whether
            or not initially awarding LAP privileges to the community will
            further those goals.''

      2.  A new LAP requirement (L) should track with the Fishing
            Communities section (3) of the LAP provision and require each
            Council to develop secretary-approved Community Sustainability
            Plan criteria BEFORE considering a LAP program. The following
            language should be added: (L) ``Each regional management
            council shall develop secretary-approved community
            sustainability plan criteria before initiation of a LAP
            program.

      3.  Under (3)(ii), any quota denied or revoked by the Secretary for
            an individual's failure to comply with the Community
            Sustainability Plan must be retained by the community entity.
            The following language should be inserted: Sec
            303A(c)(3)(A)(ii) ``The secretary shall deny or revoke limited
            access privileges granted under this section for any person who
            fails to comply with the requirements of the community
            sustainability plan. Any limited access privileges denied or
            revoked under this section shall be retained by the eligible
            fishing community.''

        Moreover, the Magnuson-Stevens Act's parallel community support
    concept, the Regional Fishery Association, is similarly flawed.
    Regional Fishery Associations are expected to find capital and obtain
    quota shares after a LAP program is implemented. Membership is limited
    to those that already have acquired quota and any quota acquired by the
    Association may be ``at risk'' by seizure. Simply stated, as currently
    outlined in MSA, the Community Fishery Association is an ineffective
    tool.
        Three changes to current MSA provisions for Regional Fisheries
    Associations would make them an effective tool for fishery-dependent
    community protection.

      1.  The MSA currently specifies that Regional Fishing Associations
            are NOT eligible to receive initial allocation of a limited
            access privilege. The provision should read that Regional
            Fisheries Associations ARE eligible to receive an initial
            allocation of a limited access privileges.

      2.  Regional Fishery Associations are limited to individuals or
            entities that already have LAP privileges/quota. This seems
            nonsensical, given the participation criteria to be considered
            by the Council in section (C). Regional Fishery Association
            participation criteria includes ``traditional fishing or
            processing,'' ``cultural and social framework relevant to the
            fishery'' and ``the existence and severity of projected
            economic and social impacts associated with implementation of
            limited access privilege programs on harvesters, captains,
            crew, processors, and other businesses substantially dependent
            upon the fishery in the region or sub region.'' Given the
            participation criteria, why exclude crewmen, active fishermen
            hoping to obtain quota and stakeholder communities or
            processors that are not awarded quota? The regional Councils
            should have the option to include all significant stakeholders
            in a Regional Fishery Association. Adding the following
            language at the end of Sec 303(A)(c)(4)(A)(iv) would allow the
            Councils to qualify all individuals and entities that meet the
            section (C) participation criteria: A regional fishery
            association shall ``consist of participants in the fishery who
            hold quota shares that are designated for use in the specific
            region or sub region covered by the regional fishery
            association, including commercial or recreation al fishing,
            processing, fishery-dependent support businesses, or fishing
            communities and/or individuals, businesses and communities who
            are active participants in the fishery.

        Section 3 (Definitions)

        The term ``active participants'' means individuals who are
    physically present on a fishing vessel during the prosecution of a
    fishery and who are paid compensation for their fishery participation,
    a business that derives revenue directly from the sale of the fish
    captured in the fishery, or a community economically and/or culturally
    dependent on the fishery.

      3.  The Regional Fisheries Association Language also enables the
            possible loss of quota by the Association because of an
            individual's misconduct. As indicated above, this type of
            contingent liability puts the Regional Fisheries Association
            ``at risk'' and the association is unlikely to attract capital
            to obtain quota. Again, the fix is to require that any Regional
            Fisheries Association quota denied or revoked by the Secretary
            be retained by the RFA.

        In summary, the three changes suggested for Community
    Sustainability Plans as well as the three changes suggested for
    Regional Fishery Association do NOT mandate that fishery-dependent
    communities be given Limited Access Privileges. However, they do
    provide workable options that the regional Councils can consider when
    working to ensure the sustainability of fishery dependent communities.
        The final consideration for revising the Magnusson-Stevens Fishery
    Conservation and Management Act is, perhaps, one of the most important
    conservation and public policy issues of our day. As a matter of policy
    the United States needs to reduce the amount of discards (dead fish
    thrown overboard) in MSA managed fisheries. Large amounts of fish are
    caught in MSA fisheries, killed, and then discarded because they are
    not the right size, lack market value or are ``prohibited'' based on a
    particular gear type in a specific time and place. Although bycatch has
    been reduced under MSA, discarding of bycatch remains a significant
    management and conservation concern. In fact, the European Union had
    jumped ahead of the United States and set strict time frames for
    eliminating regulatory discards.
        To illustrate, in fisheries managed by the North Pacific Fisheries
    Management Council 5,487metric tons (12,181,140#) of halibut are
    annually allocated as bycatch. Not all of the bycatch is used but, on
    average, about 90 percent or 10 million pounds is actually caught and
    discarded as dead halibut. A substantial portion of discarded halibut,
    estimates range from 50-70 percent by weight, could be of commercial
    value and processed into food for human consumption. Halibut, of
    course, is just one species and across the Nation several species
    should be assessed for discard limitations. The goal for American
    Fisheries should be: If you catch it and it's dead, you keep it! This
    is the logical next step to the policy progression of National Standard
    nine.
        Alaska's smaller fishery-dependent communities are impacted by
    regulatory discards in several ways. First, discarding good food is in
    conflict with basic aboriginal and cultural values that teach it's
    against nature to waste what the sea provides. Second, it often creates
    a false economy in that a vessel will be fishing for a directed catch
    worth pennies per pound while discarding bycatch worth several dollars
    per pound. Third, the American consumer has reduced access to quality
    marine protein that could easily be retained and enter the stream of
    commerce. Fourth, it may limit fish available to all other users and
    appears as a capricious disposition of a shared resource because, when
    quotas are set, halibut bycatch ``comes off the top'' ahead of sport,
    ahead of charter and ahead of all commercial users. Finally, the
    impacts on the eco-system from long term large scale fishery discards
    is unknown. Some have speculated that the rise of arrowtooth flounder
    in the Gulf of Alaska may have been, in part, due to the extent of
    fishery discards in the late 80 and 90s (scavenger fish like arrowtooth
    flounder need something to eat.)
        I would encourage the Committee to expand our Nation's policy
    regarding conservation of our marine resources and add a third priority
    to National standard 9, Sec. 301(a)(9), ``Conservation and management
    measures shall, to the extent practicable, (a) minimize bycatch and (b)
    to the extent bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of such
    bycatch.'' And (c) to the extent that mortality cannot be avoided,
    minimize regulatory and economic discards.
        Thank you for considering Alaska's Gulf of Alaska Coastal
    Communities' suggestions for revisions to the Magnuson Stevens Fishery
    Conservation and Management Act. The MSA is solid legislation but needs
    revisions to help protect fishery dependent communities. In summary,
    community allocation of Limited Access Privileges should be
    strengthened and each management council, at the outset of any LAP
    program, should specifically recognized fishery dependent communities
    as stakeholders and provide criteria for development of community
    sustainability plans. Quota obtained under a community sustainability
    plan must stay with the community. A Community Fisheries Association,
    if approved by a Council, should also be eligible for initial
    allocation of quota. Several Community Fishery Association provisions
    seem to be in conflict with the stated programmatic goals and should be
    modified. Membership should be expanded and liabilities reduced.
    Finally, it's time, as a matter of public policy, to incorporate the
    reduction of regulatory discards, to the extent practicable, into our
    national standards.

        Senator Sullivan. Great. Thank you, Mr. Fields.
        Ms. Ogilvie.

      STATEMENT OF LIZ OGILVIE, CHIEF MARKETING OFFICER, AMERICAN
                        SPORTFISHING ASSOCIATION

        Ms. Ogilvie. Chairman Sullivan, thank you for the
    opportunity to testify on the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
    Conservation and Management Act.
        As Chief Marketing Officer of the American Sportfishing
    Association, I hope my perspective as someone who is involved
    in a variety of national efforts focused on the future of
    recreational fishing, can be of value to the Subcommittee. And
    as such, I will focus broadly on trends of the sport as a
    whole, and how Federal marine fisheries management fits in.
        The American Sportfishing Association, or ASA, is the
    national trade association representing over 800 fishing tackle
    manufacturers, distributors, retailers, media, and other
    components of the industry who service the 47 million Americans
    who recreationally fish each year.
        We are involved in a wide variety of policy and legislative
    issues affecting the future of the sport, but devote a
    significant portion of our advocacy efforts on Federal marine
    fisheries management.
        Considering that 82 percent of all fishing trips occur in
    freshwater, it may seem counterintuitive to focus so much
    attention on marine fisheries. However, the industry sees
    tremendous growth opportunities in the saltwater fishing
    market.
        The average cost of a saltwater trip is twice that of a
    freshwater trip. Offshore trips must be taken from a boat, and
    these boats tend to be larger, consume more fuel, and are
    outfitted with higher-end gear. Substantial economic
    opportunities for our industry, and associated industries,
    exist with offshore recreational fishing, but we are confronted
    with a management system that, for years, has been limiting
    that opportunity.
        In contrast, ASA believes that freshwater fisheries
    management has largely been figured out. Both the State fish
    and wildlife agencies, and the Federal land management
    agencies, have a symbiotic relationship with the recreational
    fishing community.
        They go above and beyond to communicate with anglers,
    solicit input, and work together to ensure anglers are
    satisfied with their experiences on the water. As a result,
    they are seen as partners in conservation and participation.
        Conversely, NOAA fisheries are viewed by many in the
    recreational fishing community as an adversary. While efforts
    have been made in recent years to improve the dialogue between
    the agency and anglers, we have seen little change in the
    agency's actions and how they translate to fishing
    opportunities.
        Fairly or unfairly, the general perception among anglers is
    that NOAA fisheries only understands and cares about commercial
    fishing.
        While overfishing is now at an all time low in many
    fisheries, that has not translated into improved fishing access
    for recreational fishermen. This is believed to be a result of
    a management system that fails to recognize that commercial and
    recreational fishing are different activities.
        Without question, commercial fishing is tremendously
    important to the Nation by creating jobs and providing a
    sustainable supply of seafood across our country. My comments
    are not intended to diminish the importance of commercial
    fishing, but to recognize that the benefits of recreational
    fishing are also important, and can no longer be an
    afterthought in the way our Federal marine fisheries are
    managed.
        As a community comprised of thousands of businesses and the
    millions of customers they serve, we want modern management
    approaches, science, and technology to guide decisionmaking.
        Since its original passage in 1976 and through subsequent
    reauthorizations, the Magnuson-Stevens Act has never focused
    specifically on addressing the unique challenges of Federal
    saltwater recreational fisheries management.
        We hope Congress will use the current reauthorization
    process as an opportunity to address this historic inequity.
    And ASA believes passage of Senate Bill 1520, the Modernizing
    Recreational Fisheries Management Act, would be a tremendous
    step toward this goal.
        By recognizing recreational fishing as an important and
    distinct activity, Congress and NOAA fisheries can go a long
    way toward creating an environment in which saltwater
    recreational fishing's many benefits to the Nation are fully
    realized.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Ogilvie follows:]

          Prepared Statement of Liz Ogilvie, Chief Marketing Officer,
                       American Sportfishing Association
        Chairman Sullivan and members of the subcommittee, thank you for
    the opportunity to testify on the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
    and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). It is an honor to provide
    input on this important topic. While I'm not an expert on the nuances
    of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, I hope my perspective as someone who has
    been part of the recreational fishing industry for fifteen years and
    who is involved in a variety of national efforts focused on the future
    of the sport can be of value to the subcommittee. I expect many of the
    other comments provided today will be focused on important fisheries
    science and management challenges related to the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
    However, I will focus broadly on trends in recreational fishing as a
    whole and how Federal marine fisheries management fits in.
    Federal Marine Fisheries in Context
        The American Sportfishing Association (ASA) is the national trade
    association representing over 800 fishing tackle manufacturers,
    distributors, retailers, media and other components of the industry who
    service the 47 million Americans who recreationally fish each year. We
    are involved in a wide variety of policy and legislative issues
    affecting the future of the sport, but devote a significant portion of
    our advocacy efforts on Federal marine fisheries management.
    Considering that 82 percent of all fishing trips occur in freshwater,
    and of the 18 percent that occur in saltwater, only roughly one tenth
    occur in Federal waters, it may seem counterintuitive to focus so much
    attention on Federal marine fisheries management.
        However, the industry sees tremendous growth opportunities in the
    saltwater fishing market. According to data from the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service, the average cost of a saltwater trip ($134.88) is
    approximately twice that of a freshwater trip ($69.05). While specific
    estimates are not available comparing offshore to inshore trips, given
    that offshore trips must be taken from a boat, and that these boats
    tend to be larger and outfitted with higher-end gear, clearly the
    economic value of offshore trips is significant compared to other types
    of fishing. Substantial economic opportunities for our industry and
    associated industries exist with offshore recreational fishing, but we
    are confronted with a management system that for years has been
    limiting that opportunity.
        In contrast, ASA believes that freshwater fisheries management in
    the U.S. has largely been figured out. While some challenges to
    freshwater fisheries conservation and access persist--such as invasive
    species; water quality and quantity; and habitat degradation--from a
    purely management standpoint, states are generally doing an excellent
    job of ensuring anglers have reasonable access to healthy fish stocks.
        States and the recreational fishing community have a symbiotic
    relationship, due in part to the states' funding model. Most--and in
    some cases, all--of the funding for states' fisheries management
    activities come from anglers in the form of license fees and the excise
    tax on fishing equipment and motorboat fuel. But the relationship
    between states and the recreational fishing community is far from just
    transactionary. States go above and beyond to communicate with anglers,
    solicit input and work together to ensure anglers are satisfied with
    their experiences on the water.
        Similar close connections exist between the recreational fishing
    community and many of the Federal land management agencies, such as the
    U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of
    Land Management and the National Park Service. Despite the occasional
    disagreement over policy and management issues, in general these
    agencies are viewed by recreational fishermen as partners working to
    ensure the conservation of fisheries resources for the use and
    enjoyment of the public. Unlike state fish and wildlife agencies, these
    Federal land management agencies do not receive direct funding from
    anglers; yet are still viewed as partners in conservation.
        Conversely, NOAA Fisheries is viewed by many in the recreational
    fishing community as an adversary. While efforts have been made in
    recent years to improve the dialogue between the agency and anglers and
    to better understand how to address concerns, anglers have seen little
    change in the agency's actions and how they translate to fishing
    opportunities. Fairly or unfairly, the general perception among anglers
    is that NOAA Fisheries only understands and cares about commercial
    fishing, dating back to its roots as the Bureau of Commercial
    Fisheries.
        While overfishing is now at an all-time low, in many fisheries
    (such as the snapper-grouper complex in the southeastern U.S.) that has
    not translated into improved fishing access for recreational fishermen.
    This is believed to be a result of a management system that focuses on
    commercial fisheries management and attempts to apply the same
    approaches to recreational fishing, without recognizing that these are
    two fundamentally different activities.
        Without question, commercial fishing is tremendously important to
    the Nation by creating jobs and providing a sustainable supply of
    seafood. My comments and suggestions are not intended to diminish the
    importance of commercial fishing, but to recognize that recreational
    fishing is also important, and can no longer be an afterthought in the
    way our Federal marine fisheries are managed.
    Nationwide Focus on R3
        In recent years, the recreational fishing community has redoubled
    efforts to increase participation in recreational fishing nationally.
    For decades, up until the 1990s, the sport experienced steady growth in
    participation. However, a variety of societal and demographic changes
    in the Nation have contributed to a generally flat level of
    participation for the last two decades, despite an increase in the
    overall U.S. population. Given the social, conservation and economic
    benefits that recreational fishing provides to the nation, this lack of
    growth in the sport is a major cause for concern among industry,
    organizations and fisheries agencies.
        Focusing on new and innovative ways to recruit, retain and
    reactivate (R3) anglers is one of the top priorities of ASA and many
    partner organizations such as the Recreational Boating and Fishing
    Foundation, the Association of State Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and
    many others. The state fish and wildlife agencies are a key partner in
    this endeavor, as are many of the Federal land management agencies,
    particularly the U.S. Forest Service.
        An opportunity exists to include NOAA Fisheries in this effort, but
    it will require a major shift in how the agency has historically
    viewed, treated and managed recreational fishing. Early indications
    from this Administration, including extending the Gulf of Mexico red
    snapper season and selecting quality recreational fishing
    representatives for the regional fishery management councils are reason
    for optimism, but much more work remains to be done. While some of this
    responsibility is under the agency's control, ASA believes that changes
    are also needed to the Magnuson-Stevens Act to facilitate better
    management of marine recreational fisheries and improved opportunities
    for fishing access.
    The Modern Fish Act
        The recreational fishing community has articulated the changes it
    would like to see to the Magnuson-Stevens Act through legislation that
    has already been introduced in this Congress. On July 10, Senators
    Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Brian
    Schatz (D-Hawaii), John Kennedy (R-La.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.)
    introduced S. 1520, the ``Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management
    Act of 2017'' (Modern Fish Act), which ASA strongly supports. A
    companion bill, H.R. 2023, was introduced in the U.S. House of
    Representatives on April 6, by Congressmen Garret Graves (R-La.), Gene
    Green (D-Texas), Daniel Webster (R-Fla.) and Rob Wittman (R-Va.).
        The bipartisan Modern Fish Act addresses many of the challenges
    faced by recreational anglers, including allowing alternative
    management approaches for recreational fishing, reexamining fisheries
    allocations, smartly rebuilding fish stocks and improving recreational
    data collection. The bill would benefit recreational fishing access and
    conservation. As a community, comprised of thousands of businesses and
    the millions of customers they serve, we want modern management
    approaches, science and technology to guide decision-making.
        Since its original passage in 1976 and through subsequent
    reauthorizations, the Magnuson-Stevens Act has never focused
    specifically on addressing the unique challenges of Federal saltwater
    recreational fisheries management. We hope Congress will use the
    current reauthorization process as an opportunity to address this
    historic inequity. By making the necessary policy and statutory changes
    that recognize saltwater recreational fishing as an important and
    distinct activity, Congress and NOAA Fisheries can go a long way toward
    creating an environment in which saltwater recreational fishing's many
    benefits to the Nation are fully realized.

        Senator Sullivan. Great. Well, thank you. And thank you,
    again, to all the witnesses.
        I will begin with the same question I asked the other two
    panels, and I know you have highlighted it already in your
    testimony, but just to get a strong statement for the record.
        What do you hope to see in terms of your priorities with
    regard to any MSA reauthorization? I will just open that up to
    everybody beginning with Mr. Fields.
        Mr. Fields. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Really, two things from the perspective of the gulf coastal
    communities. One is to make the provisions under the LAP,
    Limited Access Privilege, part of the Act and workable for
    communities. They are not complex changes, not difficult
    changes, but make those provisions workable so that a community
    wanting to participating in a LAP program can develop a
    community sustainability plan, understand the rules relative to
    that plan, receive quota, and functionally work with the quota
    they receive.
        The second aspect is to look at the amount of regulatory
    and economic discards all across the country, and recognize
    that times have changed. Look at what Europe is doing. Track
    the logical progression up to the extent practicable and
    everything is qualified to the extent practical.
        Reduce bycatch, reduce mortality from bycatch, and I would
    like to add, and if mortality and bycatch are not reused, do
    not throwaway dead fish to the extent practicable. Utilize what
    is otherwise discarded.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Sullivan. Great. Thank you.
        Mr. Carroll.
        Mr. Carroll. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I think at the outset, and several times you noted, that
    you are looking for consensus. And I think after hearing three
    panels, the consensus seems to really be that ways to improve
    data and accountability are the best ways forward. So that is
    certainly something that MCC would like to see in the fishing
    communities coalition.
        To that end, we have submitted an Amendment package that we
    think addresses a lot of the accountability and data needs in
    the MSA. They are small, minor tweaks, but we think that they
    could go a long way forward toward furthering the objectives of
    the Magnuson Act.
        I would also like to agree with Mr. Fields. We also
    submitted an Amendment that is largely similar to, I think,
    what he is discussing under 303a, which is just streamlining
    and improving the LAP provisions so that coastal communities
    understand what is needed, so that they can apply to receive
    allocations under the LAP program.
        Finally, I do think, again, that there is an opportunity to
    address through non-regulatory means, through the Young
    Fishermen's Development Act and some opportunities for next
    generation fishermen. I think because the Federal Government
    does manage the fisheries as a public trust that is a real
    obligation that they have to see for it.
        So thank you.
        Senator Sullivan. Good, great. Others?
        Ms. Swanson.
        Ms. Swanson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I echo a lot of what other people have said that the bones
    of the Act are good. Do not change what is working already. I
    do not want to repeat what everyone has already said.
        One specific issue that I would address is the use of the
    term ``overfishing'' and ``overfished''. I think there should
    be a better way to express a stock that is depressed from
    fishing versus a stock that is depressed from an environmental
    or other factor.
        Senator Sullivan. Yes.
        Ms. Swanson. And what the mandated response is in those
    situations.
        We have a blue king crab stock in the Pribilof that is
    overfished, even though no fishing occurs on it and it has not
    for years. It is unlikely to recover, but there are still
    mandated recovery plans. That type of structure, it does not
    make sense. I think it is misleading to the public as well.
        Senator Sullivan. Yes. Great. Thank you.
        Ms. Bonney.
        Ms. Bonney. Just to follow on, I have two things. One is
    the definition of overfishing and the rebuilding plans based on
    a 10-year rebuilding.
        I do think that the 10-year rebuilding timeline is
    arbitrary and so I think that there might be some room to look
    at additional flexibility without opening the barn doors, so to
    speak.
        Senator Sullivan. Yes.
        Ms. Bonney. And also in terms of the issue that Lori just
    raised, which is the blue king crab, the stocks in the
    Pribilof. It is an environmental problem and yet the only thing
    that the Council can regulate is the fishing activity.
        So we are restricting fishing and creating a lot of
    economic impact to the fishing fleet, and there is going to be
    no net benefit for that stock. So if there would be some kind
    of way to have maybe the SSC or the science community define a
    fish that is in that category that you would not have to go
    through the rigorous rebuilding plan. I think that would be
    beneficial.
        Senator Sullivan. Great. Ms. Ogilvie.
        Ms. Ogilvie. Yes, from the recreational fishing
    communities' point of view, the two main tenets for
    reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens really is the confidence,
    gaining back the confidence in that data collection.
        And then recognizing, again, that recreational and
    commercial fishing are different activities and should be
    managed so.
        Senator Sullivan. Right. Let me dig down into a couple more
    specific questions related to some of the interests and
    expertise of the different panelists.
        Mr. Carroll, I know that your organization played an
    important role in the Alaska Young Fishermen's Network. Can you
    describe a brief description of the network and what you are
    trying to do in terms of the successes?
        As we are looking at this legislation, as I mentioned in my
    opening statement, the idea of making sure the next generation
    is able to take advantage, to thrive, to have opportunities, I
    think, is one of the most important things we could do. I am
    very pleased you are on the panel to represent that group, an
    important interest group.
        Can you talk a little bit more to that and what you have
    done?
        Mr. Carroll. Yes, thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman.
        Yes, I will point out there is at least one member of the
    Young Fishermen's Network in the audience today.
        Senator Sullivan. Good.
        Mr. Carroll. We helped create the Young Fishermen's Network
    largely for the same reasons that I discussed and my support
    for the Young Fisherman's Development Act. And that is it.
        We certainly recognize that there are many barriers to
    entry for next generation fishermen, for beginning fishermen
    and largely those are involving access to capital and
    financial. But in speaking to a lot of our members and
    fishermen, we really recognize that there is also sort of a
    networking, and mentorship, and education gap that are missing.
    In part, that is due to the outmigration of permits, and that
    loss of institutional knowledge in communities, and that sort
    of feedback loop that you get. But it was a major gap.
        And as a lot of fishermen now look to make half a million
    to $1 million investments in their future, a lot of concerns
    revolved around not knowing how to fix the refrigeration system
    on their boat.
        Senator Sullivan. Yes.
        Mr. Carroll. And not knowing how to properly pay their
    taxes. So to that end, we started the Young Fishermen's Network
    as a way to informally improve networking and education among
    fishermen. We have seen some really great success, and just one
    anecdotal story.
        One of my friends who is a member of the Network was out.
    It was her first season running a boat. It was her first time
    towing in really rough weather. She called up a few people that
    she had met through the Network and they talked her through
    some strategies to successfully fish, and she ended up having a
    good day on the waters.
        Senator Sullivan. Good. Let me ask a related question and
    this is for you, or Ms. Bonney, or Mr. Fields.
        There is a lot of talk about barriers to entry in the
    commercial fleet, whether it is because of the high cost,
    upfront costs of financing a boat, and gear, and quota or just
    the next generation who do not have those resources.
        What other things can we be looking at, whether it is in
    the MSA reauthorization or beyond that can help that issue?
    Particularly in communities like where the two of you reside,
    Mr. Fields and Ms. Bonney, in Kodiak. I think that is an
    incredible community.
        Can you talk about the fishing fleet and how important that
    is not only in Kodiak, but other coastal communities on the
    island and this issue of barriers to entry?
        Ms. Bonney. And I am probably going to give you a different
    answer than you expect.
        Senator Sullivan. I am asking this because I know there
    might be different views, which is the whole point of the
    hearing.
        Ms. Bonney. So I think, first of all, you need to
    understand that the community of Kodiak is very diverse. And
    so, we are kind of the black and white of any fishing community
    because we have many participants in the fishery that are
    involved in the State fisheries, particularly salmon. Then we
    have a large group of the community that is involved in the
    Federal fisheries.
        So my life is mostly involved in the Federal fisheries
    because I work for the trawl industry and that industry brings
    20 percent of all jobs to Kodiak, which is an important group.
        We are seeing a lot of new participants in the fishery. A
    lot of people are silver haired, like I am working on, and
    leaving the industry. And so, new people are coming in. Who is
    coming in are the sons and daughters of the owners of the
    vessels and operators and the crewmember that are working on
    the back deck that are experienced and with some expertise.
        But in my industry right now, we have a race for fishery
    environment for the trawl participants which is not as
    sophisticated as in the Bering Sea. We have a lot of
    restrictions in terms of bycatch.
        Senator Sullivan. Can you explain that term? It is used a
    lot. I just want other Senators, who are going to be looking at
    this transcript and their staff, as we talk about the broader
    issues what that term means when you talk about ``the race to
    fish'' and how that impacts sustainability, safety, and
    successful management.
        Ms. Bonney. Just because I have these conversations with my
    family, I will put it this way.
        If you have a pie, and you put the pie in the middle of the
    table, and everybody has a fork, the goal is to get it. So the
    race for fish is trying to get the most pie that you can before
    your neighbor eats more than you do.
        The catch here, the program basically allocates to
    individuals or cooperatives, and cuts that pie up into
    individual pieces, and each participant that has a fork at the
    table gets a slice of the pie. Then you can choose to eat that
    as slowly or as fast as you want, and whenever you want.
        So it just creates more reason within the way that you are
    harvesting and it gives you more tools to make a business plan
    out of it.
        So coming back to the issue of next generation
    participants, there is a lot of uncertainty in the industry
    that I work for because of the system that we are operating
    under. So they are less likely to be able to get bank loans and
    enter the fisheries in that way.
        So for the industry that I work for, we would like more
    certainty and more ability to get the fish out of the water and
    have a business plan versus the system that we live in now.
        Now for Duncan Field's groups and for Shannon Carroll's, I
    think their opinions are different than mine.
        Senator Sullivan. Duncan, do you want to comment, Mr.
    Fields, just on any of those questions I mentioned?
        Mr. Fields. Well, thank you.
        I like Julie's pie metaphor or analogy. But what she did
    not amplify is that once those pieces are cut, first of all,
    they are not all even pieces. And then only those people
    initially allocated a piece of the pie ever get to eat dessert.
    That is the barrier to entry that creates the graying of the
    fleet and the problem for young fishermen.
        That is it. That is what we are facing. Whether or not it
    was a State of Alaska limited entry program, or a Federal IFQ
    program, or a LAP program--Bering Sea crab, for example. Each
    one of those programs creates barriers to entry and that is an
    aspect.
        Now, there are many positive aspects: economic gains,
    efficiency, safety at sea. Not to minimize the positives, but I
    do not think we, as a Nation, have fully appreciated some of
    the downstream, long term effects from these Limited Access
    Programs particularly in terms of young fishermen entering the
    fishery.
        And so, in response to my experience in these rural
    communities, they have been excluded, in large part, from some
    of the salmon fishes because of the permit process, from most
    of the Federal fisheries because of either the LLPs, the
    permits, or specifically lack of quota share.
        And now their dads are dying or died, and they do not have
    any continuity in terms of teaching.
        For example in the community of Ouzinkie, a recent
    sociological study of a survey of the high school in Ouzinkie,
    out of 20 students, only one thought that he had a future in
    fisheries. This is a community that one generation ago,
    everybody in the community participated in the fisheries. In
    one generation, you have lost fishing in that community.
        That is the problem, Mr. Chair.
        Senator Sullivan. Let me ask you, and I want to get back to
    Mr. Carroll. Let me ask a related question.
        In Bristol Bay, nearly 60 percent of the permits are now
    issued to non-Alaskans. And that is a trend that you are kind
    of touching on in terms of permits leaving Alaska's
    communities. I am the Chairman of this Committee. I am looking
    nationally but, of course, I am an Alaskan Senator and that
    trend, that statistic causes concern for me.
        What are ways that we can undertake to address that kind of
    trend?
        Mr. Fields. I think we straddle two worlds, the State
    permit world through limited entry, and I think that statistic
    is more reflective of the state limited entry permit issue. I
    do not know that we can solve that issue through Magnuson.
        Senator Sullivan. No, I know. I am not saying that
    necessarily.
        Mr. Fields. There are parallel permits in Magnuson called
    LLPs and I think we need to look for opportunities, for
    transitional LLPs for people that fish for a certain number of
    years under a provisional LLP and then transition into the
    fishery. Some of these shoulder kinds of provisions may enable
    participation in the fishery within the Federal sphere.
        But that trend is continuing. It is alarming for us that
    believe rural Alaska should have an economy. It probably should
    be a fishing economy. And I think within the State system,
    there have been some representatives trying to look at the
    limited entry program to also provide shoulder opportunities
    for people to transition into limited entry permits.
        There is a great program--back to the CDQs--a great program
    that the CDQs have to help young people finance Bristol Bay
    permits; maybe some of the other CDQs as well. That is not
    available in the Gulf of Alaska because we do not have that
    economic base of a CDQ program.
        Senator Sullivan. Did you have a comment, Mr. Carroll?
        Mr. Carroll. Yes, and I will be brief.
        Getting back to your original question, I think for a lot
    of people, fishing is a way of life, but at the end of the day,
    it is still a business. So I think Congress needs to do the
    best it can to make sure that it is an attractive business to
    invest into.
        I think the way that you do that is to ensure that the
    reauthorized Act allows for managers to sustainably manage
    their fisheries and requires that of them.
        Then just last, as far as what the Act can do to break down
    some of those barriers to entry, I think there is a lot in it
    already that empowers the Councils to do that. I think if you
    look back at some of the hearings for the 2006 Act, though,
    there was a lot of attention paid to whether or not to lift the
    moratorium on catcher programs.
        I think what you see under 303a and the LAP provision was
    really an attempt to bridge the gap between a lot of the
    benefits that come with catcher programs and a lot of the
    negative economic consequences and socioeconomic consequences
    in communities.
        I think Mr. Fields pointed out that in 10 years, no fishing
    community has received an allocation under that provision. That
    was a really big provision in allowing Congress to lift the
    moratorium.
        So I think considering what you can do to really rework
    that to honor the original intent of that provision would be a
    way forward.
        Senator Sullivan. Yes, Ms. Bonney.
        Ms. Bonney. Just to follow up on that, I would note that
    NMFS actually wrote a document that explains how to do a
    sustainability plan. So if you are going to go down that route,
    you may want to look at that, and see what is in there, and
    what might be missing.
        Senator Sullivan. Great.
        Ms. Swanson, I wanted to turn to you. Earlier, there was
    the discussion on the issue of classified areas of overfished
    stocks that might not relate directly to overfishing.
        Can you discuss the effects of the precautionary management
    and whether or not you think that--and we talked about
    overfished stocks--any under-harvesting of stocks is occurring?
    Or do you think that the system, and the data, and the way in
    which the Council is working is avoiding that issue?
        Ms. Swanson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is an
    interesting question.
        Regarding the precautionary principle, I think the idea is
    sound that if you do not have adequate information, then you
    tread very lightly until you do.
        Where it becomes a problem is where you cannot get the
    information and that is, I think, what you have heard loud and
    clear that we need the surveys.
        Senator Sullivan. Yes.
        Ms. Swanson. Because if our survey information ages, then
    the ACLs are going to drop because we are uncertain.
        As far as under-harvesting, it is arguable that we are. I
    mean, the Bering Sea has a 2 million ton cap, which some people
    believe is arbitrary. Some believe it is important to the
    conservation of the system.
        Senator Sullivan. What do you believe? Not to put you on
    the spot.
        Ms. Swanson. Not speaking for MCA on this.
        Senator Sullivan. Well, I have asked this question a lot on
    the cap.
        Ms. Swanson. That is OK.
        Senator Sullivan. It is an important question and when it
    is statutorily defined and has not been reviewed, I think it is
    a legitimate question to ask.
        Ms. Swanson. And again, not speaking on behalf of MCA, but
    myself, I think putting absolute numbers out for anything is
    generally not a good idea because you do not know what the
    right number is. You should have the flexibility to find out
    what it is.
        I think having an extremely conservative program in the
    North Pacific has benefited our stocks.
        Senator Sullivan. Yes.
        Ms. Swanson. But it has done that likely at the cost of
    under-harvesting. And that, depending on how you view that,
    that could be a good or a bad thing.
        I certainly would not advocate lifting the cap altogether.
        Senator Sullivan. No.
        Ms. Swanson. At least not in one step. I think you have to
    be very, very careful because you do not know the consequences
    to other parts of the ecosystem or other fisheries.
        But generally, I think, my overall feeling is that we are
    in a very fluid environment, not to make a pun. We are in an
    environment where the fisheries are changing, the make up of
    the fisheries are changing. Fish are moving. We heard about
    halibut moving offshore. We have had surveys that have shown
    anomalous results.
        To have a static regulation in that kind of environment is
    not a good idea. So flexibility, flexibility, flexibility, I
    think, is important.
        Senator Sullivan. Ms. Ogilvie, can you explain a little bit
    more the concept of alternative management and whether that is
    something that your Association is supportive of?
        Ms. Ogilvie. I am not an expert on the nuances of the
    management Act itself.
        We are looking for ways to benefit what we are trying to do
    as a community, which is increase participation. And outdoor
    recreation as a whole, there is a national effort to increase
    participation and for us, specifically, on the recreational
    fishing side. It is one of our top priorities of ASA.
        Other organizations such as the Recreational Boating and
    Fishing Foundation, State fish and wildlife agencies, and
    Federal land management agencies, in particular the U.S. Forest
    Service are partnering with us on that effort.
        And we hope that in the Federal marine fisheries management
    space there is an opportunity to be a partner too. Perhaps it
    is alternative management policies and actions to really focus
    on the trend of growing more anglers because we want them to
    keep pace with how successful we are already being.
        So thank you.
        Senator Sullivan. Well, listen. I am going to ask if there
    are any other final comments with regard to the witnesses here.
    Again, if you have a final statement or area of emphasis you
    want to leave the Committee with, I would welcome any final
    comments before we close out this third and final panel. Again,
    I will open it up to the panel for any other final comments you
    may wish to make.
        Mr. Fields.
        Mr. Fields. Mr. Chairman, I have a real sense of urgency
    relative to the rural communities in the Gulf of Alaska. You
    have been in a number of those communities. You have been to
    Old Harbor.
        Old Harbor, 20 years ago, or 35 years ago when I went down
    there during high school with my wrestling buddies, was a
    vibrant fishing community. It still has a number of boats in
    the harbor. All but one of those skippers are over 50 years
    old.
        In my closing comments, this is not abstract to me.
    Changing the community provisions in Magnuson will affect real
    people that I know, families and communities that I am engaged
    with, and it is very important.
        Thank you.
        Senator Sullivan. Great. Thank you. Anyone else?
        Yes, Ms. Swanson.
        Ms. Swanson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I think I am repeating probably what Mr. Reed mentioned
    earlier. Sound, verifiable science is key to fisheries
    management. You receive data from a lot of different sources
    from fishermen on the water who see this every day from
    universities, from Federal research, and all of that data has
    value.
        But before it is incorporated into a management system, I
    think you need to do a very rigorous review of how the data was
    collected. Has it been peer reviewed? Is it repeatable?
        I would be very concerned about lowering the bar for the
    standard of science that we use right now to be more inclusive.
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you. Anyone else?
        Ms. Bonney.
        Ms. Bonney. I guess I am going to speak to one of the other
    issues that was brought up in the other two panels and that is
    observer coverage. And so, the North Pacific has a very unique
    program through the partial coverage sector.
        What is happening is there was a human coverage pool. Now
    we are integrating the E.M. side of the pool and our funding
    sources have diminished. And all of it is becoming self-funded
    through fishermen, taxing fishermen and processors.
        Senator Sullivan. Yes.
        Ms. Bonney. We need help with funding for that program.
        Senator Sullivan. Well, we are going to look at that
    because my understanding of that right now is it is not
    equitable in terms of how it is applied in other regions. And
    if another region pays for it through Federal funds, then my
    view is we should have similar opportunity to receive that kind
    of support. So we will be looking at that hard, but thank you
    for raising it. Anyone else?
        Yes, Mr. Carroll.
        Mr. Carroll. I just want to say thank you for holding this
    hearing in Alaska and we appreciate your support.
        Senator Sullivan. Absolutely. Great.
        Ms. Ogilvie, anything?
        Ms. Ogilvie. The same, we are all very appreciative, and
    conservation is the top of mind. Fishing is top mind, keeping
    our waters clean, abundant with fish, and having access to
    them. Thank you.
        Senator Sullivan. Great. Well, again, in conclusion, I want
    to thank all the witnesses. I think everybody who has remained,
    you have been a very patient audience, but I think you have
    seen we have had three great panels, very informative.
    Different views which, of course, we knew that was going to
    happen.
        I also want to mention the hearing record will remain open
    for two weeks. During this time, other Senators on the
    Committee may be submitting questions for the record to any of
    the three panel witnesses.
        So we ask respectfully that if you do receive questions
    from another Senator that the witnesses are requested to submit
    their written answer to the Committee as soon as practicable.
        I want to thank the witnesses for appearing again today. I
    also want to leave an e-mail for anyone else who wants to
    submit their record of testimony to the Committee on this
    topic. The e-mail is to a committee staffer
    Chance_Costello@commerce.senate.gov.
        Again, I appreciate the panelists. I have certainly learned
    a lot and look forward to continuing to engage with all the
    different stakeholders here on this very, very important topic
    as we move forward.
        This hearing is now adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

          Prepared Statement of Rebecca Skinner, Executive Director,
                     Alaska Whitefish Trawlers Association
        Thank you for the invitation to submit written testimony following
    the field hearing on the successes and challenges of the Magnuson-
    Stevens Act (MSA). I am submitting comments on behalf of the Alaska
    Whitefish Trawlers Association.
        Alaska Whitefish Trawlers Association (AWTA) is a trade
    organization that has represented independently owned trawl catcher-
    vessels operating in the Gulf of Alaska and Bearing Sea for over 40
    years. The average length of AWTA member vessels is 80 feet, most
    members home-port in Kodiak and have Kodiak based captains and crew.
    AWTA vessels spend an average of 9-11 months each year trawling in the
    vicinity of Kodiak Island, delivering fish to shore-based processing
    plants located in the City of Kodiak. Kodiak ranks as the second
    largest port in the U.S. by volume, largely driven by high-volume trawl
    groundfish deliveries. Year-round trawl deliveries allow Kodiak's shore
    based processing plants to operate 11 months per year and support
    Alaska's largest resident processing workforce.
        AWTA believes that MSA has generally worked well for both the trawl
    industry and the fishing industry overall in Alaska for the last 40
    years. AWTA notes the following as elements that should be continued in
    the MSA, as well as elements that should be augmented or added as part
    of the MSA reauthorization.

      1.  Preserve and enhance the ability to conduct stock assessments and
            surveys. Accurate and timely stock assessments form the basis
            for effective fishery management plans. Any reductions in
            current assessment levels will lead to less data, more
            conservative harvest limits to account for the uncertainty, and
            therefore reduced harvest and economic contributions from those
            fisheries.

      2.  Continued flexibility for Councils to address circumstances that
            arise within each region. Built-in flexibility recognizes that
            inherent differences exist between fisheries and between
            regions, and allows managers to develop and utilize tools that
            work for a particular fishery or region. In addition to
            flexibility in relation to different fisheries or regions, it
            would be helpful to increase the ability of Councils to quickly
            adapt management and respond to changes that may occur within a
            single year or fishing season. In recent years Alaska has
            experienced unexpected changes in ocean temperatures, ocean
            acidification and temporal and spatial shifts in encounters for
            various species of fish (i.e., encountering fish at times or
            places that are different from what has usually occurred in the
            past). Without the ability of fisheries managers to quickly
            adapt to unexpected changes there is increased risk of fishing
            closures, economic losses and negative impacts to Alaska's
            fishing communities.

      3.  Retain catchshare programs as a potential tool for regional
            councils. As part of maintaining flexibility at the regional
            council level catchshare programs should be retained as a
            potential management tool. AWTA members have seen first-hand
            benefits that result from cooperative management programs
            utilizing catchshares, benefits that include higher
            utilization, increased value, lower bycatch, and reduced
            impacts on the environment. For example, consider the Rockfish
            Program in the Gulf of Alaska that uses the catchshare tool and
            cooperative management. The Rockfish Program stopped the race
            for fish, reduced bycatch and increased monitoring within the
            fishery. Rockfish harvest can now be spread out over time,
            allowing for better utilization, higher value, and reducing the
            strain on Kodiak's water and power infrastructure that resulted
            from the peaks and valleys of fish deliveries inherent under a
            race for fish management structure.

      4.   Ensure council management systems are transparent to the public,
            promote accountability, include fair representation of
            participants and continue to utilize data-based decisionmaking.
            The public, and participants, should be able to see how
            decisions are being made, that those decisions have been based
            on data and not politics, to the extent possible. Council make-
            up should fairly represent fishery participants in each region
            to ensure that all perspectives are heard and considered in the
            decision making process.

      5.  Finally, any changes to MSA should encourage a management system
            that maximizes stability for the managed fisheries.
            Inconsistent, unexpected and intermittent fishery closures,
            whether trawl groundfish in the Gulf of Alaska, or red snapper
            in the Gulf of Mexico, are devastating to small businesses and
            coastal communities that rely on healthy and sustainable
            fisheries. While the ultimate goal should continue to be
            ensuring sustainable harvests in the long-term, fisheries
            management structures should also provide for year over year
            stability and consistency to the extent possible.

        In closing, thank you for holding a field hearing in Soldotna,
    Alaska, for providing an opportunity to share our input with you
    through this written testimony, and for your continued work to ensure
    that MSA can continue to serve as the foundation for sustainable
    fisheries management in Alaska and throughout the country.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of Ernest Weiss, Natural Resource Director,
                             Aleutians East Borough
        Chairman Thune and Senator Sullivan, thank you for holding this
    field hearing with three great panels of experts. The people of the
    Aleutians East Borough, Alaska are highly dependent on the fisheries in
    the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska, and we are thankful for this hearing
    held in our State of Alaska. Please accept these brief comments on the
    topic of this oversight hearing.
        I would like to first express my support for the current leadership
    in the fisheries of the North Pacific, starting with the Alaska
    Delegation. Senators Sullivan & Murkowski, and Congressman Young
    continuously show their breadth of knowledge and understanding for
    Alaska's coastal communities and the deep connection our people have to
    the fisheries of the North Pacific. The Aleutians East Borough supports
    both the North Pacific Fishery Management Council and the Alaska Board
    of Fisheries. These management bodies both utilize robust public
    involvement processes that ensure the best opportunity for sustainable
    fisheries. Finally, I would like to applaud Chris Oliver, newly
    appointed Assistant Administrator for NMFS, and Alaska Department of
    Fish & Game Commissioner Sam Cotten. Both of these leaders in fisheries
    management have provided insightful vision to the future of Alaska's
    coastal fishing communities.
        Moving forward in the development of an MSA reauthorization, as
    many of the panelists indicated, few changes are needed in MSA. Please
    continue the use of the robust public process of the Regional Fishery
    Management Councils. I believe any future major changes in the
    fisheries, such as the implementation of new catch share programs,
    should go through the Council process, which is working.
    Rationalization of any new fisheries, that may benefit a well-connected
    few, should not be legislatively set into regulation. I also support
    the promulgation of fishery regulations through the Council process as
    over-riding other less robust processes, such as the Marine Sanctuary
    nomination and designation process.
        Also mentioned several times in the hearing, the critical
    importance of continued funding for fishery surveys and assessments.
    The North Pacific is a leader in fisheries management because of the
    continued attention to the use of best science and data. I support
    continued funding of surveys and possibly new funding for the North
    Pacific Observer program.
        The Aleutians East Borough is also on record supporting a
    reevaluation of many of the Steller sea lion regulations that prohibit
    fishing and/or vessel transit near rookeries or haulouts, critical
    habitat established decades ago, including many that have since moved
    to other locations.i
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \i\ https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=NOAA-
    NMFS-2017-0067-0016
    &attachmentNumber=1&contentType=pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
                                     ______

        Statement of Ryan P. Mulvey, Counsel, Cause of Action Institute
        Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and Members of the
    Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to submit a statement for the
    record as part of this important hearing on reauthorization of the
    Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1801 et seq.
        My name is Ryan Mulvey and I am an attorney with Cause of Action
    Institute (``CoA Institute''), a nonpartisan 501(c)(3) nonprofit
    strategic oversight group committed to ensuring that government
    decision-making is open, honest, and fair.\1\ In carrying out its
    mission, CoA Institute uses various investigative and legal tools to
    educate the public about the importance of government transparency and
    accountability, as well as agency adherence to the rule of law. CoA
    Institute also advocates on behalf of clients facing Federal overreach
    and overregulation, including members of the New England fishing
    industry.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Cause of Action Inst., About, http://www.causeofaction.org/
    about.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        CoA Institute currently represents David Goethel, a New Hampshire-
    based fisherman, and the members of Northeast Fishery Sector XIII in a
    lawsuit challenging the legality of the Northeast multispecies sector
    at-sea monitoring program.\2\ Specifically, we contest the statutory
    authorization for the so-called ``industry funding requirement,'' which
    shifts costs for at-sea monitoring onto regulated fishermen. At more
    than $700 per day at sea, these costs are more than double what most
    small-scale fishermen take home from an average day of fishing.\3\ It
    is not surprising that New England fishermen have been de-scribed as
    the most ``under recognized'' endangered ``species.'' \4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ See Goethel v. Dep't of Commerce, 854 F.3d 106 (1st Cir. Apr.
    14, 2017), petition for cert. filed No. 17-75 (July 12, 2017); Goethel
    v. Pritzker, No. 15-497, 2016 WL 4076831 (D.N.H. July 29, 2016).
        \3\ See infra notes 33-36 and accompanying text.
        \4\ Christian A. Putnam, With plenty of fish in the sea, will there
    be anyone to catch them?, Scituate Mariner (Aug. 4, 2017), http://
    bit.ly/2vHHNjg.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The National Marine Fisheries Service (``NMFS'') promulgated the
    industry funding requirement for groundfish sectors in 2010, but
    delayed implementation for over five years. In the interim, NMFS paid
    for third-party monitors with congressionally-appropriated funds. Since
    March 1, 2016, fishermen have been required to bear part of the cost of
    at-sea monitors. When industry funding is fully implemented, the New
    England groundfish industry will be devastated.
        Unfortunately, our clients' opportunity for review of the industry-
    funding requirement is quickly passing. The District Court for New
    Hampshire and the First Circuit Court of Appeals both dismissed their
    case as untimely under the Magnuson-Stevens Act's extremely short
    statute of limitations, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1855(f). Last month, we filed a
    petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United
    States, arguing that the lower courts' rulings conflicted with well-
    established precedents on the availability of pre-enforcement review
    and misconstrued the definition of an ``implementing action'' under
    Section 1855(f)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.\5\ Our efforts, and the
    precarious economic future of groundfish sector participants, have been
    widely documented by the press.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Cause of Action Inst., Press Release: CoAI Seeks Supreme Court
    Review of Job-Killing Fishing Regulation (July 13, 2017), available at
    http://coainst.org/2sTZreu.
        \6\ See, e.g., Patrick Whittle, Fishermen taking fight over
    monitors to Supreme Court, Boston Globe (Assoc. Press Newswire) (July
    25, 2017), http://bit.ly/2hJ0Hjn; see generally East Coast fishermen
    spar with Federal government over cost of at-sea monitors, Fox News
    (July 14, 2016), http://fxn.ws/2viP4EJ.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Yet, no matter the outcome of the petition, our clients' case
    highlights the urgent need for congressional action. As the First
    Circuit itself commented:

            [G]iven [the government's] own study which indicated that the
            groundfish sector could face serious difficulties as a result
            of the industry funding requirement, . . . this may be a
            situation where further clarification from Congress would be
            helpful for the regulated fisheries and the agency itself as it
            balances the competing goals of conservation and the economic
            vitality of the fishery.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Goethel, 854 F.3d at 116 (emphasis added).

        With that suggestion in mind, I respectfully direct the Committee's
    attention to NMFS's plans to expand industry-funded monitoring without
    any semblance of statutory authority through the New England Fishery
    Management Council's Industry-Funded Monitoring Omnibus Amendment
    (``Omnibus Amendment'').\8\ Like the groundfish at-sea monitoring
    program, the Omnibus Amendment raises a number of serious legal
    questions concerning the Executive Branch's authority to compel
    regulated parties, i.e., fishermen, to pay for at-sea monitoring. In
    short, there is no such authority under Magnuson-Stevens for most
    industry funding schemes, and Congress should reiterate its intentions
    in light of NMFS's egregious deviation from the statute.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ New Eng. Fishery Mgmt. Council & Mid-Atl. Fishery Mgmt.
    Council, Industry-Funded Monitoring Omnibus Amend. (Sept. 2016)
    [hereinafter Omnibus Amend.], available at http://bit.ly/2mQxrtn.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        NMFS apparently plans to expand industry funding into other
    fisheries, despite the lack of statutory authorization. As Senator
    Sullivan recognized during the opening hearing in this series, the
    costs of onboard monitoring and NMFS's perceived lack of urgency in
    pursuing less costly alternatives, including electronic monitoring and
    other emerging technologies, only reinforce the need for Congress to
    clarify the limits of NMFS's power.\9\ The Committee's current
    reauthorization efforts present a timely opportunity to address the
    matter.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ U.S. H.R. Comm. on Commerce, Sci., & Transp., Subcomm. on
    Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, & Coast Guard, Hearing on
    Reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
    Management Act: NOAA and Council Perspectives (Aug. 1, 2017), archived
    video available at http://bit.ly/2uFyT0C.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I. Magnuson-Stevens Does Not Generally Authorize Industry Funding
        The stated purpose of the Omnibus Amendment is straightforward: the
    New Eng-land Council is ``interested in increasing monitoring and/or
    other types of data collection to assess the amount and type of catch,
    to more precisely monitor annual catch limits, and/or provide other
    information for management,'' \10\ but its ability to fund that
    increased monitoring is limited.\11\ The proposed solution is to design
    a standardized mechanism that would permit the government to order
    fishermen to cover a substantial portion of monitoring costs.\12\
    Unfortunately, the Council and NMFS cannot point to any provision in
    Magnuson-Stevens that grants them the authority to implement such a
    plan.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ See Omnibus Amend. at 41.
        \11\ See id. at 43-44 (``NMFS has limited funding for monitoring,
    so both Councils have considered requiring industry to contribute to
    the cost of monitoring.''); Greater Atl. Reg'l Fisheries Office, Nat'l
    Marine Fisheries Serv., Press Release: Industry-Funded Monitoring
    Omnibus Amendment, Public Hearings and Comment Period (Sept. 20, 2016)
    (``The amount of available Federal funding to support additional
    monitoring is limited[.]''), available at http://bit.ly/2nHNpl1.
        \12\ See Omnibus Amend. at 62 (``Under Omnibus Alternative 2, there
    would be an established, standardized structure for new industry-funded
    monitoring programs . . . [that addresses] (1) standard cost
    responsibilities associated with industry-funded monitoring for NMFS
    and the fishing industry, (2) a process for FMP-specific industry-
    funded monitoring to be implemented via [amendment and revised via] a .
    . . framework adjustment action, (3) standard administrative
    requirements [for industry-funded monitoring service providers] . . .
    (4) [a] process to prioritize new industry-funded monitoring programs
    in order to allocate available Federal resources for industry-funded
    monitoring across FMPs, including the type of weighing approach and the
    timing of revising the weighing approach, and [(5)] a process for FMP-
    specific monitoring set-aside programs to be implemented via a future
    framework adjustment action. Additionally, [it] would include a range
    of options for the process to prioritize industry-funded monitoring
    across all FMPs.'') (alternations indicate changes in the April 2017
    Omnibus Amendment draft, available at http://bit.ly/2omwA0Q).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    a. NMFS Must Have Explicit Statutory Authority to Compel Industry to
            Fund
            Discretionary At-Sea Monitoring Programs
        Federal agencies do not enjoy unbridled power in choosing which
    programs to pursue. They cannot impose new fees or taxes, nor can they
    demand that citizens pay for programs that the government ought to be
    financing in the first place. In this sense, the basic presumption in
    the Omnibus Amendment, namely, that an Executive Branch agency can
    order industry to fund a monitoring program, is gravely mistaken and
    runs afoul of a fundamental principle of administrative law: ``[A]n
    agency literally has no power to act . . . unless and until Congress
    confers power upon it.'' \13\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ La. Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 476 U.S. 355,
    374 (1986); see Util. Air Regulatory Grp. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 134
    S. Ct. 2427, 2466 (2014) (``An agency confronting resource constraints
    may change its own conduct, but it cannot change the law.'').
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The New England Council appears to acknowledge as much, but does
    not give this principle due credit: ``A Federal agency cannot spend
    money on a program beyond the maximum authorized program level without
    authorization from Congress. [It] also cannot get around the maximum
    authorized program level by adding to its appropriations from sources
    outside the government without permission from Congress.'' \14\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ See Omnibus Amend. at 45.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Magnuson-Stevens does not authorize NMFS and the regional councils
    to redesign fishery management plans to introduce the sort of industry-
    funded monitoring envisioned by the Omnibus Amendment. At most, the
    statute authorizes the placement of observers and monitors.\15\ But
    NMFS is not at liberty to implement any particular funding mechanism.
    The plain meaning of Magnuson-Stevens is clear and unambiguous.\16\ The
    statute only authorizes industry-funded monitoring in a few specific
    regions and circumstances: (1) foreign fishing,\17\ (2) limited access
    privilege programs,\18\ and (3) the North Pacific fisheries research
    plan.\19\ Congress's decision to permit NMFS and the councils to
    require industry funded monitoring and observing in those, and only
    those, three situations shows its intent to disallow industry funding
    in other instances.\20\ To read Magnuson-Stevens otherwise violates
    Congress's clear intent and the statute's legislative history.\21\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1853(b)(8); 50 C.F.R. Sec. 648.2.
        \16\ See generally Palmieri v. Nynex Long Distance Co., 437 F.3d
    111, 115 (1st Cir. 2006); Bonilla v. Muebles J.J. Alvarez, Inc., 194
    F.3d 275, 277 n.2 (1st Cir. 1999).
        \17\ 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1821(h)(4).
        \18\ Id. Sec. 1853a(e). The Greater Atlantic Region contains two
    fisheries that permit cost recovery through a fee system: the Atlantic
    sea scallop and golden tilefish individual fishing quota limited access
    privilege programs. See Omnibus Amend. at 51.
        \19\ 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1862(a).
        \20\ Any other reading of Magnuson-Stevens would render provisions
    discussing industry funding surplus-age, Nat'l Credit Union Admin v.
    First Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co., 522 U.S. 479, 501 (1998), and offend
    important canons of construction. Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 173
    (2001); see EchoStar Satellite L.L.C. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 704 F.3d
    992, 999 (D.C. Cir. 2013); Ry. Labor Execs.' Ass'n v. Natl' Mediation
    Bd., 29 F.3d 655 (D.C. Cir. 1994); cf. Anglers Conservation Network v.
    Pritzker, 139 F. Supp. 3d 102, 116 n.9 (D.D.C. 2015) (`` `[C]ost
    sharing' programs with industry participants in other fisheries in
    order to provide higher observer coverage levels . . . were expressly
    authorized by statute for particular fisheries only.'') (emphasis
    added) (citing 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1862).
        \21\ There is no evidence of congressional recognition for some
    pre-existing, implied authority to impose monitoring costs on industry.
    Congress has repeatedly declined the opportunity to permit industry
    funding nationwide. Each time that Magnuson-Stevens has been
    reauthorized, Congress considered (and rejected) bills that would have
    created blanket authority for mandatory industry funding. H.R. 1554,
    101st Cong. Sec. 2(a)(3) (1989); H.R. 39, 104th Cong. Sec. 9(b)(4)
    (1995); H.R. 5018, 109th Cong. Sec. 9(b) (2006).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    b. The Omnibus Amendment's Industry-Funded Monitoring Scheme Violates
            Standards and Other Important Legal Principles
        Notwithstanding the lack of explicit legal authority, the
    introduction of industry-funded monitoring across the Greater Atlantic
    fisheries would also impose a tremendous economic burden on the fishing
    industry and could lead to the wholesale elimination of small-scale
    fishing. This result would violate National Standards 7 and 8.\22\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \22\ See 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1851(a)(7)-(8). It should not lightly be
    concluded that Congress intend to grant authority for the regional
    councils and NMFS to take actions that would put fishermen out of
    business. See Arctic Sole Seafoods v. Gutierrez, 622 F. Supp. 2d 1050,
    1061 (W.D. Wash. 2008) (rejecting agency interpretation as it ``leads
    to absurd results--the inevitable elimination of the fishery); W. Sea
    Fishing Co. v. Locke, 722 F. Supp. 2d 126, 140 (D. Mass. 2010)
    (``[Magnuson-Stevens] creates a duty to allow for harvesting at optimum
    yield in the present, while at the same time protecting fishery output
    for the future[.]'').
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Congress never intended to grant NMFS the authority to regulate a
    substantial portion of the Atlantic fleet out of existence.\23\ As the
    Supreme Court has held, ``Congress . . . does not alter the fundamental
    details of a regulatory scheme in vague terms or ancillary
    provisions,'' \24\ nor does it ``delegate a decision of such economic
    and political significance in so cryptic a fashion.'' \25\ Industry-
    funded monitoring as a normal course of fishery regulation is not only
    novel, but represents a shift of economic and political significance.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \23\ Any council could certainly repeal or revoke any of its
    fishery management plans, but it must do so explicitly and by three-
    quarters majority approval of its voting members. 16 U.S.C.
    Sec. 1854(h).
        \24\ Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass'ns, Inc., 531 U.S. 457, 468
    (2001).
        \25\ Food & Drug Admin. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529
    U.S. 120, 160 (2000); see Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 267 (2006)
    (rejecting the argument that Congress would delegate ``broad and
    unusual authority through an implicit delegation'').
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In the absence of statutory authorization for the sort of industry-
    funded monitoring programs contemplated by the Omnibus Amendment--and
    already in place in the groundfish fishery--the Executive Branch can
    only be described as preparing to impose a ``tax'' to extract money
    from regulated parties in order to fund desired regulatory programs.
    This cannot stand as ``only Congress has the power to levy taxes.''
    \26\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \26\ Thomas v. Network Solutions, 2 F. Supp. 2d 22, 29 (D.D.C.
    1998); see U.S. Const., art. I., Sec. 8, cl. 1; Nat'l Cable Television
    Ass'n, Inc. v. United States, 415 U.S. 336, 340 (1974) (``Taxation is a
    legislative function, and Congress . . . is the sole organ for levying
    taxes[.]'').
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Omnibus Amendment, as applied in future fishery management plan
    amendments, would also likely violate numerous statutes governing
    agency finance, such as the Anti-Deficiency Act \27\ and the
    Miscellaneous Receipts Statute.\28\ Finally, industry funding
    requirements impermissibly compel fishermen into commercial
    transactions in violation of the Commerce Clause \29\ and arguably
    violate other parts of the Constitution, including the Fourth
    Amendment.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \27\ See 31 U.S.C. Sec. 1341(a)(1)(A)-(B); see also Envtl. Def.
    Ctr. v. Babbitt, 73 F.3d 867, 872 (9th Cir. 1995).
        \28\ See 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3302(b); see also Scheduled Airlines
    Traffic Offices, Inc. v. Dep't of Def., 87 F.3d 1356, 1361 (D.C. Cir.
    1996). The Government Accountability Office has rejected the
    proposition that an agency can avoid the Miscellaneous Receipts Statute
    ``by authorizing a contractor to charge fees to outside parties and
    keep the payments in order to offset costs that would otherwise be
    borne by agency appropriations.'' Gov't Accountability Office, 2
    Principles of Fed. Appropriations L. at 6-177 (3d ed. 2006).
        \29\ See, e.g., Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct.
    2566, 2587 (2012) (The government cannot ``compel[  ] individuals to
    become active in commerce by purchasing a product.'').
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    II. The Economic Impact of the Omnibus Amendment and Stakeholder
            Feedback Expose Other Deficiencies with Industry-Funded
            Monitoring
        In line with the National Standards, the Omnibus Amendment and
    future industry-funded monitoring programs must ``minimize costs,''
    \30\ ``provide for the sustained participation of [fishing]
    communities,'' \31\ and ``minimize adverse economic impacts.'' \32\ The
    Omnibus Amendment fails to meet these standards because it will have a
    severe and adverse impact on the fishing industry.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \30\ 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1851(a)(7).
        \31\ Id. Sec. 1851(a)(8).
        \32\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The expected economic impact of industry-funded monitoring on
    fishery-related businesses and communities is uniformly negative.\33\
    Monitoring costs in the herring fishery, for example, will likely
    exceed $710 per sea day for an at-sea monitor and $818 per sea day for
    a NEFOP-based observer.\34\ Such costs are over double the daily profit
    of a small-boat captain.\35\ This is certainly the case in the
    Northeast multispecies fishery. Under the groundfish sector at-sea
    monitoring program, which our clients are challenging, up to 60 percent
    of the fleet is expected to ``see negative returns to owner when full''
    monitoring costs ``are factored in.'' \36\ It is irresponsible for NMFS
    to ignore the devastating economic effects of industry funding. Yet,
    with the Omnibus Amendment and the herring and mackerel fisheries, NMFS
    is doing just that by deeming cost estimates too ``speculative'' to
    consider.\37\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \33\ See, e.g., Omnibus Amend. at xiii-xxiv; id. at 244 (``Overall,
    there will be negative direct economic impacts to fishing vessels as a
    result of selecting Omnibus Alternative 2[.]'') (emphasis added).
        \34\ Id. at 291 (Table 89). For fishermen active in both the
    herring and the mackerel fisheries, these costs could rise even
    further. See id. at 301 (``Many of the vessels that would be impacted
    by industry-funded monitoring costs in the herring fishery would also
    be impacted by industry-funded monitoring costs in the mackerel
    fishery.''). Total estimated costs for vessels active in the mackerel
    fishery will depend, of course, on the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
    Council's preferred mackerel coverage target alternatives, which have
    not yet been chosen.
        \35\ See, e.g., Transcript of Preliminary Injunction Hearing at
    63:13-64:16, Goethel v. Pritzker, No. 15-497, 2016 WL 4076831 (D.N.H.
    July 29, 2016); see also id. at 64:17-65:21.
        \36\ New Eng. Fishery Mgmt. Council, Draft Report: Preliminary
    Evaluation of the Impact of Groundfish-Sector Funded At Sea Monitoring
    on Groundfish Fishery Profits at 10 (June 19, 2015), available at
    http://bit.ly/28QUXwT. These costs are predicted to be heaviest for
    small vessels. Id. at 13 (Table 12). NMFS recognized these prospects,
    describing them as a ``restructuring of the fleet.'' Id. at 10.
        \37\ Omnibus Amend. at 237 (``[P]otential downstream effects (e.g.,
    subsequent management measures to address bycatch issues) of this
    action are considered too remote and speculative to be appropriate for
    consideration[.]'').
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It is worth noting the overwhelmingly negative feedback that NMFS
    and the New England Council have received in pursing the Omnibus
    Amendment. Of the eighty-three (83) submissions posted to the
    electronic docket during the last round of public comment, only six (6)
    voiced various levels of support for industry-funded monitoring; the
    vast majority, 93 percent, opposed it.\38\ The reasons for this
    opposition are straightforward enough. Small-scale fishermen cannot
    remain profitable if they must assume monitoring costs.\39\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \38\ Dep't of Commerce, Nat'l Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin., 81 Fed.
    Reg. 64,426 (Sept. 20, 2016), Docket No. NOAA-NMFS-2016-0139-0001,
    available at http://bit.ly/2p5NO1s.
        \39\ See Comment of Meghan Lapp, Seafreeze Ltd., on Omnibus Amend.
    (Nov. 7, 2016), Docket No. NOAA-NMFS-2016-0139-0009, available at
    http://bit.ly/2nUf8Ph.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Long Island Commercial Fishing Association, for example,
    expects that the Omnibus Amendment's approximate $800 per-sea-day cost
    would force more than half of the entire New York-based fleet out of
    business.\40\ Other stakeholders are skeptical that increased
    monitoring has any connection to conservation or maintaining the
    sustainability of the fisheries, and they question the quality of the
    data collected. Most importantly, however, the public recognizes that
    the Magnuson-Stevens Act does not, in fact, authorize industry funding
    simply because the New England Council or NMFS wishes it to do so,\41\
    and the public acknowledges the potential constitutional problems.\42\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \40\ See Comment of Long Island Commercial Fishing Ass'n on Omnibus
    Amend. (Nov. 8, 2016), Docket No. NOAA-NMFS-2016-0139-0084, available
    at http://bit.ly/2odOrsX (``The onus for NMFS required observer
    coverage should be on NMFS, not industry. It is cost prohibitive.'').
        \41\ See, e.g., Comment of David Goethel on Omnibus Amend. (Nov. 7,
    2016), Docket No. NOAA-NMFS-2016-0139-0010, available at http://bit.ly/
    2o04Mye (``Monitoring is a function of government and should be funded
    at levels Congress deems appropriate through NOAA line items in the
    budget. . . . [The Magnuson-Stevens Act] allows for the placement of
    observers on fishing boats but is silent on cost recovery except in
    specific fisheries in the North Pacific Region.''); see also Comment of
    Gregg Morris on Omnibus Amend. (Nov. 8, 2016), Docket No. NOAA-NMFS-
    2016-0139-0080, available at http://bit.ly/2o09hJp (same).
        \42\ E.g., Comment of N.C. Fisheries Ass'n on Omnibus Amend. (Nov.
    7, 2016), Docket No. NOAA-NMFS-2016-0139-0082, available at http://
    bit.ly/2oXBtAa (raising due process concerns) (``There was no
    reasonable opportunity for [public hearings] down in the affected
    states of Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina. Their involvement in
    the public hearings process was substantially truncate. [Those] whose
    stand to be severely impacted . . . have not been given a single public
    hearing reasonably close enough for them to be expected to attend.'');
    cf. Brooke Constance White, Stonington fishermen, first select-man:
    Camera proposal violates Fourth Amendment rights, The Westerly Sun
    (Apr. 7, 2017), http://bit.ly/2o00maB.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Apart from the lack of statutory authority for industry-funded
    monitoring, NMFS and the New England Council have failed to provide an
    adequate explanation for why increased monitoring is even necessary,
    let alone justify that monitoring in light of the extreme financial
    burden it will put on fishermen. Industry-funded monitoring, as pro-
    posed, will destroy multi-generational, small-business fishermen up and
    down the East Coast while benefitting industrial fishing firms. That
    result is unacceptable and highlights why this Committee should
    urgently act on the matter.
    Conclusion
        Thank you for your consideration of these comments. I am prepared
    to offer further details about our ongoing litigation or, more
    generally, the legality of industry-funded at-sea monitoring. If you
    have any questions, or if there is anything further that CoA Institute
    can provide, please feel free to contact me by telephone at (202) 499-
    4232 or by e-mail at ryan.mulvey@causeofaction.org.
                                     ______

       Statement of A.G. ``Spud'' Woodward, Director, Coastal Resources
               Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources
        Response to question: ``What is alternative management?''

        For the purposes of discussion about the Magnuson-Stevens Act
    (MSA), alternative management approaches are those currently used by
    state fisheries managers on inland and coastal fisheries, interstate
    commissions and Federal wildlife managers. They are only alternatives
    when compared to techniques such as annual catch limits currently used
    to manage marine fisheries in Federal waters. Otherwise, they are
    traditional and successful approaches to fish and wildlife management.
    Anglers, the marine industry, and many state agency staff do not
    believe the methods currently used by Federal marine fishery managers
    administering the MSA properly balance fish stock health with human
    use. Unquestionably, the best managed recreational and, often,
    commercial fisheries in this country are under state control. Employing
    approaches proven to work at the state level can dramatically improve
    the current Federal approach to managing marine recreational fishing.
        Alternative management approaches are potentially a better fit for
    marine recreational fishing. They offer options--tools in the toolbox--
    to allow Federal management to be tailored to specific fisheries in a
    way that is considerate of the unique nature of recreational fishing.
    For example, in some fisheries there is a large amount of voluntary
    catch-and-release by recreational fishers with high rates of survival
    in the fish that are released. In other fisheries, anglers desire to
    keep the fish they catch for personal consumption so there is little
    voluntary catch-and-release. In others, survival of released fish is
    poor making voluntary catch-and-release of questionable conservation
    value. The management approaches to these fisheries should be
    different. It is important to state that these approaches emphasize
    conservation and sustainability while allowing resource policy makers
    to provide more consistent and predictable access to fish stocks.
        Recreational fishing and commercial fishing are different endeavors
    yet Federal marine fishery management principles are rooted in managing
    commercial fishing where there is a known and identifiable universe of
    fishers and high quality and timely data on removals. By trying to fit
    recreational fishing into a commercial fisheries management model,
    Federal managers are forced to make decisions based on data sources
    plagued with uncertainty. For some fisheries, catch and effort data is
    nothing but a semi-educated guess. This uncertainty of recreational
    catch and effort data intended to show long-term and regional trends
    leads to extremely precautionary management decisions. To the
    recreational sector, it appears that Federal marine fishery management
    is more focused on restricting the access of the fishermen to fish
    rather than properly balancing the impacts of that access on fish
    populations.
        One of the most common examples of alternative management employed
    by state agencies, both in coastal and some inland fisheries, is
    harvest rate management. Using this approach, catch limits, season
    lengths and other regulations are set to control the quantity, size,
    and age of the fish harvested from a particular stock. Emphasis is
    placed on maximizing access and opportunity but doing so in a way that
    does not jeopardize the targeted fish stock or create incidental
    impacts on other species. The efficacy of harvest rate management is
    periodically evaluated using ongoing monitoring of fish abundance and
    stock status determinations using methods appropriate for the available
    data. Harvest rate management requirements are only changed when there
    is convincing evidence that such requirements are not preventing
    overfishing. For example, one of the Southeast's most popular inshore
    sportfish, spotted sea trout, has been successfully managed in Florida
    with bag and creel limits to maintain a Spawning Potential Ratio (SPR)
    of at least 35 percent since the 1990s. A similar situation exists for
    another iconic marine species, the red drum, which is successfully
    managed across its range with slot-size and creel limits and a SPR
    biological reference point.
        The challenge of fisheries management is to balance the needs of
    the fish with the wants of fishers. For recreational fishing where
    angler expectations are highly variable this is particularly difficult.
    In many fisheries, the Magnuson-Stevens Act does not achieve this
    balance and recreational anglers are deprived of opportunity without a
    commensurate conservation need or benefit. Lost opportunities translate
    to fewer state fishing license purchases and less spending for boats,
    engines, tackle, and gear resulting in fewer contributions to support
    Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration. Ultimately, this means fewer
    conservation dollars for the state agencies tasked with ensuring we
    have healthy and abundant fish populations.
        Alternative management approaches with appropriate accountability
    measures offer an opportunity to address this imbalance. The country is
    replete with effective tools in its natural resource management
    toolbox. However, Federal marine fishery managers do not consider many
    of them to be appropriate or effective for managing fisheries pursuant
    to the MSA. Yet, state resource managers have and continue to use them
    as a way to maximize recreational opportunities while achieving long-
    term conservation goals. Collectively, this creates a stronger, more
    vibrant recreational fishing industry while giving anglers greater
    opportunities to access and enjoy our Nation's marine resources.
                                     ______

                                                         March 15, 2017
    Members of the 115th Congress
    Washington, DC

    Congressman:

        The MSA Working Group is a coalition of organizations representing
    the saltwater recreational fishing and boating community. We are
    pleased to present to you draft amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
    We believe these amendments bring parity to recreational and commercial
    fishing which are different endeavors and should be managed
    differently.
        In trying to squeeze recreational fishing into a management model
    not designed for recreational fishing, Federal managers are being
    forced to do a lot of guessing. Therefore, we propose alternative
    management techniques that are rooted in management currently being
    used by state fisheries managers on inland and coastal fisheries, by
    management commissions and by Federal game managers. In many fisheries,
    the Magnuson-Stevens Act does not achieve a balance between
    conservation goals, angler satisfaction and the needs of the
    recreational fishing industry. Therefore, recreational anglers are
    deprived access and opportunity, and while our industry is a strong
    economic driver, it does not perform to its potential.
        Saltwater recreational fishing contributes $70 billion annually to
    the Nation's economy and supports 455,000 jobs in every corner of the
    country from boat dealerships, marinas and tackle shops to restaurants,
    motels and manufacturers. Atop their economic impact, America's anglers
    and boaters are the foremost supporters of conservation and resource
    management. In 2010 alone, anglers and boaters contributed $650 million
    in excise taxes for sportfish conservation and management, boating
    safety and infrastructure, and habitat restoration. An additional $657
    million was contributed by anglers through fishing license fees.
        We urge your support for this package of amendments. Please do not
    hesitate to reach out to the coalition as we work to modernize
    saltwater recreational fisheries management.
                Sincerely,

    Mike Nussman, President              Rob Kramer, President
    American Sportfishing Association    International Game Fish Association

    Jeff Angers, President               Thom Dammrich, President
    Center for Sportfishing Policy       National Marine Manufacturers
                                          Association

    Patrick Murray, President            Jim Donofrio, President
    Coastal Conservation Association     Recreational Fishing Alliance

    Jeff Crane, President                Ellen Peel, President
    Congressional Sportsmen's            The Billfish Foundation
     Foundation

    Dr. Guy Harvey, President            Whit Fosburgh, President
    Guy Harvey Ocean Foundation          Theodore Roosevelt Conservation
                                          Partnership

                                     ______

    Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management and Boating Safety Act of
                            2017--Section by Section
    TITLE I--CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT
    Sec. 101. Allocation
        This section would establish clear, objective criteria upon which
    allocation decisions could be based, and require periodic review of
    allocations in mixed-used fisheries--limited to the South Atlantic and
    Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Councils. For many mixed-use
    fisheries (i.e., those fished by both the commercial and recreational
    sectors), allocations of harvestable quota for each sector are based on
    decisions in fisheries management plans written decades ago. Because no
    formalized process exists to prompt the regional fishery management
    councils toward examining these allocations, and because allocation
    discussions have been historically contentious, fisheries managers lack
    the necessary incentives to reexamine allocations regardless of how
    outdated and/or inequitable they may be today.
    Sec. 102. Alternative Management
        This section would clarify that NOAA Fisheries can implement
    alternative management approaches more suitable to the nature of
    recreational fishing while adhering to the conservation principles of
    the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA). Recreational and commercial fishing are
    fundamentally different activities that require different management
    approaches. State fishery managers use different management approaches
    for recreational and commercial sectors. NOAA Fisheries does not,
    however. NOAA Fisheries manages recreational fisheries the same way as
    commercial fisheries--by setting a poundage-based quota at or near
    maximum sustainable yield and attempting to enforce it in real time.
    While this may be an ideal management strategy for commercial fishing,
    where harvesting the maximum biomass is desired, it is not an effective
    management tool for many saltwater recreational fisheries.
    Sec. 103. Limited Access Privilege Programs in Mixed-Use Fisheries
        This section would prevent new ``limited access privilege
    programs'' in the mixed-use fisheries in the Gulf and South Atlantic
    Regional Councils. Limited access privilege programs (LAPPs) are
    intended to reduce capacity and participation in a fishery. While this
    model has applicability in purely commercial fisheries, it has created
    significant user conflicts in fisheries pursued by both recreational
    and commercial fishermen. LAPPs remove flexibility to manage resources
    according to changing economic and demographic factors, and present an
    often-insurmountable obstacle to managing marine resources to their
    highest and best use for the public which ultimately owns those
    resources.
    Sec. 104. Rebuilding Fishery Stock Timelines
        This section would allow for modest flexibility in setting
    rebuilding time frames by changing possible to practicable and offering
    a science-based alternative to arbitrary 10-year rebuilding timeframe.
    Proposed modifications would also afford statutory consistency with
    recent revisions to National Standard 1 Guidelines. When NOAA Fisheries
    sets the length of time to rebuild a depleted fishery, it also sets the
    pace at which a specific stock size must meet its rebuilding target.
    Yet, the speed at which a stock can rebuild is often unpredictable and
    influenced by factors outside of fishing. Even minor flexibility with
    rebuilding timeframes provides anglers with greater opportunities to
    access rebuilding fish stocks while still meeting conservation goals.
    Flexibility with rebuilding also helps minimize the negative impacts
    when rebuilding time frames or rebuilding targets are set using poor
    science.
    Sec. 105. Annual Catch Limit
        These revisions would provide flexibility with the application of
    annual catch limits (ACL) to take into account ecological
    considerations, and social and economic impacts. In addition,
    flexibility with ACLs would be afforded when stock assessments are
    outdated or absent. The application of annual catch limits that are set
    in pounds of fish has a negative and unfair impact on the recreational
    sector and makes it extremely difficult to set reasonable regulations.
    MSA currently requires an ACL for every species regardless of whether
    there is good science or an adequate monitoring system in place to
    support the catch limit.
    Sec. 106. Exempted Fishing Permits
        These revisions will establish specific criteria to evaluate permit
    applications and formalize an expanded review process that requires
    greater regional stakeholder input on the merits of each permit
    application. The exempted fishing permit process was originally
    intended to allow researchers and fishermen to test gear modifications
    and fishing practices outside of regulations in place to manage certain
    stocks of fish. EFPs can enact programs that run multiple years and
    have significant impacts to the management regime of an entire fishery,
    and yet the permits need only approval by a single entity--NOAA
    Fisheries--to be enacted. In recent years, the EFP process has been
    misused as a mechanism to simply circumvent Council process and/or
    public opposition to controversial measures that benefit a certain
    sector or even select individuals within a certain sector.
    TITLE II--RECREATION FISHERY INFORMATION, RESEARCH, AND
            DEVELOPMENT
    Sec. 201. Cooperative Management
        This section would require the Secretary of Commerce, in
    consultation with the science and statistical committees of the
    regional councils, to submit a report to the relevant congressional
    committees on facilitating greater incorporation of data, analysis,
    stock assessments, and surveys from state agencies and nongovernmental
    sources such as fishermen, fishing communities and research
    institutions. Cooperative management will help improve the accuracy of
    fish stock information and data collection and analysis by
    incorporating data collected by anglers themselves into fisheries
    management decisions.
    Sec. 202. Recreational Data Collection
        This section would transition existing Federal funds toward state
    programs to improve fisheries harvest data. The Federal program that
    estimates angler harvest--the Marine Recreational Information Program
    (MRIP)--is capable of providing baseline trends in fishing effort. But,
    for many offshore fisheries MRIP does not provide data at the level of
    accuracy or timeliness needed for in-season management. By contrast,
    many states, especially in the Gulf of Mexico, have developed
    complimentary angler harvest data collection systems to provide real-
    time and better harvest data.
    TITLE III--BOATING SAFETY AND DOCUMENTATION FOR RECREATIONAL VESSELS
    Sec. 301. Installation and Use of Engine Cut-off Switches on
            Recreational Vessels
        This section would require recreational vessel operators to use an
    engine cut-off device for boats under 26 feet in length, while the
    vessel is underway. Manufacturers, dealers, boaters, law enforcement
    and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) have supported such action but
    regulatory delays since 2011 have prevented action. The length and type
    of vessels subject to engine cut-off wear would address the majority of
    incidents where an operator is ejected from a boat while underway. Loss
    of control can result in a dangerous situation for the operator,
    passengers, and nearby boaters and law enforcement. There would be no
    additional cost for wear, as the provision is designed for vessels
    already installed with such a device and manufacturer compliance has
    already occurred for the past decade.
    Sec. 302. Visual Distress Signals and Alternative Use
        This section would move forward current USCG efforts to examine
    alternative distress devices, such as LED lights, and prioritize a
    regulatory fix to allow other distress devices to qualify for carriage.
    Current regulations require carriage of a flare device for visual
    distress on a recreational vessel. Traditional flares pose an
    environmental risk and lack facilities for proper disposal. Traditional
    flares would not be replaced, but this section would expand the
    qualifications of other devices for carriage so long as they met USCG
    standards.
    Sec. 303. Renewal Period for Documented Recreational Vessels
        The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015 directed the USCG to
    issue regulations allowing for a five-year renewal of recreational
    vessels within one year of enactment of the law. The USCG has yet to
    act on this one-year requirement. This provision would make the renewal
    time period self-executing.
                                     ______

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     ______

                                  Seafood Harvesters of America
                                         Arlington, VA, August 22, 2017

    Hon. Dan Sullivan,
    Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee,
    Washington, DC.

    Chairman Sullivan,

        On behalf of the Seafood Harvesters of America and our Alaskan
    members, I write to express our support for your efforts to modernize
    and strengthen the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA), while maintaining the
    Act's core conservation provisions and accountability standards upon
    which the long-term viability of our fisheries depend.
        The Harvesters represent an array of commercial fishing
    organizations and fishermen across Alaska and the nation, including
    those who use pots to crab in the Bering Sea, those who seine for
    Copper River salmon and those who trawl for Pollock or use longlines to
    catch black cod in the Gulf of Alaska. While we may use different gear
    and target different species, we all have in common a desire and
    commitment to manage our fisheries sustainably. The Harvesters bring
    together fishermen from across the Nation to learn from each other's
    successes, as well as our failures, and collectively champion policies
    to ensure that we have well-managed fisheries. Our members are
    privileged to go to sea every day, bringing to market healthy,
    domestic, sustainable seafood.
        As you know, The United States has one of the most successful
    fishery management systems in the world, with almost 500 federally
    managed stocks producing almost 10 billion pounds of seafood valued at
    over $5 billion annually direct to fishermen. Our success in managing
    this renewable resource is based on the MSA's regional management
    approach, rooted in sound science. The short-term sacrifices that our
    industry made to adhere to annual catch limits have yielded greater
    long-term benefits of rebuilt stocks that we are enjoying today.
        Through the accountability standards and conservation mandates in
    the MSA, our fisheries have improved dramatically as the commercial
    fishing industry has become more responsible, transparent and
    efficient. In Alaska, we have reversed the culture of disregard and led
    the Nation in sustainable managed fisheries from the Bering Sea, to
    Bristol Bay and Prince William Sound, on down to the Dixon Entrance. We
    have found a better way to fish through limited access privilege
    programs that have ended the race to fish and enabled more flexible
    harvesting, allowing for more complete yields of target species,
    reducing bycatch and discards and avoiding catch of prohibited species.
    These programs have allowed us to be vested caretakers of the resource
    while at the same time offering financial stability and increased
    safety. Consequently, we support Assistant Administrator Chris Oliver's
    recent testimony before your committee that ``Limited Access Privilege
    Programs, while not appropriate for all fisheries, are an important
    tool in our collective tool box, and the current Act allows for
    development of such programs to be tailored to the specific needs of
    each fishery.''
        While Alaska has the best managed fisheries in the world, there is
    still room for improvement. We believe that the modernization and
    streamlining of fishery information systems is critical to provide more
    timely science for better management decisions. Unfortunately, existing
    systems are built using technology and practices that are outdated,
    slow, incomplete, expensive and often inaccurate. Relying on pen and
    paper to track billions of fish is obviously antiquated and results in
    management uncertainty and economic inefficiencies.
        If we are going to renewably maximize the bounty that the ocean can
    provide to our nation, we need additional and better monitoring,
    accountability, and enforcement throughout our fisheries. Many of our
    members are doing that by installing camera systems on their boats.
    When the nets are hauled back or lines drawn in, the cameras turn on
    and record the catch so that there is certainly about what is landed
    and what is discarded. We are now working to ensure that these real-
    time data are utilized to make wise management decisions. We look
    forward to working with you to innovate and implement electronic
    monitoring and electronic reporting of real-time catch data to reduce
    uncertainty in our fisheries and thus maximize sustainable harvesting.
        The Seafood Harvesters' mission is to develop sustainable
    fisheries, using accountability as the sword and the shield. We are the
    fishermen who rose out of the ashes of overfishing and are using the
    hard lessons we learned to chart a path to prosperity and environmental
    health. We have an obligation to make wild-caught fish a viable,
    enduring, dependable source of food. Healthy fisheries are vital to the
    economic well-being of our coastal communities, now and into the
    future.
        We greatly appreciate your consideration of our concerns as you
    look to reauthorize and strengthen the Magnuson-Stevens Act. We hope
    you will work with us to improve the law through modernizing the data
    collections systems, innovating better ways to incorporate real-time
    data into stock assessment, while maintaining science based catch
    limits to prevent overfishing, rebuild vulnerable fish populations and
    protect the safety and long-term stability of our fishing communities.
        Thank you for your consideration, leadership and support for the
    commercial fishing industry.
                Sincerely,
                                              Kevin R. Wheeler,
                                                    Executive Director.
                                     ______

      Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roger F. Wicker to
                               Elizabeth Ogilvie
        Question 1. Exempted Fishing Permits are an important scientific
    tool for fisheries research. NOAA Fisheries issues Exempted Fishing
    Permits to individuals for the purpose of conducting research or other
    fishing activities using private vessels. How is the process for
    Exempted Fishing Permits currently being used? Given this process, are
    there opportunities for Exempted Fishing Permits to be abused or
    misused?
        Answer. The Exempted Fishing Permit program as originally conceived
    would allow scientific research to take place for the betterment of
    fishery management and conservation where the activity would otherwise
    be prohibited. (600.745 of title 50, Code of Federal Regulations (b)
    Exempted fishing--(1) General. A NMFS Regional Administrator or
    Director may authorize, for limited testing, public display, data
    collection, exploratory fishing, compensation fishing, conservation
    engineering, health and safety surveys, environmental cleanup, and/or
    hazard removal purposes, the target or incidental harvest of species
    managed under an FMP or fishery regulations that would otherwise be
    prohibited. Exempted fishing may not be conducted unless authorized by
    an EFP issued by a Regional Administrator or Director in accordance
    with the criteria and procedures specified in this section.)
        The program has informed better management at times. However, in
    recent years the permits have been abused by operators focused on self-
    enrichment rather than any public or conservation benefit from their
    efforts. Below are a few troubling examples of how loopholes in the
    program have failed to protect America's public marine resources.

       Headboat Collaborative Exempted Fishing Permit--2013
        Exempted Fishing Permit (RIN 0648-XC528) allowed a pre-selected
            subset of less than a dozen Gulf headboat operators to be
            gifted recreational quota to use for their individual harvest
            of red snapper and grouper for two years. Touted as an
            experiment to provide accurate and timely landings data, this
            EFP paved the way for allowing separate allocations of common
            property resources to the for-hire and private boat
            recreational fishing sectors and the ultimate creation of a
            catch shares program in the recreational sector.
        This EFP simply did not produce conservation gains or enhance
            efficiency. Any ``academic study'' designed to quantify the
            stated goals of this EFP were negated by the non-random
            selection of the subject vessels. There was no evidence that
            the decline in for-hire reef fish permits in the Gulf has
            affected any of the operators who are applying for this EFP as
            the decline cited in their application has affected primarily
            the smaller charter vessels. There was also no history of
            project management and oversight by the ``Headboat
            Cooperative'' that would provide the agency with the standard
            assurances that the conditions and requirements of the EFP
            could, in fact, be achieved.
        The most that could be hoped for by this EFP is that it would show
            a small number of vessels, when granted the right to fish when
            it is illegal for everyone else to fish, will be more
            profitable. That conclusion needs no test. Artificially
            controlling supply in the face of pent-up demand will increase
            prices, pure and simple.
        Despite overwhelming public sentiment in opposition, this EFP was
            granted. Before it had fully run its two-year course and the
            results evaluated, the Gulf Council had approved the creation
            of a new charter-for-hire/headboat sector with its own
            allocation of red snapper (Amendment 40)

       South Atlantic Collaborative Exempted Fishing Permit
            Application--Feb. 2017
        An exempted fishing permit (EFP) to initiate a commercial
            privatization program for at least six species of fish in the
            South Atlantic was filed by a newly created group called the
            South Atlantic Commercial Fishing Collaborative, which was
            comprised of exactly four individuals, including two sitting
            South Atlantic Council members and one former member. The EFP
            outlined a two-year pilot program to assign private ownership
            privileges for those six species to up to 25 commercial
            vessels, although those vessels were not identified in the
            permit. The permit did not address how shares would be
            assigned, how they would be traded or ownership limits. There
            was no mention of resource rents or any sort of payment for the
            right to harvest these fish for their personal financial
            benefit, a topic that has come under increasing scrutiny.

        The permit was withdrawn from consideration after an outpouring of
            public opposition and is likely to be re-submitted.

       Exempted Fishing Permit to Reintroduce Longlines into South
            Atlantic conservation zone--Aug. 2017
        More than two decades ago swordfish in the Western Atlantic were in
            serious trouble. The average landed weight had dropped to
            approximately 60 pounds, swordfish were overfished and
            overfishing was occurring. The initial problem with the fishery
            was that too many juvenile swordfish were dying due to
            longlining off the coast of Florida and the Charleston Bump. As
            a result, those nursery areas were identified and closed to the
            United States pelagic longline (PLL) fleet in 2001. Ever since,
            there have been ill-conceived attempts to reopen the closed
            areas to commercial harvest and expose it to the types of
            intense commercial fishing pressure that drove stocks into an
            overfished condition in the first place.
        In August 2017, the Office of Highly Migratory Species approved an
            EFP that will allow a fleet of six longliners owned by a single
            company back into the nursery areas to ``evaluate the
            effectiveness of existing area closures at meeting conservation
            and management goals under current conditions using
            standardized Pelagic Longline gear.''
        Reference was made in the EFP to protecting America's swordfish
            quota at the International Commission for the Conservation of
            Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), a clear implication that if America
            does not catch and kill every swordfish allotted to it then
            this international management body will reassign that quota to
            other nations. However, ICCAT itself touts the swordfish
            recovery as one of its greatest conservation achievements.
            There is no indication that ICCAT would punish the United
            States for having achieved that victory. Although this argument
            has been around for years, the United States has not lost a
            single pound of swordfish quota.
        Despite overwhelming public opposition, the EFP was allowed to be
            used as a tool of convenience for a single longline operator to
            gain access to nearby pristine fishing grounds, jeopardizing a
            proven billfish nursery area and the considerable economic
            impact of a healthy billfish fishery on the region.