[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
[email protected].
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 [email protected].
______
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.