[Senate Hearing 115-536]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 115-536
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE MAGNUSON-STEVENS
FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT:
NOAA AND COUNCIL PERSPECTIVES (PART 1)
=======================================================================
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 1, 2017
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
35-339 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).E-mail,
gpo@custhelp.com.
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 1, 2017................................... 1
Statement of Senator Sullivan.................................... 1
Statement of Senator Peters...................................... 2
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Statement of Senator Nelson...................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Statement of Senator Markey...................................... 20
Statement of Senator Wicker...................................... 22
Statement of Senator Inhofe...................................... 24
Statement of Senator Blumenthal.................................. 26
Statement of Senator Booker...................................... 31
Report for Shark finning investigations from Senators
Booker's Office dated April 20, 2017....................... 33
Witnesses
Chris W. Oliver, Assistant Administrator, National Marine
Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Dr. John M. Quinn, Chair, New England Fishery Management Council. 12
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Appendix
Letter dated July 26, 2017 to Hon. Dan Sullivan and Hon. Lt Cdr
Gary Peters from Jackie Odell, Executive Director, Northeast
Seafood Coalition.............................................. 41
Letter dated July 28, 2017 to Hon. Daniel S. Sullivan and Hon.
Gary C. Peters from Ted Morton, Director, U.S. Oceans, Federal,
The Pew Charitable Trusts...................................... 43
Support letter dated July 31, 2017 to Hon. Dan Sullivan and Hon.
Gary Peters from Linda Di Lello Morton, Co-founder, Terra Plata
along with 300 chefs, restauranteurs and seafood suppliers from
24 states...................................................... 45
Letter dated July 31, 2017 to Hon. Dan Sullivan and Hon. Gary
Peters from ecotourism industries in California................ 53
Letter dated July 31, 2017 to Hon. Dan Sullivan and Hon. Gary
Peters from ecotourism industries in Connecticut............... 54
Letter dated July 31, 2017 to Hon. Dan Sullivan and Hon. Gary
Peters from ecotourism and outdoor recreational industries in
Florida........................................................ 55
Letter dated July 31, 2017 to Hon. Dan Sullivan and Hon. Gary
Peters from ecotourism industries in New Jersey................ 57
Letter dated July 31, 2017 to Hon. Dan Sullivan and Hon. Gary
Peters from ecotourism and outdoor recreational industries in
Washington State............................................... 58
Response to written questions submitted to Chris W. Oliver by:
Hon. Dan Sullivan............................................ 59
Hon. Roger F. Wicker......................................... 62
Hon. Gary Peters............................................. 64
Hon. Edward Markey........................................... 67
Response to written questions submitted to Dr. John M. Quinn by:
Hon. Gary Peters............................................. 68
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE
MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY
CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT:
NOAA AND COUNCIL PERSPECTIVES (PART 1)
----------
TUESDAY, AUGUST 1, 2017
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and
Coast Guard,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m. in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Dan Sullivan,
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Sullivan [presiding], Peters, Nelson,
Wicker, Inhofe, Blumenthal, Markey, and Booker.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Sullivan. Good morning. The Subcommittee on Oceans,
Atmosphere, Fisheries, and the Coast Guard will now come to
order.
Today's hearing is the first in a series with the long
overdue issue of the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act, known as the MSA, and
to examine this law's impact on managing our nation's
fisheries, its successes to date, and possible areas of
improvement. The Committee has already announced a field
hearing in Alaska later this month, and I look forward to
hearing from stakeholders at additional hearings throughout the
country this fall.
I would like to first welcome both of our witnesses, Dr.
John Quinn, the Chair of the Council Coordination Committee,
the CCC; and Mr. Chris Oliver, NOAA's Assistant Administrator
for Fisheries, also known as the NMFS Administrator.
The last reauthorization of the MSA was 11 years ago when
it created the CCC. The CCC convenes the leadership of the
eight Regional Fishery Management Councils to discuss areas of
common interests, and I'm pleased to have Dr. Quinn here today
to discuss consensus views of the eight Councils on the MSA
reauthorization.
I am also pleased to introduce Chris Oliver, the first ever
Alaskan to permanently hold the position of the Assistant
Administrator for Fisheries before becoming Director of NMFS.
Chris spent 27 years working at the North Pacific Fisheries
Management Council, the last 17 as its Executive Director. As
an Alaskan, I can tell you we are thrilled to have you in this
very important position.
Based on his work in the Gulf of Mexico at the beginning of
his career and his extensive experience overseeing the largest
and best managed fishery in the country, I have confidence that
under his leadership, Alaska and America's interests will be
well represented, and the concerns and perspectives of
commercial, charter, and recreational fishermen alike will be
valued at NMFS.
For so many Alaskans and their families, and so many
throughout the country, fishing is a way of life. As I've
mentioned at this Committee many times, our fisheries are by
far the largest in the Nation. I like to say Alaska is the
superpower of seafood, constituting over 50, almost close to 60
percent of all domestic landings in the country and tens of
thousands of jobs. In many communities, our fisheries are the
backbone of their economy. It's my intention to ensure that the
next MSA reauthorization guarantees continued strong coastal
communities not only in Alaska, but throughout the country.
As Congress considers whether or not the MSA is in need of
changes, it is important that we simply not rest on previous
gains. In the last time since the MSA was authorized,
technology has rapidly advanced, yet legislation able to
support that technology has not. Specifically as it relates to
data collection, stock assessments, and other analytical tools
to help improve the accuracy of fish stock information, better
understanding the health of the stocks and how technology can
assist in that regard, as well as reducing administrative
burdens on our fishing industry are topics ripe for discussion
and possible elements of a reauthorization.
In addition, as we continue to responsibly manage the
fishery resources across the United States, we must ensure that
our Nation's fisheries management system supports a stable food
supply, recreational opportunities, and plentiful fishing and
processing jobs that provide for vibrant coastal communities.
With that, I want to thank our witnesses again for being
here.
I now recognize the Ranking Member for any opening
statement he may have.
Senator Peters.
STATEMENT OF HON. GARY PETERS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN
Senator Peters. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thanks to our witnesses for being here this morning to
discuss the important issue of reauthorizing the Magnuson-
Stevens Act. As you know, the original 1976 Act helped reduce
exploitive fishing by foreign fleets in U.S. waters and protect
our country's important fishery resources.
Since that time, we have come to understand the importance
of sustainably managing our fisheries and preserving these
incredibly important natural resources. The most recent
authorizations have successfully rebuilt several fish
populations to healthy, sustainable levels, to the benefit of
coastal communities. But we still have overfishing and
overfished populations, and we should always seek out ways to
improve the management systems that we create. The need to
determine what is working, what needs improvement, and ways to
improve fishery management is why we are all here today.
I regret that I can't spend as much time at this hearing
this morning as I would like due to a scheduling conflict, but
that's why we have a hearing record, and I look forward to
learning what our expert witnesses have to share with us.
Michigan, like much of the rest of the country, is full of
hunters and anglers. Every year, nearly 1.8 million anglers
fish on the Great Lakes, and there are roughly 1,900 charter
boats operating there. This activity is estimated to have a $7
billion impact on the surrounding economy, and directly
supports about 50,000 jobs. While we Michiganders are typically
targeting walleye, trout, perch, and muskies where we live,
there are many of us who travel to states like Florida and
Alaska to enjoy saltwater fishing opportunities. Michigan also
has a very robust marine product manufacturing industry that
depends on vibrant coastal communities and well-managed Federal
fisheries.
And, finally, Michigan, like much of the rest of the
country, is full of seafood lovers. We want to be assured that
the finfish and shellfish that we purchase at markets and in
restaurants, much of which comes from states like Alaska and
Florida or is imported from other countries, is responsibly
harvested.
So how we manage our Federal fisheries matters to the folks
in Michigan. What we do about the scourge of illegal unreported
or unregulated fishing occurring in the waters of other
countries and on the high seas also matters a great deal to us.
Conserving these resources through sustainable management
so that they can continue to support the businesses and
communities that rely on them matters to folks in Michigan. Key
to sustainable management is making sure that we are using a
science-driven process. Fisheries management is complex and
needs to account for the interactions between different
species, between species, and their habitat. Understanding
those many interactions takes a lot of study and an awful lot
of data, which requires a lot of monitoring.
It is important to look for ways to leverage developments
in technology and science to do the critical job of managing
our Federal fisheries better. Only by gathering and utilizing
all of the environmental information necessary can we
understand the ocean and the coastal ecosystems that provide us
with this important and delicious natural resource.
Mr. Chairman, I also want to mention that while I
understand that most freshwater fishery issues are not within
the purview of this Committee, I have introduced a bill called
the Great Lakes Fishery Research Authorization Act of 2017.
This legislation, which was referred to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works will solidify the scientific basis
upon which fisheries in the Great Lakes are managed by
augmenting current data-gathering methods and utilizing new
cutting edge technologies. It's my hope that as part of this
important MSA reauthorization process, we might have some
cross-pollination of ideas and approaches to conservation and
management between Great Lakes fisheries and Federal saltwater
fisheries.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Peters follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Gary Peters, U.S. Senator from Michigan
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to our witnesses for being here
this morning to discuss the important issue of reauthorizing the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. The original 1976 Act helped reduce exploitative
fishing by foreign fleets in U.S. waters and protect our country's
important fishery resources.
Since that time, we have come to understand the importance of
sustainably managing our fisheries and preserving these natural
resources. The most recent authorizations have successfully rebuilt
several fish populations to healthy, sustainable levels to the benefit
of coastal communities.
But, we still have overfishing, overfished populations, and we
should always seek out ways to improve the management systems we
create. That need to determine what is working, what needs improvement,
and ways to improve fishery management is why we are here today.
I regret that I can't spend as much time at our hearing this
morning as I would like, due to a scheduling conflict. But that's why
we have a hearing record and I look forward to learning what our expert
witnesses have to share.
Michigan, like much of the rest of the country, is full of hunters
and anglers. Every year nearly 1.8 million anglers fish on the Great
Lakes, and there are roughly 1,900 charter boats operating there. This
activity is estimated to have a $7 billion impact on the surrounding
economy and directly supports around 50,000 jobs.
While we Michiganders are typically targeting walleye, trout,
perch, or muskies where we live, there are many of us who travel to
states like Florida and Alaska to enjoy saltwater fishing
opportunities.
Michigan also has a robust marine product manufacturing industry
that depends on vibrant coastal economies and well-managed Federal
fisheries.
Finally, Michigan like much of the rest of the country is full of
seafood lovers. We Michiganders want to be assured that the finfish and
shellfish we purchase at markets and in restaurants--much of which
comes from States like Alaska and Florida or is imported from other
countries--is responsibly and sustainably harvested.
So how we manage our Federal fisheries matters to Michigan.
What we do about the scourge of illegal, unreported, or
unregulated, fishing occurring in the waters of other countries and on
the high seas matters to Michigan.
Conserving these resources through sustainable management so they
can continue to support the businesses and communities that rely on
them, matters to Michigan.
Key to sustainable management is making sure we are using science
driven processes. Fisheries management is complex and needs to account
for interactions between different species and between species and
their habitat.
Understanding those many interactions takes a lot of study and a
lot of data which requires a lot of monitoring.
It is important to look for ways to leverage developments in
technology and science to do the critical job of managing our Federal
fisheries better. Only by gathering and utilizing all the environmental
information necessary can we understand the ocean and coastal
ecosystems that provide us with this important and delicious natural
resource.
Mr. Chairman I also want to mention that, while I understand that
most freshwater fishery issues are not within the purview of this
committee, I have introduced a bill called the Great Lakes Fishery
Research Authorization Act of 2017--S. 859.
This legislation, which was referred to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works, will solidify the scientific bases upon
which fisheries in the Great Lakes are managed by augmenting current
data-gathering methods and utilizing new, cutting-edge technologies.
It is my hope that, as a part of this important MSA reauthorization
process, we might have some ``cross-pollination'' of ideas and
approaches to conservation and management between Great Lakes fisheries
and Federal saltwater fisheries.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Senator Peters.
And now I ask Senator Nelson, the Ranking Member of the
Commerce Committee, if he would like to make an opening
statement as well.
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of
comments.
One of the great things about this Committee is the broad
jurisdiction that it has in areas that are so important to the
country as a whole. Think about this. In the 1970s, there is
Senator Magnuson, from Washington; there is Senator Stevens,
from Alaska and they knew that there was a problem in New
England, in Senator Markey's area, because it was getting
overfished. So they decide to do something about it, and that's
more than 3 decades ago. We are the beneficiaries of that kind
of bipartisan effort.
Clearly, Mr. Chairman, your State of Alaska is one of the
most fertile fisheries around. By the way, that's one of the
most important reasons we have the U.S. Coast Guard up there.
It not only is given the task from the United States Navy of
protecting our national security, but it's there to protect
that big fishing fleet.
It's interesting that the members of the Committee, we have
a number of members that represent landlocked states, don't
have a direct outlet to the ocean----
[Voice.]
Senator Nelson. Yes, you are the Great Lakes.
[Laughter.]
Senator Nelson. But yet they participate and understand the
importance of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. So thank you for having
this hearing. Of course, my state, when it comes to
recreational, charter boats, as well as commercial fishing,
we're known as the capital of the fishing world. And I can
speak for----
Senator Sullivan. That sounds more impressive than the
superpower of seafood.
[Laughter.]
Senator Nelson. I can speak for Senator Wicker, there is a
great deal that comes from the livelihoods of the people along
the Gulf, and, of course, when Senator Markey comes back, all
up and down the Atlantic, that comes from the commercial
fishing.
The Gulf is such an important resource and we know that we
have to protect it. Interestingly, the Gulf happens to be, off
of Florida, the largest testing and training range for the
United States military in the world. So we have, for our
national security's sake, reasons to protect that Gulf.
I'll just close by saying that one of the greatest
challenges that I saw was when 5 million barrels of oil were
spilled in the Gulf, it immediately affected the livelihoods of
a lot of people, not only in the fishing industry, but also it
cut out an entire season of our tourism industry on the Gulf
Coast because people thought that the beaches were covered with
oil. It is a unique environment, and this Committee is
particularly suited to protect this kind of ocean environment.
So I am very grateful that you're bringing up for discussion
the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Nelson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bill Nelson, U.S. Senator from Florida
I want to thank Senator Sullivan and Senator Peters for holding
this hearing today--the first of several I believe we have planned on
reauthorizing the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
I also want to thank our witnesses for appearing today.
Florida has long been heralded as the fishing capital of the world.
With roughly 2,300 miles of shoreline and year-round, fishing-friendly
weather, Florida is the source of hundreds of millions of dollars of
shrimp, snapper, grouper, spiny lobster, and stone crab on the plates
of America's restaurants and households across the country.
As a result of Florida's abundant fishery resources and other
attractions, such as its sugar white beaches, theme parks, fantastic
hotels, and acclaimed restaurants--it is a vibrant coastal economy
second to none.
But Florida might not be the fishing capital of the world today
were it not for the success of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
As we look to reauthorize the Act, I think it is important that
Congress take the approach a doctor would take in treating a patient:
``First, do no harm.''
We must take care not to undo the important improvements that have
been made to the Act. It's important to Florida and I know it is
equally important to my colleagues' states.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Senator Nelson.
And I want to again welcome our witnesses today. Mr. Chris
Oliver, Assistant Administrator for the National Marine
Fisheries Service, NMFS. I want to commend and express my
appreciation to Secretary Ross for his selection of Chris. I
don't think he could have found a more qualified, capable
Director.
And Dr. John Quinn, the Chair of the Council Coordination
Committee and Northeast Fishery Management Council.
You will each have 5 minutes to deliver an oral statement.
A longer written statement will be included in the record if
you so desire.
Mr. Oliver, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS W. OLIVER, ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE,
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Mr. Oliver. Good morning, Chairman Sullivan and members of
the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify
today. I participated in both the 1996 and 2006 reauthorization
processes in my previous role. And while I'm wearing a
different hat today, and this administration has yet to take
formal positions on specific issues, my fundamental
perspectives remain built upon the success of the Act, as
evidenced by sustainable management in the North Pacific
fisheries and the successes we have achieved in fisheries
across the United States.
I would like to describe some of the agency's successes
under the Act, but I want to focus on some of the challenges
that remain.
Essentially, the Act has been an outstanding success. In
partnership with the Councils, Commissions, and other
stakeholders, we have effectively ended overfishing in this
country and are rebuilding fish stocks across the board,
thereby assuring a sustainable supply of seafood for the Nation
in the future.
The Magnuson Act created broad goals--the Magnuson-Stevens
Act created broad goals for U.S. fishery management in a unique
management structure centered around the Regional Councils. I
can personally attest to the value of that system, which
encourages a collaborative bottom-up process where input and
decisions include fishermen, other fishery stakeholders,
affected states, tribes, and the Federal Government.
Working together, fishermen, scientists, and managers have
brought back numerous resources in fisheries across our
country. I'm especially proud of the accomplishments in Alaska,
where our approaches have led them to be widely recognized as
one of the most successfully managed fisheries in the world.
Yet we have challenges remaining. As an example, while our
West Coast groundfish species have rebuilt several important
stocks, in recent years, fishermen are leaving significant
portions of the available harvest in the water due to outdated
regulations and also to bycatch constraints. We have to find
ways to maximize the allowable harvest in all of our fisheries,
but importantly, do so within our overall long-term
conservation goals. I think this is a case for some of our
commercial fisheries and generally for recreational fisheries
as well.
Saltwater recreational fishing is among the Nation's
favorite pastimes and a major contributor to the economies at
all levels. We are pleased to announce that we are partnering
with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission to host a
national summit on saltwater recreational fisheries in March
2018. While annual catch limits are a cornerstone of
sustainable management, we have to recognize that managing
under ACLs and associated accountability measures has been a
major change and a new challenge for many fisheries, and that's
the case for commercial as well as recreational fisheries,
particularly where harvest data can be much more difficult to
collect and timely report and where our management goals may
differ fundamentally from commercial fisheries.
Additional flexibility in how we apply those accountability
measures and annual catch limits, as well as rebuilding
schedules, could expand our collective toolbox and our ability
to address many of the issues which have been raised in
reauthorization discussions. I can assure you we stand ready to
assist in any way we can as those approaches are being
considered.
America's seafood industry sets a global standard for
sustainability; however, the majority of seafood we consume is
imported. While there are some opportunities to enhance wild-
stock harvests, we believe significant headroom lies in
expanded aquaculture production, and we are already making
marine aquaculture development a renewed priority within the
agency through various operational and budgetary incentives.
Coordination of the regulatory and permitting process is a
key area where we can be more effective. With these initiatives
and with more efficient regulation of our wild-stock fisheries,
we can position the Nation to make inroads on the seafood
deficit.
The current Act works very well for most fisheries.
However, I believe there are opportunities to provide
additional flexibility to allow us to more effectively manage
some of those fisheries, particularly those that have different
catch accounting challenges or could benefit generally from
alternative management approaches. Although challenges remain
in some of those fisheries in the near term, overall, the
benefits for the resources, the industries it supports, and our
economy in general can be realized as fish populations grow and
catch limits increase in the longer term. In that sense, I
believe we can have it both ways. I believe that we can
maximize opportunities--take opportunities to maximize our
domestic harvest potential without compromising the long-term
sustainability of the resources we manage. I and NOAA Fisheries
are committed to working with Congress throughout this
reauthorization process to achieve just that goal.
And that really concludes my opening comments, Mr.
Chairman. And, again, I know there will be questions, and I
will be happy to try to answer them.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Oliver follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chris W. Oliver, Assistant Administrator,
National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
Introduction
Good afternoon, Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member Peters, 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 Chris Oliver and I am
the Assistant Administrator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in the
Department of Commerce. From daily weather forecasts, severe storm
warnings, and climate monitoring to fishery management, coastal
restoration, and supporting marine commerce, NOAA's products and
services support economic vitality and affect more than one-third of
America's gross domestic product. NOAA's dedicated scientists use
cutting-edge research and high-tech instrumentation to provide
citizens, planners, emergency managers, and other decision makers with
reliable information they need when they need it.
Today, I will describe the agency's work under the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, which sets forth standards for conservation, management, and
sustainable use of our Nation's fisheries resources.
Progress under the Magnuson-Stevens Act
The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the Nation with a very successful
fisheries management construct. U.S. fisheries are among the world's
largest and most sustainable. For forty years, Magnuson-Stevens has
demonstrated that a dynamic science-based management process is
fundamental for sustainably managing fisheries. The goal of fisheries
management is to achieve fisheries that are environmentally,
economically, and recreationally sustainable. In partnership with the
regional fishery management councils, interstate fishery commissions,
and our stakeholders, and driven by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the
agency has effectively ended overfishing and is rebuilding domestic
fish stocks. As of December 31, 2016, 91 percent of stocks for which we
have assessments are not subject to overfishing, and 84 percent are not
overfished.i By preventing overfishing and rebuilding
stocks, we are strengthening the value of fisheries to the economy and
communities that depend on them, and also ensuring a sustainable supply
of seafood for the Nation in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\i\ See Status of the Stocks 2016. NMFS Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/fisheries_eco/
status_of_fisheries/archive/2016/status-of-stocks-2016-web.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our most recent data show that after adjusting for inflation the
landed volume and the value of commercial U.S. wild-caught fisheries
remained near record highs. U.S. commercial fishermen landed more than
9.7 billion pounds of seafood valued at $5.2 billion in
2015.ii The seafood industry--harvesters, seafood processors
and dealers, seafood wholesalers and seafood retailers, including
imports and multiplier effects--generated an estimated $208 billion in
sales impacts and supported 1.6 million jobs in 2015, the most recent
year for which economic impact numbers are available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\ii\ See NOAA Annual Commercial Fisheries Landings Database,
available at http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/
commercial-landings/annual-landings/index
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saltwater recreational fishing is among the Nation's favorite
pastimes and is a major contributor to the U.S. economy at all levels.
In 2015, the Nation's nine million saltwater recreational anglers took
more than 60 million fishing trips and spent $28.7 billion on fishing
trips ($4.5 billion) and durable fishing related equipment ($24
billion) while spending time with friends and family. Their
expenditures drove $63 billion in sales impacts, a 5 percent increase
from 2014, supported 439,000 jobs, and contributed $36 billion to the
U.S. gross domestic product.iii In partnership with the
recreational fishing community, NOAA Fisheries is committed to ensuring
abundant and enduring saltwater recreational fishing opportunities now
and into the future. To this end, I am pleased to announce that NOAA
Fisheries is partnering with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission to host a national summit on saltwater recreational
fisheries in March 2018 to chart a course toward future success.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\iii\ See Fisheries Economics of the U.S. 2015. NMFS Office of
Science & Technology, available at: https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/
economics/publications/feus/fisheries_economics_2015/index
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marine aquaculture production totaled 90 million pounds valued at
$3.8 million in 2014, with the largest regional producer being the
Atlantic, which represents almost 50 percent of the total
value.iv Aquaculture production has tremendous untapped
potential, and under Secretary Ross' direction NMFS will be working
expand aquaculture opportunities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\iv\ See Fisheries of the United States, 2015. NMFS Office of
Science & Technology, available at: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/
commercial-fisheries/fus/fus15/index
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marine fish and fisheries--such as tropical tunas in the Western
and Central Pacific, salmon in the Pacific Northwest, halibut and
groundfish in Alaska, cod in New England and red snapper in the Gulf of
Mexico--are vital to the prosperity and cultural identity of coastal
communities in the United States. U.S. fisheries play an enormous role
in the U.S. economy. In Alaska, where I have lived for the last 27
years, Dutch Harbor leads the Nation for the 19th consecutive year as
the port with the highest volume of seafood landed (787 million pounds
valued at $218 million).v
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\v\ See Fisheries of the United States, 2015. NMFS Office of
Science & Technology, available at: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/
commercial-fisheries/fus/fus15/index
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Around the country, commercial fishing supports fishermen,
contributes to coastal communities and businesses, and provides
Americans with a valuable source of local, sustainable, and healthy
food. Recreational and subsistence fishing provides food for many
individuals, families, and communities; is an important family
activity; and is a critical economic driver of local and regional
economies, as well as a major contributor to the national economy.
Subsistence and ceremonial fishing also provides an essential food
source and has deep cultural significance for indigenous peoples in the
Pacific Islands and Alaska and for many Tribes on the West Coast.
The advancement of our science, management, and enforcement tools
has resulted in improved sustainability of fisheries and greater
stability for industry. The 2007 Magnuson Stevens Act reauthorization
provided more explicitly for market-based fishery management through
Limited Access Privilege Programs, and addressed the need to improve
the science used to inform fisheries management. 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.
Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the U.S. has many other effective
tools to apply in marine fisheries management. Yet, as we look to the
future, we must continue seeking opportunities to further improve our
management system. Our progress has not come without costs, including
reductions in near term harvests for both commercial and recreational
fisheries in some cases, and challenges remain. Fishermen, fishing
communities, and the Councils have had to make difficult decisions and
absorb the near-term costs of conservation in exchange for long-term
economic and biological sustainability.
Magnuson-Stevens Act Flexibility and Regional Approach
The Magnuson-Stevens Act created broad goals for U.S. fisheries
management and a unique, highly participatory management structure
centered on the Councils. Given my past work as the Executive Director
of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, I can attest to the
value of the regional fishery management council system established
through the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This structure encourages a
collaborative, ``bottom up'' process where input and decisions about
how to manage U.S. fisheries include fishermen, other fishery
stakeholders, affected states, tribal governments, and the Federal
Government.
The Councils can choose from a variety of approaches and tools to
manage fish stocks and meet the mandates of the Magnuson-Stevens Act--
e.g., catch limits, catch shares or other allocation mechanisms, area
closures for habitat or protected species considerations, and gear
restrictions. These measures are submitted to the Secretary of Commerce
for approval and are implemented by NMFS.
Effects on fishing communities are central to many fishery
management decisions. Fishing communities rely on fishing-related jobs,
as well as the non-commercial and cultural benefits derived from these
resources. Marine fisheries are the lifeblood of many coastal
communities around our Nation. Communities, fishermen, processors, and
various fishing dependent industries rely not only on today's catch,
but also on the predictability of future catches.
The need to provide stable domestic fishing and processing jobs is
paramount to fulfilling one of the Magnuson-Stevens Act's goals--to
provide the Nation with sources of domestic seafood. This objective has
even greater purpose now than when the Act was passed, as today U.S.
consumers are seeking--more than ever--options for healthy, safe,
sustainable, and local seafood.
Under the standards set in the Magnuson-Stevens Act the Nation has
made great strides in maintaining more stocks at biologically
sustainable levels, ending overfishing, rebuilding overfished stocks,
building a sustainable future for our fishing-dependent communities,
and providing more domestic options for U.S. seafood consumers in a
market dominated by imports. Thanks in large part to the strengthened
Magnuson-Stevens Act and the sacrifices and investment in conservation
by fishing communities across the country, the condition of many of our
most economically important fish stocks has improved steadily over the
past decade.
Regional Successes
There are many examples of what fishermen, scientists, and managers
can do by working together to bring back a resource that once was in
trouble.
Atlantic sea scallops provide one example of rebuilding success. In
the early 1990s, the abundance of Atlantic sea scallops was near record
lows and the fishing mortality rate was at a record high. Fishery
managers implemented a number of measures to allow the stock to
recover, including an innovative area management system. The stock was
declared rebuilt in 2001. In real terms, gross revenues in New England
increased more than six-fold from $44 million in 1998 to $287 million
in 2015, making New Bedford the Nation's top port by value of landings
since 2000.vi
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\vi\ See Fisheries Economics of the U.S. 2015. NMFS Office of
Science & Technology, available at: https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/
economics/publications/feus/fisheries_economics_2015/index
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Pacific Islands Region, NMFS, the Western Pacific Fishery
Management Council, the State of Hawaii, and fishing communities have
ended overfishing of the Hawaiian archipelago's deep-water bottomfish
complex--a culturally significant grouping of seven species of snapper
and grouper. This has enabled NMFS to increase annual catch limits for
these stocks for both commercial and recreational fishermen and ensure
these fish are available year-round.
On the West Coast, NMFS and the Pacific Fishery Management Council,
the fishing industry, recreational anglers, and other partners have
successfully rebuilt a number of once overfished stocks, including coho
salmon, lingcod, Pacific whiting, widow rockfish, canary rockfish, and
petrale sole. These and other conservation gains, including
implementation of the West Coast groundfish trawl rationalization
program, enabled NMFS to increase catch limits for abundant West Coast
groundfish species that co-occur with groundfish species in rebuilding
plans.
In the Southeast Region, NOAA, the Gulf of Mexico and South
Atlantic Fishery Management Councils, the fishing industries,
recreational anglers and other partners have successfully rebuilt a
number of once overfished stocks, including gag, red grouper and king
mackerel in the Gulf of Mexico, and black sea bass in the South
Atlantic. These and other conservation gains enabled NMFS to increase
catch limits for six stocks or stock complexes and eliminate or reduce
two fixed seasonal closures.
I'm most proud of the accomplishments in Alaska where our
management decisions have led us to be widely recognized as one of the
most successfully managed fisheries in the world. In 2015, landings
revenue totaled about $1.7 billion, a 32 percent increase from 2006 (a
25 percent increase in real terms after adjusting for
inflation).vii
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\vii\ See Fisheries Economics of the U.S. 2015. NMFS Office of
Science & Technology, available at: https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/
economics/publications/feus/fisheries_economics_2015/index
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remaining Challenges--Looking to the Future
Amid these successes, some critical challenges remain. For example,
while our West Coast groundfish fisheries have rebuilt several
important stocks, in recent years fishermen are leaving a substantial
amount of the available harvest of some groundfish species in the
water, due to regulatory or bycatch species constraints. We must find
ways to maximize allowable harvests that are still protective of non-
target species in all of our fisheries. Solving difficult management
issues will require us to reexamine our own stock assessment and data
collection systems, which we are doing independent of Magnuson-Stevens
Act reauthorization, and will require the close cooperation of the
states, the regional fisheries management Councils, and all involved
stakeholder groups.
Annual catch limits are a cornerstone of sustainable fisheries
management around the Nation, but managing fisheries using annual catch
limits and accountability measures was a major change
and has been challenging in certain fisheries, particularly
recreational fisheries where total harvest data can be much more
difficult to collect and timely report than in most commercial
fisheries. This is particularly true where data is scarce, which is the
case for many of the stocks in the Pacific Islands region and the
Caribbean, especially those species being fished in the coral reef
ecosystem. 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. We are committed to
working with Congress throughout the Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization
process with regards to annual catch limits, accountability measures,
stock rebuilding, or other aspects of our management construct, while
still protecting the overall, long-term conservation and sustainability
of the Nation's fishery resources.
Stock assessments provide the fundamental information necessary to
successfully manage sustainable fisheries. Preservation and enhancement
of the science used to inform fisheries management is imperative as we
look to the future of U.S. fisheries and the seafood they provide the
Nation. NMFS has made a substantial effort to monitor recreational
fisheries and incorporate data from these fisheries into stock
assessments. We are applying new and improved methods for estimating
total catch by the millions of recreational saltwater anglers, but more
needs to be done. Strengthening our partnerships with the coastal
states, regional fisheries management Councils, and affected
stakeholders to conduct efficient and cost-effective monitoring will be
an important component of that effort.
As NMFS assesses the most effective and efficient ways to support
sustainable fisheries management and fishing communities, there may be
a need to refocus limited monetary and staff resources on core, mission
critical activities such as basic stock assessment and catch
accounting.
We face formidable challenges managing recovering stocks to benefit
both commercial and recreational user groups with fundamentally
different goals and objectives. Together with our partners, it is
essential that we continue to explore innovative management approaches
appropriate to solve regional problems with regional management tools.
We must remain dedicated to exploring ways to maximize economic
opportunities from wild-caught fisheries for commercial and
recreational fishermen, processors, and communities. Some improvements
in our regulatory processes may be possible, not only in the number of
specific regulations we promulgate, but in the more general regulatory
processes under which we operate. The Magnuson-Stevens Act intersects
with a number of other important statutes including National
Environmental Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the
Marine Mammal Protection Act, and these various statutes impose
important responsibilities upon the agency. There may be opportunities
for more efficiency and consistency in how we interact with those other
statutes and, to that end, NMFS is currently inviting public comment on
the efficacy and effectiveness of the current regulatory process,
including the application of Federal regulations under these statutes
and to aquaculture.
We also need to expand U.S. seafood production and exports.
America's seafood industry is world-renowned and our fisheries set a
global gold standard for sustainability. However, the majority of the
seafood we consume is imported. Through maintenance or enhancement of
wild-stock harvests and expanded aquaculture production, we can
position the Nation to make inroads on that seafood trade deficit. We
need to stay true to our essential conservation mission, while taking
advantage of opportunities to streamline regulatory processes and
maximize the National benefit of our fisheries resources.
Conclusion
We all share the common goal of healthy fisheries that can be
sustained for future generations. Without clear, science-based rules,
fair enforcement, and a shared commitment to sustainable management,
short-term pressures can easily undermine progress toward restoring the
social, economic, and environmental benefits of a healthy fishery.
There are opportunities to provide flexibility in applying annual catch
limits and in using sound science and innovative management approaches
to rebuild more fish stocks. Although challenges remain in some
fisheries, overall, the benefits for the resource, the industries it
supports, and the economy can be seen as fish populations grow and
catch limits increase.
To understand where we are, it is important to reflect on where
we've been. We have made great progress but our achievements have not
come easily, nor will they be sustained without continued attention.
This is a critical time in the history of Federal fisheries management,
and we must move forward in a strategic way to ensure our Nation's
fisheries are able to meet the needs of both current and future
generations. We also need to remember that practicality and common
sense are important as we engage strategically. We look forward to
working with Congress on fisheries management issues in a holistic,
comprehensive way that builds on its success and considers the needs of
the fish, fishermen, ecosystems, and communities.
Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss the Magnuson-Stevens
Act. I am available to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Sullivan. Great. Thank you, Director Oliver.
Dr. Quinn.
STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN M. QUINN, CHAIR,
NEW ENGLAND FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
Dr. Quinn. Thank you very much, Chairman Sullivan and
Ranking Member Peters. My name is John Quinn, and I am here to
testify on behalf of the Council Coordination Committee.
By way of background, I am the Director of Public Interest
Law Programs at the University of Massachusetts School of Law
in Dartmouth, which is right next door to the Port of New
Bedford, one of the leading fishing ports in the Nation. I've
been involved in fisheries issues for the last 30 years as a
lawyer, a state legislator, and for the last 5 years, as a
member of the New England Fisheries Management Council.
Commercial, recreational, and subsistence fisheries are key
contributors to our coastal communities and the Nation's
economy. The Councils are the cornerstone of the regional
system created by the Act, and as a group, we are strong
believers in its benefits.
Today, I will highlight a few of the issues that are
detailed in my written statement grouped into three themes: a
need for management flexibility, the importance of our public
process, and a need for adequate resources.
I'll begin with management flexibility. The wide variety of
fisheries in our country means that no single solution to
management challenges will work in all cases. Our strategy
should be to create a flexible legal framework that allows for
a wide range of management solutions. This is particularly true
when it comes to promoting sustainable fisheries. To that end,
the Act requires that a stock in poor condition must be rebuilt
within 10 years. This arbitrary timeline can cause problems.
Imagine that every homeowner could only choose a 10-year
mortgage when purchasing a home. Well, that would work for
some; it would not work for all.
I want to make it clear that we do not seek eliminating
rebuilding requirements, but we believe that targeted changes
to the law would enable the development of better rebuilding
plans. It's not just the Councils that reached this conclusion,
the issue was highlighted in a report by the National Research
Council in 2014.
There is also a need for flexibility at the tactical level.
Councils need to be able to consider a wide variety of
management tools without burdensome requirements. ACLs and AMs
may not be the best tools to managing all fisheries.
And, finally, most regions have used exempted fishing
permits to conduct scientific research that leads to management
solutions. Adding new requirements for the EFP process would
greatly reduce the ability to get them approved in a timely
manner. Fishermen in their communities would suffer as a
result.
And as to the public process, clearly, a transparent
process is critical to maintaining public trust. This need
could be met in a variety of ways, but the defining specific
webcast requirements will lead to additional expense and ignore
the technical difficulties encountered when holding meetings in
isolated fishing ports. All proposed actions are carefully
examined before implementation. The requirement for NEPA
analysis, however, duplicates those in the Act and other
applicable law. We believe that alternative analysis should be
done within the framework of the Act rather than NEPA.
With 40 years of experience, the Council has provided a
well-known, time-tested forum for resolving fisheries issues.
When other statutes are used to develop regulations that limit
fishing, that public process is often sidestepped. If all
Federal fisheries regulations are promulgated under section 302
of the Act, it would ensure rational management of our fishery
resources throughout the range.
And as to resources, in order to effectively manage
fisheries, a significant investment is needed at all steps of
the process. We currently rely heavily on data and analysis
provided by NMFS. Reducing stock assessment funds will reduce
harvests by U.S. fishermen, which will increase imports of
foreign seafood. Increasing stock assessment funding, including
that needed to collect the necessary data, is one of the best
investments an administration can make in U.S. fisheries.
Data availability continues to be among the greatest
challenges for the management of recreational fisheries.
Changes to NOAA's MRIP program have only been partially
implemented and have done little to increase the precision of
catch estimates. MRIP does not provide the data needed for
reliable monitoring of ACLs and AMs. Addressing this problem
will require increased sampling rates, which can only occur
with increased funding.
While we recognize that strategic planning is necessary, we
are concerned that it creates unfunded mandates for the
Councils. We should fulfill existing regulatory and management
requirements before any new mandates are required.
Finally, I believe it is important to acknowledge the
supportive relationship between the Councils and the National
Marine Fisheries Service. The regional offices and science
centers are critical to our process. It's unfortunate that Mr.
Oliver decided to transfer to the second best part of the
partnership, but we look forward to working with him in the
future.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to address the
Committee. And I'm happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Quinn follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. John M. Quinn, Chair, New England Fishery
Management Council
Chairman Sullivan and Ranking Member Peters, my name is John Quinn
and I am here today to testify on behalf of the Council Coordination
Committee (CCC), which is made up of the chairs, vice chairs, and
executive directors of the eight Regional Fishery Management Councils
that were created under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act or MSA).
By way of background, I am currently the Director of Public
Interest Law programs at the University of Massachusetts School of Law,
which is located near the port of New Bedford. New Bedford has been the
highest grossing port in the United States for 16 consecutive years. I
have been involved in fisheries issues for the last 30 years as a
lawyer, a state legislator, and, for the last five years, as a member
of the New England Fishery Management Council.
Thank you for inviting me here today to speak to the
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Without a doubt, this
statute established the United States as the world's premier manager of
fisheries resources. One of the major strengths of the Act is its
support of a regional approach to fisheries management that is guided
by an overarching Federal framework. The eight Regional Fishery
Management Councils are the cornerstone of that system.
The Councils fill a unique fishery management role. Our members
include representatives from state, federal, and tribal fishery
management agencies, as well as appointed members selected for their
fisheries knowledge and expertise. We prepare the management plans that
guide fishing in Federal waters. The National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS), on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce, reviews our proposals
and implements them if the actions are consistent with the law. While I
am the current chair of the New England Fishery Management Council,
today I speak to you as the representative of all eight regional
councils. We meet regularly as the Council Coordination Committee to
discuss cross-regional issues and collaborate with NMFS on strategic
planning and policy development.
As a group, we are strong believers in the Magnuson-Stevens Act--
and not just because it established the Councils. The outcome of our
management success is clear: commercial, recreational, and subsistence
fisheries are key contributors to our coastal communities and the
Nation's economy. In large measure this is because the Act structured a
very successful approach to sustainable fisheries management. Central
to the Act are the 10 National Standards that guide our management
process. National Standard 1, which is the most important, requires
that conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing
while achieving optimum yield from each U.S. fishery.
Let me acknowledge the many successes of the MSA and the Council
system. While some stakeholders have expressed frustration with
decisions made by individual Councils--and some of those give your
offices calls when they don't like Council decisions--I think it is
important to note that the MSA actually gives stakeholders seats at the
table when fishery management decisions are made. The MSA created these
Councils to provide a public forum for fishery management decisions to
be made. This public forum allows fishery managers, state officials,
fishermen, academics, environmental groups, Federal officials, and
other interested parties to have a say in the management of our public
resources. The decisions made through this public process are based on
the best scientific information available and use stock assessments
that have been conducted in a public manner and peer reviewed.
Finally, the decisions made by the Council are then again reviewed
by the Secretary of Commerce and published in the Federal Register for
an additional public comment period. While this is a time-consuming and
sometimes duplicative process, it ensures that decisions are fair,
informed, and science-based. The process also is fully transparent.
We should not be content to rest on our laurels. We believe that,
going forward, we can improve our efforts. Today I would like to
highlight some of the issues that we believe need to be addressed. As
will be no surprise, our regional approach to management means that the
Councils each face different challenges. Despite these differences,
there are a number of areas where our opinions on needed improvements
are consistent. I will limit my comments to the consensus statements
that all eight Councils support. I've structured my statement around
broad issues that have been identified.
Management Flexibility
Rebuilding Plans
One of the important provisions of the MSA is its focus on
sustainable fisheries. To that end, in 1996 the Sustainable Fisheries
Act amended the MSA and established strict requirements for ending
overfishing and rebuilding fish stocks. A key requirement is that, in
most cases, a stock must be rebuilt within a fixed time period, usually
no more than ten years. Over the last twenty years, significant
progress has been made, improving the status of many stocks. But we
also have learned that there may be a need to improve the rebuilding
provisions of the MSA so that the Nation fully realizes the benefits of
its resources. I want to make it clear that we do not seek to eliminate
rebuilding requirements, but we think our experiences can be used to
improve the existing provisions.
In general, the CCC believes that the addition of measures that
would increase flexibility with respect to stock rebuilding for certain
types of fisheries would improve the ability of Councils to achieve
management objectives. We acknowledge that rebuilding often comes with
necessary and unavoidable social and economic consequences, but
targeted changes to the law would enable the development of rebuilding
plans that more effectively address the biological imperative to
rebuild overfished stocks while mitigating the social and economic
impacts. For example, increased flexibility in rebuilding timelines
would allow for a better balance between the biology of the fish and
the socioeconomic needs of fishermen. A narrow exception for mixed-
stock fisheries also could be considered.
We agree that exceptions to rebuilding requirements should be
limited in scope and carefully defined. Ideally, such exceptions would
be codified in the MSA along with guidance regarding applicable
circumstances in National Standard guidelines.
Management of Mixed Stocks
Many fishermen catch a mix of species on a trip. While in some
cases selective fishing practices can effectively target some species
and reduce the number or amount of non-target species caught, this is
not always an adequate solution. Some of the Act's more prescriptive
requirements pose particular challenges for the management of mixed
stock fisheries and may not integrate well with ecosystem approaches.
While the current National Standard guidelines allow for a mixed-stock
exception to the requirements to prevent overfishing, the statutory
basis for this is unclear and would benefit from clarification in the
reauthorized Act. In addition, provisions for mixed-stock fisheries are
more consistent with the concepts of ecosystem-based fishery
management.
Transboundary Stocks
The addition of language that would allow the Councils to develop
annual and in-season quota trading programs for international and
national transboundary stocks will improve the ability of the Councils
to achieve harvest and management objectives. The CCC also recognizes
the potential for increased enforcement from recommendations of the
Presidential Task Force Combating Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated
(IUU) Fishing.
Data Limited Fisheries
Further consideration of exemptions or alternatives to the existing
Annual Catch Limit (ACL) requirements for data-limited species could
improve the Councils' ability to provide stability in setting harvest
limits. The ad hoc methods sometimes used to establish ACLs for data-
limited species often result in quotas that are less predictable,
resulting in a loss of stability and yield in some of our most
important fisheries. While ACLs and Accountability Measures (AMs) have
been effective management tools for many fisheries, they may not be the
best tools for managing incidental or small-scale, data-limited
fisheries. In these situations, Councils should have discretion to
determine alternative control mechanisms or utilize ecosystem-based
fishery management approaches (e.g., seasons, area-based management)
for data-limited stocks.
Definition of ``Overfished''
At present, when a stock falls below a minimum biomass, it is
described as ``overfished'' and a rebuilding plan is required. While
fishing can be the cause of a reduced stock, there may be other reasons
as well, such has warming ocean waters or degraded habitat. An
alternative term could be useful for describing fisheries that are
depleted as a result of non-fishing factors, unknown reasons, or a
combination of fishing and other factors. The current MSY-based
definition can be problematic when applied to data-limited fisheries or
mixed-stock complexes. Furthermore, the term ``overfished'' can
unfairly implicate fishermen for depleted conditions resulting from
pollution, coastal development, offshore activities, natural ecosystem
fluctuations, and other (perhaps unknown) factors. Not all of the
Councils agree that ``depleted'' is the appropriate term to replace
``overfished'' since it has specific meanings in a number of other
statutes. Care should be taken to avoid conflict or ambiguity if a
change in terminology is implemented.
Transparency
Clearly, a transparent public process is critical to maintaining
public trust when managing a public resource. This need can be met in a
variety of ways, but identifying specific requirements to meet this
need can be problematic. Budget problems are very real, and written
transcripts are costly. Video recordings of large meetings may not add
substantive content, as they will not capture presentations and
motions, which are the most critical visual aspects of meetings.
Streaming video also may degrade the quality of webcast audio. While
the technology for webcasts is rapidly evolving, live broadcasts
generally require strong Internet connections to be effective. In the
context of Council meetings, which often are held in remote locations
near fishing ports, the Councils have little ability to predict or
control the quality and cost of the Internet connection. Consequently,
requiring the use of webcasts ``to the extent practicable'' (rather
than in all cases) will allow Councils to achieve greater transparency
within budget and operational constraints.
NEPA Compliance
Fishery management involves fairly rapid cycles of adaptive
management in which information about changing conditions is addressed
through adjustments to the management program and regulations. The
necessity for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis of
these actions results in requirements that duplicate those in the MSA
and other applicable law, including additional comment periods that
delay implementation of these actions, which were developed through the
open and transparent MSA process. Ensuring NEPA compliance for marine
fishery management actions has been costly and time-consuming for
Council and NMFS staff and has limited the Councils' abilities to
pursue other regulatory activities. In addition, the CCC notes that
there have been instances where compliance with NEPA has hindered
adequate compliance with the MSA in terms of providing comprehensive
analysis to Councils prior to their taking final action due to the
difficulty and time required to complete NEPA analyses.
Although the 2007 MSA reauthorization attempted to align the
requirements of the two laws more closely through the addition of
Section 304(i), the CCC does not believe what has been called for in
the Act has been accomplished. There haven't been any substantive
changes in the way NEPA is used to support management actions or in the
steps needed to complete those analyses. Clearly, proposed management
actions should be thoroughly analyzed before decisions are made. We
believe that such analyses should be done within the framework of the
MSA rather than NEPA.
Catch Share Programs
Catch share programs allocate part of a harvest to an individual or
group of permit holders. Much has been written about their strengths
and weaknesses. On the one hand, supporters believe the programs reduce
the ``race for fish,'' creating more rational harvest plans. Opponents
argue that they privatize a public resource and lead to consolidation
in the fishing industry.
One thing we have learned in forty years of the Council process:
fishery management is complex, and no single solution will work in all
fisheries. Councils should have the maximum flexibility possible to
develop effective management tools, including catch share programs.
Adding excessive requirements for conducting a referendum before a
catch share program can be adopted is likely to increase the
administrative burden for the Councils. It may reduce the Councils'
ability to implement the appropriate management program for their
fisheries that could include modification of existing catch share
measures or adoption of new catch share measures. Councils should be
able to consider the use of all fishery management tools without
burdensome requirements.
Collection and Use of Fishery Data
In general, Councils should be granted a reasonable degree of
flexibility in the development and implementation of monitoring
programs (electronic and otherwise) so that those programs may be
tailored appropriately for each fishery and the needs of each region.
Electronic Monitoring
Our ability to manage fisheries effectively depends on having
access to timely and accurate data. The development of electronic
monitoring technologies and the utilization of other emerging
technologies could be beneficial to U.S. fisheries--in terms of data
collection and in terms of the potential to reduce the cost to
fishermen and governmental entities. However, introducing additional
national-level regulations to govern the use of electronic monitoring
beyond the current constraints of the Act (e.g., the National
Standards) may be counterproductive due to a number of factors,
including funding and resource constraints, variability among
fisheries, and the rapid evolution of technology. In addition, the
costs of new technologies should be taken into account when
implementing new programs or technologies.
Recreational Fisheries
Data quality and availability continue to be among the greatest
challenges for the management of recreational fisheries. Given the
importance of accountability, effective monitoring is critical for the
successful management of recreational fisheries. Comprehensive
recreational data also contribute to improved stock assessments that
benefit all fishery sectors. While NOAA's Marine Recreational
Information Program (MRIP) has provided some improved statistical
methodologies to reduce sampling bias, the program has been only
partially implemented, and it has done little to increase the precision
of catch estimates. Addressing this problem will require increased
sampling rates, which only can occur with increased funding. The
Councils are examining additional technologies that should be
encouraged to get better data.
Other Federal Statutes
With forty years of experience, the Councils have extensive
expertise in managing Federal fisheries. The Council process, tailored
for each region, provides a well-known, effective forum for resolving
fisheries issues. When other statutes are used to develop fishery
regulations, that public process is often side-stepped. The CCC
believes that an amendment to the MSA that ensures all Federal fishery
regulations are promulgated under the Council or Secretarial process
established under MSA section 302 would ensure rational management of
our fishery resources throughout their range. Under the MSA, the
Councils are charged with managing, conserving, and utilizing the
Nation's fishery resources, as well as protecting essential fishery
habitat, minimizing bycatch, and protecting listed species within the
United States Exclusive Economic Zone. This is done through a
transparent public process that requires decisions be based on the best
scientific information available. This time-tested approach has made
U.S. fisheries management highly successful and admired throughout the
world.
If changes to Council-managed fisheries (for example, changes to
the level, timing, method, allowable gear, or areas for harvesting
management unit species) are required under other statutory authorities
such as the Antiquities Act of 1906, the Endangered Species Act of
1973, the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, or the National Marine
Sanctuaries Act of 1972, such restrictions or modifications to those
fisheries should be debated and developed under the existing MSA
process. In addition, all actions by the Councils are currently subject
to review by the Secretary of Commerce to determine consistency with
MSA and all other applicable laws. This current review ensures that
Council actions--including those that could be made as a result of
requirements of other statutes--will continue to be consistent with all
relevant laws. Making modifications to fisheries through the MSA
process would ensure a transparent, public, and science-based process.
When fishery restrictions are put in place through other statutes,
frequently the fishing industry and stakeholders are not consulted,
analyses of impacts to fishery dependent communities are not
considered, and regulations are duplicative, unenforceable, or
contradictory.
Climate Change
Fishery resources have evolved to make the best use of their
habitats. Fish distribution can depend on many factors, including water
temperatures. In many of our regions, warming sea water temperatures
are leading to significant changes in the distribution of fish species.
For example, in New England we are seeing species of fish in the Gulf
of Maine that historically only were harvested off Long Island and New
Jersey; at the same time, cold water species like lobster are leaving
warming waters to the south. Other changes are occurring as well.
Increased acidification of sea water is a threat to many shellfish
species, both in nearshore aquaculture and offshore wild-caught
fisheries.
The sustainability and performance of our fisheries are at stake,
and while fishery managers are unable to address the underlying causes
of climate change, they are nonetheless tasked with meeting our
conservation and management mandates in a changing environment. These
changes will impact entire marine ecosystems, and a single-species
management approach likely will not be sufficient to understand and
account for these changes. Addressing climate change will require
establishing the support to enable fishery managers to develop creative
solutions to new challenges.
Fishery managers also will need a strong scientific foundation to
support climate-ready fisheries management. Managing climate-ready
fisheries is a long-term endeavor that will require investing in the
information needed to support informed decision-making, along with a
commensurate shift in resources and attention. Successful management
already depends on the availability of timely and accurate information
at all points in the decision-making process. In a changing
environment, this will become even more critical.
Resources
The Councils are concerned that important policy directives issued
by the National Marine Fisheries Service (e.g., forage fish, allocation
review, and ecosystem-based fishery management) frequently create
unfunded mandates. The demands on Councils to fulfill existing
regulatory and management requirements are significant, and these
should be met before any new tasks are imposed. New mandates can be
addressed only if adequate resources are provided.
We also want to make it clear that we rely heavily on data and
analyses provided by NMFS. At-sea surveys of fish populations are the
`bread and butter' of the sustainable management that is the hallmark
of U.S. fisheries under the MSA. Reducing stock assessment funds will
reduce harvests by U.S. fishermen, which will increase imports of
foreign seafood. Increasing stock assessment funding is one of the best
investments an administration can make in U.S. fisheries.
Exempted Fishing Permits
Exempted fishing permits (EFPs) are an extremely important and
useful mechanism to conduct scientific research. For instance, EFPs
have been used in different regions of the U.S. to conduct surveys,
test monitoring devices under field conditions, investigate invasive
species, and develop fishing gear that reduces bycatch, reduces habitat
impacts, and reduces impacts on protected species. These studies are
frequently done by the fishing community at no cost to the public and
have provided enormous benefits for the conservation and management of
marine resources and habitats.
The existing regulations already provide a good framework for
developing a regional process of issuing and reviewing EFPs. The EFP
applications undergo a regional scientific peer review and are
evaluated through a public process by the respective Councils. The
public and affected states have an opportunity to comment to NMFS and
the Councils during this process. Any new requirements for the EFP
process, such as additional social and economic analysis or further
consultation with the state governors, would greatly reduce the ability
to get EFPs developed and approved in a timely manner.
The CCC further believes that multi-year EFPs provide the necessary
flexibility to scientifically test gear across different years and
seasons. New regulations that limit EFPs to a 12-month period will
severely limit the usefulness of the data collected, as well as the
type and quality of research that can be done.
General comments
I would like to close with a few general tenets that we think are
important.
Modifications to the Act should be national in scope but
with reasonable flexibility to address region-specific issues.
Avoid across-the-board mandates that could negatively affect
one region to address a problem in another. Modifications to
the Act that are specific to one region or one Council
undermine the national scope of the Act and should be carefully
considered, especially with respect to how these modifications
might affect operations in other regions.
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 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.
Finally, I believe it important to acknowledge the supportive
relationship between the Councils and the National Marine Fisheries
Service. Our management successes would not be possible without our
close partnership. The Service is a key participant in the Council
process and a key provider of the information we need. The regional
offices and science centers are critical to our process. The healthy
exchange of ideas and opinions between our groups leads to better
solutions. We are thrilled that Mr. Oliver is heading the agency, and
we look forward to working with him in his new role.
Thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Dr. Quinn.
And I like the little rivalry between the witnesses here.
That's helpful.
Let me begin by just asking and building on what Senator
Nelson said. I think he made an important point about the
bipartisan history with regard to the origins of this Act, and
that's certainly my goal, as the Chairman, to bring together
Members on both sides of the aisle when we're looking at
reauthorization of the MSA.
So given that, I would like to ask both of you, starting
with Mr. Oliver, what would you see in the MSA, what would you
hope to see in MSA reauthorizations, the issues that we think
that you think are important to address? And what areas of
consensus do you think exist possibly and importantly between
commercial interests, recreational interests, conservation
groups?
So however you want to answer that question, both of you. I
think that's a really key issue to get your views on that kind
of high-level, but important, issue to begin with.
Mr. Oliver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll take a shot at
that. In my previous role, you probably have heard me testify
on behalf of the North Pacific Council when I was in that role
that the current Act is working very well, and we didn't see
the need for substantive changes.
I'm in a new role now, and as I look at the issue more
broadly, and I've heard from constituents around the country,
I've heard the dialogues that have occurred with regard to some
of the ideas that have been submitted or discussed over the
past year or two in various reauthorization discussions, and I
have come to believe that there is room in many--you know, a
lot of the measures in the Act were designed around commercial
fisheries, and I think there is possibility that additional
flexibilities that are being considered, whether it be with
regard to annual catch limits for rebuilding plans, for the
accountability measures particularly, that are used to enforce
the annual catch limits, and I think this is particularly true
in data in fisheries, commercial fisheries, where we don't have
quite the stock assessment or data collection catch-counting
systems that I'm used to in my previous role, very robust, and
very accurate.
Senator Sullivan. So you're saying those don't exist evenly
throughout the different Councils in different regions?
Mr. Oliver. I think that's correct, sir, and across
different fisheries. I think many of our recreational fisheries
are of a nature that they don't lend themselves well to some of
those stricter accountability measures. And I think there's
probably room for us--the more tools we have in our toolbox,
and I think this is--I won't speak for Dr. Quinn, but I know
speaking from my own experience--and, again, our administration
hasn't taken positions on these specific actions, so I have to
be a little careful how I answer without--I've got my----
Senator Sullivan. Well, I can ask you in your personal view
then.
Mr. Oliver. In my personal view and my personal experience,
I think the more tools that we have, the better job we could
do, and many of these fisheries that don't have the robust
stock assessment and catch-counting systems, and particularly
in recreational fisheries, that have a different set of goals
and objectives in many cases for management. So I think there's
a lot of room for that kind of flexibility that I think is
being considered through this reauthorization process.
Senator Sullivan. Dr. Quinn, would you like to address that
broad topic?
Dr. Quinn. Sure. And I think just by the nature of the
hearing, we're here to reauthorize the Magnuson Act, not to
repeal it. So much of the aspects of it are working well. We're
here to tweak it. And I think a couple of things, just like Mr.
Oliver, the issue of data availability and stock assessments,
particularly on the recreational side, is something I think
we've got a lot of work to do.
Also, this level of uncertainty in the stock assessments is
something, and also can be solved or at least shrunk through
the purpose of getting more data. So I think data needs are
very important, and the uncertainty.
Recreational, I think--you know, the commercial, these ACLs
and AMs work for the commercial, not necessarily for the
recreational.
Senator Sullivan. Let me follow up on that point, Mr.
Oliver. How does NMFS view recreational fishing and commercial
fishing in terms of their similarities and differences from
each other? And, again, are there flexibility provisions that
currently exist in the MSA that can address that or do we need
to look at that as an area of possible reform?
Mr. Oliver. I think many of the challenges are similar, but
there are some fundamental differences. We recently had
revisions to the National Standard 1 Guidelines that have been
in place only for a few months, and I think some of the
Councils have been able to take advantage of those revisions to
the National Standard 1 Guidelines, but I don't think they
necessarily fully address some of the problems in some of the
regions. And I think those exist for both commercial and
recreational fisheries. In many cases, we lack the fundamental
information in terms of stock assessment, what's in the water,
where, and the ability through real-time accounting to know
what's precisely coming out of the water. And some of those are
internal challenges that we need to deal with within the
existing structure of the Act and within the existing structure
of our own regulations. I think some of them could benefit from
additional flexibility that might be provided through the
reauthorization process.
Senator Sullivan. Great. Thank you.
Senator Markey.
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
Dr. Quinn, thank you for coming down from the Bay State. We
very much appreciate it. And we appreciate all your work up
chairing the New England Fishery Management Council and the
Regional Fishery Management Council Coordinating Committee, and
from your research at UMass Dartmouth, you are a master of
maritime, Dr. Quinn, and so I thank you for all of your work.
You know as well as anybody knows in our country that
NOAA's data shows that climate change will have a profound
impact on our oceans and marine life with many species moving
north into new areas or into deeper waters. Ocean acidification
impedes the development of shellfish. Lobster populations are
moving north, while southern species like black sea bass are
appearing in greater numbers off the coast of Massachusetts.
Ocean acidification would be devastating to shellfisheries like
we have in Massachusetts. New Bedford is the highest grossing
port in the United States, and 78 percent of landings are
scallops. In fact, a NOAA report determined that New Bedford
was the port most at risk in the Nation due to ocean
acidification from climate change.
What tools do, Dr. Quinn, Regional Councils have to ensure
that we can respond to fish stocks that are moving or changing
due to climate change?
Dr. Quinn. I first want to add that New Bedford has been
the highest grossing port for the last 15 years in a row, so
very good news.
I think, unfortunately, we do not have a switch that we can
flip and lower the water temperature or decrease the ocean
acidification. I think what we can do is continue to collect
more and more data that identify trends, as you said, Senator
Markey, of fish moving or ocean acidification impacting
shellfish beds so that we can monitor this. I think some
Councils have a lot of data on this, I think others don't. So I
think increasing monitoring is very important for us to plan
for the future of climate change.
Senator Markey. So do you have the tools, what you need, up
in New England in order to do the monitoring adequately?
Dr. Quinn. I think we've got the infrastructure. I think
additional monitoring obviously comes with a financial cost to
do additional monitoring outside of what we are doing now. So
that would certainly be a good tool for us to have to expand
the monitoring in the climate change area.
Senator Markey. Yes. The Gulf of Maine, where Massachusetts
is and where we do our fishing, is the fastest warming body of
water on the planet. So this is just warming up very, very
fast. And cod need cold water, lobster need cold water. So as
this water just heats up ever more rapidly, they're just
moving, the lobster and cod, further to the north, and
impacting the fishing community.
Dr. Quinn. Absolutely. The southern New England lobster
industry has all moved north because of the warming
temperatures, and certainly coming up in Massachusetts,
fishermen's nets are fishing species that aren't caught up
there usually. So it's certainly reflected in the landings.
Senator Markey. And ocean acidification does have a
profound impact, especially on shellfish. Can you talk a little
bit about your feeling about the need for more basic research
so that we can understand the impact which ocean acidification
is having on the fishing industry?
Dr. Quinn. Sure. Absolutely, we need as much research as
possible in the climate change area, in the ocean
acidification. We've got some great programs of collaborative
research and cooperative research, which industry is involved,
and the fishermen doing some of the research. So I think it's
important that data, data, data, the more data we can get on
this, the more data we can get on other aspects of this Act are
very helpful for planning purposes.
Senator Markey. Thank you.
And, Mr. Oliver, on the question of illegal, unreported,
unregulated fishing in the United States, NOAA issued its final
rule in December 2016. Can you give us a little bit of an
update as to the implementation of the rule and what the pace
is for its scheduled implementation in January 2018?
Mr. Oliver. Senator, I apologize if I'm misunderstanding
your question. Is this with regard to the seafood import rule
or you are speaking on the----
Senator Markey. Yes.
Mr. Oliver. Oh. On the IUU----
Senator Markey. The seafood fraud question is what I'm
trying to get at, the heart of the seafood fraud issue, and the
rules that you are going to put on the base. The traceability
rule.
Mr. Oliver. Oh, the traceability in the seafood import
rule. Yes, sir. I'm not an expert on that, I'll be honest with
you. I can try to get you more information on exactly where we
are with that, but that rule is really meant to balance the
playing field, if you will, between imposing requirements that
are already imposed on our own fishermen for exporting, to
impose that same requirement on imports to simply ensure that
those fisheries are adhering to a similar standard. So it's
really leveling the playing field, as I best understand it.
But I know there has been a lot of interest in that rule
and the additional requirements that it puts on our producers.
I know there has been a lot of interest in other aspects of
that rule, such as including shrimp, for example, because so
many of our imports and our trade deficit based on those
imports is from imported foreign shrimp. For a variety of
reasons, we were not able to do that. That's something that
we're going to be pursuing in the future.
But I don't have any, I guess, more to say on that. If
there are more specific questions that you have, I would be
glad to follow up with you.
Senator Markey. I think for the record, it would be very
important for us to understand what NOAA believes the state of
play is with regard to illegal fishing, seafood fraud. It does
harm to our domestic fishermen in a very significant way. So to
the extent to which for the record you can provide that
information I think will be helpful to the Councils, but very
helpful to this Committee as well.
Mr. Oliver. Absolutely, sir.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Sullivan. Senator Wicker.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER F. WICKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI
Senator Wicker. Mr. Oliver, let me pick up on a line of
questioning that Chairman Sullivan was pursuing during his
time, and that's saltwater recreational fishing. You mentioned
on page 2 of your testimony that NOAA Fisheries is going to
partner with Atlantic States Marine Fisheries to host a
national summit in March of next year on saltwater recreational
fisheries.
I've introduced a bill called the Modernizing Recreational
Fisheries Management Act, which would amend Magnuson-Stevens to
improve management for saltwater recreational fishing. It's
cosponsored by Ranking Member Nelson, also by Senators Blunt,
Inhofe, Schatz, and Klobuchar, of this Committee.
Will you work with Congress as we explore Magnuson-Stevens'
reauthorization in a way that allows its successes to continue
while also adapting to fix the problems at hand, especially
those with recreational fishing? And I would mention
specifically the Marine Recreational Information Program, which
our recreational fishermen believe lacks timeliness and
accuracy. They believe the program is not designed to monitor
short seasons, like red snapper.
And have you looked at my bill? And also have you looked at
the idea of innovations such as Mississippi's Tails n' Scales
electronic reporting system for red snapper landings by using
smartphone snaps? So it's sort of a two-part question that I'll
wrap into one there.
Mr. Oliver. Thank you, Senator, Mr. Sullivan, Senator
Sullivan. Yes, thank you for the question. We absolutely want
to work within whatever construct you have to improve those
types of information. I have become acutely aware in the short
month that I've been here of some of the issues surrounding not
just red snapper, but certainly a lot of focus on red snapper,
particularly with regard to some of our--some less than perfect
satisfaction with some of our own stock assessment information,
less than perfect satisfaction with our MRIP program.
Senator Wicker. It's a gentle way to say that.
Mr. Oliver. Yes, sir. And we, of course, we have pending a
baseline benchmark stock assessment for red snapper thanks to
funding that's been provided. It's going to be a couple years
before we get the results of that, but that's going to be an
important piece of information.
On the data collection side, what's coming out of the
water, I have heard from a number of constituents, from a
number of people. I've had discussions amongst my own staff
leadership over the past 2 weeks about some of the satisfaction
I've heard with the MRIP program and the speed with which it's
progressing. That program is a work in progress. And I
understand some of the frustrations. I think we have some
improvements pending on it, going from the telephone survey to
a mail survey will be an improvement.
I've also heard that it's not enough, it's not fast enough,
and we're not taking great enough advantage of some of the
state data collection programs, as the one you referenced. And
a couple of thoughts on that is I have made it a priority based
on discussions over the past 2 weeks to prioritize and expedite
the certification of those state data programs. We are using
data from many of those programs, and a lot of those are
supported through the MRIP program. But I have heard loud and
clear that we need to expedite the certification of those
programs and the use of the data in those programs.
And I personally believe when you look around at the
technology we have today, the cell phone, smartphone,
technology, that there have to be--we have to find a way to
utilize those technologies to get that information quickly,
more quickly, and more accurately. And I know that there have
been concerns about using that information as the apples and
oranges problem with tying it to data from the MRIP and other
programs in terms of stock assessments, but I think we are
going to make it a priority to do that.
I also believe that regardless of the implications for
stock assessment, if we have a way to get better information
today on what fish is coming out of the water, we darn well
need to be using that.
And so I absolutely agree with the provisions or the points
that you're making. I've had a chance to briefly look at the
legislation you've introduced, and I think it's consistent with
the--it seems to be consistent with the things we already
intend to do, but certainly any help and direction that you
want to provide us in that would be most welcome, and we'll
work with you, sir.
Senator Wicker. Very good. And my time has expired, so I'll
just ask you on the record about something I was going to
explore in this hearing, and that's aquaculture in Federal
waters. In 2016, there was a final rule. So far, we haven't had
any bites on actually applications because of the expensive
permitting process and other regulatory challenges.
So, Mr. Chairman, I think I'll just ask Mr. Oliver to
comment on the record since we're pressed for time here about
why he thinks we haven't had anybody apply now that we have a
program for aquaculture. So thank you.
Senator Sullivan. Great. If you can take that question for
the record for Senator Wicker, we would appreciate that very
much.
Senator Inhofe.
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Back when I
enjoyed life, I was a building developer----
Senator Wicker. That was yesterday.
Senator Inhofe. That was several years ago----
Senator Sullivan. That was today.
Senator Inhofe.--in South Padre Island, Texas. And I know
that you're in a different area; however, you're familiar with
the different regions. And did I understand in the introduction
that we got from our Chairman, Mr. Oliver, that you are from
the Gulf area?
Mr. Oliver. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I grew up in Rockport,
Texas, on the Gulf coast, not far from Padre island.
Senator Inhofe. Oh. I see. Yes, I'm very----
Senator Sullivan. We claim him as an Alaskan, though.
Senator Inhofe. Yes. Well, no, I claim him as a Texan.
How's that?
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. No, it's interesting, you are familiar with
the interest that I have in that down there, and it's really
just to clear some things up. First of all, down in Texas--and
there's a lot of interest, I have to say, in my State of
Oklahoma. You know, people, that's the closest coast we go to,
and there are a lot of industries that are very active down
there. So we're interested in the coast.
They went actually on where you go out, the number of miles
you go out that's under state jurisdiction, it was 3 miles,
it's now 9 miles. Is that correct?
Mr. Oliver. Texas is 9-mile territorial sea.
Senator Inhofe. Yes, but at one time was it only 3 miles?
Mr. Oliver. Not in my lifetime, sir.
Senator Inhofe. I see. OK. Well, my staff is wrong on that
then.
My interest is when things that are unforeseen come up, how
do you handle that? And do you have the--the jurisdiction that
we're talking about right now, both of you are talking about,
is that primarily just the Federal jurisdiction we're talking
about, or do you also oversee the state jurisdiction, in this
case, Texas, but I'm sure it would be true in other states?
Mr. Oliver. No, sir. Senator, Mr. Chairman, we do not
manage inside state territorial waters. We only manage, for
example, red snapper outside the state waters. We have to take
into account what the states do in their state water seasons in
order to--which is why we originally were only able to set a 3-
day season in Federal waters for Gulf red snapper in 2017.
Obviously, we've implemented regulations that have changed
that and relaxed that for the remainder of the summer. But
whether and to what extent we can do that in the future remains
to be seen. I think it remains--it depends on pending stock
assessments. There's pending litigation on the measures we
implemented this year. There is potential legislation that you
might introduce that all could affect what we may do and what
may be the situation in 2017.
But the short answer to your question is the states
essentially manage what happens within their waters, whether it
be 3 or 9 miles or otherwise, and we have to react and sort of
make up the difference on the Federal side, and that's where
that adjustment in Federal seasons comes in, and we obviously--
we're not enthusiastic about publishing a 3-day Federal season,
but that was where the math left us, sir, originally.
Senator Inhofe. So we actually did have a 3-day season for
the entire year?
Mr. Oliver. For Federal waters, that was the original
season for 2017. We have since published a subsequent
regulation that is extending that season for some 39 days, I
believe now.
Senator Inhofe. 39, yes.
Mr. Oliver. That is being litigated or challenged, but I
don't know what the outcome of that will ultimately be.
Senator Inhofe. Well, it may be litigated or challenged,
but they're doing it right now.
Mr. Oliver. Yes, sir.
Senator Inhofe. And, Dr. Quinn, I know that you're in a
different region up there, but the same, a lot of the same,
principles apply. When you are making the assessments that Mr.
Oliver talked about, you use--there are a lot of sources for
that. How much do you depend on in terms of the recreational
users reporting data, and how do you see that? The reason I'm
asking this is my exposure is to the recreational people.
They're the ones that feel like they're always getting the
short end of the stick, and I just wanted to see how you view
them and their input.
Dr. Quinn. I think the recreational fishermen is very
important on the East Coast, in particular, in New England. We
use data that they gather in our assessments. Every regional
science center has a way to plug in this recreational data into
their stock assessments. The question is we've got to make sure
that it's high-quality data that we plug in and where it gets
plugged into the stock assessment process. So our Council has
got a great relationship with our recreational industry, and
we'll work with them closely to get additional data.
Senator Inhofe. How do you do this? And again I'm talking
about South Padre Island or the south coast of Texas. Every
once in a while with no warning, no predictability, we have the
thing called the red tide. The red tide comes in, dramatically
changes the populations of fish and all of that. How do the
unknown factors--how do you address those in making the
assessments that are necessary?
Dr. Quinn. You know, over time you'd have--you know, the
impact of that is not going to be able to be seen that day, the
day the red tide comes in or some catastrophic situation. It's
more time series analysis and over the long term see what
happens, if there's a trend created that there is going to be a
decline in stock. So at the point in time that the red tide
comes in, you can't really make the assessment, it's more over
the longer term.
Senator Inhofe. Yes. All right. Well, my time is expired,
but I'm very interested in this and how this works out in terms
of the Federal versus the state. And I appreciate your witness.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Senator Inhofe.
Senator Blumenthal.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for having this hearing.
Mr. Oliver, welcome. And I want to express my respect for
your long history of involvement in this issue, both
academically and in public service. I'm sure you've talked to
the fishing fleets in New England, the men who go out in the
water and who do this incredibly hard work. The fleets of
Connecticut and Massachusetts in New England have a proud long
storied history as a key element in our economy, and they are
angry and frustrated beyond words, at least beyond words that I
could repeat in these chambers.
And you've heard the very earthy and direct epithets that
are used to describe the system we have now, and in my view,
with profound justification because it has failed the fishermen
of New England. That fishing fleet is struggling. The effects
of climate change have driven the fish that they customarily
catch north, and it has driven other fish from southern areas
into our area, but the catch limits have not changed. And so
what they've seen is that they haul a catch beyond their
permissible quota of certain fish, they have to throw them
back, there's waste, billions of dollars are trashed in our
oceans annually, and meanwhile, fishermen from other southern
states come into their waters and catch their fish.
There is something profoundly unfair and intolerable about
this situation. And in my view, it violates the present law,
the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which says, and I quote, ``Any
management plan shall not discriminate between residents of
different states,'' and must allow quotas that are, ``fair and
equitable.''
You've said in your testimony that we need more
flexibility, but the fishing fleets of New England have run out
of patience, and I think there's a need for sweeping radical
immediate change to accommodate the dwindling and dying
industry that is essential to our economy. Would you agree?
Dr. Quinn. I would agree in part. I think--I like to call
the New England fishing industry ``A Tale of Two Industries.''
Parts of it, the scallop industry, is booming. It's made New
Bedford one of the major ports, and oftentimes many boats from
as far down south as North Carolina come and fish out of New
Bedford.
On the groundfish side, you're correct. It has been a very
struggling industry over time. Some of the catch limits and the
ACLs we put in place were based on stock assessments that were
performed with industry involved and with the science centers
involved. So it's a very difficult challenge for the groundfish
fleet and not necessarily for the scallop industry.
Senator Blumenthal. Well, for all industries and for our
fishermen, our New England fishermen, the prosperity for the
South Carolina or North Carolina fishing industry, we wish them
well, but they're not doing us any good, very simply, and
that's the anger and frustration that I feel on their behalf,
and certainly they feel it even more directly. I've been on the
docks and in their towns, and we need better answers for them.
Would you agree?
Dr. Quinn. I don't disagree. And I think, you know, the
Council process is to collect as much data as we can get to
have accurate stock assessments. I think with your State of
Connecticut, there has been this northerly move of fishing
stock. Lobsters and other species have moved north. So we don't
have a simple solution to that water temperature raising or the
ocean acidification. What----
Senator Blumenthal. Well, it is due to climate change, I
agree, but I also would respectfully suggest that the data is
there, the facts are known. There is clearly a need to change
this system.
And my time is going to expire. I have a question for Mr.
Oliver, but I would again respectfully suggest that the present
system is far from satisfactory, it's a downright failure, and
I would like to talk to you further about ways we can improve
it.
Dr. Quinn. I'd be happy to, Senator.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
Mr. Oliver, my question to you concerns the budget
submitted by the President of the United States. We're here
today to discuss fisheries and their health, including
shellfish. Shellfish have a rich history in Connecticut, rich
in our culture and rich in our economy.
And I'm working hard to preserve and sustain opportunities
in that sector in our fishing economy. And that's why I am so
concerned about President Trump's proposed budget, among other
reasons that I'm concerned. That budget slashes funding for
programs like Sea Grant and funding for the Milford Lab in
Milford, Connecticut, and for the University of Connecticut.
They are doing path-breaking research in areas that concern our
fishing industry. These Federal research efforts to help grow
and expand certain forms of agriculture, in effect,
aquaculture, are very, very promising and important for the
entire country.
So as a representative of this administration, how can you
justify these proposed cuts in NOAA programs that you are
responsible for administering?
Mr. Oliver. Well, Senator, I don't know that I'm in a
position to comment very extensively on the President's budget.
I do know that they placed a revised emphasis on the Department
of Defense and national security----
Senator Blumenthal. Well, I'm on the Armed Services
Committee, sir, and I very much support that emphasis, and it's
incorporated in the NDAA, which I have helped to approve
through the Armed Services Committee. It will come to the floor
of the Senate probably next month. I support it. It was passed
unanimously.
But this kind of slashing and trashing of programs that are
essential to the programs you administer that are vital to our
economic future in aquaculture and agriculture I consider a
mockery of the mission of your agency. And if you're not in a
position to justify it, who would be?
And I just want to say to you I'm not being personal about
it. You are here as a representative of the administration. I
know your heart may be in the right place, but I want to know
how you can possibly justify it?
Mr. Oliver. All I can say, sir, is we're going to do our
best to operate within the budget that we have. And I know that
a lot of the programs that were slated to be cut involve
cooperative agreements or past grant funding through the Sea
Grant program, for example, and grants to the coastal states.
We're going to do our best to make that up internally. I also
believe that----
Senator Blumenthal. Are you going to commit to me that you
can make up those cuts to the Sea Grant program and the Milford
Lab and the University of Connecticut that are essential to
those programs?
Mr. Oliver. I can't commit that we're specifically going to
be able to make those up from our baseline budget. I think that
we are facing some tough decisions, too. I've said on many
occasions that I feel that this agency may be in a position to
refocus on some of its very core missions, science missions----
Senator Blumenthal. You would agree with me, though, those
are valid and important programs.
Mr. Oliver. Of course, sir, I really do.
Senator Blumenthal. Well, my time is expired. So I want to
continue this questioning with you because if you agree these
programs are valid, and there can be no question that they are,
I think your agency has a responsibility to fight for them and
to make sure they are fully funded.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal.
And, you know, with regard to the budget, I think we'll be
taking a hard look at some of these programs, and, you know, my
own view is some of them are critical, and I'm not sure they're
going to survive the cuts, will survive what we in Congress do.
I think we're going to add a lot back to the ones that we think
are vital. But I know, Mr. Oliver, you're only 4 weeks on the
job, so I know that every element of the budget is probably not
at your fingertips, so we recognize that.
Let me--I'm going to ask just a few more questions. We have
a distinguished panel here, and I want to take advantage of the
opportunity to get your thoughts and views on the record.
Both of you have talked about, and, Dr. Quinn, you talked
about it in your testimony, the issue of kind of how we need to
look at the NEPA process as it intersects with the MSA
authorities.
And, for example, Mr. Oliver, many in the North Pacific
have expressed support for NEPA sufficiency process within the
MSA to reduce redundancy and programmatic burden. Do you have a
personal view on that, or does the agency have a personal view?
And then, related, Dr. Quinn, can you elaborate a little
bit more on the CCC concern over the application of NEPA
requirements to the analysis of Fishery Management's actions?
These are kind of related questions. You both have
highlighted them. And I would like to get your views on them.
It's an important issue.
Go ahead, Mr. Oliver. Why don't you begin.
Mr. Oliver. I'll start, Mr. Chairman, Senator. I have a
long history in my previous life dealing with the
reconciliation of NEPA and Magnuson. I participated in a
working group of the CCC following the 2006 reauthorization
where there was a directive provision in the Act for the
Secretary working through with CEQ and the Councils to
reconcile and streamline and I forget the exact wording of the
statute, basically reconcile the intersection of Magnuson and
NEPA. And I participated on a working group for a number of
years to try to achieve that goal.
And while this current administration that I am now
representing does not have a position on this, I can tell you
from my experience in that process that we did not, in my
opinion, address the Directive in the provision in that Act. We
essentially ended up in a place where we largely cemented, if
you will, the existing NEPA process. I don't think we--I think
that we did not satisfy the provisions that were in that
Directive, and I think that leaves us with the potential
opportunity to look at that again.
I will say, on the other hand, however, that over the
intervening years, we have gotten very good through the Council
process and through the agency, the National Marine Fisheries
Service, we've gotten very good with our NEPA compliance using
NEPA, actually, as the vehicle for our fishery management
actions, and we're not losing lawsuits anymore. So we've gotten
good at it.
But I personally have always believed that the Magnuson-
Stevens Act was the appropriate vehicle for the processing and
development and promulgation of fisheries management actions,
and I still believe that to be the case.
Senator Sullivan. Well, I think it's an area that as we're
looking at reauthorization, we should entertain ideas the way
that the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council is looking
at, as you mentioned previously.
Dr. Quinn, you touched on this in your written testimony.
Do you care to elaborate a little bit more?
Dr. Quinn. Sure. I'll add a few things, Mr. Chairman. The
CCC believes that following NEPA adds additional complexity to
the process. After the Council takes action all the way to
implementation, it lengthens out the process.
In addition, to some degree it confuses the public because
you're going down two tracks of public comment. You've got two
different statutes with two different sets of timelines, and
rather than encourage more participation, it may discourage it.
And on occasion, NMFS has used the NEPA process to put maybe an
additional alternative in place that was not considered at the
Council level.
Oftentimes, the CCC's position is misinterpreted as being
opposed to public participation or being opposed to sharing
additional information with the public, and I can tell you
nothing can be further from the truth. We believe we've got a
rigorous process in place in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, full
participation by citizens, by groups, and we don't think that
we need to follow the NEPA process as well. We believe it's
redundant and unnecessary.
Senator Sullivan. Well, again, I think that particularly
given your role on the CCC, and that that is kind of a broad-
based consensus organization among all the Councils, if that is
one of the views and an area that we think is ripe for
consensus, I think it's something that we should be looking at.
Let me ask a more broad question for you, Mr. Oliver. Given
Secretary Ross' focus on growing the domestic fishing industry
and fishing production from the United States, which I think
all of us welcome, how do you best think NMFS can promote U.S.
fisheries?
You and I have talked about the export issue. We were able
to get language in the Trade Promotion Authority that for the
first time focuses on fishing exports and, you know, unfair
subsidies for foreign fleets. What are other things that NMFS
can be doing to promote a goal that I think most of us
certainly agree with?
Mr. Oliver. Well, this may sound a little bit repetitive,
Senator, to some of my earlier comments. There is some headroom
in our domestic harvest potential. I mentioned the West Coast
situation where they're leaving fish in the water due to,
partly due to, bycatch constraints, choke species, partly due
to some lingering regulatory constraints that may or may not be
any longer necessary.
I think there are opportunities in some of our data-poor
fisheries. When we talked again about flexibility in our annual
catch limits and rebuilding schedules and some of the
accountability measures, there again particularly for data-poor
stocks, I think there are some opportunities for us to maximize
that. And, again, I'm a firm believer in science-based overall
catch limits. It has been a cornerstone in the North Pacific
for 40 years, but I think within that overarching long-term
conservation construct, I think there are opportunities.
I think--and, again, in the area of marine aquaculture, I
think that's where more headroom is, if you will, in terms of
growing our production. And competing more in the world market
in terms of this whole import-export unbalance that we're
currently on the short end of, I think those are probably a
great deal of potential there in the marine aquaculture area.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you.
Senator Booker.
STATEMENT OF HON. CORY BOOKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
Senator Booker. Thank you, very much, Senator. I'm here not
only because of the important issues that we're discussing
today, but also to keep you company, sir.
Senator Sullivan. Well, I really appreciate that.
[Laughter.]
Senator Booker. Thank you very much. I'm here for you. I
have your back, sir.
Senator Sullivan. I know that.
Senator Booker. Gentlemen, thank you very much for being
here for this really important issue.
And, Mr. Oliver, you had said something about bycatch
restraints that maybe makes me want to jump and have this be my
first question. About 10 percent of the world's fish catch is
discarded as bycatch, and more than 22 billion pounds of fish a
year is what they estimate that is, of just bycatch. This is
fish that are not intended to be caught, but end up being
killed as a result of our methods.
In recent years in the United States, we've discarded over
600 million pounds of fish annually, and some fisheries discard
over 60 percent of their catch as bycatch. I just find those
numbers astonishing and even unacceptable and think we could do
better than doing that kind of damage to the wildlife in our
oceans. And I'm wondering if you'll commit to focusing on the
issue of bycatch more so in your new role to see if there is
anything that we can do, bring forth any ideas, about
strengthening existing bycatch provisions in the Magnuson-
Stevens.
Mr. Oliver. I do. Senator, the bycatch and bycatch
reduction has long been a focus and a goal of the agency. It's
also a goal that's supported by the Councils and the Council
system. Many of the Councils have taken great strides to reduce
bycatch. Some of the bycatch is economic discards, that are too
small or for whatever reason are thrown over. A lot of the
bycatch that occurs are regulatory discards in that there are
certain regulations in place that prohibit people from
retaining or selling bycatch, and the reason primarily for that
is to keep them from targeting it when they are not supposed to
be targeting it. And then you get to the question of, well,
there's bycatch and then there's waste. And part of the point
of your question was waste.
And I know in my own experience in the North Pacific
Fisheries, several years ago, we implemented what was
originally called a full retention/full utilization requirement
for several of our large groundfish trawl fisheries where the
premise was you catch it, you keep it, it counts against the
quota, and it counts against the quota whether you throw it
away or not, but it's still waste. We didn't like the waste of
all that fish, and we backed off the 100 percent for a variety
of practicality reasons. But the essence of that is we reduced
discards through that program by millions of pounds a year,
hundreds of thousands of tons a year of discards. And I think
other Councils have done similar things. There are still
regulatory discards in place that I think shouldn't be in place
or need to be carefully reevaluated----
Senator Booker. Mr. Oliver, you're filibustering me. I'm
about to be out of time.
Mr. Oliver. Sorry.
Senator Booker. But just a simple question, can we do
better?
Mr. Oliver. Yes.
Senator Booker. And will you focus on trying to do better?
Mr. Oliver. Yes.
Senator Booker. Thank you very much, sir.
I'm going to try to get another question in. The Chairman
is pretty tough and strict with time limits.
But in 1996, the Sustainable Fisheries Act established
rebuilding requirements, and shortly thereafter, 92 fish stocks
were identified as overfished. But by 2006, only three of those
fish stocks had been rebuilt. The 2006 Magnuson Reauthorization
Act responded by requiring annual catch limits, and by
requiring that, rebuilding plans end overfishing immediately.
By 2016, the United States had rebuilt an additional 38 stocks,
something we should be proud of, and we now have the lowest
level of overfished stocks in our entire history, at least
since we've been recording this. In light of this success, do
you agree that the annual catch limits are a critical tool for
managing fisheries? And how do you respond to calls for even
more flexibility on catch limits and rebuilding timelines? And
I hear that call from really great folks in my state who are
calling for more flexibility. I'm wondering how you balance
that.
Mr. Oliver. Senator, I think it is a balancing act. As I
stated previously, through my experience in the North Pacific,
I am a firm believer in annual catch limits. It has been a
cornerstone of our successful management, but I also believe
there are opportunities where, and I'll say it again, we can
have it both ways.
I think there are opportunities for additional flexibility
in how we apply annual catch limits, the subsequent
accountability measures, and in those rebuilding plans where we
can achieve some flexibility that people are seeking without
rolling back our conservation successes and without resulting
in additional overfished stocks. I think we can balance that.
Senator Booker. All right. Thank you.
And, Mr. Chairman, maybe I can throw myself on your----
Senator Sullivan. Sure, you can go on as long as you want.
[Laughter.]
Senator Booker. Thank you very much, sir. Thank you very
much for being so generous and kind to your fellow Senator.
Senator Sullivan. No problem.
Senator Booker. So last question, sir. It's just another of
my concerns about the larger ecological challenges we have as
we go forward trying to sustain what is a critical industry for
my state that provides a tremendous source of economic
development as well as jobs. But to achieve these sustainable
fishery management, managers must consider sort of that balance
between the ecological needs and also the commercial and
recreational value of fishing, and that includes managing
forage fish that larger species depend upon.
New Jersey and the Mid-Atlantic region, as a whole, have
made considerable strides to improve the sustainability of
these important fish, but nationwide, I feel at least that we
need to be doing more. In many instances, there are no Federal
management plans for forage species.
What can NOAA Fisheries and the Councils do to improve
forage fish management so that fishermen in coastline and
coastal communities can continue to enjoy the benefits of
healthy forage fish stocks?
Mr. Oliver. I totally agree with you, the importance of
forage fish in the overall ecological picture. And we talk
about ecosystem-based fishery management, and that's a critical
aspect of that. And I keep falling back on my North Pacific
experience, but we banned fishing for a number of forage fish
species, oh, nearly 2 decades ago for those very reasons.
I think there are probably, in different regions that I
don't fully understand, there probably are fisheries on those
stocks for good reasons, but I think it goes back to that
balancing act. And I guess--I very much appreciate and
understand your comments, sir, and the importance of forage
fish, and I think it's up to each Council working with the
agency to make sure that we're protecting those to the extent
we need to be doing for the larger ecological processes.
We can't maintain long-term sustainability of our target
fisheries unless they have--unless we manage them properly in
and of themselves and unless they have an adequate forage base.
So they're both very important.
Senator Booker. Great. And I just have a yes or no, just
another commitment I would love to get from you. But you know
that shark finning was first outlawed in U.S. waters in 2000.
And a loophole in that original law was closed by the Shark
Conservation Act of 2009.
I recently asked your office how many shark finning
investigations NOAA has opened since January 1, 2010. I was
shocked to find out that since 2010, NOAA has investigated over
500 incidences of alleged shark finning. As of April, there
were seven shark finning cases that were open, but not yet
charged. And I guess I might ask for assurances that, Will you
just keep me informed on the progress on investigating these
outstanding cases? And can you assure me that you and your
agencies will take this seriously?
Because, to me, it's a horrific act. Shark fins have no
nutritional value whatsoever, and they do serious damage to
that species. And so I just hope to get from you the assurances
that the agency tasked with investigating these will just
continue to make progress and that maybe you can keep me
informed of that progress.
[The information referred to follows:]
Sen. Booker's office--Shark finning investigations--April 20, 2017
Request:
Senator Booker's office would like to know ``how many shark finning
investigations NOAA has opened since 2010, and how many of those
investigations led to charges and/or arrests'' (National-Scale).
Background: On 03/30/17, Senator Booker introduced a bill, S. 793 that
would prohibit the sale of shark fins.
Response:
NOAA Cases Involving Shark Finning Violations
January 1, 2010 through April 17, 2017
Since January 1, 2010, NOAA has investigated 526 incidents
involving alleged shark finning.\1\ Twenty-six of those investigations
have resulted in charges. Of the remaining cases, 493 were resolved
through compliance assistance (i.e., verbal warning, education/
outreach), closed for lack of evidence or resources, or declined for
prosecution. Seven cases are open but not yet charged. Details on
charged cases are provided below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This list includes only cases that included at least one charge
related to shark finning and that resulted in the issuance of a Notice
of Violation and Assessment, criminal complaint, Summary Settlement or
Written Warning. Cases that involved only other charges related to
sharks (e.g., international trade permit violations, harvesting permit
violations, Lacey Act import and export cases, using sharks as bait)
were not included, nor were open cases, cases referred to a state
government for prosecution, or cases that were dismissed for lack of
evidence. This list does not include cases involving de minimus
violations in which OLE issued a Verbal Warning or provided compliance
assistance without any further enforcement action. The NOAA Fisheries
Office of Law Enforcement issued 24 verbal warnings for shark finning
violations during this time period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statute/Regulation Date of
Case Number Case Name Facts/Charges\2\ Violated Violation Disposition\3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I1606769 FV Sea Dragon Crew observed Magnuson-Stevens 10/17/16 $1,000 Summary
removing the Fishery Conservation Settlement issued by
fins from a and Management Act NOAA Fisheries
shark at sea. (MSA), 16 USC Sec. Office of Law
1857(1)(A), Enforcement (OLE).
regulations at 50
CFR Sec.
600.1203(a)(1).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I1604475 F/V Landed 6 thresher MSA, 16 USC Sec. 10/24/16 Written Warning
Endurance and 4 blacktip 1857(1)(A), issued by OLE; case
sharks without regulations at 50 referred to State
fins attached. CFR Sec. for further action.
635.71(a)(2) and
648.14(a)(6).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SE1602041 In Re Possession of at MSA, 16 USC Sec. 2/27/16 Notice of Violation
David Alan least nineteen 1857(1)(A), and Civil Penalty
Stiller and shark carcasses regulations at 50 Assessment (NOVA)
Michael C. with their fins CFR Sec. issued by the Office
McFadden or tails, or 635.71(d)(6) and of General Counsel
both, removed 635.30(c)(1). Enforcement Section
prior to (GCES) on 10/24/
landing. 2016, assessing a
civil monetary
penalty of $10,000.
Case settled for
$9,000 on 2/23/17.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SW1600692 F/V Possession of MSA, 16 USC Sec. 2/11/16\4\ $2,000 Summary
Elizabeth H fins unattached 1857(1)(P)(ii) Settlement issued by
to the OLE.
corresponding
carcass.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PI1600618 F/V Possession of 6 MSA, 16 USC Sec. 2/6/16 NOVA issued by GCES
Crystal II shark fins 1857(1)(P)(ii) on 1/6/2017,
unattached to assessing a civil
the monetary penalty of
corresponding $15,000.
carcasses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PI1504060 F/V Shark finning MSA, 16 USC Sec. 11/16/15\4\ Written Warning
Captain J3 1857(1)(P)(ii) issued by OLE.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PI1503956 F/V Possession of MSA, 16 USC Sec. 11/19/15\4\ $1,000 Summary
Lady Amme fins unattached 1857(1)(P)(ii) Settlement issued by
to the OLE.
corresponding
carcass.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PI1501463 F/V Golden Shark finning. MSA, 16 USC Sec. 5/22/15\4\ $1,000 Summary
Eagle 1857(1)(A) 50 CFR Settlement issued by
Sec. 600.1204(a)(1) OLE.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PI1500764 F/V Shark finning. MSA, 16 USC Sec. 4/6/15\4\ $1,000 Summary
Crystal II 1857(1)(P)(iv) Settlement issued by
OLE.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SW1500065 F/V Shark finning MSA, 16 USC Sec. 10/28/14 $1,000 Summary
Charlotte V 1857(1)(P)(i) Settlement issued by
OLE.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I1305219 F/V Shark finning. MSA, 16 USC 11/23/13 $450 Summary
Alexander 1857(1)(A) Settlement issued by
OLE.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SE1303346 F/V Big Boy 12 shark fins MSA, 16 USC 7/26/13 NOVA issued by GCES
were found in 1857(1)(A) 50 CFR on 1/13/15,
bags on board a Sec. 635.71(d)(6) assessing a civil
shrimp trawler 50 CFR Sec. monetary penalty of
operating in the 600.1023(a)(2) $9,000.
Gulf of Mexico.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PI1300948 F/V Hokuao Defendant who was The Lacey Act, 16 3/19/13\4\ Case referred to the
the Captain of a U.S.C. Sec. 3372 U.S. Attorney's
federally (a)(1) Office for criminal
permitted prosecution.
longline vessel Defendant Matthew
ordered his crew Case pleaded guilty
to cut the fins to misdemeanor
off of 25 sharks violation of the
and discard the Lacey Act.
carcasses
overboard. He
hid the fins in
a void under the
floorboards of
the pilothouse
to avoid
detection.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I1203001 F/V Pat and Shark finning MSA, 16 USC 9/7/12 $250 Summary
Hannah (removal of 1857(1)(A) 50 CFR Settlement issued by
tail). Sec. 635.71(a)(21) OLE.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SE1202522 F/V Lady Possession of MSA, 16 USC 4/8/12 $45,000 NOVA issued
Lyanna 2,029 fins (from 1857(1)(A) 50 CFR by GCES on 11/25/13.
508 sharks) in a Sec. 635.71(d)(6)
hidden
compartment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PI1202251 F/V Libra Shark finning MSA, 16 USC Sec. 7/9/12\4\ $1,000 Summary
1857(1)(P)(i) Settlement issued by
OLE.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SE1105098 F/V Watersport The vessel landed MSA, 16 USC 11/21/11 NOVA issued by GCES
three mako shark 1857(1)(A) 50 CFR on 3/18/14 assessing
fins that were Sec. 635.71(d)(6) a civil monetary
not naturally penalty of $5,015.
attached to the
corresponding
carcass.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SE1104085 F/V Lucky 146 shark fins MSA, 16 USC 8/16/11 A NOVA assessing a
Diamond were found 1857(1)(A) 50 CFR civil monetary
onboard a shrimp Sec. 635.71(d)(6) penalty of $15,000
trawler was issued by GCES
operating in the on 8/15/14.
Gulf of Mexico.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SE1100674 F/V 48 shark fins MSA, 16 USC 12/21/10 A NOVA assessing a
Whiskey Joe without 1857(1)(A) 50 CFR civil monetary
corresponding Sec. 635.71(d)(6) penalty of $13,000
carcasses were was issued by GCES
found on board on 9/30/13.
shrimp vessel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SE1105076 F/V Shark finning. MSA, 16 USC Sec. 5/20/11 $100 Summary
Southern Lady 1857(1)(A) 50 CFR Settlement issued by
Sec. 635.71(d)(6) OLE.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PI1104518 F/V Shark finning. MSA, 16 USC Sec. 9/30/11\4\ Written Warning
Deborah Ann 1857(1)(P) issued by OLE.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I1100573 F/V Shark finning. MSA, 16 USC Sec. 2/14/11 Written Warning
Buzzards Bay 1857(1)(A) 50 CFR issued by OLE.
Sec. 600.1203(a)(1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PI1100828 F/V No. 1 Engaged in shark MSA, 16 USC Sec. 11/11/10\4\ Written Warning
Ji Hyun finning; and 1857(1)(A) 50 CFR issued by GCES.
possessed shark Sec. Sec. 600.1203(
fins without the a)(1) and (a)(2)
corresponding
carcasses while
on board a U.S.
fishing vessel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I1002197 F/V Ella and Shark finning. MSA, 16 USC Sec. 6/29/10 Written Warning
Sadie 1857(1)(A) 50 CFR issued by OLE.
Sec. 635.71(d)(6)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SE1002041 F/V Shark finning. MSA, 16 USC Sec. 6/29/10\4\ Written Warning
Candie Luck 1857(1)(A) 50 CFR issued by OLE.
Sec. 635.71
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SE100390 F/V Possession of 4 MSA, 16 USC Sec. 6/11/10 Written Warned issued
Golden Dragon shark fins. 1857(1)(A) 50 CFR by GCES.
Sec. 622.7(o)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Facts are those related to shark finning or related charges, the case may include additional counts that are
unrelated to shark finning or requirements to maintain sharks in proper form with their fins naturally
attached.
\3\ The total assessed penalty is for all counts charged in the case, not only those related to shark finning.
\4\ Date case opened.
Mr. Oliver. Yes and yes.
Senator Booker. Thank you very much, sir.
I just want to note for the record the grace and generosity
of the presiding Member, Senator Sullivan.
Senator Sullivan. As always, Senator Booker, I've got your
back.
[Laughter.]
Senator Sullivan. I'm going to wrap up the hearing with
just two more questions for both of the witnesses. Again, I
want to take advantage of having the two outstanding witnesses
here.
Dr. Quinn, what are some of the problems--and in some ways,
it does follow up on Senator Booker's line of questioning--what
are some of the problems that Councils face when managing
fisheries that catch a number of different stocks? And what is
the CCC's position on the use of catch shares?
And, Mr. Oliver, if you want to weigh in on this question,
we would welcome that as well.
Dr. Quinn. Why don't I start with the second question
first, if that's OK, Mr. Chair.
Senator Sullivan. Sure.
Dr. Quinn. I think the catch shares certainly have been
very successful in some part of the country, different
Councils; in others, including mine, they've been far more
controversial. The CCC's position is that it should be a tool
in the toolbox for regional Councils to determine if that works
best for them. You know, there's the old saying, ``One size
does not fit all,'' and I think this is quite appropriate with
the catch shares. It may work in some regions; it may not work
in others. So it should stay in, but as an option, not as a
mandate.
Senator Sullivan. And then that first question I asked
about some of the challenges that the Councils face managing
fisheries that catch a number of different stocks?
Dr. Quinn. Particularly in New England, it's a very big
challenge because you've got the fish are swimming together, or
the scallops and the fish are together, and one stock may be
much more valuable, not just financially, but ecological, but
the Act treats all species the same. So you cannot pick winners
and losers. So it's important that we collect a lot of data on
it.
This term that Mr. Oliver said, it's a choke species, and
particularly as we move into the ecosystem-based fisheries
management, it's going to exacerbate as a problem as well
because we're trying to manage a stock, not just one individual
species.
Senator Sullivan. Mr. Oliver, do you have any comments on
those questions?
Mr. Oliver. Well, I think my comments are fairly similar to
Dr. Quinn's. When you have a mixed stock fishery, sometimes
that's problematic; sometimes it's not. If all the species you
happen to be catching are species that are currently open and
you have markets for them, it's not a problem. The problem
comes into play when you're targeting one species and catching
another that may be seen as an economic discard species, or
particularly when you're catching a species that's either a
bycatch or a choke target species, but perhaps a choke target
species, and that's where the difficulties in management come
into play.
To briefly address your question about catch shares, I know
catch shares were a huge priority for the previous
administration. I don't--this administration hasn't taken a
formal position on catch shares. Personally, my personal
experience, is very similar to Dr. Quinn's. It's an incredibly
important tool used in most of our major fisheries in Alaska,
for example.
I think two things. It's not necessarily an appropriate
tool for all fisheries. And I do believe that whatever
legislation occurs, or we have current legislation, if there's
new legislation, I think it really needs to maintain the
maximum regional flexibility we can because so many of our
fisheries are so different, and the way you construct these
different catch share programs is very dependent on the
specific characteristics and nuances of each fishery. And I
would just urge that the maximum flexibility and, first of all,
whether or not we use a catch share program, but in how we
design the catch share program.
Senator Sullivan. Great. Thanks.
Let me wrap up with one final question, and I do want to
compliment both of you on both not only your emphasis on the
importance of data and science. We're going to back you up with
that. We need that. That's critical to well-managed fisheries.
I know that that's been the experience of both of you, so I
think that that's an area where you'll see bipartisan agreement
on.
But a final question. I certainly have heard a lot about
this in Alaska. In other hearings, I know that it's an issue in
different regions of the country. And it's treated differently
in terms of how it's funded or subsidized. But as you know,
fishermen in some regions have complained about the costs of
onboard observers, and have questioned whether emerging
technologies such as electronic monitoring might be less
expensive and provide comparable or even possibly better
information for fisheries managers.
Does the MSA provide Councils with the flexibility to use
alternative technologies such as electronic monitoring? And
again a question for both of you, What additional tools can
Congress provide to speed up their use? And I think it's again
an important question. I've met fishermen, you know, in my
state where they barely have room to have an additional person
onboard, and yet they have to do that, and it can be
burdensome. But we want the correct data. But there might be
much more efficient ways of doing this.
So do you have a view on that, both of you?
Dr. Quinn. Sure. I'll lead off. Very similar answer as the
catch shares. I mean, the authority is in the Act to put
electronic monitoring in place. And, again, one size does not
fit all. Regions have specific industries or specific fisheries
that it may or may not, depending on the size of the boat and a
whole host of other things that would work.
There are a lot of pilot programs and other work being done
on electronic monitoring. So I think we should have the
flexibility to have it as one of the tools in the toolbox to
make a decision region-by-region if that's the best way to go.
Mr. Oliver. I would just echo the importance of electronic
monitoring options as an option for different fisheries. I
know----
Senator Sullivan. Does Congress need to do more to make it
clear that that's a viable option?
Mr. Oliver. I don't know that there's more that has to be
done. I know we are successfully implementing electronic
monitoring options in a number of our fisheries. I just signed
a rule last week that formerly brings electronic monitoring
into our North Pacific observer program for the fisheries off
Alaska as an option to a human observer. As you point out,
Senator, in many of the small boat fisheries that we want
information on, they're simply physically unable to accommodate
a human observer.
And while cameras may not be free or even as less costly as
many people thought they might be, they probably still are less
costly than a human observer, and certainly can perform
functions that we need. We have cameras in some of the large
offshore factory boats as well inside the processing plant, for
different reasons. But the importance of being able to use them
particularly on the smaller boat fleet is absolutely critical.
Senator Sullivan. Well, listen, I want to thank both the
witnesses for your past experience and service to our country
and this critical area. And certainly there's a strong
interest, I think a bipartisan interest, to work closely with
the two of you as we move forward on ideas and consensus for
MSA reauthorization. I think this is an important start. And we
will keep the record of this hearing open for 2 more weeks if
there are additional questions from members who could not make
the hearing and still have questions for both of you.
With that, our hearing is adjourned. Thank you again for
attending.
[Whereupon, at 11:22 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Northeast Seafood Coalition
Gloucester, MA, July 26, 2017
Hon. Dan Sullivan,
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Lt Cdr Gary Peters,
Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Sullivan and Ranking Member Peters;
The Northeast Seafood Coalition (NSC) sincerely appreciates the
opportunity to provide this statement for the record of the hearing
your Committee will hold on August 1, 2017, regarding ``Reauthorization
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act: NOAA
and Council Perspectives''.
For more than fifteen years NSC has vigorously represented the
interests of New England groundfish fishermen and associated shoreside
enterprises in Federal fishery science and management activities in the
region and in Washington, D.C. Please recall our Policy Director, Vito
Giacalone, has had the privilege of testifying before your Committee on
a range of issues important to our fishery including the one discussed
below. We are grateful for that and for this continuing dialogue.
Based on this extensive experience and expertise with the science
and management of our fishery, we respectfully request your
consideration of the following legislative proposal to revise a
provision set forth in section 4(a)(2) of H.R. 200, the ``Strengthening
Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management
Act'', and to include that revised provision in any legislation to
reauthorize and amend the Magnuson-Stevens Act considered by your
Committee. That provision would amend section 304(e) of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act to provide new and additional authority for the use of a
science-based alternative rebuilding strategy in certain limited
circumstances identified by a Council's Scientific and Statistical
Committee.
There then follows below what we hope you will find to be a
thoughtful rationale for why we firmly believe this new additional
authority is needed for effectively managing our fishery in a manner
that will enable us to prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks
and achieve the optimum yield.
Proposed Revision to section 4(a)(2) of H.R. 200
``(8)A Notwithstanding subparagraph 4(A), if the Scientific and
Statistical Committee determines that a reliable fixed rebuilding
period or a reliable biomass target cannot be established, then a
fishery management plan, plan amendment, or proposed regulations may
use alternative rebuilding strategies, including harvest control rules
and fishing mortality-rate targets to the extent they are in compliance
with the other requirements of this Act.''
Rationale for Authority to Implement an Alternative Rebuilding Strategy
Currently there is only one rebuilding strategy authorized in the
MSA that must be used for all stocks determined to be overfished. This
is the so-called ``10-year rebuilding strategy'' set forth in MSA
section 304(e)(4). This strategy establishes a fixed rebuilding target
and sets a fixed time-frame for rebuilding the stock biomass to that
target.
This strategy is predicated on the ability to reliably estimate
what the Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) for a stock will be years into
the future. In turn, this strategy also depends on the ability to
estimate a reliable rebuilding target (stock biomass) that would
produce that estimate of MSY by the end of the rebuilding period. In
fishery science and management, that estimated stock biomass is called
Bmsy and typically defines the rebuilding target of a rebuilding plan.
Thus, the current MSA rebuilding strategy is based on the
assumption that a stock's biomass will rebuild during those years at a
rate or trajectory that is sufficient to achieve the estimated Bmsy by
a pre-specified date (rebuilding timeframe), such as year 10.
However, the rate at which a stock's biomass increases (or
decreases) depends on 3 key elements of the stock's biological
population dynamics. These elements are----
(1) ``recruitment''--the measure of annual reproductive success and
the degree to which it contributes to a stock's biomass,
(2) ``growth''--the measure of the annual collective growth of
individuals in the population and the degree to which that
contributes to the stock's biomass, and
(3) ``natural mortality''--the measure of annual non-fishing deaths
that occur naturally in the population through, for example,
old age, disease or predation--and the degree to which those
deaths subtract from the stock's biomass.
It is important to recognize that none of these 3 biological
parameters can be controlled by man. They are instead a product of
`nature', which means they are highly susceptible to changes in
ecological and environmental conditions.
Thus, a stock's recruitment, growth and natural mortality can be
extremely difficult if not impossible to reliably predict into the
future, especially when the ecosystem and environment are highly
dynamic and also unpredictable. Simply stated, in some instances such
as for New England groundfish, the current MSA rebuilding strategy
places unrealistic demands on the ability of science to predict an
unpredictable future. This strategy simply does not work for many
groundfish stocks in the northeast multispecies complex and this has
had profound economic and social consequences.
The fourth key element affecting stock biomass is ``fishing
mortality''--the measure of deaths caused by fishing and the degree to
which that subtracts from the stock's biomass. Unlike the other 3 key
elements, however, fishing mortality can be controlled by man and can
be far more reliably estimated than a stock's productivity (MSY),
biomass or the time it might take for a stock to rebuild to Bmsy.
With all this in mind, Congress needs to provide fishery managers
with another tool in the toolbox to address these realities by
providing an additional science-based authority for fishery managers to
choose, when appropriate, an alternative rebuilding strategy that is
based on managing the fishing mortality rate of a stock. If a stock is
managed so that the fishing mortality rate is always held at some
precautionary margin below the overfishing level (Fmsy), the stock will
naturally rebuild to its true Bmsy in the time-frame that nature
dictates, and it will never be subject to overfishing--the two
fundamental objectives of MSA rebuilding policy.
Recognizing the mixed results of the current MSA target/timeframe
rebuilding strategy set forth in section 304(e)(4), in 2010 Members of
Congress requested a study by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to
evaluate the effectives of and alternatives to this policy. In 2014,
the National Research Council (NRC) of the NAS issued its report to
Congress--``Evaluating the Effectiveness of Fish Stock Rebuilding Plans
of the United States''.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Research Council. 2014. Evaluating the Effectiveness
of Fish Stock Rebuilding Plans in the United States. Washington, D.C.:
The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18488.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As set forth in the NRC's ``key findings'' of this report, the
scientific community has concluded and recommended that a rebuilding
strategy based on controlling the fishing mortality rate would be far
more effective than the current rebuilding target/timeframe strategy
especially in situations of high ecosystem/environmental dynamics:
3) Rebuilding plans that focus more on meeting selected fishing
mortality targets than on exact schedules for attaining biomass
targets may be more robust to assessment uncertainties, natural
variability and ecosystem considerations, and have lower social
and economic impact.
a. The rate at which a fish stock rebuilds depends on
ecological and other environmental conditions such as
climate change, in addition to the fishing-induced
mortality,
b. A rebuilding strategy that maintains reduced fishing
mortality for an extended period (e.g., longer than the
mean generation time) would rebuild the stock's age
structure and be less dependent on environmental
conditions than one that requires rebuilding to
prespecified biomass targets, and
c. When rebuilding is slower than expected, keeping
fishing mortality at a constant level below FMSY may
forgo less yield and have fewer social and economic
impacts than a rule that requires ever more severe
controls to meet a predetermined schedule for reaching
a biomass target. (NRC Summary, key findings #3. See
also Summary, Task 2 and Task 5 Discussion, and
Conclusions).
Consistent with the NRC's recommendations, the New England Fishery
Management Council (NEFMC) included the following text in its regional
perspective on the need for greater flexibility in the MSA rebuilding
provisions in the June 2017 Council Coordination Committee's draft
White Paper on MSA Reauthorization.\2\ This perspective also provides a
compelling case for Congress to provide additional authority for a
fishing mortality rate-based rebuilding strategy as an alternative to
the current biomass target/timeframe strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Regional Fishery Management Council Positions on Magnuson-
Stevens Act Reauthorization Issues Council Coordinating Committee (CCC)
Working Paper June 1, 2017 http://s3.ama
zonaws.com/nefmc.org/9b_170601_CCC_MSA_White_Paper.pdf
``New England:
The New England Council believes the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA)
should be amended to allow more rebuilding flexibility. The
current emphasis on a fixed rebuilding time period assumes a
level of stock assessment certainty that does not exist. We
have little ability to predict, and no ability to control, the
environmental changes that are key drivers in rebuilding
progress. We think management should focus on ending
overfishing and not arbitrary rebuilding time frames.
The requirement to define a fixed rebuilding period assumes
that we know current stock size, stock size targets and
rebuilding trajectories to a degree of certainty that is rarely
met.''
The provision described above would amend MSA section 304(e) by
adding a new paragraph (8) that provides a separate and additional
authority for fishery managers to apply a science-based fishing
mortality rate-based rebuilding strategy in the specific limited
circumstance when the Scientific and Statistical Committee determines
that a reliable rebuilding time-frame or a reliable biomass target
cannot be established. This new and additional authority does not
replace the existing biomass target/timeframe rebuilding strategy set
forth in MSA sec. 304(e)(4)(A), which will remain in the statute and
available for fishery managers to use at their discretion.
We deeply appreciate your serious consideration of including this
provision in the Committee's Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization
legislation this Congress. We look forward to the opportunity to work
with you and your excellent staff on this proposal and overall
legislation, and in assisting with the Committee's consideration of
this critical legislation in any way we can.
Sincere thanks,
Jackie Odell,
Executive Director.
______
The Pew Charitable Trusts
July 28, 2017
Hon. Daniel S. Sullivan,
Chair,
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Gary C. Peters,
Ranking Member,
Subcommittee, on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chair Sullivan and Ranking Member Peters:
On behalf of The Pew Charitable Trusts, I write to provide our
views on the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act) and our policy priorities for any upcoming
reauthorization of the law.
First and foremost, we ask that Congress not weaken the core
conservation provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act that are working to
prevent overfishing and rebuild depleted populations across the Nation.
Since 2000, 43 fish populations have been rebuilt to healthy levels. In
addition, U.S. marine fisheries (commercial and recreational) supported
1.6 million jobs in 2015, a 12 percent increase since 2011. This record
of progress is due to changes made to the law in the two most recent
reauthorizations and a concerted effort by fishermen, scientists,
conservationists, fishery managers, and other stakeholders to implement
the Magnuson-Stevens Act through a regionally-driven management
process.
Although progress toward sustainable management of U.S. fisheries
over the past two decades has been considerable, much more needs to be
done. Overfishing in the United States has not ended. As NOAA Fisheries
indicated in its most recent Status of Stocks report, 30 stocks are
subject to overfishing, including six that were newly added to the
overfishing list in 2016. Further, 38 stocks, or 16 percent of stocks
with a known, assessed status, are considered overfished and remain
subject to rebuilding plans. Some of these overfished stocks are not
successfully rebuilding. For these stocks, it is clear that annual
catch limits and rebuilding timelines alone are insufficient.
Additional considerations to incorporate more effective measures to
restore fish populations are necessary to address these lingering
problems.
To advance this more comprehensive approach, Congress should amend
the Magnuson-Stevens Act so that regional and national managers:
Conserve forage fish (such as sardines and menhaden), the
primary food source for many larger fish species (such as cod
and tuna) that are caught commercially and recreationally, in
addition to seabirds and marine mammals.
Minimize bycatch, which is the catching and discarding of
non-target fish and other marine wildlife. Bycatch results in
large-scale waste of wildlife and lost economic opportunity for
fishermen.
Protect fish habitat from destructive fishing practices and
other damaging human activities to ensure fish have safe places
to breed, feed, grow, and take shelter.
Proceed with caution before establishing new fisheries to
ensure they are sustainable from the start.
Develop Fishery Ecosystem Plans, using the best available
scientific information, to provide a road map for management
that considers the important connections among predators, prey,
habitat, and human needs.
America's fish populations are national resources that provide
significant economic and ecological benefits. Therefore, it is
important to maintain the existing, robust process for public
involvement in evaluating how fishery management decisions might affect
coastal and ocean environments and considering reasonable alternatives
to proposed decisions. It is also critical to make sure management
decisions are grounded in science and balance the immediate and long-
term needs of marine life, fishermen, ecosystems, and coastal
communities. Pew is concerned about recent Department of Commerce and
NOAA Fisheries decisions that disregard these objectives and
significantly increase the risk of sanctioned overfishing.
Specifically, the agency's extension of the Gulf of Mexico red snapper
recreational fishing season and the override of the Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission determination that New Jersey's summer
flounder regulations are out of compliance with its management plan are
inconsistent with these objectives.
Finally, we would encourage the Subcommittee to undertake an
inclusive, non-partisan process that actively engages a range of
stakeholders in considering potential changes to the Magnuson-Stevens
Act. During the 2006 reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, a
bipartisan group of Senators and Representatives worked with President
George W. Bush's administration to confront the problems of overfishing
by ensuring councils adopt science-based annual catch limits and
appropriate accountability measures. The resulting legislation passed
both chambers by voice vote. We believe that the process and outcome of
the 109th Congress should serve as the model for the next
reauthorization. To begin the development of a similar bipartisan bill,
hearings that allow a diversity of stakeholders to share their
perspectives on legislative changes to the Act should be held.
Thank you for considering our views on this important issue. My
colleagues and I would welcome the opportunity to discuss
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act with the Committee further.
If you, or your staffs, have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
Ted Morton,
Director, U.S. Oceans, Federal,
The Pew Charitable Trusts.
cc: Members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
______
July 31, 2017
Hon. Dan Sullivan,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast
Guard,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Gary Peters,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and
Coast Guard,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Sullivan and Ranking Member Peters
Nearly 300 chefs, restauranteurs and seafood suppliers from 24
states \1\ signed onto the attached letter, stating their unequivocal
support for a strong fisheries management system that addresses 21st
century challenges. Changing ocean conditions, loss of vital habitat,
and protection of the base of the food chain all need to be addressed
by regional fishery managers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia,
Hawaii, Iowa, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, North
Carolina, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas and Washington
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the need for improvements, our fisheries represent some of
the best managed fisheries in the world. Our businesses depend on the
availability of sustainably caught seafood from U.S. waters. For this
reason, we are not only strongly supportive of efforts to modernize
fisheries law, but also opposed to any efforts to weaken it. We are
concerned that any steps backwards could lead to overfishing, reducing
our access to the products that our customers have come to expect.
This Congress, please oppose any efforts that will take our
fisheries backwards and support those efforts that will carry us into
the future.
Linda Di Lello Morton,
Co-founder,
Terra Plata.
cc: Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee members and
staff
______
Hon. Dan Sullivan,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast
Guard,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Gary Peters,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and
Coast Guard,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Sullivan and Ranking Member Peters
As chefs, restaurateurs, grocers, and restaurant seafood suppliers
we depend on healthy ocean ecosystems, sustainable seafood, and
abundant fish populations. Today, we write to encourage your support
for advancing a more comprehensive fishery management approach when the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act is next
reauthorized. This kind of big picture fishery management is good for
fish, fishermen, and businesses that depend on fish, including the ones
that provide seafood at restaurants across the United States.
The current U.S. fisheries management system emphasizes
establishing fishing rules on individual populations or groups of
similar populations. Although improvements to the law in 1996 and 2006
have helped to end overfishing on many species and to rebuild a number
of depleted populations, they do not address the bigger picture. Taking
a big picture approach, factoring the knowledge we have about what each
species eats, where it lives and what it depends upon is a critical
next step in advancing good management. As Congress moves forward to
consider further updates to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, it is important
to not only maintain our management successes but also build on them to
make sure fish are managed as part of the larger ocean environment and
to reinforce our fisheries against emerging and ongoing threats such as
loss of habitat.
Specifically, we should strengthen the Magnuson-Stevens Act to
better protect essential fish habitats, minimize the incidental catch
of fish and other wildlife, and account for the critical role that
forage fish play as prey for other fish and wildlife. We should analyze
and understand the impact of fishing before opening or expanding
fisheries or accessing new areas. And, we should develop plans that
establish a road map for broadening the scope of managing fish
populations, so we factor in the important interactions among fish
populations, other marine wildlife, and habitats of the ocean
ecosystem.
By incorporating a big-picture approach to fisheries management,
Congress can safeguard our ocean resources and coastal communities for
the long-term benefit of our customers and your constituents.
As an influential member, representing a [state/district] known for
some of the best fisheries in the world, you have the opportunity to
contribute in a critical and substantial way. It is our hope that you
will wholeheartedly embrace such a pivotal leadership role and champion
ecosystem based fisheries management in the reauthorization of
Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Thank you for considering our views. We look forward to working
with you to advance stronger, healthier fisheries that can benefit our
communities from ocean to plate.
Adam Green, Chef
Fez Restaurant & Bar
Phoenix, AZ
Jackson & Kevin Kelly, Owners
Bliss ReBAR
Phoenix, AZ
Kevan Kiefer, Chef
Corduroy
Phoenix, AZ
Mario Pineda, Chef
Bliss ReBAR
Phoenix, AZ
Mark Dillon, Owner
Fez Restaurant & Bar
Switch
Corduroy
Pizza People Pub
Phoenix, AZ
Mark Howard, Owner
Fez Restaurant & Bar
Bliss ReBAR
Phoenix, AZ
Tim & Marybeth Scanion, Owners
Pizza People Pub
Phoenix, AZ
Tom Jetland, Owner
Fez Restaurant & Bar
Switch
Corduroy
Pizza People Pub
Phoenix, AZ
Suzanne Goin, Chef/Owner
Larder Baking Company & Restaurants
Lucques
Tavern
a.o.c
Los Angeles, CA
Seamus Gibney, Executive Chef
Pier 23
San Francisco, CA
Michael Botello, Owner
Wally's Desert Turtle
Rancho Mirage, CA
Soerke Peters, Chef/Owner
Basil Seasonal Dining
Carmel By The Sea, CA
Albert Serrano, Chef
Bluewater Grill
Coronado, CA
Evan Cruz, Executive Chef
San Diego Marriott Del Mar/Arterra Restaurant & Outdoor Lounge
San Diego, CA
Trey Foshee, Executive Chef & Partner
George's at the Cove
Galaxy Taco
La Jolla, CA
Shihomi Borillo, Owner
Azuki Sushi
Artisan Bento
San Diego, CA
Jeff Jackson, Executive Chef
Lodge at Torrey Pines-A.R. Valentien Restaurant
La Jolla, CA
Matt Gordon, Executive Chef/Owner
Urban Solace
Solace and the Moonlight Lounge
Encinitas, CA
Davin Waite, Chef Owner
The Whet Noodle
Wrench and Rodent Seabasstropub
Oceanside, CA
Jason Knibb, Executive Chef
Grande Colonial, NINE-TEN Restaurant
La Jolla, CA
Mourad Jamal, Executive Chef
Poseidon on the Beach
Del Mar, CA
Nikki Martin, Chef/Actress
Food Network
Hollywood, CA
Nathan Lyon, Host
Growing A Greener World; Good Food America with Nathan Lyon
Los Angeles, CA
Michael McGeath, Owner
Brooklyn Girl Eatery
San Diego, CA
Sammy Monsour,
Preux & Proper
Los Angeles, CA
Kim Muller
B/O/T/H Consulting
Manhattan Beach, CA
Cindy Pawlcyn, Founder & Owner
Mustards Grill
Cindy's Backstreet Kitchen
Napa Valley, CA
Rob Ruiz, Chef & Owner
The Land and Water Company
Carlsbad, CA
Andrew Spurgin, Chef/Owner
Andrew Spurgin: Bespoke event styling & menu design
San Diego, CA
Gordon Drysdale, Culinary Director
Scoma's
San Francisco, CA
Jason Azevedo,
Hock farm craft & I provisions
Sacramento, CA
Jason McLeod, Executive Chef & Partner
Ironside Fish & Oyster
San Diego, CA
Dustin Summerville, Founder
Harney Sushi Restaurants
San Diego, CA
Ricardo Heredia, Executive Chef & Owner
Kitchen Mafioso
San Diego & Los Angeles, CA
Alisha Lumea,
Polished Brands
San Francisco, CA
Mark Dommen, Head Chef & Partner
One Market Restaurant
San Francisco, CA
Patty Unterman, Chef & Owner
Hayes Street Grill
San Francisco, CA
Mary Sue Milliken, Chef and Co-Owner
The Border Grill
Santa Monica, CA
Susan Feniger, Chef and Co-Owner
The Border Grill
Santa Monica, CA
John Ash, Chef & Owner
John Ash & Co
Santa Rosa, CA
Raymond Ho, Chef and Co-Founder
Tataki Sushi Bars
San Francisco, CA
Kin Lui, Chef and Co-Founder
Tataki Sushi Bars
San Francisco, CA
Casson Trenor, Co-Founder
Tataki Sushi Bars
San Francisco, CA
Jeff Krivokopich
Guckenheimer
Venice Beach, CA
Stephen Zwick
ztecture
West Los Angeles, CA
Christian Graves, Executive Chef
Panzano
Denver, CO
Brianne Bowdish
Cart driver
Denver, CO
Jeffrey Lammer,
RootdownDIA
Denver, CO
Todd Rymer
Colorado Mountain College
Edwards, CO
Mark R. Leopoldino, Owner
Bill's Seafood
Westbrook, CT
Elena Fusco, Chef
Bin 100
Milford, CT
Adam Young, Owners
Sift Bakeshop
Mystic, CT
Lisa Arsenault, Chef
Lis Bake Shop
Mystic, CT
Elizabeth Alina, Chef
Karma Kitchen Mystic & Juicery
Mystic, CT
Ken Lin, Chef
Workery in Mystic
Mystic, CT
Nora Pouillon, Chef and Owner
Restaurant Nora
Washington, DC
David Rashty, Executive Chef
Jack's-Farm to Fork @ The Pinkshell Beach Resort and Marina
Fort Myers Beach, FL
Jack Boykin, Owner
Pink Shell Beach Resort & Marina--Jack's Farm to Fork & Bongos Bea hide
Grille
Ft Myers Beach, FL
Bob Statler, Owner/Founder
Food Island
Hobe Sound, FL
Persefoni Nicolosi, Director of Operations
Blu Mangrove Grill
Palmetto, FL
David Curran, Chef
Hitched and Honey
Sarasota, FL
Isaac Johnson, Chef
Lila
Sarasota, FL
Patrick Loughrey, Owner/Designer/Writer/Producer
TastyRoyProductions
Sarasota, FL
Stephen Phelps, Chef
Indigenous
Sarasota, FL
Alex Gazdik, Manager
Red Mesa Mercado
St. Petersburg, FL
Cameron Bolonski, Manager
Casita Taqueria
St. Petersburg, FL
Casey Petrauskas, Manager
The Burg Bar and Grill
St. Petersburg, FL
Danny Autrey D, Manager
Engine Rose
St. Petersburg, FL
Denise Backnell, Manager
Leafy Greens Cafe
St. Petersburg, FL
Jason Dudney, Manager
Bodega
St. Petersburg, FL
Jerry Rice, Owner/Chef
Kissin' Cuzzins Restaurant
St. Petersburg, FL
Paul Renner, Owner/Chef
Kissin' Cuzzins Restaurant
St. Petersburg, FL
Jillian Lund Frer, Owner
Chattaway
St. Petersburg, FL
John Reutz, Manager
400 Beach Seafood and Taphouse
St. Petersburg, FL
Travis Zalewski, Manager
400 Beach Seafood and Taphouse
St. Petersburg, FL
Kevyn Kerrivan, Manager
Ricky P's Orleans Bistro
St. Petersburg, FL
Matthew Bronkema, Manager
Ferg's Sports Bar & Grill
St. Petersburg, FL
Natalie Widlak, Manager
Kings's Street Food Counter
St. Petersburg, FL
Rachel Lawhorn, Manager
Engine#9 Bar & Grill
St. Petersburg, Fl
Rodney Contreras, Manager
Gratzzi Italian Grille
St. Petersburg, FL
Sean Hannon, Manager
Stations House
St. Petersburg, FL
Sierra Emory, Manager
Rowdies Den
St. Petersburg, FL
Teerapong Polrat, Manager
The Lemon Grass Tapas
St. Petersburg, FL
Tom Woodard, Owner
Pom Pom's Teahouse & Sandwicheria
St. Petersburg, FL
Tony Harahan, Manager
Hawkers Asian Street Fare
St. Petersburg, FL
Tracy Asalita, Owner
The Queens Head
St. Petersburg, FL
Terry Koval, Chef
Wrecking Bar Brewpub
Atlanta, GA
Mathew Green, Director of Culinary Operations
Blue Orbit
Duluth, GA
Ed Kenney, Chef & Owner
Town Hospitality Group
Mahin & Sun
Town
Kaimuki Superette
Mud Hen Water
Honolulu, HI
Ann Reed,
Iowa State University
Ames, IA
Grant Tipton, Chef
T3 Culinary
Antioch, IL
Bruce Sherman, Chef & Partner
North Pond Restaurant
Chicago, IL
Dan Rosenthal, Owner/Founder
Sopraffina
Chicago, IL
John Mark Stanley
Illinois Institute of Art--Chicago
Chicago, IL
Paul Fehribach, Chef and Co-owner
Big Jones
Chicago, IL
Alfredo Manzanares, Chef
Catahoula Hotel
New Orleans, LA
Dana Honn, Chef and Co-Owner
Carmo: A Tropical Cafe
New Orleans, LA
Isaac Toups, Chef and Owner
Toups Meatery
New Orleans, LA
Kerry Heffernan, Chef
Seaworthy (NOLA), Grand Banks (NY)
New Orleans, LA
Nina Compton, Chef
Compere Lapin
New Orleans, LA
Ryan Prewitt, Chef, Partner
Peche Seafood Grill
New Orleans, LA
Stephen Stryjewski, Chef, Partner
Cochon
Cochon Butcher
Peche Seafood Grill
Calcasieu Rooms
New Orleans, LA
Dickie Brennan Jr, Chef
Dickie Brennan and Company
New Orleans, LA
Lauren Brennan Brower, Owner
Dickie Brennan and Company
New Orleans, LA
Steve Pettus, Managing Partner
Dickie Brennan and Company
New Orleans, LA
Leah Chase, Owner and Executive Chef
Dooky Chase's
New Orleans, LA
Susan Spicer, Owner and Executive Chef
Bayona
New Orleans, LA
Johnny Sheehan, Chef
Liquid Art House
Boston, MA
Peter Davis, Chef
The Charles Hotel/Henrietta's Table
Cambridge, MA
Carolyn Johnson, Chef
80 Thoreau
Concord, MA
Richard Garcia, Chef
Crescent Hotels & Resorts
Kingston, MA
Michael Leviton, Chef
Sustainable Food Systems Consulting Group
Lexington, MA
Jesse Ferriter
Smith College
Northampton, MA
John Lawrence, Owner
Peppers Fine Catering
Northborough, MA
Jes Childers, Chef
New World Tavern
Plymouth, MA
Matt Hennessey, Owner
Driftwood Publick House and Oysteria
Plymouth, MA
Abdus Shakur, Chef and Culinary Arts Instructor
East Weymouth, MA
Corbin Evans, Chef and Owner
Oxford Canteen
Oxford, MS
Vishwesh Bhatt, Executive Chef
SNACKBAR
Oxford, MS
William Dissen, Owner and Executive Chef
The Marketplace Restaurant
Asheville, NC
Clark Barlowe, Chef and Owner
Heirloom Restaurant
Charlotte, NC
Michael Beers,
Chef Gracie K's
Statesville, NC
Corey Fletcher, Chef and Owner
Revival Kitchen and Bar
Concord, NH
Brent Hazelbaker, Chef
Earth's Harvest Kitchen and Juicery
Dover, NH
Mary Ann Esposito, Chef/Host
PBS Ciao Italia with Mary Ann Esposito
Durham, NH
Catherine Brown, Chef
DiCocoa's Market Bakery
Errol, NH
Jeff Alberti, Executive Chef
Tuckers Tavern
Beach Haven, NJ
Peyton Johnson, Chef de Cuisine
Daddy O Restaurant
Brant Beach, NJ
Jeff Alberti, Executive Chef
Plantation Restaurant
Harvey Cedars, NJ
Mattias Gustafsson, Executive Chef; Co-Owner
Madame Claude Bis
Jersey City, NJ
DeAnna Paterra, Chef and Co-Owner
DeAnna's Restaurant
Lambertville, NJ
Lisa Nichols, Co-Owner
DeAnna's Restaurant
Lambertville, NJ
Adam Rose, Chef and Owner
Villalobos
Montclair, NJ
Marc Oshima, Chief Marketing Officer
AeroFarms
Newark, NJ
Ariane Duarte, Chef/Owner
Ariane Kitchen & Bar
Verona, NJ
Greg Honachefsky, Chef/Owner
The Bi-catch Cafe
Dorchester, NJ
Steven Soltz, Professor--Culinary Arts Dept
College of So. NV
Las Vegas, NV
Dorothy Yang
Purple Kale Kitchenworks
Brooklyn, NY
Jacob Tupper, Fishmonger
Greenpoint Fish/MP Fish
Sea To Table
Brooklyn, NY
Michael Dimin, Founding Director
Sea to Table
Brooklyn, NY
Julie Levin, Chef
Nardin Academy
Buffalo, NY
Samantha Buyskes, Former Executive Chef
Kindred Fare
Geneva, NY
Judith Klinger, Founder
World-Eats
New York, NY
Kathy Zeiger, Founder
Artwalk Hamptons
New York, NY
Kerry Heffernan, Chef
Grand Banks
New York, NY
Lilli Donahue, Community Manager
Culinary Agents
New York, NY
Matt Griffin, Executive Chef
Happy Cooking Hospitality
Fedora
Bar Sardine
New York, NY
Michael-Ann Rowe,
Emmy Award-Winning television personality, food & travel journalist; a
culinary advocate, specializing in seafood.
Off the Beaten Palate Productions
New York, NY
Rachel Palczynski, General Manaer
Rouge Tomate Chelsea
New York, NY
Suzannah Schneider, Sustainability Connector
Katchkie Farm/Great Performances
New York, NY
Carl Salamone, Vice President for Seafood
Sustainability
Wegmans Food Markets, Inc.
Rochester, NY
Pamela Lynch, Associate Professor of Biology
Suffolk County Community College
Selden, NY
Amy Paul, Director
Edible Ohio Valley
Cincinnati, OH
Derek dos Anjos, Chef/Owner
The Anchor
Cincinnati, OH
Lilly Burdsall, Chef and Manager
Midwest Culinary Institute at Cincinnati State College
Cincinnati, OH
Douglas Katz, CEO/Chef
Fire Spice Company and fire food and drink
Cleveland, OH
Gian Mercurio,
Greenwillow Grains
Brownsville, OR
Maylin Chavez Navarro, Chef/Owner
Olympia Oyster Bar
Portland, OR
Russell Ruscigno,
Slow Food Portland
Portland, OR
Lyf Gildersleeve, Owner
Flying Fish Company--Sustainable Seafood
Portland, OR
David Joachim, Author/Editor
Joachim Ltd
Center Valley, PA
Zach Grainda, Executive Chef
White Dog Cafe
Haverford, PA
Vince Alberici, Chef Consultant
Seviche
Poros
Sonoma
Nola on the Square
Havertown, PA
George Bush,
The Summit Restaurant
New Milford, PA
Anthony Bonett, Executive Chef
Moshulu
Philadelphia, PA
Yves Carreau, Chef and Proprietor
Perle
Seviche
Poros
Sonoma
Nola on the Square
Pittsburgh, PA
Ralph P Fernandez, Executive Chef
Autograph Brasserie
Wayne, PA
Dan Stern, Chef
R2L
Philadelphia, PA
David Dadekian, President and Writer/Editor
Eat Drink Rhode Island
Coventry, RI
Chef Bill Idell, Assistant Dean of the College of Culinary Arts
Johnson and Wales University
Providence, RI
Liam Kimball, General Manager, Business Operations
Juilians
Providence, RI
Meghan Brennan, Executive Chef
The Sqaure Peg
Warren, RI
Bill Idell, Assistant Dean
Johnson and Wales University--College of Culinary Arts
Providence, RI
Kaza Kondo, Executive Chef
Wara Wara
Providence, RI
Rick Farmer
St. Jude Children's Research Hospital
Memphis, TN
Wally Kinney, Partner
Cafe Blue
Bee Cave, TX
Crystal Laramore, Owner/Executive Chef
Crystal's Bistro
Cold Spring, TX
Felipe Gonzalez, Executive Chef/Executive Sous Chef
Shearn's: Moody Gardens Hotel, Spa and Convention Center
San Luis Steakhouse: The San Luis Resort & Conference Center
Galveston, TX
Paco Vargas, Executive Chef and Co-Owner
Rudy & Paco's
Galveston, TX
Ricky Craig, Co-Owner and Chef
Harborside Mercantile
Galveston, TX
Jack Tyler, Chef, Writer, and Photographer
Culinary Houston
Houston, TX
David Skinner, Co-Owner and Executive Chef
Eculent
Kemah, TX
Jason Loban, Executive Chef
Sulphur Springs Country Club
Sulphur Springs, TX
Nancy Manlove, Executive Chef and Owner
Personal Chef; Host: I45NW Cooking Show
Texas City, TX
Casey Gaido, Executive Chef
Gaido's Restaurant
Galveston, TX
Mark Schneider, Texas Chef's Association
President
Department Chair Culinary Arts, Texas State
Technical College
Waco, TX
Michael Wards, Executive Chef/Owner
The Austin Artisan
Austin, TX
Alan McArthur, Owner
McArthur's
Lakeway, TX
Al Lopez, Executive Chef
McArthur's
Lakeway, TX
Ben Nathan, Executive Chef/Partner
Cafe Blue
Austin, TX
Johnny Smecca, Partner
Saltwater Grill
Sky Bar l Steak & Sushi
Little Daddy's Gumbo Bar
NONNO TONY'S
The Gumbo Diner
Taquilo's
Galveston, TX
Erkem Hyseni, Owner/Chef
Adriatic Cafe
Jersey Village, TX
Haythem Dawlett, Owner
Floyd's on the Water
Texas City, TX
Trace Benno, Chef/Owner
Benno's Cajun Seafod
Galveston, TX
Jimmy McClure, Chef/Owner
Jimmy's on the Pier
Galveston, TX
Jim Watkins, Chef & Director
Food Services Bastyr University
Kenmore, WA
Holly Smith, Chef/Owner
Cafe Juanita
Kirkland, WA
Brian Canlis and Mark Canlis, Owners
Canlis
Seattle, WA
Diane LaVonne, Founder/Owner
Diane's Market Kitchen
Seattle, WA
Eric Tanaka, Executive Chef & Managing Partner
Tom Douglas Restaurants
Seattle, WA
Johnathan Sundstrom, Chef/Owner
Lark Restaurant
Seattle, WA
Joshua Henderson, Chef & Proprietor
Huxley Wallace Collective
Westward
State
Saint Helens
Bar Noroeste Taqueria
Vestal
Poulet Galore
Cantine
Scout PNY
The Nest
Seattle, WA
Mick Heltsley, Owner
Agua Verde Cafe
Seattle, WA
Tamara Murphy, Chef/Co-Founder
Terra Plata
Seattle, WA
Linda Di Lello Morton, Co-Founder
Terra Plata
Seattle, WA
Maria Hines, Chef & Owner
Maria Hines Restaurants
Tilth
Golden Beetle Agrodolce
Seattle, WA
Toby Eidem, GM/Owner
Corbett Fish House
Vancouver, WA
Jon Rowley
Jon Rowley & Associates
Vashon, WA
Robin Leventhal, Chef-Instructor
Wine Country Culinary Institute
Walla Walla, WA
Robin Leventhal, Chef-Instructor
Crave Catering & Consulting
Walla Walla, WA
Roy Breiman, Corporate Culinary Director
Coastal Hotels
Bellevue, WA
Bruno Feldeisen, Executive Chef
Semiahmoo Resort
Blaine, WA
Riley Starks, Partner
Lummi Island Wild Co-op
Bellingham, WA
Karen Jurgensen, Chef Instructor
Seattle Culinary Academy & Quillisascut Farm School
Seattle, WA
Jason Stoneburner, Chef Partner
Stoneburner
Seattle, WA
Stacey Hettinger, Chef & Owner
Geraldine's Counter
Seattle, WA
Gary Snyder, Owner
Heyday
Seattle, WA
Brendan McGill, Chef/Owner
Hitchcock
Bainbridge Island, WA
Carla Leonardi, Chef/Owner
Cafe Lago
Seattle, WA
Joe Bayley, Chef
Munchery
Seattle, WA
Zoi Antonitsas, Chef
Jarr and Co
Seattle, WA
Mike & Liz McConnell, Owners
Via Tribunali
Seattle, WA
David Burger, Executive Director
Stewardship Partners
Seattle, WA
Ethan & Angela Stowell, Owners & Chef (Ethan)
Stowell Restaurants
Seattle, WA
Matt Dillon, Chef/Owner
Sitka & Spruce
Bar Ferdinand
The Corson Building
The London Plane
The Old Chaser Farm
Seattle, WA
William Belickis, Chef/Owner
Mistral Kitchen
Seattle, WA
Dre Neeley & Pepa Brower, Chef & Owners
Gravy Vashong
Vashon, WA
Jason LaJeunesse, Chef
Earnest Loves Agnes
Seattle, WA
Marius Arbune, Chef
Cornuto
Seattle, WA
Sieb & Jen Jurriaans, Chef & Owner
Prima Bistro
Langley, WA
Alex Wilson, Chef
Odd Fellows
Seattle, WA
Blain Wetzel, Chef
Walter Edward, Chef/Consultant Willows Inn
University Club Lummi Island, WA
Seattle, WA
______
July 31, 2017
Hon. Dan Sullivan,
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Gary Peters,
Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Sullivan and Ranking Member Peters,
We operate businesses that cater to clients who value healthy
coasts and ocean wildlife. The ecotourism industry in California
represents more than 125,000 jobs and over $600 million in revenue per
year. It is a vital part of our local economy. Ensuring sustainable
fish populations and conserving marine resources are important to us
and our customers. As Congress considers the next reauthorization of
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), we
request your leadership to ensure it is updated to advance a big
picture approach, which will better protect our natural resources and
the economies that depend on them.
MSA is forty years old, and we've learned more about how to
maintain productive ecosystems since then. MSA can be improved to help
managers fully utilize the knowledge we have today and account for the
big picture when making management decisions. This means conserving
forage (or bait) fish, which is what other fish and wildlife eat,
protecting where fish live (habitat), and reducing wasteful catch
(bycatch), in addition to other priority actions.
Bait fish form an essential link in the marine food webs and are
necessary to ensure health fisheries and oceans, but the MSA does not
guarantee conservation measures that account for this critical role.
The law should be updated to conserve these important fish.
Additionally, ensuring healthy fish habitats is a critical
component of sustainable fisheries management. It is important to
address the impacts of certain types of fishing and other activities,
such as pollution, in order to conserve habitats for fish. Therefore,
the MSA needs to include greater protections of essential habitats,
such as deep sea corals and spawning sites that fish need for
reproduction, shelter, and growth.
People come to us because they want to see wildlife, but the MSA
currently does not do enough to ensure bycatch is sufficiently
minimized. Some fishing practices catch non-target wildlife including
birds, sea turtles and non-targeted fish. We would like you to ensure
that the law reduces this wasteful catch.
Coastal businesses and other enterprises that are involved in the
ecotourism industry are impacted by how the U.S. manages fish
populations under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. From tour operators to
beachside restaurants, bed and breakfasts to dive shops, businesses
like ours can benefit from a thoughtful bill that advances a big
picture approach to fisheries management. Please understand that
inclusion of big picture management principles in the next
reauthorization of the MSA is critical to our continued economic
success.
Thank you for your time and your consideration of this important
issue.
Sincerely,
We the undersigned
Sail Channel Islands Shearwater Journeys, Inc
Dan Ryder, Captain Debra Shearwater, Owner
Oxnard, CA Hollister, CA
Channel Islands Outfitters, Inc. Blue Water Ventures
Fraser Kersey, CFO & Co-Founder Kim Powell, Owner, Operator &
Santa Barbara, CA Naturalist
Santa Cruz, CA
Paddle Sports Center Newport Landing Whale Watching
Fraser Kersey, CFO & Co-Founder Jessica Roame, Marine Education
Santa Barbara, CA Specialist
Newport Beach, CA
Channel Islands Surfboards Davey's Locker Sportfishing & Whale
Evan Gambetta, Manager Watching
Santa Barbara, CA Jessica Roame, Marine Education
Specialist
Newport Beach, CA
Harbor Breeze Cruises Humboats Kayak Adventures
Amber Boyle, Vice President Brian Saxton, Owner
Long Beach, CA Eureka, Ca
Deep Blue Scuba & Swim Center Beach Bungalow Inn and Suites
Matt Millikin, Manager Anna Patel, Owner
Long Beach, CA Morro Bay, CA
Ventura Dive & Sport Pacifica Sailing Charters
James Smith, Owner Mick Moore, Captain
Ventura, CA San Diego, CA
Living Sea Images Sail San Diego
Marc Shargel, Founder & Captain Tim Hanley, Operations
Photographer Manager
Felton, CA San Diego, CA
Epic SUP Adventures Matthew Meier Photography
Austin Haggerty, Owner Matthew Meier, Underwater
Santa Barbara, CA Photographer
San Diego, CA
Santa Barbara Adventure Company Xplore Offshore
Michael Cohen, Owner Captain Russell Moore, Owner
Santa Barbara, CA San Diego, CA
Central Coast Sailing Charters Central Coast Outdoors
Captain Mark Kocina, Owner John Flaherty
San Luis Obispo, CA Los Osos, CA
Malibu Divers Raptor Dive Charters
Barbara Gentile-Crary, Owner James Smith, Owner
Malibu, CA Ventura, CA
Tom Boyd Underwater Images Seas the Day QQ Adventures
Tom Boyd, Founder & Photographer Dawn Lamb, Owner
Los Angeles, CA San Clemente, CA
Kip Evans Photography
Kip Evans, Founder & Photographer
Pacific Grove, CA
______
July 31, 2017
Hon. Dan Sullivan,
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Gary Peters,
Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Sullivan and Ranking Member Peters,
We operate businesses that cater to clients who value healthy
coasts and ocean wildlife. The ecotourism industry in CT supports a
vibrant tourist industry, vital to the growth of our local economy.
Ensuring sustainable fish populations and conserving marine resources
are important to us and our customers. As Congress considers the next
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (MSA), we request your leadership to ensure it is
updated to advance a big picture approach, which will better protect
our natural resources and the economies that depend on them.
MSA is forty years old, and we've learned more about how to
maintain productive ecosystems since then. MSA can be improved to help
managers fully utilize the knowledge we have today and account for the
big picture when making management decisions. This means conserving
forage (or bait) fish, which is what other fish and wildlife eat,
protecting where fish live (habitat), and reducing wasteful catch
(bycatch), in addition to other priority actions.
Bait fish form an essential link in the marine food webs and are
necessary to ensure health fisheries and oceans, but the MSA does not
guarantee conservation measures that account for this critical role.
The law should be updated to conserve these important fish.
Additionally, ensuring healthy fish habitats is a critical
component of sustainable fisheries management. It is important to
address the impacts of certain types of fishing and other activities,
such as pollution, in order to conserve habitats for fish. Therefore,
the MSA needs to include greater protections of essential habitats,
such as deep sea corals and spawning sites that fish need for
reproduction, shelter, and growth.
People come to us because they want to see wildlife, but the MSA
currently does not do enough to ensure bycatch is sufficiently
minimized. Some fishing practices catch non-target wildlife including
birds, sea turtles and non-targeted fish. We would like you to ensure
that the law reduces this wasteful catch.
Coastal businesses and other enterprises that are involved in the
ecotourism industry are impacted by how the U.S. manages fish
populations under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. From tour operators to
beachside restaurants, bed and breakfasts to dive shops, businesses
like ours can benefit from a thoughtful bill that advances a big
picture approach to fisheries management. Please understand that
inclusion of big picture management principles in the next
reauthorization of the MSA is critical to our continued economic
success.
Thank you for your time and your consideration of this important
issue.
Sincerely,
Kristin Hart Mark Leopoldino
Candlewood Stand Up Paddleboard Bills Seafood
New Fairfield, CT Westbrook, CT
Ed & Ginamarie Hayes Elena Fusco
Scuba Shack Bin 100
Rocky Hill, CT Milford, CT
Jeff Jodoin Adam Young
Paddle Mystic Sift Bakeshop
Mystic, CT Mystic, CT
James Verni Lisa Arsenault
Tidal River Clothing Co. Lisa Bakeshop
Mystic, CT Cos Cob, CT
Jill Kobrin Elizabeth Alina
New England Dive LLC Karma Kitchen Mystic & Juicery
Wallingford, CT Mystic, CT
Ken Lin
Workery in Mystic
Mystic, CT
______
July 31, 2017
Hon. Dan Sullivan,
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Gary Peters,
Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Sullivan and Ranking Member Peters,
We operate businesses that cater to clients who value healthy
coasts and ocean wildlife. The ecotourism and outdoor recreational
industries in Florida represents tens of thousands of businesses and
more than 329,000 direct jobs according to the Outdoor Industry
Association. It is a vital part of our local economy. Ensuring
sustainable fish populations and conserving marine resources are
important to us and our customers. As Congress considers the next
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (MSA), we request your leadership to ensure it is
updated to advance a big picture approach, which will better protect
our natural resources and the economies that depend on them.
MSA is forty years old, and we've learned more about how to
maintain productive ecosystems since then. MSA can be improved to help
managers fully utilize the knowledge we have today and account for the
big picture when making management decisions. This means conserving
forage (or bait) fish, which is what other fish and wildlife eat,
protecting where fish live (habitat), and reducing wasteful catch
(bycatch), in addition to other priority actions.
Bait fish form an essential link in the marine food webs and are
necessary to ensure health fisheries and oceans, but the MSA does not
guarantee conservation measures that account for this critical role.
The law should be updated to conserve these important fish.
Additionally, ensuring healthy fish habitats is a critical
component of sustainable fisheries management. It is important to
address the impacts of certain types of fishing and other activities,
such as pollution, in order to conserve habitats for fish. Therefore,
the MSA needs to include greater protections of essential habitats,
such as deep sea corals and spawning sites that fish need for
reproduction, shelter, and growth.
People come to us because they want to see wildlife, but the MSA
currently does not do enough to ensure bycatch is sufficiently
minimized. Some fishing practices catch non-target wildlife including
birds, sea turtles and non-targeted fish. We would like you to ensure
that the law reduces this wasteful catch.
Coastal businesses and other enterprises that are involved in the
ecotourism and outdoor recreational industries are impacted by how the
U.S. manages fish populations under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. From tour
operators to beachside restaurants, bed and breakfasts to dive shops,
businesses like ours can benefit from a thoughtful bill that advances a
big picture approach to fisheries management. Please understand that
inclusion of big picture management principles in the next
reauthorization of the MSA is critical to our continued economic
success.
Thank you for your time and your consideration of this important
issue.
Sincerely,
Captain Memo's Pirate Cruise
Pam Wozencraft--Owner
Clearwater Beach, FL
Little Toot Tours
Clearwater Beach, FL
Sea Screamers of Clearwater
Eric Spaulding--Owner
Clearwater Beach, FL
Encounters With Dolphins
William Fineran--Owner
Clearwater Beach, FL
Calypso Queen Tours
Phil Henderson--Owner
Clearwater Beach, FL
The Tropics Boat Tours
Trisha Rodriguez--Owner
Clearwater Beach, FL
MEGA BITE Tour Boat
Derrick and Darrel Lombardi--Owners
Kai Lani Catamaran
Mike Judge--Owner
Clearwater Beach, FL
ParrotDise Express Boat Tours
Jeff Gearheart
Dunedin, FL
Chute Em Up Parasail
Caleb Mcclymont--Manager
Clearwater Beach, FL
Tampa Bay SUP Standup Paddle Boarding & Kayaking
Safety Harbor, FL
Kim Ward-Owner
Carolina Mike's Kayaking Adventures
Kim Ward referral-great opportunity
Safety Harbor, FL
High Times Parasail and Watersports
Mark Ketlan--Manager/Owner
Clearwater Beach, FL
Around the Bend Nature Tours
Karen Willey--Owner
Bradenton, FL
Parasail City
Caleb Mcclymount--Owner
Clearwater Beach, FL
Riverfront Cruises
James Cambell--Owner
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Jungle Queen Riverboat
Mike Faber--Owner
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Carrie B Cruises
Steve Thorton--Owner
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Riverfront Gondola Tours
Captain's Roy and Lauralee Conklin
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Sea Life Kayak Adventures
Tom McFarland--Owner
Sarasota, FL
Island Time Charter
Captain--Chet Soltak
Sarasota, FL
Kenneth A Myers
Atlantic Coast Kayak Company
Wilton Manors
Carmen Driscoll
Carmen's Kayaks
Pine Island
Barbara Schenck
FunDay Tours
Cocoa Beach
Motorized Kayak Adventures
Bill Gibson
Fort Pierce, FL
Paddle Florida, Inc.
Bill Richards
Gainesville, FL
South Florida Underwater Photographic Society
Sam Hodge
Fort Lauderdale, FL
______
July 31, 2017
Hon. Dan Sullivan,
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Gary Peters,
Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Sullivan and Ranking Member Peters,
We operate and represent businesses that cater to clients who value
the health of our waters and the wildlife it sustains. The ecotourism
industry in New Jersey is not only vital to our local economies, it is
robust--for example, ecotourism in Cape May County alone represents a
$544 million industry. And, these benefits extend far beyond our
coastal waters to include the major rivers and estuaries which serve as
the spawning areas for species such as sturgeon and shad.
Ensuring sustainable fish populations and conserving marine
resources are important to us and our customers.
As Congress considers the next reauthorization of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), we request your
leadership to ensure it is updated to advance a big picture approach,
which will better protect our natural resources and the economies that
depend on them.
MSA is forty years old, and since its enactment we've learned more
about how best to maintain productive ecosystems. MSA can be improved
to help managers fully utilize the knowledge we have today and account
for the big picture when making management decisions. This means
conserving forage (or bait) fish, which is what other fish and wildlife
eat, protecting where fish live (habitat), and reducing wasteful catch
(bycatch), in addition to other priority actions.
Bait fish form an essential link in the marine food webs and are
necessary to ensure healthy fisheries and oceans, but the MSA does not
guarantee conservation measures that account for this critical role.
The law should be updated to conserve these important fish.
Additionally, ensuring healthy fish habitats is a critical
component of sustainable fisheries management. It is important to
address the impacts of certain types of fishing and other activities,
such as pollution, in order to conserve habitats for fish. Therefore,
the MSA needs to include greater protections of essential habitats,
such as deep sea corals and other spawning sites that fish need for
reproduction, shelter, and growth.
People come to us because they want to see wildlife, but the MSA
currently does not do enough to ensure bycatch is sufficiently
minimized. Some fishing practices catch non-target wildlife including
birds, sea turtles and non-targeted fish. We would like you to ensure
that the law reduces this wasteful catch.
Coastal and river-based businesses and other enterprises that are
involved in the ecotourism industry are impacted by how the U.S.
manages fish populations under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. From tour
operators to beachside restaurants, bed-and-breakfasts to dive shops,
businesses like ours can benefit from a thoughtful bill that advances a
big picture approach to fisheries management. Please understand that
inclusion of big picture management principles in the next
reauthorization of the MSA is critical to our continued economic
success.
Thank you for your time and your consideration of this important
issue.
Sincerely,
Bend The Rod and Island Girl Greater Newark Convention &
Charters Visitors Bureau
Scott Krawiec, Owner Bob Provost, Acting President/CEO
Cape May, NJ Newark, NJ
Bike Lambertville The Inn at Lambertville Station
Lloyd Davis, Chairman Dan Whitaker, Owner
Lambertville, NJ Lambertville, NJ
Center for Aquatic Sciences at Jenkinson's Aquarium
Adventure Cindy Claus, Director
Aquarium Point Pleasant Beach, NJ
Brian DuVall, President & CEO
Camden, NJ
Delaware River Towns Chamber of NJ Campground Owners Association
Commerce and Visitors Bureau Joann DelVescio, Executive Director
Glenn Davis, President & David Marmora, NJ
Morgan,
Executive Director
Lambertville, NJ
Frenchtown Business & Professional Pinelands Adventures
Association Rob Ferber, Director
Molly Sumridge, President Shamong, NJ
Frenchtown, NJ
______
July 31, 2017
Hon. Dan Sullivan,
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Gary Peters,
Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Sullivan and Ranking Member Peters,
We operate businesses that cater to clients who value healthy
coasts and ocean wildlife. The ecotourism and outdoor recreational
industries in Washington State represents tens of thousands of
businesses and more than 227,000 direct jobs. It is a vital part of our
local economy. Ensuring sustainable fish populations and conserving
marine resources are important to us and our customers. As Congress
considers the next reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (MSA), we request your leadership to
ensure it is updated to advance a big picture approach, which will
better protect our natural resources and the economies that depend on
them.
MSA is forty years old, and we've learned more about how to
maintain productive ecosystems since then. MSA can be improved to help
managers fully utilize the knowledge we have today and account for the
big picture when making management decisions. This means conserving
forage (or bait) fish, which is what other fish and wildlife eat,
protecting where fish live (habitat), and reducing wasteful catch
(bycatch), in addition to other priority actions.
Bait fish form an essential link in the marine food webs and are
necessary to ensure health fisheries and oceans, but the MSA does not
guarantee conservation measures that account for this critical role.
The law should be updated to conserve these important fish.
Additionally, ensuring healthy fish habitats is a critical
component of sustainable fisheries management. It is important to
address the impacts of certain types of fishing and other activities,
such as pollution, in order to conserve habitats for fish. Therefore,
the MSA needs to include greater protections of essential habitats,
such as deep sea corals and spawning sites that fish need for
reproduction, shelter, and growth.
People come to us because they want to see wildlife, but the MSA
currently does not do enough to ensure bycatch is sufficiently
minimized. Some fishing practices catch non-target wildlife including
birds, sea turtles and non-targeted fish. We would like you to ensure
that the law reduces this wasteful catch.
Coastal businesses and other enterprises that are involved in the
ecotourism and outdoor recreational industries are impacted by how the
U.S. manages fish populations under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. From tour
operators to beachside restaurants, bed and breakfasts to dive shops,
businesses like ours can benefit from a thoughtful bill that advances a
big picture approach to fisheries management. Please understand that
inclusion of big picture management principles in the next
reauthorization of the MSA is critical to our continued economic
success.
Thank you for your time and your consideration of this important
issue.
Paul Fish, President
Mountain Gear, Inc.
Spokane Valley, WA
Grant Putman, President
Northwest Guides & Anglers
Association
Tillamook, OR
Heidi Siegelbaum, Former Owner
Calyx Sustainable Tourism
Seattle, WA
Jake Haupert, Founder
Evergreen Escapes
Seattle, WA
Dave McCoy, Owner
Emerald Water Anglers, LLC
Seattle, WA
Shari Tarantino, President
Orca Conservancy
Seattle, WA
John Land Le Coq, CEO/Founder
Filson Company Fishpond, Inc.
Seattle, WA Silverthorne, CO
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to
Chris W. Oliver
Question 1. You stated in your testimony that there are
opportunities for additional flexibility in how we apply Annual Catch
Limits (ACLs), accountability measures, and rebuilding plans in the
currently enacted MSA, and that ``we can have it both ways'' as it
pertains to ensuring conservation efforts are not jeopardized. Please
elaborate on this, specifically what tools Congress can provide to the
Councils that would allow additional management flexibility without
jeopardizing conservation.
Answer. Annual catch limits (ACLs) have been and remain an
effective tool in ending overfishing and rebuilding fish stocks, and
are a cornerstone of sustainable fisheries management. However,
implementing them and associated accountability measures has been
challenging in some fisheries--particularly where data is scarce and
where commercial and recreational user groups have fundamentally
different goals and objectives. For example, setting effective ACLs for
species in coral reef ecosystems in the Pacific Islands and Caribbean
regions, is one of our biggest challenges due to lack of data regarding
stock status and fishing harvests. Calls for increased flexibility are
also coming from some recreational fisheries along the Atlantic and
Gulf coasts. In these fisheries, harvest data can be much more
difficult to collect and report on a timely basis than in most
commercial fisheries. Therefore, alternative management mechanisms may
be useful.
Increased flexibility under the current MSA was a primary goal of
NOAA Fisheries' recent revisions to the National Standard 1 Guidelines.
The revised guidance provides additional flexibility to the Councils in
setting rebuilding timelines, phasing in new catch limits, carrying
over unused quota, determining when stocks are subject to overfishing,
and managing data limited stocks. For example, if a stock assessment
shows fishing needs to be curtailed to ensure a stock is sustainable, a
Council may phase the full reduction over a period of 3 years as long
as the catch level is set below the overfishing limit. This flexibility
allows the Council to reduce the economic impact of such a cut instead
of taking the entire needed reduction in a single year.
While the Councils are actively exploring the use of the
flexibility included in the revised guidelines, we recognize additional
measures may be necessary--particularly for some recreational
fisheries. Increasing flexibility further will require a multipronged
approach focusing on both science and effective management tools and
with involvement from a wide host of stakeholders including Congress.
NOAA Fisheries is committed to ensuring regional fishery management
councils have flexibility to tailor their management plans to maximize
fishing opportunities and develop regional solutions to regional
problems while preventing overfishing and maintaining stocks at
sustainable levels.
Question 2. What new tools could Congress provide the Councils to
manage recreational fisheries differently, while also being mindful of
annual catch limits?
Answer. NOAA Fisheries continues to support the pursuit of
alternative management strategies that may be better suited for
recreational fisheries, while remaining mindful of annual catch limits.
In 2016, the American Sportfishing Association and Theodore Roosevelt
Conservation Partnership convened a saltwater recreational fisheries
alternative management strategy workshop with support from and
participation by NOAA Fisheries. The resulting report highlighted
several potential tools including harvest rate management, harvest
tags, conservation equivalency, revising optimum yield, and others. The
Agency is currently evaluating the feasibility of the proposed tools.
Our continued efforts with the Councils aim to identify the right
tools, or combination of tools, to address the specific needs
encountered in recreational fisheries management.
Question 3. In Alaska, studies have shown that the average age of
fishery permit holders in 2015 was 50 years, up nearly 10 years since
1980. In other areas of the country the average age is even older. What
needs to be done to train and equip the next generation of fishermen
with the tools they otherwise lack in order to build successful fishing
businesses?
Answer. We support the goal of training beginning and young
fishermen, and NOAA has a variety of programs that support this. NOAA's
most recent data show that the seafood industry generated an estimated
$208 billion in sales impacts and supported 1.6 million jobs in 2015.
Fishermen are a cornerstone of this economic engine supplying consumers
with healthy, safe, and sustainable seafood. Ensuring fishermen,
particularly young fishermen interested in entering the industry, are
provided with the information and tools necessary to establish their
businesses, and are trained to fish safely and sustainably benefits the
future of the U.S. seafood industry, the economies that depend on that
industry, and the continued viability of fish stocks.
For example, NOAA provides funding for the Marine Resource
Education Program, a highly successful program in the Northeast and
Southeast, which gives fishermen with an inside look at fisheries
science and management processes and equips them with tools to engage
in shaping regulatory action and participate in collaborative science.
NOAA also provides funding for the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation's Fisheries Innovation Fund (Fund), which focuses on
community capacity building, among other priorities. The Fund is
designed to foster innovation in the fishing industry to sustain
fishermen's livelihoods while rebuilding fish stocks. One project
funded in 2016 is a state commercial fisherman apprenticeship program
in California, involving classwork and on-the-water training for
students. The program also recruits experienced fishermen as employers
for new entrants into California commercial fisheries. Another project
funded in 2016 is the Local Fish Fund, which works to ease entrance
into the Gulf of Alaska groundfish fishery by facilitating the transfer
of fishing rights from established fishermen and thus removing
financial barriers for new entrants.
NOAA's National Sea Grant Program, with its network of 33 Sea Grant
programs in the coastal U.S. States and territories, also provides an
avenue for and legacy of training fishermen. For example, Alaska and
Washington Sea Grant programs fund social science research to
understand and address the barriers faced by young people who want to
enter and grow in the fishing industry. Since 2007, Alaska Sea Grant
has convened six statewide Alaska Young Fishermen's Summits. More than
400 new fishery entrants have attended, and nearly 100 industry
volunteers have been mentors and speakers. In 2016, California Sea
Grant launched an apprenticeship program to help educate young people
about the opportunities in commercial fishing while educating them
about the regulations, skills and co-management approach necessary to
keep commercial fishing economically, ecologically and socially
sustainable. Louisiana Sea Grant's Louisiana Fisheries Forward program
helps fishermen, dealers and processors understand the integrated
pieces of commercial fishing, including business trends, new
technologies and equipment, regulatory rules and policies, resource
preservation, and responsible and safe fishing. The program also
includes educational meetings for inshore recreational for-hire
captains focusing on the importance of recreational surveys, current
charter captain license requirements and opportunities for reaching new
customers.
In addition, many Sea Grant programs provide training to commercial
fishermen on marine safety and safe seafood handling. Alaska Sea Grant
provided marine safety training to 4,400 commercial fishermen in 2016
and provided safe seafood handling techniques training to 100
individuals in 27 communities (100 people in 27 communities trained in
2016). Sea Grant programs also routinely provide technical assistance
to new and existing commercial fisheries businesses. For example,
Alaska Sea Grant partnered with the Bristol Bay Economic Corporation's
Business of Fish program and has provided relevant fishing business
information and support to more than 200 commercial fishermen in the
Bristol Bay region since 2014.
Question 4. What steps is NOAA undertaking to assess the
requirements that require council members to recuse themselves from
voting? As you know, recusal of voting council members has been a
concern for the North Pacific Fishery Management Council.
Answer. The recusal of voting Council members has been an issue for
several of the regional fishery management Councils, including the
North Pacific Fishery Management Council as is explained below. The MSA
requires recusal of certain members if a council decision would have a
``significant and predictable effect'' on a financial interest that the
member is required to disclose pursuant to related provisions of the
Act. See 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1852(j)(2),(7). The Act specifies that ``[a]
Council decision shall be considered to have a significant and
predictable effect on a financial interest if there is a close causal
link between the Council decision and an expected and substantially
disproportionate benefit to the financial interest of the affected
individual relative to the financial interests of other participants in
the same gear type or sector of the fishery.'' Id. Sec. (j)(7)(A).
NOAA's regulations define ``council decision'' to mean, among other
things, ``approval of a fishery management plan (FMP) or FMP amendment
(including any proposed regulations) [or] request for amendment to
regulations implementing an existing FMP.'' 50 C.F.R.
Sec. 600.235(a)(2). For purposes of the recusal procedures, the
regulations define ``expected and substantially disproportionate
benefit'' in terms of a ten percent interest in harvesting, marketing,
or processing, or a ten percent ownership of vessels operating in a
fishery. Id. Sec. 600.235(c)(3). This applies whether the individual is
an actual owner of such activity or an employee of an entity owning
such activity.
The North Pacific Council has concerns with the way in which NOAA
attributes fishing activity and vessel ownership to a Council member
when multiple company ownership is involved. Agency regulation,
referred to as full attribution, is as follows: if Council member Jones
works for company A, and company A owns 3 percent of company B, then
100 percent of company B's activities are attributed to Council member
Jones for purposes of comparing Jones' financial interests to the 10
percent recusal thresholds. The North Pacific Council, as well as the
Council Coordination Committee representing all eight of the regional
fishery management Councils, has argued that that attribution should be
proportional to ownership. Under proportional attribution, and using
the same example, Council member Jones would only be attributed with 3
percent of company B's fishing activity. The full attribution approach
results in the frequent recusal of one Council member in the North
Pacific because this member is employed by a company that partially or
wholly owns several other fishing companies and the total activity of
all the companies routinely exceeds the 10 percent threshold for
groundfish harvest in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands. However, it is
likely this Council member would not be recused under a proportional
attribution approach.
In the spring of 2017 the Council member was recused from a Council
vote on designation of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). The amendment
updated EFH descriptions following a five-year review of existing EFH
components, replaced existing EFH maps, updated EFH conservation
recommendations for non-fishing activities, initiated a HAPC proposal
process, and revised research priorities for EFH. No regulations will
be changed as a result of the amendments, and there will be no changes
to fishing activities (including the total amount of groundfish
harvested by that Council member's employer). Because the action taken
by the North Pacific Council was a Council decision and his employer
exceeds the 10 percent threshold of groundfish harvest under the
current attribution policy, the Council member was recused. The North
Pacific Council has argued that this recusal also was inappropriate
because there could be no ``close causal link'' between a Council
decision and a ``substantial and disproportionate benefit'', because
there is no benefit to be realized in the first place.
NMFS has tasked its recusal working group, which is comprised of
experts in both NMFS and NOAA GC, to consider whether the agency should
take any action regarding how the recusal provisions should be applied
in such circumstances in the future. We have discussed this issue
internally during my first few weeks in the AA position and I have made
this a high priority for resolution. I have requested NMFS staff and
NOAA GC to reevaluate the attribution policy for recusal determinations
and to clarify the application of the close causal link requirement in
the MSA. I expect the working group to provide a report in September,
and we will promptly undertake appropriate action.
Question 5. Do you believe that cooperative research programs that
utilize state, university, and other data could be helpful to Federal
managers? How best can the integrity of third-party data be assured?
Answer. Data collected by states, universities, and other entities
is important to Federal scientists and managers and NOAA Fisheries
currently utilizes data collected by third parties in its stock
assessments. This includes fishery-dependent and fishery-independent
data collected by state partners, university researchers, and
cooperative research projects. NOAA Fisheries coordinates with state
partners to cooperatively collect, manage, and disseminate fishery data
through the Fisheries Information Networks (FINs). NOAA Fisheries also
collaborates with state and university partners on some fishery
independent surveys, such as the Southeast Area Monitoring and
Assessment Program (SEAMAP), Northeast Area Monitoring and Assessment
Program (NEAMAP), and cooperative trawl surveys. Additionally, every
Fisheries Science Center supports cooperative research projects
involving a broad range of stakeholders, including state and tribal
managers and scientists, fishing industry partners, and educational
institutions. All of these programs are integral to NOAA Fisheries'
scientific enterprise because they increase the quality and quantity of
data, include stakeholder knowledge, improve relevance and transparency
of research, and reduce costs by creating greater efficiencies and
shared costs.
A few factors are important for the integrity of data to inform
management, including establishing a long time series of data and using
appropriate survey and sampling designs. All data included in stock
assessments must undergo review to ensure the best scientific
information available is used and to ensure that the data does not
introduce too much uncertainty into assessments. For this reason, NOAA
Fisheries scientists work closely with many cooperative research
programs to design projects which can be incorporated into or inform
assessments. Many cooperative long-term projects, such as industry-
based surveys, undergo periodic peer reviews to ensure that field
methods, data collection and analysis, and interpretation are all valid
and robust. For recreational fisheries surveys, the Marine Recreational
Information Program also works to certify state or third party surveys,
following independent peer review, to ensure they meet statistical
standards.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roger F. Wicker to
Chris W. Oliver
Question 1. Last year NOAA published a final rule that lays the
groundwork for implementing offshore aquaculture in the Gulf or Mexico.
However, to date nobody has filed to get a permit for finfish or
shellfish, siting regulatory challenges as the primary obstacle. What
has NOAA been doing to streamline the Federal permitting process?
Answer. To streamline the Federal permitting process, NOAA and six
other Federal agencies have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding
for Permitting Offshore Aquaculture Activities in Federal Waters of the
Gulf of Mexico (MOU). The signatories are the Coast Guard and the
regional and district offices of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
(BOEM), Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Army Corps of Engineers (Corps),
Environmental Protection Agency, and Fish and Wildlife Service.
NOAA's approach to implementing the Gulf rule was developed in
close collaboration with these other Federal regulatory agencies and
with input from an aquaculture task force within the Marine Fisheries
Advisory Committee. We now have mechanisms in place to coordinate our
new regulatory program for Gulf Aquaculture Permits with existing
regulatory programs at the Corps (Section 10 permits under the Rivers
and Harbors Act) and EPA (Clean Water Act permits), as well as with the
Coast Guard, BOEM, and BSEE with respect to potential conflicts with
other activities in the Gulf of Mexico (shipping, oil and gas
production). A key element of this approach is to provide potential
permit applicants an opportunity to schedule a pre-application meeting
with multiple agencies at one time so that potential issues may be
addressed prior to beginning the formal application process.
In addition, we now have a suite of informational materials and
guidance documents to assist permit applicants, including:
A Permit Applicant Guide, which summarizes Federal agency
authorities and describes the coordinated Federal permit
process
A Pre-Application Meeting Checklist, which identifies the
information agencies need the applicant to provide at the
initial stage of the process, along with an example of a
completed checklist
Guidance for preparation of a baseline environmental survey,
which addresses the requirements of both NMFS and EPA
Guidance on the assurance bond and genetics requirements in
the Gulf rule
The Permit Application and Forms are available on-line
NOAA is currently developing an on-line system that will
provide the applicant a user account and a means to submit the
Operating and Reporting Forms electronically
All of the above documents are posted on the NMFS Southeast
Regional Office website at:
http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/gulf_fisheries/
aquaculture/.
Question 2. What do you think are the other challenges holding back
the offshore aquaculture industry in the Gulf of Mexico and how is NOAA
helping remedy those issues?
Answer. In November 2016, the Gulf Seafood Institute, in
collaboration with NOAA Fisheries and the Gulf States Marine Fisheries
Commission, hosted a Gulf of Mexico Offshore Aquaculture Roundtable to
discuss challenges and opportunities. Roundtable participants include
nearly 40 industry and government leaders. A key takeaway from this
meeting is that industry is uncertain as to whether a return on
investment in offshore aquaculture could be earned given a number of
current challenges, including but not limited to permitting challenges
described in question 1. The conversation included the following:
Investors are uncertain if they will be welcomed by Gulf
communities.
A strong coalition of diverse interests to compel government
and investors to support offshore aquaculture efforts is
needed.
Area management plans to manage disease, siting, biosecurity
and other operational features for entities using the same
water systems are needed.
At the roundtable, specific government actions (other than those
regarding permitting) were discussed and details on how NOAA is
addressing these actions are listed below:
Develop mapping tools in consultation with recreational and
commercial fishermen, eNGOs, and state agencies for the Gulf
which indicate areas that are and that may not be suitable for
offshore aquaculture. Such tools would help ease the siting
process for industry, government agencies, and affected
stakeholders.
NOAA actions: A team of researchers with our NOAA
Aquaculture Program partners at the National Ocean Service
is developing siting and mapping tools to indicate areas
suitable for offshore aquaculture in the Gulf. In addition,
environmental models (to predict and avoid potential
impacts) and monitoring protocols are being developed to
support the needs of an offshore aquaculture industry and
coastal managers.
Support partnerships to undertake economic and market
analyses, refinement of aquaculture science products,
technology innovations, monitoring and evaluation of offshore
fish farms, and outreach and educational efforts.
NOAA actions: NOAA Fisheries awarded $500K to the Gulf
States Marine Fish Commission (in addition to similar
awards to the Atlantic and Pacific Commissions) for
industry partnerships to support regional pilot projects.
We will work with the Commission to identify priorities
including addressing challenges to the development of
offshore aquaculture. NOAA Fisheries awarded an additional
$76K to the Gulf Commission for economic analysis of
aquaculture in the region. NOAA Fisheries' Saltonstall-
Kennedy Grant Program has funded projects that directly
relate to development of offshore aquaculture in the Gulf
including red drum genetics, snapper hatchery technologies,
waste monitoring, and cage engineering. NOAA Sea Grant
awarded over $3.2M from its FY 2017 National Aquaculture
Initiative to researchers and private industry partners to
address impediments to increased aquaculture production in
the Gulf of Mexico. Seven projects will address topics
involving basic and applied research to improve efficient
production of seafood, permitting and public perception of
new offshore operations, management of environmental health
issues and economic success of shellfish and finfish
aquaculture businesses. In addition, the $6M awarded to
support projects in other regions will have potential
benefit to aquaculture initiatives in the Gulf.
Other NOAA actions to support development of offshore aquaculture
in the Gulf include the following:
NOAA Fisheries worked with the Gulf States Marine Fish
Commission to fund the Gulf Seafood Institute's ``Gulf Seafood
Tour of Maine's Aquaculture Community'' in July 2017. This
event brought together influential, Gulf of Mexico stakeholders
from the fishing community and Gulf states' governments to
experience, first-hand, the aquaculture community in Maine with
a focus on identifying potential obstacles and opportunities
for the Gulf of Mexico.
NOAA Fisheries with USDA and the White House's OSTP are
developing an Aquaculture Innovation Challenge that seeks to
increase positive perception of aquaculture on a national
level.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to
Chris W. Oliver
Question 1. Regional Management Authority: Regional management
authority is a core foundation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and part of
that foundation is the emphasis on the balance and diversity of council
appointments. Mr. Oliver, are there areas where current law could be
improved to ensure councils remain balanced across different sectors
and viewpoints?
Answer. Strong regional management is the foundation of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. Because of the unique, regional nature of our
fisheries, achieving balance and diversity of Council members on each
Council is a challenge. The current law provides adequate means for the
Secretary to achieve a fair and balanced apportionment in the
commercial and recreational fisheries under the jurisdiction of the
Council. A major factor in meeting the requirement to balance
membership is the unique role of the Governors in nominating
individuals from different sectors. The process works best when
Governors provide the Secretary with a variety of highly qualified
nominees reflecting the types of fisheries under a Council's
jurisdiction. Under current law, there are several ways that NMFS may
encourage Governors to submit a fair and balanced slate of nominees for
consideration.
First, Section 302(b)(2)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires
that members appointed by the Secretary must be individuals who are
``knowledgeable regarding the conservation and management, or the
commercial or recreational harvest, of the fishery resources of the
geographical area concerned.'' Provisions at 50 CFR 600.215 outline the
Secretary's definition of a qualified nominee. Equally important is the
stewardship responsibilities of Councils and the appointment of
individuals who can work collectively with other members to achieve the
conservation standards under the MSA.
Second, NMFS encourages the Governors to submit a balanced slate of
nominees and may make recommendations for nominees who represent
underrepresented sectors or industries. Section 302(b)(2)(B) also
requires the Secretary to report annually to Congress on actions taken
to achieve, to the extent practicable, a ``fair and balanced
apportionment, on a rotating or other basis, of the active participants
(or their representatives) in the commercial and recreational fisheries
under the jurisdiction of Council.'' This report also makes
recommendations to the Governors on the types of nominees who could
help better enable the Secretary to meet the fair and balanced
apportionment standard.
The Act requires Governors, to the extent practicable, consult with
representatives of the commercial and recreational fishing interests of
the State. The exact method each Governor uses to consult with
commercial and recreational fishing interests differs due to varying
State law and process. A Governor must provide a statement explaining
how nominees meet the qualification and consultation requirements. The
Magnuson-Stevens Act allows the Secretary to review the nominees and
determine if they are qualified. Infrequently, the Secretary may
determine that individuals are not qualified and return the list to the
Governor, who then must submit a new or revised list.
Finally, the Secretary considers Congressional and public
endorsements. Endorsements are sent by members of the public (including
fishermen, industry groups, environmental non-profit organizations,
academia, and unaffiliated citizens), members of local/state/federal
government, and members of Congress. Endorsements ensure public
involvement, and help inform the Secretary as to whom is best qualified
pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act and implementing regulations.
Question 2. Rebuilding Fish Stocks: Can you please describe your
experience as Executive Director of the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council, and the flexibility you and the Council had within
the existing MSA to account for biological and economic considerations
when rebuilding and managing fish stocks?
Answer. The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides us with a very successful
fisheries management construct to ensure fisheries are both
environmentally sustainable and economically important. The Act created
broad goals for U.S. fisheries management and a unique, highly
participatory management structure centered on the Regional Fishery
Management Councils. Given my past work as the Executive Director of
the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, I can attest to the value
of the regional fishery management council system, which encourages a
collaborative, ``bottom up'' process where input and decisions about
how to manage U.S. fisheries include fishermen, other fishery
stakeholders, affected states, tribal governments, and the Federal
Government. The Councils have flexibility to choose from a variety of
approaches and tools to manage fish stocks and meet the mandates of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Flexibility is also inherent in the Magnuson-Stevens Act's
rebuilding requirements. The Act requires that the period to rebuild a
stock not exceed 10 years, but it permits a longer time in certain
cases where the biology of the fish stock, management measures under an
international agreement in which the United States participates, or
other environmental conditions dictate otherwise, although this period
still must be as short as possible. Current rebuilding time periods for
stocks with active rebuilding plans range from 3 years to 100 years. Of
the 35 active rebuilding plans with a target time to rebuild, 22 of
them (63 percent) are set longer than 10 years due to the biology of
the stock (slow reproducing, long lived species) or environmental
conditions. For example, Pacific yelloweye rockfish has a rebuilding
timeline of 71 years. The remaining 13 rebuilding plans are set for 10
years or less.
Increased flexibility under the current MSA was a primary goal of
NMFS' recent revisions to the National Standard 1 Guidelines. The
revised guidance provides additional flexibility to the Councils in
setting rebuilding timelines, phasing in new catch limits, carrying
over unused quota, determining when stocks are subject to overfishing,
and managing data limited stocks. For example, if a stock assessment
shows fishing needs to be curtailed to ensure a stock is sustainable, a
Council may phase the reduction in over 3 years as long as overfishing
is not occurring. This flexibility allows the Council to reduce the
economic impact of such a cut instead of taking the entire needed
reduction in a single year.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council has successfully
managed fish stocks using the flexibility inherent in the Magnuson-
Stevens Act. There is currently only one stock on the overfished list
in the region--Pribilof Islands blue king crab--likely due to
environmental conditions. This successful track record has led to an
Alaska commercial fishing and seafood industry that generated $4.4
billion in sales impacts and 53,400 full-and part-time jobs in 2015.
Question 3. Annual Catch Limits: Several times during the hearing,
you made the point of a need for greater flexibility with various
management tools and specifically cited flexibility with catch shares,
annual catch limits, and accountability measures. Specifically, you
made the case for one management tool or approach not being a good fit
for all fisheries. So, when are annual catch limits the appropriate
tool and when are they not? What characteristics of the given fishery
or environment make annual catch limits a good choice as a management
tool?
Answer. Annual catch limits (ACLs) have been and remain an
effective tool in ending overfishing and rebuilding fish stocks, and
are a cornerstone of sustainable fisheries management. However,
implementing ACLs and associated accountability measures has been
challenging in some fisheries--particularly where data is scarce and
where commercial and recreational user groups have fundamentally
different goals and objectives. For example, setting effective ACLs for
species in coral reef ecosystems in the Pacific Islands and Caribbean
regions, is one of our biggest challenges due to lack of data regarding
stock status and fishing harvests. Calls for increased flexibility are
also coming from some recreational fisheries along the Atlantic and
Gulf coasts. In these fisheries, harvest data can be much more
difficult to collect and report on a timely basis than in most
commercial fisheries. Therefore, alternative management mechanisms may
be useful.
While the Councils are actively exploring the use of the
flexibility included in the revised National Standard 1 Guidelines, we
recognize additional measures may be necessary--particularly for some
recreational fisheries. Increasing flexibility further will require a
multipronged approach focusing on both science and effective management
tools and with involvement from a wide host of stakeholders including
Congress. NOAA Fisheries is committed to ensuring regional fishery
management councils have flexibility to tailor their management plans
to maximize fishing opportunities and develop regional solutions to
regional problems while preventing overfishing and maintaining stocks
at sustainable levels.
Question 4. Improving fishery data: Mr. Oliver and Dr. Quinn,
several fisheries have been described as data poor and data deficient.
What are the best ways by which we can improve the quality of our
fishery data and monitoring of fisheries?
Answer. While NOAA Fisheries has strong data collection and
monitoring programs in place for fisheries in Federal waters, the need
for annual catch limits has highlighted the fact that several fisheries
have limited data with which to inform management. To inform
management, catch monitoring should be in place for all managed stocks,
paired with some data collection on biological and stock-specific
attributes.
Overall, NOAA Fisheries has strong catch monitoring programs in
place for its managed species. Recent technological improvements, such
as electronic reporting, have improved the timeliness of fishery data.
NOAA Fisheries, through the Marine Recreational Information Program,
continues to improve recreational fisheries data collection. NOAA will
continue to work with State partners and others to expeditiously review
and certify new and alternative methods for the collection of
recreational fisheries data and support methods that provide
statistically defensible estimates of catch and effort. Looking
forward, there is broad agreement within NOAA Fisheries and among
Survey scientists that smartphone apps can facilitate the reporting and
quality control of fishing effort and catch data. We recognize the role
of state reporting programs and intend to find ways over the coming
year to better integrate State data and collection programs into the
fishery management process.
The next tier of data, after establishing catch monitoring, is to
collect basic biological data on fish species and stocks. This
information may come from numerous sources, including biological
sampling of landed fish, cooperative research, and sampling by on-board
observers. NOAA Fisheries also collects biological data using fishery-
independent surveys on board NOAA ships and charters. Biological data
can inform which species are longer-lived or more vulnerable to
overfishing and the availability of biological data varies greatly by
species. Many of the species described as ``data limited'' are species
with little biological data, often due to the fact that they are not
frequently caught (which allows for less sampling), are in regions with
limited monitoring capacity, or are distributed in habitats that make
it difficult to perform surveys (such as reefs). Biological data
collection programs could be improved in efficient ways with advanced
sampling technologies, such as autonomous or towed platforms supporting
cameras or sonar, which could expand current ship-based surveys in
areas that are difficult to sample with conventional gear.
As part of its next-generation stock assessment framework, NOAA
Fisheries is supporting a prioritization protocol for fish stock
assessments, meant to efficiently determine the right level of data and
assessments for fish stocks, depending on factors such as commercial
and recreational importance, fishing pressure, and biological
vulnerabilities of species. The regional prioritization process is
ongoing, and will inform NOAA Fisheries on the highest priority data
gaps to address through further data collection or studies, especially
new fishery-independent surveys using conventional or advanced
technologies
Question 5. Environmental Stressors: We live in a changing world
with impacts to our ocean and coastal ecosystems from pollution run-
off, climate change, harmful algal blooms, and other environmental
stressors. In the testimony and questions, the need for data and more
data was made clear. In addition to and in conjunction with collecting
more data, what are the best ways to account for all of these various
stressors when managing fisheries as important biological and
ecological resources? In what ways can we be strategic to collect the
data that we need to manage the stressors faced by different fisheries
around the country?
Answer. Effective fisheries management relies on information
regarding changes and impacts of these changes on fish stocks and
fisheries. In order to understand the impact of environmental stressors
on fish populations, we will continue to monitor of fish populations
(abundance, distribution) and track relevant environmental data
(temperature, salinity, pollutants, food webs, habitat status etc).
NOAA Fisheries has begun to perform fish species vulnerability
assessments to identify which species, fisheries, and fishing
communities may be most vulnerable to environmental change and we are
actively working to include habitat and protected species vulnerability
assessments. With continued data collection and analysis, NOAA
Fisheries is developing tools that can inform fisheries management.
This includes the development of ecosystem indicators that can be
tracked and reported alongside stock assessments, often in the form of
ecosystem status reports. NOAA Fisheries is also improving its efforts
to incorporate these environmental indicators into the assessment
models to improve understanding and prediction of future changes.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Edward Markey to
Chris W. Oliver
Question 1. Mr. Oliver, the Secretary of Commerce recently
dismissed the findings of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission to allow overfishing of Summer Flounder in New Jersey. This
could negatively impact not only summer flounder stocks but also all of
the other fishermen from other states who play by the rules. It sets a
dangerous precedent that states can make management decisions based on
politics instead of science.
Mr. Oliver, on July 11, 2017, you sent a letter to the Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission (the Commission) allowing New Jersey
to bypass the regulations to end overfishing of summer flounder. These
regulations are followed in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut,
New York, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina. How was
this decision reached? Please provide any and all scientific analysis
that led the Commerce Department to a different conclusion than the
Commission's technical advisors.
Answer. The Department of Commerce found that the management
measures implemented by New Jersey for the 2017 recreational summer
flounder fishery to be compliant with the intent of the measures
contained in the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's Summer
Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Interstate Fishery Management Plan.
As a result, a moratorium on summer flounder fishing in New Jersey
state waters was not required.
Question 2. Mr. Oliver, Right Whales are one of the most endangered
species. According to your department's website, they are the rarest
large whale species and among the rarest of all marine mammal species.
There have been multiple Right Whale deaths in recent months including
10 in the Gulf of St. Lawrence in Canada this summer and one off the
coast of Cape Cod in April.
What actions is NOAA taking to understand why Right Whales are
dying?
Right Whales migrate through many different countries' waters. Can
you commit to working with the State Department to coordinate with the
Canadian government on avoiding Right Whale deaths and trying to
rebuild the Right Whale population?
Answer. As part of NOAA's long-term commitment to North Atlantic
right whale conservation, NOAA Fisheries scientists and managers have
been actively studying the population to determine status, trends, and
threats, monitoring the effectiveness (compliance, implementation,
etc.) of U.S. regulations already in place to protect the whales from
entanglements and ship strikes, and providing emergency response to
animals in distress. A new peer-reviewed paper being published by NOAA
Fisheries scientists indicates the population was already in decline
prior to the Unusual Mortality Event (UME) declaration, and estimates
approximately 460 animals remained in 2015 prior to the 2017 deaths.
Thus, the 12 recent mortalities since June 2017, plus an additional
death caused by a ship strike in Cape Cod Bay in April, represent a
loss of 3 percent of the total population.
NOAA Fisheries is committed to work with the State Department and
Canadian officials and scientists to avoid future right whale deaths
and attempt to rebuild the population.
Prior to the first report of a dead North Atlantic right whale on
June 7, 2017, in Canadian waters, NOAA Fisheries and our partners from
the U.S. marine mammal research and stranding/disentanglement network
communities were already collaborating with Canadian colleagues at
Canada's Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and the Canadian
stranding/disentanglement organizations. NOAA Fisheries had already
scheduled aerial surveys to help document the growing concentrations of
whales being reported in the Gulf of St. Lawrence in recent years, and
once on site provided technical guidance and expertise (both in-person
and remotely) for responding to both the dead-stranded whales, as well
as the entangled live whales.
To help organize and strengthen the already existing collaborations
between U.S. and Canadian experts, NOAA Fisheries declared the North
Atlantic right whale mortalities an official UME on August 25, 2017 to
address the 12 known dead whales since June 7, 2017 (10 found in Canada
and 2 found in the U.S.), and any future cases. The declaration of the
UME brings enhanced scientific focus and resources to assist the
investigation, including the significant expertise of the Working Group
on Marine Mammal Unusual Mortality Events and a special Investigative
Team formed specific to this event. Declaration of the UME also
provides additional emergency funding to support the investigation
through the UME Contingency Fund, which is available exclusively for
UMEs.
The UME declaration was made in close coordination with Canadian
colleagues from DFO and the Canadian marine mammal stranding network
who have been working to investigate the mortalities occurring in their
waters since June. Our UME investigation will be trans-boundary and
will include experts from both nations to better understand this event
and identify conservation and management actions that could be taken to
assist right whale recovery. NOAA Fisheries will also coordinate with
Department of State as appropriate.
In addition to working collaboratively with DFO on the specific UME
investigation, NOAA Fisheries and DFO have established a Bilateral
Working Group to discuss ways both countries can increase coordination
and cooperation to further North Atlantic right whale conservation
efforts. The Bilateral Working Group will identify science and
management gaps that are impeding recovery of North Atlantic right
whales throughout their range. Additional working groups with
scientific experts are planned to collaboratively develop solutions to
these challenging science and management gaps, and will complement and
help inform the bilateral government efforts.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to
Dr. John M. Quinn
Question 1. Conflicts between MSA and other statutes: Dr. Quinn, in
your written testimony, you describe conflict with MSA and other
statutes such as the Antiquities Act and the Endangered Species Act.
Can you give an example of conflicts between MSA and these other
statutes? Why should MSA be the only entity to issue and promulgate
rules related to fisheries?
Answer. Senator, the MSA is the statute that Congress adopted
specifically to realize the benefits from commercial and recreational
fisheries that are managed using sound conservation and management
principles. Fisheries contribute significantly to the economy of the
Nation and science-based management decisions are needed to ensure
their sustainability. Fishery management decisions carefully balance
the economic, social, and biological impacts for the greatest benefit
to the Nation. They must take into account all applicable law, such as
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Endangered Species Act
(ESA), Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA), etc. The Act's emphasis on a strong public process is one of
its strengths and helps to make sure that all points of view are
considered.
Fisheries, whether pursued for recreation or profit, are complex.
Congress developed the MSA to address these complexities, including the
decision-making process to include myriad stakeholders but also the
substantial ecological effects of fishing. These range from increasing
fishing mortality to impacts on habitat and sensitive species such as
turtles and marine mammals.
Developing Federal fishery regulations under the MSA section 302
process ensures consistency and transparency in Federal fisheries
management, full consideration of impacts to fishing communities, and
consistency with the MSA National Standards, while also ensuring
consistency with other Federal statutes such as MMPA and the ESA.
Currently, regulations directly impacting federally managed fisheries
may be promulgated under other Federal laws such as the MMPA, ESA and
National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA). Such avenues for developing
fishing regulations circumvent the transparent Council process
established under MSA and lack considerations of the National
Standards. This can lead to unnecessary socioeconomic impacts on
fishing communities while having limited conservation benefit on the
resources.
Other statutes are designed to meet other purposes. As a result,
decisions reached using these statutes can be narrowly focused on a
specific objective and sacrifice net national benefits. For example:
The Antiquities Act of 1906 has allowed Presidents to
circumvent MSA by proclaiming Marine National Monuments, which
are a type of marine protected area (MPA). MPAs are a common
tool employed by the Regional Fishery Management Councils to
manage fisheries within their jurisdiction. The establishment
of the marine national monuments does not require the use of
best scientific information available, completion of analyses
required by NEPA nor a prescribed public process. Since 2006,
four marine national monuments have been established in the
Western Pacific Region (two of which were subsequently
expanded), together closing more than 50 percent of U.S. waters
in this region to domestic commercial fishing. The closures are
unnecessary as the Western Pacific Council has been managing
and protecting these waters for over 40 years, resulting in
many areas deemed pristine prior to the monuments being
established. Moreover, Council measures are required to prevent
overfishing so the use of the Antiquities Act to manage
fisheries is at best duplicative and at worst a political
circumvention of the MSA.
Our experience with marine monument designations to date is that
they are counterproductive to domestic fishery goals, as they have
displaced U.S. fishing effort to the high seas where American fleets
must compete with foreign fisheries that are less regulated and
monitored than the U.S. fleets. The establishment of Marine National
Monuments under the Antiquities Act increases the Nation's reliance on
foreign fisheries imports. Foreign fisheries that provide these imports
are rarely as well-managed as U.S. fisheries, resulting in increased
ecological damage. The U.S. economy suffers from a loss of fisheries
employment. This has been a particular problem in the Western Pacific
Ocean, where over half the Exclusive Economic Zone is a marine
monument.
Over the past 40 years, Congress has been reauthorizing the MSA and
its regional, bottom-up management approach, which has resulted in the
United States being a global leader in effective fishery conservation
and management. Designations of marine national monuments that prohibit
fishing have disrupted the ability of the Councils to manage fisheries
throughout their range as required by MSA and in an ecosystem-based
manner.
The MMPA False Killer Whale Take Reduction Plan modified
gear requirements and a longline fishing prohibited area for
the Hawaii longline fishery that is otherwise managed under
Pacific Pelagic Fishery Ecosystem Plan (Pelagic FEP) developed
by the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council pursuant to
the MSA. Modification of the longline prohibited area
originally established under the Pelagic Fishery Ecosystem Plan
circumvented the transparent Council process established under
MSA section 302. Further, the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) has discretion during the rule-making process to modify
draft Take Reduction Plans recommended by MMPA Take Reduction
Teams, whereas fishery management recommendations made by the
Council cannot be modified by NMFS.
Several Councils experienced conflicts with the ESA. The
development of biological opinions and management
recommendations under the ESA can result in recommendations
that are not reasonable or effective. The results of these
biological opinions involve species protected under the ESA and
have historically taken precedence over the MSA. Thus,
immediate actions are taken despite the impacts to the
fisheries and supporting communities. Because the NMFS staff
completing Biological Opinions may not fully understand how an
affected fishery operates, the resulting regulatory changes
often require ``remedial'' measures that are ineffective or are
impracticable for fishery operations to implement. As an
example, the ESA process delayed fishing opportunities for
black sea bass in the South Atlantic, unnecessarily delaying a
fisheries opening. In the North Pacific, the development of the
biological opinion on Stellar Sea Lions was criticized for the
lack of transparency during development of the measures that
affected fisheries.
The management of fisheries within marine sanctuaries using
the National Marine Sanctuaries Act can lead to regulations
that are not consistent with the MSA. This statute does not
require that actions balance the benefits of a measure with its
costs. In New England, at times the sanctuary program has
promoted specific fishery measures, raising questions about the
position of the Department of Commerce.
Question 2. During the hearing, you made the point that the current
MSA has been largely successful and that it only needs to be tweaked in
certain areas. Much of the hearing focused on topics and aspects of
fisheries management that do need to be refined. As we move to improve
fisheries management, we also want to be cognizant of what works. Can
you describe key aspects of the current fisheries management structure
that we should not modify and make sure would not be impacted as we
seek to make modifications and improvements elsewhere in MSA?
Answer. There are many aspects of the MSA that are working well.
Fundamentally, the National Standards provide a strong basis for
management decisions and this strong foundation served us well. One of
the most important reasons for the MSA's success is the use of the
Regional Fishery Management Council system. This ensures that local
conditions are taken into account, but decisions are still made within
the framework of the National Standards. It also provides the
opportunity for public participation in the management system. The
partnership of the Regional Fishery Management Councils with the
Federal government has proven very effective. The National Marine
Fisheries Service provides tremendous analytic and policy support to
the Councils through its science centers and regional offices. This
relationship, while not without its occasional tensions, promotes a
rigorous approach to decision-making that benefits the Nation.
This emphasis on science-based decisions is a key factor in our
management success. The critical role of the Scientific and Statistical
Committees should also be retained, as they evaluate the best
scientific information available that guides Council decisions. Both of
these factors support a strong requirement that management alternatives
must be thoroughly analyzed for their impacts.
Another strength is that the MSA allows Councils to use a wide
range of management measures that can be tailored to regional
conditions. Catch share programs are an example: while they can be
controversial in some fisheries, in others they have proven to be an
effective tool for restoring economic and social stability, enhancing
safety at sea, and allowing year-round fishing seasons. The decision to
implement a catch share program should be at the discretion of the
Regional Fishery Management Council and Secretary of Commerce. The
provisions currently in the MSA provide adequate guidance to ensure
that catch shares are enacted only after careful deliberation and
consultation with stakeholders. The MSA should not constrain a Council
from considering a particular management approach, nor should it
mandate any specific measure.
It is important to recognize that the protections afforded by the
MSA are necessary. These protections ensure that fisheries throughout
the country provide tremendous benefits. They are the reason the red
snapper fishery is, once again, the most popular offshore sport fishery
in the Gulf of Mexico. While it is possible for a council to develop
amendments that give states greater autonomy, proper management of red
snapper requires continued oversight by the fishery management council
under the provisions of the MSA.
Many Councils successfully use Exempted Fishing Permits (EFPs),
allowed under section 318 of the MSA, to conduct research that directly
benefits fisheries. The current process for these permits does not need
to be changed.
Question 3. Improving fishery data: Mr. Oliver and Dr. Quinn,
several fisheries have been described as data poor and data deficient.
What are the best ways by which we can improve the quality of our
fishery data and monitoring of fisheries?
Answer. I am going to organize my response into two sections: one
that deals with recreational fisheries, and the other that addresses
commercial fisheries. While either component can have data poor
fisheries, solving their problems may take different approaches.
For the recreational fisheries, a critical problem is the design of
a data collection system that can address `rare events' that may
reflect inadequate sampling. Why a species is considered to be data
poor or data deficient is an important distinction in determining if an
improved data collection program will be successful. Some species are
infrequently encountered by both anglers and fishery-independent
sampling programs because the fish population is small and/or sparsely
distributed. No reasonable increase in data collection efforts may
resolve or significantly improve their data-poor status. Many of these
data-poor species are incidentally caught and may never become target
species or comprise a large proportion of the harvest.
Others species may be data deficient due to the historical absence
of funds to conduct comprehensive fishery-independent sampling
programs. In these cases, the appropriate solution is to increase
fishery-independent sampling intensity, in both space and time, to
ensure adequate coverage of the environment. Using a variety of gear
types, such as longline and vertical line gear, trawls, traps, cameras,
and others could provide observations on the full spectrum of life
stages of the species in question. Expanding fishery-independent
sampling programs not only helps to elucidate the current health of
those data-poor species, but also enhances the knowledge of those
species designated as data rich.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council is working with its
partners to develop an electronic permit and logbook for private
recreational fishermen, but there is a need for better integration of
this program with MRIP. Frequent changes to MRIP have created
uncertainty in the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council's
management efforts. In the Western Pacific, data collection programs
for non-commercial fisheries do not provide adequate coverage for the
broad spectrum of fishing activities.
With commercial fisheries, there are usually comprehensive systems
established to collect landings and discard data using a variety of
collection methods tailored to each fishery. Because of cost, sometimes
these data are not collected in enough details (in terms of time or
space) to support management options. Improvements in these systems can
be expensive--particularly in the case of at-sea monitoring using
observers or electronic monitoring. The MSA limits the approaches that
can be used to fund observer coverage, making it difficult to improve
these programs. Data-poor situations can also refer to a lack of
detailed biological information on age and growth that is needed to
describe population dynamics. It takes extensive resources to collect
the data and do the studies necessary to develop this information. Some
species are not easy to survey because they are not caught by, or may
not be accessible to, traditional survey gear.
In a changing environment, NMFS and the regional science centers
need adequate funding to address unforeseen issues that arise; there is
no single data collection, research or monitoring program that can
anticipate all of them.
Each region has unique fisheries and can be monitored in different
ways. The cultural importance of fishing should be recognized even if
it is not commercially valuable in terms of money. Fisheries should be
monitored based on their importance, and the data collection system
should be designed to capture and monitor this information.
If significant investment is to be made on fishery data collection
and monitoring, the Councils should be involved in the development
process because the management measures that the Councils generate
should be monitored in terms of effectiveness. NMFS as the implementing
agency and the science provider must involve the Councils in monitoring
the management measures and include the performance of the measures in
the Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) reports.
Question 4. Environmental Stressors: We live in a changing world
with impacts to our ocean and coastal ecosystems from pollution run-
off, climate change, harmful algal blooms, and other environmental
stressors. In the testimony and questions, the need for data and more
data was made clear. In addition to and in conjunction with collecting
more data, what are the best ways to account for all of these various
stressors when managing fisheries as important biological and
ecological resources? In what ways can we be strategic to collect the
data that we need to manage the stressors faced by different fisheries
around the country?
Answer. All Councils are increasing the use of Ecosystem Based
Fishery Management (EBFM) approaches. Understanding the relationships
between different elements of the ecosystem is vital to dealing with
the changes that are already occurring. Because of the differences
between regions (in terms of fisheries, data, ecological conditions,
etc.), a formulaic approach to EBFM would not be helpful. There is some
evidence that the legal and policy framework adopted by the MSA will
need to evolve to allow the use of true EBFM approaches. As an example,
the ability to manage stock complexes can be constrained by the MSA
emphasis on individual stocks.
Oceans and coastal ecosystems are changing at a rapid rate and face
emerging challenges from coastal development, changing climate, and
increasing demand for marine resources. In large, complex systems,
natural and anthropogenic impacts are inevitable, and mitigation
through management, conservation, and restoration is critical. However,
our ability to respond to disturbances is limited by our knowledge of
the current and historical condition of ecological and fishery
resources. Therefore, it becomes necessary to monitor the progress of
restoration activities. Long-term fishery-independent monitoring of
natural resources is the most powerful and efficient mechanism to
collect these data. While these programs exist in various forms, a
consistent national program (in terms of sampling effort, gear types,
and geographic coverage) is lacking. Improvements would require a
dependable funding mechanism and improved coordination between state
and Federal agencies to ensure that data collection efforts are meeting
the long-and short-term needs of resource managers. Fishery management
cannot depend on fishery landings data alone to provide reliable
indicators of marine resource impacts from climate change or other non-
fishing impacts. Improvements in the fishery-independent data provide
the information necessary to resolve these uncertainties and provide a
foundation to support robust decision making by resource managers. A
strategic approach to collecting data on environmental stressors is to
conduct a productivity-susceptibility analysis (PSA), since this will
help identify where in the ecosystem stressors are likely to have the
most impact on fish stocks. For example, coastal stocks will be
vulnerable to processes within the near-shore marine ecosystems that
are most at risk from both natural and anthropogenic forcing. The first
step in accounting for stressors is to incorporate environmental
parameters into stock assessments for federally managed species.
Various groups around the country are collecting many data streams for
these stressors.
Environmental stressors and climate have multiple and complex
interactions with aquatic ecosystems. Not all fish stocks will respond
negatively to variations in these parameters; some indeed my gain a
competitive advantage from proximal factors in the environment,
promoting range expansion through increased habitat or possible niche
availability as other stocks decline. The bottom line is non-fishery
related influences on stock abundance cannot be over-emphasized,
especially if they cause stock abundance to decline below National
Standard 1 overfishing reference points through no fault of the fishery
or fisheries dependent on this resource. Experience in the Western
Pacific Region has shown how environmental forces can cascade through
multiple levels within a marine ecosystem and create order of magnitude
changes in abundance and recruitment. Parsing out the true reasons for
stock abundance dynamics is an extremely important aspect of fisheries
management, and fishery managers will likely always be playing catchup.
Offshore stocks such as tunas, billfish and tuna-like species may
be less influenced by coastal processes but respond to multi-decadal
cycles such as El Nino, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and the Atlantic
Multi-Decadal Oscillation. These large scale oceanic cycles can have
major influences on recruitment and hence abundance of these type of
stocks. Indeed, some species of fish may have centennial scales of
abundance and scarcity, and research that for potentially 70-80 percent
fish species, productivity is fully or partially independent of stock
size.
[all]
This page intentionally left blank.
This page intentionally left blank.
This page intentionally left blank.