    [Senate Hearing 115-568]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 115-568

                             REAUTHORIZATION OF THE
      MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT: FISHERIES
                                    SCIENCE

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

                                    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

                                   __________

                                OCTOBER 24, 2017

                                   __________

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

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                                _________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    35-752 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2019

           SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

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

                SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, FISHERIES,
                                AND COAST GUARD

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

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on October 24, 2017.................................     1
    Statement of Senator Sullivan....................................     1
    Statement of Senator Peters......................................     2
        Opposition letter dated October 23, 2017 from scientists re:
          H.R. 200...................................................     3
        Prepared statement...........................................    11
    Statement of Senator Cantwell....................................    51
    Statement of Senator Wicker......................................    52
    Statement of Senator Blumenthal..................................    54
    Statement of Senator Markey......................................    57

                                   Witnesses

    Ray Hilborn, Ph.D., Professor, School of Aquatic and Fishery
      Sciences, University of Washington.............................    13
        Prepared statement...........................................    14
    Dr. Larry McKinney, Executive Director, Harte Research Institute
      for Gulf of Mexico Studies, Texas A&M University Corpus Christi    19
        Prepared statement...........................................    21
    Karl Haflinger, Founder and President, Sea State, Inc............    39
        Prepared statement...........................................    40
    Michael Jones, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Fisheries and
      Wildlife, Michigan State University............................    43
        Prepared statement...........................................    45

                                    Appendix

    Response to written questions submitted to Dr. Ray Hilborn by:
        Hon. Dan Sullivan............................................    63
        Hon. Bill Nelson.............................................    64
        Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................    64
        Hon. Gary Peters.............................................    65
    Response to written questions submitted to Dr. Larry McKinney by:
        Hon. Dan Sullivan............................................    66
        Hon. Bill Nelson.............................................    68
        Hon. Gary Peters.............................................    74
    Response to written questions submitted to Karl Haflinger by:
        Hon. Dan Sullivan............................................    77
        Hon. Bill Nelson.............................................    79
        Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................    80
        Hon. Gary Peters.............................................    82
    Response to written questions submitted to Dr. Michael Jones by:
        Hon. Gary Peters.............................................    83

                             REAUTHORIZATION OF THE

                            MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY

               CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT: FISHERIES SCIENCE

                                  ----------

                           TUESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 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 2:34 p.m. in
    room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Dan Sullivan,
    Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Sullivan [presiding], Wicker, Inhofe,
    Young, Peters, Cantwell, Blumenthal, Markey, and Booker.

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

        The Chairman. The Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere,
    Fisheries, and Coast Guard now come to order.
        Today's hearing is the fourth in a series of hearings as we
    continue forward with the important process of reauthorizing,
    in a bipartisan way, the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries
    Conservation and Management Act, what we refer to as the MSA.
        Today's focus will be on fishery science and the importance
    that accurate, timely data plays in ensuring the most informed
    decisions are made in both the best interest of our economy and
    protecting this incredibly valuable natural resource.
        I look forward to a robust discussion today. And I thank my
    friends across the aisle for coordinating with us--Senator
    Peters and his team, in particular--on this important hearing,
    and throughout this series of hearings on MSA reauthorization,
    which we think is critical for our country.
        To make that point clear, the fishing industry--commercial,
    charter, and recreational combined--contributes over $90
    billion annually to the U.S. economy and supports, in excess,
    of 1.5 million jobs.
        At the same time, we need to make sure our resource is
    healthy. The fishing industry right now is stable and has the
    opportunity to grow, primarily because of the hard work our
    predecessors put into ensuring we had a solid framework for
    sustainably harvesting this incredibly important natural
    resource.
        The foundational basis of this stable framework is
    scientifically accurate and reputable data upon which the
    regional councils can base their management decisions under the
    MSA framework.
        The United States has the world's second largest exclusive
    economic zone. Second only, oddly enough, to France. And as
    stewards of that vast ocean, we are entrusted with not only
    safeguarding its biological health and sustainability, but also
    ensuring we are efficiently extracting the resources from
    within.
        Ensuring that Congress supports the need for proper data,
    supported by reputable and consistent science, is critical to
    maintaining a sustainable, yet profitable, national fishery.
        Technology needs to play a larger role in this, as it has
    the potential to provide efficiencies, and reduce
    administrative burdens, and increase the accuracy of the data
    used for the all-important stock assessments and catch
    accountability upon which our councils rely.
        It should be of news to nobody that data does not come
    cheaply, and that while NOAA stretches its limited budget the
    best it can, it is only able to grab a small snapshot of the
    status and health of the biomass in our oceans.
        I look forward to hearing today about how cooperative
    research can augment the information NOAA has available in
    order to make the most informed decisions possible for our
    fisheries and our country.
        As we move forward with reauthorization, we face many
    emerging challenges, namely, balancing the needs of various
    user groups. I believe that the answer to this looming question
    lies in more fully understanding the status and health of the
    resource. Given the funding constraints Federal agencies face,
    we must embrace the efficiency offered by emerging science and
    technology.
        I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today on the
    way forward on some of these critical issues, and also on
    existing data collection programs, and successes that are
    already working within our current Magnuson-Stevens framework.
        With that, I want to thank all of our witnesses. We have,
    as usual, a very distinguished panel of experts, who we will
    learn from today.
        I now want to recognize the Ranking Member, Senator Peters,
    who has been a great partner in these hearings with me as we
    look at MSA reauthorization.
        Senator Peters.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. GARY PETERS,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN

        Senator Peters. Well, thank you, Chairman Sullivan.
        And thank you, as well, to the witnesses that are here to
    discuss a very important issue of reauthorizing the Magnuson-
    Stevens Act, or MSA.
        Today, I am looking forward to the opportunity to hear
    about scientific advances that can help us improve management
    of Federal fisheries.
        But first, I would like to welcome Dr. Michael Jones, who
    is the Peter A. Larkin Professor of Quantitative Fisheries, who
    founded and is now the Co-Director of the Quantitative
    Fisheries Center at Michigan State University; truly a great
    university.
        Dr. Jones' research focuses on fish population dynamics,
    fish ecology, resource management, and simulation modeling.
        Thank you for making the trip here, Dr. Jones. I appreciate
    it. We all look forward to hearing your testimony.
        Second, the fishery science community has many informative
    voices that could not all be with us here today, Mr. Chairman.
    Over 200 scientists have sent a letter outlining the importance
    of science to fisheries, and to the MSA.
        So, Mr. Chairman, if I could enter that letter into the
    record without objection?
        The Chairman. Without objection.
        [The letter referred to follows:]

                                                       October 23, 2017
    Dear Members of Congress,

        The undersigned scientists write to urge you to oppose H.R. 200 and
    any other legislative efforts that would weaken science-based
    management of U.S. marine fish populations, so that current and future
    generations of Americans can enjoy fishing and healthy oceans teeming
    with fish for years to come.
        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA)
    is the primary law governing marine fisheries management in U.S.
    Federal waters. Congress passed the original law in 1976 to phase out
    foreign fishing in U.S. waters and to promote domestic fishing
    opportunities. In 1996 and 2006, the MSA was amended to strengthen its
    conservation provisions and ensure scientific advice provided the basis
    of fishery management decisions. These changes have enabled the United
    States to become a global leader in well-managed and profitable
    fisheries, with over 40 domestic fish stocks rebuilt since 2000.
    Preventing overfishing with science-based sustainable catch limits and
    timely rebuilding of fish populations that are depleted, as required
    under the MSA, are fundamental to good management of fishery resources
    and should be maintained to continue improving the health of our
    Nation's fisheries.
        Yet, several pieces of legislation have been introduced this
    Congress that would unwind science-based conservation of U.S. marine
    fish populations. Chief among them is H.R. 200, which undermines the
    cornerstones of MSA's success in several ways, including weakening or
    eliminating science-based management requirements and reducing the
    quality of science used in management decisions.
        First, H.R. 200 will weaken the MSA's successful recovery of
    depleted fish populations by establishing broad loopholes that
    effectively eliminate the requirement for managers to set reasonable
    and scientifically based rebuilding timelines. Decades of fisheries
    science shows that in order to succeed in rebuilding overfished stocks,
    managers must implement strong and timely management measures based on
    sound science.
        Second, H.R. 200 would increase the risk of overfishing by removing
    the requirement for science-based annual catch limits for many species,
    including some that may be overfished or subject to overfishing. Annual
    catch limits are vital to the health of fish populations and provide
    the guardrails to make and keep fisheries sustainable. Removal of these
    key management tools will hurt our fisheries, our oceans and the U.S.
    economy.
        Third, H.R. 200 undermines crucial environmental laws such as the
    National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act
    (ESA) and the Antiquities Act. It is unacceptable to exempt fishery
    management plans from the bedrock requirements of NEPA that provide for
    public participation in management and adequate analysis of decision-
    making. The MSA is effective at managing fisheries, but is not designed
    to achieve broader ocean management objectives, particularly with
    regard to maintaining the biological integrity of protected species and
    populations, or protecting special places and ecosystems. These
    essential laws must continue to preserve marine species and habitats,
    and to strongly protect our country's marine national monuments, i.e.,
    our Nation's blue parks.
        Lastly, H.R. 200 and other legislative proposals roll back science-
    based management and lessen accountability in recreational fisheries.
    Recreational fisheries across the country are already able to use
    flexible management strategies so long as they comply with annual catch
    limits and ensure accountability for their catches. It is essential
    that recreational fisheries continue to be accountable for the fish
    they remove from the ocean to ensure future opportunities for
    recreational anglers and other resource users.
        The last version of this bill was opposed by over 170
    organizations, representing fishermen, business owners, chefs and
    community leaders. We, the undersigned scientists, similarly urge
    Congress to oppose H.R. 200 and other legislation that would weaken
    science-based management and the health of U.S. fish populations, and
    exempt fisheries managers from complying with other laws that protect
    our ocean resources.

    Dr. Jane Lubchenco                   Dr. Steven Green
    Distinguished Professor              Professor Emeritus
    Oregon State University              University of Miami

    Dr. Andrew A Rosenberg               Dr. Fiorenza Micheli
    Director, Center for Science and     Professor of Marine Science
     Democracy                           Stanford University
    Union of Concerned Scientists

    Dr. John Boreman                     Dr. GW Patton
    Adjunct Professor, Department of     Toxicologist, Marine Biologist
     Applied Ecology
    North Carolina State University

    Dr. George Leonard                   Dr. Gregory Asner
    Chief Scientist                      Professor
    Ocean Conservancy                    Stanford University

    Dr. Santiago Herrera                 Dr. Christopher Kenaley
    Assistant Professor                  Professor
    Lehigh University                    Boston College

    Dr. Jeb Byers                        Dr. Curt Storlazzi
    University of Georgia                University of California at Santa
                                          Cruz

    Dr. Steve Murray                     Dr. Charles Peterson
    Professor Emeritus                   Alumni Distinguished Professor
    CSU Fullerton                        University of North Carolina at
                                          Chapel Hill

    Dr. Patrick Rice                     Dr. John Avise
    Chief Science & Research Officer     Professor
    Florida Keys Community College       University of California at Irvine

    Dr. Richard Ambrose                  Dr. Donald Olson
    Professor                            Professor
    University of California, Los        RSMAS/University of Miami
     Angeles

    Dr. John McManus                     Dr. Daniel DiResta
    Professor                            Senior Lecturer in Biology
    University of Miami                  University of Miami

    Dr. Lisa McManus                     Dr. Sarah Hameed
    Rutgers University                   Science Fellow
                                         Marine Conservation Institute

    Dr. William Resetarits               Dr. Peter Hodum
    Professor                            Associate Professor
    University of Mississippi            University of Puget Sound

    Dr. Vicky Meretsky                   Dr. Matt Lybolt
    Indiana University--School of        Marine Ecologist
     Public and Environmental Affairs    Tetra Tech

    Dr. Adrienne DuBois                  Dr. Douglas McCauley
    Lecturer                             Assistant Professor Dept of
    University of Miami                   Ecology, Evolution, and Marine
                                          Biology
                                         Director, Benioff Ocean Initiative,
                                          Marine Science Institute
                                         UC Santa Barbara

    Dr. Kathryn Tosney                   Dr. Deborah Gochfeld
    Professor                            Principal Scientist
    University of Miami                  University of Mississippi

    Dr. George Somero                    Dr. Victor Bonito
    David and Lucile Packard Emeritus    Director
    Professor of Marine Science          Reef Explorer
    Stanford University

    Dr. Angela Doerr                     Dr. Rikki Grober-Eriksen
    Stanford's Center for Ocean          Director Marine Protected Areas
     Solutions                           California Marine Sanctuary
                                          Foundation

    Dr. Douglas Fenner                   Dr. Alicia Mathis
    Consultant                           Professor
                                         Missouri State University

    Dr. Amanda Whitmire                  Dr. Janet Ley
    Head Librarian                       Fish Biologist
    Stanford University                  Florida Fish & Wildlife Research
                                          Inst

    Dr. Jonathan Dale                    Dr. Craig Young
    Research Associate                   Professor of Biology and Marine
    Stanford University                   Laboratory
                                         Director
                                         University of Oregon

    Dr. Charles Scott Baker              Dr. Mark Hixon
    Professor                            Hsiao Endowed Professor of Marine
    Oregon State University               Biology
                                         University of Hawaii

    Dr. Bob Bullis                       Dr. Jennifer Jacquet
    Professor of Biology                 Assistant Professor
    Florida Keys College                 NYU

    Dr. Christina Swanson                Dr. John Ogden
    Director, Science Center             Emeritus Professor
    Natural Resources Defense Council    University of South Florida

    Dr. Kerry Nickols                    Dr. James Hanken
    Assistant Professor                  Director
    California State University          Harvard Museum of Comparative
     Northridge                           Zoology

    Dr. Elise Granek                     Dr. Neil Hammerschlag
    Professor                            Research Assistant Professor
    Portland State University            University of Miami

    Dr. Laurie Raymundo                  Dr. Jan Hodder
    Professor                            Senior Lecturer
    University of Guam Marine            University of Oregon
     Laboratory

    Dr. Michael Orr                      Dr. Geraldine Knatz
    Professor of Biology                 Professor of the Practice of
    University of Guam                    Engineering and Policy
                                         University of Southern California

    Dr. Jason Biggs                      Dr. Dennis Lavrov
    Associate Professor                  Associate Professor
    University of Guam Marine            Iowa State University
     Laboratory

    Dr. Alan Shanks                      Dr. Peter Houk
    Professor                            Associate Professor
    U Oregon, Oregon Inst of Marine      University of Guam Marine Lab
     Biology

    Dr. David Combosch                   Dr. Terry Donaldson
    Professor                            University of Guam Marine
    University of Guam Marine Lab         Laboratory

    Dr. Atsushi Fujimura                 Dr. Aaron David
    Assistant Professor                  University of Miami
    University of Guam

    Dr. Kent Carpenter                   Dr. Daniel Kramer
    Professor                            Professor
    Biological Sciences, Old Dominion    Michigan State University
     University

    Dr. John Cigliano                    Dr. Karen Alofs
    Director of Environmental            Assistant Professor beginning Jan
     Conservation                         2018
    Cedar Crest College                  University of Michigan

    Dr. David Kerstetter                 Dr. Catherine Riseng
    Assistant Professor                  Associate Research Scientist
    Nova Southeastern University         University of Michigan

                                         Dr. Phoebe Zarnetske
                                         Michigan State University

    Dr. Shawn Riley                      Dr. Jeff Shields
    Lovejoy Professor of Wildlife        Professor of Marine Science
     Management                          Virginia Institute of Marine
    Michigan State University             Science
                                         College of William & Mary

    Dr. Terrie Klinger                   Dr. Sarah Gerken
    Professor                            Professor of Biological Sciences
    University of Washington             University of Alaska, Anchorage

    Dr. Jay Zarnetske                    Dr. Peter Castro
    Faculty                              California State Polytechnic
    Michigan State University             University
                                         Pomona

    Dr. Joseph Arvai                     Dr. Richard Brusca
    Max McGraw Professor of Global       University of Arizona
     Sustainable Enterprise
    University of Michigan

    Dr. Daniel Hayes                     Dr. James Carlton
    Professor                            Professor of Marine Sciences
    Department of Fisheries and           Emeritus
     Wildlife                            Williams College
    Michigan State University

    Dr. Karen Neely                      Dr. Joel Martin
    Florida Keys Community College       Associate Vice President, Research
                                          & Collections
                                         Natural History Museum of Los
                                          Angeles County

    Dr. Susannah French                  Dr. Martin Mendelson Clinical
    Associate Professor of Biology        Professor
    Utah State University                School of Public Health
                                         University of Washington

    Dr. Blaine Griffen                   Dr. James M Furse
    Associate Professor                  Griffith University
    Brigham Young University

    Dr. Chris Bird                       Dr. Andrew Thurber
    Asst Professor                       Assistant Professor
    Texas A&M University--Corpus         Oregon State University
     Christi

    Dr. Rom Lipcius                      Dr. Sherry Tamone
    Professor                            Professor of Biology
    Virginia Institute of Marine         University of Alaska Southeast
     Science
    College of William & Mary

                                         Dr. Pam Jensen
                                         NMFS

    Dr. Gustav Paulay                    Dr. De Forest Mellon
    Professor/Curator                    Professor of Biology
    University of Florida                University of Virginia

    Dr. Thomas Dolan                     Dr. L. David Smith
    Former Chief of the Bureau of        Professor
     Fisheries                           Smith College
    U.S. Virgin Islands

    Dr. Jason Williams                   Dr. Frederick Schram
    Professor of Biology                 Research Assc., Professor Emeritus
    Hofstra University                   Burke Museum of Natural History

    Dr. Daniel Fong                      Dr. Nancy O'Connor
    Associate Professor of Biology       Professor
    American University                  University of Massachusetts
                                          Dartmouth

    Dr. Loren Coen                       Dr. Mary Fabrizio
    Res. Prof                            Professor of Marine Science
    FAU                                  Virginia Institute of Marine
                                          Science

    Dr. Joel Snodgrass                   Dr. Brad Erisman
    Professor and Department Head        Assistant Professor
    Virginia Tech                        University of Texas at Austin

    Dr. Timothy Targett                  Dr. Corinne Diggins
    Professor                            Virginia Tech
    University of Delaware

    Dr. Robert Okazaki                   Dr. Keith Walters
    Professor Emeritus                   Professor
    Weber State University               Coastal Carolina University

    Dr. Deborah Steinberg                Dr. Brian Tissot
    Professor of Marine Science          Professor & Director
    Virginia Institute of Marine         Humboldt State University
     Science

    Dr. Jim Welch                        Dr. Margaret Miller
    Professor and Chair of Biology       Research Director
    Wittenberg University                SECORE International

    Dr. Greg Cronin                      Dr. David Drumm
    Assoc. Prof.                         Environmental consultant
    CU Denver                            EcoAnalysts, Inc.

                                         Dr. Diego Bernal
                                         Professor
                                         Univ. Mass. Dartmouth

    Dr. Eric Hallerman                   Dr. James Dooley
    Professor, Fish Conservation         Professor
    Virginia Polytechnic Institute and   Adelphi University
     State University

    Dr. John Scarpa                      Dr. James Cowan
    Associate Professor                  Professor
    Texas A&M University--Corpus         Louisiana State University
     Christi

    Dr. Bristol Denlinger                Dr. Ivan Valiela
    Post-doc                             Distinguished Scientist
    UC Berkeley                          Ecosystems Center, MBL, Woods Hole

    Dr. Timothy Sullivan                 Dr. Peter Auster
    University of Arkansas               Research Professor Emeritus &
                                          Senior Research Scientist
                                         University of Connecticut & Mystic
                                          Aquarium

    Dr. Janet Nye                        Dr. Ellen Pikitch
    Assistant Professor                  Professor
    Stony Brook University               Stony Brook University

    Dr. Julie Thayer                     Dr. Jean Boal
    Senior Scientist                     Professor
    Farallon Institute                   Millersville University of
                                          Pennsylvania

    Dr. Peter Jumars                     Dr. William Sydeman
    University of Maine                  President & Senior Scientist
                                         Farallon Institute

    Dr. R. Dean Grubbs                   Dr. Daniel Pauly
    Associate Director of Research       Professor
    Florida State University Coastal     University of British Columbia
     and Marine Lab                      Vancouver, Canada

    Dr. Gary Grossman                    Dr. Dee Boersms
    Professor                            Wadsworth endowed chair in
    University of Georgia                 conservation science
                                         U of WA

    Dr. Jeb Byers                        Dr. Barbara Brennessel
    University of Georgia                Wheaton College and Friends of
                                          Herring River
                                         Wellfleet, MA

    Dr. Gorka Sancho
    Professor
    College of Charleston

    Dr. David Dow
    Retired biological oceanographer--
     NOAA Fisheries

    Dr. Judith Lang                      Dr. Michael LaBarbera
    Scientific Advisor                   Emeritus Professor
    Atlantic and Gulf Rapid Reef         University of Chicago
     Assessment

    Dr. Shoemaker                        Dr. Alexis Janosik
    Professor Emerita of Biology         Assistant Professor
    Saint Francis University             University of West Florida

    Dr. Paul Spitzer                     Dr. Merav Ben-David
    Independent scientist                Professor
                                         University of Wyoming

    Dr. Richard Thayer                   Dr. Anna Chalfoun
    Managing Director                    Associate Professor
    ZTC Consulting                       University of Wyoming

    Dr. John Cannon                      Dr. Lee Fuiman
    Conservation Biologist               Corpus Christi, TX
    Independent Consultant

    Dr. Amy Krist                        Dr. Ben Steele
    Associate Professor                  Professor
    University of Wyoming                Colby-Sawyer College

    Dr. Michael Minnick                  Dr. Justine Whitaker
    Professor of Biology                 UWF
    University of Montana

    Dr. Kristine Stump                   Dr. John Waldman
    Lecturer, Marine Conservation        Professor
     Biology                             Queens College
    University of Miami Rosenstiel
     School of Marine & Atmospheric
     Science

    Dr. Catherine Macdonald              Dr. Shannon Albeke
    Professor                            Associate Research Scientist
    University of Miami                  University of Wyoming

    Dr. Kevin Feldheim                   Dr. Sherry Keith
    Lab Manager                          San Francisco State University
    Field Museum

    Dr. Craig Benkman                    Dr. Jeffrey Leis
    Professor of Zoology & Physiology    Adjunct Professor
    University of Wyoming                University of Tasmania

                                         Dr. Paul Cziko
                                         Research Assistant Professor
                                         University of Oregon

    Dr. Tara Duffy                       Kelley Tagarino
    Lecturer                             Extension Agent
    Northeastern University              American Samoa Community College

    Pedro Zapata                         Whitney Hoot
    Senior Advisor                       Coral Fellow
    Oceana                               NOAA

    Renee Carlton                        Alisha Gill
    Marine Ecologist                     University of Guam
    Khaled Bin Sultan Living Oceans
     Foundation

    Frances Withrow                      Casey Te Beest
    Science Associate                    University of Guam
    Oceana

    Justin Kallman                       Mike Gawel
    University of Miami                  Resources Manager/Retired National
                                          Fisheries Officer
                                         NPS

    Brianna Almeida                      Fifer
    Graduate Student                     University of Guam Marine Lab
    University of Miami

    Zoi Thanopoulou                      Chris Barrows
    University of Miami                  Officer
                                         U.S. Coast Guard

    Beth Sheets                          AJ Reyes
    Research Biologist                   Biologist
    Stanford University                  University of Guam Marine Lab

    Lucie Hazen                          Alex Medina
    Research Analyst                     Biologist
    Stanford University                  UoG

    Brian Baird                          Michael Drexler
    Director, Coast and Ocean Program    University of South Florida
    The Bay Institute

    Elana Rusnak                         Amy Wrobleski
    University of Miami Rosenstiel       Laboratory and Field Technician
     School of Marine and Atmospheric    Michigan State University
     Science

    David Burdick                        Matthew McCarthy
    Research Associate                   University of South Florida
    University of Guam

    Elizabeth Herdter                    William Ellsworth
    Ph.D. candidate                      Graduate Student
    USF College of Marine Science        Virginia Tech

    Kelly Vasbinder                      Tess Geers
    PhD Student in Marine Science        Marine Scientist
                                         Oceana

    Donald Orth                          Taylor Witkin
    Thomas H. Jones Professor            Master's candidate
    Virginia Tech University             University of Rhode Island

    Megan Hepner                         Ethan Lucas
    Graduate Assistant                   FIP Project Director
    University of south Florida          FishWise

    David Knott                          Anne Hilborn
    The University of Charleston         PhD Candidate
                                         Virginia Tech

    Christian Osorio                     Jean Wiener
    PhD Student                          Executive Director
    Virginia The--Dept. of Fish and      Fondation pour la Protection de la
     Wildlife Conservation                Biodiversite Marine

    Mike Muthersbaugh                    Hayden Staley
    Graduate Research Assistant          Marine fisheries biologist
    Virginia Tech (fish and wildlife     State of Florida
     conservation)

    Sarah Grasty                         Shanae Allen
    Senior Biological Scientist          Research Scientist
    University of South Florida          FL Fish and Wildlife Research
                                          Institute

    Emily Thorne                         Dustin Addis
    PhD Candidate and Graduate Research  Research Administrator II
     Assistant                           Florida Fish and Wildlife Research
    Virginia Tech Department of Fish      Institute (FWC)
     and Wildlife Conservation

    Kate Dubickas                        Marcy Cockrell
    Master's Student                     Ph.D. candidate
                                         University of South Florida

    Brianna Michaud                      Annie Roddenberry
    Graduate Student                     Biological scientist
    University of South Florida          State of Florida

    Holly Turner                         Drew Martin
    HCRHS                                Conservation Chair
                                         Loxahatchee Group

        Senator Peters. This hearing, as was mentioned by the
    Chairman, marks the fourth hearing on MSA reauthorization. And
    throughout this process, I have heard a common theme from a
    variety of different stakeholders: having robust data, and a
    science-driven process, are critical to the success of our
    fisheries.
        So for this fourth hearing, it is appropriate that we are
    taking a look at fisheries science.
        The MSA lays out a fisheries management process that
    directs NOAA to rely on the best scientific information
    available. This science informs regional stock assessments
    which, in turn, determine how many fish can be sustainably
    caught or if a stock is being overfished. Making sure that we
    have sound science underpinning these decisions is absolutely
    critical.
        In recent years, this scientific process has proven
    successful. As fisheries decline across the globe, the U.S. has
    become a beacon of sustainable fishing.
        Using science to develop annual catch limits has proven to
    be effective and, along with ensuring accountability, has
    reduced the number of overfished stock, and the number of
    stocks undergoing overfishing to all time lows. The ability of
    science to assist us in managing fisheries cannot be
    understated.
        In the Great Lakes, we were forced into learning this
    lesson the hard way. At the last MSA hearing, I discussed the
    devastating impact of sea lamprey on Great Lakes fisheries,
    reducing the most abundant fisheries in the Lakes to just 2
    percent of their former production within just a couple of
    decades.
        This historical event is a testament, not only to the
    importance of management accounting for the whole ecosystem,
    but it is also a testament to the power of science to assist
    fisheries management.
        Scientists and managers did not sit idly by as the Great
    Lakes fisheries were crashing due to this devastating parasite.
    They were rapidly collecting data and studying the Great Lakes'
    ecosystem like never before, all in an effort to control sea
    lamprey.
        With the concerted bi-national and multistate efforts, a
    breakthrough came in 1957 with the discovery of TFM. After
    testing nearly 6,000 chemicals, TFM was the first to
    selectively impact lamprey without harming other aquatic
    animals or plants.
        This was the first of several scientific advances that
    supported the management and control of sea lamprey, and
    facilitated the resurgence of Great Lakes fisheries.
        Science, together with management, helped to bring the
    Great Lakes fisheries back, and today they are worth $7 billion
    annually, support 75,000 jobs, and provide opportunities for 5
    million anglers of all ages.
        And that is why I introduced the Great Lakes Fishery
    Research Authorization Act of 2017 to provide for critical
    science and research necessary to continue supporting these
    fisheries in the Great Lakes.
        The best thing is that science and research never stop.
    Scientists continue researching lamprey control methods by
    manipulating lamprey senses, targeting lamprey genetics, and
    adapting video shape recognition in the development of
    selective fish passage systems in Traverse City, Michigan.
        Science, research, and technology helping to improve
    fisheries are fortunately not confined to one region.
        For example, the advances in shape recognition software are
    not only helping to control sea lamprey, but they are also
    helping to advance electronic monitoring systems and improve
    data, recording, and recordkeeping.
        The prospect of electronic video systems that can let a
    fisherman know what is in the net before hauling it aboard is,
    indeed, exciting and fascinating.
        New technologies and technological developments in fishery
    science will continue to improve management outcomes.
        NOAA and private companies are beginning to embrace
    autonomous systems in a variety of ways, not the least of which
    is gathering fisheries' data.
        These systems are being used aerially on the water surface
    and throughout the water column to aid fishermen in locating
    fish, help regulators monitor fishing fleets and report illegal
    activity, and assist researchers tracking wildlife, habitats,
    and climate.
        Fishery science and technology has undergone a lot of
    change since the last MSA reauthorization a decade ago. So I
    think this hearing will be a very informative one, and I am
    eager to learn from the scientists here today about the latest
    research, new and emerging technologies, and explore ways to
    make smarter decisions to ensure the long-term sustainability
    of our Nation's fisheries.
        So once again to our witnesses, thank you for being here
    today.
        [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 afternoon as we continue a series of hearings to discuss the
    important issue of reauthorizing the Magnuson-Stevens Act or MSA.
    Today, I am looking forward to the opportunity to hear about scientific
    advances that can help us improve management for Federal fisheries.
        First I would like to welcome Dr. Michael Jones, the Peter A.
    Larkin Professor of Quantitative Fisheries who founded and is now Co-
    Director of the Quantitative Fisheries Center at Michigan State
    University. Dr. Jones' research focuses on fish population dynamics,
    fish ecology, resource management, and simulation modeling. Thank you
    for making the trip and I look forward to hearing your testimony.
        Second, the fisheries science community has many informative voices
    that could not all be with us today, and over 200 scientists have sent
    a letter outlining the importance of science to fisheries and the
    Magnuson-Stevens Act, so Mr. Chairmen I ask that this letter be entered
    into the record.
        This hearing marks the fourth hearing on MSA reauthorization.
    Throughout this process I have heard a common theme from a variety of
    different stakeholders: having robust data and a science-driven process
    are critical to the success of our fisheries. So, for this fourth
    hearing, it is appropriate that we are taking a look at fisheries
    science.
        The Magnuson-Stevens Act lays out a fisheries management process
    that directs NOAA to rely on the best scientific information available.
    This science informs regional stock assessments, which, in turn,
    determine how many fish can be sustainably caught or if a stock is
    being overfished. Making sure that we have sound science underpinning
    these decisions is absolutely critical to the management and
    sustainability of our fisheries.
        In recent years, this scientific process has proven successful. As
    fisheries decline across the globe, the U.S. has become a beacon for
    sustainable fishing. Using science to develop annual catch limits has
    proven to be effective and along with ensuring accountability, has
    reduced the number of overfished stocks and the number of stocks
    undergoing overfishing to all-time lows. The ability of science to
    assist us in managing fisheries cannot be understated.
        In the Great Lakes, we were forced into learning this lesson. At
    the last MSA hearing, I discussed the devastating effect of sea lamprey
    on Great Lakes fisheries, reducing the most abundant fishery in the
    Lakes to 2 percent of its former production within just a couple
    decades.
        This historical event is a testament not only to importance of
    management accounting for the whole ecosystem, but it is also a
    testament to the power of science to assist fisheries management.
        Scientists and managers did not sit idly by as the Great Lakes
    fisheries were crashing due to this devastating parasite. They were
    rapidly collecting data and studying the Great Lakes ecosystem like
    never before; all in an effort to control sea lamprey.
        With concerted bi-national and multi-state efforts, a breakthrough
    came in 1957 with the discovery of TFM. After testing nearly 6,000
    chemicals, TFM was the first to selectively impact lamprey without
    harming other aquatic animals or plants.
        This was the first of several scientific advances that supported
    the management and control of sea lamprey and facilitated the
    resurgence of the Great Lakes fisheries.
        Science, together with management, helped to bring the Great Lakes
    fisheries back, and today they are worth $7 billion annually, support
    75,000 jobs, and provide opportunities for 5 million anglers of all
    ages. And that is why I introduced the Great Lakes Fishery Research
    Authorization Act of 2017 to provide for the critical science and
    research necessary to supporting fisheries in Great Lakes.
        The best thing is that science and research never stop. Scientists
    continue researching lamprey control methods by manipulating lamprey
    senses, targeting lamprey genetics, and adapting video shape
    recognition in the development of selective fish passage systems in
    Traverse City, Michigan.
        Science, research, and technology helping to improve fisheries are
    fortunately not confined to one region. For example, the advances in
    shape recognition software are not only helping control sea lamprey,
    but they are also helping to advance electronic monitoring systems and
    improve data collection and record keeping.
        The prospect of electronic video systems that can let a fishermen
    know what is in the net before hauling it aboard is indeed exciting and
    fascinating. New techniques and technological developments in fisheries
    science will continue to improve management outcomes.
        NOAA and private companies are beginning to embrace autonomous
    systems in a variety of ways, not the least of which is gathering
    fisheries data. These systems are being used aerially, on the water's
    surface, and throughout the water column to: aid fishermen in locating
    fish; help regulators monitor fishing fleets and report illegal
    activity; and assist researchers tracking wildlife, habitats, and
    climate.
        Fisheries science and technology has undergone a lot of change
    since the last MSA reauthorization a decade ago. So, I think this
    hearing will be very informative and I'm eager to learn from the
    scientists with us today about the latest research, new and emerging
    technologies, and explore ways to make smarter decisions to ensure the
    long-term sustainability of our Nation's fisheries.

        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Peters.
        Again, I want to thank our panel of witnesses. I think
    everybody will see that this is quite the expert panel, and
    thank you for traveling far distances to come to this hearing.
        The witnesses, I do want to introduce each of them.
        Dr. Ray Hilborn, Professor at the University of Washington
    School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences; Dr. Larry McKinney,
    Director, Texas A&M University Harte Research Institute for
    Gulf of Mexico Studies; Mr. Karl Haflinger, Founder and
    President of Sea State, Inc.; and Dr. Michael Jones, Professor,
    Michigan State University Quantitative Fisheries Center.
        You will each have 5 minutes to deliver an oral statement,
    and if you would like, we will include a longer written
    statement for the record.
        Dr. Hilborn, the floor is yours, sir.

              STATEMENT OF RAY HILBORN, Ph.D., PROFESSOR,

                SCHOOL OF AQUATIC AND FISHERY SCIENCES,

                        UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON

        Dr. Hilborn. Thank you for this opportunity to address you.
        As a point of full disclosure, my research program receives
    substantial funding from a range of sources including U.S.
    philanthropic foundations, fishing industry groups in the U.S.
    and overseas, environmental NGOs, U.S. Government agencies, and
    the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
        The number of fish in the sea is rising in all regions of
    the United States, and the proportion of stocks at low
    abundance is consistently decreasing.
        This success has been achieved by funding of science,
    stopping the race to fish through various forms of
    rationalization, engaging in a consultative process with
    stakeholders, and most of all, requiring managers to follow
    science advice regarding allowable levels of harvest.
        The rebuilding of stocks can be directly attributed to the
    reduction in fishing pressure that began in the 1990s, and that
    the science advice has been guided by the objective of stopping
    overfishing.
        The major threats to U.S. fish stocks, and marine
    ecosystems' biodiversity, are now ocean acidification, warming
    temperatures, degraded coastal habitats, exotic species, land-
    based runoff, and pollution.
        Overfishing remains a concern for a limited number of
    stocks, but should not continue to be the most important
    concern for U.S. Federal fisheries policy.
        If Congress were to decide what the relative importance of
    various objectives of fisheries management should be--be it
    profit, jobs, yield, environmental protection--the science
    community could give guidance on recommended harvests.
        The social and economic record of U.S. fisheries is much
    more mixed than the biological success.
        Where we have found ways to stop the race to fish,
    profitability has almost always increased, fisheries are safer,
    and fishing seasons grow longer, while total fishing effort and
    costs have reduced.
        However, we have not found any methods to allocate fishing
    opportunities that are considered fair by all stakeholders.
        There is the potential to increase U.S. fisheries' yield by
    as much as 50 percent through fuller utilization of our fish
    resources.
        First, and of most importance, is fuller utilization of the
    total allowable catches that are set.
        In many U.S. fisheries, particularly the mixed fisheries of
    the East and West Coast, Gulf of Alaska, we catch much less
    than the TAC, which themselves are set conservatively to
    prevent overfishing.
        In the West Coast, we actually caught 38 percent of the
    potential value of the fish resources as set by the TACs.
    Maximizing yield from mixed fisheries will generally involve
    some stocks above the target and some stocks below the target
    in what we now call overfishing.
        These mixed fisheries have seen dramatic reductions in
    fishing pressure and rebuilding of the stocks, but they have
    not seen increases of catch. As a policy to provide more catch
    to the fishing fleets, our current approach for mixed stock
    fisheries has largely failed.
        I emphasize that we should not move away from science-based
    management and the existing council process. The current
    rebuilding system is designed to achieve the management
    objective of stopping overfishing regardless of the cost to
    total catch in markets and communities.
        If the science community was directed to maximize economic
    value of the U.S. fisheries or yield, the rebuilding plans
    would be quite different.
        I would like to address the importance of recreational
    fishing and small scale fisheries. I serve on the Science and
    Statistics Committee of the Western Pacific Regional Fisheries
    Management Council.
        The national standards are appropriate for the major
    industrial tuna fisheries of the region, but they are totally
    inappropriate for the small scale and recreational fisheries,
    where we have hundreds of species with poor catch and abundance
    data. Trying to estimate allowable biological catch and status
    relative to reference points, for even a dozen of them, is not
    possible.
        If the SSC or NOAA were directed to provide advice on how
    best to achieve specific objectives for these types of
    fisheries with the budgets and the tools available, we could do
    so, but it would not involve hard catch limits and most
    certainly would be some form of effort and spatial management.
        In summary, I wish to emphasize that U.S. fisheries
    management has succeeded by relying on science advice. This
    should not change.
        However, there certainly is the potential to change U.S.
    fisheries management to try to achieve more benefits from the
    ocean. This can be achieved by directing the science community
    to design fisheries management policies to achieve our social
    objectives.
        It is up to the legislators and councils to explicitly
    state what we want to achieve.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Hilborn follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Ray Hilborn, Ph.D., Professor, School of Aquatic
                 and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington
    Qualifications
        I am an ecologist working in fisheries management for over 45
    years. I have published over 300 peer reviewed articles and several
    books, including a text book on fisheries stock assessment and
    management, and ``overfishing, what everyone needs to know.'' I have
    received the Volvo Environmental Prize, the American Fisheries
    Societies Award of Excellence, The Ecological Society of America's
    Sustainability Science Award, and the International Fisheries Science
    Prize. I am a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, the American
    Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Fisheries Society and the
    Washington State Academy of Sciences. I have helped lead international
    study teams examining the status of fish stocks and the relationship
    between management and outcomes, the impact of bottom trawling on
    benthic biota, and the impact of fishing forage fish on their
    predators.
    Funding
        My research program receives substantial funding from a range of
    sources including U.S. Philanthropic Foundations (Walton Family
    Foundation, David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Gordon and Betty Moore
    Foundation, Pew Institute of Ocean Sciences), fishing industry groups
    in the U.S. and overseas, environmental NGOs (Environmental Defense,
    The Nature Conservancy), U.S. government agencies (NOAA and NSF), and
    the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
    Testimony
        U.S. Federal fisheries policy has led to rebuilding of fish stocks
    and some of the most successful fisheries in the world. The number of
    fish in the sea is rising in all regions of the U.S. and the proportion
    of stocks at low abundance is consistently decreasing (See Figures 1
    and 2).

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Figure 1. Trend in U.S. average stock biomass in relation to the
    level that would produce long term maximum sustainable yield. The green
    line is the stock biomass that would produce maximum sustainable yield.
    All data from NOAA assessments.

        This success has been achieved by funding of NOAA, regionalizing
    fisheries management decisions, stopping the race-to-fish through
    various forms of rationalization, engaging in a consultative process
    and most of all requiring managers to follow science advice regarding
    allowable levels of harvest.
        In many cases, but certainly not all, moving away from effort
    limits to hard ``total allowable catch'' has made a big difference in
    reducing fishing pressure where it was too high. The rebuilding of
    stocks can be directly attributed to the reduction in fishing pressure
    that began in the 1990s and the science advice has been guided by the
    objective of stopping overfishing.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Figure 2. Trend in average abundance of fish stocks (blue line) in
    individual regions of the U.S. and fishing mortality rate (red line).

        The major threats to U.S. fish stock and marine ecosystem
    biodiversity are now ocean acidification, warming temperatures,
    degraded coastal habitats, exotic species, land based run off, and
    pollution. Overfishing remains a concern for a limited number of stocks
    but should not continue to be the most important concern for U.S.
    Federal fisheries policy. If Congress were to decide what the relative
    importance of various objective of fisheries management should be
    (profit, jobs, yield, environmental protection) the science community
    could give guidance on the recommended harvest.
        The social and economic record of U.S. fisheries is much more mixed
    than the biological success. Where we have found ways to stop the race-
    to-fish, profitability has almost always increased, fisheries are
    safer, and fishing seasons have grown longer while total fishing effort
    and cost has been reduced. However many of the methods used to stop the
    race-to-fish have led to declines in owner operated small boat fleets
    and concentration of ownership, and we have not found any methods to
    allocate fishing opportunity that are considered fair by all
    stakeholders.
        The overall approach of reference points, TACs for each species and
    rebuilding plans works well for individually targeted, large scale
    industrial fisheries, but is totally inappropriate for recreational,
    small scale, and highly mixed fisheries where dozens or even hundreds
    of species may be caught together and the science is not affordable
    assess and measure catch of each species.
        There is potential to increase U.S. fisheries yield, jobs and
    economic value, but this potential may be limited by the ability to
    manage stocks individually, concerns about environmental protection,
    profitability of fishing, and markets for stocks that are lightly
    fished (Figure 3).

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Figure 3. Graph showing how much yield will be achieved at current
    levels of fishing pressure (green), how much yield can be increased by
    rebuilding overexploited stocks (red), and the remaining area is a
    theoretical gain that could be achieved if we were able to and wanted
    to manage each stock to its MSY.

        Fuller use has three aspects.
        First and of the most importance, is fuller utilization of the TACs
    being set. In many U.S. fisheries, particularly the mixed bottom
    fisheries of the east coast, west coast, and Gulf of Alaska, we catch
    much less than the TACs which themselves are set conservatively to
    prevent overfishing. In the West coast, the potential landed value of
    all TACs in 2015 was $168 M, the landed catch as worth $65 M, thus we
    only actually caught 38 percent of the potential value. In the Gulf of
    Alaska we left 1/3 of the economic value uncaught. In the East Coast
    groundfish fishery the percent used is somewhere below 50 percent. In
    the Bering Sea the catch may be less than \1/2\ the catch level science
    says could be achieved. It is impossible to have all species in a mixed
    stock fishery produce MSY at the same time, and if we want to have no
    species overfished or collapsed we have to forgo most of the potential
    catch. Maximizing yield from mixed fisheries will generally involve
    some stocks above BMSY and some stocks below BMSY. (See Figure 4.)
        Why are we catching such a small fraction of the TAC--primarily
    because these mixed fisheries are heavily constrained markets and by-
    catch of choke species, most commonly stocks under rebuilding plans.
    Commonly the fishing fleet cannot catch valuable species because there
    are strong catch limits on other species that are caught at the same
    time. Markets are also very important. Fishing is a highly competitive
    business, and the volatility in the actual catch due both to natural
    fluctuations and fisheries regulations has meant it is difficult to
    develop or even maintain markets for some of our fish. Many of the
    highest value markets for our fish are overseas and government trade
    policies strongly affect these markets.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Figure 4. The relationship between catch (blue) and total
    exploitation rate for mixed fisheries. Redrawn from Worm et al., 2009.
    The total abundance of fish is shown in green and declines as fishing
    pressure increases. In gold is the number of species that would be
    collapsed, and in red the number overfished. We can reduce the number
    of overfished and collapsed stocks by reducing fishing pressure lower
    than would maximize yield (the downward arrow), but if we want to have
    no overfished stocks, we must give up most of the potential catch.

        These mixed fisheries have seen dramatic reductions in fishing
    pressure, and rebuilding of stocks, but they have not seen increases in
    catch. As a policy to provide more catch to the fishing fleets our
    current approach for mixed stock fisheries has largely failed.
        The second potential for increasing U.S. food from fish, jobs and
    economic benefits come from increased harvest of our underexploited
    fish resources. According to a recent analysis (Costello et al., 2016;
    Hilborn and Costello 2017) U.S. total yield could potentially increase
    by 50 percent if we could obtain the maximum sustainable yield of all
    species. We cannot actually achieve MSY for each species, and we may
    not want to maximize sustainable yield, but there is potential for more
    food, jobs and economic value. If scientists were directed to calculate
    quotas that would maximize long term catch, or jobs or profit, the
    science recommendations would be different from current science advice
    built around stopping overfishing.
        Third, we can increase our fish production by using more of the
    fish we catch. This has happened in many fisheries where stopping the
    race-to-fish has placed incentives on getting more value from the fish
    one is allowed to catch rather than rushing to catch a bigger share of
    the total catch.
        I know that there is considerable interest in adding flexibility to
    the law. I support the conclusions of the National Academy of Sciences
    2013 NRC (2013) report on rebuilding plans and their conclusion

            ``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.''

        I emphasize that we should not move away from science based
    management and the existing Council process. The current rebuilding
    system is designed to achieve the management objective of stopping
    overfishing--regardless of the cost to total catch, markets and
    communities. If the science community was directed to maximize economic
    value of U.S. fisheries or yield, the rebuilding plans would be quite
    different.
        I would like to address the importance of recreational fishing and
    small scale fisheries. I serve on the Science and Statistics Committee
    of the Western Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Council where we
    evaluate the small scale commercial and recreational fisheries of the
    Hawaiian Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana
    Islands. The National Standards are appropriate for the major
    industrial tuna fisheries of the region but totally inappropriate for
    the small scale reef fisheries where we have hundreds of species with
    poor catch and abundance data. Trying to estimate ABC and status
    relative to reference points for even a dozen of them is simply not
    possible. If our SSC (and other SSCs) were directed to provide advice
    on how best to achieve specific objectives for these types of fisheries
    with the budgets and tools available, we could do so, but it not
    involve hard TACs, and almost certainly be some form of effort and
    spatial management.
        As an example of threats to our major fisheries that are unrelated
    to fishing, I would like to mention the proposed Pebble Mine in Bristol
    Bay Alaska. For 20 years I have spent much of each summer studying this
    ecosystem and the fishery. Over the last 50 years sockeye salmon has
    been the second most valuable species caught in the U.S. and Bristol
    Bay has been the major production region for sockeye salmon. The idea
    that highly toxic chemicals can be stored forever behind earthen dams
    in an ecosystem that is highly permeable, and subject to volcanic and
    seismic activity is laughable. The Pebble Mine poses a serious threat
    to one of America's premier fisheries.
        In summary I wish to emphasize that U.S. fisheries management has
    succeeded by relying on science advice. This should not change.
    However, there certainly is the potential to change U.S. fisheries
    management to try to achieve more benefits from the ocean. This can be
    achieved by directing the science community to design fisheries
    management policies that achieve our societal objectives.
    References
        Costello, C., Ovando, D., Clavelle, T., Strauss, C. K., Hilborn,
    R., Melnychuk, M. C., Branch, T. A., et al., 2016. Global fishery
    prospects under contrasting management regimes. Proceedings of the
    National Academy of Sciences, 113: 5125-5129.
        Hilborn, R., and Costello, C. 2017. The potential for blue growth
    in marine fish yield, profit and abundance of fish in the ocean. Marine
    Policy. (available online).
        National Research Council. 2013. Evaluating the Effectiveness of
    Fish Stock Rebuilding Plans in the United States, National Academies
    Press.

        The Chairman. Great. Thank you, Dr. Hilborn.
        Dr. McKinney.

          STATEMENT OF DR. LARRY McKINNEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

              HARTE RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR GULF OF MEXICO

              STUDIES, TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY CORPUS CHRISTI

        Dr. McKinney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
    Committee.
        Thank you for inviting me to testify today.
        For the record, my name is Dr. Larry McKinney. I am the
    Director of the Harte Research Institute at Texas A&M Corpus
    Christi.
        HRI is a trans-disciplinary institute focused on directed
    research, and includes the Center for Sportfish Science and
    Conservation, uniquely focused on developing foundational
    science for sustainable fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico.
        Before coming to HRI, I managed saltwater fisheries for the
    State of Texas. So I have both a management and a science
    perspective. And for that reason, I was asked to chair the
    working committee of the Morris-Deal Commission.
        The 2014 Commission report, ``A Vision for Managing
    America's Saltwater Recreational Fisheries,'' has enjoyed
    significant attention, and more importantly, the ideas
    summarized there have had a positive impact on Federal
    fisheries' policy and science.
        We have the science-based tools with which to manage our
    recreational fisheries. What we need is the legislative
    framework within which to apply those tools. Management of
    recreational fish-based fisheries cannot be accomplished by
    modifying management tools largely developed for the commercial
    fishery.
        My point is neither to diminish the importance of
    commercial fisheries nor the effective management tools now in
    place because of the MSA, which have been key to assuring their
    sustainable future.
        My request is that recreational fisheries have their own
    similarly effective, appropriate Federal framework to assure
    their future.
        The framework is not the current one-size-fits-all
    fisheries management paradigm to which we are confined.
    Recreational fisheries cannot be managed by a quota based,
    annual catch limit approach.
        That may work well and successfully for commercial
    fisheries, but access-based management approaches such as
    practice by state, successfully recovering and managing
    recreational fisheries, like the red drum and spotted sea
    trout, should be the Federal focus.
        Sport fish should be managed not as a commodity, but as a
    natural resource belonging to all Americans and accessible by
    all Americans. Unlike commercial fisheries, recreational
    anglers do not seek to maximize pounds landed, but the
    opportunity to fish for a range of mostly non-consumptive
    reasons.
        Using an access-based approach, fishery managers in states
    like Texas and Florida have been able to provide predictability
    and regulations, while also sustaining a healthy population
    with broad access.
        We need reasonable latitude in stock building timelines.
    Magnuson-Stevens does not currently allow for this
    consideration. The National Research Council reached this same
    conclusion in their report evaluating the effectiveness of fish
    stock rebuilding plans in the United States.
        They found that rebuilding plans based on monitoring and
    controlling fishing levels, rather than on requiring fish
    populations recover to pre-specified target sizes within
    certain timeframes, would be less disruptive to the fisheries
    and less subject to uncertainty.
        Magnuson-Stevens should address and facilitate regional
    cooperative management. Not all recreational species, often
    found in both State and Federal waters, can be managed as a
    single population. Yet, that is often the case for Federal
    management. Red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico is an example
    where such an approach is sorely needed.
        Flexibility to meet different regional angler needs, as
    well as ecological and biological subtleties across large
    geographic regions, is essential. It can be complex and take
    more effort, but the resource and economic benefits far
    outweigh the costs.
        Reauthorization should be explicit in providing for and
    encouraging cooperative management on a regional basis. Some of
    the very best and most successful fisheries expertise lies
    within State agencies, and that is not accessed given the
    current management system. Integration into Federal management
    processes through truly cooperative management, they bring
    expertise, resources, and credibility.
        For me, the defining example of the different motivations
    between recreational and commercial fisheries, and the power of
    an appropriate and sustained science foundation occurred when I
    was the head of Texas fisheries.
        Our data showed that because of a successful recovery
    effort, we could increase the daily bag limit of red drum from
    three fish to four. Texas anglers were loud and clear about
    that proposal, a resounding no. ``Even if the data says we can,
    leave it alone,'' was their message. The bag limit remains at
    three today.
        Anglers simply want reasonable access and quality fishing,
    not maximizing their take. An involved and educated
    recreational angling community can help generate that response.
        Anglers that have access to and trust in their fisheries
    management agency and the data on which they transparently
    operate are allies in conservation, not opposition. We need
    this for our Federal fisheries and for our Federal recreational
    fisheries management.
        Incorporating the ideas that I have briefly summarized here
    today, and that are more fully detailed in my written
    testimony, and the Commission report, can make that a reality
    for Federal fisheries.
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide this brief
    testimony.
        I am certainly happy to answer questions.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. McKinney follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Dr. Larry McKinney, Executive Director, Harte
      Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies, Texas A&M University
                                 Corpus Christi
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for inviting
    me to testify before you today. For the record, I am Dr. Larry
    McKinney--Director of the Harte Research Institute (HRI) of Texas A&M
    University--Corpus Christi. HRI is a transdisciplinary organization
    with a focus on directed research and includes the Center for Sportfish
    Science and Conservation, uniquely focused on developing the
    foundational science for sustainable fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico.
    Before coming to HRI I managed saltwater fisheries for the state of
    Texas, so I have a management and science perspective, which is why I
    was asked to chair the working committee of The Morris-Deal Commission
    on Saltwater Recreational Fisheries Management. The commission was
    established in 2013 to provide a vision and framework for the
    modernization of Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) in its next reauthorization
    specifically to address pressing issues related to Sportfishing. The
    working committee brought together the very best policy, management and
    scientific expertise. These included a former director of the National
    Marine Fisheries Service, respected state and Federal fisheries
    managers, leading academics, NGOs and industry leaders.
        The report released by the Commission in 2014, A Vision for
    Managing America's Saltwater Recreational Fisheries, reflected that
    collective input and has received significant attention and more
    importantly, the ideas summarized there have had positive impact on
    Federal fisheries policy. NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service
    worked closely with the Morris-Deal Commission and in 2015 adopted a
    National Saltwater Recreational Fisheries Policy, acknowledging Morris-
    Deal, as the impetus for its development. NOAA Fisheries is also
    addressing other Commission recommendations as reflected in a recent
    Progress Update: A Vision for Managing America's Saltwater Fisheries.
    These are welcome efforts but further progress is limited by current
    legislation. We have the science-based tools with which to manage our
    recreational fisheries, but lack the legislative framework within which
    we can apply them.
        The Commission and I hope that any reauthorization of MSA will
    focus on this issue specifically as it relates to recreational
    fisheries, the single largest component of our Nation's fisheries not
    yet specifically addressed by our most important Federal fisheries
    legislation. Securing the economic health, sustainability, and access
    to the most economically significant fisheries sector is achievable,
    but legislation should provide for and encourage application of long-
    established and successful science-based tools well known to fisheries
    managers and scientists.
        Management of recreationally based fisheries cannot be accomplished
    by modifying management tools largely developed for commercial
    fisheries. My point is not to diminish the importance of commercial
    fisheries nor the effective management tools now in place because of
    the MSA, which have been key to assuring their sustainable future. My
    request is that recreational fisheries have their own similarly
    effective and appropriate Federal framework to assure their future.
    That framework is not in the current one-size-fits-all fisheries
    management paradigm to which we are now confined. I suggest that the
    means to do so resides within the Commission's Vision Report. Some key
    recommendations from the report include the following:
        Recreational fisheries cannot be managed by quota-based, annual
    catch limit approaches. That may work well and successfully for
    commercial fisheries, but access-based management approaches, such as
    practiced by states successfully managing recreational fisheries,
    should be a Federal focus. Recreational fish should be managed, not as
    a commodity, but as a natural resource belonging to all Americans and
    accessible by all Americans. Unlike commercial fisheries, recreational
    anglers do not seek to maximize pounds landed but the opportunity to
    fish for a range of mostly non-consumptive reasons. Fisheries managers
    in the Atlantic striped bass fishery successfully employed the strategy
    of using long-term harvest rates, rather than strict poundage-based
    quotas, to successfully manage the most sought-after saltwater
    recreational fishery fish in the Nation. Using this access-based
    approach, fisheries managers in states like Texas and Florida have been
    able to provide predictability in regulations, sustain a healthy
    population, and ensure broad access.
        Perhaps the best example of this success is the restoration of Red
    Drum and Spotted Seatrout in Texas. These species were severely
    overfished by the commercial fishery through the mid-1970s. The Coastal
    Fisheries Division of Texas Parks and Wildlife Department launched a
    robust monitoring program in 1975. This program covered four million
    acres of Texas bays and out to nine nautical miles offshore, with joint
    Federal management out to two hundred nautical miles. Some 900,000
    recreational anglers and 1,700 commercial fishers were surveyed,
    including a 1,000 creel survey-days and 19,000 interviews. Over 780
    gill net sets, 1,680 bay trawls, 1,200 oyster dredges and 2,160 bag
    seines were used to gather the fisheries independent data. The forty-
    two years of continuous data collection is the longest record of its
    kind in the world. A combination of legislative and regulatory actions
    fully recovered those species (see Figure 1 and 2, attached) with the
    support of an active and engaged angling public.
        The program also allowed for the successful implementation of a
    commercial fishing license buy-back program. Through the 2014 license
    year, $14.2 million was spent to purchase and retire 2,145 commercial
    Bay and/or Bait Shrimp Boat licenses. This represents 66 percent of the
    original 3,231 licenses grandfathered into the fishery in 1995.
    Additionally, $1.8 million has been spent purchasing 63 Commercial Crab
    Fisherman's licenses and 241 Commercial Finfish Fisherman's licenses,
    retiring 22 percent and 44 percent of the licenses respectively.
        We need reasonable latitude in stock rebuilding timelines.
    Magnuson-Stevens does not currently allow for this consideration. The
    National Research Council, a part of the National Academy of Sciences,
    Engineering and Medicine, reached the same conclusion in their report--
    Evaluating the Effectiveness of Fish Stock Rebuilding Plans in the
    United States. They found that rebuilding plans based on monitoring and
    controlling fishing levels, rather than requiring fish populations to
    recover to a pre-specified target size within a certain timeframe,
    would be less disruptive to the fisheries and less subject to
    uncertainty.
        Magnuson-Stevens should address and facilitate regional and
    cooperative management. Not all recreational species, often found in
    both state and in Federal waters, can be managed as a single
    population, yet that is often the case for Federal management. Red
    snapper in the Gulf of Mexico is an example where such an approach is
    sorely needed. Flexibility to meet differing regional angler needs, as
    well as, ecological and biological subtitles across large geographic
    reaches is essential. It can be complex and take more effort but the
    resource and economic benefits far outweigh the costs. Reauthorization
    should be explicit in providing for and encouraging cooperative
    management on a regional basis. Some of the very best and most
    successful fisheries management expertise lies within state agencies;
    that expertise is not accessed given the current management system.
    Integrated into the Federal management process through truly
    cooperative management, they bring expertise, resources and
    credibility.
        Economic Data in Allocation of Mixed Fisheries. MSA reauthorization
    must provide the framework to assure that where mixed fisheries exist,
    managers use not only the best available science but also data-driven
    economic information to assure their sustainable future and equitable
    allocation. Reauthorization should clearly mandate this approach to
    eliminate ambiguity in the existing legislation.
        Stock Assessments are in need of Improvement. The most fundamental
    science-based tool for fisheries management is a robust stock
    assessment, including both fisheries dependent and independent data.
    This is not an area where reauthorization is necessary unless there is
    a desire to be prescriptive in the structure of this process.
    Considering the diversity of fish stocks, that likely would not be a
    wise course of action. We can certainly improve these assessments and
    there are considerable scholarly recommendations, such as the National
    Research Council's Improving Fish Stock Assessments. Stock assessments
    are the principal tool we use to gauge the health and productivity of a
    particular fish population. Management advice hinges on the frequency
    and robustness of these assessments. The issue is not a question of
    science. I believe we know well enough what to do. The question resides
    in policy and resources available. Currently, in the South Atlantic
    region, for example, the number and frequency of assessments are
    astonishingly low when compared to other regions, obviously hindering
    the decision making process. The driving factors behind the turn-around
    time for assessments, whether it personnel, data, or other resources
    can be complex; however, as pointed out by several independent review
    groups, this is an area that should be addressed and drastically
    improved. There are, as a general rule of thumb, never enough resources
    to carry out all the stock assessments needed, nor frequently enough to
    adequately support management needs. NOAA Fisheries' policy decisions
    on where and when to allocate its limited funding would benefit from
    review and revision.
        Building a Science Base for Fisheries Management Decisions. For me,
    a defining example of the different motivations between recreational
    and commercial fisheries occurred when I was the head of fisheries for
    Texas. Our data showed that because of a successful recovery effort we
    could increase the daily bag limit of Red Drum from three to four fish.
    Texas anglers were loud and clear about that proposal--a resounding no.
    Even if the data says we can, leave it alone, was their message. The
    bag limit remains at three to this day. Anglers simply want reasonable
    access and quality fishing, not maximizing their take. An involved and
    educated recreational angling community generated that response.
    Anglers who have access to--and trust in--their fishery management
    agency (and the data on which they transparently operate) are allies
    for conservation, not opponents. We need this for our Federal
    recreational fisheries management. Incorporating the ideas I have
    briefly summarized can make that a reality for Federal fisheries. Thank
    you for the opportunity to provide this brief testimony, and I am
    certainly happy to answer any questions.
                                    Figures

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Figure 1. A brief graphic history of the management of red Drum in
    Texas. Figure courtesy of Coastal Fisheries Division--Texas Parks and
    Wildlife Department. The combination of legislative and regulatory
    actions were all predicated on a robust monitoring program, including
    both fisheries dependent and independent data

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Figure 2. A brief graphic history of the management of Spotted
    Seatrout in Texas. Figure courtesy of Coastal Fisheries Division--Texas
    Parks and Wildlife Department. The combination of legislative and
    regulatory actions were all predicated on a robust monitoring program,
    including both fisheries dependent and independent data
                                   Attachment

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Great. And thank you, Dr. McKinney, and for
    your work, your Morris-Deal work as well.
        Mr. Haflinger, the floor is yours, sir.

                 STATEMENT OF KARL HAFLINGER, FOUNDER
                     AND PRESIDENT, SEA STATE, INC.

        Mr. Haflinger. Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member Peters,
    and members of the Committee.
        My name is Karl Haflinger and my company, Sea State,
    maintains a private fisheries information network for
    approximately 150 trawl and longline vessels that fish in the
    waters off Alaska, Washington, and Oregon.
        Good science and data are critical in our fisheries
    management system. I hope my testimony today helps members of
    the Subcommittee understand the kind of management innovation
    that is possible under existing law and the importance of
    proceeding cautiously in any reauthorization process to ensure
    that we retain what is working.
        I also want to address areas where continuing innovations
    by NOAA fisheries could be helpful in catalyzing further
    improvements in how fisheries' data is collected and utilized.
        Shortly after passage of the original Act, limits were
    placed on foreign catch in Alaska and observers were placed on
    foreign processing vessels. As the growing domestic industry
    took over, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council
    retained full observer coverage on larger vessels and 30
    percent coverage on smaller vessels.
        The Council also retained strict catch limits, which
    requires tracking of both retained and discarded fish, and the
    Council also enacted limits on crab and halibut bycatch and
    started action on salmon bycatch as well.
        By the mid 1990s, the problem for U.S. fishermen in our
    area became not one of catching their target species, but of
    keeping bycatch down to levels that would allow them to fish
    without being shutdown.
        We responded to that challenge with innovations that
    harnessed cutting edge technology at the time; that is, fax
    machines and dial-up modems.
        Because there had been a close relationship between the
    NOAA fisheries biologists, observers, and industry, members of
    the industry realized that they might be able to combine
    observer data from all vessels to aid in salmon bycatch
    reduction.
        This is how Sea State began 25 years ago, by combining
    observer data from all vessels in the Pollock fleet and sending
    out maps showing areas that boats could avoid to reduce their
    salmon bycatch.
        The approach spread to another sector that fished for sole
    and needed to avoid halibut and crab, and has continued since.
        Our original efforts were only marginally successful since
    bycatch avoidance is not generally a win-win situation. It
    almost always results in slower fishing rates as vessels have
    to take time to relocate.
        However, as catch share programs became the norm and the
    race for fish ended, vessels could take that extra time to
    relocate and the use of this information became more important.
        As our fleets showed more ability to manage their bycatch,
    the councils have relaxed some of their rigid approaches to
    bycatch management in favor of flexible approaches that hence
    we can change closure areas on a much faster schedule than the
    Federal Government could and our enforcement is simpler because
    our vessels waive due process.
        Our actions are audited by a third party to be sure that we
    are not acting as a fox guarding the henhouse.
        We have built all these capabilities on data that we obtain
    from NOAA fisheries. But fisheries are no different from the
    rest of society, and we are constantly being challenged to
    incorporate new methods and technologies while not losing
    legacy data.
        This offers opportunity. I believe that the same advantages
    that technology offers to society in general will also be
    extended to fisheries. Whatever you can do in the
    reauthorization process to encourage further innovation as well
    as continuing cooperation between industry and NMFS is
    important.
        It is also important to realize that the demands on regions
    to live within catch limits makes accurate monitoring of catch
    even more important.
        Thus, technologies like electronic monitoring will have to
    be used alongside human observers because we cannot afford to
    place observers on every boat, and fishermen will have to work
    together with NOAA fisheries to make this happen.
        My written testimony references a document called
    ``Improving Net Gains,'' that grew out of a data modernization
    workshop, and I would urge you to look at the report for
    suggestions in this arena. The report highlights how
    modernizing our data infrastructure could provide economic
    benefits to the fleet, make it easier for more vessels to stay
    on top of catch and bycatch, and allow both safety and
    efficiency gains.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to testify and I
    welcome any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Haflinger follows:]

         Prepared Statement of Karl Haflinger, Founder and President,
                                Sea State, Inc.
    Introduction
        Good afternoon, Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member Peters, and
    members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify
    today. My name is Karl Haflinger and my company, Sea State, maintains a
    private fisheries information network for approximately 150 trawl and
    longline vessels that fish off the coasts of Alaska, Washington and
    Oregon.
        I will be speaking today about the close partnership that Sea State
    has built with members of the fishing industry in the North Pacific and
    Pacific Northwest to dramatically improve business and conservation
    outcomes. Our work is, we believe, an illustration of ``state of the
    art'' cooperative management under the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA). It
    demonstrates how fishing industry participants are themselves investing
    in world-class science and data in ways that deliver healthier
    fisheries and more profitable fishing enterprises. First, I hope my
    testimony helps members of the Subcommittee understand the kind of
    management innovation that is possible under the existing law, and the
    importance of proceeding cautiously in any reauthorization process to
    ensure we retain what is working. Second, I want to address areas where
    continuing innovations by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
    could be helpful in catalyzing further improvements in how fisheries
    data is collected and utilized.
    Meeting Business and Conservation Challenges
        Data collection and analysis is an critical component of success
    for fishing businesses in the twenty-first century, and where Sea State
    focuses its work. Currently, approximately 150 commercial fishing
    vessels use our services, which could be loosely described as fisheries
    data analysis, in support of fishing activities governed under
    regulations developed by two of the eight regional fishery management
    councils established under the MSA, the North Pacific Fishery
    Management Council and the Pacific Fishery Management Council. All of
    these vessels are members of fishing cooperatives, whether these
    cooperatives are recognized in statute (as inshore cooperatives defined
    under the American Fisheries Act), or simply composed of all members of
    a closed class of vessels that receive a fixed percentage share of the
    annual harvest quota. Fish harvesting cooperatives are a form of catch
    share-style program.
        With modern fishing gear, sophisticated electronics that identify
    fish schools, and fishing experience acquired over 40-plus years on the
    offshore grounds since the MSA extended U.S. jurisdiction out to 200
    miles, locating target species is generally not a persistent problem
    for the fleets with whom we work. Reducing incidental catch of non-
    target species (bycatch), with an emphasis on certain species, is more
    often the focus of fishermen and fishery managers because fishery
    management regulations exist that can close fisheries before the target
    species quota is taken if fishermen reach an incidental catch allowance
    for certain non-target species.
        In 1996, the MSA was amended to define bycatch as discarded fish.
    Fish can be discarded for economic reasons (i.e., the fish are
    unmarketable), but there are also discards required by regulations,
    most often because fish incidentally caught by one fisherman are target
    species for another. Requiring such fish to be discarded is intended to
    eliminate any incentive to catch the non-target fish in the first
    place. The 1996 MSA amendments contained other provisions to reduce
    incidental catch of non-target species, including adding National
    Standard #9 to the Act, which requires Federal fishery managers to
    minimize bycatch.
        Regulatory actions by the North Pacific Council on bycatch
    reduction predated MSA National Standard 9, due to the fact that major
    bycatch species like salmon, crab and halibut are at the center of
    subsistence and commercial livelihoods for many coastal residents
    throughout Alaska and the Pacific Northwest. The Council responded to
    concerns about bycatch (first raised in conjunction with foreign
    fishing) with a series of both input and output controls, such as time-
    and-area closures and outright limits on total allowed bycatch in the
    early 1990s. In the latter instance, target groundfish fisheries closed
    before the allowable catch was reached if the fleet reached caps on the
    incidental catch of certain non-target species, particularly halibut
    and crab.
        In 1976 when the U.S. established its 200-mile Exclusive Economic
    Zone (EEZ), a number of foreign nations entered into fishing agreements
    to allow continued access to U.S. waters to harvest groundfish species.
    One condition of fishing was that NMFS's observers were placed on
    foreign vessels to ensure adherence to fishing quotas. Regulations
    requiring onboard observer coverage carried over to the domestic fleet
    in Alaska as U.S. fishing and fish processing developed through the
    1980s.
        The U.S. industry in the Northwest and Alaska is currently spending
    $15-20 million annually to cover Federal fishery observer costs.
    Observers are trained and managed by NMFS and the data they collect is
    protected under confidentiality rules covered in MSA. Confidentiality
    protections, while important to preserve in the Act, initially
    presented an obstacle to using this data to support industry bycatch
    reduction initiatives. The trawl industry realized that the solution
    was to authorize a 3rd party to receive and review observer data for
    all vessels in a fleet, and quickly create maps of bycatch trends that
    were returned in real-time to vessels. That is when Sea State began,
    and we have continued to create information products that captains
    themselves help design, that assist in bringing down bycatch rates.
    Original efforts were only marginally successful since bycatch
    avoidance is not a win-win solution--it almost always results in slower
    fishing rates as vessels must take time to relocate. However, once the
    fisheries I work with transitioned to catch share fisheries of some
    form fishermen could accept the cost of increased time that bycatch
    reduction almost always entails, because individual vessel allocations
    ensured no lost fishing opportunities from picking up gear and moving
    to areas with lower bycatch.
        All of the major groundfish fisheries in the Bering Sea and the
    Pacific whiting, or hake, fishery off Washington and Oregon are now
    prosecuted under strong cooperative agreements. Input controls, like
    rigid time-and-area closures that often proved to be at odds with
    actual trends on the grounds, have largely been abandoned by the
    Councils. The ocean environment is dynamic, and the distribution of
    fish stocks is in constant flux. Static lines on a map that require
    promulgation of a rule to change do not provide for the type of
    adaptive, real-time management that sound catch accounting methods and
    electronic reporting of catch can provide. Instead, the Councils have
    tasked the fleets with finding ways to reduce bycatch, at times adding
    performance standards for industry to meet. And industry is required to
    regularly demonstrate to the councils that their approaches are
    working.
        To respond to these challenges placed on fleets by the Councils, we
    have had to step up our efforts to gather data from multiple sources
    and at times even automate our analysis and response to the fleets so
    that it is a round-the-clock process. Data-sharing among vessels in
    cooperatives is made mandatory by fishing cooperative contracts, and
    informal, cross-sector (that is, among target fisheries) sharing is
    common as well. Cooperative contracts are legally binding private
    sector agreements. Such agreements obligate cooperative members to fish
    according to whatever rules the coop in particular feels are necessary
    to put in an orderly harvest in accordance with Council guidelines. Sea
    State generates notices of high bycatch based on both observer data and
    landings information (whichever arrives first) and sends alerts to
    vessels on the grounds as text-based e-mails with links to live web
    maps.
        Additionally, according to rules of some cooperatives, we evaluate
    actively fished areas on a weekly basis and close them to vessels
    exhibiting high bycatch rates, thus providing an incentive for
    individual vessels to figure out how to fish with less bycatch. All of
    these measures are prescribed in the cooperative contracts that all
    members sign, so that no behavior is simply voluntary. Substantial
    fines are levied for not following the rules (for example, fishing in a
    closed area, which is monitored via satellite), and in some cases Sea
    State's management actions are subject to 3rd party audits to be sure
    that we are performing according to contract in our oversight role.
    Catalyzing Continued Innovation
        We have been fortunate to work cooperatively with NMFS over the
    last 20 years to develop the most advanced private fishery information
    system on the planet. NMFS's Northwest Groundfish Observer Program
    office has been extremely cooperative from day 1, from a time when
    faxes and online bulletins boards were state-of-the-art tools. We have
    now progressed to the point where all vessels have at least text
    messaging systems, satellite monitoring of positions (VMS) and often
    full e-mail and Internet access. The e-Landing system in Alaska, which
    was created through a partnership with NOAA Fisheries, the State of
    Alaska and the International Pacific Halibut Commission followed in the
    early 2000s, allows us access to shoreside landings information for
    clients who authorize our access to their records.
        Nonetheless, there is clearly more we can do to modernize data
    infrastructure, give additional tools to fishing businesses, and ensure
    the long-term sustainability of all U.S. fisheries. I was recently part
    of an expert panel that explored what more we could do to accelerate
    progress. Our ``Fishing Data Innovation Taskforce'' included a broad
    cross-section of fisheries stakeholders with an interest in harnessing
    technology to meet business and conservation goals. Our Improving Net
    Gains report reviews both areas of progress and remaining challenges
    and makes specific recommendations for reform, which I recommend to the
    Subcommittee.
        I am encouraged by the reception our Taskforce report has received
    to date. The new Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, Chris Oliver,
    has confronted these issues before in his previous role as Executive
    Director of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. Others in
    positions of leadership at the National Marine Fisheries Service are
    showing a willingness to explore new approaches where needed, which I
    applaud. We have been gratified by the interest of a number of
    congressional leaders. Chairman Sullivan, we're especially grateful for
    the spotlight you're shining on this issue. Progress in this area can
    be difficult. As in many fields today, fishery data systems that were
    developed ad hoc must be re-written to take advantage of newer
    information technologies, and doing so without losing critical
    ``legacy'' data requires almost inspired planning. However, it is
    critical that fisheries managers and fishermen find ways to navigate
    these challenges to secure the benefits that improved data systems can
    deliver. Modernizing our data infrastructure could provide economic
    benefits to the fleet, make it easier for more vessels to stay on top
    of catch and bycatch, and allow both safety and efficiency gains.
    Maintaining what we have
        One issue I haven't yet mentioned is the importance of maintaining
    NOAA Fisheries stock surveys and yearly stock assessments for both
    major and other constraining stocks (that is, minor or weaker stocks
    taken as bycatch in a mixed-stock fishery). Maintenance of the surveys
    provides fishery independent data that is essential to the fisheries
    that span the West Coast and make up a substantial proportion of the
    Nation's groundfish landings. The industry ``pitches in'' on management
    costs paying for 100 percent observer coverage for catch share
    fisheries in the Bering Sea, often with 2 observers on larger vessels.
    Industry has also been involved in cooperative programs with NMFS, such
    as providing platforms for echo-sounding surveys while fishing, funding
    gear research, and genetic stock research for Alaskan salmon. However,
    the fisheries independent surveys and stock assessments are the basis
    for the most critical management decisions, and need to be carried
    forward to ensure that the large groundfish stocks off our coasts are
    fished sustainably.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward
    to continuing to work with the Subcommittee to modernize fishery
    information systems and improve the performance of our fisheries.

        The Chairman. Great. Thank you, Mr. Haflinger.
        Dr. Jones.

             STATEMENT OF MICHAEL JONES, Ph.D., PROFESSOR,

                 DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE,

                       MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

        Dr. Jones. Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member Peters, and
    distinguished members of the Committee.
        Thank you for inviting me to appear before you to discuss
    fishery science and its potential to better inform fishery
    management practices.
        My name is Michael Jones. I am a Professor in the
    Department of Fisheries and Wildlife at Michigan State
    University. I received my Ph.D. from the University of British
    Columbia, and have experience as an environmental consultant,
    as a Government scientist, and since 1997, as an academic.
        I come to fisheries honestly and my father worked,
    admittedly, as an accountant in the fishing industry in British
    Columbia. But my exposure through him to this world really set
    the course for my academic career.
        As Senator Peters mentioned, I am the Founding Director of
    the Quantitative Fisheries Center at MSU. Our Center works with
    Government and stakeholders to foster better management of
    Great Lakes fisheries.
        We marry analytics with management and decision making. We
    use our expertise to put computer models to work with
    stakeholders for real fishery benefits in real time. Our work
    is focused on the Great Lakes, but the science we use is just
    as relevant to other regions of the United States.
        The Magnuson-Stevens Act has made a vital contribution to
    substantially improving the state of the country's federally
    managed fisheries. I hardly need to remind the Committee of
    this fact.
        Via the Act, our country oversees over 4 million square
    miles of ocean, an area larger than that of our entire country.
    These waters range from the Caribbean to the Bering Sea. They
    include a huge variety of species.
        Ecological science tells us that these species should not
    all be managed in the same way. There is merit in considering
    scientifically flexible, defensible flexibility in things like
    rebuilding plants, for example, related to species' life
    histories.
        A one-size-fits-all approach to fisheries management does
    not work well and risks managing some fisheries overly
    conservatively, while others suffer from regulations that are
    too liberal.
        All fisheries are managed in the face of great uncertainty,
    both about the current status and about future conditions. Good
    policy and decisionmaking frameworks should explicitly
    recognize this uncertainty, and frame action in the context of
    risks.
        One implication of this is that there is not a bright line
    between stocks that are assessed as overfished versus those
    that are not. Accommodating this uncertainty about status by
    taking account of a range of possible assessments from, for
    example, slightly or possibly overfished to greatly or
    certainly overfished, will go a long way toward allowing for
    better decisions.
        Around the world, fishery management is increasingly being
    informed by approaches widely referred to as Management
    Strategy Evaluations, which use computer simulation methods to
    evaluate how alternative fishery management strategies are
    likely to perform relative to predefined sets of management
    goals and that explicitly recognize our uncertainty.
        While this approach is sometimes technically challenging,
    there is really no excuse for failing to use it. Increasingly,
    the National Marine Fishery Service is adopting this approach.
        I would like to highlight two positive experiences with the
    application of these MSE methods to important fishery
    management issues in the Great Lakes: sea lamprey control and
    Lake Erie perch and fisheries.
        Sea lamprey is a destructive, invasive species in the Great
    Lakes that require annual investments of millions of dollars on
    pest control to reduce their impact on valued species.
        In collaboration with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission,
    we use MSE methods to guide critical decisions about allocation
    of resources between determining where we should apply control
    and actually implementing that control. These decisions have
    greatly helped the GLFC to achieve its management goals for sea
    lamprey in each of our Great Lakes.
        Lake Erie walleye and yellow perch fisheries represent the
    most valuable commercial freshwater fishery in the world. Not
    unlike red snapper, for example, Lake Erie walleye and perch
    are highly valued by both recreational and commercial fishers.
        These competing interests have led to considerable conflict
    and an erosion of trust in management by all stakeholders that
    peaked around 2009.
        In the summer of 2010, Lake Erie fishery managers invited
    the QFC to lead an effort to create a more transparent,
    science-based process to help define harvest policies that were
    scientifically sound and balance the competing objectives of
    the different stakeholders.
        We developed and used an MSE model in a process that
    involves stakeholders and managers to examine harvest policy
    options.
        Largely as a result of the transparency and openness of
    this process, this work led to the adoption of harvest policies
    that are viewed by all stakeholders as suitable for these
    fisheries.
        Our experience in the Great Lakes also highlights the
    importance of considering how ecosystem change can affect the
    future of fisheries in ways that are not evident from looking
    at the past.
        Invasive species--including the sea lamprey, but also
    zebra, and quagga mussels, and possibly Asian carp in the
    future--can profoundly alter the dynamics of native species
    that are economically and culturally important.
        As well, land based activity, such as agricultural
    practices and storm water management, can have very large
    impacts on nutrient dynamics that drive so-called bottom up
    effects on the food web.
        More than 50 years of experience studying the human driven
    ecosystem change in the Great Lakes should provide insight that
    can help us to develop robust management strategies for
    fisheries that are resilient to the uncertainties created by
    unanticipated changes in the ecosystem.
        One of the great benefits to the U.S. fishery science, due
    to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, has been its impact on the
    development and deployment of cutting edge scientific
    technologies to inform us about fish stocks and their
    ecosystems. I would be remiss if I did not and were not to
    mention that this is a benefit that we, who do science in the
    Great Lakes, truly envy.
        Senator Peters and others have recently introduced a bill
    known as the Great Lakes Fishery Research Authorization Act
    that seeks to provide comparable support for science for Great
    Lakes fisheries. I urge you to consider the merits of this bill
    for the betterment of fishery management on our north coast.
        The Magnuson-Stevens Act has helped us to be able to claim
    that our country has some of the world's best managed
    fisheries, but our work cannot stop.
        I am honored to have this opportunity to speak to you about
    the role of science and our investment in the future of
    America's fisheries.
        I look forward to the opportunity to address your
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Jones follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Michael Jones, Ph.D., Professor, Department of
               Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University
        Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member Peters, and distinguished members
    of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to appear before you to
    discuss fisheries science and its potential to inform better fishery
    management practices.
        My name is Michael Jones. I am a professor in the Department of
    Fisheries and Wildlife at Michigan State University. I received my
    B.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees from the University of British Columbia in
    Canada. I have worked in the private sector as an environmental
    consultant, in the public sector as a government scientist, and since
    1997 as an academic. I come to fisheries ``honestly''--my father worked
    in the fisheries industry in British Columbia, admittedly as an
    accountant, but my exposure through him to this world set the course of
    my academic career. My research focuses on fish population dynamics and
    ecology, resource management and simulation modeling.
        Over the years, I have become more and more interested in how
    uncertainty and risk affect resource management decision-making. I have
    also seen how Structured Decision Making methods can lead to better
    management outcomes, especially when they involve stakeholder
    engagement. I have worked closely with fishery management agencies,
    particularly in the Great Lakes region and in Alaska, to apply my
    research findings and scientific expertise to current and emerging
    management issues.
        I am a founding director of the Quantitative Fisheries Center (QFC)
    at MSU. Our Center works with agency partners and stakeholders to
    foster better management of fisheries, primarily in the Great Lakes
    Region. The QFC marries analytics with management and decision-making.
    We use our expertise to put statistical methods and models to work with
    stakeholders, to achieve real fishery benefits in real time.
        We work to ensure that wise, fair decisions are made, based on the
    best science, and in partnership with many, sometimes disparate,
    stakeholder groups.
        Although our work has focused on the Great Lakes, we tackle
    scientific issues that are just as important for other regions of the
    United States, where the Magnuson-Stevens Act applies, including:

       determination of sustainable and equitable harvest policies
            for exploited species;

       mitigation of the negative effects of invasive species;

       accommodation of the influence of ecosystem change on food
            webs that include economically valuable fish stocks.

        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act has
    made vital contributions to substantially improve the state of our
    country's federally-managed fisheries. While I hardly need to remind
    this committee of this fact, we have seen since the early 2000s:

       39 overfished stocks rebuilt.

       A 98 percent increase in fish stock sustainability.

       A Fish Stock Sustainability Index (FSSI), which gauges key
            stocks according to their overfishing status and biomass
            levels, has increased every year since the index was
            implemented.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ NOAA Fisheries Magnuson-Stevens Fishery and Conservation Act
    http://www.nmfs.
    noaa.gov/sfa/laws_policies/msa/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This is in stark contrast to reports of fishery performance in many
    other--although not all other--regions of the world.
        The Marine Fish Conservation Network reports that as of 2013, two-
    thirds of overfished stocks placed in rebuilding plans due to the
    Magnuson-Stevens Act have been rebuilt or have made significant
    progress since 1996. They estimate that rebuilding all U.S. fish
    populations would lead to a $31 billion increase in annual sales and
    support for half a million new U.S. jobs.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Marine Fish Conservation Network http://conservefish.org/
    healthy-oceans/magnuson-ste
    vens-act-upholding-a-legacy-of-success/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Via the Magnuson-Stevens Act, our country oversees 4.4 million
    square miles of ocean--an area larger than that of our entire country.
    These oceans and seas range from the Caribbean to the Bering Sea, and
    no two are the same. They include a huge variety of species that are
    the objects of exploitation: ranging from small, pelagic, short-lived
    fish like menhaden to large, extremely long-lived benthic fish like
    Pacific coast rockfishes, not to mention numerous important shellfish
    species.
        Ecological science tells us that these species should not all be
    managed in the same way. There is merit--and evidence to support this--
    considering scientifically defensible flexibility in things like
    rebuilding plan expectations, for example related to species life
    histories. A `one-size fits all' approach to fisheries management does
    not work well, and risks managing some fisheries overly conservatively
    while others suffer from regulations that are too liberal. Determining
    how to adapt management strategies to match the characteristics of
    diverse fisheries has been a focus of my work for the past 30 years.
        All fisheries are managed in the face of great uncertainty, both
    about current status and about future conditions; good policy and
    decision-making frameworks should explicitly recognize this uncertainty
    and frame action in the context of risks.
        One implication of this is that there is not a ``bright line''
    between stocks that are assessed as overfished versus those that are
    not. Better decisions would result from some Accommodation for the
    uncertainty about status, taking account of a range of possible
    assessments from, for example, slightly/possibly overfished to
    certainly/greatly overfished, would go a long ways toward informing
    better decisions.
        Around the world, fishery management is increasingly being informed
    by approaches widely referred to as Management Strategy Evaluations
    (MSEs), which use computer simulation methods to evaluate how
    alternative fishery management strategies are likely to perform
    relative to pre-defined sets of management goals, and that explicitly
    recognize the uncertainty I just mentioned. While sometimes technically
    challenging, particularly for data-poor fisheries, there is no excuse
    for failing to use this type of approach, especially for economically
    important fisheries. Increasingly, the National Marine Fisheries
    Service has begun to adopt this approach.
        We have had positive experiences with the application of MSE
    methods to two key fishery management issues in the Great Lakes.
        The first MSE application is sea lamprey control. Sea lamprey were
    one of the first aquatic invaders that entered the Great Lakes as a
    consequence of increased shipping and other commerce in the region in
    the early 20th century. When the sea lamprey entered into the upper
    Great Lakes, they decimated native fish populations.
        Sea lampreys have a very unique life cycle. Lampreys cause their
    damage to Great Lake fisheries during the adult parasitic phase of
    life, which lasts 12-18 months. During the spring, lamprey die, but not
    before they spawn in Michigan rivers to continue their destructive
    legacy. After the eggs hatch, they go through a non-parasitic larval
    stage that lasts for three to six years. When the larval stage is
    complete, they begin the adult parasitic phase where they enter the
    Great Lakes and feed on the fish population. However, during the larval
    stage sea lampreys are vulnerable to chemical control, and this has
    been the primary means by which this destructive invader has been
    controlled.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Jones, M.L., B. Irwin, G.J.A. Hansen, H.A. Dawson, A.J. Treble,
    W. Liu, W. Dai, and J.R. Bence. 2009. An operating model for Great
    Lakes sea lamprey integrated pest management. Open Fish Science Journal
    2: 59-73.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Over the last decade we have used MSE methods to guide ``million
    dollar'' critical decisions about allocation of resources between
    assessment (that is, determining where we should apply control) and
    control (that is, how much habitat should we chemically treat) of this
    pest, and to evaluate trade-offs among competing management options.
    This science has been vital to the considerable success of the control
    program run by the bi-national Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
        While sea lamprey control is a success story in the Great Lakes,
    the lessons learned from this program can reach far beyond the Great
    Lakes. Learning how to better manage invasive species ranks among the
    most important ecosystem-level issues we face today, and this is
    equally true for our marine ecosystems.
        The second MSE application involves the most valuable freshwater
    commercial fishery in the world--the Lake Erie walleye and yellow perch
    fisheries. Not unlike red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico, and any number
    of other U.S. coastal marine fish stocks, Lake Erie walleye and perch
    are highly valued by recreational and commercial fishers alike.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Jones, M.L., M.J. Catalano, L.K. Peterson, and A.M. Berger.
    2016. Stakeholder-centered development of a harvest control rule for
    Lake Erie walleye Sander vitreus. pp. 163-183 in ``Management Science
    in Fisheries'', C.T.T. Edwards and D.J. Dankel, editors. Routledge,
    Oxford and New York.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Since the late 1970s walleye and perch fishers, and the managers
    that determine who gets to catch what, have repeatedly fought over
    allocation of these prized fish stocks. By 2009 trust among
    stakeholders, and between many stakeholders and decision makers, was at
    an all-time low. In Ontario especially, managers and commercial fishery
    stakeholders were spending a lot of unproductive time in court.
        In the summer of 2010, the Lake Erie fishery managers decided to
    change course. They invited the Quantitative Fisheries Center to lead a
    Structured Decision Making effort to help create a more transparent,
    science-based process--a process that would help define harvest
    policies that were scientifically sound and balanced the competing
    objectives of different stakeholders.
        At the core of our effort was the development of an MSE model,
    using a process that involved active engagement of fishery stakeholders
    and managers, to both improve stock assessment methods and examine
    harvest policy options. Largely as a result of the transparency and
    openness of our process, this work has led to adoption of harvest
    policies that are viewed by all stakeholders as suitable for these
    fisheries.
        My experience with using a stakeholder-engaged MSE process, both in
    Lake Erie and more recently in western Alaska for subsistence salmon
    fisheries, has convinced me that progress towards better management of
    fisheries, where a diversity of stakeholders have potentially
    conflicting objectives, depends on an open, transparent process where
    stakeholders feel empowered to influence management decisions, and are
    able to gain insight into the objectives of other stakeholders.
        Experience with the management of fisheries in the Great Lakes over
    the past few decades also has taught me the importance of careful
    consideration of how ecosystem change can affect the future of
    fisheries in ways that are not always evident from looking at the past.
        As I mentioned earlier, invasive species, including the sea lamprey
    but also zebra and quagga mussels, and possibly Asian carp in the
    future, can profoundly alter the dynamics of our native species that
    are economically and culturally important.
        In addition, land-based activities such as agricultural practices
    and stormwater management can have large impacts on nutrient dynamics
    that drive so-called bottom up effects on the food web.
        More than 50 years of experience with human-driven ecosystem change
    in the Great Lakes offers examples that can be applied to fishery
    management in marine coastal regions of the U.S. These can also help us
    to develop robust management strategies that are resilient to the
    uncertainties created by unanticipated changes to the ecosystem.
        One of the great benefits to U.S. fisheries science and management
    that has come from the Magnuson-Stevens Act has been its impact on the
    development and deployment of cutting edge scientific technologies to
    inform us about fish stocks and their ecosystems. I would be remiss if
    I were not to mention at this hearing that this is a benefit that we
    who carry out science in the Great Lakes truly envy. Senator Peters and
    others recently introduced a bill known as the Great Lakes Fishery
    Research Authorization Act that seeks to provide comparable support for
    science for Great Lakes fisheries as we presently enjoy for marine
    systems thanks to the MSA. I urge you to consider the merits of this
    bill for the betterment of fishery management in the United States'
    ``north coast.''
        The Magnuson-Stevens Act undoubtedly allows us to claim our country
    has the world's best managed fisheries, but our work cannot stop. I am
    honored to have the opportunity to speak to you about the role of
    science in our investment in the future of America's fisheries, and I
    look forward to addressing your questions.

        The Chairman. Great.
        Well, thanks again to all the witnesses for great opening
    statements. I think now we will proceed to questions.
        I wanted to begin, Dr. Hilborn and Mr. Haflinger, you both
    mentioned the phrase ``race to fish.''
        Can you describe that in a little bit more detail in what
    you mean? How data and sound science, that is really the focus
    of this hearing, can help us address some of the challenges
    that come out of the race to fish?
        I will let either of you take it.
        Mr. Haflinger. In the race to fish, I think typically
    refers to the way fisheries have most often been conducted in
    which whatever management agency is responsible would somehow
    set an allowable catch, and they would determine when a season
    would be for this fish fishery. The starting gun would go off
    and fleets would fish until the allowable catch had been
    achieved if they were fishing with an allowable, within the
    framework of an allowable catch.
        In such an environment, anything that slows you down and
    takes you off the grounds, or makes you less efficient on the
    grounds, simply means you have lost revenue because you have
    lost fishing time to somebody else.
        So that is the race for fish and removing the race for fish
    has been phenomenally important in fisheries in the U.S.
        The Chairman. So are there safety elements to that?
        Mr. Haflinger. There are certainly safety elements.
        The Chairman. Can you unpack those a little bit as well?
        Mr. Haflinger. I think the most striking example would be
    in the crab fisheries in Alaska where the seasons were
    compressed to just maybe a week or so. If it was blowing out of
    the north at 45 and it was heavy icing, you went out anyway.
        A lot of boats were lost, a lot of lives were lost, and
    there was simply no choice because that is when the season
    started, and that is when you had to go and fish. I think it
    was true across the halibut fishery as well. I am sure it has
    been true in many fisheries. So safety was a large issue
    certainly.
        The Chairman. Dr. Hilborn, do you want to comment on that
    at all?
        Dr. Hilborn. Yes. The race to fish was destructive and it
    still exists in some fisheries, but it has safety consequences.
    It also means that the incentives, for any individual
    fisherman, are to do anything that lets him catch fish at a
    faster rate.
        As we have eliminated the race to fish in many fisheries,
    the incentive switched to getting the maximum value of the fish
    that you do catch. And this has led to much fuller product
    utilization, concentrating on trying to get higher value
    products, whether it is more fillets off of a pound of fish or
    whatever.
        I think it has universally been recognized that stopping
    the race to fish is an essential element in most good fisheries
    management.
        The Chairman. So management and safety?
        Dr. Hilborn. But for economics, for management, and for
    safety, for all those reasons.
        The Chairman. Great. Thank you.
        Dr. McKinney, one of the Morris-Deal recommendations was,
    quote, ``Adopting a revised approach to saltwater recreational
    fisheries management.'' This has also been termed ``alternative
    management.''
        Can you elaborate on what is meant by alternative
    management? And do you have any experience from your work in
    Texas and in the Gulf on these management approaches?
        Dr. McKinney. Appreciate the question, Mr. Chairman.
        I guess I would start that from the State's perspective and
    from a number of fisheries managements, we do not really call
    it ``alternative fisheries management,'' but it is the fishing
    approach.
        Because it is used in nearly every state, tribal groups,
    state compacts, even in wildlife type things which basically is
    looking at, not looking at [sic] quota based or maximum yield
    type of approach, but basically access.
        And it is based on what was the old North American model of
    how we manage fisheries, and that is, that came about as we
    tried to move away from commercial fisheries for wildlife
    production particularly. I think that is the best management,
    best idea of management deal.
        So it is looking at access based approaches where you use
    link limits, seasons, bag limits, those types of approaches and
    you combine that with a robust data collection process as you
    move along so that you can make adjustments as you move.
        It is a very adaptive management approach rather than
    setting a targeted date, a time for restoration and a weight, a
    catch her by weight type of thing.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        I might have some more questions on follow up, but I turn
    now to Senator Peters.
        Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Again, thank you to each of our witnesses for some very
    good testimony here today.
        One thing that has come out through our hearings that we
    have had on this issue is that oftentimes we have difficulty
    reaching consensus. So when it comes to fisheries management,
    there are a lot of stakeholders that have very strong opinions,
    as you know.
        Dr. Jones, your experience with the management strategy
    evaluations has certainly been a success in trying to bring
    some of these folks together.
        If you could just elaborate more specifically as to how
    that works? How it enables us to bring divergent groups
    together and how that might be something for us to be thinking
    about going forward?
        Dr. Jones. Sure. Thank you very much for the question.
        I guess the main thing that I would emphasize about the MSE
    process is that it starts with a conversation about what you
    want to achieve. Dr. Hilborn made reference to this in his
    testimony, the importance of articulating what the goals of
    management are in order to, then, bring the science to bear on
    how best to achieve those goals.
        And so, the process that we have used, the process that
    other groups have used also in the world with MSE, is to bring
    the diverse points of view into the room and articulate what
    the suite of objectives are.
        Not necessarily resolve and try to define a common
    objective, but identify what the range of objectives are that
    different stakeholders have. And then proceed with an analysis
    that formally asks the question, ``How will different
    management strategies succeed at meeting this diverse, and
    sometimes competing, set of objectives?''
        What we have found is that if you do that in a transparent
    and explicit way, that stakeholders begin to have more of an
    opportunity to understand the need for compromise, the need for
    reconciling their goals with the goals of other stakeholders.
        That was certainly our experience with the Lake Erie perch
    and fisheries that I referred to in my testimony.
        Senator Peters. Thank you.
        Dr. Jones, also in your written testimony, you list some
    very important scientific issues to tackle that are actually
    shared between the Great Lakes fisheries, as well as fisheries
    under the Magnuson-Stevens Act including the influence of
    ecological changes on food webs.
        The question is really, how can we go about improving
    fisheries management, whether under NOAA or in the Great Lakes,
    to accommodate ecological changes on food webs, as well as
    other environmental changes like invasive species, such as the
    Asian carp, which we hopefully do not have, in the Great Lakes?
    Hopefully, we will be able to prevent that. Or climate change,
    if you could elaborate a little bit on that, I would appreciate
    it.
        Dr. Jones. Hard questions.
        I think one observation that I would make is that I think
    we have been comparatively successful working in the Great
    Lakes to begin to tease apart and understand the role that
    ecosystem change--as invasive species' eutrophication and
    oligotrophication, the opposite of that--has played in
    influencing the productivity of fish populations that we are
    targeting.
        I think that what we have essentially learned is that you
    cannot ignore those phenomena as you are asking questions about
    sustainable levels of harvest.
        So you need to make accommodations in your targets of
    allowable harvests, or what have you, that account for your
    understanding of how those processes influence.
        I would admit that the Great Lakes, despite the fact that
    you and I both see them as enormous bodies of water, they are
    kind of puddles compared to the Gulf of Alaska or the North
    Atlantic Ocean.
        The Chairman. Sorry, Senator Peters.
        [Laughter.]
        The Chairman. But I concur with your fellow Spartan.
        Dr. Jones. The upside of them being puddles is that they
    are microcosms relative to the marine environment, where we can
    really understand these interactions in ways that are very,
    very elusive to understand in these large oceanic systems.
        So I think that the science that we have over the last 50
    years developed in the Great Lakes has a lot to say about
    informing questions that we should be asking in ecosystems.
        Senator Peters. Good. Thank you. My time is running down.
        I have a vote coming up, so I will defer to make sure our
    other Committee members have questions.
        The Chairman. Senator Cantwell.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON

        Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I thank the panelists and thank you for your support of
    Magnuson-Stevens.
        I think the verdict after decades is clear that good
    management of fisheries produces the greatest results. I think
    what we have to ask ourselves is, ``What do we need to keep
    doing and what else can we do?'' Clearly, using science is
    very, very important. Stock assessments would go a long way in
    making sure that we are measured in our approach.
        I am glad to see that the management strategy that started
    in the Pacific Northwest has at least made it to the bottom of
    the continental United States to Texas. I hope that we can keep
    moving up the coast in the future.
        I wanted to ask you about something, Dr. Hilborn. It is
    hard to think about the good aspects of Magnuson-Stevens and
    its management strategies when, at the same time, some people
    are proposing something as crazy as mining in Bristol Bay. This
    would affect the headwaters of a very large salmon stock and
    the most productive wild Pacific salmon fishery on Earth.
        Do you have thoughts on the proposed Pebble Mine?
        Dr. Hilborn. Yes. At the University of Washington, we have
    a program that has been researching the salmon populations of
    Bristol Bay since 1946 and I have been working there for the
    last 22 years.
        It is the most productive salmon fishery in the world, in
    terms of value. You could not have designed a better habitat
    because it is essentially a giant gravel bed that is just
    perfect spawning habitat for salmon.
        The idea that you can actually build reservoirs that
    contain highly toxic chemicals and hold them forever--forever--
    in a seismic and volcanic zone is just crazy.
        We have one of the most valuable natural resources in the
    United States that has been sustained for a long time and is,
    in fact, at record abundance. A big goldmine, or a big mine, in
    the middle of all of that is a serious threat to the
    sustainability of that resource.
        Senator Cantwell. Well, thank you for those comments.
        I will note that our former Chairman from Alaska, the late
    Ted Stevens, also had doubts about this. I do not think that we
    can be too aggressive in saying that this is a very, very bad
    idea. It would basically devastate Magnuson-Stevens. Why do it
    if it will devastate the salmon runs?
        Mr. Haflinger, what about our continued focus on science?
    How important do you think it is to maintain scientific
    investment in order to keep our maritime and seafood economy?
        Washington has a $30 billion maritime economy; 60 percent
    of it is tied to the seafood industry. So we do not take this
    issue lightly when somebody says they want to cut any funding
    for science.
        Mr. Haflinger. Mr. Chairman, Senator Cantwell, that one is
    just too easy.
        All of my constituents or my clients that are involved in
    the North Pacific and the West Coast fisheries are very strong
    advocates of the process that the councils go through to
    establish catch limits. And we have had, we have gone through
    times where our TACs had been less than we had liked.
        I mean, back in 2010, I believe, we had pollock TACs (Total
    Allowable Catch) that were under a million tons for the first
    time in 45 years and it was a wake up call. We have had Pacific
    whiting TACs that have been very low. We have had constraining
    species rockfish TACs that were low.
        But I do not think anybody has ever questioned the need, I
    mean, ever even thought that what you would do is back off on
    science.
        Senator Cantwell. Well, apparently, there are some that
    think that way. I actually think we should be going in the
    opposite direction. I am so proud of what the North Pacific
    Fisheries Management Council has done. We have made progress.
        When I first came here and started voicing those opinions,
    I would get little hate e-mails from various northeast parts of
    the country. They would say, ``No, no.''
        But eventually, we are going to have a food shortage around
    the globe. We should be exporting our ideas on fisheries
    management instead of letting people into our fisheries to
    steal our fish. And we should be forcing those countries to
    implement better fishery management policies.
        So anyway, I could not be more proud of what we have been
    able to accomplish and hopefully the next chapter will see even
    more investment in science and a stopping of bad ideas.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
        Senator Wicker.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER F. WICKER,
                     U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI

        Senator Wicker. Dr. McKinney, you chaired the Working Group
    on Saltwater Recreational Fisheries Management of the Morris-
    Deal Commission. The working group came forward with a number
    of recommendations.
        I have a little bill called the Modernizing Recreational
    Fisheries Management Act of 2017 and I have nine cosponsors in
    the Senate. Representative Gary Graves in the House, has
    introduced a similar bill with 23 cosponsors.
        If enacted, the bill would allow for alternative management
    tools for recreational fisheries. It reexamines fisheries
    allocations, provides flexibility in rebuilding fish stocks,
    and improves recreational data collection.
        How does this compare to the recommendations of your
    working group and what do you think of my bill?
        Dr. McKinney. Well, on behalf of my Commission, we would
    like to thank you for obviously taking a look at our
    recommendations in the Commission Report because they did
    include many, if not all of those. And so, we appreciate that.
        It measures up quite well and I think it addresses those
    issues that we would hope to see addressed in Magnuson, so.
        Senator Wicker. How would it help?
        Dr. McKinney. Well, as I tried to provide in my testimony,
    in every one of those areas of looking at timelines,
    cooperative management, and every one of the recommendations we
    made in that Commission Report, it addresses each one of those,
    essentially.
        Senator Wicker. OK. I must say, we have had to come and go,
    and I did miss your testimony. So thank you for touching on
    that.
        Dr. McKinney. Yes, sir.
        Senator Wicker. I will go back and be advised by your oral
    testimony.
        Dr. Hilborn, let us talk about Gulf menhaden as an
    important forage fish down around where I come from.
        They are embroiled in the debate over whether to enact one-
    size-fits-all restrictions on forage fishing or whether to go
    on a case-by-case basis.
        Are you familiar with the menhaden issue with the forage
    fish issue? Can you help us decide where to come down on this
    issue?
        Dr. Hilborn. Yes, I would be happy to.
        I have been leading a study group looking at the impacts of
    fishing forage fish on their predators for the last about 2
    years now, with a number of my colleagues, who were not working
    formally with us, but working on similar fisheries.
        What we have really shown is that every system is
    different. That in some systems there is really very little
    impact to fishing forage fish on their predators. We suspect
    that in other systems, it is much stronger, but so far we have
    not gotten to those systems yet.
        We have looked at the California current system. I have
    looked at the Atlantic menhaden. I have not looked specifically
    at Gulf menhaden, except insofar as we have looked if there is
    an empirical relationship between the abundance of the forage
    fish and the rates of change--that is, whether they increase or
    decrease--of the predators for pretty well all U.S. forage fish
    fisheries.
        We found no empirical evidence to support the idea that
    abundance of forage fish affects their predators. Largely, we
    suspect, because most of the predators are reasonably
    generalists and if their forage fish species is in low
    abundance, they switch to something else.
        Senator Wicker. So a one-size-fits-all rule of thumb on
    forage fish, we can do better than that. Is that your
    testimony?
        Dr. Hilborn. Yes. That all you need to do is sit down, and
    take the biology of the forage fish and the predators, and put
    those into some reasonably simple population dynamics, or
    ecosystem dynamics models, that allow for the important
    biology, particularly the natural variability of forage fish.
        You can do better than one-size-fits-all.
        Senator Wicker. Dr. Jones, let me ask you briefly.
        Are you familiar at all with our Mississippi Tails `N'
    Scales electronic reporting system for red snapper? Would you
    comment about the accuracy of state by state reporting of this
    type coming from anglers?
        Dr. Jones. I am afraid I am not familiar with that.
        Senator Wicker. Let me tell you about the concept.
        They have an application and they can provide fish data to
    the fisheries agencies. They have developed applications on
    their smart phones to provide information that would be helpful
    in creating policy.
        And so, although we call it Tails 'N' Scales, perhaps you
    are familiar with it as a concept elsewhere.
        Dr. Jones. Yes, thank you.
        So what we are talking about is this, what do I want to
    say, exploding opportunity to use mobile, social networking
    types of technology to inform assessments, inform the
    assessment of catches, of exploitation rates, and so on, and so
    forth.
        I guess my opinion on that, as a scientist, is that it is a
    wonderful thing, but it is going to take us a while to figure
    out how to do it, how to use that information in a way that is
    more informative than misleading because of the challenges of
    quality control on the data.
        I see great promise in that. I think we should invest in
    learning how to use resource users to provide us with
    information on the fisheries they are exploiting in ways that
    we can use to then inform our assessments and our evaluation of
    status.
        But I do not think it is a silver bullet right now.
        Senator Wicker. Well, our people like it. There has to be a
    use for data supplied by the people who want to help and who
    are out there.
        Thank you for thinking with me about that for a few
    moments.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. 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, the third in a
    series on a very, very important topic. Many of the issues that
    I have raised in previous hearings are still outstanding.
        The United States still imports 90 percent of the fish we
    eat. That is absolutely astonishing and appalling.
        The Seafood Import Monitoring Program is a Federal program
    overseen by NOAA that establishes reporting and recordkeeping
    requirements for certain kinds of fish, but it applies only to
    13 species.
        I have raised these issues already with Secretary Wilbur
    Ross, but without any actionable response, as they say; without
    anything done about it.
        They fly in the face of science and facts, which are your
    responsibility.
        Human trafficking continues to be a problem in the seafood
    industry. I know it is not a matter of fish catches or fish
    population, but it afflicts the industry and it is a cancer on
    the humanitarian backbone of the industry.
        Among other problems that I see--literally almost every day
    in Connecticut, either in the news or directly when I hear from
    fishermen--is the imbalance that has occurred in our fishing
    quotas; the imbalance and the distortions.
        Say whatever you will about the cause of fish moving, as in
    many other parts of the country, certain of our species have
    moved away and others have moved into our waters, but the
    quotas remain the same.
        This quota system is Byzantine, outdated. It has failed to
    adapt to the movement of fish stocks like black sea bass,
    summer flounder, and scup.
        It effectively bars Connecticut fishermen from catching
    economically sustainable quantities of fish. Instead, it
    requires them to throw back fish. They go to waste. They are
    inedible. When they haul a larger catch than their permissible
    quota, which happens often, it is a waste of precious
    resources.
        I have raised this issue at numerous, previous hearings. So
    have my colleagues.
        The law governing the management of fisheries requires the
    Department of Commerce to ensure fishery management plans
    adhere to several national standards, and I am quoting, ``the
    best scientific information available,'' in deciding catch
    limits.
        So my question to you is, each of you, do you believe that
    the councils are using, quote, ``the best scientific
    information,'' in determining the quotas and the system?
        [No response.]
        Senator Blumenthal. I will take by your silence that you
    say, ``No, they are not.''
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Blumenthal. I think that is fairly self-evident,
    but I would love to hear your explanation.
        Mr. Haflinger. Mr. Chairman, Senator, my experience with
    the North Pacific and the West Coast council is that they do.
        I think what you are talking about is a problem that is
    especially in the movement of fish and quotas, it is a big
    issue in other places in the world too. It is a huge problem
    throughout the EU. It is monstrous. It is very large.
        But that is a symptom of a brittle management system rather
    than whether or not the Councils are using the best available
    science, in my view. I do not want to indict the Council in
    your region, because I do not go to their meetings at all.
        But if you do have a system that is not flexible enough,
    then you have problems because fish do move.
        Senator Blumenthal. You have problems because they cannot
    take advantage of new data as quickly as the data is available.
        Correct?
        That is what you mean when you say it is not flexible
    enough.
        Mr. Haflinger. Well, no. That is not really what I meant. I
    guess I was thinking that if allocations are relatively
    inflexible and cannot----
        Senator Blumenthal. I am not looking to blame anyone with
    my question right now. I am just asking whether these quotas--
    and maybe it is the system, maybe it is the councils--reflect
    the best scientific information available?
        You are saying it is not flexible enough. That may be the
    reason that the system does not respond to new information.
        Mr. Haflinger. I am saying that is a possibility. I mean,
    that is what we have seen in other places in the world that the
    systems need to be flexible.
        Senator Blumenthal. You have seen it in other parts of the
    world?
        Mr. Haflinger. Yes, like I said, it is a huge problem.
        Senator Blumenthal. All over?
        Mr. Haflinger. Throughout the EU.
        Senator Blumenthal. All over the world.
        Mr. Haflinger. Well, I said other places in the world.
        Senator Blumenthal. Well, so it is likely to occur in the
    United States too?
        Mr. Haflinger. I suspect it could. Sure.
        Senator Blumenthal. Does anyone want to be a little more
    unequivocal here?
        Yes, sir.
        Dr. Hilborn. I would be happy to talk on this.
        The basic theory of fisheries population dynamics, that is
    more or less how our quotas are set, has traditionally been
    based on the assumption that things are not changing in time.
    That is, you have a long-term average productive relationship
    between the population and its productivity.
        What many of us have identified over the last 20 years is
    that the natural systems fluctuate enormously and you do see
    systematic change in things like distributions.
        Productivities of many of our stocks in New England appear
    to be going down. I know it is true in some Canadian stocks
    where as the temperatures have gotten warmer, the stocks have
    gotten less productive. The science community is struggling----
        Well, first, it is often difficult to identify the changes
    as they are occurring. We can determine it in retrospect, but
    certainly within the U.S., we are short of scientific capacity
    to analyze those things and deal with it. The NOAA stock
    assessment scientists are struggling just to do the
    assessments.
        What would really be required is a lot more time or
    resources of people to start really trying to do, as Mike Jones
    suggested, Management Strategy Evaluation for how you would
    manage resources that are changing; either changing in their
    distribution or changing in their productivity.
        I would say that if there were more resources, we could do
    better science. But what I would say they are doing is the best
    science that they can do with the resources they have.
        Senator Blumenthal. Well, I appreciate that comment, which
    I will take as a plea for additional resources, which I
    wholeheartedly support.
        In fact, as you know, the budget that has been sent to us
    by President Trump cuts resources for exactly this kind of
    research and, in fact, it slashes funding for programs like Sea
    Grant, and the Milford Lab in Milford, Connecticut for the
    University of Connecticut. These research efforts are essential
    to grow new forms of agriculture and keep track of fish
    populations.
        At the last meeting of this Committee, we approved a bill
    that will help support driverless cars; a technology that many
    of us, who voted for the bill, find somewhat apprehensive, but
    certainly very much in the future.
        If we can put a man on the Moon and put people into
    driverless cars, I respectfully submit, we can actually produce
    better scientific information.
        It may not be the fault of the Councils. It may be the
    fault of the system, but it is destroying an American industry.
    We are complicit in destroying an American industry if we fail
    to fund the research that enables the law and the Councils to
    keep pace with the effects of climate change, which we know is
    there.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Senator Markey.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY,
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS

        Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, so much for having
    us here.
        I heard the introduction of Senator Peters and it is good
    to have somebody here from MSU working on MSA, I thought.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Markey. As I was listening to your opening
    statement and how we can actually use, complementing your other
    work in this Committee, autonomous monitoring, to accompany
    your autonomous vehicle legislation that you are moving as
    well.
        The reality is that Massachusetts has been leading advances
    in fishery sciences at many of our prestigious institutions
    including the Northeast Fisheries Science Center at Woods Hole,
    the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth School for Marine
    Science and Technology funded, in part, by NOAA grants.
        Professor Kevin Stokesbury, at the University of
    Massachusetts Dartmouth, has led very successful collaborative
    research doing sea scallop stock assessments using video
    surveys. This research is facilitated by a Fishermen Steering
    Committee made up of fishermen, owners, and processors that
    meets monthly to discuss management issues, the needs and
    concerns of the industry, and current research.
        Mr. Haflinger, good science is fundamental to ensuring that
    sustainable fisheries can be managed under the Magnuson-Stevens
    Act.
        How can we continue these collaborative research projects
    and the development of new technologies to keep getting better
    science?
        Mr. Haflinger. Mr. Chairman, Senator, thank you for the
    question.
        I wholeheartedly agree with you that collaborative,
    scientific work is tremendously important. There is a lot of it
    that has been done in the fisheries in Alaska that I am
    familiar with, especially in areas of development that is
    similar to what you are referencing in the scallop fishery off
    Massachusetts.
        I am not exactly sure how to continue to expand this, but I
    feel like anything the Committee can do in MSA to encourage
    cooperative research between industry and NOAA fisheries is
    tremendously important and something that I am sure that all
    fishermen in the regions that I am familiar with would agree
    with.
        Senator Markey. Great. Thank you.
        When you live on the coast, and even reflecting upon what
    Dr. Hilborn said in his testimony, that we have never had more
    fish in the ocean at this particular point in time.
        Is that correct, Dr. Hilborn?
        Dr. Hilborn. No, I said, we have been increasing since the
    1990s. We have more fish than 20 years ago.
        Senator Markey. I misunderstood. I thought you said that we
    had more fish.
        Dr. Hilborn. No, not more than ever. No.
        Senator Markey. The United States, not withstanding how
    many we have, we do import over 80 percent of the seafood which
    we eat, and this seafood largely comes from countries that do
    not have laws like we do in the United States that create
    sustainably managed fisheries.
        And while many Americans understand that they can support
    local sustainable fisheries by buying from American fishermen,
    it can sometimes be impossible for consumers to find out where
    their fish is caught and processed.
        Senator Wicker and I worked with the previous
    Administration to address this issue by establishing the NOAA
    Seafood Import Monitoring Program. This program is laying the
    groundwork to ensure transparency and traceability for seafood
    products in the American marketplace, but this information is
    not yet accessible to consumers through any sort of labeling.
        Dr. McKinney, based on your work as the Executive Director
    for the Harte Research Institute at Texas A&M, how can we
    expand upon this new monitoring program so that more Americans
    know where their fish is coming from and can enjoy wholesome,
    sustainable seafood from American waters?
        Dr. McKinney. Thank you for the question, Senator. I
    appreciate the opportunity to address it.
        What we found, certainly, in the Gulf--and this is an
    important issue there about recognizing where our seafood comes
    from--and what we find, I think, is an informed consumer is a
    good one; the type that we are looking for. And anything you
    can give them of that information, they will make good
    decisions.
        So certainly, any time we can provide information on the
    source of our seafood and its quality is going to be of benefit
    to some people in the country, but also to our own commercial
    and recreational fisheries, but our commercial fisheries for
    sure.
        Because, as Dr. Hilborn noted and other members did too, we
    have a very high standard of how we capture and manage those
    fisheries.
        Senator Markey. Would you expand the Gulf Wild Program,
    which is a very successful program in the Gulf of Mexico?
        Dr. McKinney. Yes, sir. And I wish that I had some part of
    its origin, but I did not, but we certainly benefit from that,
    and that is exactly that type of program.
        In that you see, it gives the opportunity for our citizens
    to identify seafood that is taken in the Gulf of Mexico, be it
    shrimp or whatever, and know that it was not farm-raised, but
    it is wild caught and have confidence in that, and then, it
    also supports the Gulf. And so from every aspect, it has been
    tremendously beneficial.
        Senator Markey. Thank you.
        May I ask one more question?
        The Chairman. Sure.
        Senator Markey. Thank you.
        Fishery management councils understand the effects that
    climate change is having on their fisheries and are starting to
    include climate change considerations in their management
    plans.
        Oceans are absorbing more than 90 percent of the excess
    heat trapped by greenhouse gas emissions. These rising
    temperatures change stock distribution, abundance, and catch.
        For example, butterfish, which are caught off the coast of
    Massachusetts and the mid Atlantic region, are very temperature
    dependent and shift their distribution in response to changing
    bottom water temperatures.
        By doing collaborative science with academics, fishermen,
    and regulators NOAA used water temperature data to set catch
    limits for butterfish in 2014.
        Dr. Jones, how can increase the use of this sort of science
    that allows regulators to consider the impacts that climate
    change is having on our fish stocks?
        Dr. Jones. Thank you for the question, Senator.
        I think the most important thing to do is to begin by
    asking the question, framing the questions about management of
    a particular fishery or fish stock in terms of, if you will,
    hypotheses about how environmental change might alter your
    perspective on the productivity of that stock, or might alter,
    as a previous question alluded to, the distribution of the
    population.
        If you ignore those factors, you are going to erroneously
    develop catch limits, or other management strategies, that are
    based on the state of those fisheries in the past, not the
    state of those fisheries in the future.
        So I think there is a really important role for this sort
    of partnership between those of us, like myself and Dr.
    Hilborn, who do work on population dynamics and projecting fish
    dynamics into the future, and the scientists who have a better
    understanding of this sort of ecosystem processes that
    ultimately affect fish movement, and fish growth rates, and so
    on, and so forth.
        I think that we could do a lot more using methods like the
    Management Strategy Evaluation modeling techniques that I
    referred to in my testimony to move the yardsticks on that a
    lot.
        Senator Markey. Yes, I think that, obviously, the science
    is changing very rapidly in climate. I think probably the
    Arctic and the Gulf of Maine are the two fastest warming bodies
    of water on the planet.
        So there are profound implications for the fishing stock
    because of that and because we are warming so rapidly in the
    Gulf of Maine that we just need the science to be there to help
    us to understand it.
        So we thank you all for your wisdom.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Markey.
        We are going to wrap it up here in a minute, gentleman.
    Senator Peters has another follow-up. I have a few, if I can
    get them in. We have a vote that has already kicked in, so we
    might have to finish up a little bit early.
        But again, thank you. Very, very informative testimony.
        Senator Peters. I will be brief because of the nature of
    this.
        Dr. Jones, we have heard, I have already heard from all of
    you about the importance of science in using the best science.
    Currently, the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that all of these
    decisions are based on best science.
        But as has been alluded to by some of the other
    questioners, science is changing. There is emerging science and
    the guidelines under MSA ask that decisions use a standard
    encouraging both science from many sources, including both
    established and emerging science. Emerging science is emerging
    very rapidly.
        What are some of the considerations that are important when
    we are using established science versus newer, emerging
    science?
        Dr. Jones, a brief answer. I know it is a big question, but
    a brief answer would be helpful.
        Dr. Jones. The brief answer would be it is hard.
        A slightly less brief answer would be that it is all about
    the partnerships between the science that has very helpfully
    informed our management of fish stocks, both in the Great Lakes
    and in the oceans in the past with these emerging technologies.
        An example that is very prominent in the Great Lakes right
    now is the acoustic telemetry network that we are establishing
    there called GLATOS, Great Lakes Acoustic Telemetry Observing
    System. There are similar infrastructures being put in place on
    the two coasts.
        The potential for that science to improve our understanding
    of things like fish stock movements in ways that can make for
    better models to inform management in the future is really only
    constrained by being clever about how you think about the use
    of those technologies; to ask the right questions about fish
    dynamics and fish movement.
        Senator Peters. Great. Thank you.
        The Chairman. I am going to ask one final question. I am
    going to combine two for Mr. Haflinger and Dr. McKinney.
        One of the purposes of the hearing is looking at innovative
    programs, innovative technologies, and efficiencies. Both of
    you have been involved with different programs. Dr. McKinney,
    the iSnapper application, which I think was something Senator
    Wicker was talking about; and Mr. Haflinger, the cooperative
    program that has been created in the Pacific Northwest, which
    you touched on during your opening statement.
        Both of these look like they are innovative, that they have
    been helpful ways in which to better manage with regard to
    technology and data, and instill best management practices.
        Can you just touch on these and maybe, if you think that
    there is a potential for broadening these kinds of innovations
    to other elements of the MSA? I would welcome your input or any
    of the other panelists on those kinds of innovations.
        Dr. McKinney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I do appreciate the opportunity to comment on iSnapper. For
    full disclosure, it was my Institute that developed that
    originally as an app, but there are others very similar to it.
        This gets back to your question, sir, about innovation and
    this type of thing. How can we make use of them?
        We have been working with iSnapper for many years and
    actually testing it out in conjunction with Texas Parks and
    Wildlife comparing it to the type of normal type of surveys
    that they take in seeing how they match up, and the prospect is
    looking really good, that they will match up.
        The way things move these days, we are always looking for
    these types of technologies. So anything we can do to get more
    information. Of course, it has to be as accurate as possible,
    because we are going to run it into the models and so forth
    that we use. So those things, I think, show great promise.
        Not only can we get good information and timely
    information, we can get that information from these anglers and
    fishermen as soon as they catch the fish, basically, because
    they get into it. It is amazing how much they want to help once
    they get these apps and go with them. And the younger people
    nowadays, it is really good with them.
        So they work wonderfully in that regard. Yes, sir.
        The Chairman. Great. Thank you.
        Mr. Haflinger.
        Mr. Haflinger. Briefly, I think that the fisheries
    information that we make available to our stakeholders is done
    in such a way that I am sure there is no other private systems
    like this on the planet that are as advanced.
        But we were able to do that really because we had the
    stakeholders who saw the need for it. And we had an agency that
    was willing to work with us to let us access the data that they
    were collecting from our stakeholders, so that we could
    turnaround and give them what they needed to do this.
        So you need three things: you need the stakeholders who
    have some vision; you need an agency that is willing to work
    for you; and it is good to have a programmer like me around
    occasionally.
        The Chairman. Good. That is a great way to wrap up this
    hearing.
        Thank you again, gentlemen. I think the witnesses have all
    done an outstanding job.
        The hearing record will remain open for two weeks. During
    this time, the Senators may submit additional questions for the
    record to all of you.
        Upon receipt, we respectfully ask that the witnesses submit
    their written answers back to the Committee as soon as
    possible.
        I, again, want to thank everybody for traveling here today
    and testifying; very, very helpful for all of us.
        This hearing is now adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to
                                Dr. Ray Hilborn
        Question 1. Last month some researchers who purport to understand
    seafood sustainability published a paper concluding that up to 22
    percent of Pollock caught in Alaska waters is caught illegally. Earlier
    this month, NOAA Fisheries called for the paper's full retraction
    because of the paper's flawed methodology and reliance on completely
    anonymous sources. As a scientist who has studied Alaska fisheries for
    decades, what do you make of this paper and its accusations?
        Answer. I totally agree with NOAA and have investigated the methods
    used in detail. I along with 5 other well respected scientists have
    written the journal laying out a case that the paper is in fact
    fraudulent, not simply wrong, and suggest that this fraud meets the
    publishers standards for withdrawing of the paper. The key element in
    the fraud is the paper cites perhaps a dozen scientific papers as the
    source of information and none of these papers mentions IUU fishing,
    thus the authors try to make readers believe they have data on IUU from
    Alaskan fisheries when they have none, and the authors do not consider
    the enforcement system in Alaska in any way.

        Question 2. During this current reauthorization process we've heard
    testimony from commercial fishing industry witnesses who indicated we
    are not achieving optimum yield, and in many instances we are actually
    under harvesting healthy stocks to protect minor ones. What is your
    perspective on these issues?
        Answer. There is no question that this is true if the objective is
    to maximize yield. On average U.S. harvest rates are lower than would
    produce maximum biological yield. Now in some cases the ``under
    harvesting'' is due to markets, but in most cases is it precautionary
    management, either to protect smaller stocks that are at abundance
    below the target, or in cases like the 2 million ton cap in the Bering
    Sea, for a general form of ``ecosystem'' protection. We could certainly
    increase the yield from American fisheries. However, there are many
    interpretations of what ``optimum yield'' is and some of these that
    place considerable weight on maintaining high abundance of fish stocks
    can be considered a form of optimum yield.

        Question 3. Some stakeholders engaged in the MSA reform process are
    calling for drastic management measures designed to curtail the harvest
    and use of forage fish species. What is your view on this from a
    natural resource management perspective?
        Answer. There is a trade-off between the yield of forage fish, and
    the abundance of some of their predators in the ecosystem. The calls
    for drastically reducing forage fish harvest place great weight on the
    abundance or predators and have not looked in detail at the trade-offs.
    A recent paper by a large scientific team on the California Current
    showed there was very little impact of sardine and anchovy fishing on
    the predators of most concern, pelicans and sea lions. I have done
    analysis of the menhaden fishery in the Atlantic (this work as funded
    by the menhaden industry) and found very little impact.
        My conclusion is that for each major forage fish fishery a study
    should be done of the trade-off between forage fish harvest and the
    abundance of their predators, and the decision making body should
    decide what trade-off they find most acceptable.
        But environmental groups and decision makers must keep in mind that
    one of the benefits of forage fish harvest, is reduced reliance on
    crops and livestock, and it is very clear that the environmental costs
    of using forage fish as feed for aquaculture is much less than the
    environmental costs of growing additional crops, which comes primarily
    from destroying tropical rainforests.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to
                                Dr. Ray Hilborn
        Question 1. Limitations to Stock Assessments: Can you outline some
    of the major barriers to conducting more frequent stock assessments
    that you see and your suggestions on how to address those concerns?
        Answer. The major barrier is human resources--people trained in
    stock assessment. The key to this is increasing the pipeline of such
    training, and making the jobs within NOAA and other agencies less
    stressful to retain qualified staff. The NOAA/Seagrant program funding
    stock assessment training has been very successful at producing stock
    assessment scientists for NOAA but its scale is quite limited. A major
    expansion of this program would be the most significant step I can
    imagine.

        Question 2. Do you have suggestions on how NOAA should prioritize
    allocating limited funding?
        Answer. I suggest a triage system: We need to manage and assess our
    most important stocks, and importance can be measured by economic
    value, recreational value and conservation concern for ESA listed
    species. In all of our oceans we have hundreds of species, most of
    which make little contribution to benefits to the Nation and given
    limited resources, we are now, and must continue to largely ignore
    these species in our marine management. The inevitable consequence is
    that some will be overfished, but this will not have a major impact on
    the benefits the Nation receives from our oceans.
                                     ______

       Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
                                Dr. Ray Hilborn
        Question 1. Dr. Hilborn, I understand the University of Washington
    has a long standing research program studying Pacific salmon in Bristol
    Bay, Alaska. Bristol Bay is home to the most productive wild Pacific
    salmon fishery on earth. Bristol Bay salmon support 20,000 jobs in
    commercial and recreational fisheries, as well as support businesses
    like shipbuilders and restaurants. Despite the tremendous value of
    salmon fisheries in Bristol Bay, Administrator Pruitt is taking steps
    to undo commonsense Clean Water Act protections that were put in place
    to protect salmon from the proposed Pebble Mine.
        Do you believe there is a way to move forward with the Pebble Mine
    without the risk of pollution, salmon die offs, and loss of fishing
    jobs?
        Answer. Certainly there is no way to establish a large mine in the
    Bristol Bay watershed with the risk of all of those things happening.
    Although no specific proposals have been tabled, the idea that highly
    toxic waste can be stored forever without leaking is impossible--
    forever is a very long time.

        Question 2. Dr. Hilborn, on October 23, numerous EPA scientists
    were prevented from presenting their research at an estuary conference
    in Rhode Island. Additionally, a CNN report two weeks ago found that
    EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt had not been briefed by scientists when
    he called for the removal of clean water protections in Bristol Bay.
    Instead, Administrator Pruitt made his decision based on a closed-door
    meeting with the CEO of a foreign mining company called the Pebble
    Limited Partnership, or the Pebble Mine. Putting a Canadian mine ahead
    of American fishing jobs and sound science is putting ``America
    Second'' not ``America First'' as our President has promised.
        Dr. Hilborn, as a scientist, are you concerned about reports that
    Federal scientists are not being allowed to do their jobs?
        Answer. Certainly this is a very serious concern.

        Question 3. What can we do to protect the role of science in
    Federal agencies?
        Answer. This is probably more a question for a lawyer than a
    scientist. We could have a ``scientist freedom of information act that
    says that government scientists may be allowed to express their
    scientific opinion without censorship by their superiors.
        Recently, the GAO released a study that found that climate change
    will cost American taxpayers more than a trillion dollars by 2039. The
    report reviewed Federal costs in response to extreme weather, decreased
    agricultural yields, and damage to public utilities and infrastructure.
    The report also identified the loss of habitat, fish and shellfish as a
    cost to taxpayers due to climate change. Oceans are on track to be 300
    percent more corrosive by the end of this century. Numerous studies
    show that ocean acidification is likely to impact species such as
    Dungeness crab, salmon, and other species. This is a jobs issue.
    Washington state's maritime economy is worth 30 billion dollars, sixty
    percent of which is tied to the seafood industry.

        Question 4. Dr. Hilborn, what is the state of the science on ocean
    acidification and its impact to seafood? While there is some research
    being done--is it enough to understand population level impacts?
        Answer. With respect to prediction of ocean acidification I believe
    the science is very certain--the chemistry is quite simple. With
    respect to its impact on seafood things are almost totally unknown. We
    do know some specific examples of what has happened (shellfish in
    Washington) but we don't really know how resilient various taxa are to
    acidification.

        Question 5. I introduced a bill with my colleague Senator Wicker
    that in part would address this issue. Our bill would require NOAA to
    determine which fisheries are most at risk from ocean acidification and
    direct NOAA to make targeted investments in research and monitoring for
    those at-risk fisheries. Would you support that approach?
        Answer. Yes

        Question 6. What more do we need to do to tackle this looming
    threat for our fishing industry?
        Answer. Obviously reducing carbon emissions is #1. There is
    absolutely no scientific uncertainty about this. Other than that there
    is little we can do to change what will happen to the marine ecosystem,
    but we could have serious reconsideration of how we structure our
    fishing industry to be more adaptive to whatever changes may occur. For
    instance if it turns out that pollock are very badly affected by
    acidification, but some other species pops up to take their place in
    the food chain, should we transfer harvest rights from pollock to the
    new species?
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to
                                Dr. Ray Hilborn
        Question 1. Fisheries Management Priorities: In your testimony, you
    mentioned a need for Congress to decide the relative importance of
    various objectives for fisheries management.
        What types of objectives do you envision Congress prioritizing? And
    what types of science and subsequently what types of management
    decisions would be necessary to make if those objectives were made into
    priorities?
        Answer. For our commercial fisheries the overall structure works
    very well to achieve the current objective which is to stop
    overfishing. However, if we wanted to maximize jobs, profit or food
    production we would have quite different scientific advice. Any mixture
    of those three objectives would almost certainly lead to policies that
    would allow some stocks in our mixed stock fisheries to remain in what
    is classified as an overfished state. Small fish stocks that have low
    overall productivity would be below the levels that would maximize
    their production. The little lost yield from those stocks would be more
    than compensated by increasing the yield of stocks that are currently
    not fully exploited.
        If Congress were to give guidance to the management councils on how
    to balance those objectives the science and management system would be
    able to respond and increase the production of jobs, food and profit. I
    suggest that Congress mandate an annual report to Congress on the
    potential for jobs, food and profit, and a score of how we are doing
    compared to the potential that we have from our marine resources.

        Question 2. Changing Environmental Conditions: In your written
    testimony, you list several threats to U.S. fish stocks including
    climate change, degraded habitat, invasive species, and pollution.
        In your opinion, what factors should management be considering and
    in what way should those factors be incorporated into fisheries
    management?
        Answer. The major problem is that NOAA and the councils have almost
    no control over those factors. The major habitat and pollution concerns
    are outside their control, and climate change and invasive species are
    largely outside anyone's control. So essentially I don't see that our
    management system as it is now constructed can respond. The first step
    would be close integration of terrestrial and coastal zone management
    of habitat and land based pollution, with the fisheries management
    system.

        Question 3. Bycatch: What could be done to resolve the issue of
    bycatch?
        Answer. In the places I know best these issues are largely under
    control. The regulations put in place have led to some dramatic
    reductions in by-catch by the industry, often on their own initiative
    in responding to by-catch limits. By-catch avoidance is almost always a
    technical problem, and new technologies in gear design have made some
    impressive advances and will likely continue to do so. I would see that
    within a decade or two, most trawl nets, for instance, would have
    cameras attached with real time detection of species and size that
    would allow ejection of non-targeted fish from the net.
        At present there is little funding for this work, and government,
    university and industry partnerships could advance this rapidly.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to
                               Dr. Larry McKinney
        Question 1. You discuss in your testimony that the conservation
    framework in MSA provides challenges for recreational fishing, but
    works well for the commercial industry. How do we balance the
    significant conservation gains achieved during the last reauthorization
    while allowing for responsible access to a fishery for multiple user
    groups?
        Answer. What we now know as the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
    Conservation and Management Act (MSA) had its origins in the1976 form,
    the Fishery Conservation and Management Act, drafted by Senator Warren
    Magnuson. It most notably established the 200-mile exclusive economic
    zone, eliminating the overfishing threats of foreign fleets and
    regularizing fisheries management and regulation through the
    establishment of eight regional management councils. The Magnuson-
    Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1996 and
    reauthorization of 2006, secured the economic health and sustainability
    of our Nation's commercial fisheries.
        I believe the history congressional actions regarding the MSA is a
    wonderful example of how the reauthorization process should work and I
    am confident that it will continue to work in such a manner. I would
    hope that Congress does nothing that would diminish the conservation
    gains achieved during the last reauthorization, nor anything that allow
    responsible access to the fishery for multiple user groups. I do think
    that it is necessary to address issues related to recreational
    fisheries. We developed the recommendations of the Morris-Deal
    Commission 2014 report, A Vision for Managing America's Saltwater
    Recreational Fisheries, with just that concern, in mind. The
    recommendations, if adopted, will most certainly expand access while
    providing significantly more economic benefits and jobs and will do so
    without harm to what has been gained through previous iterations of the
    MSA.
        This reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens must focus on recreational
    fisheries, the single largest component of our nations fisheries not
    yet addressed by our most important Federal fisheries management
    legislation. Securing the economic health and sustainability of the
    largest and most economically significant of all our fisheries sectors
    is achievable, if it provides for and encourages application of long
    established and successful science-based tools well known to fisheries
    managers and scientists. I would provide the following as an example of
    how Morris-Deal recommendations maintains that balance between
    conservation and access.
        Magnuson-Stevens, in its current form, makes it almost impossible
    for Federal resource managers to use the very effective and well-
    established science-based tools that state fisheries managers have
    developed and successfully used to restore species like Red Drum and
    Spotted Seatrout, taking those species from overfished to economic
    powerhouses generating billions of dollars in economic benefit and
    thousands of jobs.
        Restoration of these species and the economic benefits that were
    sustained during those recoveries would not be possible under the
    existing Magnuson-Stevens legislation. The MSA requires stock
    rebuilding within very specific timelines, regardless of circumstances,
    either science-or economic-based. In its 2014 report--Evaluating the
    Effectiveness of Fish Stock Rebuilding Plans in the United States--the
    National Research Council found rebuilding plans based on monitoring
    and controlling fishing levels, rather than on requiring that fish
    populations recover to a pre-specified target size within a certain
    time-frame would be less disruptive to the fisheries and less subject
    to uncertainty. This was just one of many recommendations that would
    greatly benefit recreational fisheries management, if the MSA allowed
    for it.
        That Magnuson-Stevens must be modernized is illustrated by the
    current state of the red snapper fishery management in the Gulf of
    Mexico. While that iconic species has been the headline, similar
    management issues regarding Grey Triggerfish and Amberjack are no less
    problematic. That Federal managers have neither the tools, nor the
    basic information, to work effectively with state partners and
    provisions of the MSA are an often-cited impediment.
        The angling public sees the failure every day they are on the water
    when they cannot get past swarming red snapper to catch other species,
    which they must because that season is closed most of the year. Charter
    captains cannot effectively manage their business when the amberjack
    season closes by e-mail notification, on a seemingly random day with
    very little notice.
        The solution is not rocket science; it is not even difficult
    fisheries science. We currently have the tools and knowledge to improve
    management for these species but are constrained by a Federal fisheries
    management act that was developed for commercial fisheries based on
    biomass extraction and not with a goal of providing access--what
    recreational fisheries need. This, of course, does not mean that for
    commercial species biomass extraction is not appropriate. Changes to
    the MSA to address this recreational issue would simply make it clear
    that a broader range of goals exists beyond biomass extraction and they
    are of equal value to the Nation.

        Question 2. One of the greatest challenges facing recreational
    fishermen is inconsistent data and stock monitoring. How do we improve
    the real time stock data to ensure we have as good a picture as
    possible of the available fishery?
        Answer. This question directly addresses a fundamental issue for
    successful management of recreational fisheries under Federal
    management. It is probably not a coincidence that the regions facing
    the most controversial fisheries management (e.g., the Gulf and South
    Atlantic Regions) are also characterized by having the fewest and most
    infrequent stock assessments. The differences among production of the
    regions in terms of stock assessment is quite striking. The Fish
    Assessment Report--FY 2017 Quarter 1 Update, is instructive in this
    regard. The Southeastern Fisheries Science Centers do lag significantly
    behind other centers in almost every regard as to completing
    assessments. I make no judgement as to why. Every region is different
    and faces differing constraints. I do think it worthy of close review
    by NOAA leadership.
        More frequent stock assessments, prioritized for high value
    species, is a critical need. An example being the iconic Red Snapper,
    but many others as well. The key is having timely and robust data. For
    Red Snapper, where the season has become progressively shorter to just
    a few days (3 days in 2017), our traditional data collection
    mechanisms, particularly in the recreational fishery, break down and
    become ineffective. There is wide consensus that the data collection
    program (i.e., MRIP--Marine Recreational Information Program and its
    predecessor program) is not adequate to meet manager's need. Please
    refer to citations of National Research Council reports referred to in
    my written testimony before the Committee on this issue. Their finding
    makes this same point and that has not been lost on NOAA and NMFS, who
    are taking actions to address these issues but progress is slow. I know
    there is a desire for more rapid progress but budget and staffing
    issues are a real constraint. Regardless, it is clear our current
    approach is not as robust as needed to deliver the most pertinent
    management advice. Managers find themselves constantly lacking timely
    and accurate data and this is greatly hindering effective management.
        There are solutions. Implementing these changes have been too slow,
    despite thoughtful guidance from the Councils in terms of approved
    amendments to the Secretary of Commerce and stakeholder desire (in most
    sectors) to change the management paradigm. One solution that could
    rapidly move toward reality is electronic real or near-real time data
    collection in the recreational sectors. The technology exists, such as
    iSnapper. As a point of full disclosure, iSnapper is an app developed
    by my institute's Center for Sportfish Science and Conservation. It
    would take a relatively short time to implement it, and similar
    technologies. Acting on these amendments and working toward more
    improved data collection methodologies are underway; however, the
    process is painfully slow with Federal bureaucracy a significant
    impediment. Because of those delays, I am concerned that we will see no
    real progress, for the next few years at least.
        Finally, the lack of robust abundance data (in addition to harvest
    or catch rate) is driving much of the uncertainty. What anglers see on
    the water is simply not reconciling with assessments. This has led to a
    lack of confidence and distrust of the process when anglers see the
    ocean teaming with red snapper to the point they can catch nothing
    else, yet have to deal with the reduction of a six-month season down to
    three days. Anglers can accept such management actions when they trust
    the process. Within the states, there are many examples where they have
    done just that. I provided some in my previous written testimony. I
    cannot provide such examples as readily for Federal fisheries and must
    make changing that a priority.
        Progress toward better abundance data is under way (http://
    www.noaa.gov/media-release/scientific-team-selected-to-conduct-
    independent-abundance-estimate-of-red-snapper-in). In an unprecedented
    study funded by Congress and implemented through NOAA Sea Grant College
    Program, a 2-yr study is now underway to generate an estimate of
    absolute abundance of Red Snapper in the Gulf of Mexico. We have
    currently been managing using indices of abundance, and having a true
    abundance estimate will not only inform management, but most
    importantly will open up new opportunities to implement more effective
    management strategies. This would be the value of programs like
    iSnapper that can generate data quickly and involve anglers in a
    positive way.
        One such strategy for private recreational anglers is moving toward
    a harvest rate management, and away from an Annual Catch Limit-based
    strategy (ACL) that is largely appropriate for allocation-based
    commercial fisheries, not recreational. An ACL system clearly does not
    work for access-based recreational fisheries. A management approach
    that targets a particular harvest rate (or mortality rate management)
    is much more appropriate and provides the access that recreational
    anglers need to promote the health and tremendous economic drivers
    these fisheries represent. It does take a robust and timely assessment
    process. We must make that a priority to make use of these more
    appropriate management tools. There is a history of conservation
    success across many management challenges using this approach. Joint
    Federal and state waterfowl management being the most prominent
    example.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to
                               Dr. Larry McKinney
        Question 1. Can you describe some successful strategies you've
    witnessed for engaging with the recreational angling community in order
    to build that trust and goodwill that you reference in your testimony
    in the case of Red Drum in Texas?
        Answer. Building trust and a positive relationship with the
    recreational angling community is a sustained process towards which
    resources, staff and funding, must be allocated. It does start by
    focusing on sustaining an accessible and abundant resource. Because of
    reasonable harvest rate-based management, science-based conservation
    strategies, and angler support of management, Texas is blessed with
    robust fisheries that afford virtually unlimited access to that
    resource. Interestingly, under these liberal accessibility regimes,
    fisheries populations in Texas are at some of the highest abundance
    ever. As I noted in my written testimony, saltwater anglers may even
    come to turn down the possibility of increased bag limits. Anglers
    certainly benefit from this type of management, as do the environment
    and coastal economies. This desirable state of the fishery did not
    occur by accident.
        While I was head of Coastal Fisheries at Texas Parks and Wildlife
    Department (TPWD) we established dedicated positions at key areas along
    the coast whose job was to be a liaison with the fisheries community,
    both commercial and recreational. Their primary focus was the latter
    because of the numbers of anglers and their economic impact to coastal
    Texas. These liaisons had many responsibilities. They held how-to
    clinics that always included conservation and management messaging.
    They always responded to any inquiry and were a ready source to explain
    new fishing techniques and new rules and regulations, with equal
    facility. They represented TPWD in community events so were a common
    and expected part of the community. Because they are part of a large
    and diverse agency they could call on expertise and assistance from
    game wardens, angler and boating education, wildlife experts, etc. They
    provide a direct conduit from anglers to management and the reverse.
        One important annual activity for TPWD that has been key in
    building trust and goodwill is the annual regulatory process. Each
    Spring Coastal Fisheries Biologists meet to review the status of fish
    stocks and the fishery in general. Any biologist may propose new rules
    or revisions of existing rules, like size and bag limits, even new
    activities or programs. It is an intense, peer review-type process and
    it can be rough on egos. Once agreed upon these new proposals go
    through a statewide process of regional meetings for public input. The
    public may also propose new rules or changes in existing rules. Each
    August anyone may come before the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission,
    the nine-member decision-making body appointed by the Governor, and
    comment on or make direct appeal to the Commission. Once through that
    process final rules are proposed by agency staff and are subject to one
    last round of public review and input before the Commission, in a
    formal multi-step process. Final action is taken at the Commission's
    spring meeting. No one can reasonably complain they did not have a
    chance to be heard at every level of decision-making.
        Building trust and goodwill does not mean acquiescing to every
    public or angler demand. It is, in fact, just the opposite. TPWD's
    Coastal Fisheries Division dedicates significant resources to a robust
    data collection program. The potential impact of all regulatory
    proposals is evaluated against the data produced by the program. It is
    one of longest continual fisheries data collection programs still
    active. I summarized it in my written testimony:

            This program covered four million acres of Texas bays and out
            to nine nautical miles offshore, with joint Federal management
            out to two hundred nautical miles. There are currently 900,000
            recreational anglers and 1,700 commercial fishers in Texas.
            TPWD annually conducts 1,064 survey-days and interviews
            approximately 19,000 trips, of which about 12,000 are
            recreational in nature. Each year over 780 gill net sets, 1,680
            bay trawls, 1,200 oyster dredges, 2,160 bag seines, 1,680 bay
            trawls and 960 Gulf trawls were used to gather the fisheries
            data. The forty-two years of continuous data collection is the
            longest record of its kind in the world. [these numbers are
            updated since written testimony, thanks to input from TPWD]

        All regulatory changes proposed by the Division are evaluated and
    modeled using the data from this monitoring program to predict impacts
    on fish stocks, etc. It includes both fisheries independent and
    fisheries dependent data. Because the monitoring program and resulting
    data are so robust, predictive modeling has proven to be very reliable.
    This has fostered credibility with the public and decision-makers,
    alike.
        It is the foundation of the regulatory process. Because it is a
    transparent process with the data widely and readily available, both
    the Commission and angling public have come to have confidence in
    predictions about impacts of proposed regulations. They may disagree
    with specific actions but because of the transparency of the process,
    they are more likely to accept the result, or if not, work in a
    cooperative fashion to revise those options. This detailed summary is
    important in fully understanding the two specific examples that follow.
    Example One--Changing hearts and minds with data and hard facts. Yes,
            it is possible.
        The TPWD biologist charged with management of the lower Texas coast
    presented data and analysis during the 2005 review process that spotted
    seatrout were moving towards an overfished status with both quality and
    numbers declining. His solution was to reduce bag limits in that region
    from ten fish daily to five. TPWD had never approved anything but
    statewide regulations and this would be the first regional regulation
    proposal--where the middle and upper coast would retain the ten-bag
    limit and lower coast a five-bag limit. The evidence was compelling and
    I agreed to send the proposal forward into the regulatory process I
    previously described. The proposal was strongly opposed by many
    anglers, including guide organizations and especially the Recreational
    Fishing Alliance (RFA). Others, like the Coastal Conservation
    Association (CCA) were supportive. The annual regulatory process was
    bitter. Political and personal threats abounded. TPWD biologists
    consistently presented the rationale for the proposal at every
    opportunity in the process. At the final decision-making meeting before
    the Commission, the state director of RFA stood before the Commission
    and stated that they were withdrawing their opposition because the TPWD
    biologist's arguments were compelling and they had nothing to counter
    them. Many guide organizations continued opposition. Regardless, the
    proposal was unanimously approved by the Commission. The modeled
    predictions proved to be accurate within the three years of predicted
    recovery.
        The fishery has rebounded to once again produce an abundant and
    trophy quality fishery. In 2014 the five-fish bag limit was extended
    northward to encompass the entire middle coast because of the same
    compelling reasons and with little opposition. It was broadly
    supported, especially from guide organizations, many which were most
    bitter in their original opposition.
        When you engage rather that dictate to recreational anglers, when
    you are transparent in process and open in information, recreational
    anglers will join you, putting conservation above maximizing fish
    extraction, every time.
    Example Two--Why recreational anglers paid shrimpers and were happy to
            do it.
        In my written testimony, I referred to a shrimp license buy-back
    program:

            The program also allowed for the successful implementation of a
            [voluntary] commercial fishing license buy-back program.
            Through the 2014 license year, $14.2 million was spent to
            purchase and retire 2,145 commercial Bay and/or Bait Shrimp
            Boat licenses. This represents 66 percent of the original 3,231
            licenses grandfathered into the fishery in 1995. Additionally,
            $1.8 million has been spent purchasing 63 Commercial Crab
            Fisherman's licenses and 241 Commercial Finfish Fisherman's
            licenses, retiring 22 percent and 44 percent of the licenses
            respectively.

        The successful implementation of this program was possible only
    because of the support and trust of Texas recreational anglers. TPWD
    started the Shrimp License Buy-back Program because the inshore
    shrimping industry was successful lobbying the Texas Legislature in
    limiting the TPWD Commission's ability to directly address that
    industry's debilitating impacts on recreational fishing within Texas
    bays and estuaries. Industry bycatch ranged from four to more than ten
    pounds of bycatch per pound of shrimp trawled from the bottom. That
    bycatch included the young of recreationally important species of red
    drum, spotted seatrout, flounder, etc. Trawling routinely also
    disturbed bay bottom habitat and the clams, worms and other benthic, or
    bottom dwelling organism, that is a basic food web within Texas bays.
        Ecosystem impacts aside, the economic consequences of bay shrimping
    to the recreational fishery were severe. The simple arithmetic of
    comparing the economic impact of the inshore shrimp industry to the
    significantly more valuable recreational fishery was revealing and
    obvious. The inshore shrimp fishery was also detrimental to the larger
    and more sustainable offshore shrimping industry, so it was decided to
    propose a program to buy back inshore licenses to the point that the
    fishery could operate a much less impactful, yet for the fishery, a
    more sustainable level. A scenario, if properly executed would be a
    winner for all parties. The aspect of the program summarized above that
    is responsive to question about building trust and good will, is
    related to funding of the buy-back program.
        For the program to be successful, the Texas legislature would have
    to act to limit the purchase of new shrimping licenses. You cannot have
    a successful buy-back program, if new licenses could be purchased. That
    political process was successful because of the agencies credibility
    with the Texas Legislature and support of Texas anglers. This was
    possible because of the history of a transparent regulatory process
    where all stakeholders felt they were heard and their views considered.
    Coastal Fisheries staff could work with all parties, commercial and
    recreational; to craft a buy-back process because all parties agreed
    the data and analysis were credible. This allowed a focus on solutions
    rather than a debate about science and data. This unified front was
    appreciated by the Legislature, providing much needed political support
    and a successful result in creating a limited access shrimp fishery.
        It became obvious that the buy-back program after being underway
    for nearly two years, was working but was not adequately funded to meet
    either program goals or the demand by willing shrimpers to sell their
    license. The only viable option to generate the large sums of money
    needed to fuel the buy-back program at an accelerated pace was to ask
    our recreational anglers to pay for it. A seemingly counter-intuitive
    proposition, it was clearly the only path possible. Coastal Fisheries
    staff assembled the data, prepared analysis and developed the case to
    present to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission (TPWD's decision-
    making body) and Texas saltwater anglers. Full use of the regulatory
    process described earlier, along with special workshops, helped inform
    and win over stakeholders.
        Many conservation organizations, led by the CCA, were joined by
    commercial organizations like the Texas Shrimp Association, in support
    of the proposal. A rare occasion of common cause. The result was that
    recreational anglers agreed to tax themselves an additional $3 per year
    to add to the existing $7 annual saltwater fishing stamp, if the
    addition was dedicated to the buyback program. They agreed because
    compelling evidence was presented and options were offered that
    included sunset review provisions and annual progress reporting.
        The buy-back funding newly invigorated with funding from
    recreational anglers and supplemented by many and significant private
    donations, met all goals and expectations. The program was subject to
    sunset review and subsequently approved to continue two times while I
    was Costal Fisheries Director and continues to this day. It has
    expanded to the crab and finfish commercial fisheries, routinely
    reducing commercial fishing impacts to the benefit of coastal
    ecosystems, coastal economies and saltwater anglers.

        Question 2. Can you outline some of the major barriers to
    conducting more frequent stock assessments that you see and your
    suggestions on how to address those concerns?
        Answer. It is probably not a coincidence that the regions facing
    the most controversial fisheries management (e.g., the Gulf and South
    Atlantic Regions) are also characterized by having the fewest and most
    infrequent stock assessments. The differences among production of the
    regions in terms of stock assessment is quite striking. The Fish
    Assessment Report--FY 2017 Quarter 1 Update, is instructive in this
    regard. The Southeastern Fisheries Science Centers do lag significantly
    behind other centers in almost every regard as to completing
    assessments. I make no judgement as to why. Every region is different
    and faces differing constraints. I do think it worthy of close review
    by NOAA leadership.
        The lack of up-to-date information is greatly hindering decision
    makers in the regions noted. These issues of infrequent and too few
    assessments are not new to management nor to the leadership in the
    Federal science centers that are responsible for producing them, but
    the problems persist and remain unresolved. The principal argument
    offered now is that Science Centers cannot retain enough qualified
    staff to carry out timely assessments and the stock assessments with
    which they are charged, are exceptionally difficult.
        There have been vocal and repeated recommendations to subcontract
    the workload to qualified groups. While the councils have encouraged
    delegations, it has occurred only on a very limited basis, and there
    appears to reluctance by the agency to pursue this most obvious of
    solutions, for unexplained reasons.
        In terms of complexities, one need to look no further than the Red
    Snapper assessment for the Gulf of Mexico. Most agree this assessment
    is the most complex document of its type for any federally managed
    species. There are many contributing factors that make this document
    overly cumbersome. It is over-parameterized (too many uncertain
    variables), making it insensitive for achieving its purpose of
    predicting outcomes. This forces managers to make decisions based on
    poor management advice. As such, assessments are not reflective of the
    actual population status nor responsive to regulatory changes. Thus, it
    is not surprising red snapper is seen by many as one of the most
    mismanaged of all Federal fisheries. Should the assessment workload and
    production situation be addressed, pressing problem like this might be
    solved.
        While I directed fisheries management in Texas I initiated efforts
    to move from species management to ecosystem based approaches.
    Freshwater inflows to estuaries being a key issue and I had studied
    this resource extensively over the years. The situation with stock
    assessment and management of red snapper reminds me of a statement by
    Texas Supreme Court Judge, Will Wilson, in 1955, when describing the
    management of groundwater.

            Because the existence, origin, movement and course of
            [groundwater] and the causes which govern and direct their
            movements, are so secret, occult and concealed that an attempt
            to administer and set any legal rules in respect to them would
            be involved in hopeless uncertainty, and would therefore be
            practically impossible.

        Texas groundwater remains today as big a mess as the management of
    red snapper. The secret, occult and concealed nature of red snapper
    stock assessment has led many constituents to lose confidence in the
    entire stock assessment and management process. This is particularly
    the case when the differences between the assessment and what is
    observed on the water by anglers are quite striking. It is baffling to
    these anglers as to why they are forced to a three day, derby-like
    season when for remaining 362 days a year they cannot get a bait or
    lure past the legions of red snapper between them and all other
    saltwater fish, that are legal to catch and retain.
        My recommendations to address this issue would be:

       First, subcontract much of this work as rapidly as possible.

       Second, have independent experts evaluate the stock
            assessment process to determine why the production is so low.

       Third, I would recommend an evaluation by appropriate
            experts as to why the agency cannot attract enough qualified
            scientists or retain those currently in these positions and
            help develop strategies to remedy any problems.

        I am particularly, sensitive the last issue about a shortage of
    trained biologists. In this, universities like my own share some
    responsibility. I chair an organization, the Gulf of Mexico University
    Research Collaborative (GOMURC). All the major Gulf universities with a
    fisheries interests is a member. A key concern for GOMURC is the
    declining number of students with this capability. We are actively
    exploring ways to work together to correct the problem. I am sure that
    GOMURC would work closely with both state and Federal fisheries
    managers in finding a solution.

        Question 3. Do you have suggestions on how NOAA should prioritize
    allocating limited funding?
        Answer. A key strategy to prioritizing limited funding would be to
    subcontract some of the scientific workload such as stock assessments
    and research. There are many programs within NOAA that have made great
    strides in this, such as the MARFIN, Saltonstall-Kennedy, and
    particularly the Cooperative Research Program. These programs have
    generated independent science of great use to the management process,
    fostering significant advances in managing our fisheries. These
    programs should remain at the top of the list for funding.
        NOAA should prioritize data collection. Many of the issue that
    persist are a result of uncertainly in the data that could be improved
    by having better and much more responsive recreational fisheries data.
        Funding work that reduces discard mortality (e.g., NOAA BREP
    program) help anglers and commercial fisher become better stewards of
    the resource at the ground level and increase season length as
    mortality rates are reduced.
        Better funding of Federal law enforcement and cooperative
    agreements with state counterparts could significantly reduce illegal
    take by Mexican fishermen, accelerating recovery and providing more
    management options. The amount of illegal and unreported catch by these
    fleets, particularly in South Texas, is astonishing and largely
    uncontrollable at the current level of significant illegal activity and
    minimal enforcement resources. An average of 32 illegal vessels are
    seized per year that retain over 700,000 lbs. of red snapper. Many
    other species are seized, as well. The U.S. Coast Guard estimates some
    1,006 of these vessels go undetected and uncaptured. Interestingly,
    these major removals of biomass are ``not detectable'' in the current
    assessment, further questioning the reliability of Federal data.
        Additionally, some of the funding for the Gulf-region could be
    directed toward the states, and this is particularly important for the
    controversial red snapper fishery. Regional management could a make
    significant and positive contribution. Gulf states are willing and have
    both the expertise and a positive track record, demonstrating their
    ability to take on such a challenge.
        A recent and welcome action by Congress will significantly improve
    stock assessments of red snapper. The announcement was made after my
    oral and written testimony before the Committee on October 24, 2017, so
    I could not make note of it at that time but it is the most significant
    and positive development in the recent history of red snapper
    management.
        In 2016, Congress directed the National Sea Grant College Program
    and NOAA Fisheries to fund independent red snapper data collections,
    surveys and assessments, including the use of tagging and advanced
    sampling technologies. Sea Grant and NOAA Fisheries worked
    collaboratively to transfer Federal funds to Mississippi-Alabama Sea
    Grant to administer the competitive research grant process and manage
    this independent abundance estimate. On November 17, 2017 That Sea
    Grant office announced that a team of university and government
    scientists, selected by an expert review panel convened by the
    Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium, will conduct an independent
    study to estimate the number of red snapper in the U.S. waters of the
    Gulf of Mexico.
        The research team, made up of 21 scientists from 12 institutions of
    higher learning, a state agency and a Federal agency, was awarded $9.5
    million in Federal funds for the project through a competitive research
    grant process. With matching funds from the universities, the project
    will total $12 million. The project team will determine abundance and
    distribution of red snapper on artificial, natural and unknown bottom
    habitat across the northern Gulf of Mexico.
        The project is led by Dr. Greg Stunz, Endowed Chair for Fisheries
    and Ocean Health at the Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico
    Studies, Texas A&M University--Corpus Christi. Dr. Stunz also directs
    HRI's Center for Sportfish Science and Conservation.
        Scientists on the team include:

       Greg Stunz, Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico
            Studies, Texas A&M University--Corpus Christi

       Will Patterson, University of Florida

       Sean P. Powers, University of South Alabama, Dauphin Island
            Sea Lab

       James Cowan, Louisiana State University

       Jay R. Rooker, Texas A&M University at Galveston

       Robert Ahrens, University of Florida, Fisheries and Aquatic
            Sciences

       Kevin Boswell, Florida International University

       Matthew Campbell, NOAA Fisheries (non-compensated
            collaborator)

       Matthew Catalano, Auburn University

       Marcus Drymon, Mississippi State University

       Brett Falterman, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and
            Fisheries

       John Hoenig, College of William and Mary, Virginia Institute
            of Marine Science

       Matthew Lauretta, NOAA Fisheries (non-compensated
            collaborator)

       Robert Leaf, University of Southern Mississippi

       Vincent Lecours, University of Florida

       Steven Murawski, University of South Florida

       David Portnoy, Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi

       Eric Saillant, University of Southern Mississippi

       Lynne S. Stokes, Southern Methodist University

       John Walter, NOAA Fisheries (non-compensated collaborator)

       David Wells, Texas A&M University at Galveston

        As noted by Dr. Stunz in the press release announcing the study

            ``We've assembled some of the best red snapper scientists
            around for this study,'' said Greg Stunz, the project leader
            and a professor at the Harte Research Institute for Gulf of
            Mexico Studies at Texas A&M University--Corpus Christi. ``The
            team members assembled through this process are ready to
            address this challenging research question. There are lots of
            constituents who want an independent abundance estimate that
            will be anxiously awaiting our findings.''

        Recreational anglers and commercial fishers will be invited to play
    a key role in collecting data by tagging fish, reporting tags and
    working directly with scientists onboard their vessels.
        ``The local knowledge fishermen bring to this process is very
    valuable and meaningfully informs our study,'' Stunz said.
        Some stakeholder groups have expressed concerns that there are more
    red snapper in the Gulf than currently accounted for in the stock
    assessment. The team of scientists on this project will spend two years
    studying the issue.
        In addition to excerpts above, I included both the link and the
    actual press release in my response to questions. The release came
    almost two months after the issuance of the award letter; it was
    released on a Friday, November 17, 2017; and, on submission of this
    response to questions has not appeared on any NOAA website, other than
    that of Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant, that I can discover. I thought
    it might be of interest to the Committee.
        The full press release is included as an attachment and may be
    found online at: http://masgc.org/news/article/scientific-team-
    selected-to-conduct-independent-abundance-estimate-of-red-s
    Scientific team selected to conduct independent abundance estimate of
            red snapper in Gulf of Mexico
        A team of university and government scientists, selected by an
    expert review panel convened by the Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant
    Consortium, will conduct an independent study to estimate the number of
    red snapper in the U.S. waters of the Gulf of Mexico.
        ``American communities across the Gulf of Mexico depend on their
    access to, as well as the long term sustainability of, red snapper,''
    said Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross. ``I look forward to the
    insights this project will provide as we study and manage this valuable
    resource.''
        The research team, made up of 21 scientists from 12 institutions of
    higher learning, a state agency and a Federal agency, was awarded $9.5
    million in Federal funds for the project through a competitive research
    grant process. With matching funds from the universities, the project
    will total $12 million.
        ``We've assembled some of the best red snapper scientists around
    for this study,'' said Greg Stunz, the project leader and a professor
    at the Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies at Texas A&M
    University--Corpus Christi. ``The team members assembled through this
    process are ready to address this challenging research question. There
    are lots of constituents who want an independent abundance estimate
    that will be anxiously awaiting our findings.''
        Recreational anglers and commercial fishers will be invited to play
    a key role in collecting data by tagging fish, reporting tags and
    working directly with scientists onboard their vessels.
        ``The local knowledge fishermen bring to this process is very
    valuable and meaningfully informs our study,'' Stunz said.
        Some stakeholder groups have expressed concerns that there are more
    red snapper in the Gulf than currently accounted for in the stock
    assessment. The team of scientists on this project will spend two years
    studying the issue.
        In 2016, Congress directed the National Sea Grant College Program
    and NOAA Fisheries to fund independent red snapper data collections,
    surveys and assessments, including the use of tagging and advanced
    sampling technologies. Sea Grant and NOAA Fisheries worked
    collaboratively to transfer Federal funds to Mississippi-Alabama Sea
    Grant to administer the competitive research grant process and manage
    this independent abundance estimate.
        ``Today's announcement is welcome news for all red snapper anglers
    in the Gulf of Mexico,'' said Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama. ``As
    Chairman of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce,
    Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, I was proud to author and
    secure Federal funding to address the need for better data, which is a
    fundamental issue plaguing the fishery. The management of red snapper
    must be grounded in sound science if we want to provide fair access and
    more days on the water for our anglers. It is my hope that these
    independent scientists will be able to accurately determine the
    abundance of red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico once and for all.''
        ``This research will be driven largely by university-based
    scientists with partners from state and Federal agencies.'' Stunz said.
    ``This funding will allow us to do an abundance estimate using multiple
    sampling methods with a focus on advanced technologies and tagging for
    various habitat types.''
        ``I'm pleased to see that the independent estimate is moving
    forward and including the expertise of recreational fishermen,'' said
    Rep. John Culberson of Texas. ``I will continue to work with Texas
    fishermen and NOAA to address the inadequate access to red snapper.''
        The project team will determine abundance and distribution of red
    snapper on artificial, natural and unknown bottom habitat across the
    northern Gulf of Mexico.
        Scientists on the team include:

       Greg Stunz, Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico
            Studies, Texas A&M University--Corpus Christi

       Will Patterson, University of Florida

       Sean P. Powers, University of South Alabama, Dauphin Island
            Sea Lab

       James Cowan, Louisiana State University

       Jay R. Rooker, Texas A&M University at Galveston

       Robert Ahrens, University of Florida, Fisheries and Aquatic
            Sciences

       Kevin Boswell, Florida International University

       Matthew Campbell, NOAA Fisheries (non-compensated
            collaborator)

       Matthew Catalano, Auburn University

       Marcus Drymon, Mississippi State University

       Brett Falterman, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and
            Fisheries

       John Hoenig, College of William and Mary, Virginia Institute
            of Marine Science

       Matthew Lauretta, NOAA Fisheries (non-compensated
            collaborator)

       Robert Leaf, University of Southern Mississippi

       Vincent Lecours, University of Florida

       Steven Murawski, University of South Florida

       David Portnoy, Texas A&M University--Corpus Christi

       Eric Saillant, University of Southern Mississippi

       Lynne S. Stokes, Southern Methodist University

       John Walter, NOAA Fisheries (non-compensated collaborator)

       David Wells, Texas A&M University at Galveston
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to
                               Dr. Larry McKinney
        Question 1. Dr. McKinney, at the hearing, you were asked about
    legislative efforts to actualize the Morris-Deal Report. One area of
    the Report that may warrant additional attention from Congress is
    improved management of forage fish fisheries that occur under the
    jurisdiction of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (i.e., in Federal waters).
        How do abundant forage fish populations contribute to healthy
    fisheries, both recreational or otherwise?
        Answer. Forage fish are lower trophic level species that at some
    life stage and most often at all life stages, is a significant food
    source for other fish, marine mammals and birds. Forage species are of
    importance to ecosystem function because they transfer energy through
    the system from lower trophic levels to higher levels. Forage fish most
    often feed near the base of the food web, often they are filter
    feeders, like menhaden. Other common and well-known forage species
    include sardines, shad and anchovies. When environmental conditions are
    favorable, they can be prolific spawners, reproducing quickly in huge
    numbers and rapidly growing to sexual maturity. Under such conditions,
    they may gather in very large schools, hence the attraction to
    predatory fish as an abundant and easily located food source.
        Forage fish are valuable, both in ecosystem function and as a food
    source for highly valued sportfish. The very traits that allow them to
    reproduce in huge numbers by quickly responding to favorable conditions
    can work against them, especially in temperate ecosystems such as most
    waters of the United States. Populations of these species also respond
    to unfavorable conditions like diminished or excessive freshwater
    inflows, hypoxia and shifting temperature regimes. These are examples
    of population drivers that can suppress population numbers. This is an
    evolved response common in ecosystems where widely changing conditions
    occur naturally. These ecosystems can be pushed beyond natural limits
    by man-made events like habitat loss, pollution, oil spills and water
    management. Forage species may respond accordingly. These often widely
    fluctuating population levels can, in turn, drive ecosystem stability
    and productivity because of their significant ecological role. Where
    anthropogenic actions add to extremes in natural cycles they can so
    stress the system that resilience is diminished or lost.
        Forage species are also subject to intense overfishing if they have
    a commercial value, because they concentrate in such large schools.
    Menhaden are an example. Spotting aircraft, high-speed net boats and
    immense purse seines can quickly and easily deplete these species over
    wide areas. When commercially over exploited this critical trophic
    driver can upset ecosystem function and significantly and negatively
    affect higher trophic levels, often species of great value to both
    recreational and commercial fisheries. Natural perturbations and
    overfishing, especially both in combination, can have cascading effects
    on higher trophic level species like valuable sportfish, the impact of
    which can echo through many years, with significant economic impact.
        Having healthy robust populations of forage fish is essential for
    production of more ecologically and economically desirable finfish
    populations, as well as, contributing to ecosystem stability and
    productivity. Science is just uncovering the full extent and dynamic
    role forage species play in the broader ecosystem. It is these types of
    linkages that we now recognize as fundamental to ecosystem health and
    productivity. It will require development of management frameworks
    focusing on ecosystem-based approaches, rather than a singles species
    management, to assure these species are not overexploited generating
    unintended and detrimental consequences on the ecosystem of which they
    are a part.

        Question 2. The Morris Deal Report urged that ``forage fish must be
    managed to provide enough food resources for healthy recreational fish
    species.'' Although some regional fishery management councils have
    taken significant steps toward this, as the Report indicates, ``very
    few forage fish are considered in fishery management plans, meaning
    that potential impacts on these critical components of the ecosystem
    are not considered or controlled.''
        In the context of changes to or a reauthorization of the Magnuson-
    Stevens Act, what improvements should Congress consider helping move
    the ball forward on more comprehensive consideration of forage in
    management decisions?
        Answer. Forage species must be considered in fisheries management
    plans, either as individual species or in aggregate where several
    species are present, with the goal of preserving their role in
    ecosystem function and support of valuable higher trophic level fish,
    marine mammals and birds. Reauthorization of Magnuson Stevens should
    address this issue in a systematic and science-based approach. The
    first and fundamental requirement is to identify these species, their
    geographic range, condition and contribution to ecosystem health and
    productivity. During this assessment, no new direct fishery for any
    potential forage species should be permitted until their ecological
    functions are well understood. In the event of a proposal to develop a
    fishery for one of these forage species, subsequent to the review noted
    above and a regional fisheries council determination that it is
    allowable, an important determination must be made--what portion of the
    annual maximum sustained yield will be set aside in support of
    ecosystem function and maintaining valuable sportfish and other
    commercial fisheries. If a fishery is approved, there should be an
    annual evaluation to determine if that set aside is adequate to
    minimize ecosystem harm. An economic assessment should be part of this
    evaluation. Additionally, a mechanism to make those adjustments in a
    timely fashion should be required. There are models on which to
    construct this adaptive regulatory approach that recognize the
    practical difficulties of managing these species for both commercial
    exploitation and ecosystem function protection.
        In 2009, while Director of Coastal Fisheries for Texas Parks and
    Wildlife I oversaw creation of a process much as described above for
    menhaden in state waters. The result was a determination by the Texas
    Parks and Wildlife Commission that the harvest of menhaden in state
    waters should be capped to protect the remainder as a forage base,
    securing their contribution to sustaining economically important
    sportfish [Texas Administrative Code. Title 31. Part 2. Chapter 57.
    Section 995]. To minimize economic disruption for the existing
    commercial fishery the initial cap number was based on a ten-year
    average of annual harvest. Several adaptive regulatory methodologies
    allowed for accommodation of over and underfishing during each year.

        Question 3. The Commission on Saltwater Recreational Fisheries
    Management, which you chaired, published the ``Vision for Managing
    America's Saltwater Recreational Fisheries''. This document talks about
    the importance of abundance and stipulates that recreational anglers
    need a ``wide-ranging, dependable access to healthy and abundant
    fisheries.'' The Magnuson Stevens Act has been successful at creating
    more abundant fisheries, as 84 percent of stocks are no longer
    overfished and over 43 previously depleted stocks have been rebuilt.
    This is largely due to requirements to end overfishing immediately,
    rebuild depleted fish stocks within certain time parameters, and use of
    annual catch limits.
        If Congress loosens conservation requirements to allow overfishing,
    weaken rebuilding, and reduce fish abundance, how would that help
    recreational fishermen when abundance is so important to the angling
    experience?
        Answer. The Magnuson Stevens Act provided the necessary Federal
    framework to curb industrialized commercial fisheries from rampant
    overexploitation and protect our country from intrusions by foreign
    fishing fleets. The Act's history is a notable example of an adaptive
    legislative process that has focused on the key issue of the time,
    while being responsive to developing needs during subsequent
    reauthorization. It is my hope that the adaptive process continues
    during consideration of this reauthorization and that an important
    focus is given to the recreational fishery. As it stands now the Act is
    an impediment, rather than a benefit in establishing a workable Federal
    framework for recreational fisheries management in Federal waters. This
    is not a criticism of the Act, which has served our country well, as
    noted earlier. It is a request to continue the exemplary adaptive
    legislative process that has so far characterized the Magnuson-Stevens
    Act and move forward to appropriately address recreational fisheries.
        Recreational fisheries, the most economically important of all
    fisheries in our country, should not be confused with commercial
    fisheries in either structure or the legislative framework needed to
    sustain it. The needs of this fishing sector are quite different from
    that of commercial fisheries. For example, recreational fisheries can
    have much less of a negative ``footprint'' on the ecosystem than other
    fisheries focused on industrialized extraction of the resource.
    Recreational fisheries are more focused on access and quality rather
    than extracting the maximum yield allowed by regulation. Abundance has
    a much different meaning for recreational anglers than for commercial
    fishers.
        I do not agree that the Morris-Deal Commission recommendation to
    consider reasonable stock rebuilding timelines constitutes a
    ``loosening of conservation requirements'' as suggested in the first
    question. As I summarized in my written testimony, neither does the
    National Academy of Science panel that closely reviewed this current
    requirement of the Act:

            The National Research Council, a part of the National Academy
            of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, reached the same
            conclusion in their report--Evaluating the Effectiveness of
            Fish Stock Rebuilding Plans in the United States. They found
            that rebuilding plans based on monitoring and controlling
            fishing levels, rather than requiring fish populations to
            recover to a pre-specified target size within a certain
            timeframe, would be less disruptive to the fisheries and less
            subject to uncertainty.

        This sentiment is echoed by many well qualified fisheries
    scientists and especially managers who have successfully recovered fish
    stocks, especially for recreational fisheries. Overfishing, weakened
    rebuilding and reduced fish abundance is a relative term defined by
    whatever time-frame is selected, whether science-based or arbitrary.
    That timeframe, as defined in the Act, was not based on science. It was
    based on the need of the time. Please do not misunderstand, I do
    appreciate the difficulties in dealing with this issue during an era
    when overfishing and delaying tactics to avoid imposing any reasonable
    management structure reached so frustrating a point that a line had to
    be drawn. That was then, not now. We have abundant examples where
    successful recovery of recreational fisheries have happened. Those
    examples are primarily in state managed fisheries. I graphically
    provided two examples in my written testimony--red drum and spotted
    seatrout. Recovery timelines in those examples were relative to both
    the species biological needs and the economic needs of the fishery.
    What I illustrated in those examples was an adaptive management
    process.
        The existing Federal management structure generally, is not. The
    ``one-size-fits-all'' approach is cumbersome and does not allow for
    adaptations for differing management strategies across a species range,
    nor does it recognize differing economic realities of fisheries
    dependent coastal communities across that same geographic range.
    Federal management strategies, in part due to restrictions of the Act,
    attempt to manage recreational fisheries and mixed fisheries (ones with
    both recreational and commercial components) with approaches more
    suited to commercial fisheries. Abundance, for example, calculated as
    quota-based annual catch limits focused on maximum sustained yields by
    weight. This is not an appropriate strategy for recreational fisheries.
        The metrics of the current Federal management process, as
    summarized in the preamble to the two questions shows that biological
    recovery is possible under such management and it has happened in many
    cases, especially for commercial species. It is a commendable
    achievement, realized in sustained, difficult struggles to those
    positive ends. Federal fisheries managers and regional management
    councils deserve credit and recognition of achievement. The primary
    focus, however, was commercial fisheries. Today it should be
    recreational fisheries, a very different ball game. Biological and
    economic factors must be considered in tandem. In this endeavor, mixed
    fisheries do represent the greatest challenge to a stabilized future.
    There, flexibility and cooperative management is key. As noted, state
    fish managers have navigated this difficult terrain successfully and
    have much to offer, if allowed and encouraged.
        In the case of red snapper, Federal management is succeeding on the
    biological level, but at what cost? What value in economic stability
    and jobs is being lost in this $63 billion-dollar industry? What value
    is a recovered and abundant fishery, if no one is left to enjoy it? It
    does not have to be an either-or choice. State managers have proven
    this repeatedly. The ability to expand recovery timelines is
    fundamental to solving this puzzle as it minimizes negative economic
    impacts, protects and even grows jobs and produces fish in abundance.
    The evidence is clear and incontrovertible.

        Question 4. Do you think it is fair to say that abundant fisheries
    create more opportunities to fish, which is key to the recreational
    angling experience?
        Answer. I was asked if it was fair to say that abundant fisheries
    create more opportunities to fish, which is key to the recreational
    angling experience. In part, but the real key to such an experience is
    threefold: access, quality and abundance. If the process to achieve
    those ends precludes or unnecessarily curtails, any one of those
    objectives, then it fails. Current Federal management, under the
    restrictions of the existing Magnuson Stevens Act all but precludes
    this possibility and thus fails.
        I am a strong proponent of the North American Model of wildlife
    conservation, a model that was much inspired by our greatest
    conservation president, Theodore Roosevelt, and codified by Aldo
    Leopold. Its core principles should be instructive to any
    reauthorization of the Magnuson Stevens Act. The most basic tenet is
    that wildlife is a public trust resource, equally available to all. It
    appears to me that some of our fisheries managers have forgotten,
    ignored or worst of all, never heard of this most basic tenet of the
    American experience.
        The most successful demonstration of the model, informing fisheries
    management, is the way in which Federal and state wildlife agencies and
    managers cooperate in assuring waterfowl conservation across
    international borders and within the United State, across state
    borders. All the issues faced by fisheries managers have been common to
    waterfowl managers--commercial versus recreational species, managing
    for access, quality and abundance, rebuilding timelines, etc. The
    solution there is as instructive as it has been successful. Why have
    waterfowl managers succeeded where fisheries managers have not?
        I do believe all parties in the current red snapper debate and
    likely, other fisheries issues as well, share a common and positive end
    goal. Fisheries managers have much to learn from waterfowl managers and
    could so worse than adopt such a model.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to
                                 Karl Haflinger
        Question. In your testimony you refer to the Improving Net Gains
    report that resulted from a multi-stakeholder process you were involved
    in that included representatives from many regions of the country.
    Please expand on that report and on the recommendations that resulted
    from that process and how they could help move us forward with
    fisheries data innovation.
        Answer. The basic recommendations could be summarized as:

      (1)  Prioritize modernization of national fishery information systems

      (2)  Perform a cross-regional assessment of status and needs

      (3)  Develop and disseminate a policy based on the above.

      (4)  Develop and fund a budget for modernization

      (5)  Review confidentiality issues and prioritize access to
            participants

      (6)  Ensure that key stakeholders understand the capabilities and use
            of these systems

        It is perhaps important to note that members of the task force were
    not current NMFS employees, but were mostly drawn from industry, NGOs,
    and state and former NMFS employees. Key areas that had proven
    frustrating to those attending were multiple levels of reporting for
    some fishermen (apparently multiple agencies needed the same
    information but didn't communicate), delays in stock assessments that
    led to harvest recommendations at odds with what fishermen saw in the
    environment, and difficulty for those outside NOAA Fisheries in
    accessing data that had been submitted by participants.
        It seems clear that EM and ER (electronic monitoring and electronic
    reporting) are making inroads into fisheries management. The iSnapper
    app was mentioned in the Committee hearing and is an example of an
    approach that would seem to any outsider as a no-brainer for small-boat
    fisheries (basically a smartphone is used for recording catch and
    location, and reporting then occurs when vessels are in cell range).
    Participants in trial use of the software reportedly were pleased with
    it but were unable to take the time to estimate discards, which is an
    essential part of fisheries management. I suspect some refinement of
    the screens that are routinely seen on the smartphones (as suggested by
    participants) could make entry of essential data simple enough to allow
    the time to enter discard estimates. I wouldn't be surprised if they
    were fairly accurate when averaged over the whole fleet. A similar
    issue, that of estimating overall effort, could be attempted by asking
    participants to estimate the number of boats of their class that could
    be seen fishing at various ``stops'' along the way. I think a ``citizen
    science'' approach in this type could yield more timely and likely more
    accurate estimates of effort than shoreside surveys.
        The Holy Grail in electronic monitoring for commercial vessels is
    the ability to make species-level identifications of fish, to document
    discards, and make some attempt at reporting the size of fish being
    discarded. We are a long way from realizing this but it's going to
    occur at some point and it's important to continue funding the
    necessary research and concurrently introducing the incremental
    advances in this field as they appear.
        As someone who is involved with day-to-day fisheries data use, I
    have been surprised by the speed at which cloud services and ``big
    data'' analytics have become available to small concerns. I think that
    fisheries data modernization inevitably means moving fisheries data
    into the cloud, perhaps on a national level (a national landings
    database), so that the wheel is not being re-invented time and again at
    each regional science center, and for individual fleets spread
    throughout the country. There seems to be a critical mass of people
    from diverse science and technical backgrounds worldwide who are
    working on approaches to understanding complex problems and modeling
    solutions, but these are often difficult to actually program into
    machines, so a common, modernized data infrastructure could help
    immensely with the spread of these tools. These developments will help
    us with bycatch reduction by better understanding the problems and
    solutions through ``spatiotemporal'' modeling (looking at fish
    distributions changes both through space and over the course of many
    years). Combined with remote sensing we should be able to better
    understand the variability of species over time, and in response to
    climate variations, and this will affect stock assessments as well as
    industry response.
        Retooling the Nation's fisheries data infrastructure was viewed as
    essential to furthering partnerships with industry. My own personal
    belief is that this won't be possible without expert help from outside
    NOAA Fisheries. I think it would be necessary to form a relatively
    small task force that included members of the agency and stakeholders
    (including from the academic community), and some outside expertise on
    data management. I think at some point it would be necessary to decide
    which legacy data you have to leave behind (perhaps temporarily) to
    allow you to move forward with storing and allowing better access to
    current incoming data. Finally, design documents should be open to the
    public and source code should be in open source repositories to enable
    both shared access and increased scrutiny for debugging purposes. This
    would obviously be an expensive undertaking so certainly support from
    this committee outside the framework of MSA reauthorization would be
    essential.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to
                                 Karl Haflinger
        Question 1. Bycatch Mitigation Strategies: Can you discuss some of
    the main bycatch mitigation strategies that the fleets you work with
    employ and what your company is doing to help fleets decrease bycatch
    within vessel cooperatives?
        Answer. The bycatch mitigation toolbox for the West Coast and
    Alaska trawl and cod longline fisheries has 3 components: gear designs
    to reduce the rates of bycatch, handling procedures to reduce the
    mortality of fish returned to sea alive (this works for Pacific halibut
    only), and avoidance programs designed to help vessels operate in areas
    of the lowest bycatch rates possible for that fishery in the first
    place. Gear modification is an ongoing process that involves regular
    trips to a flume tank in Newfoundland to study how half-scale models of
    trawl sections actually behave when deployed. Recapture devices or
    cameras placed on nets serve to document the effectiveness of designs.
    Deck sorting of halibut is used on large-volume catcher processors and
    smaller trawl catcher vessels to radically reduce the amount of time
    that halibut spend on deck (they are very tough animals and up to 50
    percent can be returned alive even when caught in a trawl net), thus
    increasing the survival rate. Quickly releasing halibut caught by large
    longiners increased survival rates for discards for this fleet to the
    90 percent range.
        My company (Sea State, Inc) is largely involved with helping fleets
    avoid bycatch in the first place. We look at observer data from
    catcher/processors, landings information from vessels that deliver
    shoreside, and satellite vessel positions records from VMS (vessel
    monitoring systems) to determine the locations of high-bycatch events,
    and relay this information to the fleet. Thus, we are working to get
    something as close to the raw data as possible, but still
    understandable, in front of those working on the water, as quickly as
    possible. We do not try to predict the next bycatch event but to let
    all fishermen in the various fisheries that employ us know as quickly
    as possible where bycatch events are occurring. We also implement
    bycatch reduction programs for 8 different cooperatives that fish in
    Alaska and the Pacific Northwest using trawl and longline gear. Each
    cooperative has different rules that they have decided their members
    must follow as a part of cooperative membership, and we process the
    catch information, get it back in front of the fishermen, and continue
    with any special reporting or activity that a given coop desires. This
    extended action ranges from simply publishing bycatch rates of the
    member vessels to actively monitoring bycatch on a daily basis and
    running ``rolling closure'' programs, wherein we decide which areas of
    the ocean should be temporarily closed to a cooperative or to
    individual vessels in a fishery based on criteria set forth in
    cooperative agreements. The closures generally last for a week,
    although at times they are extended for several weeks. Compliance with
    these closures is monitored using vessel VMS-reported positions, with
    substantial fines levied for infractions.

        Question 2. Data: What are some of the challenges your company and
    partners face in terms of modernizing data management and data
    collection?
        Answer. Whenever we add a new fleet or fishery we work with NOAA
    Fisheries to identify mechanisms that we can use to receive data from
    fleets via some form of bulk download. Oftentimes this has meant asking
    the agency to develop those methods for us, since it's their database
    that we need to pull information from. We always have to figure out how
    we are going to deal with confidentiality since different regions
    interpret the confidentiality rules in MSA somewhat differently. If we
    are trying to develop detailed views of fishing behavior we have to
    work with each vessel's VMS provider so that we can get a copy of the
    vessel's VMS information in near-real-time. Each company that sells the
    equipment and satellite time to these vessels provides for the vessel a
    website that allows the owner see his own data. We work with these
    vendors to allow us to download this data in bulk, given the owners'
    authorizations, much the same as we work with NMFS to develop new data
    pathways when necessary. All of these steps are challenging because
    there's no directive from NOAA Fisheries that the various regions
    cooperate with us. That is not to say that they haven't cooperated,
    because in most cases they have, ungrudgingly. In many instances the
    Councils have adopted management goals that only the member
    cooperatives could carry out, and the observer and landings data is
    required by the cooperatives, so it has been imperative that the agency
    work with the fleets to meet Council objectives. However, it has taken
    nearly 25 years of working with the fleets and NOAA Fisheries to get to
    this point. The idea that fishing vessel owners and operators are
    clients and need to be worked with cooperatively by NOAA Fisheries,
    especially as regards developing mechanisms to return data to the boats
    on which it was generate, would be a welcome addition to the re-
    authorization process. As part of a modernization effort, NOAA
    Fisheries could develop software to provide critical data to both
    individual users and those like myself, who need data in large batches
    for users that authorize access. It would be very helpful if an amended
    MSA would make clear that individual fishermen (and their cooperatives)
    be considered as users of NOAA Fisheries data and that consideration be
    given to developing the software infrastructure needed to interact with
    them.

        Question 3. Limitations to Stock Assessments: Can you outline some
    of the major barriers to conducting more frequent stock assessments
    that you see and your suggestions on how to address those concerns?
        Answer. The stock-assessment process from start to finish is
    lengthy. Development of a new ``benchmark'' stock assessment can take
    upwards of 3-5 years to assemble data, iteratively go through and
    address comments from plan team and SSC to have a final model accepted
    and then used for setting Annual Catch Limits through the Council
    process. A previously approved stock assessment model is re-assessed
    approximately every 5 years by an independent review panel.
    Modifications based on these reviews can then take another year or more
    to be implemented and be approved by the Councils' SSC.
        Impediments to developing new assessments and updating old
    certainly include lack of regular survey data (data that are
    independent of fisheries), and also lack of fishery information (data
    from fisheries, including landings, discards, areas fished, lengths and
    ages of fish taken, etc). For some fisheries these data are hard to
    collect or don't exist, but in other cases the science centers depend
    on regional offices that manage fisheries to provide harvest
    information. My understanding is that outdated information processing
    systems and lack of communication within NOAA Fisheries often leads to
    delays in the transfer of fishery data to stock assessment scientists.
        Ironically, based on my experience, about 1/2 of the new hires in
    the last decade will stay in a particular position for 3-5 years before
    moving on to either a different-species, or a different science branch
    altogether. As an individual gains more experience, they are more
    likely to be assigned higher profile species. The process of promotion
    leaves the more difficult stocks to assess (those with less data and
    less fishery value due to scarcity) with less attention than we would
    desire.
        As far as improvements and making this process more efficient. I'm
    not an expert on this, but what I have seen with respect to developing
    tools such as Stock-Synthesis has had a significant impact on the
    efficiency of constructing new ``benchmark'' assessments. I don't think
    developing these tools has shortened the necessary length of the review
    process; however, these tools have allowed for competent reviews of
    very sophisticated models. Such model complexity would not be possible
    without the co-evolution of university training, model-development, and
    timely hiring within NOAA, that Stock-Synthesis has enjoyed.
        Another major barrier is a shortage of highly qualified and
    experienced personnel. Explosive growth in the tech industries has
    attracted a lot of young talent with high paying jobs. I can think of
    three potential solutions with respect to conducting more frequent
    stock assessments: (1) increase intellectual capacity, (2) industry
    collaboration, and 3) contract the work out. NOAA has a number of
    incentive programs in place for increasing intellectual capacity (e.g.,
    John A. Knauss Marine Policy Fellowship Program), and these are great
    programs. Incentives for industry to collaborate in research programs
    (i.e., tax-credits for research and development might be effective
    tools (I have seen these operating at the state level, in Alaska). A
    number of other countries around the world have had success with bid
    contracts for software development, or annual stock assessments
    conducted in collaboration with industry (e.g., New Zealand rock
    lobster).
        Finally, a thorough, high-quality stock assessment obviously takes
    significant resources to develop and maintain. The current legislation
    makes it difficult to use other forms of management that are less
    reliant on stock assessments and estimates of absolute abundance. There
    are a number of other ``input'' controls that could also be used to
    effectively manage data poor commercial and recreational fisheries
    (e.g., time-area closures, season restrictions, lotteries, to name a
    few).

        Question 4. Do you have suggestions on how NOAA should prioritize
    allocating limited funding?
        Answer. I am not familiar enough with the competing priorities
    within NOAA and NMFS to answer this question.
                                     ______

       Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
                                 Karl Haflinger
        Question 1. Mr. Haflinger, your company, Sea State, has been
    involved in helping to improve bycatch avoidance in the Pacific
    Northwest and Alaska. If a bycatch limit is reached, a fishery may be
    shutdown, which could lead to a loss in revenue and jobs. In order to
    develop bycatch reduction devices, exempted fishing permits, or EFPs,
    are often used to test new devices and techniques to determine if they
    are successful at improving fisheries management and reducing bycatch.
        Do you think that EFPs are helpful in developing new management
    techniques and testing new fishing gear to improve fisheries
    management?
        Answer. Exempted Fishing Permits (EFPs) have been essential to the
    process of developing both salmon and halibut excluders used in the
    trawl fisheries in Alaska. Using prototype models under real fishing
    conditions facilitates evaluating the success of those devices through
    scientific trials. Without objective evaluations of these devices,
    their efficacy is mostly guesswork, and fishermen are reluctant to
    adopt them. Experimental trials also often require that vessels seek
    higher bycatch circumstance (i.e., areas of higher bycatch rates) than
    fishermen would operate in under normal fishing circumstances. If a
    fisherman has a quota for halibut or salmon, then he is looking to
    avoid instance of high salmon or halibut abundance, but it is in
    precisely those conditions that we need to test the devices. You cannot
    ask a fisherman to deliberately sacrifice his quota and jeopardize his
    fishing season to test the device, so you need extra quota of
    constraining species that can be utilized under an EFP. Without it, the
    excluders would never be tested in the environments that matter most.
        It's also clear that EFPs are the most direct method available to
    evaluate new tools in catch estimation and bycatch reduction that are
    not gear modifications; for example, Electronic Monitoring (EM) and
    deck-sorting catches to reduce mortality on discards. Councils and NOAA
    Fisheries alike must figure out how these programs should work and it
    is impossible to anticipate the problems and work-arounds without
    trying these programs in real fishing conditions. For both these
    examples, the benefits to fishermen and conservation were obvious and
    unambiguous, but these were new approaches that everyone had to become
    familiar with putting rules in place. Thus, the adoption of these new
    methods would take much more time if Federal rules had to be
    promulgated for each new program before such methods could even be seen
    in action on deck. The resulting rules would have to be modified
    because you're never ``right'' the first time, and the ensuing delays
    (associated with the rule-making cycle) would be absurd.

        Question 2. Would your company and others like it be able to test
    new bycatch reduction mechanisms if EFPs became more difficult to
    obtain?
        Answer. Sea State has not been involved in field testing any
    devices although we often handle the data produced in these
    experiments, or advise field testers on bycatch conditions in the areas
    they seek to test (i.e., helping to find the optimal bycatch rates for
    the device test under consideration) Without the EFPs the only method
    we have to rate success in devices are comparative bycatch rates
    (between vessels) but in general we don't know the exact configuration
    of nets that vessels are using, and in real-world fishing you would
    never see enough paired tows (between boats that have reduction devices
    and those that don't) to make statistically valid comparisons. In other
    words, I don't think it's possible to effectively evaluate these
    devices and techniques without EFPs, and that is why I consider them to
    be essential.

        Question 3. From an economic perspective, EFPs are critical to
    keeping fishermen fishing while conservation issues are being
    addressed. What would happen to fishing jobs if EFPs were no longer a
    management tool?
        Answer. EFPs are just one of many issues surrounding bycatch that
    can allow fisheries to proceed or result in their closure, so I would
    first clarify that my remarks that follow include more than the effects
    of EFPs alone. Fishery-related employment occurs both on vessels and at
    shoreside plants, and further on down the supply chain to the point of
    sale. The most immediate effects of premature closures are probably
    felt by captains and crews, but almost as immediate are effects for
    employees at processing plants and later handlers of fish. In more
    remote coastal areas where jobs may be less available, plant closures
    may be difficult to recover from, so that once closed, they may not re-
    open, and fishing jobs can be lost for good. The situation may or may
    not be the same for vessels, which can possibly move to different
    areas, depending on the management regime they fish under. In both
    cases, reestablishing fishing operations after prolonged closures is
    difficult, especially if key personnel are lost.
        Events that have played out over the last 20 years along the
    Pacific NW coast has shown the difficulty of retaining fisheries for
    healthy bottomfish species (for example, Petrale or Dover sole) when
    bycatch problems with overfished species of rockfish led to reduced
    fishing opportunities for non-rockfish species as well. For many years
    the fleets dealt with reductions in fishing areas due to rockfish
    bycatch regulations. With severe reductions in catch, many of these
    bycatch species have rebounded faster than stock assessments can keep
    up, so they remain problematic because allowed rockfish catch levels
    are still unrealistically low. Also, area-based rockfish conservation
    closures still remain in place, despite rebounding populations.
    Bottomfish catches are thus still affected unnecessarily by concerns on
    rockfish bycatch, and as a demonstration of the complexity of the
    problem, the rockfish that are quite legitimately harvested as bycatch
    in increasing amounts is difficult to sell. The markets are now
    unfamiliar with these fish, or where there is familiarity, the market
    share has been lost to foreign competition. It will likely take many
    years of persistent marketing efforts before these fish occupy the
    place they once did in markets on the West coast. This state is clearly
    the result of earlier overfishing, but it demonstrates the problems we
    see when fisheries in an area are closed for extended periods, and the
    continuing need for bycatch reduction of constraining species even when
    their populations have recovered.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to
                                 Karl Haflinger
        Question 1. Improving Net Gains report: In your testimony you refer
    to the Improving Net Gains report that resulted from a multi-
    stakeholder process you were involved in that included representatives
    from many regions of the country.
        Could you provide a little more information on the recommendations
    that resulted from that process and how they could help move us forward
    with fisheries data innovation?
        Answer. The basic recommendations could be summarized as:

      (1)  Prioritize modernization of national fishery information systems

      (2)  Perform a cross-regional assessment of status and needs

      (3)  Develop and disseminate a policy based on the above.

      (4)  Develop and fund a budget for modernization

      (5)  Review confidentiality issues and prioritize access to
            participants

      (6)  Ensure that key stakeholders understand the capabilities and use
            of these systems

        It is perhaps important to note that members of the task force were
    not current NMFS employees, but were mostly drawn from industry, NGOs,
    and state and former NMFS employees. Key areas that had proven
    frustrating to those attending were multiple levels of reporting for
    some fishermen (apparently multiple agencies needed the same
    information but didn't communicate), delays in stock assessments that
    led to harvest recommendations at odds with what fishermen saw in the
    environment, and difficulty for those outside NOAA Fisheries in
    accessing data that had been submitted by participants.

        Question 2. Improving Net Gains report: How can we make it easier
    for NOAA and the Regional Fisheries Management Councils to implement
    emerging technologies to reduce bycatch and improve data collection?
        Answer. Fishery issues involving multiple stakeholders are
    surprisingly complex and it simply takes a long time to figure out how
    management changes will affect all stakeholders, and also how to
    implement in ways that are cost-effective yet still meeting management
    goals. The simplest way to assist the process has been to utilize
    Exempted Fishing Permits (EFPs) to allow the industry, NOAA Fisheries,
    and councils experiment with altered and improved management approaches
    before deciding on every detail of the rules that will be necessary to
    implement new approaches. Cooperative research involving industry and
    agency can also be useful in developing expertise and familiarity with
    new techniques on both sides (agency and industry).

        Question 3. Improved Technologies: Data and data collection for
    fisheries, especially recreational fisheries, needs to be brought into
    the 21st Century, and there are so many technologies now available that
    were not in the past and additional technologies coming up on the
    horizon.
        What technologies are on the horizon that NOAA and NMFS should be
    taking a closer look at to improve data collection and meet both
    economic and conservation goals?
        Answer. It seems clear that EM and ER (electronic monitoring and
    electronic reporting) are making inroads into fisheries management. The
    iSnapper app was mentioned in the Committee hearing and is an example
    of an approach that would seem to any outsider as a no-brainer for
    small-boat fisheries (basically a smartphone is used for recording
    catch and location, and reporting then occurs when vessels are in cell
    range). Participants in trial use of the software reportedly were
    pleased with it but were unable to take the time to estimate discards,
    which is an essential part of fisheries management. I suspect some
    refinement of the screens that are routinely seen on the smartphones
    (as suggested by participants) could make entry of essential data
    simple enough to allow the time to enter discard estimates. I wouldn't
    be surprised if they were fairly accurate when averaged over the whole
    fleet. A similar issue, that of estimating overall effort, could be
    attempted by asking participants to estimate the number of boats of
    their class that could be seen fishing at various ``stops'' along the
    way. I think a ``citizen science'' approach in this type could yield
    more timely and likely more accurate estimates of effort than shoreside
    surveys.
        The Holy Grail in electronic monitoring for commercial vessels is
    the ability to make species-level identifications of fish, to document
    discards, and make some attempt at reporting the size of fish being
    discarded. We are a long way from realizing this but it's going to
    occur at some point and it's important to continue funding the
    necessary research and concurrently introducing the incremental
    advances in this field as they appear.
        As someone who is involved with day-to-day fisheries data use, I
    have been surprised by the speed at which cloud services and ``big
    data'' analytics have become available to small concerns. I think that
    fisheries data modernization inevitably means moving fisheries data
    into the cloud, perhaps on a national level (a national landings
    database), so that the wheel is not being re-invented time and again at
    each regional science center, and for individual fleets spread
    throughout the country. There seems to be a critical mass of people
    from diverse science and technical backgrounds worldwide who are
    working on approaches to understanding complex problems and modeling
    solutions, but these are often difficult to actually program into
    machines, so a common, modernized data infrastructure could help
    immensely with the spread of these tools. These developments will help
    us with bycatch reduction by better understanding the problems and
    solutions through ``spatiotemporal'' modeling (looking at fish
    distributions changes both through space and over the course of many
    years). Combined with remote sensing we should be able to better
    understand the variability of species over time, and in response to
    climate variations, and this will affect stock assessments as well as
    industry response.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to
                               Dr. Michael Jones
        Question 1. Management Strategy Evaluation: You have extensive
    experience with Management Strategy Evaluations that has led to a great
    deal of success in the Great Lakes.
        What could employing MSE approaches mean for U.S. fisheries
    especially in areas with tense relationships between different groups
    of stakeholders?
        Answer. As I mentioned in my earlier testimony, the National Marine
    Fisheries Service (NMFS) has begun to show strong interest in using
    Management Strategy Evaluations (MSE) to address challenging fishery
    management issues, including Atlantic Menhaden and Gulf of Maine
    Herring. I have been invited to speak about our experience with MSE in
    the Great Lakes at a NMFS workshop planned for late January 2018 in San
    Diego. MSE methods are being applied to important fisheries elsewhere
    in the world as well--most notably Australia, South Africa, and the
    European Union.
        The great advantage of an MSE process is its transparency. The
    simulation methods are intended to model the entire management process,
    from stock assessments to population dynamics to the harvest rule that
    determines how much fishing takes place, and to generate outputs that
    represent the consequences of different harvest policy options for a
    variety of performance measures representing different objectives. This
    means decision makers and stakeholders are able to see how alternative
    management strategies will lead to trade-offs among competing
    objectives that represent the divergent interests of different
    stakeholder groups, fostering a greater appreciation for how there has
    to be some give and take to balance these competing objectives and that
    there is often a middle ground that stakeholder groups with competing
    interests are all willing to live with.
        Vitally important to an MSE process that attempts to tackle a
    contentious issue is engagement. While the MSE simulation process can
    be highly technical, and thus beyond the capacity of many stakeholders
    to critically evaluate, engaging the competing stakeholder groups in
    the process of an MSE, especially the early stages where the problem is
    defined and objectives identified and acknowledged, fosters an
    environment of ``ownership'' of the problem--and the possible solution.
    Doing this right will be very challenging, especially when the level of
    conflict is already very high, but our experience has suggested that
    even (perhaps especially) in high-conflict situations and engaged MSE
    process can be extremely helpful.

        Question 2. Changing Environmental Conditions: We see changing
    environmental conditions everywhere with increased temperature, changes
    in water chemistry, and subsequent impacts to fish and other wildlife.
        What do you see as the emerging management issues for U.S.
    fisheries? And what can we do to detect these issues and ameliorate the
    situation before things get worse?
        Answer. I'm not sure it would be accurate to describe either of
    these as ``emerging'' issues--we have known about them for a long
    time--but there's not much doubt that global environmental change (dare
    I say climate change), and the spread of invasive species will be two
    of the most challenging issues facing the future management of U.S.
    fisheries.
        Needless to say, we have an awful lot of experience with aquatic
    invasive species in the Great Lakes. Management of sea lampreys has
    been a central element of fishery management in the Great Lakes for
    over fifty years, and emerging evidence suggests that zebra and quagga
    mussels may ultimately have an even greater impact on our lakes than
    sea lampreys did. Marine invasive species has received a great deal
    less attention than freshwater invaders, but I believe they will become
    a much more important issue for managers to grapple with in the
    future--in no small part because of the other issue I cited above. As
    the environmental conditions in coastal regions change (warmer, more
    acidic, stormier) the ecosystem is likely to become less favorable for
    currently important species and more favorable for new invaders.
        Another really important aspect of global change, which was
    discussed at the hearing, is that the range and distribution of
    economically valuable fish stocks will change, creating challenges for
    spatial management: location-specific quotas will become mis-aligned
    with where the fish are. Harvest policies in the future will likely
    need to be more adaptable to these changing conditions.
        Not only will global change affect species distributions, it will
    affect productivity of fish populations. It seems likely that
    productivity of some stocks will increase, while for others it will
    decrease. This means that management strategies which are informed by
    analyses of past data--which is nearly always how we do things--will be
    poorly tuned to the managed populations in the future. This reality
    will need to be accommodated as new harvest policies are established
    for species affected by global change.

        Question 3. Emerging science: You mention in your written testimony
    that in order to ensure that ``wise, fair decisions are made,'' you
    must ensure decisions are ``based on the best science.'' Currently, the
    Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that all ``measures shall be based upon
    the best scientific information available.'' The guidelines to
    implement that standard encourage using science from many sources and
    including both established and emerging science.
        Can you explain why maintaining this standard is important, and how
    progress in fisheries management might be harmed if this standard was
    eliminated or weakened?
        What considerations are important when using established science
    versus newer, emerging science in management decisions?
        Answer. Using scientific knowledge to inform fishery management is
    a ``no brainer''. Sometimes arguments are made that ``we got it wrong''
    even when decisions were arguably science-based. Mostly this happens
    because we were either unlucky--an unpredictable event led to an
    outcome we weren't able to anticipate--or because the science was not
    used as well as it could have been. An example of the latter is that
    historically, science-based decisions often relied on the best
    scientific judgement of an expected outcome (for example setting
    fishing rates at levels expected to yield maximum sustained yield)
    without properly considering the risks of such policies; risks that
    arise due to inevitable uncertainties in our knowledge and information.
    But to conclude from this experience that using the best science is not
    necessary for wise management does not make sense. We need to use the
    best available science, and we need to use it wisely, which includes
    thoughtful consideration of both what we know and what we are uncertain
    about.
        New, emerging science promises to greatly improve our knowledge
    base to inform wise decision-making. In the Great Lakes, acoustic
    telemetry is a great example of emerging science that could transform
    our understanding of fish movement and thereby improve our ability to
    manage individual fish populations which inter-mix. Advances in
    molecular methods (DNA fingerprinting, genomics, etc) are also having
    an enormous impact on our understanding of fish populations. All
    scientific knowledge--established and emerging--needs to be subjected
    to rigorous standards of peer review and confirmation before we rely
    too heavily on exciting and sometimes controversial new knowledge. It
    is just as important that we apply this rigor to knowledge and
    information provided through so-called citizen science as it is for
    more traditional science led by academics and government scientists.

        Question 4. Forage Fish: Forage fish are crucial part of the food
    web that supports many of the fish we strive to eat. Menhaden were one
    species of forage fish brought up during the hearing, but forage fish
    are important from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of
    Alaska.
        Can you share with us the importance of forage fish and provide
    guidance on managing forage fish such as menhaden and others across
    different regions?
        Answer. Management of forage species requires us to take a multi-
    species, or even ecosystem view of fisheries management. Forage
    species, as the name implies, can be an important food source for
    economically valuable predator species, but in the case of species like
    Atlantic Menhaden or Gulf of Maine Herring they also have value as
    commercially exploited species. This implies a management trade-off
    between maintaining an abundant population of forage for predators to
    consume versus harvesting more forage in a fishery. This trade-off
    needs to be confronted by using sound ecosystem science to assess the
    relationship between (a) fishing rates and forage species abundance and
    (b) predator growth and survival and forage species abundance. We have
    a reasonably good understanding of (a) from forage species stock
    assessments, but empirical information to inform (b) is surprisingly
    limited for marine systems.
        We have experience with a predator-forage issue in the Great Lakes
    that is different from the scenario I described above but that
    nevertheless can illustrate how science can inform the marine forage
    species issue. In my Great Lakes example the predators are the
    salmonine species (trout and salmon) that are the basis our billion
    dollar recreational fisheries in Lakes Michigan, Ontario, and to a
    lesser degree, Huron. The primary forage species is alewife. The
    difference between our Great Lakes issue and the marine situation is
    that alewife is not the object of a commercial fishery in the Great
    Lakes so there is not a tension between commercial and recreational
    fishing interests in this case. However, alewife--an exotic species in
    the Great Lakes--are believed to have negative effects on numerous
    native species when they are abundant, which provides an incentive to
    reduce their abundance below levels that might be ideal for their
    predators. We have used decades of fishery assessment data for alewife
    and their predators to develop an understanding of salmonine-alewife
    predator-prey interactions, and then used this information in computer
    models that inform decisions about what levels of alewife abundance we
    should aim for to balance these competing interests. Our history of
    supporting ecosystem science in the Great Lakes has enabled us to
    develop a substantially better understanding of predator-prey
    interactions involving economically important species that is typical
    for most marine predator-forage systems.