[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.