[Senate Hearing 116-611]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                        S. Hrg. 116-611

FISHERY FAILURES: IMPROVING THE DISASTER DECLARATION AND RELIEF PROCESS

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                         COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
                      SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION
                               __________

                           SEPTEMBER 25, 2019
                               __________

    Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
                             Transportation
                             
                             
                [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                    
                            

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

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
52-760 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2023                  
                


       SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                  ROGER WICKER, Mississippi, Chairman
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota             MARIA CANTWELL, Washington, 
ROY BLUNT, Missouri                      Ranking
TED CRUZ, Texas                      AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
CORY GARDNER, Colorado               TOM UDALL, New Mexico
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          GARY PETERS, Michigan
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
MIKE LEE, Utah                       TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin               JON TESTER, Montana
TODD YOUNG, Indiana                  KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona
RICK SCOTT, Florida                  JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
                       John Keast, Staff Director
                  Crystal Tully, Deputy Staff Director
                      Steven Wall, General Counsel
                 Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
              Chris Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
                      Renae Black, Senior Counsel

                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hearing held on September 25, 2019...............................     1
Statement of Senator Wicker......................................     1
Statement of Senator Cantwell....................................     3
    Summary for Policymakers Report..............................     4
    Letter dated September 25, 2019, from Butch Smith, President, 
      Ilwaco Charter Association.................................    38
Statement of Senator Scott.......................................    39
Statement of Senator Sullivan....................................    40
Statement of Senator Blumenthal..................................    66
    Article dated September 25, 2019 from The New York Times 
      entitled, ``The World's Oceans Are in Danger: Major Climate 
      Change Report Warns''......................................    67
Statement of Senator Markey......................................    73

                               Witnesses

Chris Oliver, Assistant Administrator, National Marine Fisheries 
  Service, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.    41
    Prepared statement...........................................    42
Joe Spraggins, Executive Director, Mississippi Department of 
  Marine Resources...............................................    45
    Prepared statement...........................................    47
Rachel Baker, Deputy Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish and 
  Game...........................................................    49
    Prepared statement...........................................    51
Robert Spottswood, Chairman, Florida Fish and Wildlife 
  Conservation Commission........................................    53
    Prepared statement...........................................    55
Robert Warren, Director of Fish Policy, Washington Department of 
  Fish and Wildlife..............................................    59
    Prepared statement...........................................    60

                                Appendix

Response to written questions submitted to Chris Oliver by:
    Hon. Roger Wicker............................................    77
    Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................    77
    Hon. Amy Klobuchar...........................................    78
    Hon. Kyrsten Sinema..........................................    79

 
                           FISHERY FAILURES:
         IMPROVING THE DISASTER DECLARATION AND RELIEF PROCESS

                              ----------                              


                     WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2019

                                       U.S. Senate,
        Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 
SD-G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Roger Wicker, 
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Wicker [presiding], Cantwell, Sullivan, 
Scott, and Markey.

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

    Senator Wicker. Good morning. Today, the Committee gathers 
for a hearing to examine Fishery Failures: Improving the 
Disaster Declaration and Relief Process.
    I'm glad to convene this hearing on such an important issue 
with my colleague, Ranking Member Cantwell.
    I welcome our panel of witnesses and thank them for 
appearing. We will hear from Chris Oliver, Assistant 
Administrator for the National Marine Fisheries Service, 
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration; Joe 
Spraggins, Executive Director, Mississippi Department of Marine 
Resources; Rachel Baker, Deputy Commissioner, Alaska Department 
of Fish and Game; Robert Spottswood, Chairman, Florida Fish and 
Wildlife Conservation Commission; and Ron Warren, Director of 
Fish Policy, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
    Today's hearing will examine disasters affecting fishing 
communities and the Fishery Disaster Declaration and Relief 
Process.
    Fishing is one of our Nation's most dangerous and demanding 
occupations. It also has a massive economic impact for our 
country and for the two states represented at the dais at this 
moment.
    This makes fishery disasters a challenge that can overwhelm 
the resources of even the most resilient fishermen.
    This summer, has been particularly difficult for fishermen 
in my home state of Mississippi. Record-breaking rains 
throughout the Mississippi River watershed have caused 
widespread flooding and devastation. Homes, businesses, and 
farmlands have been damaged, but the impacts are also offshore.
    Floodwaters caused further destruction to Mississippi's 
natural resources when they entered the Gulf of Mexico. For 
example, they caused harmful algae blooms, which closed our 
beaches to swimmers during the height of the tourist season.
    Our tourist industry is back and we welcome people to come 
back and see us in Mississippi, but this certainly created 
economic hardships for local businesses.
    The freshwater from the Mississippi River has also 
devastated my state's seafood industry. Oyster mortality on 
Mississippi harvest reefs range from 89 percent to 100 percent 
and, as a matter of fact, it's pretty much total mortality. 
This is according to the Mississippi Department of Marine 
Resources. Our state has found that shrimp landings are down 
about 50 percent and blue crab landings have suffered.
    This hearing provides an opportunity to hear about the 
impacts of a fishery disaster and the effects it can have on 
fishermen, and on their communities. Witnesses should discuss 
both the immediate job loss and the long-term impacts fishing 
disasters can have, such as a decrease in shore-side 
infrastructure and disruptions to distribution networks.
    When fishermen face these hardships, they can petition NOAA 
to declare a disaster. I support Governor Phil Bryant's request 
for a fishery disaster declaration and I've been working with 
NOAA to make sure Mississippi gets the relief it needs.
    Late yesterday, I received the good news from the Secretary 
of Commerce that he is officially declaring a fishery disaster 
for Mississippi. This is welcome news for Mississippi fishing 
communities now but problems remain with the fisheries 
declaration process.
    The declaration process can be slow and cumbersome. It can 
often take over a year between a disaster request and NOAA's 
declaration and once this finally happens, financial relief for 
those who need it most can take even longer.
    Today's witnesses will have an opportunity to provide their 
perspective on the process for requesting a fishery disaster 
declaration.
    I also invite Mr. Oliver to provide an update on pending 
fishery disaster requests.
    Our fishermen deserve more timely consideration for relief. 
For that reason, I have introduced S. 2346, The Fishery 
Failures Urgently Needed Disaster Declarations Act or the 
Fishery FUND Act. This bill would streamline the fisheries 
disaster declaration process and hold the Federal Government 
accountable. It would mandate that certain deadlines to get 
relief funding for the areas of the people for whom it is 
intended be met.
    I invite our witnesses to provide the Committee with their 
views on how we could further improve NOAA's fishery disaster, 
declaration process.
    Additionally, I ask that witnesses speak about how we can 
ensure relief is provided to those most affected by these 
disasters.
    I look forward to a robust discussion on these issues of 
vital importance to my state, to our country, to our 
colleagues, and the Nation as a whole. Fishing is crucial to 
America's economy. Don't you agree, Senator Cantwell? And we 
owe it to fishermen to support them in challenging times.
    I now turn to my friend and Ranking Member, Senator 
Cantwell.

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

    Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I do agree. The right to fish and recreate is 
fundamental in the United States of America and I'm sure that's 
why many of my colleagues from states who understand the needs 
of our recreational fishermen as well as an important issue 
internationally.
    I want to thank Ron Warren from the Washington State 
Department of Fish and Wildlife for being here today. I look 
forward to your testimony.
    In Washington, fisheries are a cornerstone of a maritime 
economy that its related businesses, seafood processors, 
shipbuilders, and gear manufacturers support 60 percent of our 
maritime economy, which is about a 146,000 jobs and $30 billion 
in economic activity.
    Washington has experienced 17 fishery disasters since 1992, 
including crab, groundfish, and salmon. Unfortunately, the 
fisheries disaster process has become more burdensome and has 
resulted in less funding and lengthy delays, putting an 
unnecessary burden on fishermen and fishing communities.
    In 2016, Washington suffered a large Coho salmon fishery 
disaster and this disaster impacted fisheries across the state 
but particularly devastating in communities, like Westport and 
Ilwaco, which is the fifth most dependent fishing community in 
the United States of America.
    So the Coho disaster impacted tribes, commercial fishermen, 
charter and recreational fishermen, and impacted them all 
alike, but not all groups received adequate funding from NOAA.
    In a shift from previous policy, the Administration 
determined that the charter fishermen should not be included in 
the economic determination. Thus, I believe Washington did not 
receive adequate funding for this disaster.
    Charter fishermen, in my opinion, are just small business 
owners who navigate the waters, recreate, and take our 
constituents out for wonderful activities.
    I'm concerned that the charter fishermen have not been 
treated fairly and that's why I plan to work with you, Mr. 
Chairman, on bipartisan measures to help ensure that small 
business charter fishermen are mandated into the Disaster 
Relief Recovery Act so they do receive adequate funding.
    We also need to develop a plan for mitigation strategies to 
lessen the impacts of these disasters. Fisheries are, as you 
just said, Mr. Chairman, whether it's shellfish in your state 
or in other places, seeing an increase in severity and 
frequency due to warming waters and ocean acidification, and we 
see catastrophic ocean changes looming over our coastal 
communities which very much are tied to their oceans as a 
livelihood.
    So this morning, the U.N. report that is being published or 
being released is about how climate change is impacting our 
oceans and having major impacts.
    So I'd like to enter this into the record, if I could, Mr. 
Chairman, along with testimony from Butch Smith from the Ilwaco 
Charter Fishermen and their testimony this morning.
    Senator Wicker. Without objection.
    [The information referred to follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
                                 ______
                                 
                                 Ilwaco Charter Association
                                     Ilwaco, WA, September 25, 2019

              2016 Salmon Disaster on the Washington Coast

Chairman Wicker and Ranking Member Cantwell and Committee members.

    Thank you for this opportunity to present my written testimony. My 
name is Butch Smith, I am President of the Ilwaco Charter Association 
and I have been the Chairman of the Salmon Advisory Sub-panel to the 
Pacific Fisheries Management Council since 2005. I represent the 
charter industry on the Washington Coast. In 2016 the Washington coast 
experienced a salmon fishing failure which lead to an economic 
disaster, both in the Charter industry as well as the commercial salmon 
troll industry. On March 11, 2016 during the salmon setting process I 
recognized that this was going to be a disaster and went to work with 
the Washington Department offish & Wildlife along with the Governor's 
office to get the 2016 salmon season declared as a disaster. I was 
involved every step of the way representing not only the charter 
industry, but the commercial troll industry as well. I was working with 
my Congressional representatives, as well as other congressional 
representatives and the NOAA fisheries department. I also went back to 
Washington DC for this.
    We have had disaster years before and I would like to compare what 
happened in the last salmon disaster of 2008 to the salmon disaster of 
2016. The 2008 disaster was declared on May 1, 2008 and the affected 
fishermen had their disaster checks in their hands by November 2008. 
The 2016 disaster was declared on January 20, 2017 and as of, yet we 
have not received any money. Congress approved 200 million dollars for 
all disasters on February 8, 2018. In this time people have lost their 
boats, homes, and have gone bankrupt. I don't blame the banks because 
for a long time they gave fishermen an extended time to pay because of 
the disaster money that was supposed to be arriving. Unfortunately, it 
hasn't. Here we are 19 months after approval and in many cases it still 
hasn't arrived. In 2008 the charter industry and the troll industry 
could qualify for up to $75,000 per boat. In 2016 the troll industry 
will qualify for approximately $12,000 at the most and the charter 
industry approximately $7,000 at the most, but no one is sure yet 
because no money has been issued. In 2008 The charter economic values 
were included into the disaster equation, in 2016 it was a policy call 
to leave out the charter industry leaving out millions of dollars of 
economic value on an industry that adds millions of dollars to the 
coastal communities along the Washington coast. In 2008 we were given 
12 million dollars for Washington non tribal ocean commercial troll and 
the charter industry. In 2016 we have been given $850,000.00 to be 
divided between the charter boat salmon industry and the salmon troll 
industry. The 2016 disaster was just as bad if not worse than the 2008 
disaster.
    I am not pointing a finger at anyone, but we need some questions 
answered. Why was the charter industry's economic values and economic 
impact not included in NOAA's process to determine and compensate for 
economic losses for the 2016 salmon disaster? Why has it taken over 19 
months for NOAA to get financial relief to people? Fishermen are really 
struggling in real hard times and some are about to lose everything. 
Every fishing job in our coastal communities are so very important. In 
closing we would like some answers, but more importantly we want to be 
part of the solution and help make this a better process for any 
disasters that may happen in the future.
                                               Butch Smith,
                                                         President,
                                                  Ilwaco Charter Assoc.

    Senator Wicker. I would just note we're going to have to 
kill a lot of trees to add that to the record.
    Senator Cantwell. Well, we can digitally add it, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Senator Wicker. Without objection, it will be done.
    Senator Cantwell. The most important part of this report, 
though, is that 95 percent of our world's surface has gained in 
acidification and it is absorbing--result is that 20 to 30 
percent of the total industry carbon emissions are being 
absorbed from like 1980 until now.
    So what does this mean for us? Well, as you mentioned, the 
shellfish industry, which is critically important to Washington 
State, we have seen real-time changes in ocean acidification 
stop our shellfish industry from being able to grow.
    Only because the University of Washington and resources 
here helped them, do new scientific analysis on when to do 
seeding, we were able to stave off the disaster from having 
long-term impacts, but we know that this is not going to go 
away.
    The warming conditions are making the challenges to our 
shellfish industry and to our fisheries writ large very, very 
real and so we need not only this help to commercial charter 
fishermen today for disaster relief but we need a real plan to 
mitigate fishing disasters from the future. So I look forward 
to working with our colleagues on that.
    I also would be remiss if I just didn't mention the threat 
to Washington fisheries and fisheries worldwide from the Pebble 
Mine. With climate and threatening threats facing our 
fisheries, the Administration is also rolling the dice on the 
second largest salmon fishery in the world.
    The science is clear. The proposed Pebble Mine would 
destroy 94 miles of salmon spawning habitat, more than 3,500 
acres of wetlands, and would require construction of 
significant infrastructure. The mine is a direct threat to 
Bristol Bay salmon and thousands of jobs in the Pacific 
Northwest.
    So I hope the Army Corps of Engineers will not move forward 
on this process until science shows that they can move forward 
which I don't believe putting a mine in the middle of an 
estuary is any strategy that threatens this big of our salmon 
for the Pacific Northwest.
    I hope that NOAA will take into consideration our fishermen 
and listen to the fishermen. So far, they have not listened to 
the fishermen of the Pacific Northwest and had a formal 
hearing. I hope that they will do so at a point in time.
    Ocean warming is not going to slow down and NOAA needs a 
plan to help save fishing jobs. This is something we should be 
working with on a bipartisan basis and I look forward to 
working with you, Mr. Chairman, on these important issues.
    Senator Wicker. Thank you, Senator Cantwell, for that set 
of opening remarks.
    I now turn to Senator Scott of Florida to say a few words 
of introduction for Mr. Spottswood in what I expect will become 
a tourism commercial for the state of Florida.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. RICK SCOTT, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA

    Senator Scott. Almost as good as Mississippi, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to thank each of you for being here today. It's my 
pleasure to introduce Mr. Robert Spottswood. He's the Chairman 
of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Committee and CEO 
of Spottswood Companies Inc. He's a very successful 
entrepreneur, primarily in the Keys. Also, that's where you 
want to go fishing. The best fishing capital in the world is in 
Florida, in the Keys. You can't beat it. What you really want 
to do is go--we have two days of Florida lobster mini season 
and you want to go down there and you get to catch, I think, 
six each and then you go to one of Robert's restaurants and he 
cooks them up. It's an unbelievable day.
    So it's in July. It's late July usually, right, Robert, and 
next year I'm going to take my 8-year-old grandson. He'll be 
eight then and we're going to catch as many as we can.
    As Governor, I had the opportunity to appoint Robert to the 
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Board and 
he's now the Chair. He's a lifelong Floridian. He knows the 
importance of protecting and preserving our natural resources 
and his family has a rich heritage of recruiting presidents to 
come to Florida and stay in Florida. He has got a lot of great 
stories.
    So, Robert, thank you for being here and thank you for what 
you're doing and thank you.
    We have great fishing in Florida. Everybody should come 
down.
    Senator Wicker. This message has been brought to you by the 
Florida Division of Tourism.
    We'll now hear statements from our----

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

    Senator Sullivan. Mr. Chairman, sorry to interrupt.
    Senator Wicker. Yes.
    Senator Sullivan. I was going to introduce my Alaska 
witness, as well. I saw he's on the agenda.
    Senator Wicker. You're not on my list.
    Senator Sullivan. Is that OK if I do that?
    Senator Wicker. I yield to the Senator from Alaska.
    Senator Sullivan. So without causing a bit of a fight here 
on the dais, I'm not sure--on, Senator Scott left. There he is. 
You've got to come back and hear this because I'm not sure I 
would agree that you're the fishing capital of the world but we 
can all agree that it's great to go down there and fish but 
also come up to Alaska and fish. I like to refer to us as the 
super power of seafood. We're almost 60 percent of all the 
commercial and recreational seafood harvested in America comes 
from Alaska.
    Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for coming up to see a lot 
of that this summer in my great state, but I am honored to 
introduce Ms. Rachel Baker, who is our Deputy Commissioner of 
the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
    I think she also wins the award for traveling the furthest 
for this hearing, but she has a breadth of experience with 
fisheries management and policy experience, particularly in the 
North Pacific working for both the state and Federal 
Governments.
    She's well equipped to discuss the challenges that Alaska 
and our country face when administering fisheries disaster 
funding, most recently in the ongoing work in response to a 
2016 pink salmon disaster declaration.
    So, Rachel, welcome. Thank you for being here; look forward 
to your testimony.
    Mr. Chairman, I would note that, in addition to Ms. Baker, 
we have another great Alaskan here today. We certainly call him 
our own, Chris Oliver, who is in charge of the National Marine 
Fisheries Service, is an Alaskan, as well. So we have two of 
the five witnesses today, and I look forward to hearing from 
both of them, and thank you, Senator Scott, for hanging out for 
a minute to listen.
    Thanks.
    Senator Wicker. Thank you very much, Senator Sullivan.
    And now we'll turn to our witnesses. Each of you have 
submitted statements for the record. They'll be included in 
their entirety, and we ask that your verbal remarks be limited 
to 5 minutes or less.
    So we'll begin with Mr. Oliver and just move down the 
table.
    You are welcome, sir.

       STATEMENT OF CHRIS OLIVER, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR

       FOR FISHERIES, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE,

  NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S. 
                     DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

    Mr. Oliver. Thank you.
    Good morning, Senator Wicker, Senator Cantwell, Senator 
Sullivan, and other Members of the Committee, and thank you, 
Senator, for recognizing my Alaska emeritus status.
    The Department of Commerce administers fishery disaster 
assistance through NOAA Fisheries under two statutes, the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act.
    Under both Acts, the request for assistance is made by the 
Governor and tribal leader or an executive of an affected 
fishing community, although the Secretary can initiate a review 
at their own discretion.
    The Secretary determines whether circumstances are 
consistent with statutes and warrant a fishery disaster 
determination. NOAA Fisheries has a fishery disaster policy, 
which lays out a consistent process across our authorities to 
address them.
    As you are aware, our coastal communities and fisheries are 
being seriously impacted by changes in the environment, 
hurricanes, and unprecedented freshwater runoff events. Under 
this Administration, the Secretary has determined multiple 
fishery disasters and is now administering $220 million to 
affected communities with $185 million of that already on the 
ground.
    Congress has also appropriated $165 million in disaster 
assistance this year which we are working to allocate across 
previously unfunded disasters that have received positive 
determinations and to 12 more recent disaster requests which in 
fact, as you alluded to earlier, Mr. Chairman, were approved 
today by the Secretary and we'll be formally rolling that and 
announcing that today.
    Those include Pacific cod and Chinook sockeye in Alaska, 
Pacific sardines, Red Sea urchins, three Pacific Northwest 
salmon fisheries, Georgia and South Carolina shrimp, and the 
catastrophic determination for Louisiana, Mississippi, and 
Alabama due to the freshwater outflow from the Bonnet Carre 
Spillway.
    There are three steps in the process. An eligible entity 
makes the request for a determination. We conduct an analysis 
and the Secretary makes a determination. That analysis is based 
on a three-pronged test.
    First, there must be a resource disaster as defined in 
either the MSA or the IGA Acts, meaning a sudden unexpected 
decrease in biomass or other changes resulting in significant 
loss of access to the resource.
    Second, there must be an allowable cause under the 
statutes. Those can include natural, undetermined, and manmade.
    Third, there has to be an economic impact from the disaster 
that caused a commercial fishery failure.
    We compare annual revenue loss during the disaster to the 
previous 5-year average. If the reduction is over 80 percent, 
it automatically in most cases meets the criteria. Less than 35 
percent usually does not, barring exceptional circumstances. 
Losses between 35 and 85 require further evaluation to see if 
the impacts fall outside the range of normal variability.
    We need actual commercial revenue data to make these 
evaluations and that data is often unavailable until the end of 
the fishing year.
    Once a disaster is declared, disaster assistance can be 
affected in a number of ways and commonly through the Federal 
grant process, sometimes directly to the states, but often 
through one of the marine fisheries commissions. Specific 
states' marine fisheries commissions in particular have a lot 
of experience in this.
    Typically, we are provided a spend plan and a project 
narrative for review, allowing them to articulate what the 
funds will be used for. While the determination is made based 
on commercial fisheries, funds can, however, be used more 
broadly to assist affected communities, including recreational 
and other fishing-related businesses.
    We do see the potential for improvement in both the 
determination process and in providing assistance. Both those 
phases take too long. It can take up to 2 years to determine 
whether a disaster has occurred and up to an additional year 
until the funding is actually appropriated.
    Because of this, we're in the process now of developing 
regulations to streamline and improve that process. For 
example, target deadlines, specific information needs, and 
additional information on the use of funding. We also recognize 
legislative changes may be appropriate.
    The bill offered by Chairman Wicker provides an over-
arching framework to do so. Many of the provisions in that 
legislation are consistent with or improve upon our current 
policy. We generally support this approach and we believe it 
would largely address the concerns that have been raised.
    Establishing deadlines, firm deadlines, and providing 
clarity on the information to be submitted will be very 
helpful. If this passes, we would re-evaluate our policy and 
any regulations that either are in place or are under 
development conform to that legislation.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. Be happy to 
answer any questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Oliver follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Chris Oliver, Assistant Administrator for 
  Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and 
                              Atmospheric 
              Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
    Good afternoon, Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and 
Members of the Committee. My name is Chris Oliver and I am the 
Assistant Administrator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration's (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 
Fisheries are an essential part of coastal economies. They provide jobs 
for fishermen, fish processors, and related maritime support 
industries. U.S. commercial and recreational saltwater fishing 
generated $212 billion in sales and supported 1.7 million jobs in 2016.
    I appreciate the opportunity to discuss our fishery disaster 
programs and opportunities to improve them to ensure they are as 
effective as possible. Fishery disaster assistance is administered by 
the Department of Commerce through NMFS. Two statutes, the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) 
and the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act, provide the authority and 
requirements for fishery disaster assistance. Under both statutes, a 
request for a fishery disaster determination is generally made by the 
Governor of a State, Tribal leader, or by an executive representative 
of an affected fishing community, although the Secretary of Commerce 
may also initiate a review at his or her own discretion. The Secretary 
determines whether the circumstances are consistent with relevant 
statutes and warrant a fishery disaster determination. If the Secretary 
determines that a commercial fishery failure due to a fishery resource 
disaster has occurred, that determination provides a basis for Congress 
to appropriate funds for disaster assistance. Those funds are 
administered by the Department of Commerce.
    Since fisheries depend on the productivity of the environment, 
there are natural variations in the number of fish caught each year and 
in the revenue generated by the fishery. However, fisheries are also 
subject to a number of factors that can cause sudden and unexpected 
losses, leading to serious economic impact for fishers and their 
communities. NMFS's Policy on Disaster Assistance under the Magnuson 
Stevens Act 312(a) and 315 and the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act 
308(b) and 308(d) (Fishery Disaster Policy) lays out a consistent 
process across all our statutory authorities for addressing fishery 
disasters.
    Changes in the ocean and coastal environment, hurricanes and other 
storms, and unprecedented freshwater runoff events are resulting in 
significant impacts to a number of our fisheries around the country. 
The Members of this Committee are well aware that many of our coastal 
communities are being seriously impacted, ranging from fisheries in the 
Gulf of Mexico to Alaska to the West Coast. Over the course of this 
Administration, the Secretary of Commerce has determined multiple 
fishery disasters and is in the process of awarding approximately $220 
million in disaster assistance to those impacted communities. 
Approximately $185M is already in use on the ground and we continue to 
work with the recipients to award remaining grants as quickly as 
possible. In addition, fishery disasters were declared in association 
with Hurricane Michael for Florida and Hurricane Florence for North 
Carolina in late 2018.
    Finally, we have an additional 12 requests for disaster 
determinations that are pending, including: 2018 Pacific Cod in the 
Gulf of Alaska, 2018 Chignik Sockeye Salmon in the Gulf of Alaska, 2018 
Penaeid Shrimp Fisheries in Georgia and South Carolina, 2018 Yurok 
Tribe Klamath River Fall Chinook Salmon Fishery in California, 2016 and 
2017 Northern California Red Sea Urchin, 2017-2019 Pacific Sardine in 
California, the State of Florida due to red tide events between 2015 
and 2018, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama for impacts to multiple 
fisheries in the northern Gulf of Mexico, the 2018 Port Gamble Coho 
Fishery from the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe (WA) and for the 2019 
Chehalis River Salmon from the Chehalis Reservation (WA). In FY19, 
Congress appropriated an additional $165 million in disaster assistance 
that we are working to allocate across numerous pending and previously 
unfunded, positively-determined disasters.
    Today I will describe the role of NMFS, the Department of Commerce, 
and the Administration in determining the occurrence of a fishery 
disaster and in awarding appropriated funds to affected entities.
Fishery Disaster Determinations
    The process for making a fishery disaster determination has three 
main steps. First, an eligible entity, such as a Governor or Tribal 
leader, requests a determination from the Secretary of Commerce. 
Second, NMFS conducts an analysis of the request. Third, the Secretary 
makes a determination.
    NMFS' analysis of a request for a fishery disaster determination is 
based on a three-prong test that must be met to make a fishery disaster 
determination in accordance with statutory requirements. First, there 
must be a ``fishery resource disaster'' as defined by the Magnuson-
Stevens Act or the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act. A fishery 
resource disaster means a sudden, unexpected, large decrease in fish 
stock biomass or other change that results in significant loss of 
access to the fishery resource, which could include loss of fishing 
vessels and gear, for a substantial period of time.
    Second, there must be an ``allowable cause'' for a fishery resource 
disaster under the statutes. Allowable causes for a fishery resource 
disaster under the Magnuson-Stevens Act are natural causes; 
undetermined causes; or man-made causes beyond the control of fishery 
managers to mitigate through conservation and management measures, 
including regulatory restrictions (e.g., those imposed as a result of 
judicial action) imposed to protect human health or the marine 
environment. For the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act, the allowable 
causes are natural causes or undetermined causes.
    Third, there must be economic impact stemming from the alleged 
disaster that has caused a commercial fishery failure. NMFS compares 
the fishery's annual commercial revenue during the disaster to the 
average annual commercial revenue in the most recent five years. 
Typically, revenue loss greater than 80 percent will automatically meet 
the economic criteria of a commercial fishery failure. Revenue losses 
less than 35 percent will not constitute a commercial fishery failure, 
except in extenuating circumstances. Revenue losses between 35 percent 
and 80 percent require further evaluation to determine if the economic 
impacts were, for example, outside the normal range of variability. The 
same percentage thresholds also apply to determining whether ``harm'' 
or ``serious disruption'' to the fishery occurred per the terms of the 
Interjurisdictional Act. To demonstrate that a commercial fishery 
failure occurred, we must, with very few exceptions, such as natural 
disasters, have actual commercial revenue data. This data, such as 
landings and ex-vessel value, is generally not available until after 
the close of the fishing year. While we can begin analyzing parts of a 
fishery disaster request quickly, we cannot complete our full analysis 
without this commercial revenue data.
    In exceptional circumstances, communities can anticipate economic 
impacts based on projections about the consequence of a disaster and 
make disaster requests prior to the end of the fishing season. This 
could be due to closures to protect human health or because of 
unanticipated circumstances that prevent fishers from harvesting their 
allocated catch (e.g., harmful algal blooms). However, it is usually 
more straightforward to determine if there has been a commercial 
fishery failure after economic impacts of a fishery resource disaster 
are known.
    The Secretary notifies the requester once a decision has been 
reached regarding the fishery disaster determination request.
Disaster Assistance
    There is no standing fund for fishery disaster relief. Instead, 
Congress appropriates funds for fishery disaster assistance on a case-
by-case basis. In the last five years, Congress has passed four 
appropriations bills that address fishery disasters. The appropriations 
language varies and can sometimes determine the universe of eligible 
fishery disasters and provide other guidance. If an appropriation 
covers more than one disaster, NOAA will allocate the funds based on 
direction in the appropriation and in accordance with relevant 
statutes.
    Under both the Magnuson-Stevens Act and Interjurisdictional 
Fisheries Act, if Congress appropriates funds for a fishery disaster, 
the Secretary may provide disaster assistance in the form of a grant, 
cooperative agreement, loan, or contract, following Congressional 
guidance and the appropriate administrative processes. In the last ten 
years, NMFS has used the Federal grant process as the most efficient 
mechanism to provide fishery disaster relief. The specific conditions 
and requirements of the grants are informed by the appropriations 
language and the Federal assistance authorities used to disburse the 
funding.
    NOAA applies the most expeditious method to obligate and manage the 
funds. In some cases, it is more efficient to award funds through an 
entity such as one of the Interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions. In 
other cases, the most efficient approach is to award funds directly to 
states. Typically, the awardee provides NMFS with a spend plan and 
project narrative for NOAA review. The spend plan allows the entity 
receiving the funds to articulate what projects it intends to use the 
funding for, such as rebuilding shoreside infrastructure, gear 
replacement, habitat restoration or other activities. Spend plans allow 
NMFS to ensure that the funds are being used in a manner that protects 
the taxpayer and consistent with the Congressional intent. Where 
applicable, NOAA also reviews spend plans to ensure they take into 
account other disaster resources that are available. NMFS also requires 
regular reports from the grantee to further ensure fiscal 
accountability.
    While the initial fishery disaster determination is based solely on 
the impacts to commercial fisheries, appropriated funds can be used 
more broadly to assist communities affected by the commercial fishery 
failure, including recreational fishing businesses, shoreside 
processors, and other fishing related businesses. Under the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, the Secretary is authorized to make sums available to be 
used by the affected State or fishing community, or by the Secretary in 
cooperation with the affected State or fishing community for assessing 
the economic and social effects of the commercial fishery failure, or 
any activities that the Secretary determines are appropriate to restore 
the fishery or prevent a similar failure in the future and to assist a 
fishing community affected by such failure. Rebuilding fishing 
infrastructure, such as piers and boat launches, restoring habitat, 
state-run vessel and permit buybacks, and job retraining are some 
examples of activities that restore the fishery or prevent a similar 
failure in the future and that assist an affected fishing community.
Improving the Disaster Determination Process and Assistance Program
    Under its Fishery Disaster Policy, NMFS has worked to ensure 
fishery disaster determinations are evaluated under the current 
provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens and Interjurisdictional Fisheries 
Acts in a consistent and timely manner. Additionally, NMFS strives to 
ensure disaster assistance is allocated in as effective and timely a 
manner as possible. However, we see the potential for improvements in 
both processes. Most importantly, the current processes for determining 
whether a disaster has occurred and providing funding to the affected 
entities simply take too long. It can take up to 2 years for disaster 
determinations to be made and as much as an additional year until 
funding, if appropriated, is disbursed to the affected fishing 
communities. Therefore, NMFS is developing regulations on our fishery 
disaster process and will be seeking input from stakeholders as well as 
the wider public on ways we can streamline and improve our work. Such a 
rulemaking could address--within current statutory limits--topics that 
have the potential to improve current processes. For example, setting 
target deadlines for the review and analysis of disaster related 
information would help set stakeholder expectations as well as drive 
the process. Clearly articulating specific information requirements 
that must be submitted before NMFS can initiate consideration of a 
disaster determination request would ensure NMFS has the information 
required to make a decision and avoid potential lengthy delays in 
requesting and receiving additional needed information. Providing 
additional guidance on the potential uses for disaster funding would 
aid in grant applications being approved quicker.
    Similarly, Congress has recognized that statutory improvements or 
clarifications to the determination process associated with fishery 
disasters and providing assistance may be needed. Legislation, such as 
the bill introduced by Senator Wicker, is important and will help 
continue our conversation on how to address issues in this critical 
area in fisheries.
    Senator Wicker's bill (S. 2346, Fishery Failures: Urgently Needed 
Disaster Declarations Act) provides an overarching framework, with 
specific deadlines and requirements. Many of its provisions are 
consistent with or expand upon the elements included in our current 
Fishery Disaster Policy. Generally, the Administration supports the 
approach taken in this bill to address some of the concerns I have 
identified above. In particular, establishing deadlines for key steps 
in the process and providing clarity on what is needed to be submitted 
to request a disaster are helpful. How fisheries disaster assistance 
funds can be used to incentivize fishery resiliency and cost 
effectively ensure the long-term economic and environmental stability 
of the respective fishery is one aspect of the bill we would like to 
discuss further.
    The Administration looks forward to working closely with Congress 
to ensure any enacted legislation provides timely and efficient 
processes, accurately identifies instances where disaster 
determinations are warranted, and guides the allocation of resources to 
ensure funds are spent in a cost-effective manner that will aid in the 
recovery of our fisheries.
    This concludes my testimony. Thank you again for the opportunity to 
testify before your Subcommittee today. I understand the importance of 
fishery disaster funds to affected fishing communities and that these 
funds are critical to help them recover from the disaster and prevent 
similar fishery failures in the future. I would be happy to answer any 
questions you may have.

    Senator Wicker. Precisely 5 minutes. Thank you, Mr. Oliver.
    General Spraggins, welcome to the Committee, and you are 
now recognized.

  STATEMENT OF JOE SPRAGGINS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MISSISSIPPI 
                 DEPARTMENT OF MARINE RESOURCES

    Mr. Spraggins. Thank you, sir.
    Chairman Wicker, Senator Cantwell, the other members of the 
Committee, I'm representing Governor Phil Bryant here today 
from the state of Mississippi. I'm Joe Spraggins, the Executive 
Director of Mississippi Department of Marine Resources.
    Thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk with you 
today about Mississippi disaster on fisheries.
    If you know the Bonne Carre, which was a flood control 
structure built to be able to help the City of New Orleans, was 
developed in 1931 and it was developed to be able to control 
the flood system coming across down the Mississippi and not 
able to--and stopping the flood of the state of Louisiana into 
New Orleans.
    The gates were built back in 1931. So it gives you an idea 
of how much antiquation we have here as to the system itself. 
The water flows from there through the Pontchartrain into the 
Mississippi Sound.
    In 2011, we had a disaster and it was declared by this 
committee. We appreciate the help because of the opening of the 
Bonne Carre.
    This year has been unprecedented. 123 days of the Bonne 
Carre being opened. In 2011, it was only 42 days. This has been 
a catastrophic event for the state of Mississippi. We've had 
excessive water. They've brought in blue green algae, which is 
something that has never been seen in the Mississippi Sound. It 
has caused us to have issues with our tourism and also with the 
perception of our seafood, and it has really hurt us as far as 
the state of Mississippi. It happened to us around June 12 and 
it's continuing today as we speak.
    The Bonne Carre opening has brought in trillions of gallons 
of water into the Mississippi Sound. Because of that, it's 
brought in all types of nutrients and other type of chemicals 
into the Mississippi Sound, which have caused us to have 
sediment into our oyster beds and sediments into our grass beds 
and other things that are part of our estuary for the 
Mississippi Sound and our ecosystem.
    The decreased water quality has caused the salinity to go 
down with the freshwater intrusion and the salinity has reached 
as low as zero for several weeks in Mississippi Sound, which is 
obviously something that would not allow anything with a 
saltwater nature to live.
    Just to give you some documented losses that we have, we 
have oyster mortality of around 95 percent or better. The brown 
shrimp 82 percent, blue crab landings down 52 percent, and 
we're still checking on the seafood as far as finfish. Our 
benthic community, we're very concerned about the loss of the 
things that live on the bottom of the water, on the ground, on 
the sand and the mud. We also lost a lot of sea grass. We lost 
oyster beds, and we're looking at the finfish as we talk.
    Commercial charter and recreational have taken a tremendous 
hit. Our bait shops are down 65 percent from last year. Our 
seafood processors are down 62 percent. Our seafood markets 20 
percent down. Our tourism is down 18 percent on hotels, and our 
charter boats are down 27 percent, boat rentals 14 percent and 
sporting goods stores down 35 percent. Our beach vendors are 
down almost 100 percent because of no income.
    Negative impacts is our fishing fleet and our tourism. If 
we don't do something to help them, we're going to lose our 
fishing fleet because they cannot afford to wait three or 4 
years to be able to go back and get another crop of seafood to 
be able to harvest. We're hurting very bad.
    We ask that you look at this. We ask that you look at our 
seafood industry and look at our fishermen and our vendors and 
be able to help them. If there's a way to give those funds 
immediately, we would ask that that could be done. We 
appreciate the opportunity for that.
    Take an oysterman or a shrimper; if they have to wait three 
to four years, they still have to pay for their boat. They 
still have to pay for their family. They have to do other 
things. If you look at a commercial fisherman in the state of 
Mississippi, they not only fish one fishery, they usually fish 
two or three fisheries to be able to stay alive. They have 
taken a hit in all three, in the oysters, crab, and shrimp.
    We ask that you please look at that and give us any effort 
you can. If there's a possibility to be able to decrease the 
amount of time that we could get the funds we'd appreciate 
that, as well. That would be something that would help us 
tremendously if you could do that.
    We thank you. I know that you all have a lot on your plate. 
We thank you for the disaster declaration. We ask that you 
please try to help us in an expedient manner to be able to get 
funds to our fishermen and to our community.
    Thank you, Senator Wicker, and I stand here for any 
questions if you have them.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Spraggins follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Joe Spraggins, Executive Director, 
               Mississippi Department of Marine Resources
    Background: The Bonnet Carre flood control structure was designed 
to relieve flood waters north of New Orleans. The structure consists of 
350 gates which must be opened individually, and discharges are 
diverted directly into Lake Ponchartrain. These waters then leave Lake 
Ponchartain and enter the western Mississippi Sound. When completed in 
1931, the frequency of operation was estimated to be every five years 
(It has opened four times since 2016). In 2011 the Bonnet Carre 
Spillway was opened for 42 days leading to large fisheries impacts for 
Mississippi resulting in a disaster relief grant from the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). This year's openings 
totaled 123 days causing unprecedented impacts ranging from fisheries 
loss to tourism loss and negative media perception of the Mississippi 
Gulf Coast. The unique chemical signature of the Mississippi River was 
detected along the Coast and even into Alabama state waters. The 
excessive fresh water caused a Blue-Green algae bloom never documented 
before in the Mississippi Sound. The resulting bloom was first detected 
on June 12 and caused beach closures and contact advisories during all 
summer months. Loss of confidence in recreational opportunities by our 
visitors and seafood consumers is a direct effect of the 2019 Bonnet 
Carre openings and will last for years to come.
    Documented Impacts to the Mississippi Sound: The Bonnet Carre 
opening of 2019 introduced trillions of gallons of continental river 
water into the Mississippi Sound which is much different from the small 
coastal rivers that make the Mississippi Sound productive. The 
Mississippi River water creates extremely low salinities, introduces 
agricultural and industrial compounds, extreme nutrient loads, sediment 
loads and invasive species. The decreased water quality has been so 
extreme that it has caused human health concerns to the level of 
closing beaches and issuing water contact advisories that are still in 
effect today. Mississippi's seafood industry has seen significant 
impacts as well. Documented losses from the 2019 openings of the Bonnet 
Carre Spillway include:

    Oyster mortality estimated greater than 95 percent 
        statewide

    Brown Shrimp landings down 82 percent

    Blue Crab landings down 52 percent for Hancock county

    Habitat impacts are still being documented by our 
        scientists along with USM focusing on:

       Benthic community shifts (all the organisms that 
            live in the sand and mud)

       Seagrass loss (loss of saltwater grasses because of 
            decreased salinity)

       Oyster reef loss (because of sediment the reefs 
            cannot produce oysters)

    Finfish landings are still being determined (due to 
        displacement and reproductive impacts)

    Commercial, Charter, and Recreational losses are still 
        being determined

    Bait shop incomes are down 65 percent from the prior year

    Seafood processors incomes are down 62 percent from the 
        prior year's summer months

    Seafood markets monthly sales are down 20 percent from the 
        prior year's monthly sales

    Tourism revenue loss include:

       Revenue Per Available Rooms is down 18 percent from 
            the prior year

       Charter trip incomes are down 27 percent from the 
            prior year

       Boat rentals down 14 percent from the prior year

       Sporting goods store sales are down 35 percent from 
            the prior year

       Beach vendors are one of the groups that have been 
            directly impacted the most because of the resulting harmful 
            algal blooms and water contact advisories

          $95,000-$256,000 losses documented by individual 
            vendors (greater than 90 percent compared to the prior 
            year)

          Beach vendors season is from March-October of each 
            year with no income outside of the season

    Short-term Consequences: These negative impacts caused by the 2019 
Bonnet Carre openings have created severe issues within our fishing 
fleets and tourism dependent businesses. Many of these individuals and 
groups are at risk of losing the ability to attain lending services 
that are so important for small businesses and individual fishermen and 
women. The culture and citizens of our state are dependent upon the 
Mississippi Sound and without viable incomes, I fear that our fishing 
fleets will move to other parts of the Gulf. In other areas of the 
world where fleets are displaced by disasters, they rarely return 
causing industrial and cultural losses. I fear this is currently 
happening in Mississippi, and it breaks my heart.
    Long-term Consequences: Unfortunately, the long-term impacts are 
largely unknown and difficult to quantify because events of this 
magnitude have never occurred. This makes biological modeling difficult 
and production models almost impossible. Evidence of past events have 
shown of age classes of important fish species being absent and not 
contributing to future reproduction. It is important that these future 
losses are considered when evaluating the scope of this disaster. 
Excessive sedimentation on the oyster reefs caused great damage, and 
oyster mortality can take five years or longer to recover. Seagrass 
species shifts are currently being documented which have large 
influences on many important finfish species nursery ground production 
and viability. Introductions of invasive species from the Mississippi 
River Basin can displace native species and alter ecosystems for the 
foreseeable future.
    Need for Relief: Federal legislation is the most impactful route 
such as Senator Wicker's Fishery Failure: Urgently Needed Disaster 
Declaration ACT (FUNDD). This legislation would reform NOAA's Fishery 
Resource Disaster Relief program, making improvements to provide 
fishermen with disaster relief quickly. Our specific need for relief as 
a state exists in three distinct forms with the first being short term 
assistance and last two in the form of long-term assistance for marine 
resource restoration and seafood promotion.

  1.  Short term relief is desperately needed for the direct assistance 
        to our fishermen and small business owners to be able to retain 
        their harvest efforts and tourism services. When someone's way 
        of life is so drastically threatened, it is urgent that we 
        direct our efforts into retaining them and our culture. It is 
        difficult to envision our Gulf Coast without these incredible 
        citizens that contribute to our culture and passion. People 
        that visit the Mississippi Gulf Coast can go anywhere they 
        want; our citizens, culture and nature bring these visitors 
        here and all of that was threated this year.

  2.  Long term relief is needed for restoration of our marine 
        resources. Restoration projects ranging from oyster clutching, 
        oyster seeding, shrimp/crab habitat recovery, and finfish stock 
        enhancement are needed. In 2011, this type of assistance was 
        granted and focused on oysters, and blue crab. This year's 
        opening has had a much larger impact and similar relief grants 
        are needed with additional focus on all our economically and 
        recreationally important species.

  3.  The second-long term relief type that is needed involves seafood 
        promotion with intent to regain consumer confidence in 
        Mississippi Seafood. After the BP oil spill, a great Gulf wide 
        effort was launched to revive the perception of Gulf Seafood. 
        This unfortunate disaster will impact Mississippi seafood 
        perception directly. International stories were done by the 
        media showing our closed beaches and green water. Seafood 
        markets are highly competitive on a regional level and only a 
        long-term promotion campaign will assist in returning 
        confidence to the public.

    Thank you for inviting me to speak here today and share the events 
that have affected my state so drastically. I close by formally 
requesting the Department of Commerce grant Mississippi's request for a 
Federal fishery disaster.

    Senator Wicker. Thank you, General Spraggins. Again 
precisely five minutes, and let me echo again, how important it 
was to receive that call yesterday from the Secretary of 
Commerce, Secretary Ross, about the disaster declaration.
    Ms. Baker, you're recognized.

    STATEMENT OF RACHEL BAKER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ALASKA 
                  DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME

    Ms. Baker. Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, 
Senator Sullivan, and members of the Committee, thank you for 
the opportunity to testify today.
    I am the Deputy Commissioner with the Alaska Department of 
Fish and Game, and I am pleased to provide the State of 
Alaska's perspective on the fishery disaster process and on the 
potential impacts of Senate Bill 2346.
    Fisheries are vital to Alaska's culture and economy. The 
State of Alaska and its citizens rely on the productive waters 
of the North Pacific Ocean to provide fisheries resources and 
subsistence, recreational, and commercial needs.
    As we heard, 61 percent of all commercial landings in the 
United States take place in Alaska, and our ports rank among 
the highest in the Nation for volume and value. Chairman 
Wicker, I understand you have recently had the opportunity to 
visit our great state and so I'm sure you gained an 
appreciation for the importance of fisheries to our coastal 
communities.
    Fisheries are the primary and often the only economic base 
for our coastal communities in Alaska. Fisheries form the 
foundation of local economies and support local governments 
through fisheries landing taxes. Many communities in Alaska do 
not have sales, property, or income tax bases and are entirely 
dependent on fisheries landing taxes to fund essential services 
and maintain infrastructure supporting those fisheries.
    The State of Alaska sustainably manages fisheries resources 
in the best interests of the economy and well-being of the 
people of the state. Our fisheries management programs are 
responsive to changes in the stock conditions and other events 
outside the control of managers and despite this commitment to 
adaptive management, fishery resources are subject to sudden 
and unanticipated events that cause fishery failures and impose 
substantial economic harm to fishery participants and 
communities.
    The State of Alaska appreciates that Congress and the 
National Marine Fisheries Service have established the Fishery 
Disaster Program for these situations.
    The impacts of a commercial fishery failure in Alaska are 
typically severe, immediate, and widespread across the affected 
communities, and the Fishery Disaster Program provides much-
needed relief.
    The State of Alaska supports the intent of the Fishery 
Disaster Program that's outlined in Section 312(a) of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. 
Fisheries are inherently variable due to changing biological 
and economic conditions. So we feel it's appropriate to limit 
disaster determinations to specific circumstances under the 
program.
    The State of Alaska supports the intent of the Fishery 
Disaster Program to provide relief, to address harm from the 
disaster, address the causes of the disaster, and decrease the 
likelihood that such harm will reoccur in the event of another 
disaster.
    The state also supports prioritizing the use of disaster 
relief funds for research to help understand the root cause of 
a commercial fishery failure and to identify management actions 
that prevent, minimize, or mitigate a commercial fishery 
failure.
    With the disaster relief process for the 2016 pink salmon 
fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska, I believe the process could be 
improved to make it more timely, transparent, and consistent 
with overall program objectives.
    Improvements could be made by clarifying key steps of the 
process, particularly the Federal Government's evaluation of 
proposed disaster relief spending plans. For example, the 
process would benefit by clarifying that a local government 
representing an affected fishing community is eligible to 
receive disaster relief funds consistent with the intent of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act to recognize that local governments of 
fishing communities are harmed by commercial fishery failures 
and should be active participants in the disaster relief 
process.
    While I support these types of clarifications to the 
current disaster relief process, I would recommend that the 
process remain flexible enough to allow development of relief 
programs that accommodate the specific circumstances of the 
affected fishery.
    With respect to Senate Bill 2346, I believe the bill would 
improve the fisheries disaster process by clarifying 
information requirements and evaluation criteria for 
determining commercial fishery failures and administering 
disaster relief.
    I believe these clarifications would improve implementation 
of disaster relief programs for states and affected fishery 
participants.
    My written testimony includes additional comments on the 
impacts of specific provisions in the bill from the State of 
Alaska's perspective.
    Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and 
please let me know if I can provide additional information to 
assist with your evaluation of potential improvements to the 
fishery disaster process.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Baker follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Rachel Baker, Deputy Commissioner, 
                   Alaska Department of Fish and Game
    Chairman Wicker and members of the Committee, thank you for the 
opportunity to testify before you today. I am a Deputy Commissioner 
with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and am pleased to provide 
the State of Alaska's perspective on the fishery disaster process and 
on the potential impacts of S. 2346, the Fishery Failures: Urgently 
Needed Disaster Declarations Act.
    Fisheries are vital to Alaska's culture and economy. The State of 
Alaska and its citizens rely on the productive waters of the North 
Pacific Ocean to provide fisheries resources for subsistence, 
recreational and commercial needs. Sixty-one percent of all commercial 
fisheries landings in the United States take place in Alaska, and our 
ports rank among the highest in the country for volume and value.
    Fisheries are a fundamental source of income for residents of 
Alaska's coastal communities. Fisheries are typically the primary, and 
often the only, economic base for many remote coastal communities in 
Alaska. Fisheries provide jobs in harvesting, processing, and other 
support industries. Revenues and other benefits from the fisheries form 
the foundation of local economies in our coastal communities. In 
addition to providing jobs and income to fishery participants, the 
fisheries support local governments through fisheries landing taxes. 
Many coastal communities in Alaska do not have sales, property, or 
income tax bases and are entirely dependent on fisheries landing taxes 
to fund essential services and maintain infrastructure that supports 
the fisheries.
Fishery Disaster Process
    The State of Alaska sustainably manages fisheries resources in the 
best interest of the economy and well-being of the people of the state. 
Our fisheries management programs are responsive to changes in stock 
conditions and other events outside the control of fishery managers. 
Despite this commitment to adaptive management, fishery resources are 
subject to sudden and unanticipated events that can cause fishery 
failures and impose substantial economic harm to fishery participants 
and communities. The State of Alaska appreciates that Congress and the 
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) have established the fishery 
disaster program for these situations. The impacts of a commercial 
fishery failure in Alaska are typically severe, immediate, and 
widespread across affected communities. The fishery disaster process 
provides much needed relief to fishery dependent residents, businesses, 
and communities.
    The State of Alaska supports the intent of the fishery disaster 
program in section 312(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 
and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Fisheries are inherently 
variable due to changing fishery stock and economic conditions, so it 
is appropriate to limit disaster determinations to commercial fisheries 
failures with sudden and unexpected losses that result in serious 
economic harm.
    The State of Alaska supports the intent of the fishery disaster 
program to provide relief that addresses harm from a fishery disaster, 
addresses the causes of the disaster, and decreases the likelihood that 
such harm will reoccur in the event of another disaster. We support the 
flexibility of the current process that allows states, tribes, and 
fishing communities to develop a relief program appropriate for each 
fishery disaster. This flexibility is necessary to implement relief 
programs that recognize the vast differences among our Nation's 
fisheries.
    Based on recent experience with the disaster relief process for the 
2016 pink salmon fisheries in several Gulf of Alaska management areas, 
I believe that implementation of the fishery disaster program could be 
improved to make it more timely, transparent, and consistent with 
overall program objectives. Improvements could be made by clarifying 
the key steps of the process, particularly with respect to the Federal 
government's review of information submitted by requestors and the 
criteria used for evaluating disaster relief programs. In addition, 
establishing reasonable timelines for primary steps within the process 
would help ensure that disaster relief provides meaningful assistance 
in a timely manner following determination of a fishery disaster.
Determination of a Commercial Fishery Failure
    The current process for determination of a commercial fishery 
failure is generally well understood and effective. This is likely due 
to the long-standing guidance developed by the NMFS for evaluation of 
requests for fisheries disaster relief (NMFS Policy 01-122, effective 
May 8, 2007). This guidance, along with assistance from the NMFS Alaska 
Regional Office, has facilitated the State of Alaska's development of 
fishery disaster requests in recent years.
    Alaska fishery stakeholders have noted that the determination 
process can be lengthy, which delays timely relief for affected fishery 
participants. These delays can undermine the utility of the program 
from the public's perspective and create additional uncertainty for 
fishery participants harmed by a commercial fisheries failure. To 
address these concerns, I support evaluation of regulatory, 
legislative, or policy revisions to provide more timely determinations 
of commercial fishery failures. These revisions could include 
clarifying information requirements and evaluation criteria for the 
fishery failure determination process as well as establishing 
reasonable timelines for completing those steps.
Administration of Disaster Relief
    The process for administering disaster relief is less well defined. 
Under the current process, there is little to no guidance for 
requestors or the public describing the steps in the process or the 
criteria being used by the Federal government to evaluate proposed 
spending plans for disaster relief funds. This lack of clarity makes it 
challenging to navigate the process and inform affected fishery 
participants and the public about the potential outcomes and timelines 
for evaluation of a proposed spending plan and the distribution of 
disaster relief funds.
    I believe this lack of clarity may have contributed to delays in 
the review of the proposed spending plan for the 2016 Gulf of Alaska 
pink salmon fisheries. The State of Alaska submitted a spending plan 
that specified local governments from affected communities as eligible 
recipients of disaster relief funds. The state based this proposal on 
section 312(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which recognizes the impact 
of fishery disasters on communities by specifying a ``fishing 
community'' as an eligible requestor of a commercial fishery failure 
and as an eligible recipient of disaster funds following a commercial 
fishery failure determination.
    In Alaska, local governments use revenues from fisheries landing 
taxes to provide essential infrastructure and services that directly 
support those fisheries, including processing and cold storage 
facilities, docks, and harbors. In this manner, local governments are 
affected by commercial fishery failures along with harvesters and 
processors. The State of Alaska's spending plan for the pink salmon 
fisheries disaster recognized these impacts by identifying fishery 
participants, processors, and local governments as eligible recipients 
of disaster relief funds.
    The Federal Government's initial review of the spending plan 
indicated uncertainty as to whether local governments were eligible for 
disaster relief funds, despite the clear intent of section 312(a) in 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act for fishing communities to be active 
participants in the disaster relief process. This uncertainty may have 
arisen because section 315 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act governing the 
administration of fishery disaster relief programs does not explicitly 
recognize fishing communities as eligible recipients of disaster 
relief. Section 315 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act authorizes the 
Secretary of Commerce to establish a regional economic program to 
provide ``immediate disaster relief assistance to the fishermen, 
charter fishing operators, United States fish processors, and owners of 
related fishery infrastructure affected by the disaster.'' Although the 
State of Alaska was able to work with the NMFS to identify an 
acceptable process for providing disaster relief to local governments, 
I believe the lack of clarity regarding spending plan requirements and 
evaluation criteria contributed to delays in the review process.
    The review process likely could be improved by clarification of the 
primary steps for the spending plan review process and the criteria 
that will be used to evaluate proposed spending plans. Establishing 
reasonable timelines for key steps in the process where possible could 
also contribute to a more transparent and timely evaluation process. In 
making this recommendation, I note the importance of maintaining 
flexibility for development of spending plans. While some specific 
clarifications would benefit the process, the fishery disaster program 
should be flexible enough to provide disaster relief that accommodates 
the circumstances of the affected fishery.
S. 2346, the Fishery Failures: Urgently Needed Disaster Declarations 
        Act
    In general, the provisions of S. 2346 would improve the fishery 
disaster process by clarifying information requirements and evaluation 
criteria for determining commercial fishery failures and administering 
disaster relief. I believe these clarifications would benefit states 
and affected fishery participants by providing more a timely and 
transparent process for providing disaster relief. I offer the 
following comments on the impacts of specific provisions in the bill.

   Section 2(e)(2)(A)--I support maintaining the current 
        revenue loss thresholds for a fishery disaster determination. 
        These thresholds are well understood and appropriate given the 
        variable nature of fisheries and the need to provide 
        flexibility in the determination process to ensure 
        consideration of specific fishery circumstances.

   Section 2(e)(2)(B)--I support authorizing the Secretary of 
        Commerce to consider loss of subsistence opportunity when 
        making a fishery disaster determination. This is an important 
        clarification to the determination process and is particularly 
        relevant to Alaska given the significance of subsistence 
        fisheries to the citizens of our state.

   Section 2(f)(2)(A)--I recommend an additional provision for 
        the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to provide 
        a regional contact for the spending plan review process and 
        distribution of disaster relief. This would mirror the 
        provision in section 2(d)(1)(B) specifying that the agency will 
        provide a regional contact for the commercial fishery failure 
        determination process. Identification of a regional contact for 
        administration of disaster relief will help states inform 
        affected fishery participants and the public about the 
        potential outcomes and timelines for evaluation of a proposed 
        spending plan and distribution of disaster relief funds.

   Section 2(f)(5)(C)(i)--I recommend clarifying that 
        scientific research on the affected fisheries, including 
        research on relevant fish stocks and habitat, are eligible uses 
        of disaster relief funds. While disaster relief funds have been 
        authorized for scientific research under the current process, a 
        clarification of this issue would be beneficial. The State of 
        Alaska considers scientific research to be a priority use for 
        disaster relief funds in order to improve our ability to 
        establish sustainable and effective management measures that 
        help prevent future fishery failures.

   Section 2(f)(5)(C)(i)(VIII)--I support including fishing 
        communities as eligible recipients of disaster relief funds and 
        recommend additional clarification that the local government 
        representing a fishing community is eligible to receive 
        disaster relief funds. As described in my testimony, this 
        clarification would fulfill the intent of section 312(a) of the 
        Magnuson-Stevens Act to recognize fishing communities as 
        affected by commercial fishery failures and active participants 
        in the fishery disaster process.

   Section 2(g)(5)--I am concerned about the impacts of this 
        provision to limit eligibility for fishery disaster relief to 
        affected participants with a maximum of $2 million in net 
        revenue from commercial fishing. Given the scale and value of 
        fisheries in Alaska, this provision could constrain the State 
        of Alaska from providing relief to harvesters, processors, and 
        fishing communities that incur serious harm from a commercial 
        fisheries failure.

    Once again, thank you again for the opportunity to provide comments 
on behalf of the State of Alaska. Please let me know if I can provide 
additional information to assist with your evaluation of potential 
improvements to the fishery disaster process.

    Senator Wicker. Thank you very much, Ms. Baker.
    Mr. Spottswood.

  STATEMENT OF ROBERT SPOTTSWOOD, CHAIRMAN, FLORIDA FISH AND 
                WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION

    Mr. Spottswood. Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, 
and members of the Committee, I am pleased to be here today.
    My name is Robert Spottswood. I am Chairman of the Florida 
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, which is the state 
agency that manages fish and wildlife resources in Florida.
    In the last 7 years, Florida has requested four fishery 
disaster declarations. I'm here today to share our 
perspectives, to relay our frustration over the time it takes 
to get relief funding to impacted individuals, and to offer our 
suggestions and our support for S. 2346.
    Based on our experience, we believe the fishery disaster 
process is overly complicated and takes too long to deliver the 
intended relief.
    In September 2012, Florida requested a fishery disaster 
declaration for the oyster harvesting areas in the Gulf of 
Mexico due to water conditions and high rates of oyster 
mortality.
    Florida received a $6 million grant but the funding was not 
available until August 2014, nearly two years later.
    Second, in September 2017, Hurricane Irma caused an 
estimated $200 million impact to the fishing industry. Almost 
every fisherman in the Florida Keys was affected, many 
fishermen lost income, gear, and vessels, customers canceled 
charter-fishing trips, traps were lost, products were ruined. 
In addition, boats and facilities were damaged.
    To date, nearly 1,500 derelict vessels have been removed 
from the Florida Keys alone. Shortly after the hurricane, on 
October 2, 2017, Florida requested a fishery disaster 
declaration. On February 8, 2018, Secretary Ross approved the 
request. On February 19, 2018, Florida received a commitment of 
$44.6 million assistance.
    Early on, the process seemed to be moving along fairly 
well. However, funding was not available until July 2019, which 
was nearly 2 years after the disaster and is only now being 
disbursed.
    Third, on October 10, 2018, Hurricane Michael ripped 
through the Panhandle. Michael appears to have caused even more 
damage to fishing infrastructure than Irma. On October 23, 
2018, Florida requested a disaster declaration, and on October 
31, the Secretary approved of that request.
    We are uncertain as to the full extent of the impact 
because the economic assessment conducted by NOAA was only just 
received. Again, the declaration portion of the process moved 
along pretty quickly but it took 7 months to pass funding 
disaster relief for Hurricane Michael. Florida is still waiting 
to learn what portion of the appropriation will be allocated to 
Florida.
    Fourth, on May 24, 2019, Florida requested a fishery 
disaster as a result of the Red Tide event that lasted from 
November of 2017 through February 2019. This Red Tide event was 
one of the worst Red Tides in modern history. Millions of fish 
were killed and catch rates dropped significantly. In some 
cases, commercial fishermen and wholesale distributors went 
completely out of business.
    As of today, the Secretary has not responded to Florida's 
request.
    Chairman Wicker, thank you for introducing S. 2346. In my 
written testimony, we've made several suggestions to strengthen 
the bill and to streamline the disaster funding process.
    For instance, we suggested reducing to 30 the number of 
days for the Secretary to approve a spend plan and to 
facilitate the shorter deadline for the Secretary, we suggest 
that adding a provision that requires the Office of Management 
and Budget to respond to requests from NOAA to 15 days. We 
believe these shortened deadlines will significantly improve 
the process.
    Additionally, we would ask that the bill be clarified to 
allow that businesses involved in the recreational sector of 
the fishing community, such as charter boats, charter-for-hire 
guides, tackle shops, bait shops, et cetera, be eligible for 
disaster relief.
    Let me conclude by saying our fishing community is a 
central and important part of Florida's heritage and our 
present day culture. Our great fisheries not only provide many 
jobs and sustain many local communities but they also add 
significantly to this country's economy.
    Most of the fishermen I know are modest, hard-working 
people of high character. They oftentimes have little in the 
way of cash reserves and are unable to weather natural 
disasters that so significantly affect their business.
    Your efforts to streamline the disaster funding process in 
order to provide timely relief to our fishermen in times of 
natural disasters is not only warranted but greatly 
appreciated.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Spottswood follows:]

  Prepared Statement of Robert Spottswood, Chairman, Florida Fish and 
                    Wildlife Conservation Commission
    Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and members of the 
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony at 
today's hearing covering fishery disaster assistance. My name is Robert 
Spottswood, and I am Chairman of the Florida Fish and Wildlife 
Conservation Commission (FWC), which is the state agency that manages 
Florida's fish and wildlife resources. I have had the pleasure to serve 
on the Commission since September 2015 and have been Chairman since 
2018. Serving on the Commission is an honor and a privilege that I take 
seriously. As a life-long Floridian and sixth generation Conch from Key 
West, I grew up on the waters of Florida and have taught my children 
how to fish and care for our natural resources. Now I teach my 
grandchildren. Boating the emerald green waters of the Keys and passing 
my passion for Florida's great outdoors to my children and 
grandchildren is a great pleasure in my life.
    For those of us in Florida, today's hearing is timely and relevant. 
In the last seven years, Florida has requested four fishery disaster 
declarations as a result of multiple natural disasters. As a result of 
our experience, we believe the fishery disaster process is broken. I am 
here today to share our perspective, relay the frustration we feel in 
our inability to get relief funding to impacted individuals in a timely 
manner, and offer some suggestions to improve the current draft of 
Chairman Wicker's legislation. We are supportive and believe this 
legislation is on the right path to improve the process.
    With more than 7,700 lakes, 12,000 miles of rivers, streams and 
canals, and 8,426 miles of tidal shoreline, Florida is a paradise for 
anglers and boaters. Florida waters are home to thousands of species of 
fish and wildlife. From red snapper to Key's lobster, Florida supports 
thriving fisheries. Florida also is home to warm weather, sunshine and 
friendly people who love assisting others in having great fishing 
experiences. And at the end of the day, we also have wonderful 
restaurants that are willing to cook the bounty harvested from a 
beautiful day spent on Florida's waters.
    A closer look at the numbers reveals an expansive and engaged 
fishing community in Florida that is unrivaled anywhere in the world:

   4 million Florida anglers,\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-
Associated Recreation, Total Participation Estimate as updated by the 
American Sportfishing Association and Southwick Associates to 2018

   $11.5 billion economic impact from recreational fishing,\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ 2011 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Survey as updated by American 
Sportfishing Association/Southwick Associates to 2018

   More than 106,000 jobs supported by recreational fishing,\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ 2011 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Survey as updated by American 
Sportfishing Association/Southwick Associates to 2018

   $226 million in commercial food fish dockside sales,\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ 2018 Fish and Wildlife Research Institute Commercial Landings 
Data

   More than $5.6 billion in value added economic impact by the 
        commercial seafood industry,\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 
Fisheries Economics of the United States, 2016

   76,700 jobs supported by the commercial seafood industry,\6\ 
        and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ NOAA, Fisheries Economics of the United States, 2016

   Home to 4,557 total game fish records, the world leader.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ International Game Fish Association

    For these reasons, Florida is the Fishing Capital of the World. 
However, even a fishing paradise like Florida can be impacted by 
natural disasters that have significant effects on our fisheries, our 
fishing industry and our communities. In fact, as I stated earlier, 
since 2012, Florida has requested Federal fishery disaster assistance 
on four different occasions due to natural disasters.
    First, in September 2012, then Governor, now United States Senator, 
Rick Scott requested a fishery disaster for Florida's oyster harvesting 
areas in the Gulf of Mexico, particularly in Apalachicola Bay, under 
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act. Florida's 
oyster harvesting areas were experiencing high rates of mortality 
caused from low-flow conditions in the Apalachicola River impacting 
oyster abundance and the fishery value. After requesting the 
declaration, United States Secretary of Commerce Rebecca Blank finally 
declared a fishery disaster in August 2013. As a result of the 
declaration, Florida received a $6 million grant for communities 
affected by the commercial fishery failure, monitoring existing oyster 
resources and restoration efforts, vocational and educational training 
for affected fishermen, and processor facilities upgrades. However, 
this funding did not become available until August 2014, a year later. 
FWC is pleased to report that, except for some ongoing monitoring, all 
the funded projects were completed by 2016.
    Second, in September 2017, Hurricane Irma, a Category 4 storm, made 
landfall in the Florida Keys and continued its path of destruction 
across the state. More than 70,000 people live in the Florida Keys with 
an additional almost 5 million visitors each year. I am a proud sixth 
generation Conch, and my family lives there today. I employ 
approximately 500 people across my various businesses in the Keys. My 
life is in the Keys, so Hurricane Irma was personal for me. In the 
blink of an eye, homes were destroyed, roads were demolished, 
businesses lost, and the comforts and ease of everyday living, such as 
water, food, and shelter, disappeared. This experience taught me that 
while alarming, pictures of natural disasters on television and in the 
press are nothing compared to witnessing the damage in person. 
Similarly, seeing interviews on television pale in comparison to the 
heartbreaking stories I heard from employees, friends, and neighbors. I 
hope I never have to witness that again in my life. Hurricane Irma hit 
our fishing community hard. Many fishermen lost income, fishing gear, 
and vessels, and have struggled to rebuild. Immediately after the 
storm, the commercial fishing industry estimated that it lost 94,000 
lobster traps. Fishermen were displaced because of damages to their 
homes. Some even lost their homes entirely. Boats and boating 
facilities, including marinas and boat ramps were damaged. To date, 
nearly 1,500 derelict vessels have been removed from the Keys alone. 
The hospitality industry was severely impacted, and tourism came almost 
to a standstill, resulting in many canceled charter fishing trips. 
Fishery products were ruined because of power failures. Cellphone 
service was down, so even communicating with friends, family, 
employees, and employers was difficult.
    Despite all of this, our commercial fishermen were resilient. Even 
though many did not have power, they managed to have ice shipped in to 
keep some of their product from spoiling. However, others needed weeks 
to attend to their homes and families before they were ready to fish 
again. Many of their deckhands lost housing and were forced to move to 
the mainland and get other jobs. Our FWC law enforcement officers were 
critical first responders. They facilitated entry of supply deliveries 
to the Keys after the hurricane and were helpful in communicating 
immediate needs of the fishing community to the mainland to ensure 
much-needed supplies could reach people. The National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and FWC did a rapid economic 
assessment of the impact of the storm to the commercial and 
recreational sectors of the fishery statewide. They found that damages 
exceeded $200 million.
    To address these impacts, on October 2, 2017, then Governor Rick 
Scott requested a fishery resource disaster be declared under Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act and the 
Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act. On February 8, 2018, United States 
Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross granted the request and declared a 
fishery resource failure and concluded that commercial fishermen were 
harmed, therefore making Florida eligible for Federal assistance. When 
President Donald Trump signed Public Law 115-123 on February 19, 2018, 
Florida received a commitment of $44.6 million in assistance for the 
fishery improvements and direct relief for Florida's commercial 
fishermen. The funding, however, was not available until July 2019, 
nearly two years after the disaster and only now is beginning to reach 
those affected by the storm. It has now been a long two years since 
Hurricane Irma made landfall in the Florida Keys, and I have to say 
that for some residents, life has still not returned to pre-Hurricane 
Irma days. Unfortunately for some, life may never be the same.
    Third, on October 2, 2018, Hurricane Michael ripped through 
Florida's panhandle as a Category 5 storm and one of the strongest 
hurricanes in Florida history. Destroying homes, offices, and just 
about everything in its path, Hurricane Michael damaged Florida's 
fishing industry significantly. The Florida panhandle and its coastal 
communities are home to thousands of people that depend on the 
fisheries there. The damage to the industry's infrastructure greatly 
affected restoration of the fisheries. On October 23, 2018, then 
Governor Rick Scott wrote United States Secretary of Commerce Wilbur 
Ross and requested that he declare a fishery resource disaster under 
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act and the 
Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act as well as hoping to trigger 
financial assistance from the Economic Development Administration. On 
October 31, 2018, United States Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross 
approved the request. Unfortunately, it took Congress more than seven 
months to pass legislation that funded Hurricane Michael disaster 
relief. On June 6, 2019, President Donald Trump signed Public Law 116-
20. Yet, Florida is still waiting to receive its portion of the total 
$19.1 billion appropriated for disaster relief included in the law. 
NOAA conducted a rapid economic assessment of the impact of Hurricane 
Michael on the fishing community. Nearly a year later this report has 
yet to be released.
    Lastly, on May 24, 2019, Governor Ron DeSantis requested a fishery 
resource disaster under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and 
Conservation Act and the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act. This 
request was the result of a prolonged red tide event that lasted from 
November 2017 through February 2019. While red tides are naturally 
occurring events, this was one of the most persistent and impactful in 
modern history. It followed another significant red tide that endured 
from October 2015 through February 2017. Millions of fish were killed 
during these events, and the state received more than 3,000 citizen 
reports of fish kills from October 2015 through February 2019. These 
two events affected Southwest Florida's charter and commercial 
fisheries and related tourism industry significantly. FWC estimated 
that the red tide events harmed more than 1,300 licensed charter 
fishermen and resulted in significant reductions in catch rates. 
Additionally, the commercial fishing industry--which boast $55 million 
in commercial fishing landings supporting more than 1,700 fishermen and 
273 wholesale businesses in Southwest Florida--experienced economic 
impacts. In some cases, commercial fishermen and wholesale distributors 
went out of business. As of today, United States Secretary of Commerce 
Wilbur Ross has not responded to Governor DeSantis's request.
    I think it is important to highlight the following similarities 
across these disasters:

   For oysters in Apalachicola Bay, disaster assistance was 
        approved 11 months after the request, and funding was not 
        available for nearly two years.

   For Hurricane Irma, disaster assistance was approved five 
        months after the request, and funding was not available until 
        almost two years later.

   For Hurricane Michael, disaster assistance was approved 
        eight days after the request with no funding available yet.

   For the red tide event, disaster assistance was requested 
        five months afterwards with no response.

    Yet those Floridians, businesses, and fisheries impacted by the 
disasters suffered immediately and experienced critical points in 
recovery over weeks and months, not years.
    Based on Florida's experience of having gone through the fishery 
resource disaster process four times in seven years, any objective 
observer can reach only one conclusion: the fishery disaster process is 
broken. First, I presume that the purpose of fishery disaster 
assistance is to provide financial assistance to the fishing community 
and industry after a man-made or natural disaster, so that they can 
remain a viable economic engine. I know for a fact that fishermen have 
left the industry and found other jobs since the fishery disaster 
assistance process takes so long, and, while Small Business 
Administration loans are well intentioned, fishermen are not willing to 
get loans because they are not sure that they can pay them back. 
Putting money in fishermen's pockets as soon as possible after a 
disaster would help stabilize an industry more quickly, so that they 
can provide the services that consumers expect.
    Second, as Florida's experiences clearly show, the approval process 
appears to have no prescribed objective criteria by which to determine 
a disaster. The United States Department of Commerce and NOAA are not 
at fault. They are doing their best to implement current statutes. We 
understand that we are just one state among many that may be applying 
for fishery resource disaster assistance. FWC is pleased with the 
relationship we have with our partners at the Federal level. The 
support that has been provided by personnel at NOAA's Southeast 
Regional Office and from NOAA Headquarters has been outstanding as the 
state has gathered the information needed and assembled spend plans for 
Federal approval. Their expertise is invaluable as we navigate our way 
through the complex nature of existing laws, and we look forward to 
continuing the collaborative relationship.
    Third, deadlines help. Under current laws that govern fishery 
resource disaster management, the amount of time it takes for a 
declaration to be determined lacks a deadline. This makes it difficult 
to communicate with those who were affected and a huge impact on their 
ability to carry on everyday functions. We understand that some of the 
requests are labor intensive. For example, our red tide request is data 
intensive that requires significant analysis. But, when people need 
help, they should be able to get it. Even the United States Congress 
and the Executive Branch are under no deadlines to pass legislation and 
then issue the grants once a declaration has been approved.
    I believe government can do better. As you know, two Federal laws 
govern fishery resource disasters: Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management 
and Conservation Act and the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act. Some 
provisions of the laws are repetitive and having two laws govern 
fishery disaster resources does not make sense. That is why FWC is 
pleased that Senator Wicker has introduced S. 2346, the ``Fishery 
Failures: Urgently Needed Disaster Declarations Act.'' By merging the 
two statutes that govern fishery resource disasters and by establishing 
objective timelines, FWC believes the legislation will improve the 
declaration approval process and improve service to the vast fishing 
industry in Florida. For example, this bill directs the Secretary of 
Commerce to notify the public and any fishery with a positive disaster 
determination that is unfunded of the allocation within 14 days after 
the date of the appropriation. Under current statutes, in June 2019, 
Congress appropriated $150 million for Hurricanes Florence and Michael 
and Typhoons Yutu and Mangkhut. Yet, Florida has yet to be notified 
about the appropriation for Hurricane Michael.
    We are supportive of S. 2346 and suggest the following changes to 
further strengthen it. We suggest reducing the number of days a 
requestor is required to complete a spend plan from 180 days to 60 days 
after the disaster is declared. We propose adding a provision that 
requires the Office of Management and Budget to approve the spend plan 
and other requests from NOAA associated with fisheries disasters within 
15 days of receiving them from NOAA Fisheries. We also suggest reducing 
the number of days for the funds to be disbursed once the Secretary 
receives a spend plan from 90 days to 30 days. Also, we have concerns 
about limiting the assistance to firms with less than $2 million in net 
revenues annually. We suggest taking a second look at that provision to 
ensure that legitimate needs are not excluded. We appreciate that S. 
2346 provides timelines for review and approval of disaster 
declarations and makes an exception for the Secretary to determine a 
declaration without conducting the analyses required in the bill. We 
would expect that such actions would be taken for extraordinary 
circumstances, such as those that we experienced from Hurricanes Irma 
and Michael. However, creating an entire spend plan would take the 
requestor some time and waiting for approval could take up to 90 days, 
as the legislation dictates currently. We would like to see some 
specific criteria to get funding to the fishing community under such 
circumstances without the final approval of a spend plan within 30 days 
of a declaration. The point I am trying to make is that we understand 
the need for administrative oversight and due diligence, especially 
when large amounts of funding are involved, but the commercial and 
charter fishing industry need assistance before they lose their 
businesses.
    Finally, we encourage Congress to be diligent and act expeditiously 
about appropriating funds shortly after declarations of fisheries 
disasters are made. We believe these changes will improve S. 2346 and 
be beneficial to the commercial and recreational fishing industries 
that are affected by natural disasters.
    In closing, I would like to thank all of you for all the good work 
you do every day for our great country, but especially for the work you 
do to conserve our fish and wildlife and natural resources. Florida's 
natural resources are a pillar of our state economy and support the 
lives and livelihoods of countless people in the fishing community. Our 
fishing community is a central and important part of our heritage and 
culture in Florida. Our natural resources are second to none in the 
world and our great fisheries not only sustain many local communities 
in Florida but add significantly to this country's economy. We must do 
everything we can to help our commercial and recreational fishermen in 
times of natural disasters and we look forward to continuing to work 
with our Federal partners at all levels of government to do so.
    We look forward to working with Sen. Wicker to advance S. 2346.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today.

    Senator Wicker. Thank you very much, Mr. Spottswood.
    Mr. Warren, welcome.

 STATEMENT OF RON WARREN, DIRECTOR OF FISH POLICY, WASHINGTON 
                DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE

    Mr. Warren. Thank you, sir.
    Chair Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, members of the 
Committee, Ron Warren with Washington Department of Fish and 
Wildlife.
    Just as a side, I'm nearing my 40-year Anniversary working 
for the department and managing hatcheries and fisheries.
    In Washington, since 2008, fishery disasters have crippled 
our economy relative to commercial, recreational, and tribal 
fisheries, causing significant economic hardship for our 
fishing communities.
    Unfortunately, it appears that those disasters, warming 
water, different events are occurring more frequently and with 
greater severity.
    Back in 2014, we had a warm water condition off the coast 
of Washington and returns of Coho to coastal estuaries, Willapa 
Bay and Grace Harbor, returned to allow only a 10 percent of 
the 5-year average that NOAA uses within their policy for an ex 
vessel value. It was crippling to that community and numbers 
then continued to decrease in 2016 to such a severe point that 
Governor Inslee requested a fishery disaster from then 
Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker. That was turned around 
rather quickly but to this date; we still have not disbursed 
those funds from the 2015-2016 fisheries.
    Given that that warm water trend went away, we're still 
waiting for the funds to return to those coastal communities 
that were so devastated by the reductions. We now find out from 
NOAA Fisheries that we worked so closely with that the warming 
conditions are back.
    So we're already seeing signs of smaller body sizes of Coho 
salmon, reduced numbers of fish that were predicted, and we 
could be heading back to further fishery disasters in 2020.
    Another issue that Washington experienced during the 
approval process was the exclusion of charter fishers or 
charter operations in NOAA's calculation of the economic extent 
of the disaster.
    Charter fishing operations are commercial and derive their 
income from passengers who pay for their trips and services 
that they provide. As such, charter operations are equally 
affected by these salmon fishery disasters as other commercial 
sectors and should be included.
    We greatly appreciate the Committee's efforts to improve 
and expedite the process for addressing fishery disasters. It's 
a process that's badly needed, needs your attention. However, 
we do acknowledge one key concern that we hope that there is 
assurance that as funds are created for new inclusions of 
fisheries that that NOAA's budgets remain whole.
    Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, thank you for 
your diligence, your hard work on this issue, and I'd be glad 
to elaborate on my testimony or answer any questions you might 
have.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Warren follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Ron Warren, Director of Fish Policy, 
            Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife
    Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and Members of the 
Committee:

    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Ron 
Warren and I am the Director of Fish Policy at the Washington 
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW).
    On behalf of the state agency charged with preserving, protecting 
and perpetuating the state's fish, wildlife and ecosystems, while 
providing sustainable fish and wildlife recreational and commercial 
opportunities, I am here today to testify regarding current challenges 
with the fishery disaster process and how it can be improved--based on 
our experience with recent non-tribal fishery disaster declarations in 
Washington State. I appreciate this opportunity to come before you to 
highlight the importance of providing relief for fisheries disasters 
and discuss the challenges Washington is facing with the delayed 
distribution of funds.
    Commercial, recreational and tribal fisheries are central 
components of the economy and culture of our coastal communities. The 
health of these fisheries is vital to our commercial and recreational 
fishing industry, which supports 67,000 jobs and contributes over $300 
million in revenue. The fishing and processing industry in Pacific 
County alone contributes over $150,000,000 to the local economy. In 
another Washington county, Grays Harbor, the 2016 landing for Westport 
totaled 108 million pounds of crab, salmon, hake and other seafood. 
Moreover, fisheries' benefits are felt beyond just the industry 
itself--supporting shipbuilders, stores, hotels and restaurants in 
addition to many more.
    Unfortunately, since 2008, natural disasters have devastated the 
state's commercial, recreational and tribal fisheries, causing 
significant economic hardship on our fishing industry and coastal 
communities. What's worse, these disasters appear to be occurring more 
frequently and with greater severity. Returns of coho salmon were well 
below expectations for most Washington watersheds in 2015, with the 
number of fish returning to major watersheds like the Columbia River 
and Grays Harbor being less than one-third of what was predicted before 
the fishing season.
    In addition to the diminishing number of returning fish, the coho 
that did return were also significantly smaller in size than normal. 
The smaller size and lower numbers of coho were likely the result of 
unusual environmental conditions that persisted off the Washington and 
British Columbia coasts for most of the year. The anomalous conditions 
included the marine heatwave commonly referred to as the ``warm blob'' 
in the Pacific, with surface water temperatures up to seven degrees 
warmer than normal, and likely caused food chain disruptions that led 
to the poor survival and growth of coho salmon. In response, ocean 
fishery seasons were reduced and coho catch prohibited in all troll and 
most recreational fisheries off Washington's coast in 2015 and again in 
2016.
    Fisheries in many inland marine and freshwater fisheries in Puget 
Sound, the Strait of Juan de Fuca and coastal Washington state were 
also closed during expected times of coho migration to protect 
returning coho. These fishery reductions and closures have had, and 
will continue to have, serious economic impacts on the commercial and 
recreational fishing industries in coastal Washington, the Strait of 
Juan de Fuca, and Puget Sound.
    In 2016, the situation became so dire that Governor Inslee 
requested that then-Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker declare two 
disasters for non-tribal fisheries--the ocean salmon troll fishery and 
Washington coastal salmon. In addition, individual tribes also 
submitted requests for their respective fisheries. Fortunately, in this 
particular case, Secretary Pritzker acted quickly and declared 
disasters within months. However, due to the Federal furlough that 
began in 2018, approval of the grants and transfer of the funds did not 
occur until June 2019, and we are only now in the process of 
distributing funds to those affected by disasters from 2016. Since 
then, it has come to our attention that determinations for requests 
made by Washington tribes and our West Coast neighbors have either 
taken a prolonged period of time or are still outstanding. This is 
especially concerning since it has taken approximately three years to 
move from Secretary determination to funding distribution during a 
process that was essentially ``fast-tracked.''
    Given that NOAA scientists have noted another marine heatwave 
occurring off Washington's coasts since June of this year, which may be 
comparable to that observed in 2014, our fisheries could face another 
disastrous year in 2020. If that occurs, the local businesses within 
our fishing communities cannot wait another three years for any 
potential relief. These processes must be streamlined and improved--
it's that simple.
    Another issue that Washington experienced during the approval 
process was the exclusion of charter operations in NOAA's calculation 
of economic harm from the disaster. Charter fishing operations are 
commercial and derive their income from passengers who pay for the 
trips and services that they provide; as such, charter operations were 
equally affected by these salmon fishery disasters as other commercial 
sectors. But, as NOAA's policy is to treat them as ``recreational,'' 
charters were not included in the calculation of economic revenue loss. 
As a result, in distributing the disaster relief funds, Washington was 
faced with the decision of whether to include charter operations that 
clearly suffered from the disaster--knowing that this would reduce the 
amount of funding available to the other sectors that were included in 
NOAA's calculation. This Federal ``policy'' decision was made 
unilaterally and the disaster funds fell far short of providing 
meaningful relief to those most affected by the disaster.
    While we appreciate Senator Wicker's legislation (S. 2346) to 
improve the disaster declaration and funding distribution process, we 
have a few key concerns with the bill as currently written. Our state 
believes any legislation to effectively improve this process must do 
the following:

   Ensure that funding for fisheries disasters is not directed 
        away from other NOAA programs. These funds must not come at the 
        expense of other critical priorities.

   Ensure that fisheries remain a priority in the distribution 
        of funds. While we appreciate the importance of viable 
        aquaculture operations, we are concerned that scarce Federal 
        funds to address fisheries disasters could be diverted if 
        fisheries are not recognized as the leading priority.

    Should any Federal legislation advance, our state would appreciate 
the opportunity engage in meaningful consultation with the Committee 
and provide detailed feedback using our decades of experience. In the 
meantime, I would urge you to continue to provide timely relief for 
fisheries disasters, which are devastating to our fishing businesses 
and local economies. Additionally, Congress must find a way to quickly 
get those funds back into those communities, and should include charter 
operations in economic fishery disaster calculations.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and for your 
diligent efforts to address this urgent issue. I look forward to 
answering your questions.

    Senator Wicker. Thank you. I hope we have a good Q&A 
session.
    Mr. Oliver, what about that point that Mr. Warren just was 
making about the charter operations not being included?
    Mr. Oliver. Thank you, Senator Wicker, Mr. Chairman. It is 
correct that when we were evaluating that pool of disaster 
requests, I think there were maybe a dozen being evaluated 
simultaneously for a given pot of money. I'm recalling it was 
$200 million at that time.
    But consistent with the statute, we look at commercial 
fishers' revenue and we have to do--to be standard and 
consistent, we look at only commercial revenue losses for each 
of those 12 disasters in order to get a sense of fairness and 
apples-to-apples comparison.
    So that when we get to the issue of how much each is 
impacted and how much funding each gets, we're using a 
consistent standard. So it is true we only look at commercial 
revenue losses.
    You can apply the funds to other uses, but it is correct 
that the losses incurred by that sector weren't included in the 
calculation.
    Senator Wicker. What should the law say then?
    Mr. Oliver. I think the law should provide clarity and 
direction to us as to whether or not we could and should 
include those types of revenue losses in the calculation.
    Senator Wicker. OK. Now the various causes of these 
disasters, Mr. Spottswood, I think you said the Red Tide is a 
naturally occurring phenomenon that just happens every now and 
then. When it happens, it's devastating, but it's naturally 
occurring.
    This blob out in the Pacific, what do you call that, Mr. 
Warren?
    Mr. Warren. It's a warm water trend that moves up, out, and 
off the South Coast of the United States and Mexico up north.
    Senator Wicker. But we're having more of these now?
    Mr. Warren. It seems to be a reoccurring trend, yes.
    Senator Wicker. So we've had them for a while. It's just 
happening more regularly. With the pink salmon, Ms. Baker, what 
happened there?
    Ms. Baker. Chairman Wicker, I believe that after much 
examination the causes were really undetermined. It couldn't be 
directly linked to warm water.
    Senator Wicker. OK. But, General Spraggins, in the case of 
the Mississippi Sound, our disaster was a direct result of a 
decision made by another Federal agency, is that correct?
    Mr. Spraggins. Yes, sir, it was, and it was made by the 
Mississippi River Commission and the Corps of Engineers to open 
the Bonne Carre for that many days and by that, it allowed the 
freshwater intrusion.
    Senator Wicker. Right. And so we have a situation on the 
Mississippi River, which of course, is very important to the 
Nation and the flooding needs to be minimized certainly.
    We have a situation where there are two spillways an when 
we open the Bonne Carre Spillway to prevent flooding 
downstream, the water flows into Lake Pontchartrain which 
normally is brackish, is that correct?
    Mr. Spraggins. Yes, sir. It's a salinity that's close to 
brackish. Yes, sir.
    Senator Wicker. Right. And it's just a very thin barrier 
between Lake Pontchartrain and the Mississippi Sound which then 
moves into the Gulf of Mexico and the Mississippi Sound needs 
to be seawater, salty seawater, doesn't it?
    Mr. Spraggins. Yes, sir.
    Senator Wicker. Oysters do not grow in freshwater.
    Mr. Spraggins. No, sir.
    Senator Wicker. So the decision of our Federal Government 
to send water into Lake Pontchartrain is almost always going to 
kill our oysters and our shrimp, is that correct?
    Mr. Spraggins. Yes, sir, and once the salinity reaches a 
certain level, the oyster itself, which can't move, will 
automatically die and it starts to deteriorate itself, and just 
for the record, sir, it has been 2008, 2011, 2016, 2018, and 
twice in 2019 they've opened that spillway.
    It was set up to not open but maybe once every 5 years. 
Obviously, the numbers tell you that's a lot more in the recent 
times that it's opened. Because of that, the amount of water, 
every time--just about the time we get something built back, it 
starts--then we open the spillway and it kills it again.
    Senator Wicker. We're out of time on this round, but 
basically the fact that it happens again is no surprise and the 
disaster of that really should come as no surprise. Though we 
regret it, it seems to me there ought to be an expedited way of 
saying here we go again, the devastation is there, the damage 
is there. The job creators that use these fisheries for a 
living need to be compensated more quickly.
    But my time has expired, and we are--Senator Cantwell asks 
that she have a moment to gather her thoughts.
    So we'll recognize Senator Sullivan at this point for a 5-
minute round.
    Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate 
the hearing and your bill and the witnesses.
    I also wanted to mention on Senator Cantwell's issues on 
the ocean acidification, I think it's something we need to work 
importantly on and she mentioned Pebble, and I also think, and 
I think for the Alaskans, it's important that, as critical as 
the permitting process moves forward, that science, not 
politics, drives the Federal Government agency decisionmaking.
    I think Senator Cantwell alluded to that. I have certainly 
encouraged the Federal agencies here to get out to Alaska to 
hear directly from people in the state, including in Bristol 
Bay, which they did this summer.
    You know, I'm sure you saw the EPA and the Department of 
Interior recently submitted comments to the Corps' Draft EIS 
and many of their comments were highly critical of the Draft 
EIS. The burden of proof is now on Pebble and the Corps to 
substantially address these concerns, based on science, as 
required by Federal law.
    This is a high bar and, as I've repeatedly said, we can't 
trade one resource for another in that region. That's an 
important issue that I just wanted to mention to our Alaska 
witnesses.
    Mr. Oliver, I appreciate the fact and I think to be honest, 
the Chairman's calling of this hearing probably helped spur a 
little bit of action last night where we had a number of 
declarations announced. I think that's important, but you 
mentioned it at your outset.
    I want both you and Ms. Baker, to just hit on this issue of 
the point of the hearing, which is how can we improve the 
process to ensure--I'm not going to go through the list of how 
long this has taken on a number of these, but--how can we 
improve the process to ensure that it is more responsive? Let 
me just kind of throw out another question to both of you, 
also.
    You know, part of the take-away and I think part of the 
point of the bill is that NOAA and significantly OMB might have 
too much discretion under current law and that not enough 
direction when it comes to the fishery disaster process.
    The Chairman's bill seeks to remedy that. Do you agree with 
that direction for us to be more directive and take a little 
bit of the discretion away, to be honest, Mr. Oliver, you and 
OMB and others? So again kind of an open question, but I really 
want you to address how can we make this so our fishermen are 
not waiting for three-four years, which is what has typically 
happened. Maybe we can start with you, Mr. Oliver.
    Mr. Oliver. Yes, in short, I do agree with you, Senator. We 
do need firmer guidelines.
    Senator Sullivan. Direction from us?
    Mr. Oliver. Yes, sir.
    Senator Sullivan. OK.
    Mr. Oliver. Just to elaborate briefly, sometimes we get 
disaster requests before fishing season is ended and sometimes 
there's a delay there because we will have to wait until the 
end of the season. I think if we have clear direction to people 
that are requesting determination as to what information we 
need to start that determination, we can save some time.
    If you put strict timelines on us, our process, our review 
process with NIMS, with the department, with NOAA, with OMB, 
that'll force us to get our work done quicker.
    Senator Sullivan. So definitely, one element of legislative 
change that we can focus on is giving you strict timelines?
    Mr. Oliver. Yes, sir, I think so, and also perhaps clear 
direction on what allowable uses are for funding and what the 
prioritization of those uses are because I think a lot of the 
spend plan review process gets caught up sometimes on those 
issues. So clear direction in that aspect, as well.
    Senator Sullivan. So, Ms. Baker, I want to ask you kind of 
to follow up on that, but also if you can address this issue, 
which I know is important in Alaska, that allowing for research 
for part of the money is a way to better understand, you know, 
the challenges that we have so these disasters don't happen 
again.
    Is that an important component of the disaster relief money 
the state or other states will be getting? So again how to make 
it more effective and is research important to keep that in 
there?
    Ms. Baker. Thank you for the question, Senator Sullivan. On 
the first one, for the most part, I would agree with Mr. 
Oliver's response in that I think improving the process could 
involve some clarification through legislation, regulations, 
that Mr. Oliver mentioned.
    In terms of what the steps are in the process, information 
that is required at the different steps of the process, 
eligibility for determination of a fishery disaster could 
benefit from some clarification. Especially what I focused some 
of my testimony on today, clarification of requirements for an 
evaluation of the actual disaster relief plans, which Mr. 
Oliver also mentioned.
    I think there could be some clarification establishing 
timelines also would really benefit, I believe, the whole 
process and I was pleased to hear Mr. Oliver mention that, as 
well.
    Senator Sullivan. Research?
    Ms. Baker. And so, yes, thank you for mentioning that, as 
well. I think while it is implicitly an eligible use of 
disaster relief funds, it just occurred to us in examining the 
current process that it doesn't appear to be explicitly 
specified as an eligible use of disaster relief funds. We, for 
the reasons that you mentioned, feel like that is a really 
fundamental eligible use to help our ability to prevent those 
fishery disasters and commercial fishery failures in the 
future. It's really a component part to try to get to the root 
cause and help us establish fishery management measures that 
will help us avoid those disasters in the future.
    Senator Sullivan. Thank you.
    Senator Wicker. Thank you, Senator Sullivan.
    Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Wicker. Senator Cantwell.
    Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I again 
apologize for having to go over to the Energy Committee for a 
markup of legislation, but I thank the witnesses for their 
great testimony.
    Mr. Warren, I wanted to ask you, do you have an estimate of 
how NOAA's exclusion of charter fishermen in their economic 
analysis might have impacted them during the fishing disaster?
    Mr. Warren. Senator Cantwell, thank you for the question. 
My understanding--so if I look back at previous disasters in 
2008, charter operations received about $8 million for that 
disaster.
    This was a similar coast-wide disaster for us, although our 
estimate wasn't nearly as high this time for some reason, but I 
know that as well as Puget Sound, charters were not included, 
as well, and the eight million was just for the coastal.
    If you add the charters from the coast and charters from 
Puget Sound, as well as the troll fishery and other fisheries 
that have been included, you'd be looking at about a $100 
million to the State of Washington.
    Senator Cantwell. So do you believe that we should be 
mandating coverage or being specific here that charter 
fishermen should be covered?
    Mr. Warren. Thank you again. Yes, I do. I believe that they 
are a commercial activity. They're being paid for their 
services to go out and provide an opportunity for people like 
myself that don't own a boat that like to go fishing and 
remember fishing with my grandpa and it's a great service and 
it is a commercial activity.
    Senator Cantwell. I just don't know why we're being 
prejudiced against the small business operators that give so 
many Washingtonians and Americans this experience. They are 
just as impacted. When you can't fish, they can't go out. So I 
think that we should make it clear that we expect them to be 
compensated along with everybody else impacted in the disaster.
    Mr. Oliver, what can we do about the process? You know, it 
has been 19 months since the 2018 March disaster and yet some 
of the funds haven't been delivered. What do we need to do to 
streamline the process? I think you've answered this a little 
bit in some of the other questions.
    Mr. Oliver. Senator, I can't remember the specifics of that 
disaster. When the request was submitted relative to when the 
fishing year actually ended. I know that sometimes there's a 
perception at least of delay because we have to wait until the 
end of the year to get the economic information to make that 
assessment comparison to the previous five-year average. 
Sometimes there's a data lag before we get it.
    We have to make the assessment. There is often an 
information exchange with the states.
    Senator Cantwell. But 19 months? That's a year and a half. 
So even if you had to wait 1 year, you're still now 6 months.
    Mr. Oliver. I agree. That's excessive and putting us 
through legislation, for example, as I mentioned earlier, we're 
working on our own regulatory package of changes, pending 
potential legislation, to put firmer guidelines on ourselves.
    I think that putting strict timelines and making it very 
clear to the applicant what information we need and when we get 
it, because I think some onus goes on the applicant, as well. 
So I do think that we should be able to do things faster than 
we are doing.
    Senator Cantwell. Thank you. I'm very concerned that NOAA 
has chosen not to be a cooperating agency with the Army Corps 
of Engineers permitting process as it relates to Pebble Mine. 
Basically, NOAA stated that it was ``not warranted at this 
time.''
    When commercial fishing in Bristol Bay is over 135 years 
old, supports 14,000 fishing jobs, 10,000 industry jobs, and is 
about $500 million in direct economic impact, valued at $1.5 
billion, how is NOAA not warranted at this time to participate 
in a discussion about how that economy could be destroyed by a 
mine?
    Mr. Oliver. Senator, we elected not to be a cooperating 
agency partly or primarily because our role, regardless of 
cooperating agency status or not, our role is still fairly 
defined and fairly limited in terms we're not the permitting 
agency. We will consult on essential fish habitat per the 
Magnuson Act. We will consult as requested by the Army Corps on 
the Endangered Species Act applications as well as the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act.
    So we have a relatively limited role in that----
    Senator Cantwell. How is that not urgent right now? How is 
that mandate as it relates to salmon not urgent right now?
    Mr. Oliver. We have to receive the request and the actual 
proposed action from the permitting agency before we can 
conduct that full consultation in those three areas and we are 
waiting to do so.
    Senator Cantwell. I think my colleague here this morning 
and my other colleague from Alaska in the Appropriations 
process is making it very clear. The Army Corps of Engineers 
should not move forward until the science says that it's there 
and every agency that has an impact and has stewardship over 
our resources going to be impacted should be participating in 
that process.
    So the Pacific Northwest is not going to stand by while the 
Administration builds a gold mine in the middle of the largest 
salmon habitat area. We're just not going to sit by. Science, 
we're all of us bipartisan for science and information, but a 
science agency has to participate in the process.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Wicker. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
    Senator Blumenthal.

             STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT

    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to all 
our witnesses for being here today.
    I would like to enter into the record, a New York Times 
article, dated September 25, 2019, entitled ``The World's 
Oceans Are in Danger: Major Climate Change Report Warns.'' I 
know that my colleague, Senator Cantwell, has asked that the 
report itself be entered into the record, I believe. I'd like 
this article to be, as well.
    Senator Wicker. Without objection, it will be entered.
    [The information referred to follows:]

                           The New York Times

  The World's Oceans Are in Danger; Major Climate Change Report Warns

                     By Brad Plumer--Sept 25, 2019

    WASHINGTON--Climate change is heating the oceans and altering their 
chemistry so dramatically that it is threatening seafood supplies, 
fueling cyclones and floods and posing profound risks to the hundreds 
of millions of people living along the coasts, according to a sweeping 
United Nations report issued Wednesday.
    The report concludes that the world's oceans and ice sheets are 
under such severe stress that the fallout could prove difficult for 
humans to contain without steep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. 
Fish populations are already declining in many regions as warming 
waters throw marine ecosystems into disarray, according to the report 
by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of scientists 
convened by the United Nations to guide world leaders in policymaking.
    ``The oceans are sending us so many warning signals that we need to 
get emissions under control,'' said Hans-Otto Portner, a marine 
biologist at the Alfred Wegener Institute in Germany and a lead author 
of the report. ``Ecosystems are changing, food webs are changing, fish 
stocks are changing, and this turmoil is affecting humans.''
    Hotter ocean temperatures, combined with rising sea levels, further 
imperil coastal regions, the report says, worsening a phenomenon that 
is already contributing to storms like Hurricane Harvey, which 
devastated Houston two years ago.
    For decades, the oceans have served as a crucial buffer against 
global warming, soaking up roughly a quarter of the carbon dioxide that 
humans emit from power plants, factories and cars, and absorbing more 
than 90 percent of the excess heat trapped on Earth by carbon dioxide 
and other greenhouse gases. Without that protection, the land would be 
heating much more rapidly.
    But the oceans themselves are becoming hotter, more acidic and less 
oxygen-rich as a result, according to the report. If humans keep 
pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at an increasing rate, 
marine ecosystems already facing threats from seaborne plastic waste, 
unsustainable fishing practices and other man-made stresses will be 
further strained.
    ``We are an ocean world, run and regulated by a single ocean, and 
we are pushing that life support system to its very limits through 
heating, deoxygenation and acidification;' said Dan Laffoley of the 
International Union for Conservation of Nature, a leading environmental 
group that tracks the status of plant and animal species, in response 
to the report.
    The report, which was written by more than 100 international 
experts and is based on more than 7,000 studies, represents the most 
extensive look to date at the effects of climate change on oceans, ice 
sheets, mountain snowpack and permafrost.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Fishing in the Gulf of Guinea near Ghana. Rising temperatures are 
causing a drop in the amount of fish that humans can sustainably catch.
Natalija Gormalova/Agence France-Presse--Getty Images

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    A herring catch being unloaded in Maine. Some fish populations are 
migrating far from their usual locations in search of cooler waters. 
Robert F. Bukaty/Associated Press

    Changes deep in the ocean or high in the mountains are not always 
as noticeable as some of the other hallmarks of global warming, such as 
heat waves on land, or wildfires and droughts. But the report makes 
clear that what happens in these remote regions will have ripple 
effects across the globe.
    For instance, as ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica melt and 
push up ocean levels, the report said, extreme flooding that was once 
historically rare could start occurring once a year or more, on 
average, in many coastal regions this century. How quickly this happens 
depends largely on the ability of humanity to reduce emissions of 
greenhouse gases that are heating the planet.
    Around the world, glaciers in the mountains are receding quickly, 
affecting the availability of water for millions of people who depend 
on meltwater downstream to supply drinking water, irrigate agricultural 
land and produce electricity through dams and hydropower.
    But some of the report's starkest warnings concern the ocean, where 
major shifts are already underway.
    The frequency of marine heat waves--which can kill fish, seabirds, 
coral reefs and seagrasses--has doubled since the 1980s. Many fish 
populations are migrating far from their usual locations to find cooler 
waters, and local fishing industries are often struggling to keep up. 
Floating sea ice in the Arctic Ocean is declining at rates that are 
``likely unprecedented for at least 1,000 years,'' the report said.
    The report notes that some pathogens are proliferating in warmer 
waters, including vibrio, a bacteria that can infect oysters and other 
shellfish, and that already sickens some 80,000 Americans who eat raw 
or undercooked seafood each year. ``That's a good example of how 
changes in the ocean can affect even people who live far from the 
coasts;' said Sherilee Harper, a public health expert at the University 
of Alberta and an author on the report.
    The report warns that more dramatic changes could be in store. U 
fossil-fuel emissions continue to rise rapidly, for instance, the 
maximum amount of fish in the ocean that can be sustainably caught 
could decrease by as much as a quarter by century's end. That would 
have sweeping implications for global food security: Fish and seafood 
provide about 17 percent of the world's animal protein, and millions of 
people worldwide depend on fishing economies for their livelihoods.
    And heat waves in the ocean are expected to become 20 to 50 times 
more frequent this century, depending on how much greenhouse-gas 
emissions increase. Vibrant underwater ecosystems such as coral reefs, 
kelp forests and seagrass meadows are all expected to suffer serious 
damage if global temperatures rise even modestly above today's levels.
    The potential for these heat waves to wreak havoc in coastal 
communities is already becoming noticeable in areas like the North 
Pacific Ocean, where what became known as a ``blob'' of unusually hot 
water in 2013 and 2014, partly fueled by global warming, killed 
thousands of seabirds and helped spawn toxic algae blooms that forced 
fisheries to close down from California to British Columbia.
    Last year, officials in the Gulf of Alaska had to reduce permitted 
cod catches by 80 percent to allow stocks to rebuild in the wake of the 
heat wave, roiling the local fishing industry.
    ``When that happens, it's like a punch in the gut,'' said Brett 
Veerhusen, 33, a fisheries consultant and commercial fisherman based in 
Seattle and Homer, Alaska ``And it's not just fishermen who are 
affected, it's an entire supply chain, from processing plants to 
shipping to grocery stores and restaurants.''

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Lobster larvae being studied in Maine, where scientists hope to 
understand what the larvae eat and if it affects where they migrate to 
avoid warming waters. Joe Raedle/Getty Images

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    A receding glacier in the Kenai Mountains near Primrose, Alaska. 
Joe Raedle/Getty Images

    Changes in the ocean also threaten to disrupt the complex and often 
delicate ecosystems that underpin marine environments. The report notes 
that the upper layers of the open ocean have lost between 0.5 percent 
and 3.3 percent of their oxygen since 1970 as temperatures have risen. 
And, as the ocean absorbs more carbon dioxide, it is becoming more 
acidic, which could make it harder for corals, oysters, mussels and 
other organisms to build their hard shells.
    Acidification and declining oxygen levels are already affecting the 
California Current, a nutrient-rich pattern of water currents in the 
Pacific Ocean that supports one of the world's most lucrative 
fisheries, the report notes. While scientists are still trying to 
understand the full effects of these changes, one risk is that shifts 
in the food chain could cause fish to migrate away.
    ``If the fish leave, that affects the small fishing fleets we have 
up and down the California coast,'' said Gretchen Hofmann, a professor 
of marine biology at the University of California, Santa Barbara who 
was not involved in the report. ``So there's the risk of real economic 
and social problems.''
    While the report recommends that nations sharply reduce greenhouse 
gas emissions to lessen the severity of most of these threats, it also 
points out that countries will need to adapt to many changes that have 
now become unavoidable.
    Even if, for instance, nations rapidly phase out their greenhouse 
gas emissions in the decades ahead and limit global warming to well 
below an increase of 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels--a 
goal enshrined in the Paris Agreement, a pact among nations to fight 
warming--the world's oceans and frozen landscapes would still look very 
different by the end of the century than they do today. Warm-water 
coral reefs would still suffer mass die-offs. Global sea levels could 
still rise another I to 2 feet this century as ice sheets and glaciers 
melted. Fish populations would still migrate, creating winners and 
losers among fishing nations and potentially leading to increased 
conflicts, the report noted.
    To cope with these problems, coastal cities will need to build 
costly sea walls and many people will likely need to move away from low 
lying areas, the report said. Fishery managers will need to crack down 
on unsustainable fishing practices to prevent seafood stocks from 
collapsing. Nations could also expand protected areas of the ocean to 
help marine ecosystems stay resilient against shifting conditions.
    But the report also makes clear that if greenhouse gas emissions 
keep rising, many of these adaptation measures could lose their 
effectiveness. In the report's worst-case emissions scenario, where 
greenhouse gases continue piling up unchecked in the atmosphere 
throughout the century, sea levels could keep rising at a relentless 
pace for hundreds of years, potentially by 17 feet or more by 2300, the 
report said.
    ``Our fate is probably somewhere in between'' the best-and worst-
case emissions scenarios laid out in the report, said Michael 
Oppenheimer, a climate scientist at Princeton University and a lead 
author of the report's chapter on sea levels. ``But if you think about 
the possibility of indefinite or even accelerating sea level rise for 
centuries to come, that bodes very poorly for coastal civilization.''

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    A porthole with a view of waters over the Great Barrier Reef off 
Queensland, Australia. David Maurice Smith for The New York Times

    Brad Plumer is a reporter covering climate change, energy policy 
and other environmental issues for The Times's climate team. 
@bradplumer

    Senator Blumenthal. Would you all agree that in effect 
climate change is a disaster in slow motion that affects and 
endangers our fisheries?
    Mr. Oliver. Senator, certainly we've seen an increase in 
the number of disasters, particularly whether they be 
hurricane-related in many cases, the freshwater outflow from 
Bonne Carre, for example.
    We certainly see an increase in those type of situations. I 
don't think we have the specific data to make a direct 
connection between that increase and climate change. Certainly, 
our job is to do our best to understand how the climate is 
changing, where it's changing, and what the implications are to 
the resources and trust resources that we manage.
    Senator Blumenthal. And you're making that assessment?
    Mr. Oliver. We're in a constant state through all of our 
science centers and all other not just fisheries but other NOAA 
line offices, in a constant process of trying to improve that 
understanding.
    Senator Blumenthal. But you would agree that climate change 
is affecting our weather?
    Mr. Oliver. I'm not a weather specialist, but I think from 
what I understand, for example, the increased hurricane 
activity is probably a result of that.
    Senator Blumenthal. That's pretty much the weight of 
scientific opinion, correct?
    Mr. Oliver. I'm not a weather expert.
    Senator Blumenthal. Well, you're here to represent NOAA, 
which is the agency with weather experts on the question of how 
our Nation should respond to disasters that affect fisheries 
and nothing affects fisheries more than weather.
    So do you think this Nation ought to be doing something 
about climate change?
    Mr. Oliver. Well, sir, I don't know what you mean by do 
something about climate change. We're doing our best to 
understand what's changing and how it impacts the resources 
that we manage.
    Senator Blumenthal. Let me ask you this. In terms of 
science, I was deeply troubled, as I think many Americans were, 
by the controversy involving President Trump's inaccurate 
claims about the trajectory of Hurricane Dorian.
    Would you agree, and I think it's generally accepted, that 
NOAA's scientists and career staff have a reputation for 
autonomy and credibility and both their reputation and 
credibility depend on their independence from political 
interference?
    Mr. Oliver. Yes.
    Senator Blumenthal. And do you think that's true today, as 
true today as it was 2 months ago?
    Mr. Oliver. I think it's truer today than ever.
    Senator Blumenthal. Why do you say that?
    Mr. Oliver. I think the incident that you mentioned caused 
us to refocus and reassert that that very point and I think Dr. 
Jacobs did so in the week following that event.
    Senator Blumenthal. Do you feel that the esprit and morale 
within the agency reflects that determination, as well?
    Mr. Oliver. As far as I know, yes.
    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Wicker. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal.
    General Spraggins, an oyster can't grow in freshwater and 
basically I think the testimony is our oyster beds in the 
Mississippi Sound are--the devastation is almost 100 percent, 
is that correct?
    Mr. Spraggins. Yes, sir.
    Senator Wicker. How long after the spillway is opened and 
then closed again, how long after that does it normally take 
for the salinity in the Sound to return to normal so that 
oysters can grow again?
    Mr. Spraggins. It's returning to normal now. It would 
probably be around the middle of October before it happens back 
to where we had a normal salinity, but, however, we have no 
oysters to grow. That's our issue, and because of that, it's 
going to be very hard.
    Senator Wicker. And so there are no--the oysters reproduce 
right where they live. So we're going to have to put some more 
oysters there and that's an involved process and a time-
consuming process, is it not?
    Mr. Spraggins. Yes, sir.
    Senator Wicker. Can you tell us a little about that?
    Mr. Spraggins. We have about 4,000 acres of oyster beds 
that we need to have recultured because of all the silt that 
has gone over top of the beds and the beds themselves are not 
able to accept spat for the oyster. We need to do that. That's 
the first thing.
    Then we also, because we have almost a hundred percent, 
which I say that because it could be one oyster hanging out 
there somewhere, that a hundred percent mortality, that we will 
not have oysters to put the spat into the water to be able to 
reproduce.
    An oyster today, if a spat hit on to a shell, it would take 
about a year for that oyster under perfect conditions to be 
able to even reproduce, and we will lose 5 years of 
reproduction because of this.
    We have a five-year loss of reproduction. It will take a 
minimum of 5 years to rebuild the oyster beds themselves to the 
point to where they are marketable oysters, a substantial 
amount to be able to be harvested.
    We would recommend that we bring in oysters and add oyster 
spat on shell into the Gulf to be able to help speed this up. 
If we could do it in the next five to 7 months, we could get 
into the next cycle and be able to have a spat cycle that would 
happen in the spring and could desperately increase the amount 
of time that we would have as far as the oyster beds 
recovering.
    Senator Wicker. For those of us that are not familiar with 
this, once the oyster is attached underwater, how soon can our 
oyster fishermen harvest a commercial oyster?
    Mr. Spraggins. Between two and two and a half years under 
perfect conditions.
    Senator Wicker. Thank you.
    Senator Markey.

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

    Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. Thank 
you for having this very important hearing.
    The fishing industry is a critical economic engine in 
Massachusetts and fishery disaster assistance has helped get 
our ground fishing fleets and shellfisheries through difficult 
times. However, climate change is exacerbating the challenges 
our fishermen already face.
    According to the National Climate Assessment and leading 
scientists at Tufts and MIT and Woods Hole Oceanographic 
Institute, the risk of harmful algae blooms, also known as Red 
Tide, could increase due to warmer waters. Some of the more 
recent fishery disaster declarations in New England were caused 
by harmful algae blooms.
    In 2005, shellfish beds were closed from Canada to Martha's 
Vineyard because Red Tide caused paralytic shellfish poisoning 
which can cause muscle paralysis and respiratory failure in 
humans.
    Declaration requests due to Red Tide have also been made in 
Washington, Florida, Texas, California, and Maine.
    Mr. Oliver, do you believe that there will be more Red Tide 
events due to warming waters?
    Mr. Oliver. Well, Senator, I think, as you pointed out, we 
are seeing more Red Tide events and I'm not an expert on Red 
Tide, frankly, but I suspect a lot of that is due to warmer 
waters, and I would expect more, yes.
    Senator Markey. Well, the answer is yes. Well, hurricanes 
are also a major cause of fishery disasters. Do you believe 
that there will be increased frequency and intensity of 
hurricanes and other extreme weather events due to warming 
waters and sea level rise?
    Mr. Oliver. I can't speculate on that, sir. I think we have 
seen hurricanes more frequently, and I think a lot of the 
weather experts say it's probably due to the warmer waters.
    Senator Markey. In the future, it could have increased 
frequency because of the additional CO2 that's going 
up into the atmosphere, is that correct?
    Mr. Oliver. Potentially.
    Senator Markey. Just potentially?
    Mr. Oliver. Potentially.
    Senator Markey. Well, the report that has been released on 
the ocean, the cryosphere, and the changing climate by the IPCC 
is pretty definitive in terms of all these changes and what the 
likely risk is going forward in the future.
    Do you agree with the conclusions that they have reached?
    Mr. Oliver. I have not read that report, sir.
    Senator Markey. OK. In your opinion, will warming waters 
and other impacts of climate change lead to more fishery 
disaster declarations going forward?
    Mr. Oliver. I think that we are seeing movement of fish 
from one area to the other on both the East Coast, up in 
Alaska, on the West Coast, as well. You're seeing fish 
movements. Whether those particular fish patterns of movements 
as they're affected by warm water result in disasters is 
something that would be difficult for me to speculate.
    Senator Markey. OK. Well, just this morning, again the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, came out 
with a comprehensive report on how climate change is affecting 
the oceans and our Arctic. It states, ``Climate change is 
increasing storm intensity and that blooms of Alexandrium and 
the very algae that cause the 2005 and 2008 fisheries disaster 
declaration in New England will be exacerbated by warming 
waters and we cannot be prepared for future fishery disasters 
without taking climate change into account.''
    It's not only the science that's telling us climate change 
is already impacting our oceans. Fishermen are already seeing 
these impacts. Species, such as lobsters, are moving north and 
certain fisheries are disappearing. Fishermen in New England 
used to have a Christmas shrimp harvest in the Gulf of Maine to 
tide them over between fishing season but since the Gulf of 
Maine has warmed, the shrimp have disappeared. The shrimp have 
disappeared.
    One of the 2019 priorities of the National Marine Fisheries 
Service is to incorporate understanding of ecosystems, climate, 
and habitat conditions into management of U.S. fisheries.
    So, Mr. Oliver, how is the National Marine Fisheries 
Service preparing for increased fisheries disasters due to 
climate change?
    Mr. Oliver. Throughout our enterprise and throughout our 
science centers on both coasts, we are constantly striving to 
better understand what's happening in our ecosystem and how 
climate change is affecting our fisheries. Whether those 
changes result in fisheries disasters or not, we are in a 
constant pattern of striving to better understand that so that 
we can respond as appropriate.
    Senator Markey. Well, I know that the National Marine 
Fisheries Service is doing climate vulnerability assessments 
and I think it's absolutely critical. We have to act in a 
preventative way in order to avoid the worst, most catastrophic 
consequences because we can already see it's affecting our 
industries dramatically in the Northeast. Climate science 
ultimately is crucial to helping our fishermen understand where 
they will be able to continue to sustainably fish, especially 
since the IPCC report released this morning stated that the 
maximum sustainable catch of global fisheries could decrease as 
much as 25 percent by the year 2100.
    We need to take action on climate change right now to help 
avoid this catastrophic consequence for our fishing industry, 
and I look forward to working with you and your agency on these 
issues. This report today only says that we have a disaster 
already in motion that's already impacting the fishing 
industry, and it's only going to get worse.
    This is the warning of the science of the world. They 
reached it as a consensus and it's no longer debatable. It's 
just whether or not we have the political will to do something 
about it.
    So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate very much this 
important hearing.
    Senator Wicker. Thank you, Senator Markey.
    We will leave the hearing record open for two weeks. During 
this time, Senators are asked to submit any questions for the 
record. Upon receipt, the witnesses are requested to submit 
their written answers to the committee as soon as possible but 
no later than Wednesday, October 23, 2019.
    And so at this point, we conclude the hearing, and once 
again, I express my thanks to each of our witnesses.
    This hearing is now adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:13 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                            A P P E N D I X

    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roger Wicker to 
                              Chris Oliver
    Background. NOAA, particularly NOAA Fisheries, raised concerns that 
the draft EIS for the Vineyard Wind offshore wind project, the first 
large scale domestic offshore wind energy development with no Federal 
subsidies, did not adequately account for the potential cumulative 
impacts of the growing number of planned offshore wind projects being 
developed along the East Coast. NOAA's ``non-concurrence'' 
significantly contributed to the delay of environmental permitting by 
the Interior Department that was originally anticipated this past 
August.
    Gulf Coast shipbuilders are keenly interested in competing for new 
offshore wind energy construction and transportation contracts. The New 
England economy stands to gain 3,600 new employment opportunities. 
Further, offshore wind energy will reduce the need for imports of 
liquid natural gas (LNG) from foreign nations during periods of high 
energy demand. Note: The BGR group represents Vineyard Wind.
    Question 1. Can I have your commitment that NOAA and NMFS will 
continue to work constructively with the Department of Interior in an 
effort to finalize the cumulative impact analysis and the Vineyard Wind 
supplemental EIS by March 2020?
    Answer. As a cooperating agency in the environmental review process 
for the Vineyard Wind project, NOAA has been working closely with the 
Department of the Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) 
and the project sponsor to evaluate and address potential impacts of 
the proposed project. NOAA believes fishing activities and offshore 
renewable energy interests can co-exist successfully and project 
impacts on our trust resources are minimized. We appreciate BOEM's 
desire to strengthen their analysis and more fully address the 
cumulative impacts of offshore wind activities through development of a 
supplemental environmental impact statement (EIS). While the timeline 
for completion of the analysis and supplemental EIS are at BOEM's 
discretion as the lead Federal agency for permitting the Vineyard Wind 
project, we are working closely with BOEM to help inform that analysis 
in a timely manner.

    Question 2. Based on your agency's comments about minimizing the 
impact on fishermen, is it reasonable to expect that NOAA's concerns 
will be addressed if a 1x1 nautical mile grid, as described in the D-2 
alternative, is adopted as the preferred alternative? If adopted, would 
NOAA be willing to support the Interior Department issuing the Record 
of Decision by the end of March 2020?
    Answer. Over the past several months, we have been working with 
BOEM to support additional analysis to strengthen their EIS and inform 
their selection of a preferred alternative. The selection of a 
preferred alternative and the timeline for issuance of the ROD are at 
BOEM's discretion, but we are committed to working collaboratively with 
them to support their decision-making in a timely manner.

    Question 3. Do you agree to keep your comments and inter-agency 
participation going forward consistent with statutory and policy 
guidance?
    Answer. Yes. NOAA will continue to engage with BOEM consistent with 
statutory and policy guidance as it has done throughout this project.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to 
                              Chris Oliver
    Question 1. In your testimony on fishery failures and disaster 
declarations, you spoke primarily about the impact of fishery disasters 
on the economy. In a similar vein, the Turtle Excluder Device (``TED'') 
rule (as described in the September 5, 2019 report to Congress 
entitled, Report on the Rule to Require the Use of Turtle Excluder 
Devices by Skimmer Trawl Vessels) (``2019 TED Rule'') emphasizes the 
importance of economic concerns over the conservation of threatened and 
endangered species, specifically sea turtles. In the 2016 proposed rule 
titled ``Sea Turtle Conservation; Shrimp Trawling Requirements'' 
(``2016 Proposed TED Rule''), the Fisheries Service offered its 
preferred alternative, six additional alternatives, and a draft 
environmental impact statement related to these options to the public 
for notice and comment, as required by the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA).
   Does the Fisheries Service acknowledge that the TED Rule 
        described in the September 5, 2019 report to Congress will be 
        the final rule?
    Answer. Per the Conference Report accompanying the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act of 2019 (Pub. L. No. 116-6), NMFS delivered a report 
to Congress regarding the economic impact of any rule requiring TEDs on 
September 5, 2019. As directed by the Conference Report, NMFS did not 
issue a final rule requiring TEDs until at least 90 days had passed 
after the report was delivered to Congress. The rule as described in 
the report was consistent with the final rule, and was published in the 
Federal Register on December 20, 2019.

   Does the Fisheries Service believe the public had an 
        opportunity to comment on the 2019 TED Rule? If so, explain the 
        basis for that belief.
    Answer. Yes, the public had opportunities to comment on the 
rulemaking both during the 60-day public comment period after the 2016 
publication of the proposed rule as well as in meetings held with the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) under E.O. 12866 
during OIRA's review of the final rule.

   Will there be another opportunity to comment on the revised 
        TED Rule before it is finalized?
    Answer. NMFS does not intend to re-open the public comment period 
before issuing the final rule.

   Does the Fisheries Service plan to conduct additional NEPA 
        analysis and produce another draft environmental impact 
        statement, which specifically analyzes the revised TED rule?
    Answer. In accordance with the agency's NEPA obligations, NMFS 
developed a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) to accompany a 
final rule. A Notice of Availability of this FEIS was published in the 
Federal Register on November 15, 2019. The FEIS analyzed a range of 
potential alternatives, including the alternative that would have been 
implemented in the rule described in NMFS's September 2019 report to 
Congress.

   Does the Fisheries Service plan to reinitiate consultations 
        under the Endangered Species Act?
    Answer. The relevant fisheries currently have Endangered Species 
Act (ESA) section 7 coverage. NMFS regularly re-evaluates its 
authorization of these fisheries to determine whether any of the 
triggers for ESA consultation reinitiation are met.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to 
                              Chris Oliver
    Question 1. Fishing contributes an estimated $2.4 billion to 
Minnesota's economy annually and supports nearly 35,500 jobs. Reports 
have highlighted that climate change is causing temperatures in the 
Great Lakes to rise, causing fish populations in the Great Lakes region 
to migrate to different areas--which could negatively impact a key part 
of our economy.
   How is NOAA working to ensure the resiliency and stability 
        of fish populations and the fishing industry in the Great Lakes 
        region?
    Answer. NOAA supports projects that restore degraded or altered 
Great Lakes coastal habitat to promote the recovery and sustainability 
of native fish species, recognizing that such projects yield multiple 
benefits for local communities and wildlife. Since 2010, NOAA has 
supported more than 70 habitat and species restoration projects through 
the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. These projects have restored 
nearly 4,500 acres of habitat and opened almost 500 stream miles for 
fish passage. These projects will provide multiple benefits to the 
environment and communities: supporting valuable fisheries and coastal 
resources, improving the quality of our water by restoring coastal 
wetlands, providing recreational opportunities for the public's use and 
enjoyment, and increasing the resilience of coastal and Great Lake 
communities to erosion and flooding.
    In addition, NOAA Fisheries is a key Federal partner and founding 
member of the National Fish Habitat Partnership (NFHP), which seeks to 
protect, restore, and enhance the Nation's fish and aquatic communities 
through partnerships that foster fish habitat conservation. NFHP is 
comprised of a network of 20 Fish Habitat Partnerships across the 
country, including the Great Lakes Basin and Ohio River Basin Fish 
Habitat Partnerships, the Driftless Area Restoration Effort, and the 
Fishers and Farmers Partnership.

    Question 2. In July, NOAA recommended that Congress appropriate 
$8.9 million in Great Lakes Restoration Initiative funding to restore 
habitats and improve resilience in degraded Great Lakes ecosystems. The 
funding would support projects to open river systems to fish passage, 
reconnect rivers to their floodplains, and restore and enhance river, 
stream, and wetland habitats.
   How will this funding help protect and restore fish 
        populations and the fishing industry in the Great Lakes?
    Answer. In July 2019, NOAA Fisheries announced our recommendation 
to provide $8.9 million in Great Lakes Restoration Initiative funding 
to restore important habitat for fisheries in the Great Lakes. These FY 
2019 funds will restore habitat within and outside of Great Lakes Areas 
of Concern by establishing two new multi-year partnership cooperative 
agreements and by providing additional funding to two on-going awards. 
Since the announcement, the awards have been finalized and projects 
have begun. To clarify, NOAA did not seek Congressional appropriations 
for this project.
    The two new multi-year partnership cooperative agreements are with 
Friends of the Detroit River and the Great Lakes Commission, which were 
competitively selected through the 2019 NOAA Great Lakes Habitat 
Restoration Regional Partnership Grants Federal Funding Opportunity. 
Projects will address habitat-limiting issues by removing hardened 
shorelines, protecting and enhancing soft shores, and restoring coastal 
wetlands.
    Funding will also go towards second-year funding to support ongoing 
projects with the Huron Pines Resource Conservation and Development 
Council, as well as a previous award to the Great Lakes Commission to 
restore habitat in the St. Clair-Detroit River System. The Huron Pines 
projects will focus on removing high-priority fish passage barriers to 
restore habitat for native species such as brook trout. These projects 
were competitively selected through the 2018 NOAA Great Lakes Habitat 
Restoration Project Grants under the U.S. Great Lakes Restoration 
Initiative Federal Funding Opportunity.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Kyrsten Sinema to 
                              Chris Oliver
    Question 1. As you know, there is no permanent fund to provide 
relief to affected communities after the Secretary has made a Fisheries 
Disaster Determination. While Congress routinely provides fisheries 
disaster relief funding as a part of broader disaster relief efforts, 
that funding often arrives too late. Multiple studies have shown that 
the time between the secretarial determination that a disaster has 
occurred and the time funding is approved by Congress is greater than a 
year.
   What challenges do communities impacted by fisheries 
        disaster determinations face while waiting for relief funding 
        from Congress?

   What types of proposals should this committee consider to 
        provide more timely disaster relief?

   Lastly, what mitigation strategies or pre-event planning can 
        be done to ensure taxpayer dollars are used as efficiently as 
        possible?
    Answer. (Q1) What challenges do communities impacted by fisheries 
disaster determinations face while waiting for relief funding from 
Congress?
    (A1) Communities affected by commercial fishery failures experience 
a wide range of economic and social impacts that vary depending on the 
type of fishery resource disaster that occurred and the affected 
commercial fisheries. Direct impacts can include lost income, lost 
gear, damage to infrastructure and processing facilities, among others. 
Some communities lose access to fish resources that are essential for 
ceremonial purposes. Others lose access to food for their families in 
communities where subsistence use is common. Commercial fishery 
failures also affect other related entities such as the recreational 
and charter fisheries and processing industries.
    The challenges faced by communities waiting for fishery disaster 
assistance can vary depending on the availability other Federal 
assistance programs at the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Economic Development 
Administration, and Small Business Administration, among others.

    (Q2) What types of proposals should this committee consider to 
provide more timely disaster relief?
    (A2) The fishery disaster process occurs in two phases: the request 
and determination phase, and the appropriation/allocation and spend 
plan phase. Options for improving timeliness include: setting target 
deadlines on key decision points in both phases of the fishery disaster 
determination and assistance process; clarifying data/information 
needed up front from eligible entities requesting a fishery disaster 
determination; asking requesters to provide information as to how 
disaster assistance will help the fishery recover and become more 
resilient; and establishing deadlines and programmatic requirements for 
grant spend plans that support the long term economic and environmental 
sustainability of the fishery. NOAA is currently working on a proposed 
rule that will make these improvements to the fishery disaster process.

    (Q3) Lastly, what mitigation strategies or pre-event planning can 
be done to ensure taxpayer dollars are used as efficiently as possible?
    (A3) There are a wide range of mitigation strategy options for 
communities to implement that depend on the specific needs of the 
community and the types of fisheries they depend on. Some examples 
could include: habitat conservation and restoration and other 
activities to improve fishery resiliency; the collection of fishery 
information and other activities to improve a manager's ability to 
respond proactively to potential fishery disasters; and hardening and 
strengthening some fishery-related public infrastructure to better 
withstand natural disaster events such as hurricanes.

                                  [all]