[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]