[Senate Hearing 116-623]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 116-623
BUILDING A STRONGER AND MORE
RESILIENT SEAFOOD SECTOR
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 29, 2020
__________
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
52-822 PDF WASHINGTON : 2023
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND 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 July 29, 2020.................................... 1
Statement of Senator Wicker...................................... 1
Statement of Senator Cantwell.................................... 2
Statement of Senator Sullivan.................................... 4
Statement of Senator Scott....................................... 28
Statement of Senator Blumenthal.................................. 32
Statement of Senator Thune....................................... 34
Witnesses
Paul Doremus, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations,
National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce........ 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Leann Bosarge, Council Member, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
Council........................................................ 11
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Cora Campbell, Member, North Pacific Fishery Management Council;
and President and CEO, Silver Bay Seafoods..................... 18
Prepared statement........................................... 20
Philip Anderson, Chair, Pacific Fishery Management Council....... 22
Prepared statement........................................... 23
Appendix
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to
Paul Doremus................................................... 43
BUILDING A STRONGER AND MORE RESILIENT SEAFOOD SECTOR
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 29, 2020
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room
SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Roger Wicker,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Wicker [presiding], Thune, Sullivan,
Scott, Cantwell, and Blumenthal.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER WICKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI
The Chairman. This hearing will come to order. Good
morning. Today the Committee meets for a hearing on ``Building
a Stronger and More Resilient Seafood Sector.'' I thank my
friend and Ranking Member Senator Cantwell for convening this
hearing with me and I extend a welcome to our panel of
witnesses and thank them for appearing. Today we will hear from
Dr. Paul Doremus, Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Operations, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;
Ms. Leann Bosarge, Council Member, Gulf of Mexico Fishery
Management Council; Ms. Cora Campbell, Council Member, North
Pacific Fishery Management Council; and Mr. Phil Anderson,
Chair, Pacific Fishery Management Council.
The Committee has conducted several hearings related to
COVID-19 oversight, and today we will examine the impact of the
pandemic on the American seafood industry and ways to build a
stronger and more resilient seafood supply chain. Fisheries
across the Nation have reported as much as a 90 percent sales
decline during the COVID-19 pandemic. All sectors of the
seafood industry, including fishermen, aquaculture producers,
seafood processors, distributors, and restaurants, have been
impacted. In the Gulf of Mexico, commercial fishermen have seen
an 80 percent decrease in the price of fish.
Products such as Gulf shrimp and oysters, which are
primarily purchased at restaurants, have been especially hard-
hit by the pandemic. These losses have crippled our Nation's
fisheries, and will have negative impacts on coastal
communities around the country. Witnesses will have the
opportunity to discuss both the immediate job loss and long-
term impacts of this crisis on the seafood industry. In March,
Congress included $300 million in support of the fishing
industry in the CARES Act, because we recognized the immediate
financial crisis our fisheries faced. This support is still in
the process of being distributed to states four months later.
This delay is frustrating. Our economy needs relief now.
Chronic delays in the distribution of fishery disaster
relief have led me to introduce legislation to streamline the
fisheries disaster declaration process and hold the Federal
Government accountable. The CARES Act included more than $9
billion to the U.S. Department of Agriculture to provide
support for farmers and ranchers and to buy agricultural
commodities. I am pleased that this will support our ranchers
and farmers, but the benefit to our fishermen and seafood
farmers is limited. I have personally requested that USDA
expand food purchases to include additional seafood. The
Committee is interested in hearing the witnesses' views on the
CARES Act and its implementation.
We would also welcome perspectives on priorities for future
legislative or administrative action, including the proposals
being negotiated on a bipartisan basis as we speak. Commercial
fishermen have been hurt by this pandemic because many
Americans eat seafood in restaurants only. In order to provide
direct relief to the restaurant industry, I have introduced S.
4012, the Restaurants Act of 2020. We need to support our
restaurants and seafood sector during this crisis, but we also
need to focus on creating a more resilient seafood industry. I
am pleased to observe that we continue to gain cosponsors for
S. 4012. In May, President Trump issued an Executive Order on
promoting American seafood competitiveness and economic growth.
As the Executive Order outlines, there is a great opportunity
for the United States to promote sustainable American seafood.
America needs to invest in the expansion of domestic
aquaculture.
The United States has the largest exclusive economic zone
in the world and yet we have only a single aquaculture facility
in Federal waters. I applaud the Administration's efforts to
develop a plan to expand sustainable aquaculture. When done in
a safe and well-monitored manner, domestic farming of fish and
seafood can complement traditional fishing and ensure healthy,
safe, and affordable protein in American diets. Soon, I intend
to introduce the Advancing the Quality and Understanding of
American Aquaculture Act, or AQUAA Act. This will be done on a
bipartisan basis. This bill would create a set of National
standards for sustainable aquaculture, similar to the standards
set by the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
The United States has the best managed fisheries in the
world. We should lead the world in aquaculture management also.
Today's hearing provides an opportunity to begin the discussion
on how Congress can assist in promoting a strong, competitive
seafood sector. So, I thank the witnesses for participating
today either in person or remotely. And I now turn to my dear
friend and Ranking Member, Senator Cantwell.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for
holding this important hearing. I am reminded as I was
listening to your comments of the late Commerce Secretary Ron
Brown, maybe even testifying in this room, I can't remember but
he said ``I am the Secretary of Commerce and all the issues
that Commerce oversees. But I guarantee you, if a Member of
Congress is calling me, it is about fish.'' And I think that
that says the important nature to the State of Mississippi, to
the State of Washington, I am sure to the State of Alaska, I
saw the Senator from Alaska here, and to many of our other
colleagues, these are important economic and sustainability
questions.
So thank you for holding this important hearing and
particularly with the severe impact of COVID-19 on the seafood
industry because it has had serious economic consequences, and
I want to thank the witnesses for participating, especially
Phil Anderson, who is taking a day off from running his charter
boat out of Westport, Washington to be with us. Phil, I am sure
you would rather be reeling in coho, or spotting albatross or
many other things but I really appreciate you being here and
really appreciate you being here so early. The seafood sector
is the cornerstone of our $30 billion maritime economy in our
State of Washington.
Fisheries and fishery related businesses, such as
commercial fishing, seafood processing, shipbuilding, gear
manufacturing, make up 60 percent of our state's maritime
economy, which as a whole supports over 146,000 jobs. In
addition to commercial fisheries, the Tribal fisheries support
subsistence, and immeasurable cultural and ceremonial value and
recreational fisheries too, support our economy adding $340
million to our state's GDP. So yes, these are big economic
issues for the State of Washington. The COVID pandemic has
resulted in hardship on these communities and industries, and
as of July of this year, I heard from Tribes, shellfish
growers, fishing businesses, all who suffered from the severe
impacts and declines in exports.
The COVID pandemic unfolded in many devastating ways. To
the restaurant industry, it gutted the market for fresh seafood
virtually overnight, and the seafood and restaurant industries
are inextricably linked to the nearly three quarters of all
U.S. seafood that is consumed in restaurants. So, the West
Coast fisheries have already seen a decrease of $21 million in
revenue, a 40 percent decline compared to the previous 5-year
average. In January alone, Washington Dungeness crab fishery
saw a 37 percent decline in revenue from the previous year.
Overall, it is estimated U.S. seafood sales have dropped 95
percent this year. So despite this staggering economic data,
many fishermen have not been able to access the COVID relief
funding from the Paycheck Protection Program, the Main Street
Lending Program, or even qualified for unemployment based on
the nature of their businesses and tax structures.
The USDA food purchase programs have not been able to
provide the support for most seafood products, and some USDA
programs, including the Farmers to Families Box Program,
specifically blocked wild caught seafood from eligibility to
the program, another blow to the industry. So that is why I
fought so hard to secure $300 million for the seafood sector in
the form of grants and other assistance in the CARES Act to
address the loophole. Unfortunately, the industry has yet to
see a single dollar of relief due to the slow and inefficient
and cumbersome implementation through NOAA's National Marine
Fisheries Service.
The Chairman and I, and I applaud the Chairman on this,
have held several hearings and offered legislation to
streamline the fishery disaster process, and our bill is
currently pending before the Senate. While this bill was
written before COVID, it is clear even now, Mr. Chairman, that
this is an important aspect of what we need to be doing. In
addition to direct financial impacts of the industry, COVID-19
has also affected the fisheries research and management system
that we rely upon to maintain our status as a world leader in
sustainable fisheries. NOAA has issued waivers for observers
and monitors of commercial fisheries, and canceled stock
assessment surveys that supply crucial data. I am going to talk
about this later, but stock assessments are the bedrock for our
fisheries management system. We need stock assessments to
continue. Today, I want to hear from our witnesses about how
disruptions to stock assessments will impact fisheries
management in the future.
In closing Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I did not
mention my opposition and disappointment in the
Administration's actions in Bristol Bay, Alaska. Instead of
focusing on getting recovery dollars out the door to protect
the seafood sector, the Administration is paving the way toward
permitting the Pebble Mine. Salmon habitat and mining do not
mix. The mine will kill salmon, and thousands of American jobs
which depend on them, if any accident were to occur.
When the late Ted Stevens was quoted, he said ``this is the
wrong mine, in the wrong place.'' I doubt that he could imagine
this becoming an even more pressing issue than it is today. It
is beyond unconscionable that the Administration continues to
threaten the largest salmon fishery in the world instead of
focusing on the catastrophic failure that we are seeing because
of the pandemic. This is like a one, two gut punch to the
industry. By failing to engage in this process in a formal
manner, NOAA has abdicated its responsibility to salmon
management. NOAA has turned its back on 14,000 jobs and a $1.5
billion sockeye salmon sector that is the largest in the world.
So as I have said many times, we must let science lead, and
the Administration is not listening to science and NOAA is not
sticking up for the science. This is an important public health
issue, and it is important to protect these fisheries. I don't
know what has happened with NOAA losing sight of this mission,
but I guarantee you that the coastal communities that I
represent, the fishermen that I represent, the jobs that they
represent, and the sockeye salmon industry are very
disappointed and we deserve better. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Cantwell. We
have written statements from all four of our witnesses and they
will be placed in the record at this point, and we recognize
each of our panelists to summarize testimony in 5 minutes. And
we begin in person with Dr. Doremus. Sir, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Sullivan. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Yes?
Senator Sullivan. Sorry to interrupt. I was going to take a
minute to introduce one of the witnesses here.
The Chairman. Absolutely.
Senator Sullivan. Alaskan, who is a good friend of mine. If
I can take a moment to introduce Ms. Cora Campbell. Cora is an
individual who I have great respect for, both as a friend and
for her experience in harvesting, processing, and literally
managing Alaska's fisheries resources. Cora's fishery career
began in Petersburg, Alaska where she grew up fishing with her
family. Following this, she moved on to fisheries policy in
Alaska, served on numerous boards and committees including the
North Pacific Fisheries Management Council's Advisory Panel,
United Fishermen of Alaska, the Alaska Seafood Marketing
Institute, and the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, she served as a policy advisor
to two Governors in Alaskan fisheries, wildlife, climate
change, and natural resources, seafood marketing, and Arctic
development. And perhaps most importantly, she is the former
Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and
represented the State of Alaska on the North Pacific Fisheries
Management Council from 2010 to 2014. I had the distinct honor
and pleasure of serving in a cabinet position with Cora when
she was the Commissioner of Fish and Game and I was the
Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources.
She certainly, at that time, had one of the toughest jobs
in the State of Alaska and did in an exemplary job in leading
the Department of Fish and Game. I worked with her closely
literally on a daily basis during that time. She is currently
the President and CEO of Silver Base Seafoods, a fishermen-
owned Alaska seafood processing company. She is also currently
serving on the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council.
Lives in Anchorage with her husband and two children, and I am
very, very excited to have her testify and answer questions
today.
Mr. Chairman, I can't think of a more qualified,
experienced, and important person from my state to be
testifying in front of the Committee on this important hearing
today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Sullivan, for
those introductory remarks. And now we'll begin with 5 minute
summaries of testimony. And again, I call on Dr. Paul Doremus.
You are recognized.
STATEMENT OF PAUL DOREMUS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR FOR OPERATIONS, NATIONAL MARINE
FISHERIES SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Dr. Doremus. Thank you, Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member
Cantwell, members of the Committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today regarding the impacts of COVID-19
on U.S. fisheries and the broader seafood industry. I am Paul
Doremus. I serve as the Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Operations at NOAA Fisheries. We are responsible for the
stewardship of the Nation's living marine resources,
responsible for managing productive and sustainable fisheries,
ensuring safe sources of sustainable seafood supply, recovering
and conserving protected resources, healthy ecosystems--all
based on sound science and an ecosystem-based approach to
management. Since March, we saw very quickly that we needed to
take a proactive role in understanding the scale and the scope
of the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on the entire sector.
Senator, as you noted in your opening comments, our seafood
industries depend very heavily on restaurant and food service
retail outlets to the tune of 70 percent of sales, and that
source of demand for U.S. seafood products, in the context of
the social distancing requirements of the pandemic, dropped
precipitously. We are seeing significant impacts across the
seafood supply chain from that changed structure of demand, and
including but not limited to U.S. harvesters, seafood dealers,
processors, wholesalers, distributors, and the recreational
for-hire sector. Market demand has dropped substantially in
these sectors as customers continue to stay home, public docks
or ports stay closed or have limited utility. Harvesting,
processing, and distribution have been curtailed for many fresh
high-end products and in some cases have largely stopped in
response to restaurant and other food service sector closings
throughout the U.S. as well as globally.
The industry's outlook in the coming months is highly
uncertain. Our initial analysis of industry impacts indicates
that the scale and scope of the effects of COVID-19 on the
entire sector are broad and are likely to continue to be felt
for some time. We have a range of people in the industry,
agencies, businesses, all parts of society that are coming to
terms with trying to understand and adjust to the new realities
of our COVID-19 environment and how the markets will be
evolving from here.
We are continuing to assess both the near-term and
immediate impacts of this pandemic and trying to assess over
time how the pandemic will evolve in terms of its impact, and
look at ways that we can improve the long-term resilience, the
recovery initially, and then the long-term resilience and
competitiveness of U.S. seafood and fisheries industries. We
would certainly like to thank Congress for your close attention
to date to the negative effects of COVID-19 on the industry as
a whole.
Recently the Secretary of Commerce announced the allocation
of $300 million to fisheries assistance, funding provided by
section 12005 of the CARES Act to states, tribes, territories
with coastal and marine fishery participants who have been
negatively affected by COVID-19. We are working aggressively.
This has been the highest priority of ours to implement this
funding and get it in the hands of those who deserve it as
quickly as possible, and we are in the process of doing that at
this moment in close collaboration with our partners in the
marine fisheries commissions and elsewhere in the states.
In addition to the CARES Act funding, we are providing
technical assistance to the U.S. Department of Agriculture to
expand the range of species purchased by USDA for food
assistance programs and other types of outlets for their buying
programs, and in the near-term our fisheries finance program
has modified and extended loan repayments, upon request, to
seafood companies with short-term liquidity needs. These are
the types of things that we have been trying to do where we can
work both within NOAA and across the Federal agency community
to provide immediate assistance to U.S. fisheries and seafood
industry.
We are also trying to look longer term. While the COVID-19
crisis has profoundly affected the seafood industry and we have
a near-term need for immediate assistance, there is also an
opportunity to rebuild fisheries, or the seafood sector as a
whole, in ways that improve our ability to handle these types
of crises in the future and address long-term systemic
challenges, some of which existed prior to the pandemic itself.
These challenges include reducing the cost of goods relative to
foreign competition, modernizing or expanding U.S. seafood
processing capacity, reducing reliance on foreign processing in
the process, expanding domestically sourced supply and
development of U.S. aquaculture, providing new product forms
and market delivery techniques and generating greater demand
through seafood marketing and promotion.
These are the types of things that we hope long term will
help us mitigate the immediate and long-term effects of the
pandemic on the industry. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify in front of you today. I look forward to your questions
and it is a great pleasure to join the other panelists as
Senator Sullivan mentioned and others who provide a great deal
of expertise on this topic as well. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Doremus follows:]
Prepared Statement of Paul Doremus, Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
Overview
Good morning, Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and Members
of the Committee. My name is Paul Doremus and I serve as the Deputy
Assistant Administrator for Operations within the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service
(NOAA Fisheries) in the Department of Commerce. NOAA Fisheries is
responsible for the stewardship of the Nation's living marine resources
and their habitats, including managing productive and sustainable
fisheries, safe sources of seafood, the recovery and conservation of
protected resources, and healthy ecosystems--informed by sound science
and an ecosystem-based approach to management.
NOAA has a robust process in-place for actively monitoring and
adjusting operations during emergencies and is doing so in response to
the COVID-19 pandemic. NOAA's systems are continually monitored and
staff are routinely prepared to ensure operational continuity. At this
time, NOAA Fisheries remains operational; however, some key functions,
such as certain fisheries surveys and field research, have been
temporarily suspended due to social distancing requirements and related
safety considerations. As we continue to manage operations, we are
focusing first and foremost on the health and safety of our staff and
partners, and evaluating current and upcoming operations based on
mission priorities and operational risks. NOAA Fisheries will continue
to fulfill our mission to the greatest extent possible under the
current circumstances, maintaining our Nation's seafood supply and
protecting marine life while minimizing risks to staff and facilities.
Today, I will speak to the impacts of the pandemic on U.S. fisheries
and the broader seafood industry.
Overview of COVID-19 Impacts
Since March, NOAA Fisheries has taken a proactive role in
monitoring and adjusting to COVID-19 impacts. In keeping with our
mission, the agency conducted a rapid economic assessment to identify
immediate impacts of the pandemic on the U.S. seafood industry. Based
on the rapid assessment, the agency recently published a report, NOAA
Fisheries Initial Impacts Assessment of the COVID-19 Crisis on the U.S.
Commercial Seafood and Recreational For-Hire/Charter Industries, which
includes an initial snapshot of COVID-19 effects on the industry
nationally and regionally as of March 2020.
Initially, some elements of the seafood industry in the United
States felt the impacts of COVID-19 due to the broad scale closures of
ports and seafood processing facilities in China beginning in late
January as China enacted stringent protective measures, including
quarantines and stay-at-home orders to all but essential workers, to
reduce the spread of the virus.\1\ As COVID-19 spread globally, the
United States and many other countries implemented social distancing
and other protective measures to reduce transmission rates, including
closing restaurants but eventually extending to stay-at-home guidance
and later stay-at-home orders for all but essential workers. These
measures had a swift and sweeping impact on many U.S. fisheries but
especially on fresh, high-end products that are primarily sold to
restaurants. Domestic shellfish aquaculture operations were similarly
hard hit by restaurant closures. Further, as social distancing measures
expanded, the for-hire recreational industry, especially in southern
states with active fishing seasons already underway, was essentially
shut down as customers stayed home and public docks closed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ From 2015-2019, China was the United States' top export country
for the January through May timeframe. China was the second largest
source of seafood imports into the United States for this period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, those interviewed indicated that in contrast to the fresh
fish market, consumers dramatically increased supermarket purchases in
late March 2020 of shelf stable and frozen product forms--including
canned tuna, Alaska pollock and king mackerel. Sales figures for this
surge in supermarket sales published in the seafood and food trade
press included a greater than 100 percent increase in sales of canned
tuna fish compared to the same week last year while sales of frozen
seafood increased 65 percent from March 15 to April 26 \2\ compared to
the same period in 2019.\3\ However, because restaurant sales accounted
for 60 percent to 70 percent of seafood sold in the United States pre-
COVID-19, increases in supermarket sales have not offset the loss of
the restaurant trade.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See, for example, https://www.undercurrentnews.com/2020/05/04/
opinion-can-tuna-sustain-us-through-and-after-this-pandemic/
\3\ Source IRI, Inc. as cited in https://www.theshelbyreport.com/
2020/05/09/frozen-food-sales-top-50-gains-versus-year-ago/
\4\ National Marine Fisheries Service (2018) Fisheries of the
United States, 2017. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Current Fishery
Statistics No. 2017 Available at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
feature-story/fisheries-united-states-2017
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The COVID-19 crisis and associated market and international trade
disruptions have not only altered the way the seafood industry does
business, the crisis also provides an opportunity to rebuild in a way
that addresses longer-term systemic challenges. These challenges
include reducing the cost of goods for U.S. seafood relative to foreign
competition, modernizing or expanding U.S. processing capacity to
reduce reliance on foreign processing of U.S. seafood (especially
China), expanding domestically sourced supply by making full use of
wild harvest catch and developing U.S. aquaculture, pivoting to new
product forms and market delivery techniques, and generating greater
demand for U.S. seafood through generic seafood marketing and
promotion. Support for these transitional actions will help the seafood
industry rebuild more quickly and to increase industry resilience to
potential future crises and market shocks.
Sector-by-Sector Breakdown
For U.S. wild-caught commercial fisheries, fisheries reliant upon
the Chinese and other Asian markets were immediately and significantly
impacted by COVID-19 as demand collapsed in key markets. The rolling
closures of restaurants across states and other social distancing
measures beginning in March primarily affected fresh, high-end
products, including lobster, swordfish, tunas, halibut, sablefish,
snapper, oysters and other shellfish, sold mainly to restaurants and
food service sectors. Some seafood products are more resilient to the
current events because they are processed into ``shelf stable'' product
forms (such as frozen, canned, or ready meals), sold through retailing
outlets, or frozen into blocks for future processing. Sharp declines in
market demand for fresh product through the customary supply chain has
resulted in fishermen in several regions attempting direct-to-consumer
sales or changing product forms. Fisheries waiting for seasons to open
or those peaking this summer will be affected if demand remains low
(e.g., Alaska and West Coast salmon, tunas and swordfish).
For U.S. marine aquaculture, shellfish farming on all coasts of the
United States has virtually shut down. Especially hard hit are markets
for live oysters, geoduck, and other shellfish and associated
hatcheries that are not receiving seed orders for the spring. A two-to
three-month impact will cause some operations to close, however, the
general feedback from industry was that most operations will weather a
crisis of this duration but warned that longer impacts could cripple
the domestic shellfish industry for several years (or more).
U.S. seafood dealers and processors, especially those that rely on
fresh and high value products typically sold by restaurants, have been
severely affected by the collapse in market demand. Some processors are
not buying and fish houses with full freezers are unable to buy more
product, reflecting the fact that the increased sales of frozen
products at supermarkets did not offset the drop in demand by the
restaurant and food service sector.
For recreational for-hire operations, for-hire and party boat
operations have ceased in many states and have been significantly
curtailed in the remaining states due to social distancing measures,
stay-at-home orders, and travel restrictions. Southern states (states
in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic regions), California, and
Hawaii, which have strong demand for trips during the March to April
timeframe, have been particularly affected. In addition to current
closures, all states reported cancelled future bookings. While to date,
layoffs have been limited in this sector, many operations have sharply
reduced employees' hours to reduce costs. Shore-side businesses have
also been negatively impacted; a number of tackle shops, marinas, boat
rentals/dealers, restaurants and hotels have closed or are operating on
sharply reduced hours.
For exports of U.S. seafood, initial impacts of COVID-19 in China
in late January led to decline in U.S. seafood exports to China of 31
percent and 44 percent compared to January and February of the previous
year.\5\ The fresh seafood export trade has virtually stopped,
including shellfish (lobster, crab, oysters, and geoduck). The lack of
airline flights and inability of ships to land product (e.g., ports in
the European Union and Asia are currently backed up) have also
curtailed demand.\6\ New information indicates that China is resuming
or may soon resume purchases of U.S. seafood products such as geoduck
and West Coast groundfish species; however, lack of airline flights may
still hamper shipments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Note that the drop in demand cited may not all be attributable
to COVID-19; at this time, it is not possible to determine causality.
Seafood trade data available at: https://www.st
.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/foreign-trade/
\6\ See, for example, https://www.npr.org/2020/02/25/807422595/
some-u-s-farmers-boxed-in-by-coronavirus-outbreak.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implications for the Future of the Seafood Industry
As illustrated above, COVID-19 effects are already having
significant impacts on the seafood supply chain, including but not
limited to U.S. harvesters (wild and farmed), seafood dealers and
processors, seafood wholesalers and distributors, and the recreational
for-hire sector. Harvesting, processing, and distribution have been
curtailed for many products and in some cases have ceased in response
to restaurant and other closings throughout the country and globally.
Further, the industry's outlook in the coming months is highly
uncertain. Overall, our initial analysis of industry impacts indicates
that the scale and scope of the effects of COVID-19 on the entire
sector are broad.
The 2020 COVID-19 crisis also created a turning point for the U.S.
and global seafood industry and created new long-term opportunities as
well as challenges to expanding our sustainable domestic seafood
sector. The long-term impacts of COVID-19 will likely be felt for a
while as people, agencies, businesses, and other parts of society
adjust to a new reality. NOAA Fisheries will use this information to
assess the immediate and long-term needs to secure and enhance the
resilience of the U.S. seafood and fisheries industries.
CARES Act Financial Assistance and Other Relief
We would like to thank Congress for their attention to the negative
effects from COVID-19 on the seafood and fishing industries. Recently,
the Secretary of Commerce announced the allocation of $300 million in
fisheries assistance funding provided by Sec. 12005 of the Coronavirus
Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, also called the CARES Act, to
states, Tribes, and territories with coastal and marine fishery
participants who have been negatively affected by COVID-19. NOAA
Fisheries is working aggressively to ensure that these funds can be
distributed to fishery participants as fast and fairly as possible.
NOAA Fisheries will use these allocations to make awards to our
partners--the three interstate marine fisheries commissions, Puerto
Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands--to disburse funds to address direct
or indirect fishery-related losses as well as subsistence, cultural, or
ceremonial impacts related to COVID-19. This relief package will help
support America's fishermen, seafood farmers, and seafood processors
along with a portion of the recreational fishing industry such as
charter boat captains. We stand with the men and women working to
provide healthy and safe seafood during this uniquely challenging time,
while our U.S. fisheries work to continue to support 1.7 million jobs
and to generate $200 billion in annual sales.
NOAA Fisheries will continue to evaluate the effect of COVID-19 on
the seafood industry as the year progresses and as data on economic
impacts becomes more readily available across industry segments and
regions. Summer is the most important revenue earning season for
fishery participants, and NMFS will closely monitor the impacts to
industry, and continue to look for ways to support it during these
unprecedented challenges.
I would also like to discuss some of the other ways NMFS is
assisting the fishing community. In addition to disbursing the CARES
Act funding, NOAA Fisheries is providing technical assistance to the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to expand the range of species
purchased by USDA for food assistance programs. Also, NOAA Fisheries'
Fisheries Finance Program, which has over $500 million in outstanding
loans to the seafood sector, has modified and extended loan repayments
upon request to seafood companies (within the limits and flexibilities
of existing authorities) to assist companies with short term liquidity
needs. In addition, NOAA Fisheries is working with the regional Fishery
Management Councils to closely monitor the COVID-19 situation. There
have been a number of requests for emergency actions to help address
impacts the industry is facing and we are working through the Council
process to address them. In addition, NOAA Fisheries has already
implemented some emergency measures that have been recommended by the
Councils. We encourage the public to stay up to date by monitoring
councils' websites and other media as the COVID-19 situation
progresses.
Finally, from the early stages of the pandemic, Sea Grant, a
congressionally established partnership between NOAA and 33 university-
based organizations that work to create and maintain a healthy coastal
environment and economy, has worked with the National Marine Fisheries
Service Office of Aquaculture to identify the most critical areas in
which it can assist the aquaculture and seafood communities. Sea Grant
worked with their state programs to identify priority topics for the
aquaculture industry, including: (a) developing response plans for
recovery; (b) education and implementation of previously developed
knowledge or tools directed towards improving cash flow and business
sustainability (e.g., product storage techniques, direct marketing best
practices for fishers; cooperative research; etc.); (c) assistance with
accessing other relief programs (e.g., the CARES Act), including
assisting stakeholders with business records and loss documentation;
and (d) developing processes to make industries more resilient against
future disruptions to their respective supply chains.
The National Sea Grant Office (NSGO) is also committed to
supporting local response to the challenges listed above by investing a
total of $3.4 million in Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 funds. Summaries of
funded projects will be posted on the Sea Grant website, and will be
provided to the relevant committees and Member offices. Additionally,
the NSGO has created a webpage (https://seagrant.noaa.gov/seafood-
resources) to provide pertinent and timely information and resources to
the U.S. seafood industry--both wild harvest and aquaculture. While
content is currently focused on challenges related to COVID-19, this
page will continue to serve as a valuable resource to the U.S. seafood
industry well into the future.
Executive Order Promoting American Seafood Competitiveness and
Economic Growth
On May 7th the President signed a new Executive Order Promoting
American Seafood Competitiveness and Economic Growth. This historic
Executive Order will propel the United States forward as a seafood
producer by strengthening the American seafood economy; improving the
competitiveness of American industry; ensuring food security; providing
environmentally safe and sustainable seafood; supporting American
workers; and ensuring coordinated and transparent Federal actions. The
2020 COVID-19 crisis has created a turning point in the way the seafood
industry does business and--in addition to other efforts and financial
support--this Executive Order and the funding available through the
CARES Act creates new opportunities to address long-term challenges to
expanding our sustainable domestic seafood sector.
In particular, the Executive Order gives added emphasis to
increasing production of America's wild caught fisheries, opening
export markets, strengthening international requirements for
sustainable fishing, and renewing efforts to expand responsible U.S.
aquaculture production. These actions will be taken without
compromising America's world-class marine stewardship and environmental
requirements.
Conclusion
We will continue to work to understand and mitigate the immediate
and long-term impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on U.S. fisheries and
our Nation's living marine resources. Longer term, NOAA will explore
ways to rebuild and create a U.S. seafood industry that will be more
resilient to future market, environmental, or other shocks.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Dr. Doremus. And now, we
call upon Ms. Leann Bosarge, Council Member of the Gulf of
Mexico Fishery Management Council. Ms. Bosarge, are you joining
us from Tampa today?
Ms. Bosarge. No, sir. I am joining you from the great State
of Mississippi today.
The Chairman. All right, OK. Where are you?
Ms. Bosarge. Pascagoula, Mississippi.
The Chairman. Very good. Well, thank you very, very much
for joining us and your testimony has been received already. We
ask you to summarize it in approximately 5 minutes, please
ma'am.
STATEMENT OF LEANN BOSARGE, COUNCIL MEMBER, GULF OF MEXICO
FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
Ms. Bosarge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
Committee. I would like to thank you for inviting me to speak
to you today. As I said, my name is Leann Bosarge from
Pascagoula, Mississippi, and I hail from a long line of
commercial fishermen. My parents started taking my sisters and
I out shrimping at a very young age and I spent my fair share
of time in engine rooms with my daddy rebuilding engines. But I
also went on to become the first member of my family to earn a
college degree, two of them in fact, working at the family
business all the while.
These days, I am on land most of the time doing a little
bit of everything, new business development, corporate taxes,
or prepping for Coast Guard inspections. And over the years,
the family business has grown to a fleet of five trial vessels
which shrimp throughout both the Gulf of Mexico and the South
Atlantic. Now for the topics of today's hearing. First topic,
the effect of COVID-19 on the seafood industry. Well, it turns
out the bulk of U.S. consumers buy their seafood in restaurants
not grocery stores. When restaurants closed and stopped buying
from fish houses, fish houses had to stop buying from the
fishermen. Boats were tied to the dock and the industry was out
of work.
As the restrictions on restaurants were eased, fishermen
were able to make a few fishing trips here and there but
markets dictated they catch fewer fish at lower prices. Seafood
markets have barely begun to thaw and increasing cases of
COVID-19 unfortunately mean that they could revert back to a
standstill any day now. Second topic you asked us to speak on,
the CARES Act. We would like to thank Congress very much for
passing the CARES Act and including a pool of funds that were
directed to commercial fishermen. The fishing industry also
appreciates capping of administrative fees. There is also a
high value placed on transparency in determining allocations
and timeliness in dispersing the funds. Third topic, building a
more resilient seafood industry.
So the virus revealed the kinks in our seafood supply
chain. It taught us that our markets are too limited and that
our National seafood policy cannot continue with a bias toward
the side of tainted imports. So here are my top four ideas for
addressing these issues. Number one, increasing testing of
imported seafood to ensure it does not contain banned chemical
substances. In 2015, 99.9 percent of seafood imported into the
U.S. was not tested for banned substances. Increase testing by
the EU, on the other hand, has led to a diversion of these
tainted products to U.S. markets.
Increased testing will improve food quality for our
citizens and level the playing field for our domestic
fishermen. Decades of depressed shrimp prices caused by cheap
imports have contributed to a generation of children choosing
not to follow in their parents footsteps and become shrimpers,
instead leaving their heritage for a different career. This
graying of the fleet, as it is called, is a sad state of
affairs and I implore you to make the increased testing of
imported seafood a priority. Idea number two, country of origin
labeling on restaurant menus Nation--hear me out on this.
Marketing the superiority of wild caught domestic seafood has
led to an educated seafood consuming public in the U.S. They
know they prefer domestic product.
Unfortunately, they don't always know if they are in fact
eating domestic seafood at restaurants. I am sure all of you
are thinking about creative ways to direct money to the
restaurant industry right now. How about a tax credit for
restaurants that provide country of origin labeling for seafood
on their menus? The tax break for restaurants would be a win-
win for the restaurant industry, the seafood industry, and the
American seafood consumer. Idea number three, establish the
infrastructure for a nationwide online seafood market place.
Think of it as a virtual farmers market for seafood.
COVID-19 has brought about a paradigm shift in how our
fishermen reach consumers, but we need a nationwide platform
these fishermen can utilize to market their products. Think of
Etsy. The Etsy platform allows the artisan to reach an
exponential member number of customers because Etsy boosts the
online efforts of that individual artisan to a whole other
level because Etsy is recognized nationwide as a one-stop shop
for home artisan products. Since seafood is a public resource,
this platform shouldn't belong to a private entity. And please
expand the role of the seafood trade task force established by
Executive Order 13921 and make the creation of a nationwide
virtual farmers market for seafood part of their mission.
Final note, number four, support of young fishermen
development programs. It is time for us to let our young people
know that fishing is a viable career path. The young fishermen
development programs being founded around the country are
excellent vehicles for participation at career fairs in middle
schools, in high schools to plant that seed as young people
begin to think about their future.
Vocational training programs should be expanded to include
commercial fishing as a desirable career. The Young Fishermen's
Development Act can help resurrect our heritage. Mr. Chairman,
I look forward to working with you on these and many other
ideas to strengthen our domestic seafood industry.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bosarge follows:]
Prepared Statement of Leann Bosarge, Council Member, Gulf of Mexico
Fishery Management Council
Mister Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is Leann
Bosarge, and I'd first like to thank you for inviting me to speak
before you today. As a brief background on myself, I hail from a long
line of commercial fishermen, who over the years have harvested
everything from butterfish and red snapper to oysters, crabs and
shrimp. I grew up working at our family business, Bosarge Boats, which
owns and operates a fleet of trawl vessels, i.e., shrimp boats, which
fish the waters of both the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic. I
was the first member of my family to earn a college degree--of course
working at the family business all the while. After college, I carried
out my mother's wishes to at least try another industry, I spent a few
years working for a publicly traded financial institution, before
returning to my true love--the commercial fishing industry and the
family business. In 2013, I was appointed to the Gulf of Mexico Fishery
Management Council and was honored to be elected and serve as Chairman
of the Council from 2016 to 2018. I'm currently in my third term on the
Council as a voting member, and I am honored to have had the
opportunity to share in shaping the future of our fisheries and
ensuring their long term, science-based sustainability.
Gulf perspective on the short and long-term impacts of COVID-19 on the
seafood industry
There is not an industry in this country that has been unscathed by
COVID-19, but I feel it important to first acknowledge those who have
lost loved ones as they have endured the greatest sacrifice.
The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a wide range of adverse
socio-economic impacts on the Gulf of Mexico seafood industry. These
impacts are still unfolding and include significant decreases in ex-
vessel landings, employment losses, disruptions to the supply chains of
seafood products, price decreases and sizeable reductions in revenues
across all nodes of the supply chains for most seafood species landed
in Gulf of Mexico.
As restaurants continued to close, orders of seafood products began
to decrease and in some cases disappear. In turn, the depressed demand
for seafood products by restaurants has led seafood dealers to
drastically reduce or temporarily suspend orders from commercial
fishermen. In reaction to the reductions in orders from dealers,
commercial fishermen had to adjust their operations downward. These
adjustments continue to include decreases in the number of commercial
fishing trips taken, drops in the quantity of fish harvested per trip
and reductions to the number of crew members taken out on a given
fishing trip. This sequence of events continues to adversely impact
employment prospects throughout our supply chains.
In the following sections, I will briefly discuss the impacts of
the COVID-19 pandemic on the commercial finfish and shrimp sectors,
with a particular emphasis on changes in ex-vessel landings and
revenues. The detrimental effects on the seafood industry are still
unfolding, due to the continuing evolution of this pandemic. In the
Gulf of Mexico, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) through
its South East Regional Office (SERO) and South East Fisheries Science
Center (SEFSC) are designing or conducting studies to evaluate these
effects. At a state level, through their state fisheries departments or
sea grant and extension services, the five constituting states are
developing or are conducting ongoing surveys to assess the impacts of
the pandemic on their respective state fisheries sectors. Therefore,
examples and data included in my testimony rely on regional and Gulf-
wide data from NMFS or state-specific data, depending on availability.
For finfish fisheries, there is a general downward trend in ex-
vessel landings associated with economic losses borne by commercial
fishermen due to decreases in ex-vessel revenues. Compared to the first
half of 2019, ex-vessel revenues from finfish for the first 6 months of
2020 have decreased by 23 percent in the Southeast region, which
includes the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico.
Examples of individual Gulf of Mexico reef fish species with
noteworthy reductions in ex-vessel landings and revenues during the
same time interval include greater amberjack and yellowtail snapper.
For greater amberjack and yellowtail snapper, ex-vessel landings
decreased by 46 percent and 51 percent, respectively. Associated
decreases in greater amberjack and yellowtail snapper ex-vessel
revenues were 42 percent and 55 percent, respectively.
Preliminary data from a University of Florida and Florida Sea Grant
survey of about 300 commercial fishermen provide an example of the
devastating impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on commercial fisheries at
the state level. Survey respondents reported a 74 percent average
revenue loss due to the pandemic. Subsets of respondents including reef
fish or coastal migratory pelagic fishermen reported average losses in
revenues of 76 percent and 72 percent, respectively. In an accompanying
survey, Florida seafood wholesale dealers report, on average, 70
percent revenue losses due to COVID-19.
A survey administered by the Louisiana State University
Agricultural Center, Louisiana Sea Grant, and Department of Wildlife
and Fisheries illustrates revenue losses and reductions in employment
borne by seafood dock owners and dealers in Louisiana. Preliminary
survey results indicate a 51 percent average decrease in revenues among
respondents during the first quarter of 2020 compared to the first
quarter of last year. Survey respondents also reported a loss of all
foreign personnel and a 55 percent average decrease in full time
employment. Losses in employment were somewhat mitigated as dealers and
dock operators converted some of the laid off full time workforce to
part-time.
In the University of Florida and Florida Sea Grant survey I
mentioned earlier, survey respondents who are commercial shrimp
fishermen reported 63 percent average revenue losses due to the COVID-
19 pandemic. According to the Southern Shrimp Alliance (SSA), a shrimp
industry organization, aggregate shrimp landings in the Gulf of Mexico
during the first six months of 2020 were the lowest ever recorded in
the Gulf of Mexico. The SSA further indicates that Gulf shrimp landings
during the first half of 2020 were about 38 percent lower than the
previous 18-year average for landings.
In addition to these effects, because commercial fishermen and
dealers can no longer primarily rely on orders from restaurants and
institutional clients such as corporate clients, large venues, event
organizers, and universities, the traditional repartition of seafood
consumption between seafood consumed away from home and seafood bought
at retail outlets for in-house consumption has been upended. According
to the Washington Post (Laura Reiley, April 8, 2020), U.S. consumers
spend approximately twice as much on seafood consumed away from home
relative to seafood bought in grocery and retail stores for in-house
consumption. The proportions of seafood consumed away from home and
seafood products bought at retail for in-home consumption are
approximately 70 percent and 30 percent, respectively. In a July 20,
2020 article, Seafood News, a seafood trade magazine, notes that with
the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, the percentage of seafood products
consumed at home has increased by as much as 20 percent. The
persistence of such a trend could result in seafood consumed at home
representing as much as 65 percent of the total seafood consumption.
The increase in the relative importance of in-house seafood consumption
may offer future opportunities to develop retail markets. However, the
development of reliable and profitable market relationships with
retailers is not without challenges for commercial fishermen. While
commercial fishermen primarily concentrated on supplying seafood to
restauranteurs, retail chains heavily relied on imported seafood to
satisfy their customer demand. Therefore, domestic commercial fishermen
would have to compete with cheaper imported product to further develop
relationships with the retail sector.
CARES Act
On May 7, 2020, the Secretary of Commerce announced the allocation
of $300 million in fisheries assistance funding provided by Sec. 12005
of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, also called
the CARES Act, to states, Tribes, and territories with coastal and
marine fishery participants who have been negatively affected by COVID-
19.
The purpose of the CARES Act allocation is to provide timely
financial relief to commercial fishermen, seafood wholesale dealers,
charter fishing businesses, and marine aquaculture businesses that have
suffered financial losses as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. While
this financial relief is much needed in the Gulf of Mexico, to date no
funds have been made available to the affected industry participants.
It is anticipated most state spend plans will be drafted by the states
by mid-July. Those plans will then be reviewed and approved by NOAA
before money is distributed to those impacted. On behalf of the Gulf of
Mexico Fishery Management Council, I would like to encourage an
expedited effort to make these funds directly available to the intended
recipients to mitigate financial losses and prevent further harm to
Gulf of Mexico fisherman.
Under this Act, NOAA Fisheries has allocated $28M in support of
Gulf of Mexico Fisheries to the Gulf States Marine Fisheries
Commission. An additional $23M has been allocated to Florida (both east
and west coasts) through the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission. The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council looks forward
to the positive impacts resulting from the CARES Act but is not
directly involved in the administration of funds or programmatic
activities.
The Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission is working with Texas,
Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama to develop spend plans on how the
allocated funds [Louisiana ($14,785,244), Texas ($9,237,949), Alabama
($3,299,821) and Mississippi ($1,534,388)] will be distributed to
qualified fishery participants. As noted above, Florida has been
allocated $23,471,286 through the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission. Please note that the final allocations are slightly less
due to administrative costs for NOAA Fisheries and the Commission. I am
also grateful for the foresight of leaders in capping the
administrative fee percentages which could be deducted from these
funds, thereby ensuring that a greater portion of the funds will end up
in the hands of the fishermen affect by the pandemic.
Priorities for Future Legislative or Administrative Action
The strength of our U.S. domestic fisheries lies in management that
is based on science. In the Gulf of Mexico, many of our fisheries are
currently harvested at the maximum sustainable amount allowed by the
biological science. Legally mandated catch limits protect the health of
our stocks today and also ensure that our fishermen's livelihoods and
our Nation's seafood supply are sustainable into the future. One of the
most important priorities for the future of domestic commercial seafood
is to diversify our supply chain and expand our target markets. The
need for diversifying our supply chain has been laid bare this year as
the seafood industry has been heavily impacted from the closures due to
COVID-19 described above. Promoting commercial fishing and increasing
the demand for our domestic product will increase American jobs, both
primary and secondary jobs, strengthen the American economy via the
increased revenues, and add to our Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Over
the last 10 years, the value of seafood imported into the United States
has increased by $7.3 billion,\1\ reflecting growing demand for seafood
in this country. Meeting this increased American demand with
domestically produced seafood, as opposed to imported seafood, will
create lasting gains for commercial fishing in this country and ensure
our national food security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. International Trade Commission's Dataweb for the value of
merchandise exported under Chapter 3 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule
of the United States as well as under HTSUS codes 1603, 1604, and 1605.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following are some ideas for future legislative or
administrative action that will strengthen the domestic commercial
fishing industry as well as our national economy. The Gulf Council
brainstormed and formulated a list of ideas at its last meeting in the
context of recommending actions to promote American seafood
competitiveness and economic growth, in response to Executive Order
13921. The Gulf Council will continue to discuss these and other ideas
in greater detail and will formalize its recommended proposals at a
future Council meeting. Many of these ideas were on the initial list
formulated by the Gulf Council, but the further fleshing out of these
ideas below is specific to the commercial industry and does not
necessarily reflect the Gulf Council, which has not had an opportunity
to contribute its thoughts to today's hearing.
Increased Testing of Imported Seafood
Testing of imported seafood should be increased to ensure that FDA
standards are met and that imports do not contain prohibited chemical
substances, such as banned antibiotics, which is prevalent in imported
seafood species, especially shrimp. These substances are added to
enhance yield and to produce the product more cheaply, but can cause
health concerns and often displace domestic seafood products in
restaurants and grocery stores. In Fiscal Year 2015, the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration tested just 0.1 percent of seafood entry lines for
the presence of veterinary drug residues.\2\ In contrast, the European
Union (EU) requires that 50 percent of all shipments of farmed seafood
from India be tested for veterinary drug residues prior to being
allowed into the EU market.\3\ Worse, as the EU has increased its
testing to prevent access of contaminated shrimp to its markets, the
EU's efforts to protect European consumers have led to the diversion of
these tainted exports to the U.S. market, which lacks the more
stringent testing. Increasing the testing of imported seafood would
therefore improve the quality of imported seafood and ensure that our
domestic fishermen are competing on a fair playing field by rejecting
contaminated product. Therefore, I humbly request that Congress
consider prioritizing funds towards increased testing of imported
seafood.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See U.S. Government Accountability Office, Imported Seafood
Safety: FDA and USDA Could Strengthen Efforts to Prevent Unsafe Drug
Residues, GAO-17-443 (Sept. 2017) at 19.
\3\ See Commission Implementing Decision 2016/1774 of 4 October
2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Country of Origin Labeling for Seafood on Restaurant Menus Nationwide
The closures due to COVID-19 revealed that a significant amount of
our domestic seafood is consumed in restaurants rather than purchased
at grocery stores to be prepared at home.\4\ Although labeling the
country of origin for seafood imports is required in grocery stores, it
is not generally required in restaurants.\5\ As consumers have become
more conscientious about the source of their food, demand has increased
for domestic wild caught seafood. Unfortunately, consumers have no way
of knowing the source (i.e., country of origin) of what they are served
at a restaurant. It's time to establish a nationwide policy for
restaurants to inform consumers on the origin of seafood menu items so
American consumers can make informed decisions on their seafood
choices, the majority of which occur in restaurants. Given we are in
the throws of a pandemic, maybe this effort could begin initially with
a tax incentive, i.e., stimulus, for restaurants willing to place
country of origin labeling for seafood on their menus. In this way,
both the restaurant industry and the domestic commercial seafood
industry gain. At the point in time when this temporary stimulus effort
is set to expire, an evaluation can be made of the willingness of
restaurants to engage in this type of reporting for consumers. If it
seems the country of origin labeling was in fact palatable to the
restaurant industry, then maybe legislation requiring it across the
board would not be burdensome at that future date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``Americans spend more than twice as much on seafood in
restaurants as they do at home.'' Laura Reiley, Commercial Fishing
Industry in Free Fall as Restaurants Close, Consumers Hunker Down and
Vessels Tie Up, Washington Post (Apr. 8, 2020), available at: https://
www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/04/08/commercial-fishing-
coronavirus/
\5\ Because of a loophole in the agency's administration of the
law, seafood markets do not have to comply with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) requirements for
seafood unless that market purchases more than $230,000 worth of fresh
or frozen agricultural produce in a calendar year. This means that
labeling rules only really apply in grocery stores. As the USDA
explains on its website ``Retail firms such as fish markets and butcher
shops, as well as small stores that do not sale the threshold amount of
fresh produce, are exempt from country of origin labeling
requirements.'' See USDA, Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) Frequently
Asked Questions, available at: https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-
regulations/cool/questions-answers-consumers
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Establishing the Infrastructure for a Nationwide Online Seafood
Marketplace
Consumers have become more conscientious about the quality and
source of their seafood, creating an opportunity to promote the
diversification of the supply chain and expansion of target markets by
connecting consumers to fishermen and fish houses. With agency
assistance, infrastructure could be established for an online platform
to help the industry better market its product and to facilitate access
for consumers nationwide. Such a direct sea-to-consumer platform would
also strengthen the domestic seafood supply chain. The Seafood Trade
Task Force created by the recent Executive Order 1392 would serve as an
excellent starting point for such a project, and I hope the scope and
mission of that group will be expanded to allow them the freedom to
pursue this and other endeavors which may strengthen the resilience of
our domestic seafood industry.
Put Domestic Seafood on Public School Lunch Menus and Prohibit Imported
Seafood on Public School Lunch Menus
Our domestic seafood target market should be diversified to include
public school lunch menus, in a real and meaningful way, across the
country. It is shameful that our children are not receiving ample
seafood in school. What children eat is important, and they should eat
balanced diets at school--which includes seafood as a protein option.
The quality and healthiness of our school lunches lags behind
consumers' broader movement towards healthy food choices, which could
be addressed by providing a healthy, low-fat protein source. Add to
this the fact that domestic wild-caught seafood is naturally fortified
with vitamins and minerals that are essential for children's growth and
development, both physical and mental. And yet, even the cheapest of
seafood options cannot be found on the lunch menu in most of our public
schools. In addition to promoting our children and grandchildren's
health, it will also promote food security for the future by the
creation of a long-term, stable demand source for domestic seafood.
Support of Young Fishermen Development Programs
For many years, commercial fishing has been a generational pursuit,
with the children of fishermen often following in their parents'
footsteps. However, for some time, the average age of participants in
U.S. domestic fisheries has been increasing while labor recruitment
into domestic fisheries has been waning, termed ``the graying of the
fleet'' in commercial fisheries. This has led to labor issues in
supplying domestic seafood to the U.S. marketplace. We need to let our
young people know that commercial fishing is a viable profession and
add this career path to vocational training programs. In pursuit of
this, Young Fishermen Development Programs are being established around
the country. I'm proud to say the Gulf of Mexico has recently populated
such a group and is already getting to work fleshing out what its
program will look like. These Young Fishermen Development Programs will
be paramount; they will be the ones putting in the long hours on the
ground with our young people and educators to put these plans into
action. To achieve long-term viability for the industry, the
professionalization of the industry requires support and
appropriations. For example, a Bill referred to this Committee last
year, the Young Fishermen's Development Act,\6\ would provide grants to
support new and established local and regional training programs for
young fishermen. Such programs would provide vocational training for
our young people in the U.S. and include fisheries as a desirable
career path.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/496
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rewriting of USCG Safety Requirements--Making Them Region Specific
The United States Coast Guard Alternative Safety Compliance Program
for Commercial Fishing Vessels began with the best of intentions,
however, its one-size-fits-all approach to safety for commercial
fishing vessels across the Nation has led to protocols which many times
do not address the true nature of the safety concerns in a particular
region. In the Gulf of Mexico, it is not vessels sinking which cause
the bulk of our fatalities. Therefore a program, like the Alternative
Safety Compliance Program, which is aimed at ensuring the utmost
structural integrity of the vessel to prevent sinking, is not what is
needed to save lives in the Gulf region. The main driver of fatalities
in the Gulf of Mexico is individual instances of one crew member
falling overboard. Due to the relatively small crew size on Gulf
vessels (usually 1-4 crew on board); an individual falling overboard
often goes unseen, leading to a considerable amount of time passing
before the search begins. If the intent is really to save lives of
commercial fishermen, the current Alternative Safety Compliance Program
should be repealed and replaced by a program with a regional approach
tailored to addressing the drivers of fatality in each region. In the
Gulf of Mexico, such a regional program could go a long way to reducing
fatalities, i.e., improving safety at sea, by focusing on life jackets
that crew will realistically wear while working, swimming skills and
emergency shut offs for the winch--rather than costly standards for the
physical integrity of vessel. Regional working groups, which allow and
encourage substantial participation by commercial fishermen, should be
formed with the mission of rewriting the USCG Alternative Safety
Compliance Program for Commercial Fishing Vessels in order to address
the drivers of fatalities unique to each region in an attempt to
earnestly save the lives of those we love.
Reduce the hypoxic zone (dead zone) in the Gulf of Mexico
Hypoxia, or oxygen depletion, is an environmental phenomenon where
the concentration of dissolved oxygen in the water column decreases to
a level that can no longer support living aquatic organisms. The
formation of hypoxic zones may be rapid but once formed may persist for
months or longer. For marine organisms this may result in movement from
the affected area, reduced growth rates, or large-scale mortality
events (e.g., fish kills) that impairs sustainable fisheries and
reduces primary production and health of marine ecosystems. Hypoxia can
occur naturally or result from human activities and hypoxic zones are
becoming more common worldwide. The Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone is the
largest human caused dead zone in the United States and the second
largest in the world. The maximum extent of this dead zone encompassed
8,500 square miles in 2002 and has averaged 5,300 square miles over the
last 30 years. The primary cause is the discharge of nutrient enriched
freshwater from the Mississippi River from approximately 41 percent of
the land area of the contiguous United States, ranging as far west as
Idaho, north to Canada, and east into New York State. These nutrient
enriched waters of the Mississippi River flow directly into the
northern Gulf of Mexico.
Nutrient concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorous in the
Mississippi River discharge have increased dramatically in recent
decades and are caused primarily by the increased use of fertilizer to
support agricultural activities. In the northern Gulf of Mexico, this
nutrient enrichment leads to phytoplankton blooms and eventually
hypoxic zones as the decomposing marine life depletes the available
oxygen. This reoccurring dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico negatively
affects marine ecosystems and the fisherman that depend upon the living
resources in this area for their livelihood and as a source of
recreation and food production for the Nation. Meaningful action to
reduce both point and non-point nutrient inflows into the Gulf of
Mexico is necessary to promote conservation and sustained benefits of
this region to the Nation in terms of economic activities, continuance
of traditional fishing engagement, and as an important food source for
the Nation.
Here again, I realize that farmers have felt the detrimental
economic impacts from COVID-19 just as fishermen have. Regulations
requiring large scale action by farmers to reduce runoff would
exacerbate the current economic strain in the agricultural industry.
Therefore, a carrot would be much better served than a stick. Here
again is an opportunity to provide a possible (temporary) tax
incentive, i.e., stimulus, to farmers who can show investment in
capital expenditure projects which have a reasonable expectation of
resulting in reduced nutrient rich runoff. This creates a win-win for
both farmers and fishermen. I truly believe that if we can ever get the
ball rolling in a meaningful way, we will begin to turn the tide on
nutrient runoff and create even greater sustainability for both our
farmers and our fishermen.
No Further Areas Closed to Commercial Fishing Outside the Purview of
the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
Around the nation, commercial fishermen have lost access to many
areas that they have traditionally fished. Reducing the fishing grounds
accessible to our fishermen through area closures which occur outside
the Regional Fishery Management Process is an impediment that creates
an undue burden on domestic seafood production. Yet, whether the
intended benefits of these area closures are met often remains unclear
years after the closures are established. In my opinion, any closure of
Federal waters to fishing (or regulations which have the same effect as
fishing closures, such as prohibitions on the of use specific fishing
gear types in an area or rules regarding transit of these areas) should
take place through the rigorous scientific process carried out under
the purview of the Regional Fishery Management Councils and the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as opposed to
the National Marine Sanctuaries Act or the Antiquities Act. This would
ensure that due consideration of affected fisheries be given in
evaluating if those fisheries can be sustainably harvested and managed
in a manner that does not compromise the broader objectives of the
spatially protected area.
The Chairman. Thank you very much for that excellent
statement. And now we recognize Ms. Cora Campbell. Are you with
us, Ms. Campbell?
Ms. Campbell. Yes, Mr. Chair, I am.
The Chairman. And where are you joining us from?
Ms. Campbell. Unfortunately. I am not in the great State of
Alaska today. I am joining you from Seattle.
The Chairman. Still pretty early.
Ms. Campbell. Yes.
The Chairman. Thank you so much for joining us and you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF CORA CAMPBELL, MEMBER, NORTH PACIFIC FISHERY
MANAGEMENT COUNCIL; AND PRESIDENT AND CEO, SILVER BAY SEAFOODS
Ms. Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Cantwell, and members of the Committee. I really appreciate
this opportunity to testify today on the impacts of COVID-19 on
the Alaska seafood industry. As I was introduced, I am Cora
Campbell. I am here today as a member of the North Pacific
Fishery Management Council, and I am also President and CEO of
Silver Bay Seafoods, which is a fisherman owned Alaskan seafood
processor. The North Pacific Council, as you know, manages some
of the largest fisheries in this Nation.
We support a strong commercial fishing industry and we
provide critical food security for America. And a great concern
to our Council this year was the cancellation of five of six
large-scale no assessment surveys off Alaska due to COVID-19.
These surveys are our fundamental data source to support our
stock assessments. They are NOAA's most critical responsibility
to meet its mission of monitoring the health and sustainability
of marine resources and their habitats. These surveys are
necessary to support fishing at optimum yield and they directly
impact the amount of fish that we can harvest. The less
uncertainty there is, the greater the harvest potential. So
given the data gap that was created by missing these surveys in
2020, the Council has been clear that the full suite of core
surveys for 2021 is an absolute imperative. We recently sent a
letter to NOAA requesting a full 2021 survey plan. All of our
core surveys need to be conducted in 2021.
The plan needs to provide for COVID-19 contingencies and
there needs to be a plan for full funding of these stock
assessments. We need this plan from NOAA in order to ensure
that our Council can meet its responsibilities under the
Magnuson-Stevens Act to provide for optimum yield and to
maintain the domestic production of seafood. And I want to make
it clear that I share these concerns and make these comments
with the utmost respect for our partners at the Alaska
Fisheries Science Center and the challenges that they are
facing. I would also like to address the Committee today as a
representative of the shoreside processing sector. As you
probably know, Alaska's wild seafood harvest supports nearly
60,000 jobs and generates almost $14 billion in U.S. economic
output each year. And we are proud of the fact that we are
supplying Americans with healthy sustainable protein, but our
industry faces challenges on multiple fronts.
Since well before COVID-19, our industry has been
struggling in the face of tariffs that limit our access to and
our competitiveness in the world's biggest seafood market. We
faced uncertainty in securing a workforce for our large volume
fisheries, we faced habitat threats due to proposed development
projects, and now the pandemic is adding additional costs and
uncertainties. And I want to express our great appreciation
that early on seafood processing was recognized as essential
critical infrastructure and my appreciation for how quickly
Congress worked to direct funding to the seafood industry,
because in a short period, Alaska seafood processors have spent
tens of millions of dollars implementing proactive health and
safety measures to ensure that we're minimizing the risk to the
communities that we operate in, that we are protecting our
workforce, and that we are maintaining our operations.
So these costs include things like initial quarantines for
up to 18,000 workers that we bring to Alaska for the summer
season, testing, often multiple tests for every worker, medical
professionals onsite at our plants, personal protective
equipment, medical and sanitation supplies, modifications to
our plants to increase the distancing and the protection on the
processing lines, security to ensure that our facilities remain
closed to protect our communities, and even chartering aircraft
to move our workers safely.
And so we are taking on these tens of millions of dollars'
worth of costs while we are facing severe disruptions to our
key markets and they are adding on top of our multiple pre-
COVID cost burdens. And we are facing uncertainty in this
sector because there is no specific Congressional directive to
support these costs for the critical seafood supply chain. So
as you consider a second Relief Act, we would strongly urge you
to authorize funding and spending authority for these COVID-
related costs for the seafood industry, and we would consider
it an investment in protecting health and safety, keeping these
seafood processing jobs, which enables us to purchase seafood
from thousands of independent fishermen thereby protecting
their jobs and the Nation's food supply.
And I want to just close by thanking you for your attention
to the seafood industry and the complex and large-scale impacts
that we are enduring across the Nation during this pandemic.
And working together to address these challenges, we believe,
will allow us to continue to operate safely to adapt to our
market challenges, address our foreign trade issues, and keep
Alaska seafood flowing to protect America's food supply. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Campbell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Cora Campbell, Member, North Pacific Fishery
Management Council; and President and CEO, Silver Bay Seafoods
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to provide testimony today on the impacts of COVID-19 on
the Alaska seafood industry and what's needed to build a stronger and
more resilient seafood sector. My name is Cora Campbell, and I'm here
today as a member of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. I'm
also President and CEO of Silver Bay Seafoods, an Alaskan seafood
processor with operations across the state of Alaska including Bristol
Bay, False Pass, Kodiak, Prince William Sound, and Southeast Alaska.
The North Pacific Council manages the majority of fisheries in the
U.S., supporting a strong commercial fishing industry, culture, and
community and providing critical food security for America.
Speaking as a Council member, a great concern to the Council this
year was the cancellation of five of six large-scale NOAA assessment
surveys in Federal waters off Alaska due to COVID-19. These surveys
serve as our fundamental data source to support groundfish stock
assessments and ecosystem assessments and are NOAA's most critical
responsibility to meet its mission of monitoring the health and
sustainability of living marine resources and their habitat. To be
clear, these surveys are our primary data source to support fishing at
optimum yield and directly impact the amount of fish that we can
harvest--the less uncertainty there is, the greater the harvest
potential.
The Council is concerned with the potential consequences of not
conducting surveys in 2020 due to COVID-19 challenges, which will be
even more severe if 2021 surveys are not completed. At our June
meeting, our scientific advisors noted that loss of the 2020 surveys
will increase uncertainty in stock status and projections. This may
result in more conservative harvest levels, particularly for crab,
Alaska pollock, Pacific cod, and some rockfish species. These are
primary species in the North Pacific, encompassing valuable crab
stocks, and groundfish species that comprise more than 82 percent of
our total harvests in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. Rapidly
changing distributions and populations in recent years, particularly
for Alaska pollock and Pacific cod, increases the importance of the
baseline NOAA survey effort.
The Council is hopeful that our long survey time series and NOAA's
investments in modeling and other data sources will temper the effect
of one missing survey year but completing 2021 surveys is an
imperative. The Council has been clear that the full suite of core
surveys for 2021 would necessitate 5 to 6 vessels to cover three
geographies: one vessel for the Northern Bering Sea; two vessels for
the Eastern Bering Sea, and 2 to 3 vessels for the Gulf of Alaska. We
recently sent a request to NOAA for a survey plan for 2021 that
includes all of our planned core surveys, and that provides for COVID-
19 contingencies related to vessel operations and labor, as well as a
plan for funding. We need a robust plan for conducting surveys in 2021.
This is the greatest need in order to provide for optimum yield from
Alaska's fisheries consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and to
increase the domestic production of seafood, a direct objective of
President Trump's ``Executive Order Promoting American Seafood
Competitiveness and Economic Growth.''
I'd like to also address the Committee today representing the
shoreside processing sector and the Alaska seafood industry. Alaska's
annual wild seafood harvest of 5 to 6 billion pounds supports nearly
60,000 jobs and generates nearly $14 billion in U.S. economic output
each year and supplies Americans with healthy sustainable protein. At
the same time, our industry faces challenges on multiple fronts that
are eroding our economic foundation. Since before COVID-19, our
industry has been struggling in the face of tariffs that limit our
access to the world's biggest seafood markets; loss of a critical meal
tax deduction; uncertainty in securing a sufficient workforce for large
volume fisheries; and habitat threats due to proposed development
projects. Now, the pandemic is adding new costs and uncertainties, and
exacerbating old ones.
Our industry's focus on health and safety protocols during the
pandemic warrants additional attention. In March, DHS rightly
recognized seafood processors as ``essential critical infrastructure,''
as did the State of Alaska. As such, we have an obligation to continue
to operate in order to help provide the Nation with healthy,
sustainable seafood. Given our essential role in the food supply chain,
we must be able to operate safely. We have been fortunate to have a
state Administration that engaged early in determining public health
mandates and protocols for seafood processing operations and other
critical infrastructure, to provide and continually adapt guidance to
protect both our processing workforce and the rural coastal fishing
communities in which we operate. At the same time, we need Congress to
prioritize support for safe operations so we can continue our important
role as food producers.
In the past several months, Alaska seafood processors have spent
tens of millions of dollars implementing proactive health and safety
protocols to ensure we are minimizing risks to Alaska communities,
protecting our seasonal and resident workforce, and maintaining
operations. These costs include implementing initial quarantines for up
to 18,000 workers, which can include hotel, food, and daily medical
screening; testing (often multiple times) for every worker; hiring
medical professionals to provide daily screening and be on-site at
plants; PPE; medical supplies; sanitation supplies; modifications to
ensure better social distancing on the processing line; security to
maintain closed facilities and chartering aircraft to move workers
safely. These are significant and unique costs due directly to COVID-
19, but they are necessary in order to operate, and protect the food
supply chain, the workforce, and Alaska communities.
Remember, the industry is taking on these costs out of pocket at
the same time we are facing severe disruption in key markets and
multiple pre-COVID cost burdens. While a fraction of these costs may be
reimbursed, we face significant uncertainty because there's no specific
Congressional directive to support health and safety protocol costs for
critical seafood supply chains.
On behalf of Alaska's shoreside seafood processors, we want to
recognize Congress for taking swift action to direct CARES Act money to
fishermen and the seafood industry. As Congress considers a second
relief act, we strongly urge you to clearly authorize funding and
spending authority for such costs for the seafood industry, and to
ensure that any such financial support extended to farmers and ranchers
is also extended to fishermen. This should be seen as an investment
that not only protects health and safety, but that also retains seafood
processing jobs, enables us to take deliveries of seafood from
thousands of independent fishermen, and provides access to healthy
American product to seafood consumers.
Finally, as a member of the seafood industry, I must also highlight
the role of USDA and how it can help provide financial support through
commodity purchases and to address trade impacts. Section 32 purchases
are a lifeline to the seafood industry in times like this, and we
appreciate any Congressional support of this program. We also
appreciate that President Trump directed USDA to consider assistance
for ``other segments'' of the seafood industry as it considers
financial support for lobster; because we face the same impacts of the
same retaliatory tariffs, we ask for the same consideration.
Thank you for your attention to the seafood industry and the
complex and multiple impacts commercial fisheries are enduring across
the U.S. during this pandemic. Addressing these challenges will allow
us to continue to operate safely in a COVID-19 environment, adapt to
long-term market changes and continued foreign trade issues, and keep
the Alaska seafood supply flowing to protect America's access to the
resource.
The Chairman. Thank you very, very much Ms. Campbell. And
now we turn to Mr. Phil Anderson, Chair of the Pacific Fishery
Management Council. Are you there, Mr. Anderson?
Mr. Anderson. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I am.
The Chairman. And where are you appearing from?
Mr. Anderson. I am coming to you from Westport, Washington,
a small fishing community kind of on the central part of the
Washington coast.
The Chairman. Great. Well you are recognized and we are
delighted to have you. Thank you for joining us.
STATEMENT OF PHILIP ANDERSON, CHAIR,
PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
Mr. Anderson. Well, thank you very much, Chairman Wicker,
and Ranking Member Cantwell, and all of the members of the
Committee. My name is Phil Anderson. I am currently serving as
the Chair of the Pacific Fishery Management Council. I am also
a Commissioner on the Civic Salmon Commission and I am a past
Director of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. As
many of you are aware, the Pacific Council manages both
commercial and recreational and travel fisheries for about 119
different species, including salmon, various species of
groundfish, coastal pelagic, and highly migratory species. The
West Coast commercial and recreational fishing industry has
definitely suffered from the COVID pandemic in a number of
ways, some that are quantifiable, others that are not. There
are both direct and indirect impacts, some that I fear will be
long-lasting.
For the West Coast commercial fisheries, there has been a
$21 million reduction in exvessel revenue in the period from
March through May. When we compare that same period to a 2015
through 2019 base period, that represents about a 40 percent
loss. Moreover, income impact estimates are down in all sectors
in support of the fishing industry, anywhere from 17 up to 69
percent in decreases in income. Seafood processing plants are a
part of our Nation's critical food infrastructure. Seafood
markets and supply chains, as has been presented in prior
testimony, have been disrupted virtually overnight with the
shutdown of restaurants. And as has been also repeated that
that represents a significant part of our West Coast processor
sales, up to 70 percent. Workplace disruptions caused by
positive test cases have caused significant market
interruptions.
Temporary closures of facilities have caused economic
damages totaling in the tens of millions of dollars. The
recreational fishing industry has also suffered significant
losses. Economic effects are harder to measure than in
commercial fisheries, but angler effort is clearly down to
fishery closures, restriction on charter boat operations, port
facility closures, and other social distancing requirements. An
example of the reduction of angler trips on charter boats and
coastal ports in Oregon, Washington are down 67 to 76 percent
respectively.
The summer months also appear to be down as people hesitate
to travel. Not only the fishing industry has been hurt but so
has management. Our web-based Council meetings that we held in
April and June, we restricted the agenda until only essential
items. That will in turn delay important progress on issues
intended to increase efficiency and management as well as
provide additional access to unutilized fish that remain in the
water. As you have heard from Cora, NOAA, in our case as well,
NOAA has also canceled the majority of fishery independent
surveys to protect the health and well-being of NOAA's
employees, which will as Ms. Cora stated, impact stock
assessment data bases and the ability to manage fisheries
effectively in the future.
The Civic Council joins with the North Pacific Council in
ensuring that NOAA Fisheries has a plan for 2021 so that we can
ensure that those trial surveys are done in 2021 and we don't
lose a second year of data. The monetary assistance provided in
the CARES Act specifically for the seafood and fishing industry
is very much appreciated. It is now in the hands of the States
developing plans. We believe that we should continue to have
oversight from the Federal level in terms of the development of
those plans to ensure that the allocations are fair and
reasonable across the various sectors of the fishing industry.
I have five specific items I would like to recommend to assist
the fishing industry to survive and recover from this pandemic.
Provide funds to increase West Coast salmon hatchery
production.
Hatchery fish are essential to the survival of both
commercial and recreational salmon fisheries on the West Coast,
but the production has been significantly reduced, particularly
in the Pacific Northwest, over the past decade. Two, provide
annual funding to the Pacific States Marine Fisheries
Commission so they can continue to provide a video review and
storage costs associated with the West Coast electronic
monitoring program. This is about a $500,000 annual investment
that will directly and immediately benefit the fishery that is
expected to take this burden on beginning in 2021. Provide
funding to NOAA Fisheries for the trial surveys that I
previously mentioned. As I mentioned, the information derived
from these surveys are the foundation of our science based
management approach. These surveys have been underfunded in
recent years and I fear that they will continue to be
underfunded if attention isn't paid to the importance of--and
how it affects science-based management.
Four is provide funds to offset the cost of human
observers. At a cost of approximately $500 per day per vessel,
this would provide immediate assistance to the segment of our
West Coast ground fishery that are among the hardest hit by the
pandemic. Other sectors would also benefit. Finally, provide
funds for an industry directed marketing program designed to
help rebuild essential restaurant trade as well as other
markets that will be needed to help get ourselves out of the
hole that were in with this pandemic.
The industry on the West Coast has proven through a recent
cooperative rockfish marketing program that they have the
knowledge, the skills, and the abilities to develop such
program and recover loss markets. Thank you again for the
opportunity to testify before you today and for your efforts to
address these urgent and important issues. And I would be
pleased to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you
very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Anderson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Philip Anderson, Chair,
Pacific Fishery Management Council
Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and Members of the
Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is
Phil Anderson and I am the Chair of the Pacific Fishery Management
Council.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council is one of eight fishery
management councils established by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (MSA). The Council has jurisdiction
over the U.S. West Coast Exclusive Economic Zone (3-200 miles
offshore). The Council manages commercial, recreational and tribal
fisheries for about 119 species of salmon, groundfish, coastal pelagic
species, and highly migratory species in Federal waters. Our fishery
management plans are guided by the National Standards of the MSA, which
in part state that we should achieve optimum yield from fisheries for
the U.S. fishing industry, consider efficiency in utilization of
fishery resources, provide for the sustained participation of fishing
communities, and promote safety of human life at sea These standards
provide the context for my comments on the effects of the COVID
pandemic on the seafood industry today.
The seafood industry has suffered from the COVID pandemic in a
number of ways; some quantifiable, others not, both direct and
indirect, long-lasting and short, obvious and subtle.
COVID effects on West Coast commercial fisheries:
Overall, West Coast commercial fisheries are experiencing economic
hardship value compared with the 2015-2019 average. From March through
May 2020 there has been a $21 million reduction in exvessel revenue
relative to the average for the same period in 2015-2019, representing
a 40 percent loss to fishing businesses. Of the 12 fisheries sectors
examined, nine are showing decreases.\1\ In addition to fewer landing,
lower price per pound due to market disruption is also a significant
factor affecting exvessel revenue.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ PacFIN database
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income impact estimates are down in all sectors, ranging from -17
percent to -69 percent decreases, averaging -41 percent.1 In
addition to exvessel revenue, income impacts account for earnings by
fish processors and those who supply material inputs and services to
harvesting vessels and processors, as well as those who earn income
when those employed in the fishing industry re-spend their money in the
regional economy. The effects are far reaching into coastal
communities, and the seafood supply across the Nation.
Seafood processing plants are part of our Nation's critical food
infrastructure and have a responsibility to continue operating. Seafood
markets and supply chains were disrupted virtually overnight with the
shutdown of restaurants, which is where 60 percent-70 percent of West
Coast processor sales went.\2\ Because of market disruption, there are
surpluses of things like Dungeness crab in freezers, which will
potentially negatively impact the markets long-term.4
Workplace disruptions caused by positive test cases have caused
significant market interruptions on both the supply and sales sides,
limiting delivery schedules and harming the ability to provide domestic
seafood products to American consumers. Recent temporary closures of
seafood processing facilities owned by Bornstein Seafoods in Astoria,
Oregon and Pacific Seafood in Newport, Oregon have caused economic
damages totaling in the tens of millions of dollars.\3\ In order to
reopen, processors have had to implement a suite of health and safety
protocols and equipment in plants to address workforce safety. Such
measures are not only costly but have slowed production.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ WCSPA OR Senate testimony
\3\ WCSPA, pers. comm
\4\ MWT setter to Chris Oliver, July 2020
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These closures also affected fishermen as some were forced to go
from weekly deliveries to only being able to deliver once or twice a
month.\4\ Outbreaks on whiting vessels have meant boats being tied up
for weeks, which will make it harder to harvest the available quota.
Trying to account for what is going to happen with the pandemic
conditions, prices and markets, labor supply, and the overall ability
of businesses to weather the storm and continue to operate introduce a
lot of uncertainty in business planning, and likely will continue well
into the future.
COVID effects on current and future management:
The COVID pandemic affects not only fishing industries and
communities, but also our ability to manage fisheries effectively and
responsibly. Due to use of webinar-based Council meetings, agendas were
restricted to only essential items for our April and June meetings,
delaying progress on important issues intended to increase the
efficiency of management frameworks and fishing related businesses.
Examples include:\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ PFMC Agenda Item C.5 Supplemental Attachment 6 June 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improving whiting mothership utilization of quota
Approving new gear to safely access underutilized rockfish
quota
Revising groundfish sector allocations so quotas are
appropriately sized
NOAA has also cancelled the majority of fisheries-independent
surveys to protect the health and wellbeing of NMFS employees, which
will impact stock assessment databases and the ability to manage
fisheries effectively in the future.
Finally, salmon harvest models are based on CWT sampling data.
Insufficient CWT sampling would eliminate the possibility of using
brood years of Chinook and coho encountered in 2020 fisheries in future
management cycles, increasing uncertainty in the management process.
Reduced CWT sampling would also inhibit our ability to meet and assess
obligations for Chinook under the Pacific Salmon Treaty.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ PFMC Agenda Item E.4.a Supplemental STT Report 2 April 2020
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COVID effects on West Coast recreational fisheries:
Economic effects are harder to measure than in commercial
fisheries, but effort is clearly down due to ramp closures and other
social distancing requirements. As examples, bottom fishing charter
angler trips for March-May 2020 were down relative to 2015-2019
averages: statewide in Washington were down 76 percent, and in Oregon
were down 67 percent.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ RecFIN database
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusions:
The monetary assistance provided in the CARES act specifically for
the seafood and fishing industries were much appreciated; although
distribution is still pending development and approval of spend plans
by the states. Should any COVID related Federal legislation advance, we
would appreciate any additional assistance to industry that could be
provided, as well as streamlining the distribution process. In addition
to immediate relief, there are two issues that will help the long-term
recovery from the COVID pandemic that I would like to mention. First,
support of West Coast salmon hatchery funding is vital to that fishery
sector, as well as supporting ecosystem functions such as prey for
endangered Southern Resident Killer Whales. Hatchery funding levels
have not kept pace with inflation, reducing production levels and
eroding the infrastructure at hatchery and fish passage facilities.
Second, the surveys conducted by NOAA and NMFS are the foundation of
our science-based management approach. Although we have had some
productive discussions with NMFS leadership on this issue, funding has
been reduced since Fiscal Year 2018, and West Coast industry contract
surveys have been cut in half in some recent years. Furthermore, due to
the COVID pandemic NOAA has also cancelled most NOAA Corps surveys on
the West Coast this year. It is critical that these surveys are
restored or replaced with comparable methods to preserve the integrity
of the long-term databases used to assess the status of our managed
fish stocks.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and for your
efforts to address these urgent and important issue. I would be pleased
to answer any questions you may have.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much. And thank all of
you. We have learned today that for some reason Americans would
rather not cook seafood in their homes. That some 60 or 70
percent of all seafood is consumed in restaurants and other
food service establishments. Can we all agree that if we could
get the restaurant business back open and running as it had
been before, that that would go a long way toward solving our
problem in the seafood industry with that. Is that correct, Dr.
Doremus?
Dr. Doremus. There is a very high degree of interdependence
between the seafood industry, harvesters producers of various
sorts, and the restaurant industry. As I indicated, previous to
the pandemic, 70 percent of sales were directed toward the
restaurant and food service industries generally.
So yes, there has been an enormous impact through that
channel and the restoration of demand through the restaurant
sector would be profoundly important. We are seeing some signs
of change in consumer behavior, which is of interest to all of
us who care about the health of Americans. A larger portion of
seafood in the American diet is a good thing and we hope that a
broader array of sales opportunities come out of this pandemic
for all U.S. producers.
The Chairman. Well it is good for you. I had salmon for
lunch yesterday as a matter of fact, and I am going to have
some seafood at restaurants this weekend. I have--as I
mentioned, I have a Restaurant Act that would establish a
restaurant revitalization fund. Any of the other witnesses have
thoughts in this regard before I move on? Anybody want to
volunteer to speak up? Well, then let me ask you then Dr.
Doremus, about these the survey cancellations. Did it have to
be done to this extent? And what do you have to say about the
testimony we have had in that regard?
Dr. Doremus. I think the testimony was very compelling,
Senator. These are extraordinary times that we're in. I have to
say, not very many people ever foresaw such a dramatic event
that would affect our ability to do this core work of ours and
I think remarks of yours, Ranking Member's comments, and those
of the additional panelists here today noted the great
dependence of our seafood industry on a healthy survey and
stock assessment process.
We have not been able to collect the data in Fiscal Year
2020 that we normally would, and we are fully committed, as was
brought up by Ms. Campbell among others, by Senator Cantwell,
we are aggressively planning now for Fiscal Year 2021 in light
of what was not able to be done in Fiscal Year 2020. We are
certainly highlighting areas where we had losses of survey data
from Fiscal Year 2020 that will clearly be a priority in areas
where we have commercially, highly sensitive stocks at high
value, Alaska pollock, cod, West Coast hake, groundfish, and
Northeast groundfish.
We also need to worry about resources as well, protected
resources, we are very sensitive to data on their welfare such
as North Atlantic Right Whales and we have areas where we have
extremely high dependence on continuity of data over time to
understand ecosystems, how they are evolving, what their impact
are----
The Chairman. Right. And you may want to supplement your
answer in writing, but it makes me ask if it had to be
diminished to that extent? Ms. Campbell, were there ideas
submitted about actually going forward in some way that would
have protected the workers involved in these surveys or were
they justified and it is just something we have to live with?
Ms. Campbell. Chairman Wicker, thank you for the question.
Unfortunately, the Council received notice quite late in the
process that the surveys would be canceled for 2020 so we
didn't have much of an opportunity to interact with the agency
and provide ideas.
But my understanding is that personnel concerns were one of
the driving factors and so one of the things that we are hoping
that the agency can take into account for 2021 is ways to
implement quarantines, testing to protect personnel on survey
ships the same way that the industry has had to do, if we are
still in a COVID-19 environment, when it is time to take on
those 2021 surveys. And that is what we would hope to see in
the plan.
The Chairman. OK. My time has expired. I am going to ask
you when we conclude this hearing, and I will take a second
round, I will ask you to each comment about if you have had an
opportunity to look at the plan, which has been passed by the
House of Representatives, in response to COVID and is more or
less a Phase 4. If you had a chance to look at the proposal by
the White House and the Republican leadership in the Senate and
to give us some ideas about things you like about that that
might help the seafood industry and ways that that could be
improved. But I will wait for that answer for round two and
turn to my friend, Senator Cantwell.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the
issue you and I are both trying to articulate is we want to see
money out the door. I mean, the money has been absolutely
appropriated but is it getting into the hands of fishermen and
communities that need the help and support? So hopefully we
will get an answer on that. And as it relates to stock
assessments writ large, look there is a huge opportunity, as
the world needs more protein demand, for fish products to play
a great role. I think it was Trident that came up with a fish
pasta that is now on the marketplace.
There is all sorts of innovations that are happening, and
yet, guess what? If you don't have stock assessments, then you
are not going to have the fisheries, and if you don't have the
fisheries, you are not going to have the product. So there is a
way for us to move forward but it all hinges on doing the right
science analysis of the stock assessment. So I hope that we
will get this right and not wait until 2021. Back to the Pebble
Mine issue. I wanted to ask you, Mr. Doremus, about this issue
as it relates to NOAA's, what I would call, lack of
participation. Obviously the mine built would basically process
1.3 billion tons of ore out of a 608 ore acre open-pit. The
footprint is 8,000 acres with two huge dams that would
potentially create acid generating mine waste.
This is always a concern in an area without much water. The
water in there would have to be treated perpetually just to get
rid of the toxic materials. The mine would result in a
permanent loss of over 3,000 acres of wetlands, 55 acres of
lakes and ponds, 81 miles of stream, 11 acres of marine
waterways. I think there is a picture there you can see. Does
that look like a place that we would be putting a mine?
And so the destruction of this habitat, which is critical
to the sockeye salmon for the Northwest, is beyond concerning
when I look at what U.S. Fish and Wildlife submitted in
response to the Army Corps. It basically said, ``based on these
identifying deficiencies, the draft DIS is inadequate and it
precludes meaningful analysis. EPA Region 10 office, ``many
have a substantial and unacceptable adverse impacts on
fisheries resources.'' So even the Marine Mammal Commission
weighed in and basically said, ``concerned the construction and
operation of Pebble Project would have a significant long-term
impacts on wildlife and communities.''
So I am trying to understand because I certainly asked
Director Jacobs about this. I asked him at his confirmation
hearing and he basically said yes, NOAA would participate in
the review process. So all I have found from NOAA is that you
need more data to understand the Pebble Mine impacts. So could
you respond to what NOAA is doing to articulate the concerns
about the impacts on fishery sockeye salmon in the Northwest?
Dr. Doremus. Thank you, Senator. We certainly do understand
your concerns. We have a consultation role through the
Endangered Species Act that we are responsible for. This is not
an area where I am personally deeply involved and given the
extent of your concerns, I think it would be best for us to
follow up with more detailed reviews of where we currently
stand with this and what our engagement is. We would be happy
to answer your question.
Senator Cantwell. So you are saying you're going to get me
a response from NOAA?
Dr. Doremus. Yes, I would be happy to do that. It is not an
area that I am personally deeply involved in and I would rather
consult with folks who are and provide better answers to the
questions that you have today.
Senator Cantwell. Well, I want you to hear that NOAA hasn't
fulfilled its role, Mr. Jacobson hasn't fulfilled his role, and
there is a lot at stake. Mr. Anderson, is there a lot at stake
here?
Mr. Anderson. Thank you very much for the question, Senator
Cantwell. Well, it is a $1.4 billion industry that supports
thousands of jobs many of which are in the Pacific Northwest,
many of which are in Alaska. It supports, as you mentioned, the
largest sockeye run in the world. The project, from some of the
information I have read from the Army Corps of Engineers,
suggest that more than 2,200 acres of wetlands and waters are
going to be permanently destroyed along with 105 miles of
streams. So from a fishery management perspective and a
harvesting perspective and fishery businesses that are
dependent on renewable resources, this is a huge concern to
those of us here in the Pacific Northwest.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. Senator Scott.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICK SCOTT,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Scott. Thank you, Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member
Cantwell for holding this important hearing. This pandemic and
the economic crisis it has caused have clearly impacted
adversely Florida's fishing industry. The fact that most of our
seafoods consumed by Americans is imported from other country
clearly should concern us, especially with some of the
uncertainty we are dealing with, especially with the issues we
are dealing with with communist China.
We clearly need to have a stable supply of seafood. I hope
we will take this opportunity to bolster the domestic and
sustainable fishing industry and reduce our reliance on global
seafood supply chains. Dr. Doremus, as our Nation works to
recover from the pandemic and economic toll, access to safe and
managed fishing with an additional Atlantic red snapper season
in the fall could be a great way to support our economy and our
local families. Do you think it is feasible to extend the red
snapper season given the sustainability restrictions of NOAA
Fisheries?
Dr. Doremus. Thank you, Senator. We are currently in the
process of working through the----
Senator Scott. I can't hear you.
Dr. Doremus. Apologies. You have to hit the talk button.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Doremus. We are working through updated stock
assessment in that area that should give us a greater guidance.
We greatly appreciate the collaboration with the State of
Florida looking at best available data. I can't predict what
the management decisions will be coming out of that but we are,
as you well know, deeply committed as we talked about here
today, to evaluating the best available science and making our
management decisions based on that.
Senator Scott. Now, I got asked more about red snapper
season. As Governor, anything other than--probably almost more
than anything I ever got asked while I was Governor in my 8
years. In May, President Trump directed Secretary Ross to
identify aquaculture opportunities in the U.S. exclusive
economic zone to help build our industry and self-reliance.
Clearly, with a thousand miles of coastline, Florida should
have an opportunity. So what factors do you think we ought to
be considering in determining whether we have--there is a
potential for an aquaculture opportunity zone?
Dr. Doremus. Senator, one of the most important features of
the Executive Order that you referenced is the requirement to
establish aquaculture opportunity areas. This is a mechanism to
use best available science to understand the current and
existing uses of ocean space and define areas that are best
suited that minimize use conflicts and also are best suited for
aquaculture development. So we will be looking very closely. We
are stepping down the path right now of implementing that
requirement.
Looking at the scientific tools, we have many very new and
very powerful tools for making very good citing decisions and
involving stakeholders in that process so we understand how to
balance existing uses most effectively. So we will be providing
additional information later this summer as we go down this
path as we think about what regions are good places to start
given current conditions, state of the science, industry
demands, and other kinds of factors like that.
And we will, from there, use these types of science-based
decisionmaking tools to help map out, dots on the map if you
will, areas where we can do additional science and prepare the
groundwork for subsequent industry permit requests, which would
have their own review and evaluation process. We look forward
to working with the State of Florida and other coastal states
who see great potential in broadening, diversifying our seafood
economy and building greater capability to produce U.S.
sustainable, safe, and very high quality aquaculture products
of all types.
Senator Scott. So, right. When that happens, will you come
out with ideas of how we can support the growth and self-
reliance of the aquaculture industry in the U.S.? Is that part
of what you do?
Dr. Doremus. Indeed. We are looking at ways to improve the
regulatory environment to make it more efficient, to ensure
that all the existing regulatory authorities that multiple
agencies have are coordinated and efficiently executed so that
there are minimal barriers to entry, if you will.
We also have a lot of work we need to do over the long haul
to improve the infrastructure for aquaculture industries from
species knowledge, hatchery capacity, a lot of factors.
Scientific and technical support need to come into play over
the long haul to build a stronger industry as well.
Senator Scott. By the way, if you go fishing off the coast
of Florida right now, you are going to catch some gigantic
Goliath groupers. So all my all my friends that are fishermen
believe we have got a lot--got to really look at it. I mean
unbelievable growth of Goliath grouper. I am sure you are
looking at that also.
My last question is on the lobster industry. Florida,
probably like Maine, we are lobster--the lobster industry has
really been impacted by the tariffs imposed by the Chinese
Government. Senator Rubio and I in the Florida Congressional
delegation sent a letter requesting to Secretary Ross,
requesting that the Florida commercial fishermen be included in
the Lobster Relief Program announced by President Trump.
So what do you think about that and what do you think we
can do to better protect our lobster industry? And I assume it
is the exact same thing true for Maine, not just Florida, and
to make sure that, you know, we can protect them and they can,
you know, continue to have a thriving industry.
Dr. Doremus. Senator, thank you for your letter. And a
formal response to that is in process. You mentioned tariffs on
lobster. There has been a lot of attention to that. One of
the--back to the Executive Order that you mentioned, one of the
important features of that Order is the establishment of a
seafood trade task force. That is under way.
The agency has taken input from the public, from industry
about the core components of a National trade strategy for our
seafood sector and we do believe that that will provide an
excellent avenue to address the kinds of considerations that
you have raised.
Senator Scott. Are you actually looking at the unbelievable
number of Goliath groupers that are off our coast now in
Florida and the impact it is having on other fish?
Dr. Doremus. I am not personally familiar with that. I
would be happy to get an answer back to you from our folks in
the region who are assessing the health of the abundance and
distribution of different species in the Gulf. So we will look
forward to getting back to you with a specific answers to the
Goliath grouper.
Senator Scott. Yes. You wouldn't believe, if you go--I was
40 miles off, back in May, fishing and the size of these
groupers that we caught, you can't bring them on the boat or
anything, you release them, but they were very big.
Dr. Doremus. It is an impressive fish. Absolutely.
The Chairman. Senator Scott, are you are you finding them
in the Gulf and the Atlantic?
Senator Scott. I only was in the Gulf fishing. I mean
generally--you know, Roger on when I have done it down in the
Keys, we have mostly been--we have been--with bonefish and I
have not gone very far off. We were--the last one I went was
back in May. It was just off of Sarasota and it was, I mean
they--and you couldn't get anything else because the Goliath
groupers were eating everything else. The guys were complaining
about both the size and the number of Goliath grouper.
The Chairman. So every silver lining has a cloud, I guess.
Well, thank you, Senator Scott, for those questions, and
Senator Sullivan.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again, I
want to thank the witnesses. Dr. Doremus, just in the last
couple days I have had very useful conversations with Chris
Oliver and Dr. Jacobs on this issue of the lost fishery
surveys. It is very troubling. You heard from Senator Cantwell,
you heard it from my friend Cora Campbell. And so I have asked
for a strong written commitment on this issue for next season,
but I want to know, you know, Congress provided additional
money for surveys, additional money in the CARES Act to NOAA to
ensure continuity of operations, uphold worker health.
Where did NOAA spend that money if you are not spending it
on surveys? The State of Alaska did surveys. So to be honest, I
was quite disappointed. As you know, the reduction in fishery
surveys results in uncertainty and that is not good for any
fishery, particularly mine.
Dr. Doremus. Senator, we absolutely understand that concern
and fully share it. Our inability to survey was certainly not
our preference. It was driven by the circumstances and the
ability to respond effectively to the requirements for ensuring
the health and safety of all vessel participants.
Senator Sullivan. No, I understand that, but can you--your
bosses have already committed it to me so maybe you should as
well, commit to me to work with this committee to make sure
that regardless of where we are on COVID next year, certainly
hope that we are beyond it and it is in the rearview mirror,
but even if we are not, that we have a strong plan on the
surveys that you are going to do for certainly the North
Pacific fisheries area, but also for the whole country, so we
don't have the same situation. Let's get that commitment from
you.
Dr. Doremus. You absolutely have that commitment, Senator,
and we look forward to working with you.
The Chairman. Senator Sullivan, I do think you are entitled
to an answer to the question, was the money spent elsewhere?
You asked where the money was spent that has been allocated for
the survey.
Senator Sullivan. I am curious about that.
Dr. Doremus. I would be happy to provide an accounting for
the resources that you are referring to----
Senator Sullivan. As you know, plussed up above the budget
request by NOAA for more money for surveys and my understanding
now is that that money can go into next year which is good and
that is clear----
Dr. Doremus. Yes.
Senator Sullivan. But we want to make sure that this is a
priority. It is priority for members, both Democrats and
Republicans. It needs to be a priority for NOAA. And can you
tell me that it is?
Dr. Doremus. It absolutely is, Senator, and we do have and
will account for the cost that you are asking about. Keeping in
mind a couple of things. One is, costs are not zero, even if
you can't get out to sea. There are still a lot of costs
carrying our staff and carrying the daily requirements of
managing vessels. We are carrying forward the unspent funds
from 2020 into 2021 and we are absolutely prioritizing the
areas that were impacted most, the stock surveys that were
impacted most by our inability to get to sea in Fiscal Year
2020.
Senator Sullivan. Let me ask Cora Campbell, if you have any
other views on the potential impacts, the loss of surveys on
Alaskan harvests, and importantly, you talked about it in your
opening statement, the protocols that the seafood processors
have been undertaking with regard to health and safety.
We know that there is a lot of spending and costs that
relates to this with regard to the pandemic. I was proud to
have fought hard and actually authored the language on the $300
million fund in the CARES Act for our fishermen. We are working
now on an additional significant funding in the Heals Act. I
hope my colleagues on both sides aisle will support that but
can you talk about both the survey issue, Cora, and this issue
of additional costs that are being undertaken by our industry?
Ms. Campbell. Absolutely. Thank you for the question,
Senator Sullivan. For the North Pacific, we have a long time
series with these surveys but losing 2 years of surveys in a
row at this point is our specific concern, and we you know--you
know for 2020, unfortunately, we are outside the window where
we can get those surveys done so we have to focus our efforts
on 2021. And I certainly appreciate the agency's recognition
that this is a priority. We are still looking for a commitment
and a written plan to show how that is going to get done.
Certainly other scientific agencies and private industry have
done a lot of work on how to operate safely and would be happy
to provide any assistance that NOAA needs to feel like they can
carry out their core mission while protecting their staff.
And Senator, on the issue of costs, certainly, it has been
very expensive for the commercial fisheries industry to operate
in the safest way that we can. We just really appreciate your
work and the work of your colleagues and Congress in
specifically recognizing how severe these impacts have been and
the additional costs on the top of the loss of our key markets
in food service and the trade barriers and all the other things
that we are facing.
So as you go forward with considering another, you know,
relief package, we certainly hope that you will continue to
recognize the difficulties that we have had in the seafood
industry to try to continue to operate safely, to continue to
provide markets to independent fishermen and keep them
operating with everything that we are facing. So I would be
happy to speak to anything more specific that would be helpful
to the Committee. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you very much, Senator
Sullivan. And Senator Blumenthal is next.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT
Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
having this hearing and thanks to the panel for being here. Mr.
Doremus, as you may know, Connecticut has a storied and
historically important shellfish industry which is hanging on
by a thread struggling to survive in the wake of this pandemic,
unfortunately and in my view inexcusably, that shellfish
industry has been excluded from the coronavirus food assistance
program. This program was designed for aquaculture and
agriculture.
In my view, there is no basis to exclude the shellfish
industry. The fact that the USDA and NOAA have determined that
certain freshwater producers would be eligible for the
coronavirus food assistance program, but that saltwater
shellfish producers would be ineligible is absolutely untenable
and unjustifiable and maybe you can give me an explanation?
Dr. Doremus. Senator, we certainly share your concern about
the impact of coronavirus on the shellfish sector throughout
the United States and absolutely on the East Coast and the
great State of Connecticut. Our intent going into this, there
is food assistance--CARES Act direct industry assistance
through a couple of channels. One was as, you referenced,
through USDA and another, the $300 million through NOAA. We
originally were trying to make sure that there were appropriate
channels so that the resources were very clearly marked for
different industries and different segments.
And the intent, as we understood it, was for the shellfish
industry to be able to get access to the USDA resources. I
cannot speak to the particulars of why that didn't happen. We
certainly share your concern. This industry is in a very
difficult situation and absolutely needs this kind of
assistance.
Senator Blumenthal. Will you commit, and I would appreciate
your doing so, that you will initiate a review of this policy
because right now this $30 million industry in Connecticut has
been severely threatened by this economic and health care
disaster that has swept the country and its impact on these
hard-working shellfish growers has been catastrophic. So I am
asking that there be a review of this policy.
Dr. Doremus. Yes, Senator. We did make that decision in the
midst of moving quickly trying to allocate CARES Act and other
types of direct assistance and coordinate with other Federal
agencies. We clearly need to fix this problem and we will do
everything we can to make sure that happens. We have a very
good working relationship with the USDA. I don't think this was
an intentional policy. We need to understand how we can make
sure that things can get done better.
The Chairman. Senator Blumenthal, just to interject, do I
understand this was made by multiple agencies or was it a USDA
decision?
Dr. Doremus. The decision that Senator Blumenthal is
referring to is a USDA decision. And the decision to--there
were different sources of funds and we tried to coordinate with
USDA. And so our understanding going in is that the shellfish
industry would have access to similar types of funding as the
$300 million CARES Act made available to other parts of the
seafood sectors----
The Chairman. And that turned out not to be the case?
Dr. Doremus. Yes.
The Chairman. OK.
Senator Blumenthal. And what I am asking for, Mr. Chairman,
and I appreciate your interjecting, is basic fairness here. I
recognize that NOAA was not solely responsible, but obviously
it is the agency with the scientific expertise that is
important to these decisions. And so I think your intervention
here and your commitment is extremely meaningful and I
appreciate it. And it may have been unintentional, but it was
extraordinarily consequential. And folks in Connecticut and
frankly around the country who enjoy the products of our
shellfish industry are the ones who are suffering.
Dr. Doremus. Very much understand, Senator. Share your
concern. We will do everything we can to try to get things
better.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. Senator Thune.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Doremus, your
testimony mentions the President's Executive Order which was
signed in May to promote the competitiveness of the domestic
seafood sector. Even in landlocked states like South Dakota, it
might come as a surprise to people, aquaculture projects are
beginning to take shape. And we think there is potential to
bring numerous economic benefits to the region. Could you
elaborate on how you believe the President's EO will better
facilitate the permitting and construction of aquaculture
projects?
Dr. Doremus. Thank you, Senator. The Executive Order
broadly directs numerous Federal agencies to focus on the
competitiveness of the U.S. seafood sector as a whole. There is
extraordinary demand and need for seafood in the U.S.
population. Our market is the second largest market in the
world, are growing rapidly and there is strong reason to
believe and evidence to point to throughout the country, on new
opportunities to expand our existing aquaculture industry,
whether it is inland water, freshwater, there is inland
contained systems for marine fish, as well as throughout our
coastal communities and ultimately in offshore domains, as
well.
So we are through--under the direction of the Executive
Order, looking at all channels to strengthen U.S. industry,
whether it is wild capture improvements or improvements in the
ability of aquaculture producers to build stronger businesses
and generate greater output for the U.S. market. So there are a
range of things in terms of regulatory efficiency, in terms of
the science base, in terms of providing technical assets for
growth and development of the aquaculture sector as a whole,
all of these need to come into play for all forms of
aquaculture which are needed to be able to expand the U.S.
seafood supply.
Senator Thune. Well, I would just note that South Dakota
soybeans are some of the best in the world and they are used in
many products including fish feed.
Dr. Doremus. Yes.
Senator Thune. And you know, I think that there are like I
said landlocked states that do have a role to play in
aquaculture. And in fact, we have got a company called Prairie
AquaTech, which is a technology company has developed a high--
developed and patented, I should say, a high-protein fish feed
and from soy meal and it is based right in Brookings, South
Dakota.
So I just think due to the high demand for their product,
they have, you know--they have got a really bright future and
they completed construction on a new commercial facility
earlier this year that is capable of processing 30,000 tons of
feed annually, so I think there are economic benefits, you
know, to the United States that are broader than what people
might, you know, traditionally assume when it comes to seafood
and I hope that we can embrace some of those is some of the
parts of our country embraced domestic aquaculture.
So, and I just say that as a sort of a comment. If you have
any observations about the potential economic benefits to the
entire country, we would love to hear those too.
Dr. Doremus. Absolutely. There is--it is not just the
producers, it is all the goods that go into the production of
aquaculture products. And as you mentioned there is
extraordinary innovation going on in feeds, in the central part
of the country and elsewhere. And the industry as a whole,
globally, is growing. So while we are trying to, you know,
increase production in the United States to provide safe,
sustainable locally sourced seafood, there is a globally
growing industry as well and many U.S.-based producers of
equipment or feed offer a lot of the intermediate goods. It is
the entire supply chain that we have to look at.
So, this is a great, great potential for economic
development, economic growth that could redound to the benefit
of producers throughout the country particularly when they look
at it from the vantage point of global seafood markets.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Thune, you and Dr. Doremus make an
excellent point. We all have a stake in aquaculture and it is
very heartening to hear people from the Great Plains talk about
the way they can contribute to this, be part of the supply
chain and contribute to economic development where you live
also. So I appreciate that. Let me turn now to Ms. Bosarge. How
is the weather in Pascagoula today?
Ms. Bosarge. It is still raining down here, sir.
The Chairman. OK. Well, it looks pretty out the window
there. I don't know if that is a real background or not. You
mentioned you have two degrees, where are your degrees from,
Ms. Bosarge?
Ms. Bosarge. The University of South Alabama. I have a
bachelor's in business and an MBA.
The Chairman. OK. You mentioned young fishermen development
programs. It is not going to be necessary for all of these
folks to have two college degrees is it?
Ms. Bosarge. No, most definitely not. It is certainly not
something that requires a college degree, any sort of
commercial fishing. In fact, it is one where on the job
training and a very diverse skill set are needed.
The Chairman. OK, but you are making a point and this is
one of the things that that needed to be stressed. This is a
good living and it is an area where our economy needs more
participation. Is that what you are saying with regard to young
fishermen development?
Ms. Bosarge. Yes, sir. It is. You know, I think that by and
large fishing in the past and even now is based on heritage,
right? It is something that is passed down from a parent to a
child and you know, unfortunately due to things like
globalization and imports and depressed prices and a multitude
of other factors, we have lost a generation in a lot of our
fisheries and when you lose that generation, it has a trickle-
down effect.
And so I think it is very important these days to highlight
commercial fishing to our young people as a viable career path.
We are not out there telling them that or marketing that. You
know, the Waffle House is at their career fairs looking for,
you know, management opportunities, but we are not as
commercial fishermen and I think that is important that we be
present and let them know that it is there and also to have
those vocational opportunities because there is such a diverse
skill set needed to be a successful commercial fisherman on
things that you don't think of.
Yes, you have to be able to catch fish but you better be a
pretty good mechanic. You better know how to sew. I mean how
many people know how to sew these days. You had to be able to
mend your nets. You have to know the rules of the road with
navigation. I think that is where a vocational program in our
high schools to give those young people a leg up and let them
hit the ground running when they go get on a boat would be
paramount.
The Chairman. OK, and then if you would expand a little
about your idea about an online farmers market, I found that
interesting but didn't have any chance to let you enlarge on
that idea.
Ms. Bosarge. Yes, sir. Thank you very much. So we have seen
efforts by our commercial fishermen to find a way to reach that
consumer in an environment now where unfortunately the
restaurants are operating at reduced capacities or not
operating at all. We have seen pop up farmers markets in vacant
parking lots in Louisiana. I think their sea grant facility
there has a Louisiana direct seafoods with an online
marketplace of sorts. Individual form of fishermen are, you
know, creating their own online opportunities, but someone may
stumble across their individual website somewhere.
What we need to help them is with an economy of scale and
they would be given that with a National online marketplace
infrastructure, right, that could be developed where fishermen
could come in and out of that as they please when they have
product to sell, but there would always be product available
and the consumer would be able to go to that one stop shop as
it were and find product from Alaska, find shrimp from the Gulf
of Mexico, or scallops, you know, from the Atlantic, whatever
they may choose instead of having to go here, there, and yonder
and pick and choose.
So that was kind of my idea and I thought the task force,
the seafood trade task force, if their mission could be
expanded a little bit so that it doesn't focus purely on
international trade, but actually trading on our U.S. markets
too, we could really strengthen our domestic seafood supply
chain with efforts such as that.
The Chairman. When was that Executive Order issued? Do you
know?
Ms. Bosarge. I want to say May but I don't have it in front
of me.
The Chairman. OK.
Ms. Bosarge. Go ahead, I am sorry.
The Chairman. Well, you can supply that to us but I want to
give you an opportunity and a verbal answer is not required
from any of you, but I mentioned at the end of my round one
questions, then I would give you an opportunity to tell us what
was right and what was wrong and what was perhaps missing in
the Democrat plan that has been passed by the House of
Representatives and the Republican plan that has been issued by
the Majority Leader and the Administration, and what
suggestions you have as we go forward, because we hope to do
this relatively quickly in the next, I would say, in the next
seven to eight days? So any suggestion from you, Ms. Bosarge
and then we will go to the other two remote witnesses.
Ms. Bosarge. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I am not
familiar with the different versions, but I can speak generally
to this. So our industry is obviously still suffering and very
fragile. So we hope going forward, you know, if you are looking
at direct support still, that you will remember the fishing
industry. Unfortunately, we feel like things will probably get
a little worse before they get better and it is very possible
that our markets will freeze up completely again, if things
continue to get worse the way they are right now.
So that would be the direct support that I would speak to
but then there is indirect support as well that I think could
hopefully be placed into some of this legislation. You
mentioned, you know, fishermen being tied to the restaurants
and I would say for restaurants that serve domestic seafood, we
are most definitely tied at the hip to those restaurants.
Our two industries are highly correlated and we the
pandemic has made that very obvious. So I think if there is any
way to provide a tax credit or some other type of stimulus to
restaurants that are willing to put country of origin labeling
for seafood on their menus, that would be amazing. I hope that
it could provide better information for the seafood consuming
public as well as for our industry, the seafood industry, and
provide a benefit to the restaurant industry at the same time.
And then I want to speak to one other item.
You all mentioned that USDA purchases of domestic seafood
and you know, maybe there was a little hiccup with that in the
past. But I hope that that will most definitely be revisited.
In my written testimony, I actually mentioned domestic seafood
on the lunch menu in our public schools in a real and
meaningful way going forward. Maybe some of those USDA
purchases, if they can be aimed at seafood, domestic seafood,
we could provide that to our school children in a more
meaningful fashion going forward.
That is important to me as a member of the seafood industry
because it will create a stable demand for our seafood products
hopefully for the long term if it continues but it is also
important to me as a mother of three. You know, I work my
behind off to make sure that my children eat balanced meals
that are full of the right nutrients that they need for
development.
Seafood is a product that is naturally fortified with all
those vitamins and minerals that children, young children need
for development and I think it should be a big part of our
public school system. So thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Right, and I have been part of an effort just
in recent days to move our school lunch program toward shrimp
but for some reason they were viewing it as a luxury food much
like lobster. There is no reason in the world why we shouldn't
be serving our public school lunch students nutritious shrimp
and domestic seafood. So thank you very, very much for that.
Now, then turning to either Ms. Campbell, do you have some last
suggestions for us about what we might be looking for in Phase
4 of the COVID response legislation other than what you might
have already had a chance to talk about?
Ms. Campbell. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I have
talked about the need for, you know, the specific recognition
of costs for health and safety and the need to recognize that.
I would also like to echo, you know, the comments that others
have made about how critical the USDA purchases are for our
industry in providing additional markets so any additional
support and speaking for the North Pacific the most critical
products that the USDA purchases that help our industry are the
salmon and the pollock purchases.
If there has been mention of the Executive Order on lobster
and the specific recognition in that Executive Order of the
trade impacts on the lobster fishery was really striking to us
because it is a direct explanation of what our fisheries have
been dealing with, with the trade impacts and so any work that
you may be able to do to ensure that that gets expanded and
that that work that is directed under that order expands to
deal with other fisheries that are experiencing the same impact
of the trade discussions that have been ongoing.
And really I would just say that anything that you can do
to recognize that commercial fishermen and the commercial
fishing industry are America's food producers. There are--it
has been mentioned today but there are at times programs made
available to farmers and ranchers that could quite possibly be
expanded to cover commercial fishermen as well. And given that
we are all in the business of producing food for Americans, I
think that commercial fishermen should more often be recognized
as America's food producers and included in some of those
programs. That would include our access to the H-2A Visa
Program to address some of our workforce needs.
And you know you had mentioned early on in your comments,
Mr. Chairman, how our industry is so tied to restaurants and
that there is not enough domestic consumption of seafood in
folks' homes. And now that people are cooking more at home, we
have seen a reduction in demand. And I think that there has
been some discussion on going about a National seafood council
that might help educate Americans about the nutritional
benefits of seafood. Might bring it into more homes in our
country and have more of our products consumed domestically if
there was more generic marketing.
We have a great public-private partnership in Alaska called
the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute that does that for
Alaska products, but perhaps some consideration of whether that
is necessary nationally to provide not only more economic
activity and diversity for seafood producers, but more
traditional benefits to Americans when they are cooking at
home. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Mr. Anderson.
Mr. Anderson. Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
the opportunity to speak again on these very important topics.
I do have a couple of other thoughts, some of which just re-
emphasize things that I mentioned in my opening remarks. First
of all, I have not had a chance to carefully review the phase 4
legislation. I would be happy to do that and provide any
remarks back to the Committee that seem appropriate.
I have been around a long time. I have seen a lot of
disaster relief programs come and go. I think this one that we
are in now is really unprecedented in terms of the size and
scope of the economic and social disaster that is associated in
the fishing industry connected with the COVID pandemic, and so
what I am trying to include in my recommendations were things
that I thought would both address some short-term things that
could be done to provide immediate assistance to put dollars
into the pockets or keep dollars from going out of the pockets
of fishermen that are hard hit with the combination of markets
being greatly reduced, opportunities to sell fish greatly
reduced.
The price of fish that are being paid our fishermen is down
in a big way and you have those things coupled with a couple of
additional requirements of expenditures such as the video
storage and review costs that I mentioned associated with our
electronic monitoring program that has been paid for by the
Government through the Pacific States Marine Fisheries
Commission that is scheduled to be--that responsibility
scheduled to be transferred to the industry. It is about a
$500,000 a year investment to be made to help these fishermen
weather this storm, if you will, to get through this.
There is also I talked about the cost of human observers.
Again, we have our traditional groundfish trawl fishery that a
many or much of their product is going directly to the
restaurants that we are talking about here. Giving them some
relief on the $500 a day cost that they have associated with
the requirement to have observers is another thing that could
put money directly and quickly into the pockets of our
fishermen to help them. We have also got the same thing at our
processors where we have the shoreside samplers at the
processing plant and those facilities.
So there are some things that can be done that will
directly and immediately provide some economic relief to our
commercial fisheries. I also mentioned the salmon hatchery
production there particularly through Mitchell Act that I won't
speak further on but that is another place from a longer-term
perspective to help both the commercial and recreational
fishing industry come out of this on the West Coast. Westport,
the community I live in, is a kind of a microcosm of what the
industry is up and down the coast. We have both a strong
recreational fishery here component that motels and restaurants
and charter offices and boat ramps and all of the
infrastructure that goes with that. And those stocks
assessments we talked about are important to maintaining a
healthy ground fishery for the recreational fishery as well as
the commercial fishery as well as having a healthy salmon runs.
And just maybe last is the marketing program. Leann spoke a
little bit about that and I think Cora did too. We have got
some great expertise and the industry has demonstrated the
ability to cooperate between a cross between fishermen and
processors and we have a lot, you know, a lot of more direct
sales that individual fishers are doing but I think we have
opportunities if we can provide them some resources to build
upon what they have already done here on the West Coast in
terms of rebuilding the rockfish markets as a result of the
rebuilding of those species.
We have got a lot more rockfish being harvested and so
there's a real opportunity for the industry to be successful
there. I very much would just reiterate the comment of others,
the appreciation of looking at the needs of the commercial
fishing industry as you develop the disaster relief packages
and would ask you to look at some of these other opportunities
as a way that can quickly and directly provide financial
assistance to the industry. And again, thanks very much for the
opportunity to provide those comments.
The Chairman. Thank you very much for that, and let me just
say, the three of you are appearing today on behalf of
organizations and councils and feel free to ask them to submit
written suggestions. With regard to the restaurant industry,
which I think we all agree is vital, if any of your
organizations, the three councils that you represent, if you
would like to weigh in on the Restaurants Act which provides
for a restaurant revitalization fund, now would be a good time
to hear a position from each of your counsels about that.
And Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina has been able to
include in one of the packages 100 percent business
deductibility for meals at restaurants for the rest of the time
of this COVID pandemic. So that is another proposal that we
would--if you are for that or against it, if you think it is a
good idea or not so great, hearing from your councils about
those two legislative proposals, which are being considered
even today, would be most helpful. Dr. Doremus, you get the
last word if you would like to.
Dr. Doremus. Senator, thank you. And I think the
perspective and recommendations of some of the other panelists
on your closing question offered enormous and very valuable
input to the Committee for further consideration as the Nation
grapples with the effects of the COVID pandemic on the seafood
sector. Clearly immediate stimulus is highly beneficial. The
CARES Act provided $300 million to an industry a set of
sectors, that a total about $42 billion in revenues annually,
about 2 percent.
If we were to see something equivalent to the level of
CARES Act support that went into land based agriculture, that
was more than 5.5 percent, just for reference. And a number of
panelists and others have pointed to the need for direct
assistance buying programs. Our own fishery finance program
offers some ways to reduce costs to existing participants and
fisheries. These are all techniques for providing immediate
assistance to help industry get through an extraordinarily
disruptive time.
I do think we also need to be thinking long-term about both
the recovery and the long-term resilience of the U.S. seafood
sector as a whole. We need to diversify, Senator. We need
greater sources of supply. We need more diverse species. We
need to de-risk our supply chains. We need to transition to new
product forms as was mentioned earlier today. We need wider and
different distribution channels. We need to coordinate in a
pre-competitive way our marketing and promotion to seafood as a
whole.
It was mentioned many times the extraordinary health
benefits of a greater portion of seafood in the diet, as you
are well familiar with yourself, and that is another real
policy imperative for the Nation. A stronger healthier
population, a more secure source of seafood supply, and safe,
sustainable, domestically sourced seafood are great long-term
benefits to the Nation. And the manner in which we help recover
can put us on a more solid path with those kinds of changes and
the type of scientific and technical support that we can help
provide, the grant resources that we can help provide to be
able to ensure that that transition moves in a direction that
benefits the Nation as a whole. Thank you, Senator.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. We have had excellent
witnesses today. It was a good hearing and we collected
valuable information. The hearing record will remain open for
two weeks. During this time, Senators are asked to submit any
questions for the record as soon as possible but no later than
Wednesday, August 12, 2020. Upon receipt, the witnesses are
requested to submit their written answers to the Committee as
soon as possible but no later than Wednesday, August 26, 2020.
And with that the hearing is concluded with the thanks of
the witnesses.
[Whereupon, at 11:36 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to
Paul Doremus
Background. During the hearing, you stated, ``the agency has taken
input from the public and from industry about the core components of a
national trade strategy for our seafood sector,'' and later, ``we need
to coordinate in a precompetitive way on marketing and promotion of
seafood as a whole''. The expectation is that NOAA will do this in
consultation with the seafood industry.
Question 1. Can you share concrete actions and clarity for how NOAA
has consulted (or plans to consult) with the seafood industry on this?
Answer. In July 2020, the Federal Register published a notice
inviting the U.S. seafood and fishing industry to submit comments and
suggestions for the newly-established Interagency Seafood Trade Task
Force (the Task Force), which will be co-chaired by the Office of the
United States Trade Representative (USTR) and the U.S. Department of
Commerce. The Task Force stems from the Presidential Executive Order
(EO) signed May 7, 2020, on Promoting American Seafood Competitiveness
and Economic Growth. The Task Force will work to support fair market
access for U.S. seafood products through trade policy and negotiations.
Pursuant to the May 7 EO, USTR is working closely with interagency
partners to develop a comprehensive interagency seafood trade strategy.
The strategy will identify opportunities to improve access to foreign
markets through trade policy and negotiations; resolve technical
barriers to U.S. seafood exports; and otherwise support fair market
access for U.S. seafood products. Submitted comments from the seafood
industry are available online.
Background. Given the myriad of challenges currently facing the
fishing industry, fishermen are badly in need of increased
collaboration between agencies to navigate these unprecedented times.
For example, the recent memorandum, Protecting the U.S. Lobster
Industry, emphasizes supporting the lobster industry while completely
ignoring the identical tariffs present on other forms of American
seafood. The continuing impacts of Chinese retaliation on Alaskan
seafood have been devastating to countless small businesses, as well.
Question 2. How can NOAA work to ensure increased collaboration
between other agencies, such as USDA, to ensure a cohesive and
comprehensive approach to the damages incurred by hardworking
Americans?
Answer. NOAA has been working collaboratively with agencies, such
as the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), to ensure a coordinated
approach to compensating damages incurred by fishermen. On June 24,
2020, the President issued a Memorandum on Protecting the United States
Lobster Industry, which tasked the USDA to consider taking appropriate
action, to the extent permitted by applicable law, to provide
assistance to fishermen and producers in the United States lobster
industry that continue to be harmed by the People's Republic of China's
(PRC) retaliatory tariffs. In addition, it tasked USDA to consider
including, to the extent permitted by applicable law, the U.S. lobster
industry and other segments of the U.S. seafood industry in any future
assistance provided to mitigate the effects of the PRC's retaliatory
trade practices. USDA has since announced $530 million in direct
support for commercial fishermen through the Seafood Trade Relief
Program (STRP), which includes numerous seafood commodities including
lobster, pollock, and crab. NOAA Fisheries provided technical expertise
to USDA in support of their development of this program. NOAA Sea Grant
also assisted USDA implement STRP by providing technical assistance to
stakeholders through localized engagement and information sharing.
Background. On May 27, 2020, NOAA announced their decision to
cancel five of six large-scale research surveys off Alaska in 2020
citing concern for crews and public health safety. Reduced surveys are
highly concerning, particularly in a high level of climate uncertainty
and change. These surveys provide data on species abundance and are
used to set fishing quotas. During this same time, NOAA has declined to
maintain waivers for observers present on commercial fishing boats.
Question 3. How can NOAA justify cancelling these critical surveys
to keep their staff safe, while still requiring observers to be present
onboard commercial fishing boats when that runs a risk to crews and
public health too?
Answer. Preparing for and deploying a fisheries survey poses
significant challenges that renders them different from deploying
observers to a fishing vessel. Fishery surveys are complex undertakings
that require the coordination of many moving parts (including staging
activities, ordering parts/upgrades, shipping the gear, loading
supplies, equipment, fuel) all while ensuring the health and safety of
multiple crew and researchers at each step.
On a survey mission, the moving parts must all be coordinated
before embarking on the vessel. They have recently been made more
challenging by the:
restricted access to laboratories for instrument repair and
calibration (and even if accessible, associated delays due to
social distancing, group size, etc.);
closing of businesses/providers (and the associated backlogs
in orders after reopening results in delays in receiving/
shipping components, etc.);
evolving health ordinances after spikes in COVID cases
(which affects our crew members ability to participate, e.g.,
if they are primary caregivers or are in certain risk
categories) increases the uncertainties in the decisions that
we face;
the required travel from the ships' science crew from their
home-base to the ship itself (across States and at times to/
from remote areas) adds requirements based on possibly multiple
local and State ordinances;
and others.
This cumulative (and non-exhaustive) collection of challenges,
combined with evolving safety protocols at each step, results in
uncertainties that are different than deploying observers to a vessel.
As we continue to mitigate impacts of COVID-19 cases nationally and
within our own agency, we also continue to try to plan for missions
this year. Over the past several months, NOAA has been rigorously
analyzing various options for conducting surveys this year and are
taking a survey-by-survey, risk-based approach.
It is also important to acknowledge that many fishermen have
continued their work on the water during COVID-19. As such, observers
have also returned to work, generally matching any precautionary
measures that vessels are imposing on their crew members. We understand
and acknowledge that the need to get back on the water for fishermen is
critical to their livelihoods.
Background. A topic of much conversation is the recently released
Final EIS for the Pebble mine. The proposed construction of this mine
has received much concern due to its location in the headwaters of
Bristol Bay, the most productive sockeye salmon fishery in the world.
Question 4. How has NOAA, as fishery managers, participated in the
review process for this Final EIS?
Answer. NOAA Fisheries did not submit comments on the Final EIS for
the Pebble Project during the 30-day cooling off period. NOAA Fisheries
was not a cooperating agency with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on
the EIS. We did however provide comments on the Draft EIS during the
public comment period related to our trust resources (fish, habitat,
and marine mammals). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers considered those
comments in writing the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment,
Biological Assessment, and Final EIS. NOAA Fisheries has focused its
efforts related to the Pebble Mine project on meeting our statutory
obligations to consult with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under the
Endangered Species Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act regarding effects to threatened and endangered
species and Essential Fish Habitat, respectively. The U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers recently initiated formal consultation with NOAA Fisheries
under the Endangered Species Act. We completed the EFH Consultation
with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in September 2020.
Pebble Mine, as an applicant, may also separately request that NOAA
Fisheries authorize incidental take of marine mammals under the Marine
Mammal Protection Act, and if so, NOAA Fisheries would discuss the
scope of such an authorization with them and render a decision on their
application accordingly.
[all]