    [House Hearing, 117 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

         H.R. 59, ``STRENGTHENING FISHING COMMUNITIES AND INCREASING
      FLEXIBILITY IN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ACT''; H.R. 4690, ``SUSTAINING
       AMERICA'S FISHERIES FOR THE FUTURE ACT OF 2021''; AND H.R. 5770,
                   ``FORAGE FISH CONSERVATION ACT OF 2021''

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

                              LEGISLATIVE HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                  SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, OCEANS, AND WILDLIFE

                                     OF THE

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION
                                   __________

                           Tuesday, November 16, 2021
                                   __________

                               Serial No. 117-11
                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources

                      [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                       or
              Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov

                                  ___________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    46-127 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2022

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                          RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Chair
                    JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, IL, Vice Chair
       GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, CNMI, Vice Chair, Insular Affairs
                      BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Ranking Member

    Grace F. Napolitano, CA              Don Young, AK
    Jim Costa, CA                        Louie Gohmert, TX
    Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,      Doug Lamborn, CO
        CNMI                             Robert J. Wittman, VA
    Jared Huffman, CA                    Tom McClintock, CA
    Alan S. Lowenthal, CA                Paul A. Gosar, AZ
    Ruben Gallego, AZ                    Garret Graves, LA
    Joe Neguse, CO                       Jody B. Hice, GA
    Mike Levin, CA                       Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS
    Katie Porter, CA                     Daniel Webster, FL
    Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM           Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
    Melanie A. Stansbury, NM             Russ Fulcher, ID
    Nydia M. Velazquez, NY               Pete Stauber, MN
    Diana DeGette, CO                    Thomas P. Tiffany, WI
    Julia Brownley, CA                   Jerry L. Carl, AL
    Debbie Dingell, MI                   Matthew M. Rosendale, Sr., MT
    A. Donald McEachin, VA               Blake D. Moore, UT
    Darren Soto, FL                      Yvette Herrell, NM
    Michael F. Q. San Nicolas, GU        Lauren Boebert, CO
    Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, IL         Jay Obernolte, CA
    Ed Case, HI                          Cliff Bentz, OR
    Betty McCollum, MN
    Steve Cohen, TN
    Paul Tonko, NY
    Rashida Tlaib, MI
    Lori Trahan, MA

                         David Watkins, Staff Director
                            Sarah Lim, Chief Counsel
                   Vivian Moeglein, Republican Staff Director
                       http://naturalresources.house.gov
                                     ------

                  SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, OCEANS, AND WILDLIFE

                            JARED HUFFMAN, CA, Chair
                        CLIFF BENTZ, OR, Ranking Member

    Grace F. Napolitano, CA              Jerry L. Carl, AL
    Jim Costa, CA                        Don Young, AK
    Mike Levin, CA                       Robert J. Wittman, VA
    Julia Brownley, CA                   Tom McClintock, CA
    Debbie Dingell, MI                   Garret Graves, LA
    Ed Case, HI                          Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS
    Alan S. Lowenthal, CA                Daniel Webster, FL
    Steve Cohen, TN                      Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
    Darren Soto, FL                      Russ Fulcher, ID
    Raul M. Grijalva, AZ                 Lauren Boebert, CO
    Nydia M. Velazquez, NY               Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio
    Melanie A. Stansbury, NM

                                     ------

                                    CONTENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on Tuesday, November 16, 2021.......................     1

    Statement of Members:
        Dingell, Hon. Debbie, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Michigan..........................................    10
            Prepared statement of....................................    11
        Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of California........................................     2
            Prepared statement of....................................     4
        Westerman, Hon. Bruce, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Arkansas..........................................     8
            Prepared statement of....................................     9
        Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of Alaska..................................................     5
            Prepared statement of....................................     6

    Statement of Witnesses:
        Aila, William J. Jr., Chairman, Hawaiian Homes Commission,
          Waianae, Hawaii............................................    73
            Prepared statement of....................................    74
            Questions submitted for the record.......................    76
        Carroll, Shannon, Associate Director of Public Policy,
          Trident Seafoods, Seattle, Washington......................    97
            Prepared statement of....................................    99
            Supplemental testimony submitted for the record..........   106
        Coit, Janet, Assistant Administrator, National Marine
          Fisheries Service, Washington, DC..........................    12
            Prepared statement of....................................    14
            Questions submitted for the record.......................    20
        Goldsmith, Willy, Executive Director, American Saltwater
          Guides Association, Oceanside, New York....................    92
            Prepared statement of....................................    94
        Gorelnik, Marc, Chair, Council Coordination Committee and
          Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, Oregon.......    29
            Prepared statement of....................................    31
            Questions submitted for the record.......................    42
        Moore, Meredith, Director, Fish Conservation Program, Ocean
          Conservancy, Washington, DC................................   126
            Prepared statement of....................................   128
        Pappalardo, John, CEO, Cape Cod Fishermen's Alliance, Inc.,
          Chatham, Massachusetts.....................................   118
            Prepared statement of....................................   119
        Peltola, Mary, Executive Director, Kuskokwim River Inter-
          Tribal Fish Commission, Bethel, Alaska.....................    66
            Prepared statement of....................................    68
            Questions submitted for the record.......................    71
        Powers, Sean, Director, School of Marine and Environmental
          Science Dauphin Island Sea Lab, University of South
          Alabama, Mobile, Alabama...................................   123
            Prepared statement of....................................   124

    Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
        Submissions for the Record by Representative Huffman

            Pollock Trawler Memo on H.R. 4690........................    52
            Alaska Marine Conservation Council, Letter...............   149
            At-sea Processors Association, Letter dated November 24,
              2021...................................................   153
            Jennifer Kemmerly, Statement for the Record..............   155
            Andrew Braker, Letter dated November 14, 2021............   162
            Cape Cod Salties Sportfishing Club, Letter dated November
              10, 2021...............................................   163
            Capt. Peter Fallon, Letter dated November 9, 2021........   164
            Letter of Support from Environmental NGOs................   165
            Gregory Fitz, Letter dated November 11, 2021.............   173
            Old Maine Outfitters, Letter dated November 11, 2021.....   174
            Rhode Island Saltwater Anglers Association, Letter dated
              November 13, 2021......................................   175
            Rick Crawford, Letter dated November 10, 2021............   176
            Salmon Habitat Information Program, Letter dated November
              9, 2021................................................   178
            Tanana Chiefs Conference, Statement for the Record.......   179
            Guam Fishermen's Cooperative Association, Letter dated
              November 28, 2021......................................   181
            Letter of Support from Tribal Leaders Alaska, dated
              December 1, 2021.......................................   188
            Pacific Seafood Processors Association, Letter dated
              November 30, 2021......................................   189
            The Marine Fish Conservation Network, Letter dated
              November 30, 2021......................................   192

        Submissions for the Record by Representative Case

            U.S. Department of Commerce, OIG Final Report #OIG-22-
              004-A..................................................    44
            Honolulu Civil Beat: `On The Hook' and `Reeling It In'...    44

        Submissions for the Record by Representative Dingell

            Group of scientists, Letter in support of H.R. 5770,
              dated November 15, 2021................................   194

        Submissions for the Record by Representative Gonzalez-Colon

            Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, and Caribbean Fishery Mgt.
              Council, Letter to NOAA Fisheries dated May 14, 2021...    61
            University of Puerto Rico, Letter dated November 11, 2021    62

        Submissions for the Record by Representative Young

            Seafreeze Ltd., Meghan Lapp, Statement for the Record....   199

        Submissions for the Record by Representative Bentz

            Roy Morioka, Letter dated November 29, 2021..............   205
            Pacific Islands Fisheries Group, Letter dated November
              22, 2021...............................................   206

     LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 59, TO AMEND THE MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY
      CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT TO PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY FOR FISHERY
         MANAGERS AND STABILITY FOR FISHERMEN, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,
       ``STRENGTHENING FISHING COMMUNITIES AND INCREASING FLEXIBILITY IN
      FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ACT''; H.R. 4690, TO REAUTHORIZE AND AMEND THE
    MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT, AND FOR OTHER
       PURPOSES, ``SUSTAINING AMERICA'S FISHERIES FOR THE FUTURE ACT OF
       2021''; AND H.R. 5770, TO IMPROVE THE MANAGEMENT OF FORAGE FISH,
                    ``FORAGE FISH CONSERVATION ACT OF 2021''

                                  ----------

                           Tuesday, November 16, 2021

                         U.S. House of Representatives

                  Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife

                         Committee on Natural Resources

                                 Washington, DC

                                  ----------

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:03 p.m., in
    room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, and via Cisco
    WebEx, webconferencing platform, Hon. Jared Huffman [Chairman
    of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Huffman, Dingell, Case, Lowenthal,
    Soto, Stansbury; Bentz, Carl, Young, Wittman, Graves,
    Radewagen, Gonzalez-Colon, Fulcher, and Westerman (ex officio).

        Mr. Huffman. Good afternoon. The Subcommittee on Water,
    Oceans, and Wildlife will come to order. The Subcommittee is
    meeting today to hear testimony on three fisheries-related
    bills.
        Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
    hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority
    Member or their designees. This will allow us to hear from our
    witnesses sooner and help Members keep their schedule.
        Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that all other Members'
    opening statements be made part of the record, if they are
    submitted to the Clerk by 5 p.m. today, or the close of the
    hearing, whichever comes first.
        Hearing no objection, that is so ordered.
        Without objection, the Chair may also declare a recess
    subject to the call of the Chair.
        As described in our notice, statements, documents, or
    motions must be submitted to the electronic repository at
    HNRCdocs@mail.house.gov.
        Additionally, please note that as with our in-person
    meetings, Members who are joining us remotely are responsible
    for their own microphones. And as with in-person meetings, they
    will only be muted by staff if that is necessary to avoid
    inadvertent background noise.
        Pursuant to Committee Rule 3(l) and the latest guidance
    from the Attending Physician, anyone present in the hearing
    room today must wear a mask covering their mouth and nose,
    regardless of vaccination status, except when you are speaking.
        It is my hope that, with everyone's cooperation, we can
    protect the safety of Members and staff and the families that
    they will return to at home. The Committee has masks available
    for any Members who need them.
        Finally, Members or witnesses experiencing technical
    difficulty should inform Committee staff right away so we can
    help.
        I will begin by recognizing myself for a brief opening
    statement.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Huffman. It is nice to be here again in person with
    many of you. I am grateful to those who are also joining us
    virtually from afar.
        Today, our hearing is focused on the Magnuson-Stevens
    Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The reauthorization of
    that Act is years in the making.
        We have two reauthorization bills before us today, mine--
    and, of course, I have developed mine working closely with
    Congressman Ed Case--and a bill from Congressman Don Young.
        Yay, Don.
        We will also be examining Congresswoman Debbie Dingell's
    bill on forage fish conservation today.
        America is truly a leader in sustainable fisheries
    management, but the MSA hasn't been reauthorized in over a
    decade. And, while it is an important bill that has stood the
    test of time, it needs some updates, particularly concerning
    the impacts of climate change.
        When I first started drafting the bill that we have titled
    ``Sustaining America's Fisheries for the Future Act''--again,
    in partnership with Congressman Case--I knew that we needed to
    change the narrative around marine fisheries. We wanted the
    conversation to not be about partisan politics, but to be an
    inclusive, transparent, and stakeholder-driven process so that
    we could get back to basics and focus on the needs of fishing
    communities.
        I am a big believer that good process makes good policy, so
    we started with a process of hearing directly from stakeholders
    all over the country. And we were able to do that in person in
    many of our listening sessions. Then the pandemic intervened.
    But we pushed through and finished the rest of those sessions
    virtually.
        After that, we released a discussion draft of our bill and
    actively sought comments on it from stakeholders all over the
    country.
        I think people are not only tired of the partisan divides
    they see with so many issues getting hijacked by partisan
    agendas, they are also tired of backroom deals. So, we really
    tried with this bill to open it up and make this one of the
    most transparent processes anyone has ever seen for developing
    a major piece of legislation.
        From the listening sessions to taking comments, we have
    genuinely heard from stakeholders all over the board:
    commercial, recreational, charter, tribal, subsistence fishers,
    environmentalists, scientists, council members and other
    regulators, processors, the offshore wind industry, and more.
        We learned through this process that, again, while MSA is a
    great law that is largely working and doesn't need to be
    reinvented, but it does need to be updated. And at the top of
    the list of updates is climate change.
        Fish stocks are shifting, ecosystems are changing, and how
    we manage fish needs to change as well. That means
    incorporating more climate science, improving coordination, and
    more strategic planning. All of that is included in this bill.
        We also need to update some provisions relating to the
    eight regional fishery management councils. This bill includes
    language that strengthens the public process and transparency,
    including updates for council ethics requirements, more
    transparent voting, and strengthening anti-lobbying provisions.
        We also included two seats to the North Pacific Council for
    Alaskan Natives, who historically have been far too
    unrepresented. We created voting liaison seats for New England
    and Mid-Atlantic Councils, where stocks are overlapping and
    shifting due to climate change. This will help both regions
    plan for and adapt to climate change, and it will help reduce
    conflict between the regions.
        This legislation is also very heavy on science and data.
    This is one of the points of consensus that we heard all over
    the country from just about every stakeholder. We need more
    data, better data to keep up with today's fishery management
    challenges. We need the best available science, so we have
    included language to expand and improve electronic
    technologies, cooperative research and management updates, and
    recreational fishing data consistency improvements.
        In Title V, we address many critical conservation issues
    that will make the MSA even more effective as the world's best
    example of sustainable fisheries management.
        My bill strengthens language intended to reduce bycatch,
    strengthens protections for essential fish habitat, and amends
    requirements for fishery rebuilding plan outcomes so that we
    don't end up in endless rebuilding plan loops. We need to
    ensure that rebuilding plans are working so that we can have
    productive and sustainable fisheries.
        We also include Congresswoman Debbie Dingell's bill on
    forage fish conservation in our Magnuson reauthorization bill.
    This will help us manage a set of foundational species as a
    food source for other fish and animals in our marine
    ecosystems.
        And, finally, we incorporated several other bipartisan
    bills in the legislation. Some go beyond the MSA, but they are
    critical for fishing communities and fisheries management.
    These include Rep. Pingree's ``Working Waterfronts Act'', Rep.
    Webster's and my ``Fishery Disasters Improvement Act'', for
    example.
        I want to thank the Dean of the House, Congressman Don
    Young, for his decades of leadership on marine fisheries
    management and for the productive conversations that we have
    had so far on this subject.
        Of course, he played an instrumental role on the original
    writing of the MSA. It really should bear his name on it. And,
    while our two bills at this point have some differences, there
    is also much that we agree on.
        So, I am going to continue reaching out to my friend,
    Congressman Young, and to his team, in hopes that we can come
    together on a bipartisan bill as the process moves forward.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Huffman follows:]
     Prepared Statement of the Hon. Jared Huffman, Chair, Subcommittee on
                           Water, Oceans and Wildlife
        Good afternoon. It's nice to be here again in person with many of
    you, and I'm grateful to those who have appeared with us virtually from
    afar.
        Today's hearing on the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
    Management Act reauthorization is years in the making. We have two
    reauthorization bills before us--mine and Congressman Case's, as well
    as Congressman Young's. We'll also be examining Congresswoman Dingell's
    bill on forage fish conservation.
        America is truly a leader in sustainable fisheries management, but
    the MSA hasn't been reauthorized in over a decade and needs important
    updates, particularly concerning the impacts of climate change.
        When I first started drafting the Sustaining America's Fisheries
    for the Future Act, in partnership with Congressman Case, I knew we
    needed to change the narrative around fisheries. We wanted the
    conversation not to be about partisan politics, but to be an inclusive,
    transparent, and stakeholder driven process so we can get back to the
    basics and focus on the needs of fishing communities. That all started
    with hearing directly from the stakeholders, which is why, despite
    challenges from COVID, I held eight listening sessions around the
    country and virtually.
        We also released a discussion draft version of the bill, which I
    actively sought comments on to include as much stakeholder feedback as
    possible.
        From the listening sessions to taking comments, we have genuinely
    heard from stakeholders across the board--commercial, recreational,
    charter, tribal, and subsistence fishers, environmentalists,
    scientists, council members and other regulators, processors, the
    offshore wind industry, and more.
        We learned from this process that we need to make some profound
    changes and updates to the MSA. At the top of the list is climate
    change--fish stocks are shifting, ecosystems are changing, and how we
    manage fish needs to change. That means incorporating more climate
    science, improving coordination, and more strategic planning, all of
    which are included in this bill. Just last week, several Committee
    Members were at COP 26, and we heard how important it is to act on
    climate change now before it is too late.
        We also need to make important updates to the eight regional
    fishery management councils. This bill includes language that
    strengthens the public process and transparency, including updates for
    council ethics requirements, more transparent voting, and strengthening
    anti-lobbying policies. We also added two seats to the North Pacific
    council for Alaska Natives, who historically have been far under-
    represented. We created voting liaison seats for the New England and
    Mid Atlantic councils, where stocks often overlap and shift due to
    climate change.
        This legislation is also very heavy on science and data because to
    keep up with today's fishery management needs, we need to have the best
    available science. We included language to expand and improve
    electronic technologies, cooperative research and management updates,
    and recreational fishing data consistency improvements.
        In Title V, we address many critical conservation issues that will
    make the MSA even more effective as the world's best example of
    sustainable fisheries management. My bill closes loopholes that prevent
    effective bycatch management, strengthens protections for essential
    fish habitat, and amends requirements for fishery rebuilding plan
    outcomes so that we don't end up in endless rebuilding plan loops. It
    also includes Representative Dingell's bill on forage fish
    conservation, which will help us manage foundational species as a food
    source for other fish and animals in marine ecosystems.
        We also incorporated several bipartisan bills into the legislation,
    including some that go beyond the MSA but are critical for fishing
    communities and fisheries management. These include Rep. Pingree's
    Working Waterfronts Act and Rep. Webster's and my Fishery Resource
    Disasters Improvements Act, which will speed up timelines for getting
    funds to fishing communities after fishery disasters are declared.
        I especially want to thank the Dean of the House, Congressman Don
    Young, for his decades of leadership on fisheries management and for
    all the productive conversations we and our staff have had around MSA
    in the last few years. As he will tell you, he was instrumental in the
    original writing of the MSA, and it really should have his name
    attached to it. While our MSA reauthorization bills are different,
    there is much we agree on, and I hope we can continue to find common
    ground as we learn from today's hearing.
        I'm thrilled that we have such a wide array of witnesses--from NMFS
    and the Councils to fishers across the commercial, recreational, and
    subsistence sectors and environmental advocates. We very much
    appreciate you being here today, and I'm looking forward to learning
    your thoughts on the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

                                     ______

        Mr. Huffman. With that, I will turn it over to
    Representative Young, who is standing in, I think very
    appropriately, as Ranking Member for this hearing for his
    opening remarks.

     STATEMENT OF THE HON. DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                        FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA

        Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for the
    comments that you made about my role in this bill. I would like
    to say I wrote the bill with a lot of good staff help. Me and
    Gerry Studds, he was the Chairman, and we saw the problems we
    were faced with at that time of foreign fishing fleets invading
    our waters all the way up to 12 miles off our shores.
        It was a hard-fought battle. It was hard to get everybody
    together. We did it. And that was sent over to the Senate side.
    And the Senate got a hold of it--Mr. Senator Magnuson and
    Senator Stevens took our bill and put their name on it and sent
    it back to us. So, it became the Senate bill. It should have
    been the Young-Studds bill. But--all that to say that.
        Anyway, I will somewhat agree with a lot of what you said.
    We have a working relationship, but I think we can solve this
    problem. This bill has worked well, though. And I don't want to
    do something to keep it from working. I know you have a
    provision in here that I am supportive of and some people are
    not as supportive of. There are two Alaskan Natives on the
    council; that will be opposed by some people in the Lower 48,
    as you well know. But I think they play a major role and should
    be involved in it, and it would be in my bill if I was to pass
    it. But the big thing is, it doesn't do any good to get on the
    board or the council if they don't have the authority. And I do
    believe your bill passes that authority, most of it, back to
    the Secretary. And that is a one-person position; it is a
    political appointee and I don't think it is safe. I like the
    council system. If they have failed, show us, and let's see if
    we can improve on it.
        [Inaudible].
        Mr. Young. Transparency is good, ethics is good. I agree
    with all of those things, but you can't have a shadow council
    if they don't have some authority. And our North Pacific
    Council has worked well. It is not the best, but it is probably
    the best of all the councils, but it has done the job for the
    industry and--remember that original intent was sustainable
    yield of a species, the conservation, not preservation, the
    conservation of species sustainable for the communities and for
    the food sources for America and other countries too. I do
    believe that it has worked well. Can we improve on it? Yes. And
    I am wanting to sit down and work with you to see if we can do
    this.
        I look forward to hearing my witnesses on what they have to
    present. And, when that is done, let's work a bill, like you
    say, bipartisanly and try to get to the situation where it
    needs improvement, improve it, but don't destroy what has
    worked well in the past, as we have, I think, a great example
    that can make sure that we have the original intent:
    sustainable yield of a species of fish, whatever they are, for
    the future generation of Americans.
        With that, I yield back the balance.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]
    Prepared Statement of the Hon. Don Young, a Representative in Congress
                            from the State of Alaska
    Introduction
        Good afternoon. I'd like to thank Representative Huffman for the
    consideration of my bill, H.R. 59, that would reauthorize Magnuson-
    Stevens.

        I'd also like to thank Ranking Member Westerman for entrusting me
    to take the lead on MSA and allowing me to continue the fight to
    reauthorize a critical piece of legislation, of which I originally
    helped pass the House 45 years ago in 1976.

        Lastly, I am grateful to Representative Bentz for agreeing to
    temporarily step aside and let me to act as Ranking Member for this
    subcommittee hearing.
    MSA--Need for 1976 Legislation
        Before 1976, foreign fishing fleets dominated the waters off
    Alaska's shores.

        Deck lights of foreign vessels--dozens if not more--could be seen
    just miles off the coast of Kodiak and other coastal communities.

        Recognizing the need for change, countless Alaskan fishermen came
    to Congress to ask for help in pushing the foreign fleets out.
    Bipartisan Effort--Began in the House
        Senator Ted Stevens and I knew that Alaska's and America's
    interests needed protection and we immediately began working to
    spearhead commonsense fisheries reforms through Congress.

         We made a unique push to expand our nation's Exclusive
                Economic Zone (EEZ) to 200 miles, while limiting state
                waters to 3 miles.

        Reforms weren't easy, but partnerships and friendships were
    formed--with Representatives and Senators across state and party
    lines--to convince our colleagues it was the right thing to do.

         Rep. Gerry Studds (D-MA) and I led the charge in the
                House, and the Senate quickly followed suit.

    Americanizing our Fisheries
        After years of work, the foundation of our domestic fishing fleet
    was born from the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA).

        Along with the creation of the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone
    that pushed foreign fleets further from our shores, MSA
    ``Americanized'' our fisheries and created wealth and certainty for our
    State and fishermen.
    Alaska--Gold Standard of Fisheries Management
        Alaska is now home to the strongest, most sustainable fisheries in
    the world.

         The North Pacific Fisheries Management Council, currently
                chaired by Simon Kinneen, is considered the gold standard.

        Across the North Pacific, from Dutch Harbor to Ketchikan, our
    fishermen and coastal communities have thrived under the policies
    developed in MSA.

        Alaska's seafood industry now contributes nearly 70,000 jobs to our
    local economies and harvests more than 60 percent of the nation's
    seafood. In fact, approximately one in ten Alaskans work in the seafood
    industry!
    Reauthorizing MSA--Providing Reforms to Ensure Proper Balance
        As Alaska's fisheries continue to flourish, there ultimately comes
    a time when our laws--even those that are working well--must be
    reviewed and updated.

        Since MSA was last reauthorized in 2006, I am once again proud to
    be at the head of the charge on reauthorizing this important
    legislation.
    H.R. 4690: Sustaining America's Fisheries for the Future Act of 2021
            (Huffman)
        Although I commend my colleague, Rep. Huffman, for understanding
    the crucial role MSA plays in the management of our nation's fisheries,
    I do have concerns with his bill:

         First, this bill would take power from the Councils and
                put it in the hands of the Secretary, which is a
                politically appointed position. We must keep science and
                expertise at the core of how we manage our fisheries.

         Second, I am concerned that increasing restrictions or
                burdens on our domestic fisheries will make U.S. industry
                less competitive and will only lead to an increase in
                imported seafood--much of it coming from countries that
                have little or no conservation laws. I fear that this will
                only make the world's fishery problems worse.

         Third, I am concerned about amending the act in ways that
                will only increase litigation. After the 1996 amendments,
                NOAA saw an increase in lawsuits and at one point was
                dealing with over 100 lawsuits. Courts and lawyers should
                not be managing our fisheries.

         However, I'd like to recognize a provision in Rep.
                Huffman's bill that would add two Alaska Native Tribal
                seats to the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. This
                is a provision that I support, and I am appreciative of
                Rep. Huffman for including it in his bill and working with
                the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN) to do so. I plan to
                incorporate a similar provision in my own bill as well.

    H.R. 59: Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility
            in Fisheries Management Act (Young)
        My legislation, H.R. 59, would make a number of improvements to the
    MSA in order to ensure a proper balance between the biological needs of
    fish stocks and the economic needs of fishermen and coastal
    communities. The bill includes a number of modest but necessary
    reforms:

         Preserves the roles and responsibilities of the Councils
                by avoiding new, overly burdensome processes and science
                requirements on fishery managers;

         Adds flexibility for fishery managers in ``data poor''
                regions of the country for rebuilding depleted fisheries
                and setting annual catch levels;

         Seek to further improve the science and data on which
                Councils base their management;

         Increase transparency in science and management by
                allowing the public to play a greater role in the
                development of science and Fishery Management Plans;

         Gives stakeholders a voice in the management process and
                requires the Secretary of Commerce to develop a plan for
                implementing cooperative research with fishermen and
                outside groups;

         Includes a requirement for NOAA to provide better
                accountability on how fees are collected and used;

         Provides clarification on the role of the Magnuson-Stevens
                Act when interacting with other federal statutes like the
                Marine Sanctuaries Act and Antiquities Act; and

         Avoids creating the potential for litigation that could
                negatively impact what is widely considered to be an
                effective management system.

        This legislation is similar to efforts I led during the 115th
    Congress, H.R. 200, which passed the House on July 11, 2018.
    Looking Forward to Getting MSA Reauthorization Done
        In many ways, MSA continues to support Alaska and American
    fishermen and protects our fishery resource as envisioned.

         However, our laws are not written in stone and we must
                constantly review them, listen to our constituents, and
                make changes when necessary.

        I look forward to once again hearing from the countless Alaskans
    and Americans who helped us develop these positive reforms.

        Just as we did in 2006 Congress must work in a bipartisan fashion
    to ensure this law keeps pace with changes in our industry and that it
    is being implemented as intended by Congress.
    Closing
        I look forward to continuing to work with Rep. Huffman so we can
    reach a bipartisan agreement on the reauthorization of MSA.

        I yield back.

                                     ______

        Mr. Huffman. All right. I thank the Ranking Member. I
    understand that the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr.
    Westerman, has an opening statement as well. We will yield to
    him.

      STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRUCE WESTERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

        Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
    holding this hearing on reauthorizing the Magnuson-Stevens Act,
    which is one of the most important laws under this Committee's
    jurisdiction. We know it may be named after two former
    Senators, but anyone in the fisheries world knows that our Dean
    of the House, Don Young, is co-responsible for not only its
    creation in 1976 but for its continuation.
        It is only fitting that he is the acting Subcommittee
    Ranking Member for this hearing. He is the true expert in this
    field, and we are honored to have him here captaining the boat
    on our side of the aisle.
        The MSA law we are looking at today has been reauthorized
    twice, with a possibility for a third time. As Mr. Young
    referenced, our laws are not written in stone, and it is our
    duty to review them, as needed. That involves looking at what
    has worked and what hasn't, which is the scope of this hearing.
    We will hear today that this landmark fisheries law has helped
    create world-class opportunities for commercial and
    recreational anglers alike.
        Jobs in our coastal areas and even land-locked communities
    in Arkansas--where boat construction flourishes, thanks in part
    to recreational fishing in saltwater--are the direct result of
    Federal fisheries law. And, in many cases, the seafood we enjoy
    on our dinner plates come from American waters managed under
    the law before us.
        From some of the witness testimonies here today, it is
    evident that one of the reasons the law has been successful is
    that the MSA law empowered regional management that accounted
    for difference in fisheries, communities, dialogues, history,
    and the like.
        The regional councils are given National Standards to
    adhere to, but have the ability to meet those standards using
    regional approaches. Mr. Young's bill continues that management
    style while providing for more flexibility and transparency in
    the law.
        Mr. Young's bill also promotes science. We will hear today
    that researchers are making great technological advances to
    measure fish abundance, and that the Federal Government, at
    least involving red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico, has some
    work to do when it comes to fish counting.
        On the other hand, we will hear that Mr. Huffman's
    reauthorization bill goes a little bit in the opposite
    direction. And I hope we can work together to come up with a
    bill that recognizes these advances in science. Instead of
    empowering councils, I don't think we need a bill that
    restricts them and gives more power to the Federal bureaucracy
    in Washington, DC. It could lead to regulatory chaos and
    litigation when it comes to changes on Federal bycatch
    standards. The bill also changes the process for potential
    impacts on essential fish habitats and gives NOAA a superpower
    status over other Federal agencies.
        For example, the U.S. Navy has strong concerns over these
    provisions and is worried about military preparedness and
    readiness. In addition, given President Biden's current supply
    chain crisis, enacting provisions which inhibit dredging or
    port development will make this situation even worse.
        In conclusion, both bills, as well as Congresswoman
    Dingell's bill on forage fisheries, which is included in Mr.
    Huffman's bill, are well-intentioned. But we need to ensure
    that whatever this Committee does after this hearing does not
    undermine what has worked for fishing communities.
        I, again, commend Mr. Young for his true leadership on this
    effort, and I look forward to today's testimony. I yield back.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Westerman follows:]
      Prepared Statement of the Hon. Bruce Westerman, a Representative in
                      Congress from the State of Arkansas
        Thank you for holding this hearing on reauthorizing the Magnuson-
    Stevens Act, one of the most important laws under this Committee's
    jurisdiction.
        It may be named after two former Senators, but anyone in the
    fisheries world knows that our Dean of the House, Don Young, is co-
    responsible for not only its creation in 1976 but for its continuation.
    It is only fitting that he's the Acting Subcommittee Ranking Member for
    this hearing.
        He is the true expert in this field, and we are honored to have him
    here captaining the boat on our side of the aisle.
        The MSA law we are looking at today has been reauthorized twice,
    with a possibility for a third time. As Mr. Young referenced, our laws
    are not written in stone and it's our duty to review them as needed.
        That involves looking at what has worked and what hasn't, which is
    the scope of this hearing. We will hear today that this landmark
    fisheries law has helped create world-class opportunities for
    commercial and recreational anglers alike. Jobs in our coastal areas
    and even in land-locked communities in Arkansas--where boat
    construction flourishes thanks, in part, to recreational fishing in
    saltwater--are the direct result of federal fisheries law. And, in many
    cases, the seafood we enjoy on our dinner plates comes from American
    waters managed under the law before us.
        From some of the witness testimonies here today, it's evident that
    one of the reasons the law has been successful is that the MSA law
    empowered regional management that accounted for differences in
    fisheries, communities, dialogues, history and the like. The regional
    councils are given National Standards to adhere to, but have the
    ability to meet those Standards using regional approaches. Mr. Young's
    bill continues that management style while providing for more
    flexibility and transparency in the law.
        Mr. Young's bill also promotes science. We will hear today that
    researchers are making great technological advances to measure fish
    abundance and that the Federal Government--at least involving red
    snapper in the Gulf of Mexico--has some work to do when it comes to
    fish counting.
        On the other hand, we will hear that Mr. Huffman's reauthorization
    bill goes in the opposite direction. Instead of empowering councils, it
    restricts them and gives more power to the federal bureaucracy in
    Silver Spring, Maryland. It could lead to regulatory chaos and
    litigation when it comes to changes on federal by-catch standards. The
    bill also changes the process for potential impacts on essential fish
    habitat and gives NOAA agency superpower status over other federal
    agencies. For example, the U.S. Navy has strong concerns over these
    provisions and is worried about military preparedness and readiness. In
    addition, given President Biden's current supply chain crisis, enacting
    provisions which inhibit dredging or port development will make this
    situation even worse.
        In conclusion, both bills--as well as Congresswoman Dingell's bill
    on forage fisheries which is included in Mr. Huffman's bill--are well-
    intentioned. But we need to ensure that whatever this Committee does
    after this hearing does not undermine what has worked for fishing
    communities.
        I again commend Mr. Young for his true leadership on this effort
    and look forward to today's testimony.

                                     ______

        Mr. Huffman. I thank the Ranking Member.
        As this is a legislative hearing, our first panel is one of
    the Congressional Members speaking about the bill on the
    agenda. Congressman Young and I have already given our opening
    statements where we addressed our legislation.
        So, we will now hear from Representative Dingell for her
    statement on her bill, H.R. 5770, the Forage Fish Conservation
    Act of 2021.
        Representative Dingell, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. DEBBIE DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

        Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Chairman Huffman, and to my dear
    friend Representative Young, who has done so much work in all
    of this area. I am always honored to work with him. And thank
    you for convening today's hearing to discuss legislation to
    strengthen our nation's fisheries.
        I appreciate the Committee's inclusion of the Forage Fish
    Conservation Act, which is bipartisan legislation I am leading
    with my colleague, Congressman Brian Mast.
        Forage fish, the smaller fish that support other
    recreationally and commercially important species, such as
    tuna, salmon, and cod, are vital for sustaining a healthy
    marine ecosystem. However, the numbers of many of these fish
    have declined dramatically in recent years and are at historic
    lows. For example, coast-wide landings of shad and river
    herring have fallen by more than 96 percent since 1950. And,
    additionally, human demand for these species has continued to
    grow.
        These increased pressures, if not addressed soon, will
    threaten opportunities for recreational fishermen as well as
    the larger marine ecosystem.
        To maintain healthy and abundant fisheries in the coming
    years, we must work to strengthen science-based mechanisms for
    fisheries management to build upon the success of the Magnuson-
    Stevens and other proven conservation measures. And that is why
    the Forage Fish Conservation Act is necessary.
        This legislation gives the Secretary of Commerce the
    authority to create a science-based definition for ``forage
    fish'' in Federal waters and ensures that scientific advice
    sought by fishery managers includes recommendations for forage
    fish, all while preserving state management of forage fish
    fisheries that occur in their jurisdiction.
        Additionally, the legislation assesses the impact any new
    commercial forage fish fishery could have on existing
    fisheries, fishing communities, and the marine ecosystem prior
    to the fishery being authorized. Taken together, the provisions
    in the Forage Fish Conservation Act would implement a
    consistent fisheries conservation policy throughout the eight
    fisheries management councils. This will allow Americans to
    enjoy healthier ecosystems that support thriving coastal
    communities, as well as their associated economies. This
    legislation has broad bipartisan support as well as the backing
    of groups, including the American Sportfishing Association, the
    National Marine Manufacturers Association, the National
    Wildlife Federation, the Pew Charitable Trusts, and the
    Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership.
        I would also like to ask unanimous consent to enter into
    the record a letter signed by dozens of scientists from across
    the country supporting the Forage Fish Conservation Act. The
    need for action is clear, as is the cost of the inaction. By
    acting now, building upon the success of Magnuson-Stevens'
    proven, state-based conservation mechanisms, we will be able to
    address the pressing need for the benefit of fishing
    communities and the economy at large.
        I want to thank my colleague, Brian Mast, for his
    leadership and his support of this legislation and look forward
    to continuing to work in, I hope, a very bipartisan manner to
    move the Forage Fish Conservation Act forward. I urge my
    colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back.

        [The prepared statement of Mrs. Dingell follows:]
      Prepared Statement of the Hon. Debbie Dingell, a Representative in
                      Congress from the State of Michigan
        Thank you, Chairman Huffman and Ranking Member Bentz, for convening
    today's hearing to discuss legislation to strengthen our nation's
    fisheries.
        I appreciate the Committee's inclusion of the Forage Fish
    Conservation Act, bipartisan legislation I am leading with my
    colleague, Congressman Brian Mast.
        Forage fish--smaller fish that support other recreationally and
    commercially important species such as tuna, salmon, and cod--are vital
    for sustaining a healthy marine ecosystem. However, the numbers of many
    of these fish have declined dramatically in recent years and are at
    historic lows. For example, coast-wide landings of shad and river
    herring have fallen by more than 96 percent since 1950. Additionally,
    human demand for these fish species has continued to grow.
        These increased pressures, if not addressed soon, will threaten
    opportunities for recreational fisherman as well as the larger marine
    ecosystem.
        To maintain healthy and abundant fisheries in the coming years, we
    must work to strengthen science-based mechanisms for fisheries
    management that build upon the success of Magnuson-Stevens and other
    proven conservation measures. This is why the Forage Fish Conservation
    Act is necessary.
        The legislation gives the Secretary of Commerce the authority to
    create a science-based definition for forage fish in federal waters and
    ensures that scientific advice sought by fishery managers includes
    recommendations for forage fish, all while preserving state management
    of forage fish fisheries that occur in their jurisdiction.
        Additionally, the legislation assesses the impact any new
    commercial forage fish fishery could have on existing fisheries,
    fishing communities, and the marine ecosystem prior to the fishery
    being authorized. Taken together, the provisions in the Forage Fish
    Conservation Act would implement a consistent fisheries conservation
    policy throughout the eight fisheries management councils.
        This will allow Americans can enjoy healthier ecosystems that
    support thriving coastal communities, as well as their associated
    economies.
        The legislation has broad bipartisan support, as well as the
    backing of a variety of groups including the American Sportfishing
    Association, the National Marine Manufacturers Association, the
    National Wildlife Federation, the Pew Charitable Trusts, and the
    Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership.
        I would also like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record
    a letter signed by dozens of scientists from across the country
    supporting the Forage Fish Conservation Act. The need for action is
    clear, as is the cost of inaction. By acting now--building upon the
    success of Magnuson-Stevens' proven, state-based conservation
    mechanisms--we can address this pressing need for the benefit of
    fishing communities and the economy at large.
        I would like to thank my colleague, Congressman Brian Mast, for his
    leadership and support of this legislation as well and look forward to
    continuing to work in a bipartisan manner to move the Forage Fish
    Conservation Act forward.
        I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Thank you and I
    yield back.

                                     ______

        Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Representative Dingell, for joining
    us to testify today.
        We will now transition to our second panel and hear
    testimony from the Administration and government witnesses. I
    will remind non-Administration witnesses that they are
    encouraged to participate in the witness diversity survey that
    was created by the Congressional Office of Diversity and
    Inclusion. Witnesses may refer to their hearing invitation
    materials for further information on that.
        Under our Committee Rules, we ask witnesses to limit oral
    statements to 5 minutes. Of course, your entire statement will
    appear in the hearing record. When you begin speaking, the
    timer begins counting down. It turns orange when you have 1
    minute left. And I recommend that Members and witnesses joining
    us remotely use the grid view in WebEx so that you could lock
    the timer on your screen. When your testimony is complete,
    please do remember to mute yourself to avoid inadvertent
    background noise. And I will allow all the witnesses to testify
    before we bring it back to Members for questions.
        Our first witness is Ms. Janet Coit, Assistant
    Administrator of the National Marine Fisheries Service, Acting
    Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, and
    Deputy NOAA Administrator.
        After that, we will hear from Mr. Marc Gorelnik, Chair of
    Council Coordination Committee, and Chair of Pacific Fisheries
    Management Council.
        The Chair now recognizes Ms. Coit for 5 minutes.
        Welcome.

      STATEMENT OF JANET COIT, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL
                MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, WASHINGTON, DC

        Ms. Coit. Chairman Huffman, Ranking Members Young and
    Bentz, and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to testify. My name is Janet Coit. I am the
    Assistant Administrator for Fisheries at NOAA. The Magnuson-
    Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act is the legal
    foundation for the world's most sustainable fisheries.
        Since its passage in 1976, we have made great strides in
    recovering fisheries and supporting the U.S. seafood and
    recreational fishing sectors. The progress we have made is
    built on strong science, collaboration with tribes, states, and
    the fisheries commissions, the diligent work of the regional
    councils, and the support of NOAA's dedicated employees.
        On behalf of NOAA, I want to thank Chairman Huffman,
    Representative Case, and Ranking Member Young for your work on
    these bills. As you mentioned, they were the result of
    significant input and present thoughtful approaches to our
    fishery management challenges.
        From the productive waters of our oceans to the millions of
    jobs associated with our commercial and recreational
    industries, there is a lot at stake. I hope we all agree that
    the dynamic science-based process under Magnuson provides the
    nation with a successful fisheries management construct.
        Guided by the Act's unique participatory process, we have
    almost ended overfishing in the United States. In fact, we have
    rebuilt close to 50 domestic fish stocks since 2000. Still, we
    confront many challenges, and we are eager to work with you to
    identify opportunities to improve.
        Climate change is impacting our coastal and ocean
    ecosystems, and we need to move quickly to better prepare for
    and respond to these changes. We appreciate the over-arching
    climate focus of H.R. 4690. The bill's proposed requirements to
    assess the vulnerability of fish stocks to climate change build
    upon the Administration's efforts to deliver science and
    information to help managers respond. Our experts are working
    on climate-ready strategies to help fishery managers adapt to
    changing conditions in the North Pacific and other geographies.
    We support the proposed change of the term ``overfished'' to
    ``depleted,'' acknowledging that population size and status can
    be influenced by many factors in addition to fishing.
        H.R. 4690 recognizes the growing need for cross council
    coordination as stocks shift due to climate change. We are
    already taking concrete steps to address those issues, such as
    hosting scenario planning workshops to address priority
    management and governance issues related to climate change.
        H.R. 4690 addresses the importance of using technology to
    improve and expand fisheries data collection via electronic
    monitoring. NOAA has implemented seven electronic monitoring
    programs and has over 6,000 vessels using electronic logbooks.
    We will continue to press forward with EM and new technologies.
        Habitat is the foundation of how much productive fisheries
    are built. The Huffman-Case bill recognizes the important role
    essential fish habitat plays in the success of our fisheries,
    and we would like to work with you to continue to strengthen
    these protections. The bill also recognizes the challenges of
    conducting stock assessments in fisheries surveyed amidst the
    growing demand for offshore wind.
        There are several provisions in the bill that benefit
    fishing communities as they work to provide healthy seafood to
    our nation. Both bills would replace the default 10-year
    rebuilding timeline, which provides a more scientifically-sound
    approach for rebuilding. Additionally, H.R. 4690 expands
    opportunities to collaborate on seafood marketing as we build
    back after the pandemic.
        Several provisions are in line with the President's recent
    Executive Order on equity and environmental justice, including
    the addition of two seats to represent Alaskan tribes on the
    North Pacific Council. These provisions, together with the new
    ``subsistence fishing'' definition in both bills, promotes the
    participation of important and diverse fishing communities in
    decision making.
        Ensuring employees, including council employees, are free
    from sexual assault and sexual harassment is a real priority
    for me. NOAA supports the bill's expansion of SAS policies.
        In regard to fishery disasters, I am fully committed to
    doing a better job at turning around funding, and we support
    the intent of these bills to speed up that process.
        Shifting gears, I would like to note some concerns about
    provisions in both bills. For example, the expanded scope of
    some of the requirements could redirect limited funding and
    staff away from core activities. We are also concerned about
    the numerous additional reports and some of the process
    requirements that might further strain the workload for the
    council and NOAA staff.
        My written testimony provides further details regarding
    provisions that present challenges and implementation concerns.
    But I want to leave you with this: I am committed to working
    with you to promoting the economic viability of our fishing
    sectors and our coastal communities while ensuring that our
    fish stocks and marine habitats are healthy and resilient for
    years to come.
        And we need to do more to address climate change, and I
    look forward to working with you to tackle that challenge and
    other challenges ahead. Thank you.

        [The prepared statement of Ms. Coit follows:]
         Prepared Statement of Janet Coit, Assistant Administrator for
       Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service and Acting Assistant
        Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and Deputy NOAA
     Administrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
                             Department Of Commerce
        Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member Bentz, and members of the
    Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding
    several fisheries-related bills. My name is Janet Coit, and I am the
    Assistant Administrator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration's (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and
    Acting Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere and Deputy NOAA
    Administrator. As you know, NOAA is responsible for the stewardship of
    the nation's ocean resources and their habitats. We provide vital
    services for the nation, all backed by sound science and with continual
    progress toward ecosystem-based approaches to management. These
    services include: productive and sustainable fisheries, safe sources of
    seafood, recovery and conservation of protected resources, and healthy
    ecosystems.
        Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
    (Magnuson-Stevens Act), U.S. fisheries are among the world's largest
    and most sustainable. As you know, I am only a few months into the job
    and still learning all the intricate details of this seminal fisheries
    statute. It is a privilege to join NMFS to work with the agency's
    incredibly skilled and dedicated employees and the regional fishery
    management councils (councils) to build on the many fishery management
    successes achieved under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. I appreciate the
    Subcommittee's ongoing work developing and overseeing the
    implementation of our nation's laws related to domestic and
    international fisheries and other marine resources. I look forward to
    working with you on these important issues and discussing these bills
    with you today.
        The bills I am testifying on are a result of significant input from
    councils, fishermen, and other stakeholders and present thoughtful
    approaches to our fishery management challenges. In particular, I wish
    to applaud Chairman Huffman and Representative Case for the inclusive,
    stakeholder-driven process used to develop the Sustaining America's
    Fisheries for the Future Act of 2021. During your eight listening
    sessions around the country, NMFS leadership, council members, and
    diverse stakeholder groups had the opportunity to share viewpoints on
    how the Magnuson-Stevens Act is working and areas for improvement. This
    substantial bill is the culmination of that comprehensive effort and
    the feedback you received following your release of a discussion draft
    in December 2020. Similarly, I applaud Representative Young for his
    long-standing commitment to the success of American fisheries,
    including his sponsorship of the original Act, previous
    reauthorizations, and H.R. 59.

                                  Introduction

        The most important message I hope to communicate today is that the
    dynamic science-based management process under the Magnuson-Stevens Act
    provides the nation with a very successful fisheries management
    construct. The unique, highly participatory management structure
    centered on the regional fishery management council system encourages a
    collaborative, ``bottom up'' process where fishermen, other fishery
    stakeholders, affected states, Tribal governments, and the Federal
    Government all provide input and influence decisions about how to
    manage U.S. fisheries under the law. In partnership with the councils,
    interstate fishery commissions, and our stakeholders, and guided by the
    Magnuson-Stevens Act, the agency has essentially ended overfishing in
    U.S. waters and is rebuilding domestic fish stocks. As of December 31,
    2020, 92 percent of stocks for which we have assessments are not
    subject to overfishing and 80 percent are not overfished.\1\ We have
    also rebuilt 47 stocks since 2000.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ See Status of the Stocks 2016. NMFS Office of Sustainable
    Fisheries, available at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
    sustainable-fisheries/status-stocks-2020.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Sustainable fisheries increase the value of U.S. fisheries to the
    economy, support fishing communities, and maintain healthy marine
    ecosystems. In 2018, commercial and recreational fishing supported 1.7
    million jobs and $238 billion in sales in fishing and across the
    broader economy.\2\ Saltwater recreational fishing remains a key
    contributor to the national economy with anglers taking more than 187
    million trips in 2019. In the same year, commercial fisheries landed
    9.3 billion pounds of seafood providing a valuable source of local,
    sustainable, and healthy food.\3\ Recreational and subsistence fishing
    provides food for many individuals, families, and communities; is an
    important outdoor family activity; and is a critical local and regional
    economic driver. Subsistence and ceremonial fishing also provides an
    essential food source and has deep cultural significance for indigenous
    peoples in the Pacific Islands and Alaska and for many tribes on the
    West Coast.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ See Fisheries Economics of the U.S. 2018. NMFS Office of
    Science & Technology, at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
    sustainable-fisheries/fisheries-economics-united-states.
        \3\ See Fisheries of the United States, 2019. NMFS Office of
    Science & Technology, available at: https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/
    2021-05/FUS2019-FINAL-webready-2.3.pdf?null=.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the U.S. has many effective tools
    to apply in marine fisheries management. Yet, we must continue seeking
    opportunities to improve our management system. NMFS supports many of
    the goals of the bills we are discussing today and appreciates the
    sponsors' and the Subcommittee's interest in advancing tools for
    effective fisheries management. We are committed to working with
    Congress to craft a reauthorization bill that ensures the Magnuson-
    Stevens Act continues to support sustainable fisheries and addresses
    the current and future management challenges facing some of our
    fisheries. H.R. 4690, the Sustaining America's Fisheries for the Future
    of 2021 and H.R. 59, the Strengthening Fishing Communities and
    Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act, include a number of
    provisions aimed at addressing such challenges.
        The bills we are discussing today are extensive, and this testimony
    does not attempt to provide a comprehensive analysis or an official
    Administration position on them. Rather, these comments highlight some
    of the key areas that we support and some areas that may be challenging
    to implement.

                               Shared Objectives

        The following provisions address some fishery management
    challenges, advance tools for effective fisheries management, and
    support key Administration priorities. We welcome the opportunity to
    work with the Subcommittee and the bills' sponsors to ensure that the
    mandates accomplish their goals without creating unintended
    consequences.
    Climate Change and Emerging Fishery Management Challenges
        We appreciate the overarching climate focus of H.R. 4690. The
    growing impacts of the global climate crisis and changing oceans affect
    nearly every aspect of NMFS's mission--from aquaculture, to
    conservation of protected marine resources and vital habitats, to
    fisheries management. Fisheries management must continue to adapt as
    our ocean ecosystem faces unprecedented changes due to climate change.
    Several provisions in H.R. 4690 will help address climate-related
    challenges for fisheries management. For example, Section 102 includes
    a requirement for the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to assess the
    vulnerability of fish stocks to climate change. This builds upon a
    successful program NMFS initiated to conduct vulnerability assessments
    of fish, protected species, habitats, and fishing communities. We have
    seven assessments completed or underway that provide information on
    which species may be most vulnerable to changing climate. In addition,
    we continue to advance our implementation of ecosystem-based fisheries
    management, such as through improved management of forage fish,
    incorporation of ecosystem data into the stock assessment process, and
    various habitat protections. Section 303 addresses the growing need for
    cross-council coordination as climate change modifies the geographic
    distribution and management needs for fish stocks. Collectively, this
    information helps scientists and decision-makers identify ways to
    reduce risks and impacts and is a key tool for councils as they manage
    fisheries in the face of changing climate and ocean ecosystems. The
    agency and councils are taking additional concrete steps to address
    climate change. One notable example is the Climate and Fisheries
    Initiative--a cross-NOAA effort to build the operational ocean modeling
    and decision-support system needed to reduce impacts, increase
    resilience, and help marine resources and resource users adapt to
    changing ocean conditions. This initiative is a critical component of
    the President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2022.
        We also appreciate that H.R. 4690 addresses other emerging
    challenges in fisheries management. Section 402 recognizes the
    importance of using technology to help improve and expand data
    collection for fisheries management, for example, by adding electronic
    monitoring as an option under Fishery Management Plans in addition to
    human observers. Additionally, Section 409 recognizes the increasing
    challenges of conducting stock assessments and fisheries surveys with
    the growing demand for offshore wind energy, and requires the
    Departments of Commerce and the Interior to enter into a cooperative
    agreement to help mitigate potential disruption to current fisheries
    surveys. Provisions in Section 502 that clarify and strengthen the
    responsibilities of federal agencies to avoid, minimize, and mitigate
    adverse effects on essential fish habitat will also help ensure these
    important energy projects can go forward with full consideration of our
    vital fisheries and the ecosystems on which they depend. This is a
    priority for NMFS and the councils. In fact, in tandem with councils,
    fishing industry groups, and other partners, NMFS has implemented seven
    commercial fishery electronic monitoring programs and will have over
    6,000 federally permitted vessels using electronic logbook systems by
    the end of this year, providing expanded data collection and improved
    catch monitoring to strengthen science-based management in U.S.
    fisheries.
    Supporting Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility
        Successful fisheries management supports fishing communities and
    healthy ecosystems while allowing flexible fishery management
    approaches to meet regional needs. Several provisions in H.R. 4690 and
    H.R. 59 will benefit fishermen and fishing communities as they work to
    provide a valuable source of local, sustainable, and healthy food to
    our nation. For example, both bills would replace the default 10-year
    rebuilding timeline requirement with the new default maximum of ``the
    time the stock would be rebuilt without fishing occurring plus one mean
    generation.'' This provides a more scientifically sound approach for
    establishing rebuilding deadlines. Additionally, Section 303 of H.R. 59
    amends the current requirement that rebuilding time periods be as short
    as ``possible'' to, as short as ``practicable.'' These changes would
    provide additional flexibility but not greatly lengthen rebuilding
    periods beyond the current requirement or jeopardize the long-term
    sustainability of our managed fish stocks.
        Both H.R. 4690 and H.R. 59 replace the term ``overfished'' with
    ``depleted'' throughout the Magnuson-Stevens Act. We support this
    change in terminology, which helps clarify that population size can be
    influenced by many factors, such as habitat degradation, pollution, and
    climate change, in addition to fishing. These non-fishing factors can
    play a role in stock health and may affect a stock's ability to
    rebuild. We also support Section 204 of H.R. 4690, which directs NOAA
    and the United States Department of Agriculture to collaborate on
    seafood outreach and marketing for both wild-caught and aquacultured
    species. This collaboration will benefit fishermen and fishing
    communities and will build on NMFS's efforts to promote U.S. seafood,
    particularly as we build back from the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition
    to direct marketing, we are exploring ways to collaborate more closely
    with other agencies and groups on the need to modernize seafood supply
    chains; develop economic, market, and trade analyses; and contribute to
    gathering and disseminating price and supply data.
        Finally, Section 203 of H.R. 4690 amends the Coastal Zone
    Management Act (CZMA) in an effort to promote water-dependent
    commercial activities and waterfront access in coastal communities
    through the authorization of a new grant program and a new loan
    program. Working waterfronts can help preserve the cultural and
    historic value of coastal communities, support the New Blue Economy,
    and bolster coastal resilience in the face of mounting climate change
    impacts. The New Blue Economy is a knowledge-based economy, looking to
    the sea not for extraction of material goods, but for data and
    information to address the societal challenges and to inspire their
    solutions. Under the existing CZMA, coastal states have the discretion
    to use funding for smaller-scale implementation of some of the purposes
    addressed by the Working Waterfronts Grant Program proposed in H.R.
    4690. For example, many states use funds to redevelop, preserve, and
    promote public access to working waterfronts and for local waterfront
    planning and low-cost boardwalks, boat ramps, and public fishing piers.
    Equity and Environmental Justice
        The need to create a more inclusive management system with
    meaningful engagement of underrepresented stakeholders and the next
    generation of fishermen has never been more prominent. I am heartened
    by several aspects of H.R. 4690, which support the Administration's
    equity and environmental justice goals, including those under Executive
    Order 13985, Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved
    Communities Through the Federal Government and Executive Order 14008
    Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad. For example, H.R. 4690
    adds flexibility for the appointment of the Tribal seat on the Pacific
    Fishery Management Council and adds two seats to represent Alaskan
    Tribes on the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. These
    provisions, in addition to the inclusion of a definition for
    subsistence fishing in both bills, promote the participation of
    subsistence fishing communities into decision-making and address
    potential barriers to entry faced by underserved communities. NMFS is
    working diligently to support implementation of the Presidential
    directives and would similarly advance these bill provisions, including
    by engaging with the states, councils, and Tribes to increase diversity
    in the fisheries management process.
    Sexual Assault/Sexual Harassment Prevention
        Ensuring employees, including council employees and individuals who
    work on behalf of the Administration, are free from sexual assault and
    sexual harassment is a top priority for me and the other members of the
    NMFS and NOAA leadership teams. We appreciate the Sexual Assault/Sexual
    Harassment provisions in section 307 of H.R. 4690, which build upon the
    many efforts undertaken at NOAA, including setting up a sexual assault
    and sexual harassment council and creating an office for workplace
    violence prevention and response. In particular, we support the bills
    expansion of sexual assault and sexual harassment policies to fishery
    observers and at-sea monitors, who are particularly vulnerable as they
    work aboard commercial fishing vessels, often in remote locations.
    Additional aspects of the bill such as requiring detailed reporting by
    the appropriate authorities, holding offenders accountable, and
    creating a culture of support for victims are vital in creating
    cultures and workplaces that are safe to carry out the important
    responsibilities of the agency on behalf of the American people.

                        Primary Challenges and Concerns

        Several provisions in H.R. 4690, the Sustaining America's Fisheries
    for the Future Act of 2021 and H.R. 59, the Strengthening Fishing
    Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act,
    raise concerns as outlined below.
    Resource Implications
        Some of the provisions in H.R. 4690 and H.R. 59 change funding
    mechanisms or expand the scope and analytical requirements of
    management, research, and data collection efforts. Under current
    resource constraints, these provisions could redirect funding and staff
    resources away from core, mission critical activities.
        For example, Section 308 of H.R. 4690 would change the Saltonstall-
    Kennedy authorizing legislation, precluding appropriations from being
    transferred to support fisheries science and management activities. For
    decades, Congress has used the Promote and Develop Fisheries account
    from the Saltonstall-Kennedy Act to fund a large percentage of NMFS's
    core science functions. Therefore, these changes will impact our
    ability to conduct fundamental mission activities including fisheries
    data collections, surveys, assessments, and fisheries management
    responsibilities.
        Additionally, the bills include new data requirements, which would
    have significant budget, administrative, and program impacts. For
    example, we support the climate change focus of Section 102 of H.R.
    4690, but the data requirements for this section would impose new
    mandates and workload requirements that the agency cannot meet with
    existing resources. The 2022 President's Budget includes $70 million in
    funding increases to boost climate-ready fisheries research, restore
    habitat to build climate resilience, and monitor climate-vulnerable
    species under the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection
    Act. Given increased uncertainties about how climate will impact the
    productivity of fish stocks, in most cases the agency would not have
    the science capability to estimate a quantitative value Maximum
    Sustainable Yield (MSY), under prevailing and future conditions. We
    look forward to working with you to ensure we can achieve the goals of
    the section in a way that is attainable and effective.
        In Section 503 of H.R. 4690, the Standardized Bycatch Reporting
    Program would establish a new standard for bycatch information that
    would substantially increase reporting and data collection
    requirements, require additional resources, and possibly require NMFS
    to refocus existing fishery observer program funding. Following an
    agency rule issued in 2017, council approaches to standardized bycatch
    reporting requirements are already becoming more consistent and
    transparent thereby strengthening their value and effectiveness. We
    will continue to work with the councils and in other arenas to reduce
    bycatch.
        Finally, the scale and scope of some of the working waterfront
    objectives in Section 203 of H.R. 4690 are beyond what is envisioned
    and authorized under the existing CZMA and NOAA's core mission. Both
    the grant and loan programs go beyond NOAA's traditional range of
    science-based expertise. Additionally, offsetting funds from current
    CZMA programs for the new grant program would reduce current funding
    levels for coastal states and local governments that administer the
    full range of requirements for their NOAA-approved state coastal
    management programs. NOAA also has serious concerns regarding the
    implementation and management of a new direct loan program with complex
    requirements.
    Reports, Short Timelines, and Implementation Concerns
        Accountability is an important aspect of effective fisheries
    management; however, additional reports and process requirements can be
    a strain on councils and our workforce and may not effectively address
    the challenges we face. H.R. 4690 and H.R. 59 include new provisions
    and requirements that would require extensive action by the Secretary,
    NMFS, and/or the councils. While these provisions may provide useful
    information, many carry short deadlines and add significant new process
    requirements for the agency and councils. For example, H.R. 4690
    requires over 20 new reports, several due annually. Similarly, H.R. 59
    requires multiple new studies, reports, or plans within two years of
    enactment. H.R. 4690 also requires the Secretary to issue numerous
    guidance documents and implement new regulations within short
    deadlines. Fulfilling these mandates would significantly increase the
    workload of agency staff and compete with existing priorities and
    mandates. We would welcome your recommendations on how to ensure that
    reports already required could perhaps be modified to address the
    intent of the new reports requested in H.R. 4690 and H.R. 59.
    Removing Flexibility, Impacts to Fishing Communities
        Allowing the councils to develop and tailor regional solutions to
    their specific challenges is a fundamental component of our successful
    fishery management system. Certain provisions in H.R. 4690 and H.R. 59
    limit the flexibility of the councils to develop the most appropriate
    fishery management approach for their specific region or fishery. For
    example, H.R. 59 contains several provisions that limit the ability of
    councils to adopt particular actions, including allocation review
    schedules (Sections 202 and 206), effective and timely catch share
    programs (Section 205), and exempted fishing permits (Section 304).
    Other provisions in these bills could have significant impacts to our
    fishing communities. For example, Sections 502 and 503 of H.R. 4690
    remove practicability clauses for minimizing bycatch and impacts to
    essential fish habitat. We strongly support the goal of reducing
    bycatch and ensuring healthy habitat for fish. However, this change
    would substantially reduce the ability of councils to tailor
    conservation and management measures commensurate with the specific
    needs of their region's fisheries and ecosystems.
    Fishery Resource Disaster Relief
        I am committed to doing a better job at turning around funding in
    the wake of fishery disasters. We support the intent of these bills to
    create more predictability and speed in the decision-making process,
    and understand your concerns regarding the amount of time it takes to
    determine fishery disasters, currently defined as commercial fishery
    failures due to a fishery resource disaster in the Magnuson-Stevens
    Act. However, several provisions of H.R. 4690 and H.R. 59 would create
    significant challenges in delivering timely assistance that targets
    fishing communities affected by events that cause economic harm or
    commercial failure outside of the natural variability in fisheries.
        One of the key issues with declaring fishery disasters is the need
    to distinguish these disaster events from the natural variability that
    occurs in fisheries. Since fisheries depend on the productivity of the
    environment, there are natural variations in the number of fish caught
    each year and in the revenue generated by the fishery. H.R. 4690
    includes a provision that redefines the baseline for determining
    whether or not a fishery resource disaster occurs by allowing
    requesters to compare a disaster year with ``good years'' instead of
    the most recent five years. This provision will make it very difficult
    to distinguish disaster events from naturally occurring variability,
    will likely increase the number of requests and disaster
    determinations, and will make it likely for disasters to be declared in
    perpetuity for fisheries that are in long term decline. This could be
    especially problematic when climate change is the driving force behind
    the decline.
        In addition, the ``Exceptional Circumstances'' provision in H.R.
    4690 will actually limit the Secretary's discretion to move swiftly,
    particularly following significant events such as hurricanes, when
    there is abundant qualitative information about the economic impacts
    but a shortage of quantitative data. To address Congress' timeline
    concerns, the agency is pursuing mechanisms to improve the quality of
    fishery disaster requests, streamline internal administrative
    processes, and enhance the economic and ecological sustainability of
    affected fisheries. These steps should increase the predictability of
    fishery disaster determinations, speed the issuance of relief, and
    better support the long term health of fishing communities.

                              Emerging Challenges

        Further, we would like to work with the Subcommittee and the bills'
    sponsors to address a few additional issues related to emerging
    challenges in fisheries conservation and management. For example, as
    our ocean ecosystems change, it is important to recognize the role of
    uncertainty in our science and management and allow flexible
    approaches, which still preserve the very successful fisheries
    management construct that has resulted in U.S. fisheries being among
    the world's largest and most sustainable. Scientific and data
    limitations make some of the requirements in these bills (and the
    current Magnuson-Stevens Act) difficult and in some cases
    scientifically infeasible. For example, due to data limitations,
    estimating biological reference points is already challenging in some
    cases. Today, even setting effective annual catch limits for species in
    coral reef ecosystems in the Pacific Islands and Caribbean regions
    presents significant challenges due to lack of data regarding stock
    status and fishing harvests. NMFS is exploring ways to improve data
    collection and apply science-based and innovative management mechanisms
    in ways that provide flexibility while also rebuilding fish stocks.
    Explicit acknowledgement of the management challenges for data-poor
    fisheries would be beneficial in the statute. Similarly, scientific
    uncertainties often change our expectations for meeting fishery
    management objectives including rebuilding stocks by specific
    deadlines. Scientific uncertainty comes from a variety of sources
    including lack of data, research, and sometimes an inability to account
    for environmental change, including ecosystem productivity and
    pollution. Some of these factors are outside the control of fishery
    managers but nonetheless, affect fish stocks. Explicit acknowledgement
    of these issues and flexibility in our management construct would be
    beneficial, while including safeguards to protect the effective
    management system currently in place, which has led to long-term
    conservation and sustainability of our nation's fishery resources. We
    face formidable challenges managing recovering stocks to benefit both
    commercial and recreational user groups with fundamentally different
    goals and objectives, and who are experiencing increased fish
    interactions due to the strong management measures that have improved
    historically overfished populations. Together with our partners, it is
    essential that we continue to explore innovative, science-based
    management approaches and regional management tools. We must remain
    dedicated to exploring ways to maximize economic opportunities from
    wild-caught fisheries for commercial and recreational fishermen,
    processors, and communities. The 2022 Budget helps address these
    challenges by requesting $684.7 million for expanded NMFS efforts in
    these areas, an increase of $47.4 million over 2021. These efforts
    would include increases to improving territorial fisheries science and
    management, workforce training to support the seafood industry, and
    expanding the community social vulnerability indicators toolbox to
    consider underserved communities.

                                   Conclusion

        I am committed to executing our mission for sustainable fisheries
    management and tackling the tough challenges ahead, including
    addressing climate change and promoting environmental justice. NMFS is
    eager to work with you to promote resilience in our fisheries and
    fishing communities. The participatory management structure through our
    regional fishery management councils forms the backbone of our
    successful management structure, and I hope the Magnuson-Stevens Act
    reauthorization efforts will continue to empower councils to meet the
    current needs of their fisheries, while ensuring sustainable, well-
    managed fisheries into the future. NMFS stands ready to work with the
    Congress on a reauthorization bill that addresses current fishery
    management challenges and ensures the Nation's fisheries are able to
    meet the needs of both current and future generations.

                                     ______

        Questions Submitted for the Record to Ms. Janet Coit, Assistant
      Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, Acting Assistant
         Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, Deputy NOAA
                                 Administrator
                  Questions Submitted by Representative Young
        Question 1. On the topic of forage fish conservation, both H.R.
    4690 and H.R. 5770 require the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA) to specify the annual dietary needs of all marine
    mammals, birds, and other fishes, as well as account for all of this
    when setting fishery quotas. Based on what we have seen in Alaska
    regarding the Agency's inability to accurately assess the dietary needs
    of just one marine mammal Distinct Population Segment--the Western
    Steller sea lion--and with the Agency's survey days-at-sea generally
    reducing in number--I find it extremely hard to believe NOAA and the
    Councils will be able to accurately determine all of these dietary
    needs for all these species every single year and I fear we will be
    left with nothing but precautionary decisions that will reduce our
    commercial, charter, tribal, subsistence, and recreational fishing
    activities. In your opinion:

        (a) How might our management system be impacted by such legislation
    if it were to pass?

        Answer. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) recognizes the
    importance of forage fish to maintaining healthy marine ecosystems and
    agrees in principle with the concept that ecosystem impacts should be a
    consideration in the management of forage fish. Under the current
    Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), NMFS
    and the Regional Fishery Management Councils (Councils) have authority
    to manage forage fish and to take into account ecosystem impacts
    through the management of annual catch limits, the establishment of
    ecosystem component species, and implementation of ecosystem-based
    fishery management plans. The forage fish provisions in H.R. 4690 and
    H.R. 5770 would impose new scientific and management requirements on
    NMFS and the Councils to reduce harvest of fish that are currently
    managed according to the 10 national standards in the current MSA.
    These new requirements could affect a wide range of economically
    important stocks such as Alaska pollock and shrimp in the Gulf of
    Mexico. The requirement to manage forage fish such that the ``diet
    needs of fish species and other marine wildlife, including mammals and
    birds . . .'' are taken into account creates a very broad and data
    intensive requirement. There are trade-offs between the needs of
    different ``marine wildlife,'' and this section does not clarify how to
    prioritize those objectives or how those objectives should be
    considered in the context of the rest of the national standards. In
    addition, it is not clear if Congress intends for these requirements to
    apply to forage fish that are actively managed or if they apply broadly
    to any species identified as forage in a management plan. It is not
    clear if the intent of Congress is to require the Secretary of Commerce
    to identify the dietary needs of each individual protected mammal or to
    manage broadly across the ecosystem for the collective needs of fish
    species and marine wildlife. Finally, the requirement for Councils to
    reduce catch limits for forage fish, particularly under climate related
    changing ocean conditions, appears to assume that sufficient forage for
    all marine wildlife will be achieved by reducing fishing. However, as
    climate related changes affect the abundance and distribution of forage
    fish, requiring Science and Statistical Committees to ensure sufficient
    abundance, diversity, and localized distribution of forage fish
    populations through a requirement for councils to reduce catch limits
    may not achieve conservation goals for forage and marine wildlife
    broadly. Determining the nutritional needs of any one species,
    including the Western Distinct Population Segment of Steller sea lion,
    is a complex and challenging scientific question that NOAA is
    continuing to research.

        (b) In the case of not being able to fulfill these scientific
    requirements, could an increase in lawsuits be a possible outcome?

        Answer. As with any legislative change, there is a possibility for
    new litigation. Unless Congress provides otherwise, any new requirement
    to specify and consider forage fish needs would be subject to MSA
    National Standard 2, which provides that conservation and management
    measures must be based on the ``best scientific information
    available.'' The courts have recognized that this standard does not
    require an ``accurate'' assessment or determination, but rather that
    any analysis be reasonable based on what is available, and the courts
    generally give broad deference to NMFS' scientific judgment.

        (c) What will be the impacts of climate change on shifting stocks
    of forage species and how will this be accounted for if we do not even
    have the basic data to implement this provision?

        Answer. Climate change is affecting the distribution and
    productivity of many species in the marine environment, including both
    forage and non-forage fish. NOAA continues to work with partners to
    understand and respond to changing climate and ocean conditions to help
    minimize impacts, adapt to change, and ensure that present and future
    generations can enjoy benefits of healthy marine ecosystems. NOAA is
    also advancing science and technology to adapt fisheries management to
    changing climatic conditions. However, the specific impacts to
    individual species of forage fish will vary by region, their life
    history, and the degree of change occurring in the oceans. H.R. 5770
    and H.R. 4690 would increase the scientific requirements for managed
    stocks and could result in additional species being deemed in need of
    conservation and management. In many regions we lack robust baseline
    information on fish and habitat distribution and regular surveys to
    assess changes in abundance, diversity, and productivity. The lack of
    basic information challenges our ability to quantitatively attribute
    fishery specific fluctuations to climate change, which could lead to
    more conservative management advice. The expanded requirements outlined
    in H.R. 5770 and H.R. 4690 would substantially increase the capacity
    needs for our science and management capabilities.

        (d) What are your thoughts about Alaska Pollock and sockeye salmon,
    which remain at low trophic levels and could easily be swept up in this
    ill-conceived but far-reaching legislation?

        Answer. Under H.R. 4690, it is the Secretary's responsibility to
    develop a definition of forage fish. The bill gives the Secretary
    several criteria to consider. Under those criteria alone, it is
    possible that Alaska pollock, some salmon species, or other critical
    commercial fisheries could be considered forage fish and subject to the
    new science and management provisions of these bills. However, while
    the Secretary must consider those criteria, she ultimately has the
    authority to develop the definition. The agency would likely establish
    that definition through a regulatory process, and NOAA cannot pre-
    determine the results of that process, which would take into account
    public input.

        Question 2. Regarding litigation on forage fish management, NOAA
    has been challenged three times in recent years on shad and river
    herring, in which NOAA has prevailed twice and is about to prevail in
    the third and final case. In addition, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery
    Management Council (MAFMC) has already considered, and declined, this
    specific issue twice. During which, NOAA voted twice to oppose
    inclusion of such species.

        We understand these cases included the following:

        Flaherty v. Raimondo, a case in the District of Columbia regarding
    Amendment 5 to the Herring FMP, NMFS won on summary judgment in March
    2021, and the time for appeal has run, so this case is done. In this
    case the Plaintiffs claimed that the NMFS violated the Magnuson-Stevens
    Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) and Administrative
    Procedure Act by not disapproving Amendment 5 due to its failure to
    include river herring and shad as stocks in the Atlantic herring
    fishery. Judge Kelly ruled that the MSA does not require the Secretary
    to consider in each Amendment whether stocks must be added to a
    fishery. The Judge also ruled that the Secretary complied with the
    NEPA's obligation to take a hard look at a reasonable range of
    alternatives designed to achieve the amendment's objectives. Judge
    Kelly held that while the Amendment included measures relating to
    bycatch of river herring and shad, the National Marine Fisheries
    Service was not required to consider alternatives for adding river and
    shad as stocks in the Atlantic herring fishery because it was not
    within the scope of the Amendment's goals and objectives.

        Anglers Conservation Network v. Ross, also in DC before Judge
    Kelly, the plaintiffs challenged the Council's October 2016 decision
    not to include river herring and shad into mackerel Fishery Management
    Plans (FMP) after remand from earlier case by same plaintiffs. The
    parties filed summary judgment papers, and with its opening brief NMFS
    also filed motion to strike extra record materials that plaintiffs
    cited in their briefs. In May 2021, the court ordered the plaintiffs to
    refile a new brief without the extra record materials. The plaintiffs
    never filed anything, and the court dismissed the case on June 23, 2021
    for failure to prosecute.

        Natural Resources Development Council vs Secretary of Commerce.
    There's only one active case remaining relating to river herring, and
    it's the challenge to the National Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS)
    2019 determination that the Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing of
    river herring wasn't warranted. That case, brought by Natural Resources
    Defense Council, is in the District of Columbia and is in the last
    stages of summary judgment briefing, with NMFS's reply brief due on
    November 19.

        Based on this information my questions are as follows:

        Both H.R. 4690 and H.R. 5770 require your Agency to specifically
    add shad and river herring to New England Fishery Management Council
    (NEFMC) and MAFMC fishery management plans on the East Coast, the very
    same issues the courts ruled against the plaintiffs (and in favor of
    NOAA) in the cases referenced above.

        (a) Do you believe it is appropriate for Congress to now circumvent
    and undermine NOAA's recent efforts in defending your management of
    forage fish as it relates to the requirements in H.R. 4690 and H.R.
    5770?

        Answer. The MSA establishes a stakeholder-driven, scientifically
    based fishery management council process that allows for regionally
    specific solutions for particular forage fish issues. NOAA strongly
    supports this process. The requirements in H.R. 4690 and H.R. 5770 to
    add river herring and shad to New England and Mid Atlantic Council
    fishery management plans remove Council discretion for determining
    which stocks are in need of conservation and management. In addition,
    adding the same stocks (shad and river herring) to two different FMPs
    managed by two different Councils would add an additional layer of
    complexity to managing these stocks, noting that both are currently
    subject to management under the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
    Commission. Both the New England and Mid-Atlantic Council have
    established catch caps for river herring and shad designed to ensure
    bycatch of these species does not increase while holding the directed
    fisheries that incidentally take these species as bycatch accountable.

        (b) Do you believe it is appropriate for Congress to undermine the
    Court's prior rulings on these issues?

        Answer. The dynamic science-based management process under the MSA
    provides the nation with a very successful fisheries management
    construct. The unique, highly participatory management structure
    centered on the regional fishery management council system encourages a
    collaborative, ``bottom up'' process where fishermen, other fishery
    stakeholders, affected states, Tribal governments, and the Federal
    Government all provide input and influence decisions about how to
    manage U.S. fisheries under the law. NOAA supports this process.

        (c) Can you please explain the management ramifications for
    commercial midwater trawl fisheries (and specifically New England Small
    Mesh bottom trawl and any other applicable fisheries) that might occur
    if these species were added to numerous East Coast FMPs?

        Answer. The Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery Management
    Councils have established numerous conservation and management measures
    that may be affected by new forage species Fishery Management Plans.
    The Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery Management Councils adopted
    catch caps for both shad and river herring in the Mackerel, Squid,
    Butterfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and Atlantic Herring FMP,
    where the directed fisheries are closed when catch of forage species
    reaches the set amounts. In addition to these catch caps, we have
    approved measures that take into account the importance of numerous
    other forage species. Both FMPs have established catch caps for river
    herring and shad that serve to ensure bycatch of these species doesn't
    increase and to hold the directed fisheries accountable. Both species
    are currently managed by the Atlantic States Fisheries Management
    Commission. Further adjusting these FMPs and requiring co-management
    would be challenging given the intersection of two Councils advising on
    Federal management and the need to coordinate with state management
    through the Commission.

        Question 3. Forage fish conservation in H.R. 4690 (Section 508) and
    H.R. 5770 (and S. 1484) is a major component of the MSA reauthorization
    debate. However, you do not address the topic in your written testimony
    for this, the only House reauthorization hearing we will have. As the
    implementing agency, this provision has the potential to significantly
    impact your management of Alaska Pollock, the largest fishery you
    manage, as well as squid fisheries critical to your home state of Rhode
    Island, West Coast pink shrimp, Gulf of Mexico brown shrimp, and
    California sardine, just to name just a few. The issue also has
    implications for nearly every marine mammal stock your agency manages
    yet you provide no perspective on the topic. Can you please explain to
    the Committee:

        (a) Why you did not comment on this component of H.R. 4690 for the
    MSA hearing?

        Answer. The bills being considered at this legislative hearing were
    extensive and we were not able to comment on every provision. Forage
    fish conservation and protections are important to ensuring sustainable
    fisheries in the U.S. and NMFS, and our management partners, the
    Regional Fishery Management Councils, continue to improve management of
    forage fish under the existing, robust MSA provisions currently
    available for use, including through advancements in ecosystem-based
    fisheries management.

        (b) Specifically, is the current MSA implementation (including the
    ecosystem-based management approaches) by the Regional Councils and the
    Agency deficient to such a degree that we need to add this component to
    the Act?

        Answer. Under the current framework in the MSA, multiple councils
    have implemented measures that directly benefit forage fish and that
    respond to region-specific fishery interactions and ecosystem needs.
    The current MSA provides NMFS and the Regional Fishery Management
    Councils authority to manage forage fish and to take into account
    ecosystem impacts through the management of annual catch limits, the
    establishment of ecosystem component species, and implementation of
    ecosystem-based fishery management plans. For example, the Mid-Atlantic
    Fishery Management Council currently conserves and manages 56 forage
    species or species groups, including five stocks of forage fish under
    one fishery management plan using the principles established in their
    Ecosystem Approaches to Management guidance document. The Pacific
    Fishery Management Council also defines forage fish under its Fishery
    Ecosystem Plan and manages them through their respective fishery
    management plans. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council takes a
    precautionary approach to management using existing authority under the
    MSA. That Council prohibits directed fishing for key forage fish
    species like eulachon and sets strict limits on the amount of
    incidental catch of these species to reduce harvest. NMFS and the State
    of Alaska monitor the catch of these species and can modify management
    measures using existing authority provided by the MSA, if needed.

        Question 4. It's clear that NOAA Fisheries, councils, harvesters,
    processors, and wide-ranging fisheries stakeholders understand that
    commercial fisheries management must adapt to changing habitats and
    fish distributions, driven by changes in climate. Testimony at this
    hearing covered a long list of actions the NPFMC is taking to address
    climate resilience, and you also noted a number of things that NOAA
    Fisheries is doing for climate resilience. All these things are being
    done under current MSA and other authorities.

        (a) Is there anything in the current MSA that prevents NOAA
    Fisheries from pursuing climate resilience? In other words, can NOAA
    Fisheries continue to pursue climate resilience efforts under current
    authority?

        Answer. The current MSA neither mandates nor prevents NMFS and the
    Councils from taking action to pursue climate resilience and climate-
    ready fisheries. In fact, the MSA already contains many provisions
    aimed at ensuring the long-term sustainability of fish stocks and their
    ecosystems (e.g., requirements to end overfishing, rebuild stocks,
    prevent bycatch and protect habitat). NMFS is working with our partners
    on multiple fronts to deliver the science and prepare managers to
    respond to these changes. We have conducted climate vulnerability
    assessments of fish, protected species, habitats, and fishing
    communities. We have seven vulnerability assessments completed or
    underway that provide information on what species may be most
    vulnerable to changing climate. We are advancing the implementation of
    ecosystem-based fisheries management, which provides the framework for
    incorporating ecosystem information into fishery management decisions
    and assessing trade-offs across fisheries. The agency and councils are
    currently taking concrete steps to prepare for and respond to climate
    change impacts on fisheries. For example, NOAA is advancing an agency-
    wide initiative--the ``Climate and Fisheries Initiative''--to build the
    operational ocean modeling and decision-support system needed to reduce
    impacts, increase resilience, and help marine resources and resource
    users adapt to changing ocean conditions. This initiative is a critical
    component of the President's Budget in fiscal year 2022. Another
    example is the work that NMFS and our Council partners have initiated
    on the east and west coasts to conduct scenario planning workshops.
    Scenario planning helps councils and stakeholders work collaboratively
    to identify priority management, jurisdictional and governance issues
    related to climate change and shifting fish stocks as a result of
    climate change. However, meeting the needs for climate resilience at a
    pace commensurate with the changes occurring in the environment in some
    areas may be challenging given competing science and management
    priorities, the difficulty of distinguishing climate impacts from
    fishing impacts, and governance challenges around long-held power and
    decision-making structures.

        (b) Does NOAA support maintaining regionally based council and SSC
    efforts to address climate change conditions unique to each region?

        Answer. The MSA establishes a stakeholder-driven, scientifically
    based fishery management council process that allows for regionally
    specific solutions. The climate impacts to specific fisheries varies by
    region, and the MSA currently provides flexibility to allow for
    tailored regional solutions given the high diversity of fisheries,
    their environments and the type of environmental changes occurring due
    to climate change.

        (c) Region-based climate resilience work can be facilitated by data
    generated through NOAA surveys, so how can NOAA Fisheries better
    provide this and other technical support to regions?

        Answer. NOAA is advancing an agency-wide initiative--the ``Climate
    and Fisheries Initiative''--to build the operational ocean modeling and
    decision-support system needed to reduce impacts, increase resilience,
    and help marine resources and resource users adapt to changing ocean
    conditions. This initiative is a critical component of the President's
    Budget in fiscal year 2022. The results of climate vulnerability
    assessments along with other information will help NMFS prioritize
    science investments, while scenario planning will help NMFS and our
    Council partners identify management priorities for climate ready
    fisheries to further assist in prioritizing science advancements. This
    initiative will complement ongoing survey and monitoring work needed to
    better predict ecosystem changes due to climate impacts and manage
    fisheries in light of those changes. NMFS is also developing a new
    portal to provide easy access to information on past, current, and
    likely future distributions of marine species for use in fisheries
    management.

        Question 5. There are some provisions in H.R. 4690 that would
    remove the term ``to the extent practicable'' in fisheries management
    national standards, including for bycatch minimization and essential
    fish habitat impact minimization.

        (a) If bycatch and habitat impacts had to be minimized--meaning
    bycatch or impact is as small as possible and cannot possibly be
    further reduced--what effect would that have on the ability to
    prosecute U.S. commercial fisheries?

        Answer. In the United States, bycatch of protected species, such as
    sea turtles and marine mammals, remains a significant threat to
    recovering many dwindling populations. NMFS manages protected species
    bycatch and its impacts through several authorities, including the MSA,
    the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), the Endangered Species Act
    (ESA), and other domestic laws and international agreements. NMFS is
    committed to minimizing protected species bycatch in U.S. fisheries to
    ensure our protected species are given the best chance to recover and
    serve as functioning elements in the ecosystem.
        Bycatch of other species is a complex, global issue that can
    potentially threaten the sustainability and resiliency of fishing
    communities, economies, and ocean ecosystems. Given the highly diverse
    nature of such bycatch across the over four hundred federally managed
    fish stocks, the MSA provides flexibility to tailor conservation and
    management measures to the specific regions, their ecosystems, and
    communities. Many of the most economically important commercial
    fisheries are prosecuted with some degree of bycatch. Currently, we are
    required to minimize that bycatch ``to the extent practicable.'' We
    caution that deleting ``to the extent practicable'' may create
    analytical problems and implementation confusion and could lead to
    management changes and increased costs in many fisheries.

        (b) How would NOAA Fisheries evaluate whether minimization had
    occurred? If the practicability term is removed and results in
    litigation, what would be the effect of having judges rule on
    minimization requirements?

        Answer. Currently, for non-protected species bycatch, National
    Standard 9 of the MSA requires that Conservation and management
    measures shall, to the extent practicable, (a) minimize bycatch and (b)
    to the extent bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of such
    bycatch. ``Bycatch'' means fish that are harvested in a fishery, but
    that are not sold or kept for personal use. Our guidelines for
    implementing National Standard 9 (50 C.F.R. 600.350) provide that the
    priority under this provision is ``first to avoid catching bycatch
    species where practicable. Fish that are bycatch and cannot be avoided,
    must, to the extent practicable, be returned to the sea alive. In their
    evaluation, the Councils must consider the net benefits to the Nation,
    which include, but are not limited to: Negative impacts on affected
    stocks, incomes accruing to participants in directed fisheries in both
    the short and long term; incomes accruing to participants in fisheries
    that target the bycatch species; environmental consequences; non-market
    values of bycatch species, which include non-consumptive uses of
    bycatch species and existence values, as well as recreational values;
    and impacts on other marine organisms.'' NMFS and the Councils
    currently evaluate all of their conservation and management measures to
    determine whether minimization has occurred and whether further
    minimization is practicable. We are not aware of a judicial decision
    regarding any evaluation of minimization by NMFS or the Council to
    date.

        (c) Does NOAA Fisheries support removing ``to the extent
    practicable'' for bycatch and habitat impact minimization?

        Answer. NMFS strongly supports the goal of reducing bycatch and
    ensuring healthy habitat for fish. Currently, each council has the
    flexibility to establish its own threshold of ``practicability'' for
    minimizing bycatch and adverse effects on fish habitat. Removing ``to
    the extent practicable'' would reduce the ability of councils to tailor
    conservation and management measures commensurate with the specific
    needs of their region's fisheries and ecosystems and could have
    significant impacts to many commercial fisheries and our fishing
    communities.

        Question 6. Certain provisions in H.R. 4690 suggest that it's
    problematic for harvesters and processors to serve as council members.
    Yet the Council system of regional decision-making fundamentally relies
    on expertise in and knowledge of the fisheries under the authority of
    the Council, and--in cases like the NPFMC--this expertise has been
    instrumental in implementing expansive closed areas, fishing reductions
    based on climate change and stock declines, and other actions that
    reduce fishing opportunity. Moreover, current law has many safeguards
    in place--including disclosures, recusals, and other provisions--to
    ensure transparent and proper council function; in fact, NOAA Fisheries
    just issued a final rule updating this policy in September 2020.

        (a) Are you finding that NOAA's recusal and disclosure rules and
    regulations are working?

        Answer. NMFS has undertaken a number of important actions to
    improve the process for disclosure of financial interests by, and
    voting recusal of, Council members appointed by the Secretary of
    Commerce. In 2020, NOAA Fisheries published a final rule (85 FR 56177)
    with changes to the regulations to better address disclosure of
    financial interests. Following these regulatory changes, and to
    strengthen guidance on the review of financial disclosures by appointed
    members of the Councils, NMFS also updated policy and procedural
    directives to align with the final rule. These documents clarify the
    responsibilities of NOAA and Councils relating to financial
    disclosures, establish a vetting process to review the completeness and
    accuracy of information in nominees' and members' disclosure forms, and
    clarify the process by which NOAA and the Councils identify Council
    members' conflicts of interest. These policy and procedural directives
    can be found at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/laws-and-
    policies/fisheries-management-policy-directives.
        Further, in response to requests for transparency and
    predictability, NMFS, in conjunction with the Councils, will publish
    and make available to the public Regional Recusal Determination
    Procedure Handbooks, which will explain the process and procedure
    typically followed in preparing and issuing recusal determinations in
    each Region. These actions have improved the process for voting
    recusals and disclosure of financial interests for Council members.

        (b) What is the value of having experts and direct stakeholders
    from industry serving on the councils?

        Answer. Experts and industry stakeholders are valuable to the
    fishery management process because they bring different perspectives
    and expertise to bear. The unique, highly participatory management
    structure, through the councils, encourages a collaborative, ``bottom
    up'' process where fishermen, other fishery stakeholders, affected
    states, Tribal governments, and the Federal Government all provide
    input and influence decisions about how to manage U.S. fisheries under
    the law.

        (c) Under current council membership structures, have Councils been
    able to uphold requirements for using the best available science?

        Answer. National Standard 2 of the MSA requires that conservation
    and management measures be based on the best scientific information
    available. The National Standard 2 (NS2) guidelines and other agency
    guidance provide legislative, policy, scientific, and process
    requirements to ensure that the mandate for using the best scientific
    information available (BSIA) is upheld. Council members have an
    important role in developing and recommending fishery management
    measures, and there are many steps in the process to ensure those
    measures are based on BSIA. For example, the MSA requires that annual
    catch limits are consistent with the advice of the Councils' Scientific
    and Statistical Committees. Additionally, the MSA requires the
    Secretary to determine if fishery management plans recommended by
    Councils are consistent with national standards, including NS2's BSIA
    requirement. The agency's NS2 guidelines provide further guidance on
    what constitutes BSIA for fishery conservation and management measures,
    provides standards for scientific peer review, and clarifies the role
    of the SSC in the review of scientific information for its Council.

              Questions Submitted by Representative Gonzalez-Colon
        Question 1. The Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) has worked quite well in
    the U.S. Caribbean--Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The law
    has provided our regional council, the Caribbean Fishery Management
    Council, the necessary authorities, and flexibilities to sustainably
    manage our fisheries, while balancing both environmental and local
    economic needs.

        However, our fisheries in the U.S. Caribbean are still considered
    ``data poor,'' which creates challenges for stock assessments to
    determine overfishing limits, annual catch limits, and the status of
    local fisheries. The situation is further complicated when considering
    that our commercial fisheries in Puerto Rico are, for the most part,
    small-scale or traditional in nature. As such, they may lack the
    necessary tools and capacity to support these data requirements.

        Based on my conversations with stakeholders, there is a clear need
    for dedicated funding to improve data collection systems for fisheries
    in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, as well as for additional
    scientific research and studies to better inform management decisions
    in the U.S. Caribbean.

        I appreciate you discussing in your written testimony the
    challenges we face in setting effective annual catch limits for species
    in coral reef ecosystems in the Pacific and the Caribbean due to lack
    of data regarding stock status and fishing harvests.

        (a) As Congress considers legislation to reauthorize the Magnuson-
    Stevens Act, what additional resources or authorities would NOAA need
    to improve regional data collection systems and address long-standing
    fishery data gaps such as those in the U.S. Caribbean?

        Answer. While NOAA Fisheries has made great strides in improving
    data collection and assessment methodology over the past 20 years, many
    data-limitations still remain in territorial, tropical reef, and
    recreational fisheries. NOAA does not believe that new authorities are
    required to develop, initiate, or execute new data collection programs.
    However, new resources would be required to address long-standing and
    emerging challenges for all recreational fisheries, particularly
    related to in-season monitoring, addressing the unique needs of
    recreational fisheries and more effectively integrating information
    from state, federal or territorial data sources to inform management
    options.
        Specific to the U.S. Caribbean, NOAA Fisheries requested $1 million
    in the FY 2022 President's Budget as part of the Territorial Science
    initiative to enhance cooperative data collection and outreach.
    Examples of activities include expanding fisheries-independent surveys
    to improve biological life history information; bolstering data
    collection activities for commercial and recreational landings and
    fishing effort; standing up a Territorial and Federal cooperative data
    governance structure; and enhancing socioeconomic services and
    capacity. NMFS would implement these programs cooperatively with the
    Territorial agencies.

        (b) In your testimony, you state that it would be beneficial to
    explicitly acknowledge in statute the management challenges for data-
    poor fisheries. Could you elaborate on this recommendation?

        Answer. Due to data limitations, estimating biological reference
    points and even setting effective annual catch limits for certain
    species can present significant challenges. This can be due to lack of
    information on stock biomass, species life history, and a sometimes
    limited ability to monitor and enforce fishery removals. NMFS continues
    to explore ways to improve data collection and apply science-based and
    innovative management mechanisms in ways that provide flexibility while
    also effectively conserving and managing fish stocks, consistent with
    the MSA. For example, the National Standard 1 (NS1) guidelines include
    a provision recognizing that there are limited circumstances, including
    in the case of some data-limited stocks, that may not fit the standard
    approaches to specification of reference points and management
    measures. In these cases, Councils currently have flexibility to
    propose alternative approaches for satisfying the MSA. NMFS is
    developing technical guidance that identifies recommended practices for
    managing with annual catch limits in data-limited fisheries and
    provides advice on when and how to use such flexibilities for data-
    limited stocks. The President's 2022 budget also helps address these
    challenges by requesting $3 million to improve territorial fisheries
    science and management. Explicit acknowledgement of the management
    challenges for data-limited fisheries would also be beneficial in the
    statute. For example, ``objective and measurable criteria'' are
    required under Section 303(a)(10) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act for
    determining when a stock is subject to overfishing or is overfished.
    Typically, these criteria are based on maximum sustainable yield (MSY)
    or MSY proxies. For some data-limited stocks, it may not be possible to
    specify criteria based on MSY or MSY proxies. Congress may want to
    acknowledge this by stating within Section 303(a)(10) that ``when data
    are not available to specify criteria based on MSY or MSY proxies,
    alternative types of criteria that promote sustainability can be
    used.'' In addition, if Congress adds additional analytical
    requirements to the MSA process, the agency may not have sufficient
    information to meet these requirements for data-limited stocks.

        (c) What actions, if any, has NOAA Fisheries taken to date to
    improve data collection systems in the U.S. Caribbean?

        Answer. NOAA fisheries has several initiatives underway to improve
    data collections and data collection systems in the U.S. Caribbean. An
    exhaustive list can be provided upon request but a few items to
    highlight include:

         Fishery Information Systems: a funded study to improve
                efficiency of sampling through automation/machine learning;

         Development of indices of abundance of harvested species;

         Fishery-dependent indices using catch and effort data from
                commercial fisher logbook data for Puerto Rico and the
                USVI;

         Fishery-independent indices using the Reef Fish Visual
                Census (RVC) survey in Puerto Rico and the USVI;

         Cooperative research with Puerto Rican anglers to develop
                a recruitment index for Spiny Lobster.

         Support the Deep-Water Snapper Camera Survey: preliminary
                work is underway to design a fishery-independent survey for
                deep-water species;
         U.S. Virgin Islands Trap Study in partnership with USVI
                Department of Fisheries and Wildlife and USVI Diver
                Surveys--in partnership with University of the Virgin
                Islands (St. Thomas survey) and the U.S. Park Service (St.
                John and St. Croix surveys); and

         In collaboration with regional partners, MRIP developed an
                Implementation Plan for the Caribbean with action items to
                establish MRIP catch and effort sampling in the USVI and
                improve currently suspended MRIP surveys in Puerto Rico.

        Additionally, NOAA Fisheries recently completed a ``Gap Analysis''
    for all federally managed species in the U.S. Caribbean. The Gap
    Analysis describes the current data availability for the five main
    types of stock assessment inputs (abundance, catch, life history, size/
    age composition, and ecosystem linkages), establishes ``target'' levels
    for each of these data input categories, and compares the current
    against target levels to define stock-specific data gaps that must be
    addressed to deliver the necessary complexity of science-based
    management information for each stock. This analysis will continue to
    inform improvements to data collection programs.

        (d) Based on your analysis of H.R. 59 and H.R. 4690, would any of
    the provisions or amendments to the MSA included in either bill provide
    NOAA or the Caribbean Fishery Management Council the necessary
    authorities, flexibilities, resources, or tools to improve data
    collection systems for fisheries in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin
    Islands?

        Answer. The provisions in H.R. 59 and H.R. 4690 are extensive and
    have implications for NOAA and all of the regional fisheries management
    councils. Scientific and data limitations make some of the requirements
    in the bills difficult. However, there are provisions in both bills
    that seek to improve data. For example, Section 402 H.R. 4690
    recognizes the importance of using technology to help improve and
    expand data collection for fisheries management by adding electronic
    monitoring as an option under Fishery Management Plans in addition to
    human observers. Section 409 recognizes the increasing challenges of
    conducting stock assessments and fisheries surveys with the growing
    demand for offshore wind energy, and requires the Departments of
    Commerce and the Interior to enter into a cooperative agreement to help
    mitigate potential disruption to current fisheries surveys. The
    President's 2022 budget request would also provide additional resources
    and tools to improve data collection systems for fisheries in Puerto
    Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
        These efforts would include increases to improving territorial
    fisheries science and management, workforce training to support the
    seafood industry, and expanding the community social vulnerability
    indicators toolbox to consider underserved communities.

        Question 2. In Puerto Rico most of our fisheries are small-scale in
    nature, involving fishing households, relatively small vessels, and
    subsistence or commercial fishing for local consumption. There is
    little to no export. However, they are still an important component of
    our economy. In 2019, commercial fisheries landings in Puerto Rico
    totaled 1.6 million pounds and contributed $8.2 million to the economy.

        Yet, when discussing the Magnuson-Stevens Act and policies to
    support our domestic fishing industries, I fear we sometimes tend to
    focus on larger commercial fishing operations and forget about the
    needs of our small-scale fishermen such as those in Puerto Rico. I
    therefore take this opportunity to respectfully urge NOAA to explore
    initiatives that would help address the unique needs of small-scale
    fisheries, including capability-building efforts that would improve
    data collection efforts and opportunities to enhance their economic
    wellbeing.

        (a) What initiatives has NOAA pursued to support small-scale
    fisheries such as those in the U.S. Caribbean? How can Congress amend
    the Magnuson-Stevens Act to improve or facilitate such efforts?

        Answer. Since 2013, NOAA Fisheries has dedicated funds toward a
    Territorial Science Initiative dedicated to improving data collection
    in the Territories (Pacific and Caribbean), with dedicated funding of
    about $1M in addition to other base funding. Of these funds, $300-500K/
    year has been allocated for data improvements in the U.S. Caribbean,
    including an ongoing study to optimize sampling procedures and
    statistical approaches to estimate annual commercial landings in Puerto
    Rico, a similar ongoing project to develop a survey design for
    estimating commercial and recreational fishery landings in the U.S.
    Virgin Islands, an evaluation of gear selectivity for Spiny Lobster in
    Puerto Rico and the USVI, refinements to benthic habitat maps for U.S.
    Caribbean coral reef ecosystems, a pilot project in collaboration with
    local anglers to develop a fishery independent recruitment index for
    Spiny Lobster, and various targeted studies to improve life history
    information for managed species. This research was essential for the
    recent stock assessments of Spiny Lobster in Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/
    St. John and St. Croix.

        (b) I would welcome any additional observations or recommendations
    you might have to ensure the Magnuson-Stevens Act better reflects and
    responds to the needs of small-scale fisheries such as those in the
    U.S. Caribbean.

        Answer. The dynamic science-based management process under the MSA
    provides the nation with a very successful fisheries management
    construct. However, amid these successes, some critical challenges
    remain. The need to create a more inclusive management system with
    meaningful engagement of underrepresented stakeholders and the next
    generation of fishermen has never been more prominent and remains an
    important issue for small-scale fisheries in the Caribbean. Other
    challenges in the Caribbean include setting effective annual catch
    limits for species due to lack of data regarding stock status and
    fishing harvests. Explicit acknowledgement of the management challenges
    for data-poor fisheries would be beneficial in the statute. Similarly,
    scientific uncertainties often change our expectations for meeting
    fishery management objectives including rebuilding stocks by specific
    deadlines. Scientific uncertainty comes from a variety of sources
    including lack of data, research, and sometimes an inability to account
    for environmental change, including ecosystem productivity and
    pollution. Some of these factors are outside the control of fishery
    managers but affect fish stocks nonetheless. Explicit acknowledgement
    of these issues in our management construct would be beneficial, while
    including safeguards to protect the effective management system
    currently in place, which has led to long-term conservation and
    sustainability of our nation's fishery resources.

        Question 3. On September 21, 2020, the Secretary of Commerce
    approved the three island-based fishery management plans (FMPs)
    prepared and submitted by the Caribbean Fishery Management Council.
    However, it is my understanding that the National Marine Fisheries
    Service (NMFS) is still developing regulations to implement management
    measures for the three island-based FMPs.

        (a) By when does the NMFS anticipate it will finalize these
    regulations and fully implement the three island-based FMPs for the
    U.S. Caribbean? What is the latest status of these efforts?

        Answer. The proposed rule to implement the regulations associated
    with the FMPs is under review. We anticipate the proposed rule
    publishing in early 2022 and a final rule implemented in the spring of
    2022.

                                     ______

        Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Ms. Coit.
        The Chair now recognizes Mr. Gorelnik to testify for 5
    minutes.

        STATEMENT OF MARC GORELNIK, CHAIR, COUNCIL COORDINATION
      COMMITTEE AND PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL, PORTLAND,
                                 OREGON

        Mr. Gorelnik. Chairman Huffman and Ranking Member Young, my
    name is Marc Gorelnik. While I am Chair of the Pacific Fishery
    Management Council, today I will testify on behalf of the
    Council Coordination Committee. The CCC is made up of the
    leadership of the eight Regional Fishery Management Councils.
        Let me start by saying that the MSA works. The Act requires
    that fisheries management be science-based, be conducted in a
    transparent manner, and include all stakeholders at the table.
    The Secretary of Commerce ensures the decisions comply with all
    laws before implementation. While this is time consuming, it
    ensures that decisions are fully transparent and science-based.
        Our success is clear: commercial, recreational, and
    subsistence fisheries are key contributors to our coastal
    communities, including disadvantaged communities, and the
    nation's economy. This is because the Act structured a very
    successful regional approach to sustainable fisheries
    management, and the councils are its keystone. These domestic
    fisheries provide healthy, sustainable protein for the entire
    nation, recreational opportunities for millions of Americans,
    and cultural benefits to subsistence fisherman.
        It is worth noting where the two authorization bills agree.
    Both identify the need for more and better science; better data
    collection, in particular for data poor stocks and recreational
    fisheries; transparency in decision making; increased
    recognition of subsistence fishing; council coordination for
    shifting or transboundary stocks; cooperative research; and the
    potential benefits of electronic monitoring. The councils are
    already addressing many of these issues raised in the bills.
        Our regional approach to management means legislation can
    affect each council differently. This is reflected in our
    individual feedback letters on H.R. 4690. My remarks will
    briefly summarize our shared concerns.
        Both bills emphasize the importance of adequate data and
    stock assessments. This emphasis on improving the science will
    help us adapt to the changing environment. We note, however,
    that many regions lack the basic data needed to meet current
    requirements, let alone new mandates. Directives to include new
    items and FMPs may be impossible to address, particularly if
    data do not exist to support the requirements or they are not
    adequately funded.
        We share in the interest in a transparent, ethical council
    system. Council members and staff are already subject to rules
    of conduct published by NMFS. However, it is unclear how these
    new provisions will be enforced and what their impacts would
    be.
        We agree that clarifying prohibitions against sexual
    harassment apply to council, committee, and advisory panel
    members will help make for a more welcoming environment, but it
    will also create a need for periodic training.
        My written testimony touches on a number of key issues on
    all three bills.
        Let me highlight just few from H.R. 4690. The ability of
    councils to successfully manage fisheries in the face of
    climate change will require the ability to adapt to changing
    species distributions and productivity. However, many regions
    currently lack the baseline of fish and habitat surveys
    necessary to understand and quantify changes clearly
    attributable to climate change. This lack of basic data will
    make it more difficult to comply with new legislative
    requirements.
        Current law requires councils to minimize adverse effects
    of fishing on habitat and to minimize bycatch to the extent
    practicable. H.R. 4690 would remove the practicability
    standard. This phrase provides councils the ability to develop
    measures that take into account all of the National Standards,
    and the removal of this qualifier will lead to increased
    litigation.
        Prohibiting councils from contacting the Administration on
    presidential actions will limit the ability of the councils to
    provide their expertise developed over decades. The requirement
    to document all communications with Federal or State officials
    on subjects other than routine fishery management creates a
    tremendous administrative burden and will jeopardize our
    attorney-client relationship with NOAA General Counsel. We know
    of no other organization subject to such requirements.
        Finally, forage fish are clearly important to ecosystem-
    based fishery management and most, if not all, counsels have
    already taken measures to conserve forage fish. However,
    regional differences in fisheries make it difficult to define
    forage fish with a one-size-fits-all description or criteria.
        I want to acknowledge the supportive relationship between
    the councils and the National Marine Fishery Service. The
    Service is a key participant in the council process and a key
    provider of the information we need. The regional offices and
    science centers are critical to our process, but they will also
    be challenged to meet the additional legislative requirements.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present the
    views of the Council Coordination Committee, and I am happy to
    answer any questions.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Gorelnik follows:]
        Prepared Statement of Mr. Marc Gorelnik, Chair, Pacific Fishery
          Management Council and Chair, Council Coordination Committee
        Chairman Huffman and Congressman Young, my name is Marc Gorelnik
    and I am here today to testify on behalf of the Council Coordination
    Committee (CCC), which is made up of the chairs, vice chairs, and
    executive directors of the eight Regional Fishery Management Councils
    that were created under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
    Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act or MSA).

        Thank you for inviting me here today to speak to the
    reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

        Let me start by saying that Magnuson-Stevens Act works. The Act
    requires that fisheries management be science-based, be conducted in a
    transparent manner, and be done with fishermen, scientists and other
    stakeholders at the table and involved in the management decisions that
    affect their livelihoods, their communities (including disadvantaged
    communities), and their futures. The Act requires fishery managers to
    balance the long-term environmental needs of the fisheries with the
    goal of maximizing the use of a natural resource to provide a healthy,
    renewable source of protein for the Nation. The Act includes a number
    of checks and balances to ensure that these sometimes competing goals
    can be met while maintaining the health of our fishery resources and
    the oceans that the fish rely on.
        Without a doubt, this statute established the United States as the
    world's premier manager of fisheries resources. One of the major
    strengths of the Act is its support of a regional approach to fisheries
    management that is guided by an overarching federal framework. The
    eight Regional Fishery Management Councils are the cornerstone of that
    system.
        The Councils fill a unique fishery management role. Our members
    include representatives from state, federal, and tribal fishery
    management agencies, as well as appointed members selected for their
    fisheries knowledge and expertise. We prepare the management plans that
    guide fishing in federal waters. The National Marine Fisheries Service
    (NMFS), on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce, reviews our proposals
    and implements them if the actions are consistent with the law. While I
    am the current chair of the Pacific Fishery Management Council, today I
    speak to you as the representative of all eight regional councils. We
    meet regularly as the Council Coordination Committee to discuss cross-
    regional issues and collaborate with NMFS on strategic planning and
    policy development.
        As a group, we are strong believers in the Magnuson-Stevens Act--
    and not just because it established the Councils. The outcome of our
    management success is clear: commercial, recreational, and subsistence
    fisheries are key contributors to our coastal communities and the
    nation's economy. In large measure this is because the Act structured a
    very successful approach to sustainable fisheries management. Central
    to the Act are the 10 National Standards that guide our management
    process. National Standard 1, which is the most important, requires
    that conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing
    while achieving optimum yield from each U.S. fishery.
        Let me emphasize the many successes of the MSA and the Council
    system. While some stakeholders have expressed frustration with
    specific Council decisions--and no doubt your phones ring when that
    happens--I think it is important to note that the MSA actually gives
    stakeholders seats at the table. The MSA created these Councils to
    provide a public forum for fishery management decisions to be made.
    This public forum allows fishery managers, state officials, fishermen,
    academics, environmental groups, federal officials, and other
    interested parties to have a say in the management of our public
    resources. The decisions made through this public process are based on
    the best scientific information available and use stock assessments
    that have been conducted in a public manner and peer reviewed. Finally,
    the decisions made by the Council are then again reviewed by the
    Secretary of Commerce and published in the Federal Register for an
    additional public comment period.
        While this is a time-consuming and sometimes duplicative process,
    it ensures that decisions are fair, informed, and science-based. The
    process also is fully transparent.
        We should not be content to rest on our laurels. We believe that,
    going forward, we can improve our efforts. Today I would like to
    highlight some of the issues that we believe need to be addressed. As
    will be no surprise, our regional approach to management means that the
    Councils each face different challenges. Despite these differences,
    there are a number of areas where our opinions on needed improvements
    are consistent. On a number of issues raised by the bills before us
    today such as the protection of forage fish, managing fisheries in the
    face of climate change, protecting important fisheries habitat,
    managing on an ecosystem level, etc., the Councils are already
    incorporating these important themes into fishery management decisions.
    However, to adequately address these issues, increased science and
    increased data are necessary. I will limit my comments to the consensus
    statements that all eight Councils support. I've structured my
    statement around broad issues that have been identified.
        For more detail on these issues, the Council Coordination Committee
    has developed a Working Paper to describe consensus positions and the
    range of Regional Fishery Management Council perspectives on key issues
    being considered as part of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
    and Management Act (MSA) reauthorization process. This working paper
    can be found at: http://www.fisherycouncils.org/msa-reauthorization/.

        Before I get to specific issues in the bills, let me present a
    number of basic tenets that the CCC has agreed upon and we believe are
    important to any reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act in order
    for the Councils to fulfill their responsibilities under the Act:

         Across the board mandates that address a problem in one
                region can negatively impact another. As a result,
                modifications to the Act should be national in scope with
                reasonable flexibility to address region-specific issues.
                Modifications to the Act which are specific to one region
                or one Council might undermine the national scope of the
                Act and should be carefully considered especially with
                respect to how these modifications might affect operations
                in other regions.

         Legislation that allows for flexibility in achieving
                conservation objectives, but is specific enough to avoid
                lengthy, complex implementing regulations or ``guidelines''
                would facilitate Council's efforts to conserve and manage
                our nation's living marine resources.

           (Because of regional differences, legislation that identifies
                intended outcomes is easier for Councils to follow that
                prescriptive management or scientific parameters.

         Legislation that avoids unrealistic/expensive analytical
                mandates relative to implementing fishery management
                actions allows for a manageable Council process.
                (Analytical mandates relative to implementing fishery
                managements are sometimes unrealistic or expensive to
                adopt.)

         Legislation that imposes constraints can interfere with
                the flexibility of Councils and NMFS to respond to changing
                climates and shifting ecosystems. (Some constraints can
                limit the flexibility of Councils and NMFS to respond to
                changing climates and shifting ecosystems.)

         Avoid unfunded mandates, and/or ensure that Councils and
                NMFS have the resources to respond to provisions of
                legislation. (Mandates that are not supported by the
                necessary resources make it difficult for the Councils to
                implement them).

         The Councils are already pressed to meet the current
                requirements of the MSA and additional mandates will likely
                hinder existing activities.

         Preservation and enhancement of stock assessments and
                surveys should be among the highest priorities when
                considering any changes to the Act.

        The two bills that reauthorize and amend the MSA, H.R. 4690, the
    ``Sustaining America's Fisheries for the Future Act of 2021'' and H.R.
    59, the ``Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility
    in Fisheries Management Act'', have a number of areas of agreement: the
    need for more and better science for fishery managers; the need for
    better data collection--in particular for data poor stocks and
    recreational fisheries; the need for transparency in decision-making;
    an increased recognition of subsistence fishing; a change in definition
    for ``overfished''; the need for Council coordination for shifting or
    transboundary stocks; the need for cooperative research; and the
    recognition that electronic monitoring presents opportunities for
    monitoring and enforcement.

    Let me make a few general statements about H.R. 4690:

        The CCC believes that some sections of H.R. 4690, as drafted, will
    increase the workload on the Councils and the agency, create demands
    for data and analyses that in many cases cannot be supported, could
    increase the risk of litigation on several important topics, appears to
    reduce the flexibility and the role of the Councils, and does not
    appear to authorize sufficient funding to meet its requirements.
        H.R. 4690 proposes many new requirements that would be the
    responsibility of the Councils or NMFS. These include at least 25
    periodic reports specific to fisheries management, additional elements
    that must be included in a fishery management plan, formal plans for
    managing stocks vulnerable to climate change, emergency operations
    plans, additional training to comply with revised ethics guidelines,
    etc. Each of these requirements increases the workload on an already
    saturated and stressed management system. Some must be accomplished
    within a short timeline. When added to the demanding pace of routine
    management actions and adjustments to fishery management plans (FMPs),
    the CCC is concerned that these new requirements will interfere with
    completing the routine, but critical, work necessary to keep fisheries
    operating. The objectives and potential benefits of many of these
    requirements (particularly the reports) are difficult to discern. In
    many cases, some of the proposed deadlines associated with these new
    requirements do not reflect the time it takes to complete Council
    actions in a thoughtful manner that provides for extensive public
    involvement.
        The workload created by the new requirements is exacerbated by the
    fact that many cannot be supported by available data and analytic
    capabilities. For example, H.R. 4690 would require estimating maximum
    sustainable yield (MSY) under current and future conditions. In many of
    our fisheries, estimating MSY under current conditions is difficult or
    impossible, so it is not likely it could be done for future conditions,
    either. Where MSY can be estimated, doing so under possible future
    conditions would be a complex challenge. It is not clear how such
    information would be used to inform current management. Similarly, the
    bill would require Councils to identify as Habitat Areas of Particular
    Concern areas that ``. . . are or may become important to the health of
    managed species'' (emphasis added). This would require Councils to
    predict the future in a dynamic, highly variable system. These are just
    two of many examples of the bill placing unrealistic demands on the
    available scientific information.
        Another possible impact of H.R. 4690 is that it may increase
    litigation risk with respect to minimizing adverse effects of fishing
    on habitat and minimizing bycatch. This bill would remove the current
    standard that minimization must be accomplished ``to the extent
    practicable.'' This phrase currently provides Councils the ability to
    develop measures that take into account all of the National Standards.
    However, removal of ``to the extent practicable.'' will create
    questions and uncertainty over what meets the standard of ``minimize.''
        The CCC is concerned that the changes proposed in H.R. 4690 would
    divert limited resources from current needs unless there are increases
    in funding. In many regions, the basic surveys and monitoring programs,
    data and analyses, and frequency of stock assessments needed to meet
    the current requirements of the MSA are not available. The increased
    requirements of H.R. 4690 could only be met if additional resources are
    provided to the agency. The CCC notes that the administration's FY 2022
    request for Fisheries Programs and Services, which is based on current
    requirements, exceeds the bill's proposed appropriations for 2022. It
    is unclear how the additional activities required by H.R. 4690 could be
    carried out without a substantial increase in funding.
    Let me touch on a number of key issues that have been raised by one or
    both bills:

    Climate Change & Regional Action Plans for Climate Science:
        The CCC believes that climate change demands a response that is
    commensurate with the magnitude of the threat. The sustainability and
    performance of our fisheries are at stake, and while fishery managers
    are unable to address the underlying causes of climate change, they are
    nonetheless tasked with meeting our conservation and management
    mandates in a changing environment. Climate change will impact entire
    marine ecosystems, and a single-species management approach will likely
    not be sufficient to understand and account for these changes.
    Addressing climate change will require establishing the support to
    enable fishery managers to develop creative solutions to new
    challenges.
        Fishery managers will also need a strong scientific foundation to
    support climate-ready fisheries management. Managing climate-ready
    fisheries is a long-term endeavor that will require investing in the
    information needed to support informed decision-making, along with a
    commensurate shift in resources and attention. Successful management
    already depends on the availability of timely and accurate information
    at all points in the decision-making process, and in a changing
    environment, this will become even more critical.
        The ability of Councils to successfully manage fisheries in the
    face of climate change will require the ability to adapt to changing
    species distributions and productivity. However, many regions currently
    lack the robust baseline of fish and habitat surveys necessary to
    understand and quantify changes in abundance, distribution, diversity,
    and status clearly attributable to climate change, which will also make
    it more difficult to account for the impacts of climate change in
    analyses. It will also make it more difficult to comply with new
    legislative requirements, such as determining the impacts of climate
    change on future conditions of stocks and fishery participants. It will
    also be more difficult to account for the impacts of climate change in
    analyses. As the Councils continue to balance increasing competition
    for the ocean space--whether from protected areas, offshore energy
    development, or other users--these conflicts will inhibit the ability
    of fishermen and the Councils to be flexible.
    Council Jurisdiction:
        Regional Fishery Management Councils (RFMCs) are facing
    unprecedented management issues as a result of climate change. The
    changing environment is affecting the productivity, abundance, and
    distribution of some fish stocks, and it is becoming increasingly clear
    that all those involved in fisheries need to prepare for different,
    unpredictable futures. As stocks move, the RFMCs are grappling with how
    to adapt their management approaches to ensure fair and effective
    management of the stocks under their authority. Many regional Councils
    lack a robust baseline index of fish and habitat distribution, with
    rigorous temporal and spatial monitoring and surveys to assess the
    changes in abundance, diversity, and health to quantitatively attribute
    these fluctuations to climate change. Without this spatial survey data,
    the Council actions may result in overly precautionary harvest
    opportunities due to these uncertainties in assessment of climate
    impacts on stocks.
        While a need to formalize a process for revising Council authority
    as a result of changes in fishery distribution may seem necessary, many
    of these issues are already addressed by the Councils themselves. This
    has been a particular area of focus on the Atlantic coast, where
    fisheries management authority in federal waters is divided between the
    New England, Mid-Atlantic, and South Atlantic Councils. These Councils
    have recognized this challenge and are working closely with each other
    to adapt to changing conditions. For example, the three East coast
    Councils are currently collaborating with the Atlantic States Marine
    Fisheries Commission and NOAA Fisheries on a climate change scenario
    planning initiative. Through this structured process, fishery
    scientists and managers are exploring how to best adapt and respond to
    jurisdictional and governance issues related to shifting fishery
    stocks.
        A number of fishery management plans already account for overlap
    between Council management areas. For example, the New England Fishery
    Management Council and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council manage
    two fisheries under joint fishery management plans and cooperate on the
    management of several other fisheries that overlap the geographic areas
    of both Councils. Similar arrangements exist between the Mid-Atlantic
    and South Atlantic Councils and the South Atlantic and Gulf Councils.
        Frequent reassignments of management authority could cause
    disruptions in Council operations, duplications of effort, Science
    Center workload bottlenecks, and losses of institutional knowledge
    among the staff, Council and SSC members, and others who have acquired
    specialized knowledge about the management or biology of a stock
    through years of involvement with the fishery. While major changes in
    management regimes may be warranted in certain cases, the CCC believes
    that less disruptive methods of adapting to climate change should be
    pursued first.

        I note that in a recently released report by NOAA titled
    ``Governance Case Studies on Marine Fisheries that Cross Jurisdictional
    Boundaries in the United States'', the issue of transboundary fisheries
    management was studied. One of the conclusions reached was:

            ``In conclusion, trans-boundary fisheries are not new and NMFS
            and the eight Councils have a strong record of managing such
            fisheries sustainably using existing authorities despite the
            scientific and governance complexities. The case studies
            presented here document multiple approaches for addressing
            cross-jurisdictional governance issues. There are a variety of
            ways to answer these governance questions, with pros and cons
            to the various approaches. Factors to consider include: the
            necessary time and resources, stakeholder interest, biological
            factors, and the need for coordination.''

    Essential Fish Habitat:
        The CCC believes that Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) can be a useful
    tool for fishery management and provides protection for the habitat of
    Council-managed fisheries. However, changes to EFH that remove
    practicability standards, include arbitrary terms such as ``adverse
    effects,'' and mandate Council inclusion on all consultations may be
    impractical. MSA's current use of ``to the extent practicable'' allows
    the Councils the flexibility to define EFH and HAPC as necessary. A
    requirement to define EFH and HAPC without that flexibility may result
    in broad definitions that have unintended consequences such as
    designation of harbors and marinas that may not be essential. Using
    terms such as ``adverse effects'' can have similar negative
    consequences without further guidance on what constitutes adverse
    effects. This may result in unnecessary mitigation requirement for
    fisheries. The Councils currently work with NMFS and are included on
    consultations as necessary but inclusion in all consultations would be
    a burden on the Council's time and resources and potentially delay the
    completion of the consultations.
    Bycatch:
        With very limited exceptions, all commercial and recreational
    fisheries in the U.S. have bycatch, which is defined by the MSA as
    ``those fish which are harvested in a fishery, but which are not sold
    or kept for personal use'', i.e., fish that are discarded. All
    recreational and commercial fisheries discard fish that are of not of
    the preferred species or size, or are required by regulation to be
    discarded.
        National Standard 9 of the MSA requires that ``conservation and
    management measures shall, to the extent practicable, (A) minimize
    bycatch and (B) to the extent bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the
    mortality of such bycatch.'' The word ``practicable'' includes social
    and economic trade-offs in policy decision making regarding management
    measures to reduce bycatch. Without the practicability clause, the
    level of bycatch that could be considered to be minimized is very
    subjective with wide extremes, and thus open to litigation as to what
    is an acceptable level of bycatch. A practicability clause can be
    particularly important for minimizing bycatch in recreational
    fisheries, which are typically managed with size and bag limits, and as
    a result tend to have high rates of regulatory discard (i.e., bycatch).
    The RMC's think the inclusion of the phrase ``to the extent
    practicable'' provides the appropriate threshold for achieving the
    optimal degree of bycatch minimization.
        The amount and type of bycatch in each fishery is monitored and
    assessed using a standardized bycatch methodology established within
    each region of the U.S. in compliance with 50 CFR 600.1600-1610 (82 FR
    6317). The regulation requires that each Fishery Management Plan
    describe the standardized reporting methodology for each fishery,
    including procedures used to collect, record, and report bycatch data
    in a fishery. Consistent data collection, reporting, and assessment
    across fisheries is not possible given the differences between
    recreational and commercial fisheries, and the types of gear used in
    the fisheries. Additionally, data collection, reporting, and recording
    procedures can be expensive, logistically challenging to design and
    implement, involve new and cutting-edge technologies, and necessitate
    the consideration of the safety of human life at sea. Thus, flexibility
    is needed the implementation of a standardized bycatch reporting
    methodology for each fishery, as well as across fisheries and regions
    of the country.
        Bycatch estimates for U.S. fisheries are compiled and reported and
    regularly updated in the NMFS National Bycatch Reports, which are
    publicly available on the agency's website. While improvements are
    being made across the country to improve the accuracy and precision of
    these bycatch estimates, generating statistically accurate and precise
    information regarding bycatch in each fishery may be cost prohibitive
    in many fisheries, as it may require that all fish caught and discarded
    would need to be observed and monitored. Although many U.S. commercial
    fisheries have human observers or cameras on vessels to monitor and
    collect discard information, this would not be cost effective or
    technically feasible for small commercial fisheries or socially
    acceptable aboard recreational fishing boats.
    Forage Fish:
        The issue of increasing the protection of forage fish has been
    addressed in a number of bills including H.R. 4690 and H.R. 5770 the
    ``Forage Fish Conservation Act of 2021''. While the CCC has not been
    asked to provide feedback on H.R. 5770, a number of Councils were asked
    to comment on similar legislation that was introduced in the 116th
    Congress (H.R. 2236). In addition, the CCC Working Paper has a
    consensus statement on the management and protection of forage fish.
    Forage Fish (consensus statement):
        The Councils recognize that forage fish cannot be defined with a
    one-size-fits-all description or criteria. Species identified as forage
    fish by the Councils tend to be small species with short life spans and
    may have an important role in the marine ecosystem of the region. Some
    of these species may exhibit schooling behavior, highly variable stock
    sizes due to their short life spans, and sensitivity to environmental
    conditions. Some forage species may consume plankton, and some may be
    an important food source for marine mammals and seabirds. The term
    ``forage fish'' appears to imply a special importance of the species as
    prey, however nearly all fish species are prey to larger predators and
    thus all fish species provide energy transfer up the food chain.
        Councils should have the authority to determine which species
    should be considered and managed as forage fish. Under existing MSA
    provisions, some Councils already recognize the importance of forage
    fish to the larger ecosystem functions and those species are regulated
    under the Council's FMPs where appropriate. The CCC is concerned that
    any legislative definition of forage fish, based on broad criteria--
    such as all low trophic level fish (plankton consumers) that contribute
    to the diets of upper tropic levels--will not include other important
    types of forage (e.g., squid), unintentionally include important target
    fish species (e.g., sockeye salmon), and allow for various
    interpretations by different interested parties and thus invite
    litigation.
        Provisions that would require Councils to specify catch limits for
    forage fish species to account for the diet needs of marine mammals,
    birds, and other marine life would greatly impact the ability of
    Councils to fulfill their responsibilities under the MSA. Many
    predators are opportunistic feeders and shift their prey based on
    abundance and availability. As a result, determining the exact amount
    of individual prey needed each year would be an enormous undertaking,
    and would divert limited research monies away from other critical
    research such as surveys and stock assessments.
        NOAA and the states do not currently have enough resources to
    survey target stocks, let alone prepare stocks assessments for forage
    species that would be needed to set scientifically based annual catch
    limits. In the absence of this critical information and necessary
    resources, catch limits would need to be restricted to account for this
    largely incalculable uncertainty. Prey needs for upper trophic
    predators are already accounted for as natural mortality removals in
    stock assessment models.
        Councils should retain the authority to determine species requiring
    conservation and management through development of FMPs. Any
    legislation that directs the Secretary to prepare or amend fishery
    management plans (e.g., recent legislation to add shad and river
    herring as managed species) creates conflicts with current management
    under other existing authorities.''
    Transparency Requirements
        The CCC thinks that a transparent public process is critical to
    maintaining public trust, so that decisions of the Council and the SSC
    are clearly documented. This need can be met in a variety of ways, such
    as by webcasting meetings, audio recording of meetings, or detailed
    minutes of meeting discussions. However, budget problems are very real,
    and written transcripts are costly. Video recordings of large meetings
    may not add substantive content, as they may not capture presentations
    and motions, which are the most critical visual aspects of meetings.
    While the technology for webcasts is rapidly evolving, live broadcasts
    generally require strong internet connections to be effective. In the
    context of Council meetings, which are often held in remote locations
    near fishing ports, the Councils have little ability to predict or
    control the quality and cost of the internet connection. Consequently,
    requiring the use of webcasts ``to the extent practicable'' will allow
    Councils to achieve greater transparency within budget and operational
    constraints.
        With respect to proposed requirements related to meeting
    recordings, the CCC notes that audio and video files are typically very
    large and that requiring all Council and SSC meeting recordings to be
    available indefinitely on Council websites would pose some
    technological challenges. Requiring the Councils to make meeting
    recordings available on the website for a limited period (e.g., 6
    months after the date of recording) and thereafter upon request would
    be easier to implement. The CCC also notes that requiring both the
    Councils and the Secretary to maintain public archives of all meeting
    recordings seems like an unnecessary duplication of effort and
    resources.
        The CCC believes that requiring roll call votes on all non-
    procedural matters is unnecessary and would be time consuming and
    disruptive to the Council process. The MSA already requires the
    Councils to hold roll call votes at the request of any voting Council
    member (a much lower threshold than the one fifth of a quorum required
    for roll call votes in the U.S. House or Senate). While the CCC does
    not believe that changes to voting requirements are warranted, the CCC
    notes that a less disruptive alternative would be to require roll call
    votes only on final approval of any fishery management plan or
    amendment to be submitted to the Secretary.
    Ethics/Standards of Behavior:
        Council staff are subject to Rules of Conduct established by the
    Department of Commerce. In addition, Councils expand on those
    requirements through their SOPPs and Operations Handbooks. Legislative
    initiatives to deem Council employees as Federal employees with respect
    to ``any requirement that applies to federal employees'', is a broad
    action with potential consequences reaching far beyond ethics to every
    facet of Council operations. Currently, Council employees are non-
    federal employees; thus, without access to all of the information
    available to federal employees and agencies, it is impossible for the
    Councils to anticipate the magnitude of impacts these changes would
    cascade throughout the current administrative and operations practices
    and procedures. Administrative costs may increase due to the need to
    monitor compliance with requirements and provide staff benefits and
    training. SOPPS will likely need to be updated and expanded. It will
    likely become difficult for Councils to hire and retain staff who are
    subject to all of the requirements of Federal employees when those
    staff do not also receive all of the benefits of Federal employees. The
    broad language in such proposals could be viewed as an effort to make
    staff Federal employees, which is counter to a basic tenet of the MSA
    and the federal fisheries management system.
        Many Councils already have policies, regarding harassment in their
    Handbooks or SOPPs. To fully evaluate proposals to subject Councils to
    agency policies additional information is needed to clarify how the
    Secretary of Commerce will investigate allegations to determine if
    violations have occurred and impose the penalties if necessary. The SOC
    would need also make available to Council, Committee, and advisory
    panel members annual training that is consistent with the training
    provided to federal employees.
        Councils currently adhere to 15 CFR Part 28, ``New Restrictions on
    Lobbying'' and are currently prohibited from use of federal funds for
    lobbying activities. Additional specifications for lobbying
    prohibitions, including prohibition from overturning any Presidential
    order, proclamation, or similar Presidential decree, are sometimes
    suggested. Because these existing regulations often lead to questions
    about the ability of Council and AP Members to communicate with
    officials when not in any official Council capacity and not using any
    Council funds, clarifying language will be required in guidelines
    supporting any regulatory changes indicating that Council members and
    advisors are not prohibited from communicating with elected and
    executive branch officials as private citizens not using federal funds.
        New reporting requirements for documenting all discussions of
    Council members, Council staff, and members of Council advisory bodies
    with federal or state legislators and Federal executive branch
    officials will likely add costs and time burdens to Council staff,
    especially the requirements to document all verbal communication and
    maintain all copies of this documentation on the Council website.
    Specific guidance would be needed on the types of communication are
    allowed, what should be documented, and when information must be made
    available. Posting such documented requests to a Council's website may
    delay the response, and documenting verbal (in person or by phone)
    requests would be problematic to verify. Council members may be invited
    to speak directly with legislative staff or members of Congress while
    on other Council business, such as the annual CCC meeting in Washington
    D.C.; it is not clear if these types of interactions would be subject
    to this provision. The term ``routine fishery management'' is vague and
    may not provide enough guidance to ensure Councils and their members
    comply with the intent of these provisions. For example, routine might
    be interpreted as anything covered in the MSA, or only implementing
    existing provisions of FMPs, excluding amendments intended to improve
    management; and ``in the region'' could be interpreted to preclude
    discussion of national or multi-region issues, which the CCC is charged
    with. Extending these provisions to NOAA GC would potentially violate
    attorney-client privilege; NOAA GC are the Councils' legal counsel, and
    conversations should not have to be made public. This would also remove
    the Councils as a resource for NOAA GC and Department of Justice
    attorneys in litigation.
    Secretarial Plans:
        The MSA currently authorizes the Secretary to prepare FMPs or
    amendments for stocks requiring conservation and management if the
    appropriate Council fails to do so in a reasonable period of time or if
    the Council fails to submit the necessary revisions after an FMP has
    been disapproved or partially approved. Proposals have been suggested
    to modify this language to specify that the Secretary must prepare such
    plans or amendments if the Councils do not submit the required FMPs or
    amendments ``after a reasonable period of time not to exceed 180
    days.'' (emphasis added)
        The 180-day time frame suggested is unrealistic and likely could
    not be met while complying with the rigorous and time-consuming
    requirements of the MSA, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
    and other applicable laws (ESA, MMPA, etc.). It generally takes at
    least two years (but often longer) to develop and approve an FMP or
    major amendment. Most Councils meet 4-6 times per year, meaning that
    the proposed 180-day time frame may only encompass two Council
    meetings. This does not allow nearly enough time to initiate an
    amendment, conduct scoping, form plan teams (varies by region), collect
    and analyze data, develop and refine alternatives, solicit input from
    scientific and statistical committees or other advisory bodies, draft
    decision documents, conduct public hearings, review public comments,
    take final action, and prepare the required documents for submission to
    NMFS.
        The MSA already provides the Secretary appropriate discretion to
    assess whether a Council is making reasonable progress toward
    development of the required FMP or amendment. This flexibility is
    necessary to account for the variability in time needed to complete a
    management action, which can vary greatly depending on the complexity
    of the issue, availability of scientific information, Council workload
    on competing priorities, and other factors. The CCC is concerned that
    creating deadlines the Councils likely cannot meet will shift
    responsibility for development of FMPs from the Councils to the
    Secretary, thus undermining the deliberative and transparent council
    process that was created by the MSA.
        Any specific time requirements should be crafted carefully and
    should be based on a detailed understanding of the Councils'
    responsibilities and procedural requirements under the MSA, NEPA, and
    other applicable laws. Several Councils have developed fact sheets
    summarizing the process and timelines associated with development of an
    FMP or amendment.
        Establishing a time requirement without taking steps to streamline
    the process is unlikely to produce meaningful change. If the intent is
    to improve the timeliness of Council actions, this could be
    accomplished by improving alignment between NEPA and the MSA.
    Compliance with NEPA requirements is often the most time-consuming
    aspect of FMP or amendment development. MSA Section 304(i), included as
    part of the 2007 Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorized Act, was intended to
    more closely align the requirements of the MSA and NEPA within NMFS's
    NEPA procedures. The resulting policy directive issued by NMFS on
    ``National Environmental Policy Act Compliance for Council-initiated
    Fishery Management Actions under the Magnuson-Stevens Act,'' has not,
    in the opinion of the CCC, provided for a more timely alignment of MSA
    and NEPA processes, reduced extraneous paperwork, or streamlined the
    environmental review process. It has, however, shifted an increasing
    portion of the NEPA-related workload on to the Councils. The CCC's
    white paper on ``Integrating National Environmental Policy Act
    Compliance into a Reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Act''[2] explores this
    issue and discusses potential areas for improvement.
    Overfished Definition:
        The CCC believes that an alternative term could be useful for
    describing fisheries that are depleted as a result of non-fishing
    factors, unknown reasons, or a combination of fishing and other
    factors.
        The current MSY-based definition can be problematic when applied to
    data-limited fisheries or mixed-stock complexes. Furthermore, the term
    ``overfished'' can unfairly implicate fishermen for depleted conditions
    resulting from pollution, coastal development, offshore activities,
    natural ecosystem fluctuations, and other factors. Not all of the
    Councils agree that ``depleted'' is an appropriate term to replace
    ``overfished'' with. Some have noted that ``depleted'' has specific
    meanings in a number of other statutes, including the Endangered
    Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and that care should
    be taken to avoid conflict or ambiguity if a change in terminology is
    implemented.
    Rebuilding Requirements:
        In general, the CCC believes the addition of measures that would
    increase flexibility with respect to stock rebuilding for certain types
    of fisheries would improve the ability of Councils to achieve
    management objectives.
        We acknowledge that rebuilding often comes with necessary and
    unavoidable social and economic consequences, but we believe that
    targeted changes to the law would enable the development of rebuilding
    plans that more effectively address the biological imperative to
    rebuild overfished stocks while mitigating the social and economic
    impacts.
        Under the rebuilding requirements currently in the Act, Councils
    determine the rebuilding schedule based on scientific information
    supplied by NMFS. Rebuilding time frames balance the biology of the
    fish and the economic needs of those involved in the fishery to rebuild
    the fishery within the time limits allowed in the Act. There is often
    considerable uncertainty involved in the calculation of the rebuilding
    time frame and, with changing ocean conditions occurring in some
    regions, rebuilding success can be even more uncertain. That is why the
    Act already requires that Councils assess rebuilding progress at
    regular intervals.
        Requiring that a rebuilding plan meet an artificial goal (75
    percent probability of success) if a rebuilding plan is not meeting the
    expected progress by the first assessment would almost certainly result
    in significant adverse impacts to fishermen and fishing communities.
    The experience of several Councils shows that this requirement could
    lead to closing fisheries, with severe impacts on communities. The
    suggested language would take away the flexibility that Councils
    currently have in balancing the need to rebuild overfished fisheries
    with the need to minimize the economic effects on fishing communities.
        Often, changes to an assessment model can lead to an unexpected
    change in the understanding of stock status. Limiting a Council's
    ability to adapt to these changes because of a mandatory requirement
    would limit a Council's ability to modify the rebuilding program in
    light of the new information. As a result, fishermen and their
    communities would be penalized for improvements in science.
        The CCC agrees that exceptions to rebuilding requirements should be
    limited in scope and carefully defined. Ideally, such exceptions would
    be codified in the MSA along with guidance regarding applicable
    circumstances in National Standard guidelines.
    Stock Assessment and Survey Data:
        Surveys and stock assessments provide the fundamental information
    necessary to successfully manage sustainable fisheries. As such, the
    CCC believes that it would be beneficial for the MSA to include a
    requirement for the Secretary to develop a comprehensive plan and
    schedule to address stock assessment needs on a national basis.
    Increasing stock assessment frequencies and improving stock assessment
    methods to reduce the uncertainty in setting harvest limits and
    achieving management objectives will also improve the ability of
    Councils to establish scientifically based ACLs, including for those
    fisheries that are currently considered data limited. However, the CCC
    is concerned that requiring the Secretary to complete a peer-reviewed
    stock survey and stock assessments for all FMP species within two years
    is unrealistic. Comprehensive stock surveys have not been done for
    coral reef and other areas because they would have been prohibitively
    expensive and would provide little benefit at great expense. While new
    emerging drone technology may reduce costs of some surveys, the CCC
    remains concerned about potential redistribution of survey and
    assessment resources from stocks with high commercial and recreational
    interest to those of lower concern. Should Congress insist on
    completion of these surveys, substantial increases in funding may be
    needed for this work.
        In addition, there has been some discussion of establishing
    guidelines to facilitate incorporation of data from non-governmental
    sources in fishery management decisions. There are existing legal
    requirements that govern data collection and quality (e.g., Data
    Quality Act) that dictate what NMFS is required to use for stock
    assessments. Data from fishermen, the states, and universities are
    already considered and evaluated for inclusion in stock assessment, as
    appropriate for the methodology and use of the data collected. These
    data sources are reviewed by the assessment analysts and through the
    peer review process that usually includes the Councils' scientific and
    statistical committees. The CCC believes prescriptive requirements for
    use of any data source are not appropriate. The implementing guidelines
    for when such information should be utilized will be critical to its
    veracity and usefulness to assessment authors and managers.
        A cost comparison report on monitoring programs (for example, human
    observers versus electronic monitoring) would be extremely beneficial
    to development of such monitoring programs.
    Recreational Data:
        The CCC believes MRIP was not designed to provide data for in-
    season ACL management. The current MRIP methodology cannot be modified
    nor can sufficient funding be provided such that in-season ACL
    management will work. The CCC believes alternative methods (e.g., state
    electronic logbook programs, federal for-hire electronic logbook
    programs, and electronic logbook programs for private recreational
    anglers) should be fully implemented where they are available and
    developed, then evaluated where they do not yet exist. Once evaluated,
    MRIP should work to quickly certify these alternative methods for use
    in monitoring recreational catches.
        There does not appear to be a plan for the systematic collection of
    the necessary biological data from recreational fisheries for use in
    stock assessments (size, age, and reproductive data). Stock assessment
    data would be greatly improved, as would the assessment results, if
    NMFS would immediately prepare a written plan for each region and
    coordinate across regions to address species as they move from one
    region to another due to changes in the environment. The CCC believes
    additional funding is required for successful implementation of such a
    data collection program.
        The CCC believes more timely and accurate catch estimates that will
    be accepted by the recreational community (since they are providing the
    data) will go a long way to improve stock assessments, improve
    voluntary compliance, and improve accountability within the
    recreational fishing community.
    Commercial Data:
        The CCC believes that the management of commercial fisheries could
    be improved by streamlining the fishery monitoring and reporting
    process to produce more timely catch data. In most regions, commercial
    dealer data are not available as quickly as needed for quota tracking,
    and commercial logbook data from fishermen are not available as quickly
    as needed for verification of dealer data. In some areas, commercial
    fishermen cannot upload electronic logbook data or use E-logbook
    systems due to the lack of a federal system to receive the data. The
    lack of timely commercial data requires fishery managers to make
    projections about when an ACL will be met, which can results in closing
    a fishery too early or too late.
        In most regions, there does not appear to be a plan for the
    systematic collection of the necessary biological data from commercial
    fisheries for use in stock assessments (size, age, and reproductive
    data). Stock assessment data would be greatly improved, as would the
    assessment results, if NMFS would immediately prepare a written plan
    for each region and coordinate across regions to address species as
    they move from one region to another due to changes in the environment.
    The CCC believes additional funding is required for successful
    implementation of such a data collection program.
    Resources:
        The CCC remains concerned that important policy directives issued
    by NMFS (e.g., allocation review, and ecosystem-based fisheries
    management) frequently do not take into consideration the need for
    additional staffing and resources that Councils may need to implement
    them. The demands on Councils to fulfill existing regulatory and
    management requirements are significant, and these should be met before
    any new mandates are required.
        The CCC notes that baseline funding for research and management is
    necessary for sustainable fisheries management. At-sea surveys of fish
    populations are the `bread and butter' of sustainable management that
    is the hallmark of U.S. fisheries under the MSA. Reducing stock
    assessment funds will reduce harvests by U.S. fishermen, which will
    increase imports of foreign seafood. Increasing stock assessment
    funding is the best investment an administration can make in U.S.
    fisheries.
    LAPP Moratorium:
        The CCC believes that Councils should maintain the maximum
    flexibility possible to develop effective management tools, including
    limited access privilege programs. Temporary moratorium is likely to
    increase the administrative burden for some Councils and may reduce the
    Councils' ability to implement the appropriate management program for
    their fisheries that could include modification of existing LAPP
    measures or new LAPP measures.
        Limited access privilege programs are a management tool that should
    be available to the Councils, but the design, timing, and development
    should be left to individual Councils if they choose to use this tool
    for a specific fishery.
    Exempted Fishing Permits:
        The CCC believes that exempted fishing permits (EFPs) are an
    extremely important and useful mechanism to conduct scientific
    research. For example, EFPs have been used in different regions of the
    U.S. to conduct surveys, test monitoring devices under field
    conditions, investigate invasive species, and develop fishing gear that
    reduces bycatch and reduces impacts on habitat and protected species.
    These studies are frequently done by the fishing community at no cost
    to the public and have provided enormous benefits to the conservation
    and management of marine resources and habitats.
        The CCC believes that the existing regulations already provide a
    good framework for developing regional processes for issuing and
    reviewing EFPs. The EFP applications undergo a regional scientific peer
    review and are evaluated through a public process by the respective
    regional Councils. The public and affected states have opportunities to
    comment to NMFS and the Councils during this process. Any new
    requirements for the EFP process, such as additional social and
    economic analysis or further consultation with the state governors,
    would greatly reduce the ability to get EFPs developed and approved in
    a timely manner.
        In addition, the CCC believes that multi-year EFPs provide the
    necessary flexibility to scientifically test gear across different
    years and seasons. New regulations that limit EFPs to a 12-month period
    will restrict the type and quality of research that can be done, thus
    limiting the usefulness of the data collected.
    Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction:
        The Intergovernmental Conference on Marine Biodiversity of Areas
    Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ Agreement) under the United Nations
    Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is currently being pursued as
    an independent and legally binding instrument that would address
    sustainable management of marine resources in Areas Beyond National
    Jurisdiction (ABNJ). The conservation approach of the BBNJ Agreement is
    to create area-based fishing closure zones within the ABNJ.
        The CCC recognizes that a successful international fishery
    management platform already exists and is currently managing fishery
    resources in the ABNJ. Regional Fishery Management Organizations
    (RFMOs) are tasked to ensure sustainable management of fish resources
    within their designated convention areas. In contrast to the BBNJ
    Agreement where closed area-based management measures are only being
    discussed, RMFOs pursue sustainable fishing goals by considering a
    myriad of available management tools and choosing the one that
    addresses the specific management challenge. The BBNJ Agreement also is
    developed in a political process with the input from ENGOs where the
    RFMOs develop recommendation in a science-based process in a public,
    transparent process similar to the Councils. The CCC is concerned that
    the development of the convention such that high seas closures could be
    imposed, would override existing RFMO authority, and unfairly impact US
    fisheries under FMC management.
        In general, the CCC believes the existing RFMO instrumentalities
    are wholly sufficient to manage living resources outside of national
    jurisdictions, of which the United States is a part. Furthermore, the
    CCC supports the RFMO platform and believes it should not be subjugated
    by the BBNJ though implementation of a redundant management program.
        Based on past and long-term involvement of CCC members in various
    RFMOs, the CCC believes the BBNJ Agreement, as currently presented,
    will likely undermine the ability of RFMOs to properly manage the
    fisheries in their convention area, negatively affect RFMO credibility,
    and potentially create animosity among RFMO memberships with the UN.
        The CCC believes that ultimate fishery management authority in the
    ABNJ should remain with the RFMO platform. The BBNJ program should be
    incorporated into the existing regulatory framework of the RFMOs and
    under no circumstances should the BBNJ become a legally binding
    instrument that would work in conjunction with the RFMOs.

        I believe it important to acknowledge the supportive relationship
    between the Councils and the National Marine Fisheries Service. Our
    management successes would not be possible without our close
    partnership. The Service is a key participant in the Council process
    and a key provider of the information we need. The regional offices and
    science centers are critical to our process. The healthy exchange of
    ideas and opinions between our groups leads to better solutions.
        Finally, Mr. Chairman, as the effects of the recent COVID pandemic
    have shown us, the need to protect the Nation's food security is also
    an important factor to consider when making management decisions.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to present the views of
    the Council Coordination Committee. I am happy to answer any questions.

                                     ______

       Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. Marc Gorelnik, Chair of
    Council Coordination Committee and Chair of Pacific Fishery Management
                                    Council
    Mr. Gorelnik did not submit responses to the Committee by the
    appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.

                  Questions Submitted by Representative Young
        Question 1. On the topic of forage fish conservation, both H.R.
    4690 and H.R. 5770 require the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA) to specify the annual dietary needs of all marine
    mammals, birds, and other fishes, as well as account for all of this
    when setting fishery quotas. Based on what we have seen in Alaska
    regarding the Agency's inability to accurately assess the dietary needs
    of just one marine mammal Distinct Population Segment--the Western
    Steller sea lion--and with the Agency's survey days-at-sea generally
    reducing in number--I find it extremely hard to believe NOAA and the
    Councils will be able to accurately determine all of these dietary
    needs for all these species every single year and I fear we will be
    left with nothing but precautionary decisions that will reduce our
    commercial, charter, tribal, subsistence, and recreational fishing
    activities. In your opinion:

        (a) How might our management system be impacted by such legislation
    if it were to pass?

        (b) In the case of not being able to fulfill these scientific
    requirements, could an increase in lawsuits be a possible outcome?

        (c) What will be the impacts of climate change on shifting stocks
    of forage species and how will this be accounted for if we do not even
    have the basic data to implement this provision?

        (d) What are your thoughts about Alaska Pollock and sockeye salmon,
    which remain at low trophic levels and could easily be swept up in this
    ill-conceived but far-reaching legislation?

              Questions Submitted by Representative Gonzalez-Colon
        Question 1. The Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) has worked quite well in
    the U.S. Caribbean--Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The law
    has provided our regional council, the Caribbean Fishery Management
    Council, the necessary authorities, and flexibilities to sustainably
    manage our fisheries, while balancing both environmental and local
    economic needs.

        However, our fisheries in the U.S. Caribbean are still considered
    ``data poor,'' which creates challenges for stock assessments to
    determine overfishing limits, annual catch limits, and the status of
    local fisheries. The situation is further complicated when considering
    that our commercial fisheries in Puerto Rico are, for the most part,
    small-scale or traditional in nature. As such, they may lack the
    necessary tools and capacity to support these data requirements.

        Based on my conversations with stakeholders, there is a clear need
    for dedicated funding to improve data collection systems for fisheries
    in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, as well as for additional
    scientific research and studies to better inform management decisions
    in the U.S. Caribbean.

        (a) As Congress considers legislation to reauthorize the Magnuson-
    Stevens Act, what additional resources or authorities would NOAA and
    our eight Regional Fishery Management Councils need to improve regional
    data collection systems and address long-standing fishery data gaps
    such as those in the U.S. Caribbean?

        Question 2. In Puerto Rico most of our fisheries are small-scale in
    nature, involving fishing households, relatively small vessels, and
    subsistence or commercial fishing for local consumption. There is
    little to no export. However, they are still an important component of
    our economy. In 2019, commercial fisheries landings in Puerto Rico
    totaled 1.6 million pounds and contributed $8.2 million to the economy.

        Yet, when discussing the Magnuson-Stevens Act and policies to
    support our domestic fishing industries, I fear we sometimes tend to
    focus on larger commercial fishing operations and forget about the
    needs of our small-scale fishermen such as those in Puerto Rico. I
    therefore take this opportunity to respectfully urge NOAA to explore
    initiatives that would help address the unique needs of small-scale
    fisheries, including capability-building efforts that would improve
    data collection efforts and opportunities to enhance their economic
    well-being.

        (a) What initiatives would you recommend we pursue in Congress to
    better support small-scale fisheries across the Nation, such as those
    in the U.S. Caribbean? How can Congress amend the Magnuson-Stevens Act
    to improve or facilitate such efforts?

        (b) I would welcome any additional observations or recommendations
    the Council Coordination Committee may have to ensure the Magnuson-
    Stevens Act better reflects and responds to the needs of small-scale
    fisheries such as those in the U.S. Caribbean.

        Question 3. A key component to the success of the Magnuson-Stevens
    Act has been it focus on a flexible, regional-based approach to govern
    our fisheries and fishing activities in Federal waters. A great example
    of this has been the Caribbean Fishery Management Council's recent move
    to island-based fishery management plans to better account and respond
    to environmental and local differences between Puerto Rico and the U.S.
    Virgin Islands, rather than treating the two territories as a single
    unit.

        (a) Can you discuss the importance of ensuring any effort to
    reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Act maintains and continues to provide
    the Regional Councils the necessary flexibility to address region-
    specific needs?

        (b) Could you also elaborate on some of the concerns you have with
    legislative proposals to establish strict deadlines for Councils to
    develop and submit Fishery Management Plans or amendments, such as a
    180-day time frame? How would this negatively impact efforts to
    responsibility manage our fisheries? I note that the Caribbean Fishery
    Management Council's efforts to develop island-based fishery management
    plans took multiple years.

                                     ______

        Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Gorelnik.
        We will now bring it back to the Members for questions. I
    will begin by recognizing Congressman Ed Case of Hawaii, who
    has just been a great partner in developing this legislation.
        Mr. Case, you are recognized.
        Mr. Case. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to start off by
    associating myself fully with your remarks, as well as Mr.
    Young's and Mr. Westerman's, at the outset. The process of
    evaluating Magnuson-Stevens and developing this draft is one of
    the best I have ever seen. I think that it is one of the
    principal reasons why we are very cordially talking about
    issues that in other circumstances would be more difficult. And
    I am sure we are going to work this all out with the
    participation of everybody involved. So, thank you for that.
        Ms. Coit, thank you for your testimony. And, first of all,
    Ms. Coit, just a few days ago, the Department of Commerce
    Inspector General's Office on November 10 released a report
    relating to the administration of the Western Pacific Regional
    Management Council's governance of the Western Pacific
    Sustainable Fisheries Fund.
        And, Mr. Chair, I would ask unanimous consent that that
    report be entered into the record.
        Mr. Huffman. Without objection.
        Mr. Case. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Also, Honolulu's Civil Beat
    Media Outlet in my home state of Hawaii has published a very
    extensive series and is still in the process of publishing a
    series relating to the Western Pacific Fisheries Management
    Council. The first article was November 3, and it continues,
    and I would like that, also, if I could ask unanimous consent
    to enter that into the record.
        Mr. Huffman. Without objection.

        [The information follows:]

    Submissions for the Record by Rep. Case

    U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Inspector General, Final Report
              #OIG-22-004-A dated November 10, 2021, Available at:

    https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/
    track?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:14849178-e656-4a44-8536-8fab4fcc377e

                                      ****

     Honolulu's Civil Beat series on Western Pacific Fisheries Management
                             Council, Available at:

    https://www.civilbeat.org/projects/on-the-hook/

    https://www.civilbeat.org/projects/reeling-it-in/

                                     ______

        Mr. Case. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Ms. Coit, have you read the audit report?
        Ms. Coit. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Case. First of all, the audit report essentially said
    in so many words that, of the money administered by the Western
    Pacific Fishery Management Council in the Sustainable Fisheries
    Fund for WESPAC, the part of the oceans that I come from, had
    been inadequate or worse. And, fundamentally, the funds that
    had been spent, which are Federal funds and overseen by the
    Federal Government, of the total amount of funds dating back to
    2008, they could not evaluate the funds for years 2008 to 2015,
    as I recall, because the records for those funds were no longer
    required and had, in fact, been disposed. But, of the funds
    expended since 2015 to date, roughly 40 percent-plus were
    questionable in some way, shape, or form. So, my big picture
    question is--and it relates directly to this legislation
    because we are certainly trying to clean up and provide greater
    oversight--what is the Department doing about that audit report
    right now?
        Ms. Coit. NOAA is committed to continuous improvement. And
    the audit report, as you mentioned, uncovered deficiencies
    which are deeply concerning to me. Yesterday, I met with Jeff
    Thomas, who is the head of NOAA's Acquisition and Grants Office
    (AGO), who is responsible for implementing the recommendations
    and overseeing the grants at NOAA. We talked about our concerns
    in regards to the questionable $1.2 million that was identified
    and various mechanisms, from training, to additional oversight,
    to some other ideas that he had for pre-approvals that would be
    implemented as part of following through.
        So, I can assure you that I share your concerns that NOAA
    will follow through on the recommendations, and that you expect
    an audit to uncover some deficiencies, but the extent and the
    percentage of grants that were deemed questionable for poor
    recordkeeping or other issues identified would certainly
    outline a concern.
        Mr. Case. With respect, and I appreciate you saying that
    because some have downplayed these audit results and said they
    were episodal, there was no big deal, just one or two this or
    thats about them. And when you get 40 percent-plus over a
    period of time, to me that is emblematic of one of two things,
    maybe both: (1) a failure to actually administer the funds in
    compliance with Federal law; and (2) a failure of oversight.
    So, this is not just about WESPAC; this is also about NOAA's
    oversight.
        And I would ask you this question: Do you feel that you
    have the statutory authority to sufficiently oversee WESPAC and
    its expenditure of these funds, because this is our opportunity
    to tighten up your oversight if you feel that there is somehow
    something lacking in your oversight authorizations?
        Ms. Coit. As I had mentioned, it is the NOAA Grants
    Division that is overseeing the grants that are given to the
    councils and has responsibility for following through on these
    recommendations. I would want to talk to them about whether
    that authority is sufficient.
        I will tell you this: I want to do more trainings with all
    the councils because that audit report which you called for
    raised concerns. We know that people are obligated to follow
    the rules, but whether they are following the rules requires
    more oversight. But I would like to get back to you on that in
    terms of the authority.
        Mr. Case. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair.
        Mr. Huffman. I thank the gentleman.
        The Chair recognizes Ranking Member Westerman for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman.
        Mr. Gorelnik, you are representing the regional councils
    today. And the regional councils are the ones who would be
    responsible for implementing the bills before us if they are
    enacted, so it is very important to hear your perspective.
        It seems to me that one of the reasons the Magnuson-Stevens
    Act has been so effective is that the regions have flexibility
    in meeting outcomes. And, as we all know, regions have
    differences. So, it is important for solutions to be resolved
    in the regions and not by Washington, DC.
        Your testimony indicates that there are some concerns that
    the councils may have with Mr. Huffman's bill, and, namely,
    that it decreases the regional flexibility. Can you elaborate
    on that a little bit?
        Mr. Gorelnik. Representative Westerman, thank you very
    much. I will try. I think it is important from the perspective
    of the councils that the guidance be provided in terms of
    outcomes as opposed to detailed descriptions of methods because
    fisheries are different, communities are different. That is why
    we have eight regional fishery management organizations and not
    one. And that is why the Act provides for regional management
    of the stocks and the impacts of the stocks.
        I think that, for example, and there are more details in my
    written testimony, the deletion of the word ``practicable'' is
    of particular concern because it would really eliminate the
    balancing that the National Standard Guidelines permit the
    councils to utilize.
        There are other aspects of the legislation that are
    concerning having to do with timelines to enact fishery
    management plan changes and others. Whether it be a 90-day
    deadline or a 6-month deadline or whatever the deadlines are in
    the legislation, they are not practical for our organizations
    that meet a handful of times a year and sometimes with several
    months, typically, between meetings. And these changes often
    require a two- or three-meeting process, not to mention the
    work that goes into these changes ahead of time.
        So, I think there are some valuable things in
    Representative Huffman's legislation, but I think that certain
    aspects of the process that are used now by the councils are
    working very well, and they don't need to be disturbed.
        Mr. Westerman. Yes, I think one of the things you alluded
    to was the 180-day requirement on fishery management plans or
    amendments. And I believe you said it takes as much as 2 years
    to do one of those now. But are you saying the process works
    now and has been successful and there is no reason to change
    that, or would there be room for maybe shortening it a little
    bit?
        Mr. Gorelnik. Well, I only have practical experience with
    my own council, and I think that we work in the Pacific Council
    with all due deliberation, take into account the need to
    provide adequate time for public input and discussion. And I
    think we do things as rapidly as we can, given the science that
    is available and given the need for community input. If there
    are going to be time constraints, they certainly need to be not
    as tight as these; they just need to be realistic.
        Mr. Westerman. I appreciate your testimony. We have talked
    about Alaska. We have talked about the Gulf. But I want to
    yield the remaining time to Mr. Wittman, who also has important
    fisheries in his district.
        Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Ranking Member, I appreciate your
    leadership.
        Ms. Coit, let me go to you. I want you to expand a little
    bit on the change in wording in Mr. Huffman's bill that gets to
    the elimination of ``to the current extent practicable.'' And
    that is a term used in the legislation that specifically
    accounts for differences between regions, between catch methods
    to make sure that when we are assessing things like bycatch,
    that it is something that is achievable. We all know there are
    different types a year. I worked as a commercial fisherman for
    years. My son has been a commercial fisherman for 17 years. I
    can tell you how incredibly different things are--gear changes,
    all those things.
        When you remove that term, ``to the extent practicable,''
    then you allow no flexibility, you allow no consideration for
    gear changes for what happens in the real world. Give me your
    perspective on what you think that means for the law and for
    fishermen, both recreational and commercial, with the removal
    of that language in Mr. Huffman's bill.
        Ms. Coit. As Mr. Gorelnik said, the regional differences
    are dramatic in some instances, and the changes related to
    climate change are dramatic in many instances. I think the
    opportunity for councils to balance interest and to use their
    judgment has been one of the reasons that this statute has been
    successful. So, I think there is both the desire to reduce
    bycatch, which is something I share--and I think there isn't a
    fisherman I know that doesn't want to reduce discards--and then
    an intention to increase pressure to reduce bycatch. We made
    tremendous strides over the last 2 years, but there is a lot of
    history around ``to the extent practicable,'' and I think many
    of the industry folks who have concerns about removing that
    have them for good reasons as we balance different interests. I
    guess I will stop there.
        Mr. Huffman. Yes, time has expired.
        The Chair now recognizes Mr. Soto for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Soto. Thank you so much, Chairman.
        I have the honor of representing Florida's 9th
    Congressional District, and fishing is really a way of life.
    Iconic fish like red snapper, grouper, mahi-mahi are really not
    only key, also billfish, sailfish; they are what is for dinner
    and for lunch, as well as a key part of recreation in our
    state. And we see two visions here, and I applaud the Chair for
    putting them both up. And there is definitely room for
    compromise among them.
        My key priority and the key priority for Florida is
    sustainability; a balance between fish stocks that are healthy,
    recreation and commercial fishing. So, it would be great to
    first hear from Administrator Coit on sort of your vision, the
    pluses and minuses of both H.R. 59 and H.R. 4690 in light of
    the goals that I had just mentioned.
        Ms. Coit. That is broad question. I will try to do it
    justice.
        Mr. Soto. You have plenty of time.
        Ms. Coit. First, there are several provisions that are in
    both of the bills, and I think those things like changing the
    tenure, rebuilding time frame, including a definition of
    ``subsistence fishing'' are really positive and in both bills.
        One of the things you mentioned that is in the Huffman-Case
    bill that I think is really important is just changing
    ``overfish'' to ``depleted,'' because when you look at
    sustainability, it is not just overfishing, it is not just what
    you take that is relevant to biomass and stock status, there
    are a whole lot of other conditions. And then states like
    Florida, I know you have had many concerns about harmful algal
    blooms. Obviously, there are warming waters that have affected
    us quite a bit up in Rhode Island. So, I think looking at the
    totality of the ecosystem, which is the direction that the
    Huffman bill is going in, and looking at the multiple variables
    that could affect the health of fish and asking us to look at
    vulnerabilities related to climate change, and to take those
    into account when we are setting quotas. Because under
    Magnuson, you have really one lever, but there are a lot of
    other things that are going on in the ocean.
        The Huffman-Case bill is a much longer bill that addresses
    many other issues from seafood marketing to coastal
    communities. They are hard to compare. And there are things in
    both bills that we like and things in both bills that we have
    some concerns in regard to the implementation.
        Mr. Soto. What are the concerns with regard to
    implementation?
        Ms. Coit. For one thing, and I mentioned this in my opening
    statement, for instance, there are more than 20 additional
    reports. We have had some great dialogue already with the staff
    and would like to keep that up. We would like to look at
    mechanisms for informing you of what you need to know or what
    you want to know without having so many more new requirements.
        Mr. Soto. Well, Administrator Coit, I know this Committee
    has an aversion to more bureaucracy, so you may have some
    allies there in that. You mentioned the algal blooms and red
    tide is another aspect in all of that. How important is it for
    us to make sure we don't have withdrawals of nutrients or, in
    this case, an old phosphate stack that, basically, the dam
    broke and nutrients exploded into the Gulf? How critical are
    those inland threats to our fish stocks also?
        Ms. Coit. I am not expert on or familiar enough to talk
    about that specific example, but certainly the additional
    nutrients combined with warmer waters have created more harmful
    algal blooms in many areas, low dissolved oxygen, and more fish
    kills. So, it is of concern in terms of the health of our
    marine species.
        Mr. Soto. Sure, and I agree. And lastly, while red tide is
    naturally occurring, when nutrients hit it, it explodes. And
    then I am really concerned about making sure there is enough
    bandwidth here for recreational fishing. And sometimes it seems
    like we see a huge amount of commercial fishing, but
    recreational fishing, which is key for our quality of life in
    Florida and for tourism, gets left out. How important is it for
    these bills to protect recreational fishing?
        Ms. Coit. Recreational fishing is, of course, a huge part
    of the economy in Florida and in the Gulf and really in all
    coastal states. So, I think it is critically important to also
    protect the sustainability and the opportunity for recreational
    fishing in America. And I happened to be able to go to ICAST in
    Orlando this summer, which was a wonderful event and was
    actually with Marc Gorelnik there. But the amount of economic
    activity around recreational fishing is just so important and
    growing. So, yes, this statute is intended to ensure
    sustainability and promote recreational fishing as well.
        Mr. Soto. Thanks, Administrator Coit. I appreciate you
    supporting central Florida tourism.
        Mr. Huffman. The Chair recognizes Mr. Young for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Coit, do you believe the MSA has been the envy of the
    world as far as managing fish, or any area you know of does a
    better job than we do?
        Ms. Coit. First, let me also acknowledge your seminal role
    in the original Act, and I am sure you are proud of it. Yes, I
    think it is--I don't know if it is the envy of world, but I
    think it is known far and wide as being responsible for the
    sustainable management and the rebuilding of fish stocks in the
    United States.
        Mr. Young. The second thing that concerns me is, actually I
    have done the original Act, and what I am worried about in the
    one that Mr. Huffman is proposing under H.R. 4690 is the
    additional lawsuits. NOAA had a hundred lawsuits recently by
    mischievous lawyers.
        Mr. Huffman. Oh, there is the word.
        Mr. Young. And I want to write it--whatever we do, we have
    to write it somehow that we get the job done for sustainable
    yield of the species for the benefit of the communities also
    along that line for the sustainable. But lawsuits don't do
    anything but spend money. Is there any way we can write these
    things so that they don't additionally add lawyers to lawsuits?
    Are you a lawyer?
        Ms. Coit. I am a lawyer.
        Mr. Young. Oh, boy. I lost that battle real quick. But you
    follow what I am saying, what happens is the----
        Mr. Huffman. I object.
        Mr. Young [continuing]. Can sue, and then it hurts the
    original intent of the Act.
        Ms. Coit. Those of you on the dais know more about how the
    statutes you enact result in lawsuits that challenge them to
    further define their provisions than I do, I am sure. I won't
    disagree with you that a lot of money is spent on litigation
    that I wish we could be putting toward conservation and
    research and sustainability, but I don't think there is a way
    to prevent that under our system.
        Mr. Young. Well, all I can add, Mr. Chairman, is there is a
    wait. Because a lot of times these lawsuits are filed, the
    settlement is made by an agency. The money goes to those
    people, not to benefit the resource which we are trying to
    protect. We ought to be able to fix that.
        The one thing, Mr. Chairman and Ms. Coit, I will tell you,
    I have heard you mention the term ``climate change.'' I advise
    everybody, yes, climate is changing. But there is no magic
    switch that turns the light on and off. And you have the human
    factor involved in these fisheries and the communities. And
    people that are sitting here that have never caught a fish in
    their life, now they have been eating this nice little chum
    salmon out of the Kuskokwim River given by Ms. Peltola. I hope
    you enjoyed it. But we have to take that into consideration. We
    have to understand that this sounds good, looks good, but it
    also has the human factor and the effect upon them. And I hope
    we can do this bill. I know you are high on climate change. OK.
    I will admit it. It is the first time I have ever admitted it
    to anybody but you. But I am not confident that we are not
    taking into consideration other factors. And if we do anything
    in this bill about climate change, that has to be considered.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Huffman. I thank the Ranking Member.
        And I will now recognize myself. Do we have votes pending
    at this point?
        Staff. You can keep going until 3, I think.
        Mr. Huffman. So, we are going to go a little further, and
    then we are going to recess. And I apologize to everyone, this
    could be a fairly long vote series, but we will back and finish
    up. And I apologize in advance for the inconvenience.
        But, Ms. Coit, let me thank you. Let me also thank Mr.
    Gorelnik. The comments and feedback that we have gotten from
    NMFS and the Council Coordination Committee are valuable. This
    legislation remains a work in progress. We are going to keep
    trying to improve it, and even the discussion that we are
    hearing about this language, ``to the extent practicable.'' I
    understand the concerns that some have expressed on removing
    that qualifier from the bycatch provision.
        But I also note that all the words matter, and the law
    doesn't say there can be no bycatch; it says ``minimize
    bycatch.'' So, there is already a fairly broad term that makes
    it clear that we are not going to end bycatch. It is not going
    to be a moratorium on entire fisheries if you find bycatch.
        So, the real question is, what do you do about how that
    additional qualifier, ``to the extent practicable,'' that is
    fairly open-ended, has allowed bycatch to continue in some
    cases in some pretty disturbing ways? And I was discussing
    offline with Ranking Member Young how in some places, the North
    Pacific, bycatch is not getting better, it is getting worse, to
    the point where subsistence fishers and smaller fishers are
    being pushed out of their own fisheries because of bycatch from
    an industry that is not even targeting salmon, halibut, crab,
    in some cases.
        So, let me ask you, Ms. Coit, if you agree with what I just
    said that whatever concerns there may be about taking away ``to
    the extent practicable,'' there probably ought to be a lot of
    concern about the trend that we have in some fisheries of
    bycatch not getting better?
        Ms. Coit. I think the short answer is I agree with what you
    said.
        Mr. Huffman. OK. I appreciate that.
        Let's talk about climate. Obviously, one of the biggest
    significant proposals in the legislation Mr. Case and I are
    proposing is climate change in fisheries management. And one of
    the concerns that the councils have expressed is that it is not
    that we don't need to do this, understandably, they are
    concerned about workload. So, I want to ask if there are ways
    in which NMFS could step up and relieve some of the management
    burden from helping councils incorporate climate into the
    management of marine fisheries?
        Ms. Coit. I am not sure if we can relieve the management
    burden so much as I think our duty is to provide better
    information. The President's budget asked for $70 million for
    additional funding. The stock surveys and the assessments, they
    are the backbone of fisheries management. And I have confidence
    that councils, they are already, the Pacific Council, as you
    know, has already finished some scenario planning. The North
    Pacific is then taking on some really difficult issues and
    using a precautionary principle. On the Atlantic, there is
    scenario planning to look at governance in management options.
        So, I feel that what we need to do at NMFS is provide more
    and better data and science so we can understand better the
    changes in the ecosystem and that the councils have information
    in order to take an ecosystem-based approach and have not only
    some information about what is happening now but some
    predictive information so that their management and the
    investments that the industry makes can be sure to be
    sustainable.
        Mr. Huffman. I appreciate that. I believe later we are
    going to hear some testimony suggesting that we shouldn't use
    stock assessments anymore because they use catch data. And I
    know that is a fairly provocative proposal that causes some
    concerns. Let me ask you, how would we manage fisheries without
    including how much we are catching in our assessment of the
    health of those fisheries?
        Ms. Coit. From my perspective and the perspective of NOAA,
    we have to include the catch data. That is part of the full
    picture. And, in some data poor places, it may be the primary
    data point that we have. So, it is part of the totality.
        Mr. Huffman. We were talking just a moment ago about
    bycatch. So, just to follow up on that a little bit more, this
    is not just an issue of conserving marine life; there are heavy
    impacts on subsistence fishers who rely on species that are
    often not targeted by commercial fisherman but end up being
    killed in huge numbers in some cases anyway.
        So, could you explain a little bit how that is occurring
    and tell us how reducing bycatch is actually an environmental
    justice issue?
        Ms. Coit. You mentioned, when you were talking about
    bycatch earlier, things like salmon and halibut in Alaska. And,
    again, I think these are exacerbated by climate change, and
    that doesn't mean we are leaving the human dimension out; it is
    just the way it is. So, when you see the overall abundance of a
    fish like halibut go down, despite the fact that we have
    reduced bycatch quite a bit in the commercial fishing industry,
    you have put a further strain on the overall stock, and that,
    therefore, reduces what is available for the Indigenous people
    who are depending on halibut or depending on salmon. I think
    the use conflicts are exacerbated when those stocks are
    stressed due to climate change, or their abundance is going
    down, and that creates a real equity issue.
        Mr. Huffman. I appreciate that. My time has expired, but I
    will ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a
    memorandum from Accountable U.S. that shows that pollock
    trollers, including Trident's, are far exceeding their bycatch
    limits of salmon and halibut, leaving small fishers and Alaskan
    Native fishing communities struggling to catch fish.
        Without objection, that is entered into the record.

        [The information follows:]

    Submission for the Record by Rep. Huffman

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Huffman. And it is now, unfortunately, time where we
    have to go to the Floor to vote. We will recess subject to call
    of the Chair, and we will get back as soon as we can.
        So, this panel is thanked and relieved, and we will get
    back to the next--oh, we have more Member questions. I am so
    sorry. All right. We were going to continue with this panel,
    and we will do that as quickly as we can.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Huffman. Thanks so much for your patience. The
    Committee is now back in session, and we will resume
    questioning of the second panel.
        I recognize Congresswoman Gonzalez-Colon for 5 minutes.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
    to the witnesses that are here and the ones that are online.
        I want to say that, in Puerto Rico, most of our fisheries
    are small scale in nature, and involve fishing households,
    relatively small vessels, and commercial fishing for local
    consumption. There is little or nothing to export.
        However, they are still an important part and component of
    our economy. In 2019, commercial fisheries landing in Puerto
    Rico got a total of 1.6 million pounds and contributed with
    $8.2 million to our economy.
        Yet, when discussing the Magnuson-Stevens Act and policies
    to support our domestic fishing industries, I fear we sometimes
    tend to focus on larger commercial fishing operations and
    forget about the needs of our small-scale fishermen, such as
    those in Puerto Rico. Therefore, I take this opportunity to
    respectfully urge NOAA to explore initiatives that will help
    address this uniqueness of small-scale fisheries. And I am
    talking about Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, and including
    the capabilities building efforts that will improve data
    collection. Data collection is one of the worst areas and
    opportunities to enhance economic well-being.
        I will also be asking, for the record, that our witnesses
    share any observations or recommendations they may have on how
    the Magnuson-Stevens Act could be improved to reflect and
    respond to the small-scale fisheries, such as those in the U.S.
    Caribbean.
        I got an opportunity to interact with the Director when we
    were in recess, and one of the issues that we were discussing
    was the recovery process in the hurricanes. And this law, the
    Magnuson-Stevens Act, has worked quite well in the U.S.
    Caribbean, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
        The law provided for a regional council, Caribbean Fishery
    Management Council, and the necessary authorities and
    flexibility to sustainably manage our fisheries while balancing
    both environmental and local economies.
        However, our fisheries in the U.S. Caribbean are still
    considered data poor, which creates challenge for stock
    assessments to data mine overfishing limits, annual catch
    limits, and established local fisheries as well. The situation
    is further complicated when considering that our commercial
    fisheries in Puerto Rico are, for the most part, small scale or
    traditional in nature, and they may lack the necessary tools or
    the capacity to support all these new data requirements. So, I
    do have concerns about the requirements of new data when we
    already are considered, in the Caribbean, data poor.
        And in my conversations with stakeholders, there is clear
    need for dedicated funding to improve data collection in
    fisheries in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, as well
    as for additional scientific research and studies to better
    inform the management decisions in the U.S. Caribbean.
        So, my first question to you, ma'am, will be: As Congress
    considers legislation to reauthorize this bill, what additional
    resources or flexibilities should be included there to improve
    regional data collection systems and addressing long-standing
    fishery data gaps, such as the ones we have in the U.S.
    Caribbean?
        Ms. Coit. Thank you for your comments and that question,
    and for the opportunity to chat about the unique
    characteristics of Puerto Rico in your area.
        So, yes, you mentioned that the fisheries there are data
    poor in that we really don't have that Census data of counting
    the fish that come in the way we do in many other parts of the
    nation.
        The President's budget did call for additional funding. Of
    course, the Fiscal Year 2022 budget is not enacted yet, but did
    call for additional funding for the Caribbean. And I think part
    of the additional needs we talked about in regard to more
    climate science and more data apply even more so to your area,
    where we are not seeing the big white ships doing the stock
    assessments, and we are really struggling to get quality
    information.
        So, there are a couple--I do think it would be interesting
    to talk about whether, for data-poor fisheries, the standards
    could be more flexible, because it is very difficult to put the
    management plans together to the same standards when you don't
    have that quality data.
        So, first, I would like to work with you to get more data
    in your waters, but I also do understand the particular
    challenges associated with meeting rigorous standards when you
    are lacking that data.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you. I know my time has expired.
    I would just like to introduce to the record letters from
    Antigua and Puerto Rico and Caribbean Fishery Management
    Council for U.S. Caribbean, both for the record. And I do have
    still more questions that I will submit for the record as well,
    and an open invitation for you to visit the island.
        Thank you, and I yield back.
        Ms. Coit. Thank you.
        Mr. Huffman. Without objection, that will be entered into
    the record.

        [The information follows:]

    Submissions for the Record by Rep. Gonzalez-Colon

                          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

                NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

                      CARIBBEAN FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

                             SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO

                                                           May 14, 2021

    Dr. Paul N. Doremus
    Assistant Administrator for Fisheries
    Office no Assistant Administrator
    NOAA Fisheries Service
    1315 East West Highway
    Silver Spring, MD 20910

        Dear Dr. Doremus,

        Herewith, we are pleased to submit the comments from the Caribbean
    Fishery Management Council (CFMC) on E.O. 14008, Section 216(c).
        There is a need for cooperative research to improve the science for
    the monitoring and development of fishery management plans in the US
    Caribbean. It is imperative to close the data gaps in life history
    parameters of species under the management units. The lack of these
    data creates a challenge for stock assessment to determine status of
    the local fisheries. In addition, we need better data on habitats that
    are essential for these species. The betterment of the data collection
    and analysis will be beneficial for not only assessing climate change
    (including hurricane effects) and resilience, but also for carrying out
    our fisheries management mandate under the MSA.
        Is important to study the oceanographic connectivity of shared
    fishery resources throughout the US Caribbean to the Southeast of the
    United States. For example, the spiny lobster fishery is a shared and
    economically important resource throughout the Wider Caribbean
    including the USA, where climate change may be affecting recruitment
    and the overall population of Caribbean spiny lobster (Panulirus argus)
    throughout its range.
        Connectivity at depth, where the economically important deep-water
    snapper fishery (e.g., queen snapper, Etelis oculatus) takes place, is
    an unknown. Collaborative research with commercial fishers is yielding
    temperature-salinity measurements that may well be indicative of the
    depth at which climate change is impacting fisheries. These fisheries
    occur at more than 300 meters, under the influences of different water
    masses. Such studies should be continued by allocating funds to these
    investigations.
        There is a need to continue and expand the monitoring and further
    studies of climate change impacts on coral reefs and coral refugia,
    including mesophotic and deep-water corals that constitute the
    essential fish habitats for the tropical species in the US Caribbean.
        We recommend the development of programs to offer alternatives to
    the fishers to fish underutilized species and to promote the market of
    these species among the local consumers. This will alleviate the
    pressure on species suffering overfishing which also are being impacted
    by climate change, e.g., changes in temperature and salinity.
        It is important to also begin to study and monitor species that
    might not be affected by climate change to identify those that might be
    resilient to climate change that could serve as the basis for the
    fisheries of the future.

                Sincerely,

                                                  Marcos Hanke,
                                                             CFMC Chair

                                     ______

                           UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO

                           Sea Grant College Program

                             Mayaguez, Puerto Rico

                                                      November 11, 2021

    The Honorable Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon
    2338 Rayburn HOB
    Washington, DC 20515

        Dear Representative Gonzalez-Colon,

        Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the H.R. 4690,
    the Sustaning America's Fisheries for the Future Act which provides
    potential updates to the Magnus-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and
    Management Act (MSA). As mandated by our overarching he comments
    herewith focus on the impacts of the proposed legislation specific to
    the U.S. Caribbean.
        In general, the current MSA, through the actions of the Caribbean
    Management Council, have worked for fisheries in the U.S. Caribbean by
    balancing the need to benefit both the nation's fisheries and local
    island communities. Transparency and the public involvement are
    foundational elements of MSA for carrying forward fisheries management
    decision making. Retaining these elements along with increasing the
    current adaptability mechanisms is crucial for the effectively managing
    the fisheries of our diverse region. The U.S. Caribbean archipelago is
    unique, made up of several distinct rural coastal communities and
    traditions that are dependent on the ocean for food security,
    recreation, and cultural identity. Our fisheries are considered
    strictly artisanal since they provide only for a small percent of local
    fish and shellfish consumption while our communities are underserved
    and experiencing disproportionate levels of poverty and lack of food
    resources in comparison to the rest of the continental U.S. National
    level definitions and provisions that afford regional flexibility
    safeguard these regional differences and avoid unnecessary
    implementation challenges. Essential fish habitat, forage fish, bycatch
    reporting, and subsistence fishing are examples of key provisions that
    would benefit from flexible implementation approach nationwide.
        The proposal includes additional reporting and planning
    requirements intended to monitor fisheries performance and the effects
    of management measures in relation to climate change. These
    requirements could pose a significant challenge for the less developed,
    culturally based fisheries in the U.S. Caribbean. By nature of our
    artisanal subsistence fisheries, there is a limited capacity to satisfy
    these requirements, and also potential impacts regarding how the
    reporting and planning would be used as part of the management decision
    making process. U.S. Caribbean data collection systems have not evolved
    to support the sophisticated stock assessments to support and implement
    ACL management. The consequences of a management decision based upon
    faulty science, or an incomplete picture, can be significant for
    subsistence-based communities, which cannot simply reconfigure for
    other fisheries. In addition, merging environmental climate data with
    highly variable, data-limited fishery dependent data could amplify the
    already existing large uncertainties and impact the management
    obligations.
        A continued investment in the research and monitoring
    infrastructure coupled with management and enforcement capacity within
    our region is essential for the existing management agencies to fully
    realize the responsibilities under MSA. Thank you for taking our
    comments into consideration as part of your participation in the
    upcoming public hearing.

                Sincerely,

                                                  Rene Esteves,
                                               Marine Outreach Director
                                                   Research Coordinator
                                                  Puerto Rico Sea Grant

                                     ______

        Mr. Huffman. And, for Members who have expressed concern
    about better data and science, I will just note that we may
    have a chance in the days ahead to vote on that. There is $500
    million in the Build Back Better Act for stock assessments and
    science. So, I am going to tempt Don Young to continue his
    bipartisan ways.
        The Chair now recognizes Garret Graves of Louisiana. And,
    if you are watching at home, unless you are operating heavy
    equipment, there is a drinking game where, every time he says
    the words ``red snapper,'' you have to take a drink.
        Mr. Young. Not of water, either.
        Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you for being here, Administrator. I appreciate you
    being here.
        First question on the forage bill, Congresswoman Dingell's
    bill. As I understand, the bill goes to great lengths to make
    it clear that shrimp are not subject to the restrictions in the
    legislation, and I just wanted to make sure that was your
    understanding as well, that shrimp were not actually subject to
    the bill.
        Ms. Coit. Thank you for your question.
        The bill leaves it up to NOAA or the Secretary under the
    language in the bill to create a definition of forage fish, and
    then it lists a number of criteria. And, to be straight with
    you, those criteria would lead to including shrimp in a
    definition or a category of forage fish. But the bill hasn't
    been enacted. The definition hasn't been completed, and I can't
    say definitively. But those criteria that are listed would lend
    toward including shrimp.
        Mr. Graves. Sure. So, Administrator, One, it was my
    understanding that there were great lengths that they went to
    to exclude shrimp, so I would appreciate if you all could
    provide technical assistance to help us tweak the bill to
    ensure that that is the case.
        I want to be really clear on this, that the objective of
    this legislation is something that I absolutely support, but
    the health of the shrimp stock is not anything that anyone I
    have ever known has been worried about, and we are concerned
    that coming in and applying some management structure there to
    something that has absolutely healthy, abundant stocks could be
    a problem, in especially my home state, where we actually
    produce more shrimp than anywhere else in the United States,
    including significantly more than Alaska. They hadn't figured
    out how to catch them there yet.
        That is right. That is right. You heard that.
        So, let's see--second one, I am curious, I know your
    background is in the state of Rhode Island. We have had issues
    where some of the science that has been developed by the states
    has actually been more robust, more thorough than that of the
    Federal Government. Can you just talk about your perspective on
    how to ensure that we are getting the best science incorporated
    into our natural resource management regimes?
        Ms. Coit. Thank you. I appreciate that.
        So, definitely, after the 10 years I spent leading the
    Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, I am very
    aware of and proud of the scientific caliber of the people who
    work at the state level. For our fishery management plans,
    state information and academic information and research are
    welcomed.
        And there are sometimes issues where just kind of
    coordinating state research, or state management, with federal
    research and federal management takes some effort. But I think
    we have a wonderful partnership with the states and welcome
    state information, which is sometimes more fine-grained.
        Mr. Graves. But, Administrator, I mean, is it fair to say
    you want to use the best science no matter where it came from?
        Ms. Coit. I know where you are going. Yes, I do.
        Mr. Graves. It doesn't count if she says it. OK. Thank you.
    I appreciate it.
        So, I want to let you know we have made huge investments,
    including the fishers in Louisiana deciding to increase their
    own fees to make sure that we have better science, because we
    want to sustainably manage the fisheries and had strong
    concerns over the lack of accuracy of what the Feds had
    produced. You may be familiar with the great red snapper count
    that came out that was federally funded, that came out and
    really, I think, demonstrated how poor the quality was of the
    Federal science on this.
        And this was a much more robust species-specific analysis
    that determined, again, triple the count of the red snapper
    species in the Gulf of Mexico as compared to what the Feds were
    managing under which--look, as you know, you have to manage
    this as a system. So, you have that many more predatory fish,
    then it impacts your entire management regime.
        We need the best science, no matter where it comes from.
    And I hope you can give us a commitment that you are going to
    work to ensure that the best science is used, not convenient
    science.
        Just an amen or something would be great. Thumbs up.
        Ms. Coit. I think, yes, we want to use the best science.
        Mr. Graves. All right.
        Ms. Coit. The great red snapper count----
        Mr. Graves. I will take that. Don't mess it up beyond
    there.
        Last question I have for you. I appreciate, in your
    testimony, you make mention of fishery disasters. And I am from
    South Louisiana. We have had more than our share. But I will
    also tell you it is infuriating to be in a situation where it
    takes 1 year to collect the data to determine if there is a
    fishery failure--1 year.
        These are communities, as you know, on the tip of the spear
    in regard to these hurricanes. They don't have that kind of
    time. And you make some constructive comments about the flaws--
    excuse me--didn't mean to refer to your bill as flawed--
    constructive improvements to the bill that--and I just want to
    know if you could expand on that briefly, about fisheries
    disasters, getting a ton of assistance there.
        Ms. Coit. Yes, thank you. I agree with the Chair and with
    you that the time that it takes to get the funding out is
    inconsistent with what we think of when we are trying to help
    people after a disaster. So, I really want to work on that, and
    I am working on it internally and with you. I am concerned that
    additional requirements or expansions or talking about only
    looking at the good years, not the kind of fluctuation of the
    biomass or the fisheries could further complicate things.
        So, I think there are some issues that I would like to
    discuss further, but the goals of increasing the pace at which
    we get that funding out, we share.
        Mr. Graves. I appreciate you raising your objections to the
    Chairman's bill, and yield back.
        Mr. Huffman. I didn't hear any objection to the disaster
    relief improvements in our bill.
        But the Chair will now recognize Ms. Radewagen for 5
    minutes.
        Mrs. Radewagen. Talofa lava. Good afternoon.
        I want to thank you, Chairman Huffman and Ranking Member
    Don Young, for holding this hearing today.
        I also want to thank House Dean Don Young for all of his
    hard work on fisheries management.
        Administrator Coit, thank you for testifying today. I
    really appreciated your testimony.
        Is NOAA in favor of changing National Standard 9 on bycatch
    to remove the phrase ``to the extent practicable'' under H.R.
    4690, or does the agency believe the councils are doing an
    adequate job of minimizing bycatch and bycatch mortality?
        Ms. Coit. Thank you for that question.
        As mentioned, we want to do more to reduce bycatch, and we
    have made great strides, but I think that everyone is aligned
    in wanting to further reduce any discards. They all count, so
    to speak, so they all count against the quota.
        And all fisheries have some degree of bycatch. So, I think
    the opportunity to be thoughtful and balance interests and make
    sure that we continue to work toward reducing bycatch is the
    goal.
        As mentioned, I have some concerns about removing the
    practicability language.
        Mrs. Radewagen. Thank you.
        For my second question, Administrator Coit, there are
    nearly a dozen pages of H.R. 4690 devoted to harassment and
    assault prevention, far more than is devoted to stock
    assessments, cooperative research, data collection, or
    electronic monitoring.
        Can you please tell us how common these incidents are
    inside your agency and the councils in order to warrant such a
    disproportionate focus of national fisheries legislation?
        Ms. Coit. I will have to get back to you on that issue of
    the frequency. I can say that we have a zero-tolerance policy
    and that, particularly when there are observers or at-sea
    monitors, we want to make sure that they are safe. And we do a
    lot of training and a lot of follow-up, but it has been a
    problem, and I think making sure that the staff who are
    federally funded and the people that are out at sea are
    protected is really important.
        Mrs. Radewagen. Thank you for your response.
        I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mrs. Radewagen.
        Before we excuse the second panel, let me just make sure
    that Mr. Fulcher, who was with us a moment ago, is not still
    online. And, if he has questions, we will allow him to ask them
    now.
        It looks like Mr. Fulcher is not with us. So, Mr. Gorelnik,
    Ms. Coit, thanks so much for your patience, and we thank you
    for your testimony. And that concludes this panel.
        We will now transition to the third and final panel of
    expert witnesses.
        Again, let me remind witnesses that, under our Committee
    Rules, they should limit their oral statements to 5 minutes.
    Obviously the entire written statement will appear in our
    hearing record.
        When you begin, the lights on the witness table will turn
    green, or the timer, if you are joining us remotely. At 4
    minutes, the light turns yellow. Your time expires when the
    light becomes red, and we will ask you to wrap up at that
    point.
        I will allow the entire panel to finish their testimony
    before bringing it back to the Members for questions.
        Our next panel will begin with Ms. Mary Peltola, Executive
    Director of the Kuskokwim----
        Mr. Young. Kuskokwim.
        Mr. Huffman. Sorry. Don Young is correcting me. Kuskokwim--
    --
        Mr. Young. There you go.
        Mr. Huffman [continuing]. River Inter-Tribal Fish
    Commission.
        The Chair now recognizes Ms. Peltola to testify for 5
    minutes.

    STATEMENT OF MARY PELTOLA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, KUSKOKWIM RIVER
              INTER-TRIBAL FISH COMMISSION, BETHEL, ALASKA

        Ms. Peltola. Mr. Chair, Committee members, thank you. My
    name is Mary Peltola. I am the Executive Director of the
    Kuskokwim River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission.
        Mr. Huffman. And thank you for the delicious salmon that
    you gave us. We were all enjoying it up here, by the way.
        Ms. Peltola. My Yupik name is Akalleq. I have been fishing
    on the Kuskokwim River in our traditional way with my family
    since I was 6 years old.
        Our way of life as Alaska Native people is inextricably
    linked with our marine ecosystem, which forms the foundation
    for our culture, our spirituality, our food security, and our
    future. We have stewarded this place for millennia.
        In more recent years, the Bering Sea has also become host
    to huge commercial fisheries for pollock, crab, halibut, cod,
    and numerous other species. These commercial fisheries are
    among the largest in the world, harvesting vast amounts of
    seafood from the Bering Sea year after year.
        Even in this rich and productive ecosystem, our current
    system of fishery management under the Magnuson-Stevens Act is
    failing. Ecologically, the Bering Sea is undergoing declines at
    an alarming level. In 2021, decades-long trends of declining
    Chinook salmon stocks continued and fisheries throughout
    western Alaska were closed.
        Alarmingly, this year and last year, chum salmon stocks,
    which usually provide a critical source of food, even when
    Chinook stocks are low, crashed as well throughout western
    Alaska. These alarming changes reveal the weakness of our
    current management system to adapt to the challenges of climate
    change, when the only actions are to react and reduce the
    directed fisheries for these species without addressing the
    underlying bycatch, habitat, forage, and associated issues.
        Alaska Native people are the original stewards of this
    place and have no seat at the table in a system that is set up
    to prioritize economic benefits over Indigenous ways of life
    and gives primary management responsibility to those with only
    a financial interest in the fisheries.
        Regarding climate change, it is clear that our current
    fishery management system, which operates in a single-species
    context based on historical data and reliant on limited sources
    of knowledge, is not up for the challenge of climate change.
        H.R. 4690 will incorporate climate considerations
    throughout the management process, and will provide important
    direction to the councils to consider and assess the climate
    change impacts on fisheries. Most importantly, these
    considerations must translate into action to ensure resilient
    and sustainable fisheries and fishing communities into the
    future.
        Regarding tribes and Traditional Knowledge: Traditional
    Knowledge has an important place in our fishery management
    system, yet currently there is no recognition or inclusion of
    Traditional Knowledge in Federal marine fishery systems. The
    topic of Traditional Knowledge is too detailed to provide
    comment on in a 5-minute window, but I am ready to answer
    questions about it if asked.
        H.R. 4690 makes several important changes to improve equity
    in the fishery management process overall, and for tribes in
    particular. The bill includes subsistence--just even the word
    ``subsistence'' throughout the Act, bringing this important use
    of fisheries--really our most historic use of the fishery
    formally into the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        Most importantly, H.R. 4690 adds two designated tribal
    seats to the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, and
    would give Alaska Native tribes long-overdue seats at the
    management table.
        In addition, H.R. 4690 makes important changes to provide
    more balance in the council system by requiring broader
    representation, and more balanced appointments. These are
    essential changes to a broken system, and we support them
    wholeheartedly.
        Regarding reducing bycatch, wasting is not acceptable
    according to our cultural values, which guide us to take only
    what we need and use everything we take. And wasting fish and
    wildlife has serious impacts on the future of our resources.
    Under current law, bycatch must be minimized under National
    Standard 9, but only to the extent practicable.
        In a council system dominated by the fishing industry, in
    real terms, this is interpreted to mean that bycatch need only
    be minimized to the extent that it doesn't cause economic
    impacts to the fishery catching the bycatch. This creates
    serious conservation concerns by unnecessarily wasting fish. It
    also poses stark equity issues by prioritizing bycatch
    fisheries over traditional and historic fisheries that allow
    people to feed our own families.
        H.R. 4690 addresses this critical issue by removing the
    phrase ``to the extent practicable'' from National Standard 9.
    We support this very important change, which will reorient the
    MSA toward the original purpose of reducing bycatch. This
    change is key to the sustainability of our fisheries and to
    creating a more just and equitable system.
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments today.
    Our fishery management system and our fisheries are at a
    crossroads as we face the crisis of climate change with an
    inequitable system of management. We are heartened by the
    forward-thinking solutions presented in the Sustaining
    America's Fisheries for the Future Act, which will give us the
    tools we need to restore abundant oceans and continue
    practicing our way of life.
        We look forward to working with the Subcommittee and your
    staff to move H.R. 4690 forward.
        Am I over?
        Mr. Huffman. You are over time, but I ate some of your time
    at the beginning thanking you for the salmon, so it's good.
        Ms. Peltola. OK. I just wanted to mention that we are only
    trying to feed our own families. We are down to 20 percent of
    what we historically harvested. We do not contribute anything
    to the gross domestic product or ex-vessel value. We are just
    trying to feed our families.

        [The prepared statement of Ms. Peltola follows:]
        Prepared Statement of Mary Sattler Peltola, Executive Director,
                  Kuskokwim River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission
        Mr. Chair and Committee members, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify today. My name is Mary Peltola, and I am the Executive Director
    of the Kuskokwim Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (KRITFC). My Yupik name
    is Akalleq. My mother's grandparents lived most of the year at the
    confluence of the Gweek and Kuskokwim Rivers until my mother was 5 or 6
    and they were told to relocate during the school year to Kwethluk,
    Alaska, a community at the confluence of the Kwethluk and Kuskokwim
    Rivers. I have been fishing with my family on the Kuskokwim in our
    traditional way since I was 6 years old.
        The KRITFC is a fishery co-management organization composed of all
    of the 33 federally recognized Alaska Native tribes located along the
    Kuskokwim River. While each KRITFC member tribe has a unique
    relationship with the Kuskokwim River, all our tribal members are
    unified by the vitally important role salmon--in particular, Chinook
    salmon--plays in our nutritional, cultural, and spiritual well-being.
    Alaska Natives have been stewards of this resource for at least 12,000
    years, since before contact with Russian traders and missionaries, and
    well before statehood. We successfully managed the harvest and
    conservation of all Kuskokwim River salmon stocks according to our
    traditional Yupik and Athabascan rules and values: To provide for
    children, the disabled, and the elderly first. Only catch what you can
    process and eat. Share what you cannot. Treat our resources with
    respect. On the Yukon River and Norton Sound to the north, Bristol Bay
    to the south, and throughout Alaska, these values, stewardship, and
    connections to marine ecosystems hold true.
        The North Pacific is an incredibly diverse and productive
    ecosystem, home to millions of seabirds, hundreds of thousands of
    marine mammals and numerous species of fish and invertebrates. Our way
    of life as Yupik people is inextricably linked with this marine
    ecosystem, which forms the foundation of our culture, our food
    security, and our future. We have stewarded this place for millennia,
    living in relationship with the Bering Sea. In more recent years, the
    Bering Sea has also become host to huge commercial fisheries for
    pollock, crab, halibut, cod, yellowfin sole, and numerous other
    species. These commercial fisheries are among the largest in the world,
    harvesting vast amounts of seafood from the Bering Sea year after year.
        Even in this rich and productive ecosystem, our current system of
    fishery management under the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) is failing.
    Ecologically, the Bering Sea is undergoing declines at an alarming
    level. In 2021, decades-long trends of declining Chinook salmon stocks
    continued and fisheries throughout Western Alaska were closed.
    Alarmingly, this year chum salmon stocks, which usually provide a
    critical source of food even when Chinook stocks are low, crashed as
    well throughout the region. On the Kuskokwim River, chum salmon were at
    their lowest level on record. Bristol Bay Red King crab and snow crab
    populations dropped dramatically, and seabird die-offs were reported
    throughout the region, on top of ongoing marine mammal mortality
    events. These alarming changes reveal the weaknesses of our current
    management system to adapt to the challenges of climate change, when
    the only actions are to react and reduce the directed fisheries for
    these species without addressing the underlying bycatch, habitat,
    forage, and associated issues.
        At the same time, when it comes to equity and inclusion, the
    current management system under the MSA is failing us. In the North
    Pacific this is particularly clear and stark, as Alaska Native people,
    who are the original stewards of this place, have no seat at the table
    in a system that has been set up to prioritize economic benefits over
    Indigenous ways of life and gives primary management responsibility to
    those with a financial interest in the fisheries over those who depend
    on it for subsistence.
        Our oceans and fisheries today face new challenges, and we have an
    opportunity to move forward to address these challenges and create a
    fishery management system that is sustainable, equitable and just to
    move our nation forward. The Sustaining America's Fisheries for the
    Future Act (H.R. 4690) offered by Representatives Huffman and Case
    offers many important solutions, and we look forward to working with
    the Committee, Congress, and the Administration to advance these
    important changes to the MSA.
    1. Climate Change

        Climate change poses a real and ongoing threat to our way of life
    and fisheries in the region. The Bering Sea is warming significantly
    faster than oceans in temperate zones, and the Arctic is warming 2-3
    times faster than the rest of the planet. Climate change is having a
    wide range of impacts, including population declines and shifts across
    marine animals under warmer, more acidic, and increasingly toxic ocean
    conditions as a result of harmful algal blooms and increasingly ice-
    free ocean conditions.
        It is essential that we take local, national, and international
    action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, we must
    take action to make our fishery management system climate-ready and be
    able to respond to the changing conditions around us. It is clear that
    our current fishery management system, which operates in a single-
    species context, based on historical data and reliant on limited
    sources of knowledge, is not up for the challenge. Change is needed now
    to ensure our oceans and our fisheries are resilient in the face of
    climate change. H.R. 4690 makes important changes to the MSA to better
    adapt to climate change. Incorporating climate considerations
    throughout the management process will provide important direction to
    the Councils to consider and assess the climate change impacts on
    fisheries. Most importantly, these considerations must translate into
    action to ensure resilient and sustainable fisheries and fishing
    communities into the future.
    2. Including Tribes and Traditional Knowledge

        Native American Tribes and Indigenous people throughout the United
    States have stewarded our oceans and fisheries since time immemorial.
    Yet the Magnuson Stevens Act creates a management system that
    systemically and intentionally excludes Native American people and our
    knowledge. The word ``subsistence'' only appears once in the MSA. In
    the North Pacific, Alaska Native Tribes have no designated seat at the
    North Pacific Fishery Management Council, and our only avenue for a
    seat at the table is through a Governor's office that has historically
    and presently prioritized those with private financial interests in the
    fisheries over the long-term subsistence interests of Alaska Natives.
    Despite our status as sovereign governments, Alaska Native Tribes do
    not have representation on Council advisory bodies either, with no
    representation on the Scientific and Statistical Committee and limited
    representation on the Advisory Panel. This lack of representation
    results in Council decisions that do not take the rights or needs of
    our Native People into consideration and are actively eroding our way
    of life and our culture.
        Further, the current management system does not provide for nor
    require inclusion of Traditional and Indigenous Knowledge. One example
    is the ecological approach our Tribal Commissioners bring to co-
    management of Chinook (and chum) salmon with the Yukon Delta National
    Wildlife Refuge has made predicting the Chinook return much more
    accurate. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) Commercial
    Fisheries Division issues Chinook salmon forecasts based solely on
    prior season runs, which in 2019 and 2020 were off by 100,000 fish, and
    when the entire run size has been around 100,000 for the last 10 years.
    In 2018 the ADF&G forecast predicted about 120,000 Chinook salmon.
    James Nicori of Kwethluk, one of four KRITFC In-Season Managers, said
    that the migratory birds, specifically the Canadian Geese, were in high
    abundance that year and he predicted we would meet or exceed our
    escapement goal of 110,000 Chinook salmon, even with additional
    opportunities to harvest subsistence salmon. KRITFC stood with James
    Nicori's Traditional Knowledge and supported additional harvest
    opportunities, with a warning from the federal in-season manager at the
    time that if escapement wasn't met, KRITFC would be held responsible.
        James' predictions, grounded in Traditional Knowledge, have held
    true from 2017 to 2021. His predictions held true in 2018 and the
    escapement goal was met. In 2019, James predicted a large Chinook
    return based on snowpack in the mountains, snowpack at the lower river,
    prevailing winds, and migratory bird returns. The return was twice
    ADF&G's forecast. In 2020, the ADF&G forecasted 220,000 Chinook salmon
    would return; however, James Nicori predicted it would be in keeping
    with the 2010-2018 return levels, and the run was indeed in the 120,000
    range. This past summer, James Nicori predicted the Chinook salmon
    would return, taper off, and a second push of fish would arrive larger
    than the first push. Each of these predictions were 100% accurate to
    what happened in the 2021 season.
        While western science has no ability to index run timing, James
    Nicori, with the Traditional Knowledge he has inherited, is able to
    predict if the Chinook salmon will be a week or two early, on time, or
    a week or two late, as well as discern when the Chinook salmon run is
    at its 50% mark based on which side of the river he is catching fish at
    his fish camp. As this example shows, Traditional Knowledge has an
    important place in our fishery management system, yet currently there
    is no recognition or inclusion of Traditional Knowledge in federal
    marine fisheries systems.
        H.R. 4690 makes several important changes to improve equity in the
    fishery management process overall, and for Tribes in particular. The
    bill includes subsistence throughout the act, bringing this important
    ``use'' of fishery resources formally into the MSA. Most importantly,
    H.R. 4690 adds two designated Tribal Seats to the North Pacific Fishery
    Management Council. Parallel to the PFMC Tribal seat, these seats would
    be nominated directly by Alaska Native Tribes and would give our
    governments a long overdue seats at the management table. These seats
    should be nominated directly by Alaska Native Tribes--and only Alaska
    Native Tribes--via a process that can be established via consultation
    and regulation. In addition, H.R. 4690 makes important changes to
    provide more balance in the Council system by requiring broader
    representation and more balanced appointments. These are essential
    changes to a broken system, and we support them wholeheartedly.
    3. Reduce Bycatch

        Bycatch, the unintended catch of non-target fish and marine mammals
    which are discarded by the commercial fishing industry, is serious
    issue with ecological, cultural, social, and economic impacts. Wasting
    is not acceptable according to our cultural values, which guide us to
    take only what we need and use everything we take, and wasting fish and
    wildlife has serious impacts on the future of our resources. Under
    current law, bycatch must be ``minimized'' under National Standard 9,
    but only ``to the extent practicable.''

            ``(9) Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent
            practicable, (A) minimize bycatch and (B) to the extent bycatch
            cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of such bycatch.''
            \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1851(a)(9).

        In a Council system dominated by the fishing industry (see above),
    in real terms this is interpreted to mean that bycatch need only be
    minimized to the extent that it doesn't cause economic impacts to the
    fishery catching the bycatch. This creates serious conservation
    concerns by unnecessarily wasting fish. It also poses stark equity
    issues by prioritizing bycatch fisheries over traditional and historic
    fisheries.
        For example, Chinook and chum salmon are caught as bycatch in the
    Bering Sea pollock fishery. So far in 2021, over 500,000 chum salmon
    and 12,000 Chinook salmon have been taken as bycatch and discarded in
    the pollock fishery. While Indigenous communities throughout the
    Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim region have had their subsistence and commercial
    fisheries completely shut down, bycatch is allowed to continue at high
    levels in the Bering Sea pollock fishery. The North Pacific Fishery
    Management Council has adopted a series of measures to reduce the
    commercial pollock fishery's Chinook and chum salmon bycatch over the
    years, yet these measures have been demonstrably insufficient. The
    amount of bycatch allowed under the current standard of
    ``practicability'' in and ``minimization'' in National Standard 9 has
    resulted in a blatantly inequitable distribution of resources in which
    the large and powerful commercial pollock fishery is allowed to waste a
    valuable public resource, while Tribal subsistence users who rely on
    that same resource for their way of life are shut out.
        H.R. 4690 addresses this critical issue by removing the phrase ``to
    the extent practicable'' from National Standard 9. We support this very
    important change, which will reorient the MSA toward the original
    purpose of reducing bycatch. This change is key to the sustainability
    of our fisheries, and to creating a more just and equitable management
    system.
    4. Conclusion

        Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments today. Our
    fishery management system and our fisheries are at a crossroads as we
    face the crisis of climate change with an inequitable system of
    management. We are heartened by the forward-thinking solutions
    presented in the Sustaining America's Fisheries for the Future Act
    which will give us the tools we need to restore abundant oceans and
    continue practicing our way of life. We look forward to working with
    the Subcommittee and your staff to move H.R. 4690 forward.

                                     ______

    Questions Submitted for the Record to Mary Peltola, Executive Director
              of the Kuskokwim River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission
                 Questions Submitted by Representative Huffman

        Question 1. Ms. Peltola, in your remarks you mentioned that this
    past summer your fishing allotment was reduced to 0 percent for Chum
    and Chinook salmon.

        (a) What is your normal fishing allotment? How does that compare to
    the allotment of commercial interests in the area?

        Answer. Indigenous subsistence fishing communities are experiencing
    a multi-year decline of Chinook and chum salmon on both the Kuskokwim
    and Yukon Rivers. This year, 2021, was the eighth year that Chinook
    salmon runs have been too low to support subsistence needs and the
    first year that once-abundant chum salmon returns have been even lower
    than Chinook salmon returns, resulting in significant restrictions on
    fishing for both species on both rivers. The historical average
    drainage-wide subsistence harvest of Kuskokwim Chinook salmon was
    approximately 85,500 fish per year, with each fish averaging 33 pounds
    each. Our recent 10-year average harvest of Chinook salmon is in the
    range of 20,000-40,000 fish with each Chinook salmon averaging 11
    pounds. This is a stark reduction in numbers of Chinook salmon and an
    even more devastating loss of nutrition for Tribal citizens and rural
    residents due to ecosystem changes producing much smaller sizes of
    Chinook salmon returning to their natal streams.
        There has not been a commercial season for Chinook salmon on the
    Kuskokwim River since the 1990s. Meanwhile, in 2021, over 15,000
    Chinook salmon have been taken as bycatch and discarded in the
    commercial pollock fishery. This bycatch includes Chinook salmon from
    throughout Alaska and the Pacific Northwest. On average, 40-60% of
    these bycaught Chinook salmon are bound for Interior and Western Alaska
    Rivers, almost all of which had no subsistence fishing or extremely
    reduced harvests this year.
        Compounding the crisis, chum salmon runs also dropped precipitously
    this year. The chum salmon return on the Kuskokwim has historically
    been in the millions. There are multiple highly productive chum
    tributaries on the Kuskokwim, such as the Kwethluk, Kogrukluk, and
    George Rivers, which historically saw millions or multiple millions of
    chum salmon per summer. Shockingly, this summer saw perhaps between 5-
    10% of the normal chum returns (and this is a liberal estimate). In
    2021, over 500,000 chum salmon were taken as bycatch and discarded by
    the pollock fishery. According to genetic analysis from 2019,
    approximately 16% of these chum salmon were bound for Western Alaska
    rivers, including the Kuskokwim.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ C.M. Kondzela, et al., NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-422:
    Genetic Stock Composition Analysis of Chum Salmon from the Prohbited
    Species Catch of the 2019 Bering Sea Walleye Pollock Trawl Fishery
    (Aug. 2021).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The total allowable catch for the trawl fleet is in the millions of
    metric tons. In addition to the pressure the trawl fleet is imposing on
    chum salmon, the State's Commercial Fisheries Division under the ADF&G
    has allowed over 1 million chum salmon to be caught and sold in the
    Area M/False Pass Commercial chum salmon fishery. Past genetic stock
    identification work indicates that the Area M/False Pass Commercial
    fishery also intercepts Kuskokwim chum salmon.
        Subsistence fishermen consume less than 1% of the State's resources
    when we have access to abundant returns. Compared to the commercial
    industry and commercial fleets, our subsistence fishermen, who are only
    trying to feed our families, are literally fighting for crumbs. We are
    being aced out of our historical <1% of salmon.

        (b) How would enacting H.R. 4690 address the impacts of excessive
    amounts of bycatch by Indigenous fishers and change the conditions that
    resulted in your fishing allotment being reduced to 0 percent?

        Answer.\2\ Chinook and chum salmon declines are due to several
    factors, including bycatch and climate change. Climate change poses a
    real and ongoing threat to our way of life and fisheries in the region,
    and our current management process under the Magnuson-Stevens Act is
    not built to adapt to the challenges climate change is posing. H.R.
    4690 makes important changes to the MSA to better adapt to climate
    change. Incorporating climate considerations throughout the management
    process will provide important direction to the Councils to consider
    and assess the climate change impacts on fisheries. In the long run
    these changes will help every species in the ecosystem, including
    salmon, especially if these considerations must translate into action
    to ensure resilient and sustainable fisheries and fishing communities
    into the future.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ I wish to convey that Indigenous fishermen do not have any
    ``bycatch.'' Every fish caught is respected and eaten and no part of
    any fish is wasted. The term ``bycatch'' is an oxymoron and anathema to
    Indigenous people. The freshwater, saltwater, land, and air provide
    many food sources and we consume what we harvest, including all types
    of fish. If they are not edible by humans, many people use the fish as
    dog food. Salmon not fit for human consumption fed to dogs is also
    protected for customary and traditional uses under both state and
    federal (ANILCA Title VIII) subsistence laws.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Enacting H.R. 4690 would also require greater reduction of bycatch,
    addressing the inequities in the current system that allow for bycatch
    to continue unheeded while Indigenous fishermen are not allowed to fish
    at all. National Standard 9 current only requires bycatch reduction
    ``to the extent practicable.'' For too long practicability has been an
    excuse for not reducing bycatch. H.R. 4690 addresses this critical
    issue by removing the phrase ``to the extent practicable'' from
    National Standard 9. This very important change will reorient the MSA
    toward the original purpose of reducing bycatch.
        Finally, H.R. 4690 would add two designated Tribal voting seats to
    the NPFMC. This change would provide the Tribes who have stewarded our
    oceans and fisheries since time immemorial seats at the table and voice
    in the decisions that impact our lives. This would enable Tribes to
    bring our perspective and experiences to the decisions made at the
    NPFMC, allowing us to have a say in the management of bycatch and other
    effects from the industrial fisheries occurring in our waters of the
    Bering Sea.

                                     ______

        Mr. Huffman. Thank you very much, Ms. Peltola.
        Ms. Peltola. Thank you.
        Mr. Huffman. And I will have some questions for you when we
    come back to questions as well.
        At this point, I want to recognize Representative Case to
    introduce our next witness.
        Mr. Case. Mr. Aila, are you on there? Are you with us?
        Mr. Aila. Yes. Can you hear me?
        Mr. Case. We can. OK. Let me introduce you, Bill.
        I am really honored to introduce William Aila, Jr., who
    currently serves as Chair of the Hawaiian Homes Commission,
    which is responsible for administration of our Federal Hawaiian
    Homes Commission Act.
        And, prior to his role, Chair Aila served as the Chair of
    our State's Department of Land and Natural Resources, whose
    duties include the management of Hawaii's fishing resources. In
    that capacity, he did serve as a member of the Western Pacific
    Fisheries Management Council and as its Interim Chair.
        He has also served as the Chair of the Papahanaumokuakea
    Reserve Advisory Council, which preceded our world-class Marine
    National Monument, was a member of the Pelagic Advisory
    Subpanel to the Western Pacific Fisheries Management Council,
    and helped found the Hawaiian Fishermen's Foundation.
        He is also a lifelong native Hawaiian fisherman, so he has
    practiced Indigenous sustainable fishing practices for his
    entire life. He has a wealth of knowledge in this area, and I
    welcome you to the Committee, Chair Aila.
        Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Aila.
        Mr. Aila. Thank you very, very much.
        Mr. Huffman. You are recognized for 5 minutes.

      STATEMENT OF WILLIAM J. AILA JR., CHAIRMAN, HAWAIIAN HOMES
                      COMMISSION, WAIANAE, HAWAII

        Mr. Aila. Thank you very, very much, Representative
    Huffman, Chair, and mahalo for that really warm introduction.
        I also fished with my wife and my children for more than
    the past 30 years. And, as Representative Case indicated, I
    have done commercial fisheries, recreational fisheries, and
    fished for cultural reasons.
        The bulk of my testimony is going to be relative to H.R.
    4690, and to the Western Pacific Fisheries Management Council,
    because that is what I am familiar with.
        In addition to my written testimony, I would like to
    highlight a number of points. Point No. 1, the current and past
    councils have certainly been heavily weighted to longline
    fishing and commercial fishing. An example of the result of
    that is the weight at the lobster fishery was allowed to
    continue even though species were mixed.
        So, the spiny lobster fishery was fished and the catch per
    unit effort declined. The fishery turned to a slipper lobster
    fishery, but the panel and the scientific committee allowed the
    data to be collected the same. And, as a result, the lobster
    fishery crashed for all species. Section 305 will take care of
    that.
        There is a definite conflict of interest with regards to
    the commercial fishing influence. A prime example of this would
    be there were quotas that were adopted several years ago around
    the archipelago of Hawaii, and those quotas were bypassed by
    allowing the purchase of quotas from fisheries in other parts
    of the Pacific. So, allowing fish to continue to be taken in an
    area where the quotas were set up for from other areas is a
    great example of how not to manage archipelago fishing.
        And, again, Section 304 and Section 305, as amended, will
    take care of that.
        There is a definite lack of NOAA oversight. It is clear
    from the OIG report, 22-004-A. The details, I encourage you to
    look up. Again, amendments to Section 306 will help take care
    of that.
        I wish I had more time to talk about the shark-finning
    issues and how WESPAC have managed to hold off any improvements
    to reducing bycatch of shark fins, and it took Congress to pass
    a law to bypass that.
        I would like to bring into the record--and I am not sure
    how, but I will make sure that you get a copy of a February 21,
    2021, testimony to the Fisheries Listening Tour that you,
    Representative Huffman, conducted here in Hawaii, and the now-
    Chair of the Department of Land and Natural Resources, Suzanne
    Case, included many examples of how the Western Pacific
    Fisheries Management Council and their actions are interfering
    with the fisheries that are in state waters.
        For example, there is a fish called akule, which is a big-
    eye scad. All of it is captured in state waters. However,
    WESPAC continues to do stock assessments, all without
    consultation with the state of Hawaii. Again, amendments to
    Sections 304, 305, and 306, will take care of that.
        I will just point out that, as a member of the RAC, I am
    appointed by the Governor, and this is not RAC testimony, but
    the Governor of Hawaii, Governor Ige, is certainly fully
    supportive of accountability in all state things, and
    especially in fisheries. In fact, the current 30-by-30 that
    President Biden is promoting was actually enacted in the state
    of Hawaii 2 years ago.
        In closing, because I don't want to take up too much time,
    I will just say, with regards to the Western Pacific Fisheries
    Management Council, if all you do is adopt the amendments in
    Sections 304, 305, and 306, that will increase accountability,
    and it will promote sustainable fisheries here in Hawaii and
    throughout the entire Pacific.
        I thank you for the opportunity to present testimony.
        Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Aila.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Aila follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of William J. Aila, Jr.
    Aloha Chair Huffman,
        Thank you for allowing me to testify on H.R. 4690, Sustaining
    America's Fisheries for the Future Act of 2021. The proposed amendments
    in the re-authorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act are long overdue!
    Thank you for the courage to reform the Regional Fisheries Councils.
        My focus today will be on the Western Pacific Fisheries Management
    Council (WESPAC) and the need for increased accountability. My
    experience with this Council goes back for more than 33 years. In 1989,
    myself and many other small boat (14' to 40') fishermen petitioned the
    Council to promulgate rules on the massive influx of Longline fishermen
    relocation to Hawaii. Hawaii small boat fishermen were requesting a cap
    on the number of these industrial fishers, capable of laying out more
    than 25 miles of mail line with thousands of hooks. By-catch was a huge
    problem. Conflicts between Longliners and small boat resulted in shots
    being fired and gear cut.
        Additional regulations requested included, Longline closed areas,
    Vessel Monitoring for Longliners who would be observed fishing in the
    closed areas, and Requirements for Log books which led to several
    successful prosecutions of violations. WESPAC Council members, staff,
    and the Executive Director lobbied both the State Legislature and
    Hawaii's Congressional delegation to prevent the requested regulations
    from being enacted. Were it not for thousands of small boat fishermen
    attending a multitude of meetings, WESPAC would have succeeded.
        Having been made aware of WESPAC and the influence it had on
    Hawaii's Fishery resources, several small boat fishermen including
    myself joined the Pelagics, Bottom Fish, Native Hawaiian, and Coral
    Advisory Panels. For several years we provided advice as fishermen who
    understood sustainable fisheries because we were taught for generations
    to practice it. After serving for several years and providing sound
    advice on limiting permits for bottom fishing in the North-Western
    Hawaiian Islands (NWHIS) because of declining catch rates and
    advocating for the use of tuna circle hooks in the longline fishery to
    reduce mortality on several species of sea turtles, migratory sea
    birds, and cetaceans such as False Killer Whales, these subcommittees
    were disbanded in the name of funding reductions. It didn't take a
    fisheries scientist to conclude what was going on. WESPAC wasn't
    interested in managing sustainable fisheries. The last straw was the
    collapse of the lobster fishery in the NWHIS. We dug into WESPAC's mis-
    management of this fishery and discovered how manipulated science for
    profit can never be sustainable.
        The Lobster fishery started out catching Spiny lobsters, then the
    Catch Per Unit (CPUE) effort started to decline. The fishermen then
    targeted slipper lobster, a different species but the species were
    allowed to be counted together making it appear that CPUE was
    sustainable. It wasn't long before the CPUE started to decline again.
    The lobster fishermen then convinced WESPAC that the problem was
    related to the predators eating the undersized and Berried lobsters
    (females with eggs) and that they were required to release. Lobster
    regulations were amended to allow for this change despite testimony in
    opposition by many Elder Hawaiian fishermen.
        The result was predictable crashing a few seasons later and those
    fishermen just switched fisheries, but the damage was done and more
    than 25 years later has not recovered.
        That was the last straw. Several fishermen who served on the WESPAC
    dis-banded Advisory Panels organized and partnered with Hula
    Practitioners, Hawaiian Elders and Environmental groups and others to
    seek protections from WESPAC for the fish, cetaceans, and corals in the
    NWHIS by requesting that President Clinton create a monument for
    protection. At the time President Clinton was considering designation
    of a monument for the area, WESPAC was actively lobbying then Governor
    Linda Lingle to oppose the monument by withholding State Waters.
    Fortunately, President Clinton designated the area the North Western
    Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve, setting the Lobster
    quota at zero. Shortly after that a Federal Permit buyback program
    purchased the remaining bottom fish permits for the Reserve. The full
    protection of the area was finalized by President Obama with
    Presidential Proclamation 8112 signed on August 26, 2016, expanding on
    previous protections.
        WESPAC didn't waste any time in requesting President Trump to issue
    his own Proclamation allowing fishing in the Papahanaumokuakea National
    Marine Monument soon after being elected.
        Handing our per-diem via cash in envelopes as WESPAC organized
    group meetings for Native Hawaiians and State elected officials is
    another questionable practice of WESPAC as it worked to create an
    Advisory group to advise the State Department of Land and Natural
    Resources.
        Although WESPAC never introduced the Bill in the State Legislature
    they certainly influenced its drafting and introduction of the Bill.
        For a much more in-depth current review of WESPAC's lobbing efforts
    and reporting of an active investigation into possible violations of
    Federal Ethics Rules, see the following links to Civil Beat Stories
    covering WESPAC:

    November 3, 2021

        https://www.civilbeat.org/2021/11/how-politics-and-lobbying-have-
    shaped-federal-fisheries-policies-in-the-pacific/

    November 4, 2021

        https://www.civilbeat.org/2021/11/wespacs-aggressive-effort-to-
    muscle-in-on-state-control-of-fisheries/

        Because of these and many other recurring reasons, these much
    needed reform measures included in H.R. 4690 should be adopted. I would
    like to highlight proposed sections for its application to WESPAC:
    Title 1
        Sec. 102. Promoting climate resilience in fisheries management.
    This will enhance protection.

        Sec. 103. Incorporating climate science. Especially the suggested
    training for new council members

        Sec. 106. Emerging fisheries. The impacts of new gear on by-catch
    and protected species.
    Title II
        Sec. 202. Subsistence fishing. In (42A)(A)(iii) Customary trade
    should not include reimbursement of expenses.

        Sec. 205. Community participation in limited access privilege
    programs. It should be clear that this doesn't apply to programs in
    State Jurisdictions. Undue influence of WESPAC in State Waters.
    Title III
        Sec. 304. Council procedures and participation. This will increase
    transparency.

        Sec. 305. Council accountability and membership. This is critical
    to reform WESPAC.

        Sec. 306. Amendments to the Western Pacific Sustainable Fisheries
    Fund. This is critical to reforming WESPAC and bringing accountability
    on how funds are accounted for.
    Title IV
        Sec. 403. Stock assessments. Reports to Congress should also
    include reduction success of efforts to reduce bycatch.

        Sec.404. Cooperative research and management. Scientific
    transparency will be improved dramatically once this is adopted. WESPAC
    avoids outside science.
    Title V
        Sec. 503. Reducing bycatch. This is critical to ecosystem
    management and protected species survival.

        Sec. 504. Improving rebuilding outcomes. This is absolutely needed
    to hold councils accountable.

        Sec. 505. Depleted fisheries and preventing overfishing. The
    holding of SCCs accountable to account for all sources of mortality and
    including effects of climate change will result in more precautionary
    recommendations and including a rule of construct regarding overfishing
    should result in better management by regional fishery councils.

        Thank you for the opportunity to address you and the Subcommittee.

                                     ______

        Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. William J. Aila Jr.,
                      Chairman, Hawaiian Homes Commission
                Questions Submitted by Representative Radewagen
        Question 1. Mr. Aila, as you are aware the GAO in 2009 conducted of
    review of the Council resulting from a request from ``several Hawaii-
    based conservation advocacy organizations'' allegations against the
    Council related to lobbying, conflicts of interest, use of federal
    funds. Are you aware that the 2009 GAO report states: ``Overall, we
    found little or no evidence to substantiate the many allegations
    related to lobbying, conflicts of interest, the use of and accounting
    for federal funds and council operations, in part because some of the
    allegations were factually inaccurate.'' Your testimony states that the
    Council lobbied the Governor. Are you aware that Regional Councils are
    allowed to directly engage both federal and local administrations?

        Question 2. Mr. Aila, your testimony states that there is a ``much
    more in-depth current review of WESPAC's lobbying efforts and reporting
    of an active investigation into possible violations of Federal Ethics
    Rules'' that is ongoing. Can you elaborate on the specifics of who is
    conducting this ``investigation'' on ethics violations?

        Answer.

        Aloha Ms. Radewagen, regarding Questions 1 and 2, I am aware of the
    GAO investigation of WESPAC improprieties in 2009. The request for an
    investigation was made as early as 2005. I was part of several groups
    who requested the action and hope to make you aware that although there
    was a finding of no serious violations at the time, the GAO made strong
    recommendations for NOAA and WESPAC to implement.
        These recommended reforms included:

         The WESPAC council provide more transparency about its
                decision-making processes.

         Publishing reasons why members recuse themselves from a
                vote.

         Posting minutes of its meetings online as other regional
                councils did.

         Consulting with NOAA attorneys before making decisions.

         The GAO specifically recommended that the council notify
                NOAA attorneys before meeting with federal or state
                lawmakers or when testifying before a legislative
                committee.

        The GAO report also stated that the council and other federal
    bodies that receive federal funds are prohibited from trying to
    influence legislation. They may, however present technical or factual
    information to lawmakers if requested. This grey line would no longer
    be grey should Rep. Huffman's amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act be
    adopted.

        I have included several articles from the period 2005 to 2009
    (Attachments #1-3), a Star Bulletin editorial dated November 13, 2005
    (Attachment #4), and a freedom of information request from Christine
    Owens to the Inspector General of the Department of Commerce confirming
    an investigation was ongoing (Attachment #5).

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        I have also included a link to two Civil Beat Articles dated
    November 3, 2021 and November 4, 2021. In the articles are examples of
    the type of behavior that should serve as justification for Rep.
    Huffman's reforms. I would also like to point out on page 3 of the
    second article is a reference to ``the council is currently under
    investigation again''. Based on my previous experience, the Inspector
    General is likely not commenting on an open case.

    The links are as follows:

    https://www.civilbeat.org/2021/11/how-politics-and-lobbying-have-
    shaped-federal-fisheries-policies-in-the-pacific/

    https://www.civilbeat.org/2021/11/wespacs-aggressive-effort-to-muscle-
    in-on-state-control-of-fisheries/

        As evidenced by the ongoing investigation and well documented
    allegations, WESPAC has not implemented the recommendations made in
    2009. Thus, the need for reforms.

        Question 3. Mr. Aila, your statement regarding the NWHI lobster
    fisheries is that the stock after 25 years has not recovered. Was there
    a recent stock assessment of the NWHI lobster stock that showed the
    status of the stock as overfished? If so, please provide the committee
    a copy of that report.

        Answer. In response to your question regarding a recent lobster
    assessment in the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument. Since the
    creation of the Monument 20 years ago there have been many surveys of
    the marine resources. Many on an annual basis, except for 2020-2021 due
    to COVID. Significant numbers of lobsters have never been reported. I
    am looking for an article which I had in my possession but cannot
    locate in time for this response in which National Marine Fisheries
    commented that 6 years post moratorium on lobster fishing in the NWHIS,
    the lobster numbers have not recovered. Should I be able to locate it
    soon I will send it to you. I am enclosing a Honolulu Advertiser
    article from December 2, 1992 which documents a sitting Council
    member's husband being fined for taking illegal sized lobsters and
    females with eggs (Attachment #6). In addition, the vessel used was
    leased from Jim Cook, another WESPAC council member. Reform has been
    needed for a long time. Thankfully the area is protected.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Question 4. Mr. Aila, you state in your testimony the need for
    increased accountability for WESPAC because of the inaction on the
    small boat fishery. Can you explain what you mean by that? Are you
    aware of the actions the Council took to enact closures, require log
    books, and other measures to manage fisheries?

        Answer. Thank you for your question concerning the Councils
    inaction on the small boat fishery. I note that you pointed out the
    actions that the council has taken. You are correct in pointing these
    actions out. As someone who was there with others providing those
    recommendations to the Council, I have the unique history to make the
    following statement. ``Although the council took these actions, it was
    the small boat fishermen who dragged them kicking and screaming to make
    those decisions''. I have included newspaper articles that provide an
    accurate account of actions taken at the time and not obscured by
    recent revisions of the history.

    Longline moratorium and limited entry program

         Three articles from 1989-1990 pushing the Council and
                State of Hawaii to limit the number of Longlines moving to
                Hawaii from the Gulf of Mexico (Attachments #7-11).

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Longline area closures

         Five articles from 1991-1992 pushing the Council to
                designate closed areas to longliners to stop the user
                conflicts occurring between longliners and small boat
                fishermen (Attachments #12-17).

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Longline vessel monitoring requirements

         Three articles from 1992 documenting efforts by small boat
                fishermen to get the Council to require this tracking
                system because of numerous reports of violations including
                one of several successful prosecutions based on Vessel
                Monitoring Systems (Attachments #18-20).

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        I have many other examples of the Council acting on fisheries
    management issues but only upon prompting and pressure from small boat
    fishermen and conservationists.

        Question 5. Ms. Coit, in her statement, recognizes that allowing
    Councils to develop and tailor regional solutions is a basic tenet of
    the MSA. Regional problems require regional solutions. In the Western
    Pacific, the regional issues include subsistence fishing and
    underserved indigenous communities. There is a need to explicitly
    acknowledge that one size doesn't fit all and that MSA needs to be
    flexible. Do you agree with this approach? If not, please explain why.

        Answer. I do agree with Ms. Coit that one size does not fit all,
    and that Councils should be allowed to tailor regional solutions to
    regional issues. Having said that I would point out all the examples
    listed in the preceding pages where this has happened. However,
    WESPAC's initial reaction was/is to favor the large commercial fleets
    and the financial interests of a few of its Council members. For
    example, Jim Cook and Sean Martin profited from refurbishing Shrimp
    boats from the Gulf of Mexico to longline gear and their financial
    interests were enhanced by the sale of fishing supplies to these new
    arrivals. Therefore, it was counter intuitively from a financial
    position to limit the number of longline permits issued. It also became
    apparent that the same individuals would suffer economic impacts by
    having their own longline vessels having to fish further due to the
    area closures which is why they opposed these measures at the time but
    gladly take credit for them presently.

        Thank you for the opportunity to provide clarity to the history of
    how and why WESPAC took actions at the time.

        Please feel free to contact me should you have any further
    questions. I fully support the amendments proposed by Rep. Huffman and
    supported by Rep. Case.

                                     ______

        Mr. Huffman. Next, we will hear from Dr. Willy Goldsmith,
    Executive Director of the American Saltwater Guides
    Association.
        The Chair recognizes Dr. Goldsmith to testify for 5
    minutes.

    STATEMENT OF DR. WILLY GOLDSMITH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN
           SALTWATER GUIDES ASSOCIATION, OCEANSIDE, NEW YORK

        Dr. Goldsmith. Chair Huffman, Ranking Member Young, and
    members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
    provide views on H.R. 4690, the Sustaining America's Fisheries
    for the Future Act.
        My name is Willy Goldsmith, and I am the Executive Director
    of the American Saltwater Guides Association. I hold a Ph.D. in
    fishery science, have extensive experience in collaborative
    recreational fisheries research, and I am an avid recreational
    angler myself.
        The American Saltwater Guides Association represents
    fishing guides, small fishing-related businesses, and
    conservation-minded anglers who believe that long-term fishery
    and ecosystem health are the core foundation of a strong
    recreational fishing economy.
        As a resource-first, not sector-first group, we recognize
    that effective management of all users is paramount to success,
    and the recreational sector is no exception. For many of the
    most coveted recreational species, such as blue fish, black sea
    bass, and dolphin fish, the recreational sector is responsible
    for the dominant share of harvest. Effective fisheries
    management, therefore, must include effective management of and
    accountability for recreational anglers.
        The Magnuson-Stevens Act is the cornerstone of effective
    marine fishery stewardship of the United States. The law's
    emphasis on implementing science-based catch limits, mandating
    accountability across sectors, and requiring prompt rebuilding
    have led to significant successes. However, our fisheries
    continue to experience pressing challenges that the law in its
    current form does not adequately address.
        I am grateful to Chair Huffman and Congressman Case for
    their efforts to engage diverse stakeholders through a
    nationwide listening tour in order to better understand some of
    the most urgent challenges facing our nation's fisheries.
        H.R. 4690 includes numerous provisions to strengthen our
    Federal fisheries management framework. Today, I will speak to
    three particularly vital elements of the bill that will help
    promote long-term fishery health--improving recreational data,
    protecting forage fish, and bolstering fishery resilience under
    changing ocean conditions.
        H.R. 4690 makes critical strides toward improving catch
    data from the recreational sector. Such information is valuable
    not only for ensuring recreational accountability, but also for
    providing the highest-quality data for input into stock
    assessments.
        The Federal Marine Recreational Information Program is the
    primary tool for assessing recreational catch and effort at
    annual and regional scales. But, as numerous additional
    recreational data collection programs continue to be developed,
    it is imperative that these diverse sources of information are
    held to the same high standard.
        H.R. 4690s establishment of Federal guidelines and a
    strategic plan to improve recreational data are invaluable
    steps toward maximizing accuracy and precision on a national
    scale while recognizing the specific data collection challenges
    and needs associated with various fisheries and regions.
        In the meantime, managers should advance a precautionary
    approach that accounts for the ongoing recreational data
    uncertainties and limitations to minimize the risk of
    overfishing.
        Species targeted in commercial and recreational fisheries
    depend on healthy marine ecosystems to thrive. Robust
    populations and widespread abundance of the forage fish, on
    which many predators rely, is a key ingredient to fishery
    success, and can lead to spectacular sights, such as the
    arrival of bluefin tuna to feed on immense schools of menhaden
    in the shadow of New York City this past fall. Establishing a
    national framework for conserving these species is sorely
    needed.
        H.R. 4690, along with H.R. 5770, the Forage Fish
    Conservation Act, would accomplish this goal through requiring
    managers to consider the needs of predators and setting forage
    fish catch limits, and prohibiting the development of new
    fisheries for as yet unmanaged forage species prior to
    evaluating whether management is needed.
        Changing ocean conditions are significantly altering the
    marine environment as we know it, and fishery stakeholders are
    acutely observing the impacts of a warming ocean. The most
    readily visible consequences to fishermen and managers alike
    are shifting stocks, which represent a significant management
    challenge as species move across the jurisdictional boundaries
    of regional councils.
        A less evident but even more challenging impact is that of
    climate change on fisheries' productivity, the ability of
    species to successfully feed, grow, and reproduce. H.R. 4690
    makes crucial progress toward implementing climate impacts into
    management, directing resources toward pressing research needs,
    and providing a framework to ensure that management authority
    aligns with where on the coast a fishery occurs.
        Ultimately, the best insurance policy against the often
    uncertain impacts of climate change is a precautionary approach
    to management that promptly addresses overfishing, and
    aggressively acts to rebuild stocks. By requiring councils to
    end overfishing immediately, improving oversight of rebuilding
    progress, and strengthening conservation provisions in the
    event of a failed rebuilding plan, H.R. 4690 positions our
    nation's fisheries to be resilient to climate impacts and
    provide long-term benefits to fishermen and the nation as a
    whole.
        Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts, and I
    look forward to your questions.

        [The prepared statement of Dr. Goldsmith follows:]
       Prepared Statement of Willy Goldsmith, Ph.D., Executive Director,
                     American Saltwater Guides Association
        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA)
    is the cornerstone of effective marine fisheries stewardship in the
    United States. The law's emphasis on implementing science-based annual
    catch limits, mandating accountability across sectors, and requiring
    prompt rebuilding have led to numerous successes, recovering nearly 50
    fish stocks since 2000 while resulting in over 90% of stocks with known
    status not experiencing overfishing.\1\ Despite these victories, our
    fisheries continue to experience numerous challenges that MSA in its
    current form does not adequately address. These include improving
    fishery data collection, implementing management that considers and
    safeguards marine ecosystems in their entirety, accounting for the
    ongoing and increasing impacts of climate change, and ensuring fishery
    compatibility with emerging ocean uses. H.R. 4690, the Sustaining
    America's Fisheries for the Future Act, includes numerous provisions
    that promote the integration of these much-needed elements into our
    federal fisheries management framework.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ NOAA Fisheries. 2021. Status of Stocks 2020: Annual Report to
    Congress on the Status of U.S. Fisheries. https://
    www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/sustainable-fisheries/status-stocks-
    2020.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The American Saltwater Guides Association (ASGA) represents fishing
    guides, small fishing-related businesses, and conservation-minded
    anglers who believe that long-term fishery and ecosystem health are the
    core foundation of a strong recreational fishing economy. Our members
    rely on abundant fish stocks, which drive angler opportunity and
    ultimately participation, to make a living. As a resource-first, not
    sector-first, group, we recognize that effective management of all
    users is paramount to success, and the recreational sector is no
    exception. The impact of the recreational sector, both ecologically and
    economically, cannot be understated. In 2019, recreational anglers in
    the continental United States and Hawaii took nearly 200 million
    fishing trips, catching almost one billion fish and releasing two-
    thirds of them,\2\ and the recreational fishing economy supports nearly
    half a million jobs and generates $75 billion in sales impacts.\3\ For
    many of the most coveted recreational species--bluefish, black sea
    bass, and dolphinfish, for example--the recreational sector is
    responsible for the dominant share of harvest.\4\ Effective fisheries
    management, therefore, must include effective management of and
    accountability for recreational anglers.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ NOAA Fisheries. 2021. Fisheries of the United States 2019.
    https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/2021-05/FUS2019-FINAL-webready-
    2.3.pdf?null=.
        \3\ NOAA Fisheries. 2021. Fisheries Economics of the United States
    2021. https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/2021-09/FEUS2017-final-v1.3.pdf.
        \4\ NOAA Fisheries. 2021. Fisheries of the United States 2019.
    https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/2021-05/FUS2019-FINAL-webready-
    2.3.pdf?null=.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        My views on the bill focus on the elements that are particularly
    important to guides and anglers, which include: (1) improving
    recreational fishery data; (2) conserving forage fish; (3) effectively
    protecting marine habitats; (4) promoting fishery resilience under
    changing ocean conditions; and (5) enhancing transparency and
    stakeholder participation in fisheries management.
    Recreational Fishery Data
        Section 406 of the Sustaining America's Fisheries for the Future
    Act makes critical strides toward improving catch data from the
    recreational sector. Such information is valuable not only for assuring
    recreational accountability but also for providing the highest quality
    data for input into stock assessments--particularly in cases when
    recreational anglers are the dominant source of fishing mortality. The
    Federal Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) is the primary
    tool for assessing recreational catch and effort at annual and regional
    scales. But as numerous additional recreational data collection
    programs continue to be developed, it is imperative that these diverse
    sources of information are held to the same high standards. Section
    406's establishment of federal guidelines to improve recreational
    fishing data, along with a strategic plan--developed in partnership
    with non-federal managers and anglers themselves--are invaluable steps
    toward maximizing data accuracy and precision on a national scale while
    recognizing the specific data collection challenges and needs
    associated with various fisheries and regions. In the meantime,
    managers should advance a precautionary approach that accounts for
    ongoing recreational data uncertainties and limitations to minimize the
    risk of overfishing.
        Related but not limited to recreational data is H.R. 4690's
    emphasis on expanding electronic technologies research and development,
    as reflected in Sections 402 and 404 of the bill. The use of new
    technology to monitor commercial and recreational fishing activity,
    streamline reporting and data collection, and observe ocean conditions
    can increase the quality and timeliness of the data used to inform
    management while minimizing costs in the long-term, reflecting National
    Standards 2 and 7 of MSA.\5\ Working directly with recreational and
    commercial fishery participants to design, develop, and test these new
    tools is imperative, and this priority is reflected both in H.R. 4690
    and in Section 305 of H.R. 59, the Strengthening Fishing Communities
    and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ NOAA Fisheries. National Standard Guidelines. https://
    www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/laws-and-policies/national-standard-
    guidelines (National Standard 2 requires the use of the best scientific
    information available. National Standard 7 directs managers to minimize
    costs and avoid unnecessary duplication where practicable. 16 U.S.C.
    1851(a)(2 and 7)).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Forage Fish Conservation
        Species targeted in commercial and recreational fisheries depend on
    healthy marine ecosystems to thrive. Robust populations and widespread
    abundance of the forage fish on which many predators rely is a key
    ingredient to fishery success, and can lead to spectacular sights such
    as the arrival of bluefin tuna--and the anglers who pursue them--to
    feed on immense schools of menhaden in the shadow of New York City this
    past fall. Some regional fishery management councils have been
    proactive in developing safeguards to protect forage fish, such as the
    Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's adoption of its Unmanaged
    Forage Omnibus Amendment in 2016.\6\ However, a national framework for
    conserving these species is sorely needed. Section 508 of H.R. 4690 and
    H.R. 5770, the Forage Fish Conservation Act, would accomplish this goal
    through requiring managers to consider the needs of predators in
    setting forage fish catch limits and prohibiting the development of new
    fisheries for as-yet unmanaged species prior to evaluating whether
    management is needed (and implementing such management if warranted).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 2017. Unmanaged Forage
    Omnibus Amendment. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/
    511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/5a0b49b053450ab00cbe4e46/1510689203283/
    20170613_Final%2BForage%2BEA_FONSI%2BSigned.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Habitat Protection
        Changing ocean conditions and our efforts as a nation to respond to
    climate change--including the development of offshore wind energy--
    underscore the ongoing and increasingly urgent need to protect the
    important marine habitats that support our fisheries. While regional
    fishery management councils are required to describe and identify
    Essential Fish Habitat when developing management plans, MSA in its
    current form is vague in its directives and does not provide sufficient
    safeguards to ensure that the many activities in our increasingly
    crowded ocean do not harm key habitats and jeopardize the vitality of
    marine resources. Section 502 of H.R. 4690 strengthens the mandate to
    protect essential habitats from these activities, explicitly requiring
    that they avoid adverse impacts (or minimize and mitigate unavoidable
    impacts) and establishing a regulatory framework for the process.
        While the need to confront the impacts of climate change is urgent,
    the emerging offshore wind industry also poses challenges in its
    impacts to the stock assessment process that is at the core of
    successful fisheries management. The 17 active wind energy lease areas
    along the east coast, which combined equal roughly the size of
    Delaware,\7\ substantially overlap with numerous fishery-independent
    surveys that evaluate everything from plankton to finfish to right
    whales, necessitating the development of new survey approaches and
    designs.\8\ Section 409 of H.R. 4690, which mandates a cooperative
    agreement between NOAA Fisheries and the Bureau of Ocean Energy
    Management (BOEM) to fund additional stock assessments and research to
    offset offshore wind development impacts, is key to ensuring that
    commercial and recreational fisheries can thrive in a changing ocean
    landscape.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. Renewable Energy: State
    Activities. https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-activities.
        \8\ NOAA Fisheries Northeast Fisheries Science Center. June 22,
    2021. Offshore Wind Energy and NOAA Survey Mitigation Updates.
    Presentation to the New England Fishery Management Council. https://
    s3.amazonaws.com/nefmc.org/1c.-NEFSC-Offshore-wind-update-June-
    2021.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fishery Resilience Under Climate Change
        Fishery stakeholders are acutely observing the impacts of a warming
    ocean. The most readily visible consequences to fishermen and managers
    alike are shifting stocks: The center of biomass for black sea bass, a
    commercial and recreational mainstay along the east coast, has shifted
    northward about 200 miles over the past half-century,\9\ while cobia,
    historically a south Atlantic species, is projected to have more
    suitable summer habitat off the coast of New Jersey than any other
    state forty years from now.\10\ Such shifts represent a significant
    management challenge as species move across the jurisdictional
    boundaries of regional fishery management councils, raising concerns
    about the representativeness of the council tasked with managing a
    given species or stock. Section 105 of H.R. 4690 addresses this concern
    directly by providing a framework to ensure that management authority
    aligns with where on the coast a fishery occurs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ NOAA Fisheries and Rutgers University. OceanAdapt. http://
    oceanadapt.rutgers.edu/.
        \10\ Crear. D.P., et al. 2020. Contemporary and future
    distributions of cobia, Rachycentron canadum. Biodiversity Research.
    https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.13079.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        A less observable but even more challenging outcome of changing
    ocean conditions are impacts on fisheries productivity--the ability of
    species to successfully feed, grow, and reproduce. In the Gulf of
    Maine, which is warming faster than 99% of the world's oceans, a
    failure to account for the negative impact of increasing temperature on
    Atlantic cod spawning success in setting management measures has
    contributed to the stock's continued depressed state.\11\ In the case
    of northern shrimp, its population in the Gulf of Maine has collapsed
    due in part to predation by a climate change winner--longfin squid--as
    it expands northward.\12\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ Pershing, A.J., et al. 2015. Slow adaptation in the face of
    rapid warming leads to collapse of the Gulf of Maine cod fishery.
    Science 350(6262): pp. 809-812. https://doi.org/10.1126/
    science.aac9819.
        \12\ Richards, A.R., and M. Hunter. 2021. Northern shrimp Pandalus
    borealis population collapse linked to climate-driven shifts in
    predator distribution. PLoS One 16(7). https://doi.org/10.1371/
    journal.pone.0253914.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Readily and consistently incorporating what is known about climate
    impacts into management while directing resources toward pressing
    research needs is imperative. Broadly, Title I of H.R. 4690 makes
    tremendous strides in this regard, requiring councils to include
    climate change considerations in fishery management plans, adding
    climate impacts to research priorities for NOAA Fisheries scientists,
    and establishing a Climate-Ready Fisheries Innovation Program to
    develop new approaches to managing fisheries in a changing ocean.
        Ultimately, the best insurance policy against the often-uncertain
    impacts of climate change is a precautionary approach to management
    that promptly addresses overfishing and aggressively acts to rebuild
    stocks. By requiring councils to end overfishing immediately, improving
    oversight of rebuilding progress, and strengthening conservation
    provisions in the event of a failed rebuilding plan, Section 504 of
    H.R. 4690 positions our nation's fisheries to be resilient to climate
    impacts and provide long-term benefits to fishermen and the nation as a
    whole.
    Transparency in Fisheries Management
        As a final thought, both H.R. 4690 (Section 304) and H.R. 59
    (Section 302) make meaningful strides toward improving the transparency
    and accountability of regional councils, including the ability for the
    public to attend meetings remotely and access recordings after the
    fact. One silver lining of the COVID-19 pandemic has been the increased
    ability of stakeholders to observe and participate in management as
    regional councils converted meetings to virtual formats. Maintaining
    this accessibility post-pandemic will help to ensure that the nation's
    fishery management process is a truly public one.

        Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony on the
    topic of MSA reauthorization.

                                     ______

        Mr. Huffman. Thank you very much, Dr. Goldsmith.
        We will now hear from Mr. Shannon Carroll, Associate
    Director of Public Policy at Trident Seafoods.
        The Chair recognizes Mr. Carroll for 5 minutes.

      STATEMENT OF SHANNON CARROLL, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
             POLICY, TRIDENT SEAFOODS, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON

        Mr. Carroll. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        My name is Shannon Carroll. I am speaking on behalf of
    Trident Seafoods. I am proud to have spent the past 7 years
    working the North Pacific Council process where science,
    transparency, and good governance are primary drivers of policy
    actions.
        But before I go into my testimony, I do want to correct
    something that was said on the record during the last panel
    that was categorically false from my perspective, and that is
    that Trident and others in the Bering Sea pollock fleet are
    exceeding their bycatch limits of salmon and halibut.
        The document that was added to the record does not support
    this statement and, among other inaccuracies, conflates several
    fisheries and regions into one. The Bering Sea pollock fishery
    operates under a hard cap implemented by the National Marine
    Fishery Service, and the agency closes the fishery when the
    bycatch limits are reached. We would be shut down before
    exceeding any limit.
        I will note that Chinook bycatch in the Bering Sea pollock
    fishery has been reduced by 89 percent when comparing this
    year's numbers to its peak in 2007, that every vessel in the
    pollock fishery is required to have 100 to 200 percent observer
    coverage, and that the scientific evidence study does not point
    to bycatch as a driving factor in lower salmon productivity
    across Alaska.
        And I will certainly be responding with a written response
    to further flesh out those points.
        Moving on, though, I do want to acknowledge and express
    appreciation for the work of Congressman Young, who was not
    only instrumental in framing what I view as one of the most
    successful conservation statutes ever written, the Magnuson-
    Stevens Act, or Young-Studds Act, he has been a constant
    champion for Alaska and our nation's seafood industry since the
    passage of that legislation 45 years ago.
        I also want to acknowledge the recent passing of Trident's
    founder, Chuck Bundrant, and note that the values upon which he
    founded our company--community partnership, stewardship, and a
    genuine desire to forge a sustainable Alaska seafood industry--
    are still at the very core of every decision we make today. We
    are heavily invested in the long-term sustainability of marine
    resources and ecosystems.
        The successful management framework created by the Magnuson
    Act is precisely why we have the confidence in investing
    hundreds of millions of dollars over the next several years
    into projects that modernize our aging infrastructure, and
    achieve better utilization, environmental performance, and jobs
    for the next generation.
        My written testimony includes more than I can go into here,
    so I would like to focus my remarks today on one primary point,
    and that is that the regional stakeholder-driven framework of
    the Magnuson Act has been a remarkable success, and any
    reauthorization bill should, first and foremost, do no harm to
    that structure.
        Since 1976, Congress has set clear priorities through the
    National Standards framework, empowering the eight regional
    councils to utilize their local expertise to balance the
    National Standards in ways that account for unique regional
    conditions, and this regional approach is one of the
    centerpieces of the Magnuson Act's enduring success.
        That success is easy to quantify. Each year, over 2.2
    million metric tons of ground fish, one-third of the wild
    commercial harvest in the United States, are harvested in the
    North Pacific. And that supports fishery dependent harvesters
    and communities, and provides affordable protein to consumers
    across the United States.
        Equally important, over the past four decades, not a single
    Alaska ground fish stock has been overfished or subject to
    overfishing. The Magnuson Act has not only empowered fishery
    managers to sustainably manage individual species; it has also
    given regional councils the flexibility to implement ecosystem-
    based management measures, adapt to changing environmental
    conditions, and minimize bycatch.
        In my written testimony, I detail several of the management
    measures that the North Pacific Council has undertaken to adapt
    to climate change, protect habitat, and minimize bycatch. I
    highlight these actions not only to demonstrate what is
    possible under the current law, but to also note the fact that
    those actions involved a transparent public process with many
    opportunities for stakeholder engagement. Again, this is a
    fundamental feature of the Magnuson Act.
        And it is here that my primary concern with the H.R. 4690
    exists. Rather than empower the councils, the proposed
    legislation contains mandates that will undermine the regional
    council framework. Many of the proposed changes will create
    extreme uncertainty, produce unfunded mandates, increase
    potential for litigation, and divert highly limited resources.
    From my perspective, this means the bill's passage would be
    worse than keeping the status quo.
        The core elements of successful fisheries management--
    surveys, monitoring, data collection, and research--are in
    constant jeopardy due to decreasing or stagnant funding.
    Implications of losing funding for this work include
    uncertainty in annual catch limits, more conservative quotas,
    less tax revenue in coastal communities, decreased food
    security, and fewer data and tools to understand ecosystem and
    climate interactions.
        And I will be honest, we still have work to do with respect
    to improving fishery performance, adapting to rapidly changing
    environmental conditions, and improving stakeholder engagement
    and inclusivity, but it is profoundly important to ensure that
    any new requirements don't come at the expense of the work at
    hand or other measures that have made the Magnuson Act so
    successful.
        Thank you.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Carroll follows:]
      Prepared Statement of Shannon Carroll, Associate Director of Public
                            Policy, Trident Seafoods
        Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member Benz, Dean of the House
    Congressman Young, and Members of the Committee--thank you for the
    opportunity to testify today. My name is Shannon Carroll. I have the
    privilege of leading fisheries and science policy priorities and Alaska
    public affairs for Trident Seafoods. I live in Girdwood, Alaska. I am a
    former commercial fisherman, with a background in conservation, natural
    resources, and fisheries law. I am a current board member on the North
    Pacific Research Board, a state advisor on the Pacific States Marine
    Fisheries Commission, and former member of the North Pacific Fishery
    Management Council's Advisory Panel. Above all else, I consider myself
    a conservationist, and I am proud to have spent the past seven years
    working in the North Pacific Fishery Management Council process, where
    science, transparency, and good governance are primary drivers of
    policy actions.
        Trident was founded in 1973 as a single crab catcher and processing
    boat in the Bering Sea. It has grown over time to become one of the
    largest vertically integrated seafood companies in North America. To
    this day, we remain a private, family owned company, that reinvests our
    earnings back into our operations and the development of new products
    and markets to keep wild Alaska seafood competitive in a global seafood
    market. We have a multi-generational view, and no exit strategy. I want
    to acknowledge the recent passing of our founder, Mr. Chuck Bundrant,
    and note that the values upon which he founded the company--community
    partnership, stewardship, and a genuine desire to forge a sustainable
    Alaska seafood industry that benefits all stakeholders--are still at
    the core of every decision we make today. It is why I am proud to work
    for this company.
        Trident has primary processing plants in ten coastal communities in
    Alaska, adjacent to our fisheries, as well as secondary processing
    plants in Washington, Georgia, and Minnesota and in important markets
    for wild Alaska seafood around the world (Germany, Japan, China, Latin
    America). Each of our Alaska facilities are in remote fishery-dependent
    communities, inaccessible by road, where we are integral to the health
    of the community and economy. We process nearly every major commercial
    fishery species caught in waters off Alaska and serve a diverse range
    of harvesters throughout Alaska--from small setnet skiffs to large
    catcher vessels. We recognize the particular importance of serving
    family fishing operations that rely on income from their local fishery
    to sustain year-round household needs. Our experience is that it takes
    a mix of species, gear types, and big and small harvesters to be able
    to crew primary processing operations for shoulder seasons, which are
    typically unprofitable times to run but critical to our smaller and
    local harvesters. Trident also owns and operates its own fleet of
    harvesting and support vessels, including four catcher processors,
    fifteen trawl catcher vessels, six crab catcher vessels, and various
    tender and freight vessels. We are committed to the partnerships that
    we have with the communities within which we operate, the more than
    1,000 independent harvesters who depend on us to provide a competitive
    market, and our more than 8,000 employees worldwide.
        Likewise, due to our vertically integrated structure, we serve an
    essential role in getting sustainable, healthy, certified, and
    traceable U.S. wild-caught seafood to consumers worldwide. In short, we
    are heavily invested in the long-term sustainability of marine
    resources and ecosystems and have made these investments because of the
    successful management framework created by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
    Conservation and Management Act (MSA).
    Overview
        Having spent much of my career working in fisheries, conservation,
    and government, I view the MSA as one of the most important and
    successful conservation statutes ever written. It has been the
    foundation for sustainable fisheries management in the United States
    for more than four decades. The unique and successful regional council
    structure has empowered direct stakeholders and created management
    measures tailored to the unique characteristics of vastly diverse
    fisheries across the United States. It has put science at the center of
    the decision-making process and insulated scientific determinations
    from political interference. It has reduced bycatch, improved
    accountability and transparency, and provided flexibility for managers
    to adapt to changing ocean and climate conditions. It has provided for
    development of area-based conservation measures, including measures in
    the North Pacific that close over sixty-five percent of the EEZ to some
    or all fisheries in order to achieve ecosystem goals.
        As an Alaskan resident, I am especially proud of the contributions
    made to this public policy success by my home state. Forty-five years
    ago, Congressman Don Young teamed up with Congressman Gerry Studds to
    sketch out the framework for a new federal fisheries law. Alaska
    Senator Ted Stevens initiated a parallel process in the U.S. Senate
    with his Washington State counterpart, Warren Magnuson. The resulting
    legislation was a truly unique and visionary approach to resource
    management, one that recognized the importance of regional decision-
    making, stakeholder involvement, and balancing the difficult trade-offs
    inherent in fisheries management. Decades later, when legislators
    sought to strengthen the MSA and put conservation more firmly at the
    heart of the statute, it was the `Alaska model' that guided the
    reauthorization processes. The North Pacific Fishery Management
    Council's success in preventing overfishing and requiring managers to
    follow science-based catch limits became the new national standard. The
    1996 reauthorization required all Regional Fishery Management Councils
    to end overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks. The 2006
    reauthorization required Annual Catch Limits and Accountability
    Measures for all fisheries and ensured that it would be the Councils'
    Scientific and Statistical Committees that would establish strict catch
    limits based on the best available science.
        Adherence to these key tenets of sustainable fisheries management
    have consistently served the North Pacific region well. In more than
    four decades, not a single Alaska groundfish stock has been overfished
    or subject to overfishing. This has ensured not only that our region's
    unique marine ecosystems remain healthy, but also that our fisheries-
    dependent sectors and communities are able to thrive. Today, over 2.2
    million metric tons of groundfish are harvested in the North Pacific
    each year, worth approximately $2.2 billion in first wholesale value
    and supporting approximately 90,000 jobs. As a strengthened Magnuson-
    Stevens Act has helped extend the `Alaska model' to more U.S.
    fisheries, overfishing rates have declined and overfished stocks have
    been able to rebuild. Specifically, as of September 30th--when NOAA
    Fisheries last updated Congress on the status of fish stocks managed
    under federal fishery management plans--47 previously overfished stocks
    had been rebuilt, and rates of overfishing nationally were near record
    lows. Today, thanks to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, our nation's fisheries
    are healthy, we have experience with tools to address emerging
    conservation or management challenges, and our fishing and seafood
    sector supports 1.7 million jobs. We are the global standard. Members
    of the subcommittee: this is what success looks like.
        Which brings us to the legislation before us today. I want to thank
    all Members who have taken an interest in marine fisheries policy and
    are seeking to strengthen our existing federal laws. I know that these
    are good-faith efforts. Mr. Chairman, the process you have undertaken
    to gather stakeholder input, region by region, has been commendable and
    appreciated by the fishing industry. Thank you.
        Given the success of our existing federal fishery management
    system, I believe one rule above all else should govern the
    subcommittee's approach to legislation that amends and reauthorizes the
    Magnuson-Stevens Act. That rule should be: first, do no harm.
        Unfortunately, despite what may be the best of intentions, as
    currently drafted H.R. 4690, the Sustaining America's Fisheries for the
    Future Act, poses significant risks to our world-leading federal
    fisheries management system. Similarly, as currently drafted H.R. 5770,
    the Forage Fish Conservation Act, although also well intentioned, would
    create significant uncertainty in numerous fisheries, and could pose a
    particular threat to our region's Alaska pollock fisheries--which
    account for more than one-third of total federal fishery landings.
    Although I do not seek to provide a comprehensive analysis of these
    bills in my testimony, I hope my comments below will assist Members as
    they review these legislative proposals, assess whether they merit the
    support of this subcommittee, and consider potential changes to the
    drafts as currently written.
    Sustaining America's Fisheries for the Future Act
        Chairman Huffman's H.R. 4690, introduced on July 26th, is a
    sweeping MSA reauthorization proposal. It aims to advance reforms
    targeting five distinct areas, all critical importance--climate change;
    fishing communities; public process and transparency; fisheries science
    and data; and healthy ecosystems and improved fisheries management.
        In doing so, however, H.R. 4690 too often departs from the core
    strength of the MSA and its National Standards framework, namely the
    compact between the federal government and the regions. Since 1976,
    Congress has set clear priorities and expectations through the National
    Standards framework. Experts at NOAA Fisheries have given those
    priorities and expectations specific meaning through guidance and
    rulemakings that provide an evolving roadmap for Council actions. Until
    now, however, the eight Regional Fishery Management Councils have been
    far more than mere functionaries implementing the will of federal
    policymakers. Their autonomy, stakeholder-driven decision-making
    processes and regional expertise have been a central feature of the MSA
    framework. Accordingly, they have been afforded flexibility to meet the
    National Standards in ways that also meet regional needs and account
    for unique regional conditions. This balance is a centerpiece of the
    MSA's enduring success.
        Too often, H.R. 4690 presumes to start from an entirely different
    premise: that the autonomy and bottom-up approach of the Regional
    Fishery Management Councils is in fact a problem to be fixed. The
    resulting reauthorization blueprint would weaken the Regional Council
    framework, and in so doing make our nation's federal fishery management
    system less durable and robust. Although some of H.R. 4690's provisions
    have the potential to win broad support, taken together this
    legislation appears to reduce management flexibility, upend region-
    specific solutions, create uncertainty, and impose additional costs and
    regulatory burdens on the management system and those who rely on it.

        Title I of H.R. 4690 provides one such example. In the North
    Pacific we are on the front lines of climate change, and it is already
    a ubiquitous reality in our region's marine environment. Our Council
    and our stakeholders recognize this, and because our investments and
    businesses depend on long-term access to a sustainable resource, the
    Council, the Alaska Fisheries, Science Center, and stakeholders have
    confronted this reality to the extent that science, data, and funding
    allows. Here is a short, and by no means exhaustive, list of recent and
    ongoing Council actions to incorporate climate factors into the Council
    decision making process:

         Council Ecosystem Policy: ensures that ecosystem
                considerations are incorporated into the analysis and
                development of all fishery management measures;

         Bering Sea Fishery Ecosystem Plan: includes a Climate
                Change Taskforce that has a five-year work plan with the
                primary purpose to ``facilitate the Council's work toward
                climate-ready fisheries management that helps ensure both
                short- and long-term resilience for the Bering Sea.'' The
                goal of this project is to evaluate the vulnerability of
                key species and fisheries to climate change and to
                strengthen resilience in regional fisheries management;

         Alaska Climate Integrated Modeling Project: this project
                describes and projects responses of the Bering Sea
                ecosystem--both the physical environment and human
                communities--to varying climate conditions. It connects
                research on global climate and socioeconomic projections to
                regional circulation, climate enhanced biological models,
                and socio-economic and harvest scenarios. This effort
                informs managers of the risks of climate change on fish and
                fisheries and enables the evaluation of a range of
                adaptation strategies; and

         Annual Ecosystem Status Report: provides an annual
                overview of the climate and oceanography conditions to
                stock assessment authors, the Council, and public, in order
                to allow for those factors to be incorporated into stock
                assessments.

        The list above is in addition to multiple fisheries and ecosystem
    surveys conduction by NOAA, and the rigorous, precautionary, and
    science-driven approach to setting harvest limits that includes
    detailed analysis and a public process to test and review potential
    climate-related impacts on target stocks and the broader ecosystem. An
    example of swift action in response to changing ocean conditions
    occurred in 2018 with marine surveys that year detecting an extreme
    decrease in abundance of Pacific cod in the Gulf of Alaska. The decline
    was linked to North Pacific hot spots, a sudden and acute marine
    heatwave and threat referred to as ``the blob'' at the time. The
    science-based Total Allowable Catch (TAC) setting process and marine
    mammal forage protections led to a swift closure of the directed
    fishery for the year. It was supported by regional stakeholders who
    have long been engaged with our system of TAC-setting.
        A final example is one of a proactive and novel action in
    anticipation of changes in geographic range of important commercial
    species. Faced with increasing evidence of persistent decline in multi-
    year sea ice extent, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council
    recognized the potential for rapid change in the Arctic ecosystem. They
    took action to ensure any new fishing opportunity in the portion of our
    EEZ not already subject to commercial fishing would be appropriately
    regulated, and with input from Arctic community residents. In 2009, the
    North Pacific Fishery Management Council adopted an Arctic Fishery
    Management Plan explicitly closing federal waters north of the Bering
    Strait to commercial fishing unless and until sufficient science and
    management measures are in place to support doing so in a sustainable
    manner. This action preceded and helped to support a multinational
    approach to prevent overexploitation of fishery stocks and their
    habitats as waters open in the Arctic. We will increasingly need to
    consider proactive fishery management plan amendments to govern
    responsible access to species important to commercial and recreational
    fisheries that are moving due to changes in water temperatures or their
    traditional habitats.
        By enumerating examples of the many actions that the North Pacific
    Fishery Management Council has taken to address climate change and its
    related effects, my objective not only to show what is possible under
    current law, but also to highlight the fact that all the above listed
    initiatives involve a transparent public process with many
    opportunities for stakeholder engagement. As currently drafted, Title I
    takes a different approach. Rather than empower the Councils, it
    contains prescriptive mandates that will consume Council time, divert
    resources, and in the case of my region and others already well
    advanced in this area, distract from the climate tasks at hand. Section
    102(c) would require the Secretary to ``assess the vulnerability of
    fish stocks within each Council's geographical area of authority to
    climate change,'' ``notify each Council of the vulnerability of fish
    stocks within such Council's geographical area of authority,'' and
    ``make recommendations to each Council for measures to conserve and
    protect such fish stocks.'' This runs directly counter to an approach
    consistent with the MSA's current framework, which would direct and
    empower the Councils--working with their respective Science and
    Statistical Committees, Plan Teams, and Fishery Science Center--to lead
    such efforts and be accountable for the results. This is occurring now
    in the North Pacific under the efforts described above. Similarly, the
    Section 102 provisions that mandate detailed new assessments related to
    climate impacts in all Fishery Management Plans and Plan Amendments are
    redundant and overly prescriptive, given approaches that are already
    underway, including the use of annual stock assessments to track and
    respond to climate impacts.
        Title III, Section 305 contains concerning language that would
    limit stakeholder engagement by mandating that the Secretary of
    Commerce appoint at least one individual to each Council who does not
    have a financial interest in matters before the Council. The Councils
    are already governed by comprehensive recusal regulations that prevent
    direct financial conflicts by Council members. This provision may sound
    good on the surface, but the concern is that the theme of the provision
    seems to erode one of the core principles of the MSA and its framers,
    which is that direct stakeholders and those with expertise in the
    fisheries at issue are best positioned to contribute to the management
    and long-term health and sustainability of our fisheries. This
    provision would prevent knowledgeable Council members from asking
    probing questions, providing expertise and first-hand perspective, and
    conducting invaluable outreach that builds credibility in the process.
    The result will be a lack of qualified candidates that are willing to
    serve and a degradation of the quality, credibility, and thoroughness
    of the management decisions. Finally, there are already adequate
    conflict of interest and recusal safeguards in place. NOAA recently
    went through an extensive public process to clarify and revise its
    policy directive on recusals and conflicts of interest, and the final
    product appropriately balances the needs of transparency, fairness, and
    stakeholder engagement.
        Also of concern are provisions in Title V, which, among other
    things, delete the practicability language from the current law. One
    cannot ignore the realities of implementing such provisions, creating
    the potential to throw U.S. fisheries into chaos and protracted
    litigation. Take Section 503, for example. This Section amends National
    Standard 9, which requires that conservation and management measures
    ``minimize bycatch,'' but removes the existing qualifying language ``to
    the extent practicable.'' The existing language of National Standard 9
    is not a ``loophole'' as some have erroneously asserted. Rather, it is
    a recognition of the realities of fisheries and fisheries management.
    Incidental catch is a feature of all fisheries--whether they be
    commercial or recreational--and regardless of the gear type that is
    used. The requirement that bycatch be minimized ``to the extent
    practicable'' acknowledges this fact--just as National Standards 5, 7,
    8 and 10 require that managers consider efficiency in the utilization
    of fishery resources; minimize costs and avoid unnecessary duplication;
    minimize adverse economic impacts on fishing communities; and promote
    the safety of human life at sea ``to the extent practicable.''
        There can be no question that a new and unqualified National
    Standard 9 would create chaos in our nation's fisheries, with the
    potential for both positive and negative implications for actual
    bycatch trends. If Congress makes a deliberate and considered departure
    from a requirement that Councils minimize bycatch ``to the extent
    practicable,'' by what measure would Councils or the Secretary judge
    whether a fishery has ``minimized'' bycatch? One extreme would be to
    require the cessation of all fishing activity. Another would be to
    consider any reduction in bycatch--no matter how negligible--is
    sufficient. At a minimum, the result is uncertainty for fishery
    managers as they attempt to balance the ten national standards, uneven
    application across fisheries and regions, litigation, and an upending
    of decades of established case law.
        Before we create such significant instability, it must be asked
    whether the current language is inadequate in giving the regional
    councils the tools to minimize bycatch. From my experience in the North
    Pacific Fishery Management Council, the current language is meeting the
    intent of the proposed language. Since 2015, when I first started
    working in the Council process, reduction of incidental catch has been
    one of the top priorities of the Council. Among other bycatch-related
    efforts, in 2015, the Council took actions that have reduced halibut
    bycatch in the flatfish sector by 25 percent, and it is poised to
    secure further reductions through an abundance-based approach at its
    upcoming meeting. Last month, the Council took final action on a
    cooperative management structure for the Bering Sea/Aleutian Island
    (BSAI) Pacific cod trawl catcher vessel fishery, that will effectively
    reduce halibut incidental catch limits by 25% and Bristol Bay red king
    crab incidental catch by 80% when combined with the existing management
    measures that reduce limits when biomass is low. With hard cap measures
    in place that result in fishery closures when reached, fleets are
    incentivized to take actions within their control to minimize risk of
    reaching the cap given uncertainty and factors beyond their control
    that could result in an unanticipated spike in incidental catch.
        Incidental catch management is about more than hard caps as actual
    catch numbers are often well below cap levels. Our Council has
    implemented several cooperative programs that have given the fleet
    tools to make major gains in reducing incidental catch. In the Bering
    Sea/Aleutian Island pollock catcher-processor fishery--which is among
    the highest scored certified fisheries in the world--all vessels pay
    for two independent human observers, who carefully record not only
    total catch of the target species but also all incidental catch that
    occurs, including a complete census and genetic sampling of all salmon
    catches. Through the Pollock Conservation Cooperative, extensive gear
    and technological innovations such as underwater cameras, salmon
    lights, and salmon excluders have been funded by industry, improving
    pelagic trawl technology to exclude more non-target species. Fishery
    participants also pay to access and share detailed historical and
    current spatially explicit catch data across the entire fleet and for
    analysis of these data to help inform time and area fishing decisions
    to avoid predicted high rates of interaction with incidentally caught
    species.
        As part of regulatory Amendments to the BSAI Fishery Management
    Plan, Incentive Plan Agreements are in place to reduce salmon
    incidental catch at all levels of pollock and salmon abundance. A key
    component of these Agreements is the use of near real-time data to
    inform incidental catch ``hot-spot'' closures, whereby vessels are
    prohibited from fishing in areas of known high salmon abundance as they
    change throughout the season. As a result of all these measures, and
    pollock harvesters' ongoing investment in technology and information to
    improve bycatch avoidance, for many years more than 98 percent of the
    catch in the BSAI Alaska pollock fishery has been pollock. These are
    the kind of successes that should be recognized and scaled up as we all
    continue to pursue fisheries that minimize bycatch to the extent
    practicable.
        Similar concerns arise with respect to Section 502. The habitat
    areas of particular concern (HAPCs) process under the MSA's existing
    Essential Fish Habitat provisions have served a vital purpose. In many
    instances they have been a catalyst for Councils to establish new
    science-based conservation measures to protect and sustain some of the
    most important and vulnerable habitats in our oceans. Rather than build
    on this success, however, Section 502(a)(3) requires fishery managers
    to ``take action to minimize and mitigate any adverse effect of [any]
    action on--(aa) the habitat area of particular concern; [and] (bb) the
    species for with respect to which the habitat area of particular
    concern is designated.'' The absence of qualifying language in this
    Section raises the very real possibility that no balancing would occur
    and courts would determine fishing activity to be impermissible if any
    adverse impact of any kind on HAPCs or the species for which they were
    designated is a consequence.
        Finally, and more broadly, I am concerned that many of the changes
    proposed by H.R. 4690 will either create unfunded mandates or divert
    highly limited resources. Funding for the core elements of successful
    fishery management--surveys, monitoring and data collection programs,
    research, and staffing--is a zero-sum game, and all these core elements
    are in constant jeopardy due to decreasing or stagnant funding. The
    implications of losing funding for this core work includes increased
    uncertainty in annual catch limits--resulting in more conservative
    quotas and less fishery dependent data collection--and fewer tools to
    integrate management resiliency into management decisions. In balancing
    the need for new requirements for Councils and the Secretary to carry
    out, one must consider whether the new requirements will come at the
    expense of other measures that have made the MSA so successful for the
    past forty-five years.
    Forage Fish Conservation Act
        The forage fish provisions of H.R. 4690--together with
    Congresswoman Dingell's free-standing bill, the Forage Fish
    Conservation Act--seek to impose special requirements on a subset of
    marine fisheries. In order to do so, they require the Secretary of
    Commerce to define ``forage fish'' within six months of enactment. In
    establishing a new definition of ``forage fish'', the legislation would
    require the Secretary to ``consider factors including whether a species
    covered by such a definition, throughout such species' life cycle--(1)
    is at a low trophic level; (2) is generally small-to intermediate-
    sized; (3) occurs in schools or other dense aggregations; (4)
    contributes significantly to the diets of other fish, marine mammals,
    or birds; and (5) serves as a conduit for energy transfer to species at
    a higher trophic level''.
        Underlying this legislation is an important recognition that the
    health of target species should not be the only goal of fishery
    management--broader ecosystem considerations are also critical. I
    completely agree, and it is in recognition of this obligation that the
    North Pacific Fishery Management Council has developed detailed
    regional ecosystem plans that inform all fishery management decisions.
    The Council has also chosen to consider forage fish as ecosystem
    component species in the North Pacific groundfish fishery management
    plans, which by definition means directed fishing is not allowed. These
    designated forage fish species include smelt, capelin, sand lance,
    lanternfish and krill. The Alaska Fisheries Science Center provides
    assessments of the health of these species or species groups even
    though directed fisheries are not allowed.
        This successful approach has been developed and implemented under
    the existing Magnuson-Stevens Act and done through regional,
    transparent, and public processes. The challenge posed by the proposed
    legislative changes is that a single definition of ``forage fish'' will
    be required, and that definition will form the basis upon which new
    protections will be mandated. The reality, however, is that there is no
    definition that will satisfactorily demarcate ``forage fish'' from
    ``target species'' across every region. This is because nearly all
    species are prey to larger predators during their life cycle and thus
    provide energy transfer up the food chain. Alaska pollock, for
    example--by far the largest commercial species by volume fished in the
    United States--satisfies all five of the criteria that are provided to
    inform the Secretary of Commerce in establishing a new definition of
    ``forage fish.'' Alaska pollock (1) is at a low trophic level; (2) is
    generally small- to intermediate-sized; (3) occurs in schools or other
    dense aggregations; (4) contributes significantly to the diets of other
    fish, marine mammals, or birds; and (5) serves as a conduit for energy
    transfer to species at a higher trophic level.
        If this legislation as drafted were to be enacted, the amount of
    data, research, analysis, and funding needed to fulfill this mandate
    would likely cripple the ability of regional councils and NOAA to carry
    out their other functions. Rather than artificially segment certain
    fisheries by creating a new national category of ``forage fish,'' the
    subcommittee should find ways to encourage the more rigorous
    application of ecosystem-based management approaches already adopted in
    the North Pacific and other regions to identify, monitor, and protect
    forage fish.
    Conclusion
        Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on these important
    matters. I again urge support for effectively resourcing and
    implementing core research programs and management capabilities long-
    recognized as foundational to adaptive, responsible fisheries
    management, and to enable continuous improvement in how councils meet
    and balance competing objectives within MSA National Standards. I look
    forward to continuing to work with Members of the subcommittee, and I
    am available to answer any questions you may have about my testimony.

                                     ______

        Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Carroll.
        And let me just say, the document I entered into the record
    is pretty hard hitting. It takes Trident to task on a number of
    things. So, if you do have different information or want to
    offer a point-by-point rebuttal to that, I would welcome that.
    I am sure the Committee would welcome that. And, if you want to
    provide that to us supplementally in writing, that would be
    fantastic.

        [The information follows:]
         Supplemental Testimony Submitted for the Record by Mr. Carroll

                          TRIDENT SEAFOODS CORPORATION

                                  Seattle, WA

                                                      November 24, 2021

    Hon. Jared Huffman, Chairman,
    Hon. Don Young, Acting Ranking Member,
    Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife
    Committee on Natural Resources,
    1324 Longworth House Office Building,
    Washington, DC 20515

        Dear Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member Benz, Dean of the House
    Congressman Young, and Members of the Committee:

        Please accept this written follow up to statements made and a
    document added to the record by the Chairman during the November 16,
    2021 Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife legislative hearing on
    H.R. 59, H.R. 4690, and H.R. 5770. Trident Seafoods appreciates the
    opportunity to provide a response given our commitment to science-based
    management and responsible fishing practices, and our sincere concern
    for the health of communities impacted by sharp declines in salmon
    abundance in two major Western Alaska river systems. I respectfully
    request that this response be entered into the hearing record.
        I participated in the November 16 hearing in good faith to
    contribute to an important ongoing dialogue regarding fisheries
    conservation law in the United States. I am stunned to instead be
    reacting to use of the hearing as a platform to help advance a
    misinformation campaign against my employer and one of the most
    intensely monitored and responsibly managed fisheries in the world.
        The Chairman alleged that pollock trawl vessels, including those
    owned and operated by Trident, ``are far exceeding their bycatch limits
    of salmon and halibut, leaving small fisheries and Alaska Native
    fishing communities struggling.'' As I noted in my oral testimony
    during the hearing, this is a false statement that contradicts NOAA
    Fisheries data and publicly available reports.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ NOAA Fisheries, Fisheries Catch and Landings Reports in Alaska,
    https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/alaska/commercial-fishing/fisheries-
    catch-and-landings-reports-alaska.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        An authorless and error-laden memo \2\ was also entered into the
    record in support of this statement included inaccurate and out of
    context information. We completely reject the unvetted document, which,
    together with the Chairman's comments, accuse Trident of acting
    unlawfully and irresponsibly, and imply we have no regard for
    conservation or for the health of Western Alaska communities. Nothing
    could be further from the truth.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ See Attachment 1 for detailed response to the memo added by
    Chairman Huffman.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Bycatch is rigorously managed
        Many companies operate in the Bering Sea pollock fishery, the
    nation's largest fishery. Neither Trident nor the pollock fleet have
    exceeded their salmon or halibut bycatch limits in either the Bering
    Sea or the Gulf of Alaska. In fact, they are operating well below their
    limits in both regions. Both the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska pollock
    sectors operate under hard caps for halibut and salmon, with an
    abundance-based trigger further reducing Chinook salmon hard caps in
    the Bering Sea fishery. Note that there is very little halibut bycatch
    in the pollock fishery, so the comments and record submission about
    halibut bycatch appear to conflate the pollock sector with the flatfish
    bottom trawl catcher-processor fishery \3\ in which Trident does not
    operate.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ While Trident does not participate in the Bering Sea flatfish
    sector, it should be noted they are also managed under a hard cap,
    which cannot be exceeded.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        All hard caps are implemented by the National Marine Fisheries
    Service (NMFS). The agency closes fisheries when Prohibited Species
    Catch (PSC) bycatch limits are reached so they are not exceeded. PSC
    species in North Pacific groundfish fisheries include salmon, halibut,
    crab, and herring; none are allowed to be retained for sale. Bering Sea
    pollock fisheries all have one or two federally trained independent
    observers onboard to monitor all fishing activity. Every Chinook salmon
    is retained and counted under controlled oversight for accurate
    reporting and to support the strong vessel-level accountability
    measures in place in this fishery. This public information is tracked
    by NMFS in-season managers and reported weekly on the NMFS website.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ See footnote 1.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In addition to hard caps, Bering Sea pollock fisheries are required
    to operate under Incentive Plan Agreements (IPAs) to promote salmon
    bycatch avoidance (through contractual incentives) at times when hard
    caps are not at risk of being reached. The IPA contracts also all
    include agreement to impose and adhere to rolling hot spot area
    closures based on real-time data, and other reporting requirements.
    These measures are among the most innovative globally and have been
    effective: Chinook bycatch in the Bering Sea pollock fishery has been
    reduced by around 89% since its peak in 2007. They come at great
    expense to our industry, but we understand the importance and are
    committed to their continuation.
        All Bering Sea pollock cooperatives submit reports to the North
    Pacific Fishery Management Council, annually.\5\ Likewise, the North
    Pacific Council receives updated genetic information on Chinook and
    chum salmon bycatch annually. This is critically important because not
    all bycaught Chinook or chum salmon is from the United States. Annual
    genetic and age sampling enables us to understand the impacts of salmon
    bycatch on salmon runs in specific regions of the United States, like
    villages in coastal western Alaska.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Available here: https://www.npfmc.org/cooperative-reporting/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Science shows bycatch isn't the reason for declines
        More broadly, I am concerned that the statement made furthers
    unreasonable expectations regarding the implications of reducing
    bycatch. Science demonstrates that bycatch is not in any way a
    significant contributing factor to declining salmon abundance in
    Western Alaska. Even if all bycatch could be stopped, there is no
    scientific reason to expect these salmon stocks would then rebound.
        Using genetic tools and modeling, NMFS and Alaska Department of
    Fish and Game scientists have estimated how many of the incidentally
    caught salmon would have returned as adults to spawn. Based on this
    work, the latest assessment (2017) showed <2.5% impact on aggregate
    coastal Western Alaska Chinook runs and <1% on Middle/Upper Yukon
    Chinook runs. The 2019 genetic work demonstrated that out of the total
    number of chum bycatch in the Bering Sea pollock fleet, 57% was of
    Asian origin (predominately hatchery fish), 16% was from coastal
    western Alaska, and 0.3% was from Middle/Upper Yukon.\6\ The MSA
    requires that Councils use the best available scientific information to
    make decisions, and the comprehensive data provided on an annual basis
    to the public and the Council on these topics is staggering but
    necessary to ensure informed and scientifically based decisions are
    made consistent with the national standards. Trident urges use of
    scientific information and evidence in both decision-making for Federal
    fisheries and in discourse about changes to the MSA.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ See Bering Sea Salmon Bycatch Update North Pacific Fishery
    Management Council, September 2021, available here: https://
    www.npfmc.org/wp-content/PDFdocuments/bycatch/
    BeringSeaSalmonBycatchFlyer.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Drivers of salmon productivity declines may be due to several other
    factors that are the current focus of state salmon scientists and
    research organizations (like Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim Sustainable Salmon
    Initiative (AYK SSI)), warranting further analysis of system change and
    ecosystem dynamics. We need to put resources into this research
    specifically for Alaska salmon. We have seen unprecedented sea ice loss
    in recent years and temperatures are increasing both in-river and in
    the ocean, specifically in the nearshore environment. A better
    understanding of these drivers is critical to forecast runs and salmon
    health. Specifically, we need more research on the life cycle of salmon
    species in the freshwater, nearshore, and marine environments, and the
    effects that environmental changes are having on salmon throughout
    their life cycle. Trident has advocated for this work and funded
    significant salmon research through the Pollock Conservation
    Cooperative Research Center. We not only contribute financially to
    marine research but also support it through our operations platforms.
    Our future depends on detecting and appropriately responding to
    ecosystem changes.
        I empathize with subsistence users in Western Alaska, and while I
    can never fully know the pain and sense of loss that they are feeling
    or their connection to the resource and culture, I appreciate what they
    are saying and am aware of the importance of continuing to further
    reduce incidental catch of Chinook and chum in the Bering Sea pollock
    fishery. However, the implication that the Council and industry have
    done nothing, and that the pollock fleet's bycatch is responsible for
    declining runs, is false. In addition to misleading Subcommittee
    Members and the public, it distracts from the efforts and research that
    are needed to determine factors driving lower salmon productivity in
    some regions.
    Actions are working--and need to support sustainable, healthy fisheries
            for all
        The Chairman also made statements with respect to the regional
    councils ``doing nothing'' on bycatch. However, the facts and data do
    not support this. In the North Pacific, bycatch has been on the agenda
    at nearly every meeting since I began working in the Council process in
    2015. Among other bycatch-related efforts, in 2015, the Council took
    actions that have reduced halibut bycatch in the flatfish sector by
    25%, and it is poised to secure further reductions through an
    abundance-based approach at its upcoming meeting. As recently as last
    month, the Council took final action on a cooperative management
    structure for the Bering Sea/Aleutian Island Pacific cod trawl catcher
    vessel fishery, that will effectively reduce halibut incidental catch
    limits by 25% and Bristol Bay red king crab incidental catch by 80%
    when combined with the existing management measures that reduce limits
    when biomass is low.
        More broadly, this sequence of events starkly illustrates why we
    believe fishery management plans should be developed in-region through
    a transparent and robust review process rather than through an outside,
    centralized body that simply cannot develop the depth of knowledge
    needed to distinguish valid from invalid information in making informed
    decisions on all fisheries management and conservation actions nation-
    wide.
        As noted in my written and oral testimony, Trident is heavily
    invested in ensuring that the nation's Regional Fishery Management
    Council process supports--to the extent that it has the authority--
    sustainable, healthy fisheries and ecosystems for all stakeholders, and
    that it is transparent and fair for all stakeholders. We have
    consistently supported management programs that reduce bycatch,
    increase accountability, and improve stability for coastal communities
    and independent harvesters. We have invested millions into filling gaps
    left by inadequate funding for science and research, including
    supporting efforts to conduct high seas salmon surveys, hatchery/wild
    salmon interaction studies, and gear modifications. These are issues
    upon which members of this Subcommittee should be aligned, and Trident
    welcomes the opportunity to work with you to achieve our shared
    objectives.

                Thank you,

                                               Shannon Carroll,
               Director Fisheries Development and Alaska Public Affairs

    See Attachment

                                   ATTACHMENT

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     ______

        Mr. Huffman. Next, we will hear from Mr. John Pappalardo,
    CEO of Cape Cod Commercial Fishermen's Alliance, Incorporated.
        The Chair now recognizes Mr. Pappalardo to testify for 5
    minutes.

        STATEMENT OF JOHN PAPPALARDO, CEO, CAPE COD FISHERMEN'S
                 ALLIANCE, INC., CHATHAM, MASSACHUSETTS

        Mr. Pappalardo. Thank you, Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member
    Young, and members of the Subcommittee. My name is John
    Pappalardo, and I am the CEO of the Cape Cod Commercial
    Fishermen's Alliance.
        The Fishermen's Alliance is composed of small boat,
    conservation-minded commercial fishermen. We have nearly 100
    fishing members with thousands of community supporters, and
    this year, we are celebrating our 30th anniversary.
        I have also had the privilege of serving on the New England
    Fishery Management Council for 15 years, 5 of which I chaired.
        The Fishermen's Alliance is also a founding member of the
    Fishing Communities Coalition (FCC), an association of
    community-based, small-boat commercial fishing organizations,
    representing more than 1,000 fishermen from Maine to Alaska.
        FCC members share a strong commitment to the sound
    conservation and sustainable management of America's fishery
    resources, and we work to ensure healthy, thriving oceans for
    future generations of commercial fishermen. As such, the FCC is
    proud to have worked with this Subcommittee, both on
    reauthorizing MSA, as well as the recent enactment of the Young
    Fishermen's Development Act, which created a critical program
    for future generations of fishermen.
        I would like to provide comment on two of the titles in
    H.R. 4690 with the time I have left. I will start with Title I,
    Climate Ready Fisheries. Title I, Climate Ready Fisheries,
    includes several important provisions aimed at improving the
    management of our fisheries in the face of ever-increasing
    challenges brought on by climate change.
        The Fishermen's Alliance and FCC support increasing the
    adaptive capacity of fisheries management, incorporating
    climate science into fisheries research, and strengthening the
    resiliency of fish stocks to climate change impacts as proposed
    in the bill.
        While Title I focuses on increasing resiliency and
    mitigating the consequences of climate change, it does not
    include a directive for the councils to evaluate the impacts of
    climate change on how they manage their fisheries. This is why
    I recommend that the Subcommittee consider adding a new climate
    change National Standard in Section 301 of the MSA for fishery
    conservation and management.
        The National Standards represent the core policy of this
    nation and provide direction to the agency and councils as to
    how conservation and management measures must be developed. A
    new climate change National Standard would require councils to
    consider the impacts of climate on proposed conservation and
    management measures.
        In my written testimony, I have included a draft straw mat
    of that National Standard. I also included some language that I
    think would be helpful to add to the requirements of the SSC
    under Section 302.
        Moving on to Title IV of H.R. 4690, Section 409, entitled
    ``Offshore Wind Collaboration'' caught my eye. It requires the
    Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of Interior to enter
    into an agreement to fund additional stock assessments related
    to the development of offshore wind energy.
        Over the next two decades, our marine ecosystem in the
    Northeast will be altered by the construction of a dozen or
    more offshore wind farms. It is my sincere hope that Section
    409 will create a substantial fund capable of modernizing
    marine resource surveys and ecosystem assessments.
        The Northeast region needs a re-imagined fishery survey and
    assessment program. A new survey program using industry vessels
    is also an important consideration.
        Presently, today, areas the council has designated as
    essential fish habitat are being leased by BOEM for wind farms.
    Our lucrative and historic fishing grounds will be altered or
    lost, and the fishing industry and council has little to no
    standing with the BOEM process beyond a consultation and
    comment period. So, you see, Section 409 needs to lead to
    better collaboration between Interior and Commerce.
        Section 502 of H.R. 4690 attempts to address negative
    impacts of offshore development and activities on EFH by
    requiring Federal agencies to consult with the Secretary of
    Commerce. While this section might improve the current
    situation, until the Secretary and NOAA are given veto power
    over proposed Federal projects that could destroy our EFH,
    nothing will materially change. Offshore wind development along
    the eastern seaboard is going to have a significant impact on
    our industry and the habitat and fishing grounds we work to
    protect.
        It should be noted that impacts of wind farms extend beyond
    the respective lease areas. Each new wind farm built is not
    created in a vacuum, and yet there is a distinct lack of
    consideration or evaluation of the cumulative impacts with each
    successive wind farm built. Fishing operations that are
    displaced from lease areas will move to overlap with other
    fisheries. Habitats will be altered. When all these lease areas
    are built out, what will these impacts be to our historic
    industry?
        The agreement struck in Section 409 between Interior and
    Commerce could be written with total build-out of all lease
    areas in mind. Leaseholders could be bound to fund this
    agreement on an ongoing basis. The annual fishery resource
    surveys should be industry based, and in partnership with NOAA.
        I thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments
    and would be happy to provide any other information.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pappalardo follows:]
        Prepared Statement of Mr. John Pappalardo, Cape Cod Commercial
      Fishermen's Alliance on Behalf of the Fishing Communities Coalition
        Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member Bentz, and members of the Water,
    Oceans and Wildlife Subcommittee, my name is John Pappalardo and I am
    CEO of the Cape Cod Commercial Fishermen's Alliance (Fishermen's
    Alliance). The Fishermen's Alliance is composed of small boat,
    conservation-minded commercial fishermen. We have nearly 100 fishermen,
    families, and members with thousands of community supporters as we
    celebrate our 30th anniversary. I have also had the privilege of
    serving on the New England Fishery Management Council for 15 years, 5
    of which I chaired the Council.
        The Fishermen's Alliance is also a founding member of the Fishing
    Communities Coalition (FCC), an association of community-based, small-
    boat commercial fishing organizations representing more than 1,000
    fishermen from Maine to Alaska. FCC members share a strong commitment
    to the sound conservation and sustainable management of America's
    fishery resources, and we work to ensure healthy, thriving oceans for
    future generations of commercial fishermen. As such, the FCC is proud
    to have worked with this subcommittee both on reauthorizing the
    Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) as well as the recent enactment of the Young
    Fishermen's Development Act, which created a critical program for
    future generations of fishermen.
        Before addressing possible changes to the MSA, I would like to
    thank the subcommittee for its help in navigating the COVID-19
    pandemic. As you are very aware, the pandemic quite vividly exposed the
    weaknesses in our supply chains which we are still dealing with today.
    Fewer markets for our fish combined with low prices were a real
    challenge to our fishermen and their families. Your support for CARES
    Act funding and other initiatives designed to help our industry have
    not gone unnoticed and are greatly appreciated. We still have a long
    way to go, and your continued support is greatly needed.
        Before examining specific provisions of the legislation being
    reviewed today, I'd like to offer one overarching observation regarding
    the reauthorization process. 2006 was the last major MSA
    reauthorization, and it took well over a decade for many of those
    provisions to be implemented. Much of the delay was due to the lack of
    agency resources, staff, scientists, and ship time. I ask the
    subcommittee to be mindful that simply changing the law does not
    necessarily mean those changes will go into effect immediately. They
    become unfunded mandates. The 2006 amendments were highly ``science-
    driven,'' meaning the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    (NOAA) was required to conduct scientific research without the
    resources to perform in a timely manner. As you consider amending the
    MSA, please consider the level of resources, both in terms of budget
    and staff, it will take to enact changes and the likelihood those
    resources will be available to the agency.
    H.R. 4690: Title I
        Title I ``Climate Ready Fisheries'' includes several important
    provisions aimed at improving the management of our fisheries in the
    face of ever-increasing challenges from climate change. The Fishermen's
    Alliance and the FCC support increasing the adaptive capacity of
    fisheries management, incorporating climate science into fisheries
    research, and strengthening the resiliency of fish stocks to climate
    change impacts as proposed in the bill. However, the prescribed
    solution to managing shifting stocks in Sec. 105 is not something we
    can support at this time. Having experienced ``joint plans'' with the
    New England and Mid-Atlantic councils when I was chair, I found them to
    be bureaucratic, time-consuming, and not necessarily producing a good
    result. We would be happy to work with the subcommittee on developing a
    more effective approach.
        While Title I of H.R. 4690 focuses on increasing resiliency and
    mitigating the consequences of climate change, it does not include a
    directive for the councils to evaluate the impacts of climate change on
    how they manage their fisheries. This is why I recommend the
    subcommittee consider adding a new ``climate change'' national standard
    in Sec. 301 of the MSA for fishery conservation and management.
        The national standards represent the core policy of this nation and
    provide direction to the agency and councils as to how conservation and
    management measures must be developed. Currently, the national
    standards require that conservation and management measures minimize
    bycatch, promote safety of human life-at-sea, and are based on the best
    science among other requirements. The climate crisis is real, and our
    fishermen are on are on the frontlines--Cape fishermen were changing
    their business plans to incorporate the northward migration of black
    seabass before the term climate-resilient fisheries was even coined. A
    new climate change national standard would require councils to consider
    the impacts on climate of any proposed conservation and management
    measure.
    Proposed Language:
        (11) Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent
    practicable, consider and incorporate observed and projected impacts of
    climate change on resource productivity and distribution.
        But more can be done. We need to make sure that the impacts of
    climate change on the productivity and distribution of our fishery
    resources be incorporated into the scientific advice provided to the
    councils by the scientific and statistical committees (SSCs). I am
    therefore proposing an amendment to the responsibilities of the SSCs as
    follows:
        At the end of Sec. 302(g)(1)(B) add the following: ``In providing
    scientific advice, each scientific and statistical committee shall
    consider the impacts of climate change on stock productivity and
    distribution.''
    H.R. 4690 Title II
        Title II of H.R. 4690 includes a number of sound proposals that we
    support, including important changes to subsistence fishing in Sec.
    202. We strongly support the provisions on working waterfronts (Sec.
    203). Our fishermen understand the importance of providing access to
    working waterfronts, not only for fishing businesses and vessels, but
    for boatbuilding, aquaculture, and other water-dependent businesses.
    Without these services, our fleets could not survive.
        Sec. 204 would improve seafood marketing by requiring the U.S.
    Department of Agriculture (USDA) and NOAA to work together to develop
    seafood marketing and education programs within NOAA. We suggest a
    different approach. The USDA and the USDA Agricultural Marketing
    Service (AMS) are experts in purchasing large commodities of
    agricultural products; that's what they do! Rather than duplicate this
    expertise within NOAA, we would suggest NOAA work with the USDA to
    provide the information they need to begin purchasing more domestic
    seafood for food nutrition programs. NOAA expertise is important
    because wild-caught American seafood differs significantly from
    traditional agricultural products; soybeans can be grown almost
    anywhere, while most seafood species are limited to specific regions.
    This makes the independent American fisherman a core part of the grow-
    local food movement that emphasizes smaller scale and a healthy
    proximity between producer and consumer. Smaller scale and
    diversification present special challenges to USDA, which often employs
    a national procurement model, and this is where NOAA can help. AMS
    Commodity Procurement Office should create a seafood program to work
    with NOAA and the seafood industry to (1) develop seafood products
    requirements and specifications, (2) promote and provide local seafood
    at regional scale to foodbanks, community food associations, and other
    entities like public schools and prisons, and (3) integrate more
    seafood into AMS purchases and identify marketing opportunities for the
    seafood industry. USDA has a proven track record in accomplishing these
    opportunities for the beef, chicken, and pork industries.
        By way of example, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the
    Fishermen's Alliance created a new product, a haddock chowder under the
    brand name ``Small Boats, Big Taste.'' We were able to offer more than
    725,000 servings of this delicious chowder to food banks and pantries
    across the Northeast, while keeping fishermen on the water during a
    time of economic crisis. Yet even a regional program as robust as this
    has had a difficult time moving into the USDA procurement process, in
    large part because our fishermen, processors, and manufacturers cannot
    supply a single standardized product at national scale. This is a
    crucial issue for the American small-boat fleet that reauthorization
    can and should address.
        In Title II, Sec. 205, we are pleased to see emphasis given to
    community participation in new limited access privilege programs
    (LAPPs). This language is similar to that provided to the subcommittee
    by the FCC but not in its entirety. The FCC proposal included a
    provision that required councils to designate, prior to plan
    submission, fishing communities that could be eligible to receive a
    community allocation. Without having prior knowledge as to whether a
    specific fishing community is eligible to receive quota, no community
    can spend the time and money it would take to design a community
    sustainability plan as required under the Act. Requiring the councils
    to identify eligible communities in advance will help ensure that
    communities are given a chance to participate. Although MSA has
    authorized community participation in LAPPs for decades, not one
    community has secured an allocation under current MSA provisions.
    H.R. 4690 Title III
        Title III of H.R. 4690 includes several council procedural matters
    and important sexual harassment and assault prevention measures, all of
    which the Fishermen's Alliance and the FCC support.
        There is one important matter not addressed in Title III that we
    believe would strengthen conservation and encourage accountability, and
    therefore should be included in the bill. Currently, the MSA requires
    management councils to review LAPPs at least every 7 years and, if
    necessary, make modifications to meet the goals and objectives of the
    program. As we have seen in the Gulf of Mexico, the open-access private
    angler sector continues to attempt to reallocate quota away from the
    limited access commercial sector. Furthermore, as NOAA Fisheries
    attempts to ``recalibrate'' previous recreational catch estimates,
    commercial fishermen--who weigh and validate every pound of fish
    landed--find themselves having quota taken away while private anglers--
    only some of whom complete voluntary surveys estimating their catch--
    see their quota increase. This hardly seems fair. While we support
    increasing the accuracy and precision of recreational catch estimates,
    this process should not be used to penalize the commercial sector which
    has stronger accountability measures and a history of staying within
    their science-based quotas. To that end, we feel strongly that any
    reallocation should only go to those sectors that do not overfish or
    exceed their quota. If, however, regional fishery management councils
    decide to reallocate under approved allocation policies, we suggest
    that there be a cap (2-3% per year) on the amount of quota shift that
    could happen so as to provide for more stability in the fishery and in
    commercial fishermen's business plans.
    Suggested MSA amendment:
        Section 303A(c)(G) is amended by striking the semicolon at the end
    and inserting ``. If after a formal and detailed scheduled review as
    required by this section, the Council determines that a reallocation of
    quota is necessary to meet the goals and objectives of the program, it
    may only reallocate to a sector, person or entity that has not
    overfished, not engaged in overfishing, or exceeded harvest limits
    during the period being reviewed.''
    H.R. 4690 Title IV
        Title IV includes very important provisions designed to expand and
    improve the use of electronic reporting, electronic monitoring (EM),
    and other new technologies. Fishermen's Alliance and FCC view
    accountability as a key element of our management system.
    Unfortunately, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is behind
    in terms of advancing and employing new technologies. More than 15
    years ago, members of the Fishermen's Alliance conducted a pilot study
    demonstrating that cameras placed on our boats can be as effective as
    human observers. Regrettably, widespread use of EM and other new
    technologies has yet to be achieved.
        The Fishermen's Alliance is supportive of Sec. 403, aimed at
    prioritizing and improving stock assessments. Stock assessments are the
    backbone of our science-based management approach. Establishing catch
    limits and other accountability measures in the absence of up-to-date
    information on the status of the stocks is very difficult and can lead
    to excess harvest levels. Inadequate funding for stock assessments
    hinders the ability of the councils to meet the accountability measures
    required by the MSA.
        Sec. 409, entitled ``Offshore Wind Collaboration,'' requires the
    Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of Interior to enter into an
    agreement to fund additional stock assessments related to the
    development of offshore wind energy. Over the next two decades our
    marine ecosystem will be altered by the construction of dozens of
    offshore wind farms. I hope Sec. 409 will create a substantial fund
    capable of modernizing marine resource surveys and ecosystem
    assessments.
        The Northeast region needs a reimagined marine survey and
    assessment program. A new survey program based on a cooperative or
    industry-based survey model is necessary. Areas the council has
    designated as essential fish habitat (EFH) are now being leased by BOEM
    for large-scale power generation. Lucrative fishing grounds will be
    altered or lost and the fishing industry and council has little to no
    standing with the BOEM process beyond a consultation and comment
    period. Sec. 409 needs to lead to better collaboration between Interior
    and Commerce.
        Sec. 502 of H.R. 4690 attempts to address negative impacts of
    offshore development and activities on EFH by requiring federal
    agencies to consult with the Secretary of Commerce. While this section
    might improve the current situation, until the Secretary and NOAA are
    given veto power over proposed federal projects that could threatened
    or destroy EFH, nothing materially will change. Offshore wind
    development along the Eastern seaboard is going to have a significant
    impact on our industry and the habitat and fishing grounds we work to
    protect. It should be noted that impacts of windfarms extend beyond the
    respective lease areas. Each new wind farm built is not created in a
    vacuum, and yet there is a distinct lack of consideration or evaluation
    of the cumulative and increasing impacts of offshore wind development
    on the whole. Fishing operations that are displaced from lease areas
    will move to overlap with other fisheries. Habitats will be altered as
    well. When all lease areas are built out what will the impacts be? Who
    is evaluating and mitigating the wholesale transformation of our
    nearshore resources? The agreement struck in Sec. 409 between Interior
    and Commerce should be written with total buildout in mind.
    Leaseholders should be bound to fund this agreement on an ongoing
    basis. The annual resource surveys should be industry-based in
    partnership with NOAA.
        The Fishermen's Alliance strongly supports the forage fish
    provisions included in Sec. 508. This language is very similar to that
    proposed by the FCC and its members. To ensure conservation and
    management of river herring and shad, Sec. 508 directs the Secretary to
    add these stocks to the relevant fishery management plan. The
    Fishermen's Alliance strongly supports this effort as forage fish must
    be conserved and managed for the health of our ecosystems.
        Lastly, Sec. 509 includes a small but extremely important
    clarification to those of us in New England. Years ago, there was a
    significant lapse in fisheries law enforcement in New England partly
    due to lack of funding. We knew that cheating was increasing, and it
    needed to be curtailed. Working with then-Congressman Gerry Studds, the
    MSA was amended to require that fines and penalties imposed against
    fishermen and fish processors for violations of the New England
    groundfish plan shall be used to enforce the management plan.
    Congressional intent was clear: use these funds to bolster enforcement
    efforts. But over the years, Administrations of both political parties
    have refused to follow the law. The clarification included in H.R. 4690
    will ensure that additional resources are available for enforcement and
    monitoring of the groundfish plan.
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments and we
    would be happy to provide any other information the subcommittee may
    require.

                                     ______

        Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Pappalardo.
        We will next hear from Dr. Sean Powers of the University of
    South Alabama School of Marina and Environmental Science and
    the Dauphin Island Sea Lab.
        The Chair now recognizes Dr. Powers for 5 minutes.

     STATEMENT OF DR. SEAN POWERS, DIRECTOR, SCHOOL OF MARINE AND
      ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE DAUPHIN ISLAND SEA LAB, UNIVERSITY OF
                     SOUTH ALABAMA, MOBILE, ALABAMA

        Dr. Powers. Thank you, Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member and
    Dean of the House, Congressman Young, and members of the
    Subcommittee. I am pleased to appear in front of you today to
    discuss improving the nation's marine fisheries management.
        Since its enactment, the Magnuson-Stevens Act has advanced
    management of marine fisheries, which, in turn, has benefited
    our nation greatly. Bipartisan legislation has provided a
    roadmap confronting many of the challenges in fisheries
    management, from removing unregulated international fishing
    fleets from our coastal waters, ending overfishing of many
    stocks, as well as addressing pressing economic and
    environmental issues that could jeopardize the future
    sustainability of marine fisheries.
        Through major amendments, the Act has evolved to include
    better participation of regional stakeholders and management
    actions, and greater reliance on science-based management
    advice.
        Two points that illustrate this are the Act's mandates for
    the identification and protection of essential fish habitats
    and greater incorporation of ecosystem-based principles. These
    were two truly forward-looking concepts that were included in
    the legislation.
        In its current form, I believe the Act provides a framework
    to meet current as well as most of the future challenges
    through its focus on regional-based management, science-based
    decisions, and its desire to achieve optimal yield in
    fisheries.
        I encourage the Act's continued attention in promoting more
    regionally focused management and believe Congress should
    consider expanding this focus to more local entities at the
    state or multi-state commission level.
        Though migrant movement of juvenile and adult fish is
    relatively small--in other words, these are not highly
    migratory species--greater ability of the states to manage this
    stock should be considered. I believe the current shift in
    management of reef fish in the northern Gulf of Mexico provides
    an excellent example of how beneficial such a system would be
    providing stocks or not in an overfished condition. I believe
    this is in keeping with the intent of the Act to better engage
    regional stakeholders and achieve optimal yield.
        Another critical element of the Act is its reliance on
    science. An increasingly important tool for fishery managers is
    the greater ability of fisheries-independent data. These are
    scientifically directed surveys and studies that can provide
    critical biological information that can be used to better
    inform assessments and management.
        Unlike fisheries-dependent data, largely catch and landings
    data, which are currently the primary source of information for
    stock assessments, fisheries-independent data is not confounded
    by fishermen's behavior and market forces. The inferences are
    not limited to the current hotspots of exploitation.
        A recently completed Great Red Snapper Count in the Gulf of
    Mexico, an initiative funded through congressional action, as
    well as work my group has been conducting in Alabama coastal
    waters for the last decade, have demonstrated how fisheries-
    independent scientific studies can be used to estimate absolute
    abundance of fish stock.
        I believe agencies should be strongly encouraged to provide
    greater weight to abundance estimates based on rigorously
    collected fisheries-independent data. Such studies, coupled
    with the inclusion of better socioeconomic data, which is also
    desperately needed in fisheries management, will help the
    nation reach the optimal yield targets set forth in the Act,
    National Standard Guidelines. Many states, like Alabama, have
    invested significant financial resources in providing these
    data.
        Improved socioeconomic data will also allow for a greater
    balance between stakeholder needs and rebuilding schedules of
    fish populations. Rebuilding of fish population is fairly easy
    and involves largely eliminating fishing-related mortality.
    Saving the fishermen while rebuilding the fish population is
    the difficult part of why we need further investment with
    fishery research.
        This task will become even more complex as true ecosystem-
    based management is adopted and socioeconomic data streams are
    improved. True ecosystem-based management should involve more
    than just setting limits of the most vulnerable species or the
    stock in the poorest condition. Optimal yield in a multi-
    species or ecosystem context, may require trade-offs that may
    involve longer rebuilding periods for one species in order to
    allow optimal yield to be achieved in other fisheries. This
    will require a greater flexibility in the context of National
    Standard Guideline 1.
        Thank you for your time, and I am happy to answer any
    questions later.

        [The prepared statement of Dr. Powers follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Sean P. Powers, Ph.D., Director, School of Marine
     and Environmental Sciences and Angelia & Steven Stokes Endowed Chair,
                          University of South Alabama
        Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member Bentz, and Members of the
    Subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss
    improving the nation's ability to sustainably manage fisheries through
    greater reliance on science. My name is Sean Powers, and I am Director
    of the School of Marine and Environmental Science at the University of
    South Alabama as well as a Senior Marine Scientist at the Dauphin
    Island Sea Lab in Alabama. I am a fisheries ecologist with over 20
    years of experiencing studying a range of fisheries species including
    inshore finfish (e.g., Red Drum, Speckled Sea trout, Southern Flounder)
    and offshore reef fish (e.g., red snapper, gray triggerfish and greater
    amberjack) in the Gulf of Mexico; salmon and flatfish in Alaska; and
    tuna in the Galapagos Islands. In addition to developing new and novel
    methodologies to advance my field of study, publishing the results of
    these studies, and training the next generation of marine scientists, I
    am committed to transferring science to the management and policy
    arenas. I feel strongly about this latter point because funding for
    much of my work ultimately comes from the taxpayers of this nation. I
    believe the work that my colleagues and I have accomplished have and
    will continue to improve the states and nation's ability to effectively
    manage marine fisheries. I have been fortunate to be called upon to
    serve on several panels and committees at the regional and national
    level (Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council's Science and
    Statistical Committee, National Academies of Science and Engineering
    Panels, Alabama Forever Wild Land Trust) to provide advice in achieving
    the goal of sustainable management of marine fisheries. I have worked
    on many contentious issues over my career, one of which I am here today
    to discuss--management of the reef fish in the Gulf of Mexico.
        Since its enactment in 1976 and subsequent reauthorizations in 1996
    and 2007, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
    (MSA) has provided the framework for improved management of marine
    fisheries. The result has been large improvements in the condition of
    many stocks that have benefited our nation. Through congressional
    action, the Act has evolved over the years in response to stakeholder
    concerns as well as technological and scientific advances with the goal
    of improving the conservation and economic benefits of healthy fish
    stocks. Opportunities to improve the management of marine fisheries
    remain through amendments to the Act as well as through other actions
    Congress can take. Increased efficiency of commercial fleets has
    resulted in more profitable returns for that sector. Increased
    participation in marine recreational fisheries has fueled continued
    economic development in coastal communities and provided exceptional
    growth opportunities for maritime and outdoor and leisure-related
    industries. Sustaining these benefits requires effective management
    that is responsive to changing socioeconomic and ecological conditions.
    Science can and must play a key role in developing the data streams and
    analyses needed to inform policy makers.
        My testimony will focus on four key issues I believe are germane to
    the three bills discussed in this hearing: (1) the expanding the role
    of fisheries-independent studies to inform management; (2) increasing
    cooperation between federal and state partners in providing scientific
    information; (3) including more local management (State) of marine
    fisheries; and (4) the need for stability in fisheries management.
        Historically, the primary mechanism where data are synthesized to
    inform fisheries management has been the stock assessment process. A
    major improvement in stock assessments has been the expanded use of
    fisheries-independent data. Fisheries-independent surveys
    (scientifically directed surveys that generate relative abundance
    indices as well as critical biological information on targeted and non-
    targeted species) can be used to inform stock assessment. Unlike
    fisheries-dependent (catch) data, which are currently the primary
    source of information for stock assessments, fisheries-independent data
    is not confounded by fishermen behavior, market forces, and inferences
    are not limited to the current hot spots of exploitation. Technological
    advances and cost effectiveness in ocean observing instruments,
    underwater cameras, hydro-acoustics, and statistical approaches have
    resulted in a suite of rigorous methods to measure fish abundance
    independent of capture (hooks and net) methods. Advancements in machine
    learning and artificial intelligence also offer the promise of
    decreased processing time and hence more timely data. The recently
    completed Great Red Snapper Count, an initiative funded through
    congressional action, as well as work my group has been conducting in
    Alabama coastal waters for the last decade has demonstrated how
    fisheries-independent data can be used to estimate absolute abundance
    of fish stocks. The exhaustively reviewed report found the number of
    Red Snapper in U.S. waters of the Gulf of Mexico was 3 times higher
    than the recent estimate from the stock assessment. Any new fisheries
    legislation should advance the shift away from catch-based stock
    assessments to fisheries-independent based assessments. Further,
    agencies should be strongly encouraged to provide greater weight to
    abundance estimates based on rigorously collected fisheries-independent
    data.
        Under MSA, agencies are directed to use the ``best scientific
    information available'' (see National Standard 2). For decades, most
    scientific information available was collected and provided by NOAA
    Fisheries or by state and university researchers under cooperative
    agreements with the agency. Over the last decade, many States,
    particularly those in the Gulf of Mexico, have invested significant
    resources in fisheries-dependent and -independent data designed to
    monitor the catch and condition of their economically critical stocks
    off their respective coast. Most of these surveys have a rigorous,
    peer-reviewed scientific design as their foundation. The term ``best''
    has been interpreted by many that a choice must be made on which data
    to use in developing management advice. Given the increasing number of
    rigorously designed data streams, a more inclusive term should be
    adopted. Any new legislation should encourage the use of all rigorous
    and accepted science in developing management advice.
        A product of increased investments in fisheries data collection by
    Gulf States over the last decade is greater spatial resolution of stock
    dynamics. This enhanced resolution could support local management that
    is more responsive to the socioeconomic concerns of coastal
    communities. Provided a stock is not overfished, local control in
    setting harvest targets may better facilitate achieving optimum yield
    and thus maximizing economic benefit (National Standard 1). If a stock,
    managed under a stock annual biological catch limit in a regional (i.e.
    state level) form of management, is determined to be overfished by the
    regional fisheries management council, the level of local management
    control could depend on biological measures such as the strength of the
    spawner-recruit relationship. If rebuilding in states is dependent on a
    region-wide source of larvae because recruitment is not local and
    relies on greater regional connectivity, then managing the stock over
    its range should supersede regional (state) management. More local
    control could also be more effective in guarding against overfishing,
    which could lead to an overfished condition. Localized depletions are
    often evident long before regional indices will detect declining
    trends. Provided states have rigorous and timely fisheries-data-
    collection-systems decreases in recruitment (evidence for recruitment
    overfishing) and/or reductions in the size of fish (evidence for growth
    overfishing) can be detected and management action at the appropriate
    spatial scale can be implemented quickly through areal closures or
    season length adjustment.
        Finally, the guiding principle of MSA and related fisheries
    legislation is the achievement of optimum yield. While the definition
    of optimum yield depends on the stakeholder group or sector questioned,
    an increasingly relevant concern of all sectors is stability in the
    fishery. Many commercial fisheries have been able to achieve both
    through LAPPs (Limited Access Privilege Programs). More predictable and
    stable season lengths and bag limits would allow businesses dependent
    on recreational fisheries to achieve similar success. Stability in all
    sectors of a fishery should be a component of achieving optimum yield.

                                     ______

        Mr. Huffman. Thank you very much.
        And, finally, we will hear from Ms. Meredith Moore,
    Director of the Fish Conservation Program at the Ocean
    Conservancy.
        Welcome. You are recognized for 5 minutes.

       STATEMENT OF MEREDITH MOORE, DIRECTOR, FISH CONSERVATION
               PROGRAM, OCEAN CONSERVANCY, WASHINGTON, DC

        Ms. Moore. Good afternoon, Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member
    Young, and members of the Committee. Thank you for the
    opportunity to speak to you today about the critical challenges
    facing U.S. fisheries, and the need to make targeted
    improvements to support sustainable fishing under the Magnuson-
    Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
        I am Meredith Moore, the Director of the Fish Conservation
    Program at Ocean Conservancy, a non-profit organization that
    develops evidence-based solutions for a healthy ocean and the
    communities that depend on it.
        For decades, fishermen, scientists, managers, tribes, and
    conservation organizations have worked together to successfully
    implement science-based, sustainable, and accountable fishery
    management under the requirements of the law. Now, serious
    challenges, like climate change, are eroding the successes we
    have had and threatening the future of fishing. We must adapt
    our management system to ensure healthy fisheries exist for
    generations to come.
        H.R. 4690, the Sustaining America's Fisheries for the
    Future Act, accomplishes that task by offering necessary
    updates to the law that build on the strengths of our current
    system. Provisions in this bill would tackle the impacts of
    climate change, improve ecosystem health, support the sustained
    participation of fishing communities, improve fishery data, and
    move us toward a more just and equitable fishery management
    system.
        First, H.R. 4690 offers a comprehensive vision for climate-
    ready fisheries management. Climate change is already
    disrupting our fisheries. Fish populations are shifting,
    becoming less productive, and more vulnerable to heat waves and
    other disasters. But, even as our ocean and fisheries are being
    reshaped, our management system is largely operating along the
    same well-worn tracks. A climate-ready fisheries management
    system will better predict, plan for, and adapt to these
    climate changes in order to support sustainable fishing.
        In order to better respond to current impacts, H.R. 4690
    instructs managers and scientists to use the best information
    and tools available now to consider climate impacts in their
    management decisions, and to focus on those stocks most
    vulnerable to climate change.
        But the bill also paves the way to the future by ramping up
    production of climate and fishery science, and by fostering the
    development of new approaches that can help managers make more
    informed and adaptive decisions. Fundamentally, we must reduce
    greenhouse gas emissions to head off the most severe impacts of
    climate change, but the adaptation actions in H.R. 4690 are
    critically important to help fish populations, marine
    ecosystems, and fishing communities withstand the disruptions
    that are already locked in.
        Second, this bill reaffirms our country's commitment to
    ending overfishing and rebuilding fish stocks. While the
    existing law contains clear requirements to rebuild stocks that
    are overfished, in practice, many rebuilding plans have failed.
        H.R. 4690 makes important changes to improve the likelihood
    that existing rebuilding plans stay on track and are successful
    the first time. And, in cases where they have failed to rebuild
    the stock, a better plan is put in place next time.
        Third, H.R. 4690 includes improvements to modernize our
    fishery information systems, and to better use electronic
    technologies. It also directly addresses the need to improve
    the data systems that keep private recreational anglers
    accountable to catch limits. The bill establishes a dedicated
    program within NOAA fisheries to improve recreational fishing
    data and management. It also recognizes the growing challenge
    of using data from a suite of new recreational fishing surveys.
        A failure to address these issues through the council
    process has allowed the private recreational sector of the red
    snapper fishery in the Gulf of Mexico to exceed its quota year
    after year.
        Fourth, this bill strengthens how we manage our impacts on
    marine ecosystems, like improving the management of forage fish
    and essential fish habitats. The legislation includes critical
    changes to better account for and reduce bycatch, including
    addressing conservation and equity issues by removing the
    practicability standard.
        And, finally, as this bill moves through the legislative
    process, Ocean Conservancy urges the Committee to support
    important requests from Alaska Natives and Tribes for the
    inclusion of subsistence throughout the Act, and the addition
    of two designated seats on the North Pacific Fishery Management
    Council.
        In closing, I appreciate the thoughtful effort undertaken
    by Chairman Huffman, his staff, and this Committee, to solicit
    feedback from stakeholders while developing this bill. That
    process has produced this forward-looking legislation that
    would create a more sustainable, resilient, and equitable
    fishery management system.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look
    forward to working with the Committee and each of you to
    improve fisheries in the United States.

        [The prepared statement of Ms. Moore follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Meredith Moore, Fish Conservation Director, Ocean
                                  Conservancy
        Thank you to Chairman Huffman and the Subcommittee for the
    opportunity to submit written testimony and for the Subcommittee's
    consideration of H.R. 4690, the Sustaining America's Fisheries for the
    Future Act, which proposes to amend the nation's premier marine fishery
    law, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
    (MSA).
        Today, our fisheries and the communities they support face a number
    of growing threats; from climate disruptions to declining fish
    populations, our fisheries are up against significant challenges and
    our previous successes are slipping away. For instance, the number of
    overfished stocks is back to where it was a decade ago,\1\ with 20% of
    known fish stocks at population sizes that are too low and that
    jeopardize the ability to produce ongoing maximum sustainable yield.\2\
    At the same time, climate change is dramatically affecting the health
    of our fisheries, causing fish populations to shift, become less
    productive and more vulnerable to stress, disease, and heat waves.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ In 2011, 21% of known fish stocks were overfished. See: NOAA
    Fisheries. 2012. Status of stocks 2011 Annual Report to Congress on the
    Status of U.S. Fisheries.
        \2\ NOAA Fisheries. 2021. Status of Stocks 2020 Annual Report to
    Congress on the Status of U.S. Fisheries.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Now more than ever, we need to move forward: Congress has an
    opportunity to sustain and strengthen our fisheries and avoid harmful
    rollbacks that would damage coastal communities and our ocean. Previous
    reauthorizations have created a science-based resource management
    system which has significantly improved the status of fish stocks in
    the United States, rebuilt fish populations and supported sustainable
    fishing. The Fisheries for the Future Act continues this progress by
    offering comprehensive updates to address current challenges,
    strengthen sustainable management approaches, and prepare our fisheries
    for the impacts of climate change.
        These new legislative ideas are both timely and critical. Fishery
    management has important environmental, economic and social
    implications. Indigenous people have stewarded fish and marine
    ecosystems since time immemorial and remain closely tied to these
    resources as the foundation for culture, food security and economies.
    Fishery management also has important economic impacts: in 2017, the
    fishing and seafood industry supported 1.74 million jobs and generated
    $244.1 billion in sales.\3\ These impacts were enabled in part by the
    MSA and its requirements to rebuild overfished stocks, prevent
    overfishing and keep catch to sustainable levels. The core rationale
    for managing stocks at abundant levels remains unchanged: healthy fish
    stocks better support vibrant marine ecosystems and resilient Tribal
    and coastal communities and provide opportunities for sustainable
    fishing. Healthy stocks are now even more important, as they are more
    resilient to the current and expected impacts of climate change and
    other anthropogenic and environmental pressures.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ NOAA Fisheries. 2020. Fisheries Economics of the United States
    Infographics, 2017. U.S. Dept. of Commerce: https://
    www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/sustainable-fisheries/fisheries-
    economics-united-states.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Despite the gains made under our current management system, there
    are serious challenges that jeopardize the hard-earned success of our
    fisheries. Of note, H.R. 4690 seeks to address difficult challenges
    caused by climate change impacts, stalled rebuilding plans, and
    lingering bycatch issues. It also seeks to modernize fisheries science
    and data and begin to address inequities in our fishery management
    process by expanding representation, inclusiveness and accountability.
    Each previous reauthorization of the MSA has made substantial changes
    needed to improve the law. This bill is no different and makes changes
    that reflect the scope of the challenges that U.S. fisheries face.

        The Sustaining America's Fisheries for the Future Act addresses and
    improves five key areas of fishery management, which I explain in
    greater detail in this testimony:

         Climate-ready fisheries: Climate change is already
                impacting fisheries and ocean ecosystems. The oceans are
                growing warmer and more acidic, circulation patterns are
                changing, fish populations are shifting their ranges and
                showing altered productivity, and extreme weather events
                are becoming more frequent. Every part of the conservation
                and management of fisheries--the research and survey
                process, stock assessments, management decisions and
                fishing practices--will be affected. The proposed changes
                to the MSA contained in H.R. 4690 would catalyze the
                adaptive responses needed to address the impacts of climate
                change on our fisheries.

         Resilient fisheries and ecosystems: Over the past 45
                years, the U.S. model for fishery management via the MSA
                has led the world in sustainable fishery management.
                However, some fine tuning is needed to prevent stocks from
                declining to levels that require rebuilding, ensuring that
                rebuilding plans make progress, and ultimately meeting
                goals to bring stocks back to healthy levels. Additionally,
                improvements are needed to strengthen how we manage our
                impacts on marine ecosystems, including addressing critical
                conservation and equity concerns arising from fishery
                bycatch.

         Supporting fishing communities and subsistence fishing:
                Amid the backdrop of severe disruptions to fisheries and
                the seafood supply chain as a result of the COVID-19
                pandemic, it is a critical time to improve the MSA to
                better support fishing communities whose livelihoods and
                cultures depend on healthy oceans and fisheries. In
                addition, changes to the law to include subsistence
                fisheries and Tribes are long overdue.

         Modernizing fisheries science and data: Data on what
                fishermen catch is essential for managing fisheries and
                assessing the status of fish stocks, but it is often a
                challenge to collect. Ensuring the accuracy, timeliness and
                credibility of fishery data is paramount, and updates are
                needed so that new technologies and innovations are
                effectively harnessed and that data from many sources can
                be appropriately integrated into management.

         Strengthening public process, inclusion and transparency:
                The MSA's management system allows resource users to be
                directly involved in management decisions--a system unlike
                any other federal resource management framework. The
                Fisheries for the Future Act improves upon this system by
                making it more inclusive, ethical, accessible and
                transparent. In particular, the addition of two designated
                seats on the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, as
                requested by Alaska Native Tribes, represents a critical
                step forward for the future of our fishery management
                system.

        The ambitious scale of challenges tackled in this bill is
    accompanied by an acknowledgement that more resources will be needed to
    address them. Section 510 of H.R. 4690 increases the authorization of
    appropriations, meaning that it gives greater authority to Congress to
    provide substantially increased funding levels to the National Marine
    Fisheries Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NMFS or NOAA Fisheries) and the Regional Fishery
    Management Councils (Councils). The authorization represents a 50%
    increase from the level currently specified in the law, accounting for
    inflation, through fiscal year 2027. I agree with many who have pointed
    out that addressing the challenges our fisheries face will require more
    resources to carry out the important work of fishery management--
    section 510 reflects this much needed workload support. Sustainable and
    durable management requires time, money, and staff. While not a
    guarantee of funding, this increased funding authorization acknowledges
    that and indicates Congress's commitment to supporting the tools and
    approaches envisioned by this bill.
    I. Climate-ready Fisheries
        It is unequivocal that the climate and ocean are changing as a
    result of greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon dioxide, released
    by human activity. Each of the last four decades on our planet has been
    successively warmer than any decade that preceded it since 1850.\4\ It
    is essential that we reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the national
    and international level so that we can avoid the most extreme and
    devastating impacts to our fisheries and fishing communities. Because
    of climate change, the ocean is becoming warmer, more acidic, and lower
    in oxygen.\5\ Additional changes include sea level rise; increases in
    extreme events, such as hurricanes and marine heatwaves; and worsening
    coastal erosion and sea ice loss.\6\ These impacts have already
    disrupted where fish are found, what they can eat, where they can
    live,\7\ and has changed the distribution and productivity of
    fisheries.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ IPCC. 2021. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2021:
    The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the
    Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
    Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University
    Press.
        \5\ IPCC. 2019. IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in
    a Changing Climate. Geneva: IPCC.
        \6\ Id.
        \7\ Hollowed, A.B., et al. 2013. Projected impacts of climate
    change on marine fish and fisheries. ICES Journal of Marine Science,
    70: 1023-1037.
        \8\ Free, C.M., et al. 2019. Impacts of historical warming on
    marine fisheries production. Science, 363: 979-983; Young, T., et al.
    2019. Adaptation strategies of coastal fishing communities as species
    shift poleward. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 76(1): 93-103.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Our oceans and the fisheries they support are being reshaped, which
    means our approaches to management must also change. Strong fishery
    management can foster the resilience of fish stocks and fisheries to
    climate change, for example by maintaining adequate fish biomass.\9\
    Using the best information available, including Traditional Knowledge,
    managers must strive to understand how our fisheries are changing and
    which ones are most at risk. Climate change is impacting fisheries now;
    managers must respond in the near term by adapting to those changes,
    while continuing to increase the knowledge base and the ability to
    withstand the further changes to come. Put simply, there are grave
    costs of inaction, and current management approaches will not be
    adequate in the future.\10\ By working together, fishermen, scientists
    and managers can chart a course to a sustainable fishing future.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ Kritzer, J.P., et al. 2019. Responsive harvest control rules
    provide inherent resilience to adverse effects of climate change and
    scientific uncertainty. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 76(6): 1424-
    1435.
        \10\ Holsman, K.K., et al. 2020. Ecosystem-Based Fisheries
    Management Forestalls Climate-Driven Collapse. Nature Communications,
    11(1): 4579.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The proposed changes to the MSA contained in the Sustaining
    America's Fisheries for the Future Act would provide a path to address
    the impacts of climate change on our fisheries and prepare for the
    changes ahead in the near and long term. These changes to the law are
    needed because every part of the conservation and management of
    fisheries--the research and survey process, stock assessments,
    management decisions and fishing practices--will be affected by climate
    change. Managers will need to consider adaptations to ensure
    sustainable fishing can continue for the long term. Some Councils have
    demonstrated leadership in assessing the effects of climate change on
    their fisheries via tools such as Fishery Ecosystem Plans, scenario
    planning, and engagement with their regional NOAA Integrated Ecosystem
    Assessment programs. However, managers are still grappling with how to
    understand climate impacts and adapt management accordingly and there
    is still a lot of work to do. The agency and Councils need more
    guidance, tools, and stronger directives in order to more meaningfully
    integrate climate change into management.
        H.R. 4690 would advance climate-ready fisheries by improving the
    ability of NOAA Fisheries and the Fishery Management Councils to
    understand, predict, plan for and adapt to the impacts of climate
    change. The proposed legislation would add tools, authorities, and
    support to tackle the systemic challenges of climate change. The
    Fisheries for the Future Act would integrate climate considerations
    into the regular fishery management cycle, including considering the
    effectiveness of management measures to ensure resilience and assessing
    the vulnerability of fisheries to impacts of climate change in order to
    prioritize action (section 102). New approaches are also included for
    two significant management challenges: shifting fish stock
    distributions (section 105) and the emergence of new fisheries (section
    106).
        Importantly, Ocean Conservancy agrees with the bill's targeted
    efforts to provide scientific support and capacity to the Councils and
    facilitate the use of new tools and approaches. The Scientific and
    Statistical Committees (SSCs) are well suited to consider climate
    change when advising the Councils, and climate should be added to
    Council research priorities. The bill establishes a program to develop
    innovative tools and approaches to increase the adaptive capacity of
    fishery management to the impacts of climate change (section 104),
    which is complementary to efforts underway or in development at NOAA
    Fisheries, such as the Climate and Fisheries Initiative. The program,
    which can include grants, creates a much-needed process to support
    development of science and management approaches and promote their
    incorporation into management at the Councils. Without these types of
    changes, management is likely to continue to address climate change in
    ways that are insufficient, intermittent, and inconsistent.
    II. Resilient Fisheries and Ecosystems
    Rebuilding Fish Stocks
        Over the past 20 years, many Councils have seen success in
    rebuilding overfished stocks back to healthy levels. Since 2000, 47
    stocks have been rebuilt, from black sea bass on the Eastern Seaboard
    to cowcod on the West Coast.\11\ Healthy stocks are an important part
    of ocean ecosystems and provide opportunities for sustainable fishing
    now and in the future. Rebuilt stocks are among key commercial and
    recreational fisheries. For example, sea scallops on the Atlantic
    Coast, rebuilt in 2001, had catch valued at $569.9 million in 2019, and
    scup, rebuilt in 2009, was a top species for recreational harvest.\12\
    Rebuilding plans have been identified as a key tool for recovering
    stocks, and in the face of climate change and other anthropogenic and
    environmental pressures, keeping stocks at healthy levels is critical
    for ensuring fishery resilience.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ NOAA Fisheries. 2021. Fishery Stock Status Updates Rebuilt
    Stocks by Region: Update as of September 30, 2021. Available at:
    https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/population-assessments/fishery-
    stock-status-updates#quarterly-updates-02.
        \12\ NOAA Fisheries. 2021. Fisheries of the United States, 2019.
    U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Current Fishery Statistics No. 2019
    at xxv. Available at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
    sustainable_fisheries/Fisheries-united-states.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        However, many stocks in need of rebuilding have not experienced
    such success. Nationwide, starting in 2017, there has been a concerning
    increase in the number of stocks declared overfished and in need of
    rebuilding (see Figure 1 below). Of the 47 stocks rebuilt, eight have
    become overfished again after rebuilding, indicating that measure taken
    after rebuilding were not enough to prevent stocks from declining once
    more. At the same time, many plans to rebuild stocks simply don't
    succeed (i.e., they reach the end of their rebuilding time period with
    stocks still overfished) and some stocks have faced years of continued
    overfishing while being managed under a rebuilding plan. Of the 41
    stocks currently in rebuilding plans with set time limits, 10 are in a
    second or even third plan after the first plan failed, and some stocks
    are subject to plans with no set timeline.\13\ Many of these stocks
    just continue to decline--60% of stocks in rebuilding plans in 2020 had
    flat or declining biomass.\14\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ Calculated using data from NOAA Fisheries. 2021. 2020 Fish
    Stocks in Rebuilding Plans: A Trend Analysis.
        \14\ NOAA Fisheries. 2021. 2020 Fish Stocks in Rebuilding Plans: A
    Trend Analysis.

        Ocean Conservancy supports the changes to rebuilding (section 504)
    that would do more to prevent stocks from declining to levels that
    require rebuilding and to ensure that rebuilding plans make progress
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    and ultimately meet goals to bring stocks back to healthy levels.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Figure 1: Percent of stocks that are overfished or experiencing
    overfishing since 2000. Data compiled from NOAA Fisheries Status of the
    Stocks Annual Reports to Congress on the Status of U.S. Fisheries.

        Great amberjack in the Gulf of Mexico provides an eye-opening
    example. It is now in its third rebuilding plan after it was determined
    to be overfished in 2000. The first two plans failed, the timeline to
    rebuild was pushed back, and overfishing has continued on the stock.
    Great amberjack was initially supposed to be rebuilt by 2009, yet now
    the target is 2027. The most recent stock assessment indicates the
    stock has been experiencing overfishing in every year since at least
    1985.\15\ As of 2020, overfishing continues on the stock and it remains
    overfished. The bill would address this unusual, but egregious, sort of
    inaction to end overfishing and rebuild the stock by tightening NOAA
    Fisheries' oversight role and addressing the question of how management
    should operate in the face of rebuilding failures.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ SEDAR. 2020. Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) 70
    Stock Assessment Report: Gulf of Mexico Greater Amberjack. SEDAR, North
    Charleston, SC.

        The Sustaining America's Fisheries for the Future Act addresses
    many of these challenges associated with rebuilding and overfishing.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The solutions offered in this bill include:

         Act when stocks are near overfished levels to avoid the
                need to rebuild. Rebuilding can be a challenge, and it
                makes sense to avoid having to rebuild stocks in the first
                place by taking steps to improve stock health before stock
                size falls below the overfished threshold. The MSA includes
                provisions that allow for a stock to be designated as
                ``approaching an overfished condition,'' but the
                designation is not frequently or effectively used.
                Improving the use of this designation could help the
                Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries avoid
                rebuilding plans by having more advance warning and taking
                earlier steps.

         If a rebuilding plan fails, make the next plan better. The
                MSA currently has no guidance for what to do when a
                rebuilding plan fails. The Fisheries for the Future Act
                addresses this by clarifying that, in the instance that an
                existing rebuilding plan fails to rebuild a stock by the
                end of the plan, the next rebuilding plan should have a 75%
                likelihood of success when designed. This provision of the
                bill has been widely misunderstood. The change to 75% would
                not apply to all rebuilding plans and does not require
                current rebuilding plans to be revised. This would only
                apply to stocks that reach the end of their rebuilding
                cycle and have not rebuilt, which is a circumstance that
                most Councils have not experienced. Since repeated
                rebuilding failures increase the risk of stock collapse and
                leave fishermen with constrained catch levels for longer
                periods, successful rebuilding is the quickest path to
                better fishing. This change would seek to end the
                rebuilding plan purgatory that many stocks are now trapped
                in by ensuring management measures are sufficient to
                rebuild.

         Improve the monitoring of rebuilding progress in a plan.
                The MSA currently suggests that the Secretary of Commerce
                and Councils should monitor and respond to signals that
                stocks are failing to make adequate progress to rebuild
                during a plan. NOAA Fisheries currently has criteria in its
                regulations for making these determinations,\16\ but the
                agency's criteria are disconnected from whether the stock's
                biomass is actually increasing. Further, monitoring of
                adequate progress has been unevenly applied and, in many
                rebuilding plans, managers have completely failed to adapt
                or improve their rebuilding plans while biomass remains
                flat or continues to decline. Adaptive management during
                rebuilding will be even more important as climate impacts
                increase. The Fisheries for the Future Act would clarify
                the description of what constitutes adequate progress,
                strengthen the procedures needed to respond to failures to
                make progress, and increase transparency in NOAA Fisheries'
                reporting around rebuilding plan progress. For many
                Councils, adapting management plans to ensure rebuilding
                success is already a common practice, and plans have been
                designed and implemented in ways that have shown great
                results in rebuilding. For Councils with stocks struggling
                to rebuild, these changes will help ensure that rebuilding
                stays on track. If Councils fail to take action to put
                measures in place to make progress on rebuilding, the
                Secretary takes action to do so to ensure changes are made
                within 2 years. This is similar to the current provision
                304(e)(5) in the law, in which the Secretary is required to
                create a rebuilding plan for an overfished stock when a
                Council fails to do so.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ See 50 C.F.R. Sec. 600.310(j)(3)(iv).

        Though the Fisheries for the Future Act includes a number of useful
    changes to the rebuilding provisions, we are concerned with the removal
    of the current requirement that rebuilding plans for overfished species
    shall not exceed 10 years unless stock biology, environmental
    conditions, or other factors mean that timeline is not possible.
    Research indicates that most stocks can be rebuilt within this time
    frame, and removing the requirement makes it harder for fishery
    managers to make difficult decisions on reduction in catch when stocks
    are overfished.\17\ This is especially true for stocks that are
    targeted, have high economic value, and are fast-growing. For example,
    petrale sole, which is the third highest value groundfish species on
    the West Coast, was declared overfished in 2010. It was rebuilt in
    2015--one year ahead of schedule--because harvest levels were cut in
    half under the rebuilding plan.\18\ Petrale sole likely would have
    remained overfished for much longer if a rebuilding plan that exceeded
    10 years had been an option. Therefore, we recommend retaining the 10
    year requirement, which has a record of success and will be a
    complement to the strengthening of the other rebuilding provisions in
    the law.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \17\ Safina C., et al. 2005. US Ocean Fish Recovery: Staying the
    Course. Science, 309(5735): 707-08; Patrick, W.S. and J. Cope. 2014.
    Examining the 10-Year Rebuilding Dilemma for U.S. Fish Stocks. PLoS
    ONE, 9(11): e112232.
        \18\ Pacific Fishery Management Council. 20145. ``West Coast
    Groundfish Stocks Improve.'' Press release. June 15, 2015. Available
    at: https://www.pcouncil.org/documents/2015/06/canary-and-petrale-sole-
    stocks-improve.pdf/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Ocean Conservancy is also concerned with the removal of the key
    term ``overfished'' and its replacement with the term ``depleted'' in
    sections 504 and 505. We appreciate that Rep. Huffman has been clear,
    both in the drafting of the legislation and in comments to the public,
    that the intent of this change is to minimize the stigma of fault and
    recognize environmental and other factors that play a role in the
    productivity of a fishery, and that no change is intended to the
    rebuilding requirements in the law as a result. However, we remain
    concerned that the term change could increase political pressure on the
    Council process and add to the difficulty for fishery managers to
    compel reductions in fishing mortality at the outset of and throughout
    a rebuilding plan. Regardless of the cause of the decline in abundance,
    a reduction in fishing pressure is the most immediate means of bringing
    the stock back to healthier levels and improving fishery productivity
    long-term.
    Bycatch
        Bycatch, the unwanted or unintended catch of non-target fish and
    other wildlife, is a serious problem with ecological, equity and
    economic impacts. Bycatch has substantial impacts on marine ecosystems,
    as bycatch is often discarded dead or dying, and addressing this issue
    should be a priority for MSA reauthorization. Section 503 of the bill
    proposes important changes to drive our fishery management system
    toward greater bycatch reduction. Currently, the MSA requires only
    minimal action on bycatch, and inconsistent reporting means the full
    scale of the bycatch problem is not well known. The Fisheries for the
    Future Act would close loopholes in the law that are preventing
    meaningful bycatch reductions and would improve reporting of bycatch to
    ensure standardization across fisheries. Creating a standardized
    bycatch reporting methodology that is more consistent across fisheries
    and regions will improve understanding by managers and scientists of
    opportunities for and obstacles to reducing bycatch.

        The most notable change in H.R. 4690 regarding bycatch is the
    proposal to remove ``to the extent practicable'' from the bycatch
    standard. Currently, MSA's National Standard 9 states:

            ``(9) Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent
            practicable, (A) minimize bycatch and (B) to the extent bycatch
            cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of such bycatch.''
            \19\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \19\ 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1851(a)(9) (emphasis added).

        This existing language applies two qualifiers to controlling
    bycatch: fishery management plans must (1) ``minimize'' bycatch and the
    mortality of such bycatch, and must (2) only do so ``to the extent
    practicable.'' Thus, the law does not require bycatch to be prevented;
    it merely needs to be ``minimized'' and that minimization merely needs
    to be ``to the extent practicable.''
        The ``practicability standard'' thus provides a double layer of
    latitude in the consideration of measures necessary to address bycatch.
    Removing the practicability standard still maintains the qualifier that
    bycatch only needs to be minimized but not prevented. In other words,
    bycatch would not be prohibited by removing the practicability
    standard. This change would allow for meaningful bycatch reductions,
    and would provide direct benefits to fishermen, communities and
    ecosystems that depend on directed fisheries for species caught and
    discarded as bycatch in other fisheries.
        Pacific halibut bycatch in the Bering Sea Aleutian Islands is a key
    example of this problem. The directed Pacific halibut fleet is
    primarily a community-based fishery that supports coastal and Alaska
    Native communities across this remote region. While quotas have been
    reduced for the directed halibut fishery due to declining Pacific
    halibut stock, industrial trawl fisheries continue to catch large
    amounts of halibut as bycatch, using the ``practicability'' standard as
    a primary justification.\20\ Bycatch of Pacific halibut is in fact
    increasing in proportion to directed fishery catches, and bycatch of
    halibut actually exceeded directed fishery removals from 2012-2014.\21\
    Overall, Bering Sea trawl fisheries caught over two times more Pacific
    halibut than the directed fishery was able to intentionally catch from
    2010-2019. These communities now find themselves on the brink of
    economic and cultural collapse due to the lack of equity built into a
    management system that allows large-scale trawl fisheries to take a
    disproportionate amount of catch as bycatch, thereby reducing fish
    available to the directed halibut fleet.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \20\ NPFMC. 2021. Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for
    the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) Halibut Abundance-Based
    Management (ABM) of Amendment 80 Prohibited Species Catch (PSC) Limit;
    September 2021. Anchorage, AK. 527 pp (e.g. page 32, reasoning that
    practicability should be set by historic levels of bycatch and current
    efforts and limited by the potential to cause economic harm to the
    groundfish fishery, in short, allowing ``practicable'' to be defined as
    what it considered to be immediately achievable: ``The practicability
    of the Amendment 80 fleet to operate under reduced PSC limits relies on
    a number of different factors and behavioral modifications by the fleet
    in recent years . . . Because of the efforts and expenditures already
    undertaken by the sector, dramatic increases in halibut avoidance or
    reductions in mortality are not expected with the tools that are
    currently available to the fleet.'').
        \21\ Id. at 127 and 170.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The bill would also create greater standardization of bycatch data
    by adding a national component to standardized bycatch reporting
    methodology, which is currently only required at the level of a fishery
    management plan. This would create nationally standardized requirements
    for collection, reporting, and assessment of bycatch data. Many regions
    have continually supported affordable and effective bycatch monitoring
    and reporting programs, including the use of electronic monitoring
    systems when appropriate, and achieved individual accountability
    through catch share programs; however, inconsistent reporting of
    bycatch around the country means the full scale of the problem is not
    well known.
    Resilient Ecosystems
        Healthy fish stocks make sustainable fisheries possible. Healthy
    habitat--from seagrass beds to kelp forests and coral reefs--and
    abundant prey populations are key components for maintaining fish
    stocks. Maintaining the structure and functioning of ecosystems is
    essential to ensure fish and fisheries are able to survive and thrive.
    Furthermore, protecting habitat and the forage base is critical for
    preparing marine ecosystems for the effects of climate change.
        The habitats that fish stocks depend on are increasingly under
    threat and more must be done to ensure long term and effective
    protection for fish habitat. Protecting the diverse marine habitats
    that support fish populations is an important but underutilized element
    of sustainable fishery management under the MSA in many regions. We are
    thankful that H.R. 4690 includes improvements to the MSA's habitat
    provisions (see sections 501, 502 and 507), including a proposal to
    avoid damage to fish habitats from non-fishing activities and
    improvements to the process by which essential fish habitat (EFH) is
    designated, reviewed, and managed in order to meet goals for the
    fishery and ecosystem (section 507). The Fisheries for the Future Act
    would strengthen tools to protect EFH from the impacts of fishing gear,
    as well as safeguard habitat from non-fishing activities such as sand
    mining, dredging, and energy exploration (section 502). These changes
    would bring greater clarity and more national consistency to how EFH is
    identified and conserved.
        Forage fish are a critical part of marine ecosystems, providing a
    foundation for ocean ecology and food for many important marine mammal
    and fish species, including those that support recreational and
    commercial fisheries. The bill includes provisions that would
    strengthen precautionary management of forage fish and better account
    for their ecosystem role. H.R. 4690 directs the Secretary (NOAA
    Fisheries) to define forage fish, requires an assessment of the
    potential impacts of a new commercial forage fish fishery, and would
    require consideration of predator needs in existing fishery management
    plans (section 508). Ocean Conservancy is supportive of strengthening
    management of forage fish and accounting for their ecosystem role, and
    we note that Rep. Dingell's bill, H.R. 5770, contains similar
    provisions.
    III. Supporting Fishing Communities and Subsistence Fishing
        The MSA seeks to balance conservation and resource use. Amid the
    backdrop of severe disruptions to fisheries and the seafood supply
    chain as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is a critical time to
    improve the MSA to better support fishing communities whose livelihoods
    depend on healthy oceans and fisheries. In addition, changes to the law
    to better reflect Tribal fisheries and subsistence fishing are long
    overdue.
        Ocean Conservancy is supportive of the bill's proposals to reform
    fishery disaster declarations (section 201) and revitalize working
    waterfronts (section 203). As the impacts of climate change worsen,
    there is greater likelihood of extreme events, such as harmful algal
    blooms, floods, and marine heatwaves, which can contribute to fishery
    disasters.\22\ Ocean Conservancy supports improvements to accelerate
    the fishery resource disaster relief program by implementing timelines
    for faster delivery of disaster relief to impacted communities,
    including strengthening charter for-hire and Tribal eligibility, and by
    allowing direct payments to be made to affected members of fishing
    communities as an eligible use of relief funds. Disaster relief process
    reform is a key priority for ensuring fisheries are better able to
    endure unusual events like marine heat waves and oil spills. Earlier
    this fall, the Senate unanimously passed similar language for fishery
    disaster reform. Similarly, Ocean Conservancy supports infrastructure
    investment, and access to fishing port facilities is critical for the
    future success and stability of fishing communities. A Working
    Waterfront Grant Program is needed to preserve and expand access to
    coastal waters for dependent businesses, provide access loan funds for
    waterfront preservation, and to identify and prioritize critical needs
    for working waterfronts.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \22\ Government Accountability Office. 2016. Federal Fisheries
    Management: Additional Actions Could Advance Efforts to Incorporate
    Climate Information into Management Decisions. GAO-16-827. Washington,
    D.C.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        While disaster reform and fishing port infrastructure improvements
    will support access for all fishing sectors and provide support when it
    is needed most, we must also do more to ensure community participation
    in limited access privilege programs (LAPPs) by increasing
    consideration of community sustainability. In regard to section 205,
    past experience with LAPPs has shown that without safeguards in place,
    LAPPs can result in a paradoxical situation in which fishing
    communities have no rights to the fisheries that surround them. The
    proposed changes to the provisions on fishing communities for LAPPs
    provide improvements to help ensure that any new LAPP considers direct
    allocations to fishing communities that depend on that managed fishery.
        Ocean Conservancy supports securing representation of Native
    American Tribes in the fishery management process and respecting Tribal
    sovereignty, though I defer to Tribes as to the sufficiency of the
    proposed definition of subsistence fishing. Further, Traditional
    Knowledge must be considered in decision-making.
    IV. Modernizing Fisheries Science and Data
        Reliable, accurate and timely data are a core part of effective
    fishery management. Advances in technology are rapidly changing the
    world around us, but fisheries have largely been left behind in this
    digital revolution. Though the U.S. fishery management system is one of
    the most advanced in the world, its continued success in maximizing
    ecological, economic and social benefits relies on high quality
    information to inform sustainability measures. The data collection and
    management systems in use today are often outdated and are incapable of
    meeting the demands now placed on them by modern management systems and
    rapidly shifting ecosystems due to climate change. The Sustaining
    America's Fisheries for the Future Act would provide investment and
    momentum to ensure that new technologies and innovations are
    effectively harnessed and that data from many sources can be
    appropriately integrated into management.
        Well-implemented electronic monitoring and reporting programs can
    yield important gains in the efficiency of data collection and
    processing and can improve the quality of data. Successful programs
    like the new electronic logbook program for Gulf of Mexico charter for-
    hire and headboat vessels \23\ have demonstrated the benefits of
    electronic reporting by improving the timeliness and accuracy of catch
    data. However, nationwide uptake of electronic technologies in U.S.
    fisheries has been somewhat slow, and changes to the MSA can promote
    greater development and adoption. H.R. 4690 would require a review of
    existing electronic technology capabilities at NOAA Fisheries and would
    facilitate implementation of electronic technologies for monitoring and
    reporting in all regions (section 402).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \23\ Southeast For-Hire Integrated Electronic Reporting Program.
    Available at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/southeast/recreational-
    fishing-data/southeast-hire-integrated-electronic-reporting-program.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In addition to improving technology on boats, H.R. 4690 looks to
    improve data infrastructure at NOAA by supporting continued progress on
    implementing the Fisheries Information Management Modernization (FIMM)
    initiative in section 401.\24\ This will facilitate much-needed
    improvements in the collection, intake, use, storage, and access to
    data from Federal and non-Federal sources. The FIMM initiative makes
    crucial recommendations that would modernize the internal data
    governance and management landscape at NOAA, which would result in
    improved data efficiency for data end-users. For instance, implementing
    NOAA Fisheries-wide cloud-based data science platforms would add
    accessibility to data while also protecting critical networks which are
    currently housed in siloed servers. There are significant
    vulnerabilities to fisheries data in their current state, and expanding
    the internal infrastructure and data management workforce will secure
    data and improve efficiency.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \24\ Margolis, S., et al. 2020. Fisheries Information Management
    Modernization Workshop. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-204, 85 p.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Section 406 seeks to address ongoing issues with recreational
    fishing data in the U.S., particularly to better understand the impact
    of private angling. Collecting accurate and timely data on this sector
    is one of the most challenging parts of implementing accountable and
    sustainable management under the MSA, given the large number of
    recreational fishermen, the many points of access they use, and the
    fact that any retained catch is kept rather than sold. To get a sense
    of the scale of recreational fishing, in 2017, NOAA Fisheries estimates
    that 9.8 million anglers took over 205 million fishing trips.\25\ In
    many regions, commercial, for-hire, and private recreational anglers
    are participating in the same fisheries, but differences in data
    quality and management accountability have resulted in private anglers
    regularly exceeding their portion of annual catch limits, which creates
    serious issues around the sustainability of shared stocks and
    inequities in management. This problem has manifested most acutely in
    management of the private recreational sector of the red snapper
    fishery in the Gulf of Mexico, where inconsistencies in survey design
    and a lack of data calibration are preventing accurate catch accounting
    and have allowed the private recreational sector to substantially
    exceed its quota, in violation of the MSA.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \25\ NOAA Fisheries. 2021. Fisheries Economics of the United
    States, 2017. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-219,
    at 14.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Improving recreational data collection will lead to more effective
    management of recreational fishing and benefit fish stock
    sustainability. The Fisheries for the Future Act would require NOAA
    Fisheries to establish guidelines to improve recreational catch data
    and to integrate data from multiple sources. This provides critical
    support to help managers bring disparate data sets together to improve
    science and management outcomes. Further, H.R. 4690 establishes a new
    dedicated program to improve the data and management of recreational
    fisheries; this program will focus on key research priorities,
    including improving surveys, using electronic technologies for
    reporting, increasing our understanding of discard mortality, and
    investigating new management approaches like the use of tags.
    V. Strengthening Public Process, Inclusion And Transparency
        The majority of federal marine fisheries are managed through a
    complex process involving the Councils and NOAA Fisheries. The Council
    system established under the MSA gives fishery stakeholders a unique
    role in decisions about fishery resources through the Council process.
    In practice, Councils consist largely of state officials and members
    that are nominated by state governors and appointed by the Secretary of
    Commerce that are typically commercial and recreational fishing
    representatives. This has created a management system unlike any other
    federal resource management framework in which the resource users are
    directly involved in making the management decisions. This system has
    many benefits, as it helps ensure that fishery management decisions are
    tailored to the unique circumstances of the regional fisheries and
    fleets. However, many voices are left out, and there are concerns that
    critical fishery management decisions are being made solely by people
    with a financial interest in the outcomes.
        Successful management must, by necessity, be transparent and
    inclusive. Council membership should include consideration of a broad
    range of voices, including Tribes, subsistence fishermen, and
    conservation interests. To this end, the changes to Council membership
    in the bill are important steps toward broader representation and more
    balanced Councils, which will ultimately lead to better management.
    Ocean Conservancy supports fair and balanced apportionment and
    consideration of all qualified stakeholders, such as members of the
    conservation community, scientists, non-consumptive users, and
    Indigenous and Tribal communities as applicable, in addition to the
    consideration of active participants (or their representatives) in the
    commercial, recreational, and subsistence fisheries under the
    jurisdiction of the Council.
        In addition to incorporating subsistence and Tribal interests as
    groups to be included and balanced in Council appointments, two
    designated Tribal seats would be added to the Council make-up in the
    North Pacific (section 302), and the bill would remove term limits for
    the Tribal seat on the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC,
    section 301). Tribes in the North Pacific have a history of fishing and
    stewardship that long predates the Council system and are inextricably
    linked to this ecosystem, yet they have no designated seats on the
    North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC). Adding Tribal seats
    to the NPFMC is an essential and long overdue change, and we are happy
    to see it included in this bill. Additionally, the Tribal seat on the
    Pacific Council represents Tribal sovereigns and, therefore, should
    receive equal treatment as the other government seats on the Council,
    which are not subject to term limits. Ocean Conservancy supports these
    requests from Tribes.
        H.R. 4690 also clarifies the relationship between the Fishery
    Management Councils and the Secretary of Commerce. Under the existing
    law since 1976, the Secretary is tasked with reviewing all fishery
    management plans, amendments, and proposed regulations received from
    the Councils for compliance with legal requirements.\26\ Absent Council
    action, it is imperative that the Secretary ensure conservation and
    management. Section 506 of the bill clarifies that the Secretary has
    the final responsibility to ensure legal and sustainable fishery
    management plans are in place in situations where necessary measures
    have not yet been implemented. The existing Secretarial action
    provisions only apply when ``the appropriate Council fails to develop''
    a needed fishery management plan or amendment, and this element will
    remain unchanged.\27\ Thus, while H.R. 4690 clarifies the Secretary's
    duty to fill regulatory gaps, it does not diminish the Councils'
    central role in management and the regulatory process.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \26\ See 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1854(a)-(b).
        \27\ 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1854(c)(1)(A).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Another important change is providing greater clarity to Councils
    with respect to lobbying. As federal grant recipients, Councils are
    prohibited from using federal funds to lobby Congress or the executive
    branch in connection with the federal funding they receive, pursuant to
    31 U.S.C. Sec. 1352 and implementing regulations. The Councils are also
    prohibited from attempting to influence Federal and State legislation
    under 50 CFR Sec. 600.227 with very limited exceptions. However,
    confusion over these existing prohibitions persists. H.R. 4690 would
    add clarity and accountability, ensuring that the Councils get lobbying
    practices under control so that funding for fishery management is not
    put at risk. Notably, the executive branch lobbying prohibition in the
    bill does not encompass the routine communication the Councils
    undertake with NOAA Fisheries during the fishery management process and
    will leave the unique and important relationship between the Councils
    and NOAA Fisheries intact.
        Further, we are happy to see language that works to address long-
    standing issues with sexual harassment at the Fishery Management
    Councils and with fisheries observers. All federal agencies should have
    zero tolerance for sexual harassment, whether committed by agency staff
    or by the members or staff of bodies they govern, such as the Councils.
    We support applying the full suite of federal sexual harassment rules
    to Council staff, members, and advisory panels, as well as the
    necessary result that offending persons be individually liable for
    their actions--with the Secretary authorized to impose civil penalties
    including suspension or expulsion from participation or membership
    (Section 305(a)). This change will reduce incidents of harassment by
    increasing the consequences for perpetrators and by increasing
    survivors' confidence in their ability to effectively respond to
    harassment when it occurs. We also support the amendments to 16 U.S.C.
    Sec. 1857(L), which clarify that sexual harassment is prohibited both
    on and off vessels, and whether or not it is committed forcibly
    (Section 307(f)). Overall, we expect these changes will reduce
    harassment as well as make it easier for Council staff and employees to
    comply and to know when compliance has been achieved.
    VI. Closing thoughts
        In stark contrast to the Sustaining America's Fisheries for the
    Future Act (H.R. 4690), the Strengthening Fishing Communities and
    Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act (H.R. 59), would set
    back decades of improvements in fishery management. H.R. 59 would
    reauthorize the MSA with provisions aimed directly at weakening the
    core conservation requirements of the MSA. Undercutting the fundamental
    principles of fishery management, H.R. 59 would reverse decades of
    substantial improvements to how we sustainably fish by creating
    loopholes to science-based management, watering down legal standards,
    and promoting costly delays. Specifically, the bill:

         Unnecessarily lengthens rebuilding time frames for
                unhealthy stocks, leaving them vulnerable for longer, and
                provides harmful exemptions from having a rebuilding time
                frame at all, no matter how unhealthy the stock (section
                303).

         Ends sustainable management for stocks that are not the
                main target of fishing by exempting them from annual catch
                limits (ACLs), even if they are caught and sold. This
                removes protections for possibly hundreds of species,
                vastly increasing the risk of overfishing (section 204).

         Exempts recreational fisheries from robust science-based
                limits, instead permitting the use of weak ``alternative
                fishery management measures'' that have resulted in
                significant overfishing in the past (section 203).

         Curbs the development of innovative management techniques
                and scientific studies by adding onerous new requirements
                for Exempted Fishing Permits (EFPs), making them incredibly
                difficult to use (section 304).

        H.R. 59 would put coastal communities at risk and could have
    devastating impacts on our fisheries and those who depend on them. By
    exempting fisheries from ACLs, H.R. 59 would allow overfishing to occur
    where it currently is not happening. When our fisheries are depleted,
    our coastal communities are put at risk. The economy of our fishing
    communities is dependent on the health of the fisheries that surround
    them. Fishermen, business owners, and scientists have all opposed these
    ideas before in previously introduced and nearly identical bills.
    Unlike past reauthorizations of the MSA, H.R. 59 would erode the
    successes we have made in fishery management, impairing our fisheries
    and coastal communities alike.
        Thank you to the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water,
    Oceans, and Wildlife for its careful consideration of H.R. 4690, and
    for the opportunity to provide this testimony in support. The proposals
    offered in the Sustaining America's Fisheries for the Future Act would
    enhance our ocean's long-term ability to provide food and support
    businesses, recreation, culture and thriving coastal communities. I
    look forward to working with you and your staffs throughout this
    Congress and in the future.

                                     ______

        Mr. Huffman. Thank you very much, Ms. Moore.
        That concludes the witness testimony. We will bring it back
    to the Members for questions, and Ranking Member Young has
    another commitment, so we are going to go out of order and
    yield to him for the first questions.
        Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And, Meredith, I will say one thing. If I hadn't passed my
    bill, you wouldn't be sitting there. I remember that back in
    1976.
        I would ask Mary Peltola: You want two members on the
    council, yet you support his bill. Under his bill, the council
    loses their authority to manage the fish. It goes to the
    Secretary of Commerce.
        What good are two members of the council--although their
    being native, what will it help you if you don't have the
    authority to make decisions on the council?
        Ms. Peltola. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
    Congressman Young, for creating the bill to begin with.
        On the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, at least--
    and that is the only body that I have experience among the
    eight councils that this legislation has--there is complete
    deference to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, to the
    Commissioner of Fish and Game.
        So, I am not sure that H.R. 4690 does give complete
    authority to the Secretary of Commerce. But, even if it were
    to, it would be a better system than the one Alaskan Natives
    are under at the current moment. We went before the North
    Pacific Fishery Management Council in October and asked--even
    as a bottom-level request, asking for an Alaska Native to be on
    their advisory panel or their Scientific and Statistical
    Committee, they wouldn't even consider it, on their own
    advisory panels.
        There is a movement in the Department of Fish and Game, in
    my opinion, because of a lack of recognition of tribes, a
    complete--I want to say the word poo-poo, but I know that is
    not right--minimization of the situation that we are in. We are
    now down to 20 percent of our historical subsistence harvest--
    20 percent for Chinook salmon, and zero percent for chum
    salmon. And there is still a movement for erasure and complete
    assimilation.
        I don't think that the Secretary of Commerce would be as
    anti-tribe as the Department of Fish and Game is at this time.
        Mr. Young. I was just curious, because I want the count.
    This is the difference between the Chairman and myself. I
    believe the councils can actually manage the fish better than a
    centralized political figure. That is a matter of opinion.
        But I support the idea of two members, and I told you that
    today in my office. Mr. Chairman, this young lady campaigned
    for me when she was 3 months old, and I have always cherished
    that. Her mother was very active in my campaign.
        Mr. Huffman. I thought you were against child labor.
        Mr. Young. No, labor hadn't come until 6 months later.
        But anyway, Mr. Carroll, I appreciate your comments stating
    Trident is a great company in the state of Alaska. Where you
    have a difference of opinion with the Chairman and the reports
    that come out, I do recognize that there has been great
    progress in the bycatch.
        We still have too much, and I would like suggestions from
    your great company in maybe how we can lower that, because you
    are constantly saying it is the trollers, it is the trollers,
    it is the trollers.
        And I remember when you were catching a huge amount of fish
    that shouldn't have been caught--I think about 89 percent
    decrease in that amount. And I am just telling you this, Mr.
    Carroll, get all the information you can, factual, to the
    Committee so we can compare notes and see who is right and who
    is wrong. Because there are two differences of opinion here.
        I actually think you can do better. I have said that
    before. But you have come a long ways from the way you were
    before.
        So, I thank all the witnesses.
        I do have to leave, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Hopefully, we
    can get together and write a bill. That is very, very
    important. If we don't write a bill--you have to give me a
    little bit, or it is not going to go anywhere. That is it.
        Mr. Huffman. We are going to work it out, Congressman
    Young. And I am going to talk with you a little further about
    this perception that the council is not managing the fish under
    this bill. We think they definitely are.
        Mr. Young. See, that is where you work it out to make sure.
        Mr. Huffman. We are going to work it out.
        Mr. Young. They have to have the say, not the Secretary of
    Commerce.
        Mr. Huffman. Yes.
        Mr. Young. Because I might be the Secretary, then where
    will you be?
        Mr. Huffman. Really?
        Mr. Young. Yes.
        Mr. Huffman. Oh.
        Mr. Young. All right. Thank you.
        Mr. Huffman. I thank the gentleman.
        The Chair now recognizes Mr. Case for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Case. I think all you have to do is figure out a way to
    make him the Secretary of Commerce and everything will be cool.
    OK.
        Mr. Huffman. We have to get him confirmed by the Senate,
    though, and he has a lot of baggage.
        Mr. Case. Chair Aila, are you still on? I think you are.
        Mr. Aila. Yes.
        Mr. Case. Thank you so much for your testimony, Chair Aila.
        Your written testimony is very compelling, and I appreciate
    the concise responses on the bill itself, which we are trying
    to get this worked out in the language itself. I think we
    understand the concepts, but we need to get it right in the
    legislation.
        There has been for a long time a prohibition on lobbying
    and political influence exertion under the OMB regulations and
    the Byrd rules. Clearly, I think your testimony and your
    personal experience is that WESPAC was lobbying and exerting
    political influence. Is that correct?
        Mr. Aila. For many years, yes.
        Mr. Case. Right. I mean, and they have done it across the
    board. I mean, they have done it in the congressional
    delegation perspective, they have done it certainly inside the
    Department of Commerce, they have done it with the President
    and the Administration itself in terms of the designation or
    the expansion or what they want to do, which is to open up the
    monuments to fishing again and to really reduce the monuments.
        I mean, they did, in your view and experience, directly try
    to influence those decisions, correct?
        Mr. Aila. They have also tried to influence the governor in
    not incorporating state waters into the monuments--several
    governors--and the State Legislature.
        Mr. Case. OK. And we are obviously trying to fix that in
    our language. I mean, we are taking the OMB regulations and
    trying to statutorily implement them in this context and expand
    them to make sure that we cover things like perceived
    ambiguities, at least on their part, as to presidential
    designations.
        So, that all is understood, I think, and it is crystal
    clear that they were, in fact, acting in derogation, I believe,
    of the regulations.
        But I want to get to a point that you made, which is that
    you said that NOAA oversight had been lacking.
        Now, was it obvious to everybody in your time on the
    council and afterwards that, in fact, the council was lobbying
    and was exerting political influence? And if that was the case
    then, it is one thing for them to do it, but it is another
    thing to ask ourselves the question: Where was NOAA in all of
    this?
        Mr. Aila. Yes. And, in fact, if you look at the language in
    Magnuson, the fishery councils are advisory to NOAA. They do
    recommend fisheries management plans and fisheries regulations,
    but NOAA is the ultimate adopter of these fisheries management
    plans, et cetera.
        For a long time, I think, the Western Pacific Fisheries
    Management Council--I don't have any specific information to
    other councils--certainly acted as if they were the decision-
    making body and the implementer. NOAA has been missing in
    action, so to speak, for quite a few years.
        Mr. Case. So, let me ask you this. And I think you heard
    the earlier testimony when I asked the Administrator, was there
    any--and this was in response to the audit that you and I have
    just referenced, have both referenced--I asked her whether she
    felt that NOAA had full statutory authorization to provide
    adequate oversight of WESPAC in this case, but any fishery
    management council. And she said that she would review that and
    get back.
        I think the answer is that they are able to enforce their
    own laws. So, I am guessing that the answer is just not so much
    that they don't have the statutory authority to do it, but that
    they haven't done that.
        Would that be your perception also, or do you have a
    different perception?
        Mr. Aila. That has been my experience. Also, my experience
    has been that some Pacific Fisheries Management Council legal
    attorneys that are provided by NOAA have not all--well, have in
    the past, I think, indicated where fisheries--I think, where
    some of the management proposals by WESPAC have sort of skirted
    the law. And that is where NOAA, I think, could create a
    stronger role by just making sure that council advice is
    heeded.
        Mr. Case. OK. So, I just want to be sure that I kind of
    have this straight, because, like I said to the Administrator,
    I don't want to miss the opportunity when we are trying to get
    Magnuson-Stevens improved to add some authority that somehow
    they feel they don't have to adequately oversee those councils.
        Mr. Aila. I think the amendments, as proposed in the
    current version, making the Executive Director a Federal
    employee, thus having to fulfill all of the ethics
    requirements, and then making council members, advisory
    members, and scientific and statistical committee members also
    beholden to following all of the Federal laws with regards to
    lobbying, ethics, et cetera. I think that will have a major
    impact on future fishery decisions resulting in helping in
    better management.
        Mr. Case. OK. Thanks so much, Chair. Again, back to you.
        Mr. Huffman. I thank the gentleman.
        The Chair now recognizes Mr. Carl for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Carl. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Thank you to all the expert witnesses. I know with all the
    distractions--it never hurts to cut the microphone on, does it?
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I know with all the distractions going on you feel like we
    are probably not listening, but trust me, we are. We have it
    recorded, and we have it here in print. And I thank you for
    your time to come here and do this.
        During my short time on this Committee, there has been a
    lot of talk about the best science when it comes to managing
    fish.
        I don't think the best science necessarily lies with the
    Federal Government's old ways of doing things. If something new
    and better comes along, like what the Gulf states are doing,
    the Federal Government should pay attention and adapt.
        Dr. Powers, if I may, sir, it is so good to see you on the
    big screen up here with us today. I think the last time I saw
    you we were out on the Gulf fishing together. Thank you for
    being here.
        For those who don't know Dr. Powers, he is a constituent of
    mine at the University of South Alabama and is an expert in
    fishing management.
        Dr. Powers, can you talk a little bit about the fishery
    data Alabama and the Gulf states are producing on their own,
    like the Snapper Check and the Great Red Snapper Count, and why
    Congress in their reauthorization process may need to make the
    term ``best science available'' more inclusive?
        Dr. Powers. Sure. Thank you, Congressman Carl.
        I agree that the meaning of ``best available data'' or
    ``science'' needs to be updated. When the Act and the National
    Standard Guidelines were originally developed, there was really
    only one source of information. By default, it was the best.
    But more and more states, particularly in the Gulf, are
    spending significant resources on their own landings
    information systems and scientific fisheries independent
    survey.
        In Alabama, for example, there has been a push to improve
    the state's ability to develop the data and science necessary
    to manage its own fishery.
        In my lab, we have been conducting fisheries independent
    surveys to estimate absolute abundance of reef fish offshore
    and doing surveys before and after the fishing season to look
    at what has been removed from the system as a way to get at
    fishing mortality.
        The state has also invested heavily in their Snapper Check
    Program, which has now been expanded to a lot of other reef
    fish. And they have a much, much higher participation rate of
    anglers in the systems to encourage validation. So, a lot of
    the MRIP program and the recreational data we have are
    essentially user reported, especially things like discards and
    effort.
        The systems in Alabama and Mississippi are more census-
    based with verification that the angler has reported in and
    reported out and cross-validation to see that their biologist
    can actually see the catch that the fishermen have brought in.
        So, those data sources have really improved the state's
    ability to manage their own resources at that level because
    they can respond at the spatial scale a national survey cannot.
        Mr. Carl. Thank you, Doctor. I appreciate that, and I agree
    with you. We have to assure that NOAA incorporates the full
    results of the Great Red Snapper Count into their next stock
    assessment of red snapper. It should lead to bigger increases
    and quotas across the board, which is a win-win for all sectors
    of the fishery.
        I appreciate my colleague Mr. Young's bill requesting NOAA
    to send a report to Congress on incorporating more data and
    stock assessment from our states and the NGOs into fisheries
    management. They would also have to take a look at whether the
    Federal survey data is really working for us.
        Another quick question, Dr. Powers. I am running real short
    of time here.
        Ultimately, I would like to see Alabama be allowed to set
    its own recreational harvest targets on its own. Based on how
    the state has done managing the quota so far, do you think
    Alabama could do this successfully while also protecting
    against overfishing?
        Dr. Powers. Yes, I do. I believe the states have really
    demonstrated in the last couple of years their ability to stay
    within the quota when you go according to the states' landing
    systems across the Gulf.
        The states have also invested in science and scientific
    surveys to inform their own spatially distinct management
    units.
        And, again, I have given some caveats in my written
    testimony to when I think that a more regional-based approach
    is necessary. But essentially if the stock isn't overfished or
    undergoing overfishing--like red snapper is not doing either of
    those, it is in good condition now--then I think there should
    be some more power given to the states to be more responsive to
    their local stakeholders.
        Mr. Carl. Thank you, Doctor.
        Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Huffman. I thank the gentleman.
        I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
        Obviously, one of the biggest changes that we are proposing
    in H.R. 4690 are the provisions on climate-ready fisheries.
    Back in 2006, the last time MSA was reauthorized, climate
    change was still viewed as something that we would face in the
    distant future. There were no provisions made for climate
    adaptation in that law.
        So, I was pleased to hear from a number of our witnesses
    that they agree, and certainly the stakeholders on our
    listening tour said this to us, that now is the time to build
    this into our update of MSA.
        Let me begin with Ms. Moore.
        Why is it so important that we tackle this challenge of
    climate-ready fisheries?
        Ms. Moore. Thank you for the question.
        Fundamentally, climate change is reshaping our ocean
    ecosystems and our fisheries. And that means that our fishing
    communities are vulnerable to disruptions. We may see
    situations where there is less available catch in the long
    term.
        Figuring out how to adapt to that now and plan for that is
    the best way that we can continue to sustain sustainable
    fishing, support those communities, and make sure that we are
    passing down to the next generation the same source of abundant
    fisheries that we enjoy today.
        Mr. Huffman. Thank you.
        And, Ms. Peltola, I will go to you.
        In the North Pacific, how will having two seats on the
    North Pacific Council help tribes with the challenges that they
    face from climate change?
        Ms. Peltola. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the question.
        I believe that adding two tribal seats will allow Alaska
    Native people, who have the longest dependence on these
    resources, a say in management.
        Currently, on the North Pacific Fisheries Management
    Council the power rests with only people who have an economic
    tie to the resource. And as I said in my opening testimony, we
    do not contribute to gross domestic product, we do not
    contribute to ex-vessel value calculations.
        So, despite having supposed Federal protections under
    ANILCA, despite having supposed written priorities under our
    state constitution and within the Alaska Department of Fish and
    Game, there is zero priority placed on subsistence, and it is
    actually completely ignored because we don't have an economic
    stake in it, despite the fact that our economy, our actual
    economy, the way that we feed our families, is reliant on
    having healthy and abundant wild resources like salmon,
    halibut, and other things that depend on the biomass getting to
    our headwaters.
        Mr. Huffman. Did you have anything more you wanted to add
    on the issue of bycatch? We were discussing that earlier, and
    there was some discussion about whether it is getting
    dramatically better or whether this is still a big problem. And
    I think we would be interested in your perspective.
        Ms. Peltola. Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman.
        Just because reducing bycatch for the industry has a cost
    or may reduce harvest, I don't believe we can use that as an
    excuse any longer. On the Kuskokwim River, the Yukon River, in
    Norton Sound, on the Unalakleet River, there was no fishing
    this summer for Chinook salmon. Zero. Our larder was allocated
    zero percent for both Chinook salmon and chum because the chum
    also did not return.
        And there is such a disparity, there is such a double
    standard here when this year alone the industry captured as
    bycatch 12,000 Chinook salmon and over 500,000 chum salmon.
        Mr. Huffman. Thank you for that.
        Let's talk a moment about forage fish, small fish that
    obviously play an important role in the food pyramid and
    ecosystems, anchovies, sardines, menhaden, great examples,
    large populations that tend to cycle in abundance and famously
    collapse under fishing pressure. A famous example in
    California, of course, is the collapse of the sardine fishery
    that closed down Cannery Row in Monterey.
        Mr. Goldsmith, can you tell us a little more about forage
    fish and why they need special attention under this
    legislation?
        Dr. Goldsmith. Yes. Thank you for the question, Chair
    Huffman. I would be happy to.
        Forage fish, as you have mentioned, are a critical building
    block of our ecosystem, and they are responsible for supporting
    a lot of really valuable commercial and recreational fisheries
    around the country. As any fisherman knows, when you find the
    bait, you often find the fish, the tie there is really
    critical.
        And I think both your bill and Congresswoman Dingell's
    bill, H.R. 5770, make some really significant strides here both
    in terms of reducing annual catch limits to account for the
    needs of these predators and also being more proactive in our
    approach to management, so not allowing a fishery to develop
    before we have been able to acknowledge or ascertain what
    impacts there might be and put a new management in place, if
    that is the case that is needed.
        Mr. Huffman. Thank you very much.
        My time has expired. Let me just see who is next in the
    batting order.
        Congressman Graves, are you with us remotely?
        Mr. Graves. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Can you hear me?
        Mr. Huffman. Yes. You are recognized.
        Mr. Graves. Oh, great. Fantastic. I am sorry, if you can
    give me just a sec here. OK.
        Hey, thank you. I just want to get my timer started so I
    can see what is going on.
        Thank you all very much. I appreciate you having this
    hearing.
        I want to start out, Dr. Goldsmith, I am curious about your
    organization. We are one of the top fishing destinations in the
    United States and I had never heard of your group. And I
    checked with some of our folks at home who similarly had not.
    And I thought that was really curious, again, being that the
    Gulf was the top recreational fishing destination in the
    country.
        I am curious, if you were going to fish for some wahoo in
    the Gulf, what do you think you would pull?
        Dr. Goldsmith. I am sorry, you said if I was going to fish
    for wahoo in the Gulf?
        Mr. Graves. Yes. What would you pull?
        Dr. Goldsmith. I would probably be high speed trolling with
    a 16 ounce or 32 ounce jet head, I would think, maybe an
    ilander-ballyhoo combination.
        Mr. Graves. Say it again? With a jetta?
        Dr. Goldsmith. Jet head.
        Mr. Graves. A jet head. And what else? What kind of weight
    did you have on there?
        Dr. Goldsmith. A 16 ounce or 32 ounce if I am high speed
    trolling.
        Mr. Graves. And where do you think you would go?
        Dr. Goldsmith. I know the Midnight Lump is a very famous
    destination in the Gulf, but I have not spent an awful lot of
    time fishing in that area.
        Mr. Graves. And if you were going to fish for cobia in the
    Gulf of Mexico right now, where do you think you would go, and
    what do you think you would fish with for that?
        Dr. Goldsmith. If I were going fishing for cobia, I would
    probably be focused in the Virginia, North Carolina region here
    on the Atlantic Coast.
        Mr. Graves. And like I said, if you were fishing for cobia
    in the Gulf, where do you think you would go, and what do you
    think you would fish with.
        Dr. Goldsmith. This time of year, I can't say for sure. I
    know there is a very strong run of cobia in the Florida
    Panhandle, but probably not this time of year.
        Mr. Graves. Yes. Probably not this time of year?
        Dr. Goldsmith. Correct.
        Mr. Graves. All right.
        So, Mr. Chairman, I think our witness just demonstrated
    that his experience in fishing and perhaps in the Gulf isn't
    very strong.
        Dr. Goldsmith. Well, Congressman, I would contend that----
        Mr. Graves. I would take it a little bit further. I read
    all these quotes where you all, supposing to be a recreational
    fishing group, actually speaking against the Modern Fish Act,
    which is actually bipartisan legislation designed to improve
    fish science, designed to improve the balance of rec and
    commercial fishing, and I found that fascinating.
        Then I take it a step further and I look on your website. I
    say, OK, well, how do you even become a member of this group,
    and how much does it cost? Well, you can just sign up. You
    don't even have to be a guide. Anybody can do it. I can do it
    right now. And it is free, which then makes me think, well,
    wait a minute, where is the money coming from, because it
    obviously costs a lot of money to have a group like that?
        So, could you just tell me how you are funded if you don't
    charge membership fees, and if I could just sign up not even
    being a guide? Where does the money come from?
        Dr. Goldsmith. Congressman, as a resource-first not sector-
    first group, we are proud to have a lot of partners across
    sectors and really take a lot of pride in our ability to bring
    allies across the different sectors who care about our marine
    fisheries together.
        And regarding the Modern Fish Act, I would say that one of
    the main contentions that our group had with that was that,
    while we certainly recognize that not all fisheries necessarily
    should be subject to the exact same management measures, the
    one uniting fact that has been hugely successful since the last
    MSA reauthorization was the enactment of annual catch limits.
    And that was the major concern with some of the options that
    were put forward in the Modern Fish Act.
        We think that because, again, recreational fisheries have
    such a large impact----
        Mr. Graves. So, when we actually have better science, for
    example, as was mentioned a little while ago, the Great Red
    Snapper Count that found that the red snapper stock in the Gulf
    of Mexico is actually triple what was projected by NMFS, then
    you think that is better, for us to use one-third the stock
    rather than triple, which keeping in mind the entire Gulf, as
    we talked on the first panel, is actually a system.
        So, you can't manage the system if you have inaccurate
    information on one species then, especially as dominant and
    predatory as red snapper are.
        I am reading a quote that you all gave in talking about
    Modern Fish that you said, quote, ``We helped strip it down to
    a few studies.'' I want to remind you, this whole Committee,
    everybody you are looking at right now, we all worked on this.
    It was a bipartisan bill. I appreciate you bragging about
    stripping it down.
        The bill, there is nothing in there, nothing in there that
    is offensive. It is all about getting better data, better
    science, making sure it is all incorporated in, because states
    like mine have actually spent more than the Feds trying to make
    sure that we manage the species in a manner that is
    sustainable.
        In regard to----
        Dr. Goldsmith. I would affirm that having sustainable
    management of all sectors is really what is critical here.
        Mr. Graves. In regard to the organizations that are funding
    you, that means that you are not really a fishing guide group.
    You are a facade for organizations that have an agenda. Why
    don't you just call yourself who you are and not come before
    the Committee and others and pretend like you are somebody
    else? I think it is very disingenuous and unfortunate.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Huffman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Dr. Goldsmith. Sir, the hundreds of guides who come to us
    who are proud to be our members take a lot of pride in the fact
    that we value having abundant and healthy fish stocks----
        Mr. Graves. I am sorry, Mr. Chair, whose time is he using
    right now.
        Mr. Goldsmith [continuing]. And recognize that when we have
    healthy resources, we support all sectors.
        Mr. Graves. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I just wondered,
    whose time is this again?
        Mr. Huffman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        The Chair now recognizes Mrs. Radewagen for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Radewagen. Talofa. Thank you all for testifying today.
        Dr. Aila, you state in your testimony that you have worked
    for 33 years with the council. Given this, you must be quite
    familiar with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and how the council
    process works.
        Can you explain in your words what the MSA requires and how
    the council failed to follow that process? If you had concerns
    with the process, do you have examples of when you raised these
    concerns in writing to the council and what the council's
    response was to those concerns, Dr. Aila?
        Mr. Aila. Yes. Thank you so much for the question.
        Well, Magnuson has changed over the years. The most
    current, I think, version of Magnuson includes much more of a
    requirement for fisheries management plans to consider all of
    the biological, social, and economic issues.
        It wasn't always that way. When it first started, it was
    more about defining maximum sustainable yield and those kinds
    of things which really didn't involve ecosystem management.
        My record for the 30-plus years at WESPAC is clear. I have
    testified at numerous council meetings. I would encourage you
    to take a look at the record.
        A good example of small boat fishermen like myself who sat
    and advised WESPAC on the Pelagic Advisory Panel is we
    suggested the use of tuna circle hooks long before the council
    adopted it because the council got sued in terms of the bycatch
    of tuna, the bycatch of cetaceans, false killer whales, and
    other things.
        If the council had simply taken the advisory panel's
    recommendation on tuna circle hooks when it was suggested by
    the advisory panel, I would say that thousands of green sea
    turtles, leatherback turtles, olive ridley turtles, the small
    insular population of false killer whales around the main
    Hawaiian Islands would not have needlessly been killed.
        So, that is one example of what I believe was very
    cooperative work, giving honest, open advice from fishermen who
    recognize that a circle hook is less likely to be ingested and
    therefore increase mortality in the bycatch of this fishery,
    the long-line fishery.
        There are many, many more examples, and if you give me
    specific questions, I will be happy to respond.
        Mrs. Radewagen. And what was the council's response to some
    of those concerns that you might be able to think of right
    offhand?
        Mr. Aila. The council ignored our suggestions until they
    were sued by Earthjustice, and I believe a Federal judge then
    required the use of tuna circle hooks as a mitigation measure.
        Mrs. Radewagen. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Huffman. I thank the gentlelady.
        And I want to thank all the witnesses for their valuable
    testimony and the Members for their questions.
        Members of the Committee may have some additional questions
    for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to those in
    writing.
        Under Committee Rule 3(o), Members must submit written
    questions to witnesses within 3 business days after the
    hearing, and then the hearing record will be kept open for 10
    business days to allow for responses.
        If there is no further business before the Committee, and
    seeing none, we stand adjourned. Thanks, everyone.

        [Whereupon, at 5:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

                   Submissions for the Record by Rep. Huffman

                       Alaska Marine Conservation Council

    Hon. Jared Huffman
    Hon. Ed Case
    House Natural Resources Committee
    1324 Longworth House Office Building
    Washington, DC 20515

    Re: Feedback on MSA Discussion Draft

        Dear Representative Huffman and Representative Case:

        Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the MSA
    reauthorization discussion draft. We are pleased to see a strong bill
    which offers improvements to the nation's premier marine fisheries law,
    the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). We
    appreciate the leadership that Representative Huffman, Representative
    Case and staff have demonstrated to build on the existing MSA and we
    look forward to continued work together.
        Founded in 1994, the Alaska Marine Conservation Council (AMCC) is
    an Alaska-based non-profit dedicated to protecting the long-term health
    of Alaska's oceans and sustaining the working waterfronts of our
    coastal communities. Our members include fishermen, subsistence
    harvesters, marine scientists, small business owners and families, many
    of whom rely on healthy fisheries. AMCC advances conservation solutions
    that address the interdependence between healthy marine ecosystems,
    strong local economies and coastal traditions. Our community-based
    approach includes outreach, grassroots advocacy, public policy,
    research and education. The base of our membership includes hundreds of
    small boat, community based, conservation minded fishermen that depend
    on the health of the marine resource to remain in their fishing
    communities. In many of Alaska's fishing communities, fishing is the
    economic engine that drives the community.
        The Alaska Marine Conservation Council strongly supports existing
    science and conservation provisions in the current MSA. AMCC supported
    revisions to the Act in 1996, in particular the provisions that sought
    to reduce bycatch, consider the effects of management on communities
    and protect essential habitats. In addition, AMCC supported revisions
    in 2006 which provided increased guidance in limited access privilege
    programs, annual catch limits, accountability measures and
    environmental review. We believe the MSA discussion draft builds upon
    provisions which contribute to healthy marine resources and healthy
    communities. We support advancements to promote the long-term health of
    the nation's fisheries and fishing communities with inclusion of
    climate-ready fisheries language. We believe that by strengthening the
    well-being of coastal communities and responsible resource management
    we can ensure that our oceans and the people that rely on them can
    thrive for generations to come.
        AMCC appreciates the extensive outreach and the deliberative and
    transparent approach Rep. Huffman and Rep. Case undertook with
    listening sessions in seven of the eight management regions. We
    understand there were intentions to visit the eighth management region,
    the North Pacific, but efforts were thwarted due to the pandemic. We
    encourage you to hold a hearing in one of Alaska's premier fishing
    communities to increase your awareness of both the strength and the
    vulnerabilities of Alaskan fishing communities. It will be particularly
    important that you invite Native Alaskans, fishery dependent rural
    community residents as well as small boat fishermen to participate in
    your Alaska hearing. Often the interests of large industrial fisheries
    and processors are strongly represented in the Congressional hearing
    process and overshadow the voice of other user groups.

        Our comments will focus on proposed amendments to MSA, including
    climate ready fisheries, supporting fishing communities, strengthening
    the public process, improving fisheries science and data, supporting
    Essential Fish Habitat and strengthening measures to reduce bycatch.

    Title I: Climate-Ready Fisheries

        Alaskans are living on the front lines of climate change and
    fishery management systems must incorporate climate considerations
    throughout the management process. Climate change is having an impact
    on fisheries and managers must have the resources and tools to be
    responsive to the changes. In addition to providing the tools to
    support resilient fish stocks, factoring climate change in fisheries
    management will provide stability to fishing communities.

        Sec. 101 does a good job of amending language throughout the
    findings, purpose and policy to strengthen methods to produce climate-
    ready management. To further link the symbiotic relationship between
    resilient fishing communities and environmental changes associated with
    climate change, AMCC supports additional bolded language as follows:

      1.  On page 6, paragraph (14), at the end, after ``subsistence
                fisheries'', add ``as well as fishery dependent community
                resilience''.

      2.  On page 6, paragraph (15) add the words ``in particular fishery
                dependent communities'' at the end of the paragraph.

      3.  On page 7, under (B), line 14, add the words ``and fishery
                dependent communities'' after the word ``States''.

      4.  On page 7, under (C), line 19, add ``in particular fishery
                dependent communities'' after coastal communities.

      5.  On page 8, add a new paragraph (10) ``to support fishery
                dependent communities and to encourage the next generation
                of American fishermen.''

        With the threat that climate change poses to our fisheries
    management systems and resilient fishing communities, Secs. 102, 103,
    104 and 106 provide solid language to promote climate resilience. AMCC
    supports the amended language along with the resources to meet the
    charge. It will be important to identify funding mechanisms and
    budgetary support to the regional fisheries management councils to
    develop climate ready fisheries management.

    Title II: Supporting Fishing Communities

        AMCC supports building upon the existing MSA to further advance
    legislative commitment to support fishing communities whose
    livelihoods, and often very existence, depend on healthy oceans and
    fisheries. Ensuring equitable access to resources is key to fishing
    communities' survival.

        Sec. 202 captures an integral part of Alaskan life with the
    inclusion of a definition of subsistence and the acknowledgment of
    subsistence fisheries in the context of federal fisheries management.
    AMCC supports this addition and the inclusive approach to consider the
    importance of subsistence fishing.

        Sec. 203 and the establishment of a Working Waterfronts Grant
    Program identifies the need to preserve and expand access to coastal
    waters and provides a path to identify and prioritize critical needs
    for working waterfronts. AMCC supports the commitment to secure and
    enhance valuable waterfront access for fishing businesses and the
    infrastructure needs to maintain stability for the industry.

        Sec. 204 and the recommendation to reestablish the National Seafood
    Council to conduct education, research, promotion, and marketing to
    increase seafood consumption and improve consumer awareness has merit.
    Domestic marketing of sustainably harvested US seafoods is a benefit to
    both the fishing industry and the consumer. That said, AMCC believes it
    is important to support small scale fisheries and fishermen in tandem
    with larger scale fisheries in all marketing initiatives. Throughout
    Alaska's fishing communities there are thousands of small boat
    fishermen who engage in small scale fisheries. Marketing efforts with
    intentional investments to increase consumption of the diverse array of
    species these community-based fishermen harvest would result in
    widespread benefits to the fishing community. In addition, a Seafood
    Council should also be tasked with exploring means to increase domestic
    processing. The practice of secondary processing for US harvested fish
    which are then shipped back for US consumption is disadvantageous to
    the quality, health benefits and employment benefits to the Nation for
    these species.

        Sec. 205 AMCC appreciates the amended language which strengthens
    community participation in limited access privilege programs (LAPP). In
    our experience, the current community provisions have not worked as
    intended, to promote the sustained participation of fishing
    communities. The addition of language in the LAPP provisions
    ``including the participation of fishing communities in the fishery''
    helps focus this need. The components outlined in a community
    sustainability plan clearly capture integral considerations and
    descriptive design to achieve the critical objective to sustain our
    Nations fishing communities.
        As an organization with deep ties to the commercial fishing
    industry, AMCC is particularly pleased to see focus on providing for
    the next generation, encouraging active participation and addressing
    economic barriers to access the fisheries. A sustainability plan which
    supports the `boots on deck' fishermen and strives to keep the benefits
    of a LAPP fishery within the fishing community and active participants
    can be developed in a way that looks toward the future.
        In addition to the current list of considerations in the draft,
    AMCC recommends adding bolded language below which fully explores the
    value of anchoring quota to a fishing community as a means to provide
    for sustained participation and provides a process for fishing
    communities to participate in the limited access privilege program in
    perpetuity.
        On page 88, after (VII), line 18, add (VIII) A description of
    whether or not awarding quota shares as part of the LAPP program to
    fishing communities would help to minimize adverse economic impacts on
    such communities and provide for the sustained participation of the
    fishing community in the LAPP program and provide a process for fishing
    communities to participate in the limited access privilege program in
    perpetuity.

    Title III: Strengthening Public Process and Transparency

        AMCC appreciates the amendments in sec 304 which recognize members
    of the conservation community, scientists, non-consumptive users,
    Indigenous and tribal communities and subsistence users as
    qualifications to be considered to serve on a regional council. We view
    this amendment as an inclusive approach in the stakeholder process. In
    our experience, when participants in the process have a representative
    on a Council that they can identify with, engagement improves. The
    fisheries management process is complex and challenging to navigate.
    Diverse geographic and qualifications increase access to
    representatives familiar with the process and provide critical links to
    foster stakeholder engagement.
        In terms of diversification on regional councils, AMCC is concerned
    that the amendment to appoint at least two individuals who do not have
    a financial interest in matters before the Council may impact the
    ability for community-based fishermen to serve on a council. Most
    fishermen who are selected to serve on the council are invested in
    federal fisheries. It will be helpful to get clarification on this
    recommendation. For example, if a council member is employed by a
    fishing organization or processor, does the gainful employment
    constitute a financial interest the same way a fisherman who is
    invested in the fisheries has a financial interest? AMCC believes it is
    important to maintain the voice of active, community-based fishermen on
    councils and is concerned that this action may inadvertently reduce
    diversification.

    Title IV: Modernizing Fisheries Science and Data

        AMCC supports the modernization of fisheries science and data and
    intent to better utilize and integrate new technology into fisheries
    management. Accuracy, timeliness and reliability of fisheries data is a
    cornerstone of sustainable fisheries management. A process for
    implementation of electronic monitoring and reporting which corresponds
    with human observers will further enhance robust fisheries data.
    Clearly the recognition of electronic monitoring and reporting as a
    part of an information collection program will facilitate the
    modernization initiative.
        It will be critical to include the fishermen who will be using
    electronic monitoring in the discussion moving forward. Each region and
    fishery are unique and a one size fits all approach will likely curtail
    innovation, practicability and cost-effective development. From our
    experience, fishermen are adaptable, innovative and want things to work
    so they can keep fishing. There is a saying from active fishermen when
    trying ideas developed on land that don't quite work as anticipated:
    ``another dockside idea put to test''. Industry perspective will be
    invaluable in terms of on-board operational compatibility with
    electronic monitoring and will strengthen the transition to increased
    use of new technologies in fisheries management.
        AMCC supports the language in Sec. 408 which allows use of funds
    for climate research and allows use from regions where funds generated.
    As noted above, the recommendations in Title I to develop climate ready
    fisheries will need funding and it makes sense to allow funds from this
    source to be used for climate science research.

    Title V: Sustaining Fisheries Through Healthy Ecosystems and Improved
            Management

        AMCC supports the in-depth examination of how current fisheries
    management practices are maintaining ecosystem roles and functions,
    protecting important habitats, and minimizing bycatch

        Sec. 501 provides improved language and direction for supporting
    healthy fish habitat and will augment existing efforts to protect
    important habitats. A process to improve the consultation with federal
    agencies to avoid, minimize and mitigate adverse impacts on essential
    fish habitat emphasizes the value of habitat to sustainable fisheries
    and will benefit the long-term health of our marine environment. The
    effects of non-fishing activity on essential fish habitat and actions
    to avoid, minimize and mitigate adverse impacts is a proactive approach
    to address the threats of our ever-changing ocean use. The roles of the
    regional fisheries management council are well defined with direction
    to develop and implement a plan to protect essential fish habitat with
    measurable targets and goals for each Council region along with a
    routine review process.

        Sec. 503 AMCC both appreciates and supports the amended language
    focused on reducing fishery bycatch. Bycatch impacts the ecological
    well-being of the marine environment, other user groups dependent on
    the bycaught species and is wasteful. The removal of the language `to
    the extent practicable' provides a strengthened directive to reduce
    bycatch. We support the removal of this qualifying language throughout
    the discussion draft and in National Standard 9.
        In our experiences in the North Pacific, `to the extent
    practicable' is quite subject to interpretation and often used to
    counter actions to reduce bycatch. When an action to minimize bycatch
    is being discussed before a Council, a fleet responsible for
    significant amounts of bycatch can ascertain they have done all that is
    practicable for their fleet. As a result, efforts to minimize bycatch
    for both the conservation benefits to the bycaught species and the user
    groups of the species utilized for bycatch are marginalized by the
    interpretive language on minimizing bycatch to the extent practicable.
    There are fisheries management situations in the North Pacific which
    allow for status quo bycatch usage of species like halibut, crab and
    salmon when the directed fishery is subject to reduced TAC and closures
    to provide conservation for the resource under declining abundance.
    This represents both an equity and a conservation concern for fishing
    communities and Native Alaskans with a long history of dependence on
    the bycaught species.
        AMCC believes that balancing the National Standards provides a
    balanced approach to address bycatch while striving for optimal yield
    and meeting the 10 National Standards. The qualifying language `to the
    extent practicable' is unnecessary and misused.

        Sec. 505 provides solid guidance for the role of the SSC to provide
    recommendations on resilience to fish stocks by providing input on all
    sources of mortality and promoting resilience to climate change. In
    particular, the ongoing scientific advice provided by the SSC to assess
    the health, sources of mortality, bycatch, habitat status, the
    sustainability of fishing practices and anticipated future impacts of
    climate change are critical to sustainable fisheries management.

        Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the discussion draft
    and we look forward to future iterations. AMCC is appreciative of the
    ideas presented which will support the long-term health of our oceans,
    our fishery dependent coastal communities and numerous others,
    including ocean inhabitants that depend on a healthy marine
    environment.

                Sincerely,

                                              Theresa Peterson,
                                              Fisheries Policy Director

                                     ______

                         At-sea Processors Association

                                                  November 24, 2021

    Hon. Jared Huffman, Chairman
    Hon. Don Young, Acting Ranking Member
    Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife
    Committee on Natural Resources
    1324 Longworth House Office Building,
    Washington, DC 20515

        Dear Chairman Huffman and Acting Ranking Member Young:

        Thank you for convening the Subcommittee's legislative hearing on
    November 16 to consider H.R. 59, H.R. 4690 and H.R. 5770. The Magnuson-
    Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) has made the U.S.
    fishery management system the envy of the world. We welcome
    congressional review of its successes and the potential consequences of
    legislative changes.
        During the hearing, Chairman Huffman made certain comments about
    trawl vessels operating in the Alaska pollock fishery. He also saw fit
    to enter into the record a ``memorandum'' authored by a group called
    ``Accountable US''. Both the comments made by the Chairman and the
    ``memorandum'' he entered into the record served to spread
    misinformation about the Alaska pollock fishery. I understand that Mr.
    Shannon Carroll from Trident Seafoods will be providing a written
    response to those comments and that ``memorandum''. I will not repeat
    all the points being made by Mr. Carroll, but I did want to provide
    some addition information that I hope will be helpful to the
    Subcommittee. I respectfully request that my response be made part of
    the hearing record.
        By way of background, for more than 40 years I have lived in
    coastal Alaska, in communities that depend upon fisheries for their
    survival. My whole career has been spent advocating for sustainable
    fisheries--to help ensure that those communities have a future. I
    operated an air taxi from the Tom Madsen Airport in Unalaska with my
    late husband for nineteen years, and then worked for the shoreside
    processors that are central to the economy of coastal communities. I am
    now proud to work as Executive Director of the At-sea Processors
    Association, representing six companies that operate catcher processor
    vessels in the Bering Sea Alaska pollock fishery--the largest fishery
    in the United States and the largest seafood fishery in the world.

        The Bering Sea Alaska pollock fishery has set the bar for fisheries
    management and sustainability for decades. It is certified sustainable
    by two independent certification bodies with some of the highest
    sustainability ratings of any fishery on Earth. Here are some facts
    that I believe Members of the Subcommittee should know about this
    fleet:

         We are accountable. All of the fishery's catcher processor
                vessels pay to carry two Federal observers who measure and
                report everything that comes aboard on every trip. Scales
                and multiple cameras are also used to ensure that
                everything caught in our nets is counted and documented.
                There is no other fishing fleet, anywhere, that is more
                closely monitored and more accountable for their
                operations.

         We are transparent. Every April since 2000, we have
                reported to the public through the North Pacific Fishery
                Management Council the precise amount and type of species
                caught by each vessel. All of those reports are available
                on the NPFMC website (see Pollock Conservation Cooperative
                and High Sea Catchers' Cooperative). The catch data is also
                available to the public during the season on the National
                Marine Fisheries Service website.

         We follow the science. The North Pacific has invested
                heavily in climate science and sophisticated models to
                address the changing climate. This includes local and
                traditional knowledge. The process to include LKTK is being
                improved, so that before any actions are taken we have all
                the available science. This region is known for having
                adopted precautionary principles early in the history of
                the Council, and we continue to improve on the ecosystem-
                based fishery management that has long been a hallmark of
                the region.

         We work hard to minimize incidental catch. All fisheries
                encounter non-target species. Our fleet goes to great
                lengths to target pollock and avoid other marine life. As a
                result of these efforts, more than 98 percent of what our
                vessels catch is pollock.

         We have dramatically reduced incidental catch of Chinook
                salmon. Since 2010, our fleet has operated under a Chinook
                salmon hard cap, which would shut the fishery down if
                exceeded. When the Western Alaska stocks are low our cap is
                lowered, which has been the case for the last several
                years. Our fleet has worked to not only stay under the cap,
                but also to further minimize incidental catch of salmon by
                investing in extensive gear and technological innovations,
                including underwater cameras, salmon lights, and salmon
                excluders. We also pay to access and share detailed
                historical and current spatially explicit catch data across
                the entire fleet, and we analyze these data in real time to
                help inform time and area fishing decisions to avoid
                salmon. As a result, incidental catch of Chinook salmon by
                our vessels has declined by 89 percent since its peak in
                2007.

         We support salmon science. Salmon encountered by our
                vessels are counted and sampled so that ecosystem impacts
                can be understood. Every tenth Chinook salmon encountered
                is sampled to determine its genetic makeup. Every thirtieth
                chum salmon is also sampled. Those samples are processed by
                the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the stocks of
                origin of those salmon are publicly reported. The science
                shows us that a majority of chum salmon encountered in the
                Bering Sea pollock fishery come from hatcheries outside the
                United States.

         We donate salmon to help those in need. Regulations
                require all salmon to be retained and counted by the
                Federal observers. Our companies donate eligible salmon to
                regional foodbanks through our non-profit partners Sea
                Share, to serve those in need.

         Incidental catch by trawl fisheries is not the cause of
                declining salmon runs in Western Alaska. Declining salmon
                runs in Western Alaska are devastating to see, and the
                impact on Western Alaska communities is heartbreaking. We
                should do everything possible to understand the causes of
                these declines and address them through science-based
                policy responses. Genetic sampling and adult equivalent
                (AEQ) modeling of incidental catch makes clear that trawl
                fisheries are not the cause. In the case of Chinook salmon,
                the best scientific information indicates that the current
                impacts of incidental catch on total run estimates for
                Western Alaska rivers has been less than three percent in
                every year since 2009. Incidental catch impacts to Upper
                Yukon Chinook runs average close to 1 percent.

         Our fleet is inextricably linked to Western Alaska
                communities. The companies operating these vessels partner
                or are owned in whole or in part by the Western Alaska
                Community Development Quota (CDQ) Groups. In fact, as
                envisioned by the late Senator Stevens, who helped
                establish the CDQ program, the ownership share of CDQ
                groups in this fishery continues to increase. Revenue from
                the Bering Sea pollock fishery provides critical resources
                to Western Alaska communities in need. Folks who
                characterize our fleet as ``outsiders'' are incorrect, and
                are pitting Alaskan against Alaskan.

         We support habitat protections to ensure a healthy Bering
                Sea ecosystem for future generations. Every five years, as
                required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the North Pacific
                Council looks at impacts to habitat by fisheries. If the
                science, including a fishing effects model, indicate that
                impacts are more than temporary and more than minimal,
                mitigation measures are developed.

         We are providing low-cost, low-carbon protein that helps
                feed the world. Alaska pollock is a low-cost, high-
                nutrition seafood. It feeds millions of Americans in need,
                through affordable retail and food-service offerings, and
                through the National School Lunch and food bank programs.
                It also serves consumers around the world, providing one of
                the most climate-friendly options of any widely-available
                protein. Its CO-2eq per kg of protein is 3.77kg--compared
                to 12.5 for chicken, 19.65 for pork, 20.83 for plant-based
                meat, and 115.75 for beef. All food production has an
                environmental footprint. We are proud that ours is one of
                the most modest of any protein source on Earth.

        Our industry welcomes debate about responsible management of our
    natural resources. It is critical that such a debate be grounded in
    science and proceed based on facts. Those who are spreading false
    information about trawl fisheries are doing nothing to help our
    communities or our environment. Rather, I urge those who care about
    these issues to join us in advancing solutions that are based in
    science and fact. We strongly support efforts to further study and
    address declining salmon runs in Western Alaska; we welcome science-
    based efforts to minimize incidental catch in all North Pacific
    fisheries; and we are committed to improving the resiliency of the
    precious Bering Sea ecosystem through management that responds to and
    incorporates climate change.

        I look forward to working with Members of the Subcommittee to
    advance our shared priorities in these critical areas.

                Yours sincerely,

                                              Stephanie Madsen,
                                                     Executive Director

                                     ______

                            Statement for the Record
                          Ms. Jennifer Dianto Kemmerly
                  Director of Global Fisheries and Aquaculture
                             Monterey Bay Aquarium
                     Hearing on ``The State of Fisheries''
                  Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife
                                  May 1, 2019

        Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member McClintock, and Members of the
    Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I am
    honored to provide testimony on the current state of fisheries on
    behalf of the Monterey Bay Aquarium.
        The growing conservation challenges facing our ocean are well
    documented, and the United States must continue to rise to these
    challenges through strong, science-based management to protect our blue
    economy, coastal communities, and way of life. The United States is not
    alone in recognizing the urgency of the situation. When the global
    community adopted the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals,
    they specifically included Goal 14, which focuses on the conservation
    and sustainable use of the oceans, seas, and marine resources and
    states that, ``how we manage this vital resource is essential for
    humanity as a whole.'' The world has spoken: our survival depends on
    healthy seas.
        Congress has been instrumental in positioning the United States as
    a global ocean conservation leader, especially on fisheries issues as
    evidenced by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
    Act (MSA) and your support for crucial research and management by the
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The decisions
    made by this Subcommittee impact the lives and prosperity of millions
    of Americans, and we look to your continued leadership to ensure our
    ocean can provide the same benefits for future generations. There is no
    time to waste.
    The Monterey Bay Aquarium

        The mission of the Monterey Bay Aquarium is to inspire conservation
    of the ocean. Today, we welcome more than two million visitors per year
    and have three million social media followers. More than two million
    schoolchildren and teachers have come through our doors for free, and
    our science programs for students and teachers reach thousands more.
    Our exhibits educate and motivate visitors to act on behalf of the
    ocean.
        The Aquarium's conservation priorities aim to tackle critical
    issues affecting ocean health, including global fisheries and
    aquaculture sustainability, protection of wildlife and ecosystems,
    climate change, and plastic pollution. Science underpins our work in
    addressing these challenges, and we seek a collaborative approach that
    encourages partnerships with the private sector, governments, academia
    and other key stakeholders. Our staff experts conduct scientific
    research on ocean wildlife and ecosystems, influence policy from the
    local to global levels, and engage industry and markets through our
    Seafood Watch program. We also partner with the Monterey Bay Aquarium
    Research Institute (MBARI) to develop cutting-edge technology and
    information in support of our conservation goals. We raise awareness of
    ocean issues, inspire individual behavior change, and educate the next
    generation of ocean leaders so that they take, and engage others in,
    conservation action.
        Our commitment to multi-stakeholder engagement stems from the very
    foundation of Monterey Bay Aquarium. The Aquarium stands in the space
    of a former cannery on Monterey's historic Cannery Row, a site that was
    the center of the sardine industry until its collapse in the 1950s. It
    took decades of work by government, scientists, fishermen, and
    conservationists, but today we are perched on the shores of a healthy
    and vibrant ecosystem that supports a booming tourism industry, and
    where fishermen can be found working the waters year-round for a
    variety of commercially valuable seafood species. We do not take this
    for granted--it took strong, science-based management to get us here--
    and these same forces are working to advance similar success stories
    around the globe.
    The Aquarium's Seafood Watch Program

        The Aquarium's Seafood Watch program was developed in 1999 to
    create a market demand for seafood from sustainable sources. It evolved
    from an Aquarium exhibit about the impacts of fishing on the ocean,
    which also highlighted solutions ranging from gear modifications to
    strong science-based management. Our visitors asked us what they could
    to help the situation, and, in response, we began to lay the foundation
    for what has become a globally-respected set of science-based
    recommendations for use by consumers and businesses to choose
    environmentally sustainable seafood in the marketplace. We base these
    recommendations on transparent and peer-reviewed environmental
    sustainability standards for fisheries and aquaculture operations.
    Today, Seafood Watch is one of the most respected sources of seafood
    sustainability information and provides guidance for U.S. consumers and
    for businesses in the United States and around the world.
    The Seafood Watch Sustainability Standard for Fisheries

        As stated above, Seafood Watch uses a science-based standard to
    assess the environmental sustainability of fisheries and aquaculture
    operations. For wild-caught commercial fisheries, this standard is
    based on the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization's (FAO) Code of
    Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and closely aligns with the National
    Standards of the MSA. To conduct our assessments, we rely on publicly
    available science, including data and stock assessments for U.S.
    fisheries from NOAA. The Seafood Watch standard includes four criteria
    that we use to assess the environmental sustainability of fisheries
    including: stock health, impacts of the fishery on other species, the
    effectiveness of management, and impacts of the fishery on habitat and
    the ecosystem. The Seafood Watch standards, assessments, and resulting
    recommendations are publicly available at seafoodwatch.org.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Figure 1--Criteria of the Seafood Watch sustainable
    fisheries standard.

        Fisheries assessed by Seafood Watch that perform well in all four
    criteria are green-rated, which is our highest sustainability rating.
    Yellow-rated fisheries perform well in most, but not all, criteria, or
    there may be a lack of data to fully assess the fishery. Those
    fisheries that perform poorly against some criteria are red-rated
    indicating that there is significant room for improvement. Seafood
    Watch recommends consumers and businesses preferentially source green-
    rated seafood, followed by yellow-rated fisheries or those fisheries
    certified to a standard found to be equivalent to that of Seafood
    Watch.\1\ Our assessments are also intended to be used by stakeholders,
    such as seafood producers and governments, to identify and address
    sustainability shortfalls in lower-rated fisheries. Our goal is to help
    move red-rated fisheries to a yellow rating and, ultimately, to a green
    rating--an evolution that we believe can help ensure a viable fishery
    in the future.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Seafood Watch recognizes fisheries certified to standards with
    thresholds equivalent to our yellow rating or better. For more
    information visit www.seafoodwatch.org/seafood-recommendations/eco-
    certification.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Increasing Demand for Environmentally Sustainable Seafood

        Awareness of environmentally sustainable seafood has increased
    significantly over the last twenty years, reflecting a global trend
    toward sustainability. In a recent poll, 70 percent of consumers in
    North America indicated they want to hear more from companies about the
    sustainability of their products.\2\ A 2017 survey of consumers and
    restaurant purveyors in the United States found that one out of six
    U.S. seafood shoppers consult environmental sustainability purchasing
    guidelines, such as those produced by Seafood Watch.\3\,\4\
    Significantly, over 55 percent of U.S. consumers state that they would
    pay more for sustainable seafood.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Marine Stewardship Council and Globescan (2018). Understanding
    & Activating Seafood Consumers--North America. https://www.msc.org/
    docs/default-source/default-document-library/for-business/msc-
    globescan-understanding-consumers-webinar-deck-north-
    america.pdf?sfvrsn= 5983a2de_6.
        \3\ Dataessentials (2017). MenuTrends Keynote Report: Seafood.
        \4\ Through outreach and online tools, the Aquarium has distributed
    over 63 million pocket guides and reaches over 10 million consumers a
    year.
        \5\ California Environmental Associates (2017) Seafood Metrics
    Report.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        At the same time, an increasing number of companies that sell
    seafood have made public-facing commitments to source environmentally
    sustainable seafood. For example, over 90 percent of U.S. retailers and
    over 75 percent of retailers in the European Union market now have
    sustainable seafood commitments.\6\ U.S. retailers and other companies
    have reported that their commitments are driven by concerns over long-
    term seafood supply, company brand identity, and consumer demand.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ California Environmental Associates (2017). Seafood Metrics
    Report.
        \7\ Monterey Bay Aquarium and GlobeScan (Publication in
    preparation). Uncovering Business Motivations for Sustainable Seafood
    Commitments in the United States.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        At Seafood Watch, we work with some of the largest U.S. retailers,
    restaurant chains, distributors, and foodservice companies--including
    Whole Foods Market, Aramark, and Red Lobster--to help them develop and
    meet their environmentally sustainable seafood commitments. Over the
    past several years, these companies have shifted all or most of their
    purchasing to Seafood Watch recommended seafood. Our network also
    extends to nearly 300 other businesses and institutions located across
    the country that use our information to improve the sustainability of
    their seafood purchasing.
        Importantly, these corporate-level actions are now driving on-the-
    water improvements around the world as the companies engage their
    supply chain to find environmentally responsible sources of seafood or
    to support improvements toward that end. Today, the Aquarium is working
    with some of the largest producers of seafood to advise their efforts
    to improve fishing practices and management in response to U.S. market
    demand.
    Status of Global and U.S. Fisheries

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Globally, 45 percent of seafood production comes from wild-
    caught sources. According to the FAO, the percentage of global wild-
    caught fish stocks fished at biologically unsustainable levels
    increased from 10 percent in 1974 to over 33 percent by 2015.\8\
    Overfishing is on the rise globally. Seafood Watch is working to assess
    the majority of global fisheries supplying the U.S. in response to
    market expectations for sustainability. Currently, we recommend as
    procurement options the 18 percent of global fisheries that are yellow-
    rated, green-rated, or certified. The environmental sustainability
    status of the remaining global supply is red-rated (5 percent) or
    unknown and likely has significant sustainability concerns.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2018).
    The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2018. License: CC BY-NC-SA
    3.0 IGO. http://www.fao.org/3/19540EN/i9540en.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        U.S. fisheries, overall, have achieved a much higher level of
    environmental sustainability than global fisheries. In recent years,
    many U.S. fish stocks have recovered, and the number of overfished
    stocks has fallen, unlike the situation faced by global stocks. We have
    Seafood Watch assessments or other certification of environmental
    sustainability status for 95 percent of U.S. fisheries by production
    and can recommend 91 percent as green-rated, yellow-rated, or
    certified.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Strong Fishery Management Underpins the Environmental
            Sustainability of U.S. Fisheries

        The MSA has established the U.S. as the global leader in science-
    based, sustainable fisheries management. Countries around the world, as
    well as the United Nations, are now using the U.S. approach as a model
    for improving fisheries management. The core conservation provisions
    and accountability measures of the MSA ensure the health of U.S.
    fishery resources that support our economy, jobs and coastal
    communities no matter where you live in the U.S.\9\ In 2016, the U.S.
    commercial, recreational fishing, and seafood industries generated $212
    billion in sales impacts, contributed $100 billion to gross domestic
    product, and supported 1.7 million full and part-time jobs.\10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ National Marine Fisheries Service (2018). Fisheries of the
    United States, 2017. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Current Fishery
    Statistics No. 2017.
        \10\ National Marine Fisheries Service (2018). Fisheries Economics
    of the United States, 2016. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical
    Memorandum NMFS-F/SP0-187, pg 6.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Both Seafood Watch assessments and NOAA data suggest that the MSA
    has been very successful in rebuilding U.S. stocks, decreasing the risk
    of overfishing, and elevating the long-term sustainability of fisheries
    around the country. The science-based management framework and
    accountability requirements within the MSA are addressing the
    fundamental tenets of sustainability and have drastically reduced
    overfishing and helped recover 45 U.S. fish stocks.\11\ Analysis of
    Seafood Watch assessments reveals that the scores for stock health and
    management effectiveness are particularly strong for many U.S.
    fisheries. This sets the United States apart from most foreign
    fisheries.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ NOAA Fisheries (2018). Fishery Stock Status Updates, December
    2018. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/population-assessments/
    fishery-stock-status-updates#2018-quarterly-updates.

        Consumer and business demand for sustainable seafood continue to
    shape market expectations. The strong environmental sustainability of
    U.S. fisheries creates potential to differentiate from foreign
    products, offering a competitive advantage in the global marketplace.
    Major companies are implementing specific, time bound commitments to
    sustainable seafood, and U.S. fisheries can capitalize on this economic
    opportunity. Several elements are needed to continue the U.S.
    competitive advantage, enable the long-term health of the resource, and
    protect fishing and coastal communities. We offer the following
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    recommendations:

         Maintain the core conservation provisions of the MSA,
                including science-based management, ending overfishing,
                rebuilding depleted stocks, and ensuring strong
                accountability. These provisions are critical to maintain
                the health of our fisheries at sustainable levels and
                provide an opportunity to differentiate U.S. fisheries in
                the global marketplace.

         Support investments in research, technology, and
                innovation, including cooperative research, to guide
                management decisions through the Regional Fishery
                Management Council process.

         Work with fishing communities to build critical
                infrastructure, supply chains and domestic marketing
                opportunities. In Monterey, we're working with the Monterey
                Bay Fisheries Trust to keep fishing permits in the
                community, rebuild a local, sustainable fishery and support
                a diverse fleet of fishing vessels. This type of
                stakeholder-driven collaboration can increase
                profitability, and market opportunities that support U.S.
                fishing communities and consumer demand for sustainable
                seafood.

         Advance new research, tools and ecosystem-based approaches
                to ensure continued sustainability into the future.

              o  Analysis of Seafood Watch assessments of U.S.
            fisheries indicates that the lowest scores within the four
            criteria are consistently related to bycatch concerns. If
            bycatch were reduced or mitigated, 20 percent of yellow ratings
            could qualify for a green rating. New congressional support for
            NOAA's bycatch reporting \12\ and reduction programs may also
            accelerate improvements.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ Benaka, L.R., D. Bullock, A.L. Hoover, and N.A. Olsen
    (editors) (2019). U.S. National Bycatch Report First Edition Update 3.
    U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SP0-190.

              o  Our analysis also indicates some challenges
            with managing habitat and other ecosystem impacts in U.S.
            fisheries. Several Regional Fishery Management Councils are
            already working toward more operational ecosystem-based
            management plans that incorporate habitat, forage fish and
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            climate impacts, and this work should be prioritized.

              o  Climate change impacts on fisheries are
            increasingly observed in some regions of the United States, and
            collaboration between NOAA, the Councils, academics, and
            stakeholders will support mitigation strategies \13\ that will
            prepare fishermen and coastal communities for the future.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ NOAA has recently published guidance for fisheries managers
    grappling with the challenges posed by climate change, and financial
    resources will be needed to provide the data and the capacity to put
    this guidance into practice.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Global Challenges and Leveling the Playing Field for U.S. fisheries

        U.S. fisheries are part of a complex global seafood supply chain
    and must compete with seafood produced around the world. Seafood is the
    most globally traded commodity, and fisheries from countries with
    strong management--like the United States--must compete in the same
    marketplace with product from weak management. Currently, there is not
    strong evidence that seafood from well-managed fisheries experience a
    market premium. However, thanks to the number of business commitments
    to sustainable seafood, the U.S. market is actively looking to source
    from environmentally sustainable fisheries, including our domestic
    product.
        The United States imports over 90 percent of our seafood from
    abroad, which poses challenges of sourcing from countries with weak
    management and from sources that experience illegal, unreported, and
    unregulated (IUU) fishing, including human rights abuses.
        Each year, IUU fishing costs law-abiding U.S. and international
    fishing fleets and governments between $10 and $23.5 billion.\14\ It
    poses a serious threat to the effectiveness of fishery management
    efforts, and directly impacts the overall health of the ocean. Recent
    investigations also revealed clear links between IUU fishing and human
    rights abuses, including seafood supply networks that ultimately ended
    in U.S. markets.\15\ IUU and these human rights issues in the seafood
    supply chain impact U.S. fishermen, businesses, and consumers and must
    be exposed and addressed.\16\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ Agnew, D.J., J. Pearce, G. Pramod, T. Peatman, R. Watson, J.R.
    Beddington, T.J. Pitcher (2009). Estimating the worldwide extent of
    illegal fishing. PLOS ONE 4, e4570. https://doi.org/10.1371/
    journal.pone.0004570.
        \15\ According to the ILO, approximately 1.8 million people
    worldwide were in forced labor in fishing and agriculture industries.
    (International Labour Organization (2017). Global Estimates of Modern
    Slavery: Forced Labour and Forced Marriage. https://www.ilo.org/global/
    publications/books/WCMS_575479/lang-en/index.htm).
        \16\ To help fill the need for publicly available resources to
    identify the risks in supply chains, Seafood Watch and the Sustainable
    Fisheries Partnership developed the Seafood Slavery Risk Tool. The tool
    provides information on the likelihood that forced labor, human
    trafficking, or hazardous child labor are occurring on fishing boats in
    a specific fishery.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The United States has been a leader in the fight against IUU
    fishing, including leading the development and ratification of the U.N.
    Port State Measures Agreement in 2016 to enhance enforcement and
    implementation of the U.S. Seafood Import Monitoring Program (SIMP) in
    2018 to improve seafood traceability and transparency within the supply
    chain. These government programs to improve international enforcement
    and improve transparency within markets are being complemented by
    efforts of the private sector and NGOs, such as the Global Dialogue on
    Seafood Traceability and the Seafood Alliance for Legality and
    Traceability.
        Seafood traceability is particularly important to leverage U.S.
    market influence globally to level the playing field. Consumers and
    businesses need information about the seafood they buy, including where
    and how the fish was caught, to be able to incentivize change. SIMP
    officially started in January 2018 and included 11 priority species
    ``at risk'' of IUU fishing, and last year Congress added shrimp and
    abalone to the program. This important program collects key harvest and
    landing data from importers and requires that importers maintain chain
    of custody for the species covered. It gives NOAA authority to conduct
    audits and works with states and other federal agencies to inspect and
    ensure compliance.

        Increased congressional funding and strong U.S. leadership in the
    international arena can help to level the playing field and support
    U.S. fishermen, businesses, and consumers. We offer several
    recommendations:

         Fully execute SIMP and expand the program to cover all
                species. SIMP is a crucial first step to increase
                transparency and traceability of imported seafood products
                and address IUU fishing globally. However, it must be fully
                implemented with all necessary resources and expanded to
                cover all seafood products. These actions will eliminate
                current loopholes and incentivize international action
                toward sustainable, legal fisheries globally.

         Advocate for precautionary, science-based management and
                strong compliance at the Regional Fisheries Management
                Organizations (RFMOs). All countries must be held
                accountable to their international obligations to achieve
                sustainable management of highly migratory species (e.g.,
                tunas, billfish, sharks), and bring others up to standards
                consistent with the MSA.

         Utilize existing authorities and programs to advance on-
                the-water enforcement capacity globally, such as NOAA
                international enforcement trainings, collaboration with
                technology providers (i.e. Global Fishing Watch), and
                authority provided by the High Seas Driftnet Moratorium
                Protection Act in the MSA.

         Increase government oversight by NOAA, the State
                Department, and other agencies to identify challenges and
                opportunities to ensure our markets are supporting safe
                labor and social responsibility.

        At a time when our oceans and global fisheries are under threat, we
    are seeing strong new private sector leadership, and the MSA has
    positioned the United States as a global model of science-based,
    environmentally sustainable fisheries management. Working together, the
    public and private sectors can continue to strengthen U.S. fisheries
    and leverage our purchasing power to bring global fisheries up to our
    standards. The Aquarium stands ready to work with Congress and this
    Subcommittee to support solutions that ensure the long-term health of
    our ocean's fisheries--in U.S. waters and beyond.

        Thank you for your consideration of this testimony.

                                     ______

                                          Andrew Braker
                                               Fort Collins, CO

                                                  November 14, 2021

    House Natural Resources Committee
    1324 Longworth House Office Building
    Washington, DC 20515

    Re: Letter to Committee H.R. 4690

        My name is Andrew Braker. I am a 26 year old outdoor recreation
    enthusiast, environmental filmmaker, and sustainability advocate.
    Growing up near the Chesapeake Bay I had the privilege to experience
    spending time in one of the most coveted marine ecosystems in the
    world. Being born in 1994, I also had the opportunity to experience the
    boom and bust of the striped bass fishery over the course of my
    lifetime.
        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA)
    has not been reauthorized since 2007; yet, our fisheries have
    experienced widespread changes since that time. Sustaining America's
    Fisheries for the Future Act confronts this daunting task by taking aim
    at topics such as rebuilding overfished stocks, improving recreational
    data collection, and improving management for forage species.
        Forage management is extremely important to me as an angler because
    I know its direct impact on recreational and commercial fishing
    opportunities. Forage species must be managed with a firm understanding
    of the needs of the predatory fish, birds, and marine mammals that
    depend upon abundant populations of prey items. Since the health of
    forage fish fisheries has cascading effects, an ecosystem-based
    approach helps account for a broader range of effects, including
    trophic interactions among species and the ongoing environmental and
    climatic shifts within these systems.
        This bill would require an assessment of the potential impacts of
    any new commercial forage fish fisheries. Our forage fisheries are too
    critical not to require an ecosystem-based model for management. These
    species represent the fundamental building blocks of the marine food
    web, and therefore need to be valued as such.
        I am extremely encouraged by the foresight of Representatives Jared
    Huffman (D-CA-02) and Ed Case (D-HI-01) in introducing H.R. 4690, the
    Sustaining America's Fisheries for the Future Act. This common sense
    legislation can lead to a more sustainable future for our fisheries--
    maintaining healthier marine ecosystems, supporting local marine
    communities, and boosting the blue economy.

                Sincerely,

                                                  Andrew Braker

                                     ______

                       Cape Cod Salties Sportfishing Club

                                                  November 10, 2021

    Hon. Jared Huffman, Chairman
    Hon. Cliff Bentz, Ranking Member
    Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife
    Committee on Natural Resources
    1324 Longworth House Office Building,
    Washington, DC 20515

        Dear Congressmen Huffman and Bentz:

        I am an avid angler and President of the Cape Cod Salties
    Sportfishing Club. I write today in support of the Sustaining America's
    Fisheries for the Future Act (HR 4690).
        The Cape Cod Salties organization was founded in 1959 by commercial
    striped bass fishermen concerned with access to the shore line. Today,
    we are an organization of men and women, from all walks of life and all
    levels of angling proficiency from novice to professional. We are
    delighted to know that NOAA Administrator Dr. Rick Spinrad and NOAA's
    Senior Climate Advisor Ko Barrett are key members of the US delegation
    to the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Scotland this week.
        HR 4690 addresses many of the issues we have been advocating for in
    recent years. In particular we support the robust climate change
    initiatives in the bill as climate impacts are having a profound impact
    on habitat, fish and anglers in Massachusetts. And, MSA in its present
    form is not equipped to handle the changes we are experiencing, as
    science tells us climate impacts are growing exponentially. The Gulf of
    Maine to our north is warming faster than any other ocean in the world.
        We support the idea of the National Marine Fisheries Service
    stepping up to settle disputes if Regional Councils cannot decide who
    is responsible for a specie's Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) when
    stock movement occurs due to climate change impacts. We also support
    the related issue of seats on Councils where states have no
    representation.
        The bill tries to address the issue of stocks shifting into
    different Council jurisdictions due to climate change by having the New
    England, Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic Councils having seats on each
    other's council. The idea has merit but needs work to more closely
    reflect where the fish are today and where they will be in the near-
    term future.
        We applaud using electronic recording and citizen science to
    complement fisheries data making it more robust to manage stocks and
    encourage Electronic Technology (ET) use particularly when it is used
    to assess recreational fishing and climate change impacts.
        MSA has been working, so we need to keep science-based Allowable
    Catch Limits (ACLs) and rebuilding timelines strong to rebuild fish
    stocks as they have started to falter since 2018. Today a fifth of
    known stocks are overfished. Overfished stocks, such as Gulf of Maine
    Atlantic cod, may become a thing of the past. It has been overfished
    for 30 years.
        We ask the Subcommittee and all members of Congress to support the
    Sustaining America's Fisheries for the Future Act.

        Thank you for the good work.

                Sincerely,

                                                John Creighton,
                                                              President

                                     ______

                                                   November 9, 2021

    House Natural Resources Committee
    1324 Longworth House Office Building
    Washington, DC 20515

    Re: Letter to Committee H.R. 4690

        Dear House Natural Resources Committee Members:

        I'm writing to express my wholehearted support for H.R. 4690--
    Sustaining America's Fisheries for the Future Act of 2021.
    Reauthorizing the Magnus-Stevens Act is the most significant step that
    this Congress can take to sustain commercial and recreational fishing
    communities and is long overdue.
        I make my living as a full-time saltwater fishing guide. Home is
    mid-coast Maine but I extend my season by traveling to Massachusetts
    and North Carolina spring and fall and host clients on fishing
    expeditions during the winter. Addressing climate change and its
    impacts on ocean ecosystems, specific fisheries, and coastal
    communities in LAW may be the most impactful update to the MSA that
    this bill contains. I see firsthand changes where I fish in both the
    species I target, the forage fish that attracts them, and the species
    harvested commercially by my neighbors and dock mates. I'm stunned at
    how frequently climate change implications and uncertainties are left
    out of fisheries management decisions, often as a result of limited
    research and data collection. I hear fisheries scientists repeatedly
    express concerns that they don't have the information that they need to
    make best decisions and given the rapid rate of change in ocean
    ecosystems, this can't continue.
        H.R. 4690 would also modernize fisheries science and data
    collection for recreational sectors. Despite the fact that I ``fish''
    for my income, my activities are categorized under ``recreational
    fishing efforts''. Commercial harvesters now provide accurate data on
    effort, harvest, economic impact but there are huge gaps on the
    recreational side of the stock assessment and management equation. We
    too need to be accountable for our catch. The impact that our industry
    has on coastal economies is meaningful. Our business is directly
    dependent upon healthy, sustainable fisheries and right now our best
    available science is too often lacking.
        Ecosystem management, improving stakeholder participation,
    protection of forage species and fish habitat are all significant
    improvements to MSA that are within reach. Sustaining coastal
    communities and businesses like mine is possible with sound decision
    making. I urge you to pass H.R. 4690 as quickly as possible.

                Sincerely,

                                            Capt. Peter Fallon,
                                         Gillies & Fallon Guide Service
                       President, Maine Association of Charter Captains
                          Member, American Saltwater Guides Association

                                     ______

                                                   November 9, 2021

    Hon. Jared Huffman, Chair
    Hon. Ed Case, Member
    Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife
    House Natural Resources Committee
    1324 Longworth House Office Building
    Washington, DC 20515

        Dear Chair Huffman and Representative Case:

        We write on behalf of our organizations and the millions of members
    we collectively represent, to support H.R. 4690, the Sustaining
    America's Fisheries for the Future Act of 2021.
        The Magnuson-Stevens Act has evolved since its original passage in
    1976 to become a strong, science-based framework for managing our
    nation's fisheries. Key mandates were added in 1996 and 2006, to curb
    overfishing, rebuild fish stocks, protect essential fish habitat, and
    reduce bycatch in federal fisheries. As a result, 48 stocks have been
    rebuilt to healthy levels, and annual catch limit management has been
    rolled out across the country, reducing overfishing substantially.
        Despite this success, our fisheries today face a number of threats.
    Climate change in particular looms large: the oceans are growing warmer
    and more acidic, circulation patterns are changing, fish populations
    are shifting their ranges and showing altered productivity, and extreme
    weather events are becoming more frequent. Traditional challenges also
    continue, in the form of newly-overfished stocks, rebuilding failures,
    and ongoing overfishing, to name a few.
        This is the time to rise to the challenge of climate change and
    strengthen our framework for fishery management. H.R. 4690 prioritizes
    climate-ready fishery management and improved sustainability in the
    face of current challenges. H.R. 4690 moreover is based on an extensive
    stakeholder process, in which input was gathered and considered from
    fishermen, managers, scientists, conservation groups, and interested
    parties across the country. As a result, the bill contains measured
    compromises and targeted solutions, which draw on the broad base of
    information gathered in the past few years.
        While specific topics are addressed below, we note as an
    overarching matter the significant increase in resources indicated by
    the authorizing language in H.R. 4690. This is a crucial part of the
    bill, as it will enable both the National Marine Fisheries Service
    (NMFS) and the Regional Fishery Management Councils to implement the
    ambitious new measures and programs provided for in the rest of the
    bill. We commend the authors of H.R. 4690 for including a substantial
    increase in resources for federal fishery management, and we hope and
    expect to see this increase carried forward in the appropriations
    process.
    1. Climate-Ready Fishery Management

        As climate change rapidly alters the ocean, our nation's fishery
    management law remains largely rooted in the 20th century. The
    Magnuson-Stevens Act currently lacks any mention of climate change, and
    provides no guidance as to how managers should address climate impacts
    on fisheries. Reauthorization offers the opportunity to incorporate
    climate change into the law, and to specify appropriate procedures for
    doing so. Title I of H.R. 4690 presents a number of concrete steps
    toward addressing climate change in fishery management, which will
    strengthen the federal management framework and lay the groundwork for
    climate-adapted fisheries.
    A. Integrating Climate Into the Fishery Management Process

        Sections 101 through 104 of H.R. 4690 effectively integrate climate
    change into the management structure of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which
    is critical to having a climate ready management system. Climate change
    must be included in assessing and specifying a fishery's maximum
    sustainable yield and optimum yield, as well as in identifying the
    fishery's scientific and data needs. Fishery management plans also must
    analyze the expected impacts of climate change on the fishery, review
    fishery vulnerability to climate impacts, and identify shifts in the
    range and distribution of managed stocks. The new statutory
    requirements in H.R. 4690 will give managers an opportunity to consider
    directly the challenges they face, and how they can respond and adapt.
        We further support the addition of resilience to the primary
    requirement for fishery management plans, in Section 303(a)(1)(A) of
    the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Climate change is dramatically increasing the
    importance of resilience for fish populations, as changing ocean
    conditions, altered trophic relationships, extreme events, and
    disrupted timing cycles will make it more difficult for fish stocks to
    thrive or maintain their populations into the future. Adding resilience
    to the fishery management plan requirements will help establish it as a
    goal for managers going forward.
        We also support the provision prioritizing climate vulnerability
    assessments, which will be important in focusing management attention
    on fisheries and stocks on the front lines of climate change. Climate
    vulnerability assessments are an increasingly developed practice, as
    seen in NMFS's peer-reviewed methodology as well as its regional
    assessments, which will be completed shortly. Managers must assess the
    vulnerability of their stocks on an ongoing basis, using the best
    scientific information available, and take action to ensure the
    sustainability of the most vulnerable populations.
        The creation of a Climate-Ready Fisheries Innovation Program also
    is important, as it will mobilize resources to develop new tools and
    approaches for climate-adapted fisheries management. Finally, we
    support the addition of climate change to the Act's provisions on
    scientific programs and Council member training, which accurately
    reflect the importance of climate change to fisheries management in the
    21st century.
    B. Managing Shifting Stocks

        A significant proportion of federally managed fish stocks along the
    U.S. East Coast have shifted north or offshore in recent years, as they
    seek cooler waters. For example, the summer flounder population,
    historically centered off North Carolina, has shifted to off New York
    and Rhode Island. Black sea bass, once confined to the Mid-Atlantic
    region, are starting to colonize the Gulf of Maine. These trends are
    expected to continue for the foreseeable future, and will thoroughly
    upend traditional fishing patterns as well as the composition of marine
    ecosystems.
        Management coordination across regions becomes crucial in the face
    of range shift. Stocks that previously did not straddle boundaries may
    start to, and stocks that already straddled boundaries may change their
    relative abundances across the boundary lines. Management now must be
    dynamic, but federal law currently lacks a strong requirement for
    coordination across regions--a consequence of the historical assumption
    that fish population distributions are relatively static.
        We support the comprehensive framework in H.R. 4690 for managing
    fisheries that cross the jurisdictional boundaries between Regional
    Fishery Management Councils, as it will provide clear ground rules for
    dealing with stocks as they undergo climate-induced range shift. The
    neutral structure is important for determining management authority,
    and will help to avoid arbitrary decisions and political tensions when
    jurisdictional disputes arise. Cross-regional coordination is an
    important element of climate adaptation in fishery management, and we
    appreciate that H.R. 4690 provides a workable policy solution in this
    area.
    C. Emerging Fisheries

        As fish populations shift into new areas, fishermen may be
    interested in catching them, and new fisheries can develop quickly.
    Similarly, as stocks leave a region, fishermen may begin targeting
    different species, some of which may be unmanaged. These kinds of
    emerging fisheries currently are not regulated in a systematic manner.
        Federal management needs a regulatory pathway for new fisheries,
    with explicit provision for experimental fishing and procedures to
    bring unmanaged species into management. This will ensure emerging
    fisheries develop in a smart, measured manner, and do not outpace the
    ability of science and management to provide guidance. Our
    organizations support the provisions in H.R. 4690 that accomplish this,
    as it will let new fisheries develop with adequate science and
    management, and avoid the costly boom-and-bust cycle of unmanaged
    fisheries. Emerging fisheries present an opportunity to get management
    right from the start, and in so doing, establish productive, long-term
    economic opportunities.
    2. Council Accountability and Representation

        The Regional Fishery Management Councils generally act as first
    movers in fishery management under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and as
    such the integrity of their decisions is critically important. Our
    organizations support H.R. 4690 as it addresses several current gaps in
    accountability, transparency, and representation for the Councils.
    A. Clarifying the Lobbying Prohibition

        We support the lobbying-related provisions of H.R. 4690 which serve
    to clarify existing restrictions and address gaps in coverage, and
    should lead to a better understanding for both Council members and the
    public of what the rules are on lobbying as well as how they are
    implemented.
        Contrary to what some have argued, H.R. 4690 does not significantly
    expand the scope of what constitutes prohibited lobbying by Councils to
    federal or state legislatures. Under current statutory law, the
    Councils cannot use federal funds for lobbying executive or legislative
    branches in connection with their financial awards. NMFS's own
    regulations reiterate this prohibition, barring the ``use of Federal
    funds for lobbying the Executive or Legislative Branches of the Federal
    Government in connection with the award.'' 50 C.F.R. Sec. 600.227(a).
    The Sustaining America's Fisheries for the Future Act does not alter
    Councils' obligations with respect to federal legislative lobbying, and
    it only minimally alters restrictions on state legislative lobbying, by
    bringing them into alignment with the existing restrictions on the
    federal side.
        The bill similarly clarifies the prohibition on Council lobbying of
    the executive branch, by prohibiting Council lobbying regarding
    Executive Orders, Presidential proclamations, or similar Presidential
    directives or decrees. The language in this section is clearly written,
    and demarcates a set of lobbying actions that the Councils cannot
    take--and should not currently be taking, regardless of H.R. 4690.
    Notably, the executive branch lobbying prohibition in the bill does not
    encompass the routine communication the Councils undertake with NMFS
    during the fishery management process, given the plain text of the bill
    as introduced, and accordingly will leave the unique and important
    relationship between the Councils and NMFS intact.
        This bill further would promote transparency by requiring Councils
    to maintain publicly on their websites communications that seek to
    influence legislation or Presidential actions, as well as communication
    with legislators or executive branch officials on subjects other than
    routine fishery management. These categories are narrowly drawn, and
    would not require documentation of all communications with NMFS--only
    those that are outside the scope of the roles Councils were designed to
    fulfill.
    B. Financial Interests and Recusal

        As a public trust resource, our nation's fisheries must be managed
    by qualified stewards for the public good. While engagement by
    commercial and recreational fishing participants is important for
    representation and informed decision-making, the Regional Fishery
    Management Council structure must be insulated from conflicts of
    interest. To this end, the law already requires voting members to
    recuse themselves from matters that could have a ``significant and
    predictable'' effect on their financial interests, and requires
    financial interest disclosures to be posted and available to the
    public. See 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1852(j)(7), (5). We support the targeted
    amendments in H.R. 4690, which will advance Congressional intent to
    prevent conflicted decision-making and preserve transparency in
    management.
        Specifically, we appreciate the clarification that conflict
    determinations must be made by ``an attorney employed in the Office of
    the General Counsel of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration with expertise in Federal conflict-of-interest
    requirements who is designated by the Secretary of Commerce, in
    consultation with the Council, to attend Council meetings and make
    determinations.'' This not only helps ensure that the resulting
    determinations will accord with applicable laws and regulations, but
    also promotes equitable and impartial determinations with respect to
    all voting members.
        We also appreciate the requirement in H.R. 4690 that financial
    disclosures be made available on the agency and Council websites. At a
    time when more Americans than ever are interested in where their
    seafood comes from and how our oceans are managed, it is essential to
    promote transparency in federal fishery management.
    C. Inter-Council Representation in the Northeast

        Reflecting stakeholder input received over the past few years, the
    provision in H.R. 4690 for cross-representation between the Mid-
    Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the New England Fishery
    Management Council is an important step. We support this provision
    insofar as it promotes cross-regional coordination--increasingly
    important given climate change--and it reflects substantial public
    input received during the listening sessions.
    D. Tribal Representation

        The Fisheries for the Future Act takes important steps to secure
    representation of Native American Tribes in the fishery management
    process. Effective fishery management includes the best available
    scientific information, which includes Traditional Knowledge and
    necessitates Tribes having a meaningful role in management. This
    legislation promotes these goals by refining the requirements for the
    existing Tribal seat at the Pacific Fishery Management Council in
    response to requests from several Tribes during the public listening
    sessions. It also adds two designated Tribal representatives to the
    North Pacific Fishery Management Council--a major improvement that will
    give voice to the significant number of Tribes in Alaska. This change
    will respect Tribal sovereignty, bring important knowledge and views to
    the federal fishery management process, and will provide more equitable
    representation for the original stewards of the region's marine
    fisheries. We support these steps to expand Tribal input in management.
    E. Ensuring Needed Conservation and Management Actions Are Taken

        Fishery Management Councils are complex entities, and in certain
    circumstances inaction from a Council can leave a fish population
    without needed conservation and management measures. Lacking
    appropriate management, a stock's ability to produce maximum
    sustainable yield in the long run can be jeopardized. To deal with
    these situations, H.R. 4690 strengthens the provisions in the Act for
    Secretarial action in the face of Council inaction, and clarifies the
    process under which such actions may be taken. Councils will retain
    their role as first movers in the regulatory process under H.R. 4690;
    the change simply ensures that inaction by a Council cannot be the
    reason for a stock lacking necessary management. While feedback has
    been received regarding the timing of Secretarial action under these
    new provisions, we trust this issue can be solved and look forward to a
    solution that maintains the important accountability role of the
    Secretary.
    F. Ethics and the Council Process

        All federal agencies should have zero tolerance for sexual
    harassment, whether committed by agency staff or by the members or
    staff of bodies they govern, such as the Regional Fishery Management
    Councils. We support H.R. 4690 in applying the full suite of federal
    sexual harassment rules to Council staff, members, and advisory panels,
    as well as the necessary result that offending persons be individually
    liable for their actions--with the Secretary authorized to impose civil
    penalties including suspension or expulsion from participation or
    membership. This change will reduce incidents of harassment by
    increasing the consequences for perpetrators and by increasing
    survivors' confidence in their ability to effectively respond to
    harassment when it occurs. We also support the amendments to 16 U.S.C.
    Sec. 1857(L), to clarify that sexual harassment is prohibited both on
    and off vessels, and regardless of whether or not it is committed
    forcibly. Overall, we expect these changes will reduce harassment as
    well as make it easier for Council staff and employees to comply, and
    to know when compliance has been achieved.
    3. Improving Rebuilding Outcomes

        Congress amended the Magnuson-Stevens Act in 1996 to add a mandate
    for rebuilding all overfished stocks within a time certain. While the
    Act's rebuilding provisions have been successful in many cases, a
    substantial number of stocks remain overfished. The agency's most
    recent status update shows 49 stocks on the overfished list,\1\ and the
    number has been increasing in recent years. H.R. 4690 contains
    important changes to the rebuilding provisions in the Act that would
    create accountability in the rebuilding process and help return our
    nation's fisheries to healthy levels--in turn better supporting
    ecosystem function, and providing opportunities for sustainable fishing
    to all users.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ See NOAA Fisheries, 2021 Quarter 3 Update through September 30,
    2021, available at https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/2021-10/
    Q3%202021%20Stock%20StatusSummary%20Changes. pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A. Ensuring Adequate Progress

        Adaptive management is a key component of rebuilding. The
    rebuilding provisions as added in 1996 require NMFS to ``review any
    fishery management plan, plan amendment, or regulations required by
    this subsection at routine intervals that may not exceed two years,''
    and determine whether regulations have ``resulted in adequate progress
    toward ending overfishing and rebuilding affected fish stocks.'' 16
    U.S.C. Sec. 1854(e)(7). In practice, however, NMFS has failed to make
    adequate progress determinations for rebuilding stocks, and those that
    are made are not always shared with the public. We support requiring
    the agency to publish the results of its determinations, including the
    basis for the determination, thereby promoting transparency and
    compliance.
        We also support clarifying the criteria for when a stock is making
    ``adequate progress'' toward rebuilding. NMFS currently has criteria in
    its regulations for making these determinations, see 50 C.F.R.
    Sec. 600.310(j)(3)(iv), but the agency's criteria are disconnected from
    whether the stock's biomass is actually increasing--which is the entire
    purpose of the rebuilding provisions. It is appropriate for H.R. 4690
    to re-ground the notion of ``adequate progress'' in actual rebuilding,
    by confirming that ``adequate progress'' does in fact require the
    stock's status to be improving.
        Another important rebuilding addition in H.R. 4690 is a structure
    for when a stock is determined to be making inadequate progress,
    including a designation of when a rebuilding plan has failed and steps
    to be taken when that occurs. Current practice in this area is poorly-
    defined and tends to produce weak results; rebuilding plans are allowed
    to fail with no consequences, and NMFS allows the Councils to simply
    produce another plan and ``reset the clock'' for rebuilding. As a
    result, many stocks have languished in an overfished status for
    decades, and some are on their second or third rebuilding plans with no
    meaningful tightening of management to promote actual rebuilding.
    Clarifying procedures are needed, and we support requiring a higher
    likelihood of success for a new rebuilding plan if the previous one has
    failed.
    B. Timeframes for Rebuilding

        One area of concern for our organizations about H.R. 4690 is the
    bill's removal of the default ten-year timeframe for rebuilding. The
    Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 required all overfished stocks to be
    rebuilt in as short a time as possible, and not to exceed 10 years
    except in certain designated situations. We support this requirement
    and recommend not changing it.
        The ten year default maximum time for rebuilding helps to ensure
    that managers take rebuilding seriously. Evidence is clear that
    ``[m]ost successful rebuilding program[s] have incorporated
    substantial, measurable reductions in fishing mortality at the onset,
    rather than relying on incremental small reductions over time.'' \2\ A
    ten-year timeframe prevents managers from extending the rebuilding
    period over an interminable number of years, and attempting to rebuild
    while maintaining high fishing mortality rates.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Steven A. Murawski, Rebuilding Depleted Fish Stocks: the Good,
    the Bad, and, Mostly, the Ugly, 67 ICES J. Marine Sci. 1830 (2010).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Ten years also was a reasonable compromise. Congress in 1996
    understood correctly that the majority of overfished stocks are capable
    of rebuilding in approximately five years in the absence of fishing, so
    doubling that time frame was an intentional way of avoiding fishery
    closures and accounting for the short-term interests of fishermen. As
    noted by several prominent scientists, ``This optimizing balance was
    deliberate and compassionate, not arbitrary.'' \3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Carl Safina et al., U.S. Ocean Fish Recovery: Staying the
    Course, 309 Science 707 (2005).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In practice, moreover, the statutory language on rebuilding
    timeframes already has ample flexibility. When a stock is unable to
    rebuild within the default ten years due to biology or environmental
    conditions, longer timeframes may be used. Further time is provided for
    preparation of rebuilding plans. This flexibility is reflected in the
    results of a 2013 analysis, which found the average time period for
    rebuilding plans to be nearly twenty years.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Brad Sewell et al., Natural Resources Defense Council, Bringing
    Back the Fish: An Evaluation of U.S. Fisheries Rebuilding Under the
    Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, at 15 (Feb.
    2013), available at https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/
    rebuilding-fisheries-report.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Because of the existing rebuilding mandate and the guideposts it
    provides, our nation has made real strides toward restoring overfished
    populations to healthy levels. But without strong timing requirements
    that lead to early reductions in fishing mortality, managers in some
    regions will allow overfished stocks to remain at low population levels
    for long periods--undermining their resilience, putting their recovery
    at risk, and jeopardizing the health of broader ecosystems.
    4. Solving Bycatch Problems

        Over 800 million pounds of commercial catch is discarded in the
    United States each year, representing a tremendous amount of waste and
    unnecessarily killed marine life.\5\ Bycatch is also an economic
    problem; NMFS has estimated that discards cost fisheries $427 million
    in lost sales at port, $4.2 billion in seafood-related sales, and
    64,000 jobs annually.\6\ We strongly support measures to reduce
    bycatch, including the following policy solutions in H.R. 4690.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ See Lee R. Benaka et al. (eds.), National Marine Fisheries
    Service, U.S. National Bycatch Report First Edition Update 3, NOAA
    Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-190 (Feb. 2019).
        \6\ Wesley S. Patrick and Lee R. Benaka, ``Estimating the Economic
    Impacts of Bycatch in U.S. Commercial Fisheries,'' Marine Policy 38
    (2013): 470-475, doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2012.07.007.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A. Bycatch and Practicability

        While improved science and technology offers the promise of
    reducing bycatch, the current allowance in the Magnuson-Stevens Act to
    minimize bycatch to ``the extent practicable'' has resulted in fully
    achievable management measures being discounted if they increase costs
    even moderately, or if they require any adaptation of fishing
    technology or gear. Less effective measures of bycatch reduction
    therefore remain in place even when it is clear that more could
    feasibly be done to reduce unnecessary loss of ocean life and
    resources.
        The ``practicability'' also operates as a de facto allocation
    standard in some situations. In the North Pacific, for example, the
    practicability standard is also being used to justify excessive levels
    of bycatch, effectively prioritizing bycatch of industrial fisheries
    over historic and subsistence fisheries such as halibut and salmon.
        We support H.R. 4690's improvements to the bycatch reduction
    standard by removing the qualifier of practicability that has
    repeatedly prevented bycatch reductions from being effectively
    implemented. This change would ensure that meaningful bycatch
    reductions are pursued, and would encourage innovation and improve
    accountability for bycatch that otherwise could and should have been
    avoided or released alive. It is worth noting that removing the
    practicability standard still maintains the qualifier that bycatch only
    needs to be minimized, but not prevented.
    B. Standardizing Bycatch Reporting

        Under current law, fishery management plans are required to
    ``establish a standardized reporting methodology to assess the amount
    and type of bycatch occurring in the fishery.'' 16 U.S.C.
    Sec. 1853(a)(11). Despite this instruction to standardize bycatch
    reporting in federal fisheries, added by Congress in 1996, there
    remains a wholesale lack of uniform reporting of bycatch under the
    Magnuson-Stevens Act. Bycatch may be measured by weight or individuals,
    it may be reported at the species level or in groups of species, and
    estimates may be based on logbooks, observer data, or other sources. As
    a result, our fishery management system suffers from a lack of an
    effective bycatch reporting system that accurately and precisely
    monitors and reports discards of each managed stock across all
    fisheries and gear types. Without effective monitoring or reporting, it
    is impossible to know whether bycatch is being avoided or minimized to
    the extent practicable, and poor bycatch monitoring and reporting
    further can impede annual catch limit management.
        We support standardized reporting and assessment of bycatch across
    regions and the development of standards for producing accurate and
    precise information regarding bycatch. By locating this requirement
    outside the individual fishery management plan requirements of Section
    303 of the Act, H.R. 4690 ensures that bycatch reporting and assessment
    finally will be standardized at a nationwide level.
    5. Protecting Essential Fish Habitat

        The Magnuson-Stevens Act recognizes that marine and estuarine
    habitats are critical support systems for healthy fisheries, and that
    both fishing practices as well as activities unrelated to fishing (e.g,
    dredging, mining, and energy development) can contribute to habitat
    loss and degradation. However, implementation of the law's essential
    fish habitat (EFH) provisions and subsequent agency guidance has been
    inconsistent to date. We support strengthening the EFH provisions as
    proposed in H.R. 4690.
    A. Essential Fish Habitat Consultation

        Today's fishery managers are grappling with far more complicated
    ocean management processes than their predecessors. Competing
    activities from offshore energy, aquaculture, submarine cables and
    other ocean users are often proposed and developed without any binding
    obligation to conserve and protect fish habitat. Although the current
    legal framework requires federally permitted projects to consult with
    NMFS on habitat impacts, this ``consultation'' requirement lacks teeth
    to require meaningful avoidance of impacts to coastal and marine
    habitats. We support strengthening the EFH consultation process so as
    to ensure that fishery managers and communities have an opportunity to
    have their concerns addressed, and to require EFH to be considered in
    the future development of our shared ocean.
        We agree with the stepwise ``avoid,'' then ``minimize and
    mitigate'' habitat conservation strategy for EFH consultations outlined
    in H.R. 4690. This is consistent with an overall ``mitigation
    hierarchy'' strategy that is used in many conservation and management
    processes to appropriately manage adverse effects on habitats and
    biodiversity. It does not imply a requirement for outright removal of
    all adverse effects that may occur from human activities, but simply
    prioritizes avoidance of adverse effects ahead of minimization and
    mitigation. Additionally, projects that may have an adverse effect on
    Habitat Areas of Particular Concern would--appropriately--be subject to
    monitoring and adaptive management, to minimize impacts to these
    particularly important portions of EFH.
    B. Fishing Impacts on Essential Fish Habitat

        The Magnuson-Stevens Act's existing caveat that fishing impacts to
    EFH must be minimized only ``to the extent practicable'' has resulted
    in insufficient protection for EFH. The majority of commercial fishing
    gears have some level of adverse effect on EFH, and fisheries in many
    regions still rely on bottom-tending gears such as bottom trawls and
    dredges, which can be devastating to marine habitats. Yet the Councils'
    EFH authority has been interpreted as largely discretionary, allowing
    them to prioritize access to fishing areas, even if such fishing is
    harming habitat. Under this authority, half of the Councils have
    protected little (5 percent or less) of their designated EFH from even
    the most harmful fishing gears,\7\ and those that have protected
    meaningful portions of their EFH have done so largely though ``freeze
    the footprint''-type closures, which allow fishing to continue where it
    has historically occurred.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ See Brad Sewell & Molly Masterton, Natural Resources Defense
    Council, A Safety Net for Ocean Fisheries: The Case for Stronger
    Protection of Essential Fish Habitat Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act
    (Apr. 2021), available at https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/
    safety-net-ocean-fisheries-report.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We support H.R. 4690 in recognizing the role of healthy fish
    habitat, and requiring more holistic minimization of adverse effects to
    EFH. The bill strikes an appropriate compromise by not requiring
    outright removal of all effects, but rather mandating conservation and
    management measures that will minimize impacts--a broad standard to be
    further honed by agency guidance.
        We also note that H.R. 4690 would codify various aspects of current
    regulations on EFH, including (1) requiring identification of Habitat
    Areas of Particular Concern; (2) requiring Councils to revise their EFH
    designations on a consistent schedule; and (3) providing a statutory
    definition of ``adverse impact'' to EFH. Some observers have raised
    questions on these provisions, but they appear to be based on the
    misperception that changes are being made to the status quo.
    6. Recognizing the Role of Forage Fish

        Forage fish are foundational to marine food webs, serving as prey
    for economically and ecologically important fish and other marine life.
    Management of these species under federal law is inconsistent and, in
    some cases, nonexistent. We support H.R. 4690's provisions to ensure
    forage fish management addresses both the health of forage stocks
    themselves, as well as the role they play for wildlife and fishermen
    alike, so as to maintain productive oceans and other ecosystems into
    the future. The bill provides for best-practice approaches currently
    adopted in some regions to be scaled up and applied nationwide. For
    instance, currently unmanaged forage fish populations should be
    assessed to understand the impacts that any new forage fishery would
    have on other fisheries, coastal communities and the ocean environment,
    before such a new fishery is authorized.
    7. Strengthening Science and Data

        Science forms the foundation of fishery management under the
    Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Fisheries for the Future Act bolsters the
    role of science and data in several important ways, which we support.
    A. Duties of Scientific and Statistical Committees

        Section 505(b) of the Fisheries for the Future Act clarifies and
    builds out the role of the Councils' Scientific and Statistical
    Committees (SSCs). The SSCs currently are tasked with providing the
    Councils with a wide range of scientific advice and recommendations,
    including acceptable biological catch, rebuilding, habitat status, and
    more. H.R. 4690 appropriately gives SSCs the opportunity to provide
    recommendations for promoting the resilience of fish stocks to climate
    change, as well as reports on climate change impacts to fisheries.
    These new topics for SSC advice will be critical in advancing climate-
    adapted fishery management. Population resilience and climate impacts
    are increasingly important, and the SSCs' review and synthesis role is
    well-suited to distilling complex scientific information for use by the
    Councils in management. The increase in resources envisioned by H.R.
    4690 will support these functions of the SSCs, through direct support
    to Councils as well as through staff hours and data products from the
    agency.
    B. Improving Recreational Fishery Data

        Recreational fishing data is challenging to collect given the large
    number of U.S. anglers, the many points of access they use, and the
    fact that retained catch is kept rather than sold. We support the
    Fisheries for the Future Act provisions that require NMFS to establish
    guidelines to improve recreational catch data and to integrate data
    from multiple sources to better ensure that recreational catch is
    monitored appropriately and remains accountable to annual catch limits.
    Further improvements include a dedicated program to improve the data
    and management of recreational fisheries, with a suggested menu of
    areas for research. These provisions will lead to more effective
    management of recreational fishing and increased sustainability in many
    fisheries.

        Thank you for your consideration, and for your attention to these
    important issues. H.R. 4690 is a strong starting point for
    reauthorizing and improving the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and reflects the
    wide range of stakeholder input that went into crafting it. We
    recommend moving this bill forward, and would welcome the opportunity
    to engage further on it in the future.

                Sincerely,

              Earthjustice                National Audubon Society

              Oceana                      Natural Resources Defense Council

              Ocean Conservancy

                                     ______

                                                  November 11, 2021

    Hon. Jared Huffman, Chairman
    Hon. Cliff Bentz, Ranking Member
    Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife
    House Natural Resources Committee
    1324 Longworth House Office Building,
    Washington, DC 20515

        Dear Chairman Huffman and Ranking Member Bentz:

        My name is Gregory Fitz. I am a salmon and steelhead angler,
    fishing writer, and conservationist living in Seattle, Washington. I am
    writing to express my support for the forward-looking Sustaining
    America's Fisheries for the Future Act (H.R. 4690) and the legislative
    effort to update the foundational Magnuson Stevens Act (MSA) to
    continue protecting our critical ocean fisheries and habitat, and the
    coastal communities that depend on them.
        Many aspects of this legislation will help ensure and recover
    America's sustainable fisheries, but I'm particularly pleased to see
    how H.R. 4690 directly addresses the growing impacts of the changing
    climate and closes loopholes concerning bycatch.
        Salmon and steelhead are born in freshwater river systems and soon
    migrate to the ocean for a few years of feeding and growth before
    returning to their home watersheds to spawn. They are coldwater species
    and the warming North Pacific and ocean acidification are already
    having profound consequences for the food web they depend upon as
    juveniles and adults. In 2021, steelhead have experienced some of their
    worst run counts ever recorded and much of these recent losses are the
    result of poor ocean survival during recent years of abnormally high
    temperatures. Salmon are the keystone species of the Pacific and Inland
    Northwest ecosystems and have sustained Indigenous communities since
    time immemorial. They are a crucial foundation of the Northwest's
    culture and economy and are targeted extensively by offshore, marine,
    and terminal commercial and recreational fisheries from California to
    Alaska.
        Importantly, H.R. 4690 will expand research and allow fishery
    managers up and down the coast to effectively incorporate rapidly
    evolving climate science and data into fishery planning in ways that
    will allow the communities depending on salmon to adapt and responsibly
    continue to fish into the future. It is a critical, proactive step for
    our fisheries.
        I am encouraged by the increased protections within H.R. 4690 for
    fish habitat and forage fish species, but I am especially happy to see
    the new provisions designed to report, limit, and prevent bycatch.
    These losses needlessly degrade functioning ocean ecosystems, prevent
    fish stocks from recovering, and deeply curtail the potential food and
    economic value of public fishery resources. For all of the well-
    documented positive benefits of the MSA, the lack of requirements to
    meaningfully address bycatch impacts created loopholes that allowed a
    glaring inconsistency with the law's overarching goals for sustainable
    fisheries and thriving coastal communities. These loopholes were
    exploited, and managed, to different extents by separate regional
    fisheries. Fortunately, H.R. 4690 repairs these gaps and will provide
    important, consistent tools for managers to vastly improve how bycatch
    is documented, managed, minimized, and even stopped in some cases.
    These wise provisions will be a huge benefit to every community who
    depends upon our shared ocean fisheries.
        Thank you for your time and consideration. I am grateful for the
    opportunity to offer my support for the Sustaining America's Fisheries
    for the Future Act (H.R. 4690).

                                                   Gregory Fitz

                                     ______

                              Old Maine Outfitters

                                                  November 11, 2021

    House Natural Resources Committee
    1324 Longworth House Office Building
    Washington, DC 20515
    Re: Letter to Committee H.R. 4690

        To whom it may concern,

        My name is Patrick Rudman, and I am the owner of Old Maine
    Outfitters in South Portland, Maine. Since its inception in 2019, Old
    Maine Outfitters has been a carbon-neutral company and a proud member
    of the Fly Fishing Climate Alliance. In addition, my company donates
    25% of its profits to fisheries conservation, with a focus on striped
    bass--our primary saltwater game fish here in Maine, and a species that
    is in grave trouble. My business depends heavily on the outdoor
    community here in Maine and all along the east coast. The vast majority
    of my customers are anglers passionate about our oceans and our
    fisheries, and I am certainly no different. It's because of these
    reasons, I'm writing to express my support of the reauthorization of
    the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA).
    Since the last time the MSA was reauthorized in 2007, we have
    experienced considerable changes to our fisheries and environment and
    I'm encouraged to see that this bill tackles some of the most daunting
    issues such as climate-ready fisheries, rebuilding our overfished/
    depleted stocks, improving our recreational data collections, and
    better management for forage species.
        It's undeniable that we are in a critical period of our lives when
    it comes to our climate. Climate change is making ocean waters warmer,
    more acidic, and lower in oxygen. The Gulf of Maine is warming 95%
    faster than the rest of the world's oceans and was in a marine heatwave
    for much of 2021 according to the Gulf of Maine Research Institute. At
    the same time, sea levels are rising and extreme events such as
    hurricanes, coastal erosion and sea ice loss are becoming more
    frequent. The populations of fish are shifting to seek cooler waters,
    and many fish stocks are becoming less productive and less abundant,
    making it harder for those stocks to support ecosystems and fisheries.
    These changes are setting the stage for devastating loses for our
    fisheries and economy if left unaddressed.
        I am encouraged to see that the changes to the MSA proposed in the
    bill will address climate change in the law for the first time. These
    changes will be the foundation for building a strong and resilient
    management system for the future allowing managers to consider climate
    impacts in management decisions while referencing expanding climate
    science and data. These considerations are absolutely necessary when
    structuring rebuilding plans for these depleted species.
        Our climate is changing and with that our oceans and fisheries are
    changing as well. Stocks are shifting and like all the east coast we
    are seeing species never seen before here in Maine. If we do not get
    ahead of these changes and begin to manage our fisheries using the best
    available science as it pertains to all environmental aspects, then we
    are doing a great disservice not just to ourselves, but to our climate,
    fisheries, and generations to come.
        The proposals in the MSA are inevitable management considerations.
    I am extremely encouraged with the foresight of Representatives Jared
    Huffman (D-CA-02) and Ed Case (D-HI-01) in introducing H.R. 4690, the
    Sustaining America's Fisheries for the Future Act. This common-sense
    legislation can lead our decisions for the next decade.

        Thank you for your consideration.

                Sincerely,

                                                Patrick Rudman,
                                                                Founder

                                     ______

             Rhode Island Saltwater Anglers Association
                                         Tiverton, Rhode Island

                                                  November 13, 2021

    Hon. Jared Huffman, Chairman
    Hon. Cliff Bentz, Ranking Member
    Water, Oceans, and Wildlife Subcommittee
    House Natural Resources Committee
    1324 Longworth House Office Building
    Washington, DC 20515

        Dear Congressmen Huffman and Bentz:

        The Rhode Island Saltwater Anglers Association (RISAA) represents
    over 7,500 recreational anglers and 28 affiliate clubs in Rhode Island,
    Connecticut and Massachusetts. We are pleased to take this opportunity
    to indicate our support for the Sustaining America's Fisheries for the
    Future Act (HR 4690).
        Recreational fishing success is dependent on anglers having access
    to healthy habitats with an abundance of fish in the water to catch and
    eat or release. Impacts from climate change are having a big impact on
    estuaries, fish habitat, and fish. We should consider these changes in
    how we fish and manage our fisheries.
        Anglers are experiencing profound changes from climate impacts of
    warming water, rising sea level, waste in the commercial fishery and
    habitat degradation. The fish we catch today are different in type and
    abundance than what we caught ten years ago.
        Warm water fish such as black sea bass, scup and summer flounder
    have moved into our area in greater abundance. And, cold water fish
    such as winter flounder and American lobster are now less abundant.
        These stock changes in our area have created both challenges and
    opportunities. The cod fishery south of Cape Cod is a fraction of what
    is use to be, and nonexistent north of the Cape. Years of a healthy cod
    stock are gone, no longer in abundance due to climate change and
    overfishing. Yet the black sea bass shift into our area has created
    opportunities for anglers.
        Shifting stocks have created jurisdictional and allocation
    challenges. We support the spirt of the bill provision that provides
    regions with representation on neighboring Councils to help with
    shifting stock jurisdictional and allocation challenges. However, we
    suggest taking it a step further as the Fisherman's Fairness Act does,
    allowing Rhode Island two seats on the Mid-Atlantic Council as RI
    fishermen land the majority of many of the fish that have shifted to
    our area due to climate change impacts yet RI currently has no seat on
    the Council that regulates those species.
        Fisheries management needs to be more nimble in the face of climate
    change. We have to meet the challenge with more precautionary
    management measures.
        The Sustaining America's Fisheries for the Future Act addresses
    shifting stocks and other impacts to fish due to warming water by
    providing managers with more needed science so we can get a handle on
    how fish stocks are changing and ways to use that science throughout
    the management process.
        Protecting forage fish, strengthening fisheries management plans,
    providing better recreational data are other important features of HR
    4690.
        We urge the Water, Oceans and Wildlife Subcommittee, the House
    National Resource Committee and all members of Congress to support the
    Sustaining America's Fisheries for the Future Act. It is a good step
    for habitat, fish and fishermen.

                Sincerely,

              Richard Hittinger,          Greg Vespe,
              Acting President            Executive Director

                                     ______

                                                  November 10, 2021

    Hon. Jared Huffman, Chairman
    Hon. Cliff Bentz, Ranking Member
    Water, Oceans, and Wildlife Subcommittee
    House Natural Resources Committee
    1324 Longworth House Office Building
    Washington, DC 20515

        Dear Chairman Huffman and Ranking Member Bentz:

        My name is Rick Crawford, and I am the founder of the Fly Fishing
    Climate Alliance (FFCA) \1\ and President of Emerger Strategies.\2\ I
    was pleased to see that for the first time, H.R. 4690, the Sustaining
    America's Fisheries for the Future Act, seriously takes on climate
    change impacts in our fisheries. This only makes sense because the
    science is telling us that in order to avoid catastrophic effects of
    climate change, we must halve global greenhouse gas emissions by 2030
    and be carbon neutral by 2050. That said, you don't need to be a
    sustainable business professional, or a climate scientist to know that
    we need to adapt to the impacts we are seeing now--including the sea
    level rise we are experiencing in Charleston, stocks of prized marine
    species shifting north, more acidic marine waters, and the more
    frequent extreme weather events like hurricanes, marine heatwaves and
    coastal erosion all of which are effects of climate change. Climate
    change is happening in real-time and as a recreational angler and a
    person who represents many businesses in the fly fishing industry, I am
    deeply concerned about climate change and its impact on healthy
    fisheries and marine habitats and our preparedness to be able to adapt
    to shifting stocks, the use of credible science in the fight to save
    our fisheries and the multiple fishing communities along the South
    Carolina coast who will also be impacted.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ FFCA is an alliance of fly fishing guides, shops, lodges,
    brands and nonprofits committed to going carbon neutral by 2030. With
    over 50 members, it is abundantly clear that the fly fishing industry
    wants to protect their businesses and the natural resource they depend
    upon by going carbon neutral.
        \2\ Emerger Strategies is a sustainable business consultancy that
    specialized in helping companies measure and reduce their carbon
    footprint. More and more companies are feeling pressure from consumers,
    but also companies like Amazon, Wal-Mart, REI and others who are
    demanding that their suppliers have a climate action plan, or they will
    be unable to sell products through them.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As a recreational angler I am incredibly fortunate to spend a lot
    of time on the water with a rod in hand, but I am seeing fish and bird
    species I never used to catch or see growing up in the Lowcountry. I
    enjoy catching snook and admiring roseate spoonbills just as much as
    the next guy, but I shouldn't be able to catch or see either one in
    South Carolina, but as our climate warms, I am seeing more and more. In
    fact, someone caught a record snook in Charleston Harbor just a few
    months ago. I have also heard reports that our beloved and delicious
    shrimp are moving further north as our ocean warms, and I am bringing
    this to your attention because H.R. 4690, legislation to update the
    Magnuson Stevens Act (MSA) accounts for this by giving Councils the
    tools to ensure fishing is sustainable while determining how to manage
    fisheries across political and boundaries when stocks shift and making
    sure new fisheries are sustainable.
        Just as climate science uses the best possible data and is peer-
    reviewed by experts in the field to come to an educated conclusion,
    good fisheries science should incorporate climate change so that we are
    able to make the best decisions possible to manage our fisheries, and
    investments in science makes perfect sense to give managers the
    information and tools they need to ensure that we are tracking the
    changes climate change is creating and making sure that we maintain
    healthy, vibrant fish stocks. H.R. 4690 incorporates climate throughout
    the management system and ramps up the production of climate science
    and data to enhance the current fisheries information systems we
    already use. The addition of climate information into our fisheries
    management system will help build strong and resilient management
    systems for the future of our fisheries.
        Finally, I am also concerned about the impact climate change will
    have on fishing communities along the South Carolina coast. Fishing
    communities are vulnerable to several threats, especially as climate
    change impacts the health of our marine habitats, the bill reforms the
    way we address disaster assistance to fishing communities which will be
    important as marine heat waves, harmful algal blooms and other climate
    related events increase in frequency.
        All of the aforementioned effects of climate change are a bit
    depressing, and I have found that the cure for depression is action,
    which is why I am asking you to take action and support readying
    fisheries for climate change in the upcoming Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
    Conservation Act (MSA) Reauthorization. The reason I am asking for your
    support is because MSA has been proven effective since its inception in
    managing fish stocks, and the effects of climate change are happening
    now in South Carolina and across the US. Supporting MSA Reauthorization
    will help to adapt to changing migratory patterns, incorporating
    climate science to properly manage our fisheries and protect our
    coastal fishing communities who are dependent upon our natural
    resources for survival.

                Protect what you love,

                                                  Rick Crawford

                                     ______

                       SALMON HABITAT INFORMATION PROGRAM

                                                   November 9, 2021

    Hon. Jared Huffman
    1527 Longworth House Office Building
    Washington, DC 20515

    Re: Support for the Sustaining America's Fisheries for the Future Act

        Dear Congressman Huffman:

        As Alaskan commercial fishermen, we are writing to thank you and
    your staff for drafting and introducing the Sustaining America's
    Fisheries for the Future Act of 2021. It is imperative that the
    Magnuson Stevens Act (MSA) be reauthorized and modernized to sustain
    our fisheries, jobs and communities in Alaska where we continue to
    experience dramatic declines in fisheries such as salmon, crab,
    halibut, and cod. The Sustaining America's Fisheries for the Future Act
    is a well researched and vetted response to these fishery declines and
    addresses some of the biggest challenges facing Alaska's fisheries,
    including climate change, bycatch, improved science and research, the
    need for increased participation and representation of Alaska Native
    Peoples and Tribal Government on Regional Management Councils, and
    public participation in the fisheries management process.
        With climate change being the biggest existential threat to our
    fisheries, we appreciate that the bill's approach to modernizing the
    MSA is through a climate lens. We also agree that allowable bycatch
    must be further reduced to conserve fish species and protect
    communities and local participants. Certainly, bycatch use of these key
    high-value species should not take precedence over their directed
    harvest.
        We also support the bill's bottom-up approach to sustained
    community and local participation in fisheries and believe that tools
    for protecting fisheries-dependent communities are needed. Finally, we
    applaud the bill's requirements for more diverse representation from
    different fishery stakeholders in the Regional Councils.
        We look forward to working with you and the 117th Congress to pass
    this important legislation and promote science-based management that
    improves the resiliency of our fisheries and strengthens America's
    coastal communities.

                Sincerely,

            Melanie Brown,                Bridget Maryott,
            Juneau, AK                    Homer, AK

            Robbi Mixon,                  Sommers Cole,
            Fritz Creek, AK               Juneau, AK

            James Apone,                  Maureen Roche,
            Anchorage, AK                 Petrolia, CA

            Cynthia Hicks,                Duncan Van Arsdale,
            Phoenix, AZ                   Burlingame, CA

            Karen Rosvold,                Eden Romeo,
            Petersburg, AK                Anchorage, AK

            George Donart,                Andrea Feniger,
            Anchorage, AK                 Anchorage, AK

            Bruce Markwood,               Heather Bauscher,
            Anchorage, AK                 Sitka, AK

            Katie Gavenus,                Tim Dunn,
            Homer, AK                     Everett, WA
            Charles Yearwood,             Cole Wibbels,
            Sitka, AK                     North Pole, AK

            Grace Strong,                 Hannah-Marie Garcia,
            Ironwood, MI                  Anchorage, AK

            Martin Remund,
            Port Alexander, AK

                                     ______

                            Statement for the Record
                  Chief/Chairman ``PJ'' Pollack B. Simon, Jr.
                            Tanana Chiefs Conference
                                December 1, 2021
      H.R. 4690, Sustaining America's Fisheries for the Future Act of 2021

        Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member Bentz, Alaska's own Representative
    Young, and members of the Subcommittee on Waters, Oceans, and Wildlife,
    I am submitting this testimony on behalf of the Tanana Chiefs
    Conference (``TCC'') for the record of the Subcommittee's November 16,
    2021 Legislative Hearing on H.R. 4690, the Sustaining America's
    Fisheries for the Future Act.
        I want to begin my testimony by applauding this Subcommittee for
    taking on the important work of reauthorizing the Magnuson-Stevens
    Fishery Conservation and Management Act (``MSA''). I especially want to
    commend Chairman Huffman and Representative Young for their tireless
    efforts. Even though they have offered different visions for what an
    MSA reauthorization could look like, I do believe that they have
    approached this task and each other, with mutual respect and a
    willingness to work together where they are able.
        The MSA is incredibly important to ensuring healthy fish stocks,
    but it has not been reauthorized and updated since 2007. That was
    almost 15 years ago. It is essential that the MSA evolve to meet the
    needs of our changing climate, incorporate scientific advances, and
    become more inclusive of tribal voices and subsistence stakeholders.
    TCC believes that H.R. 4690, the Sustaining America's Fisheries for the
    Future Act (``SAFFA'') accomplishes all three of these priorities.
    Background on Tanana Chiefs Conference

        The Tanana Chiefs Conference is a non-profit intertribal consortium
    of 42 communities, including 37 federally recognized Tribes, located
    across Alaska's vast interior. Headquartered in Fairbanks, Alaska, TCC
    serves approximately 18,000 tribal members over an area of about
    235,000 square miles, which is nearly the size of Texas. TCC is charged
    with advancing Tribal self-determination and enhancing regional Native
    unity with the aims to meet the health and social service needs of
    tribes and tribal members throughout the region.
        TCC's communities are situated on rivers such as the Yukon,
    Kuskokwim, and Koyukuk. These rivers support the salmon runs that our
    people have depended on since time immemorial. We rely heavily on
    subsistence fishing and hunting to provide food security in our remote
    villages where there are often no access roads and the only way to
    reach the outside world is by boat or plane. When our salmon do not
    return, the nearest Costco or Safeway is a very long and expensive
    grocery run from my village of Allakaket.
    Dire Subsistence Situation

        TCC has watched our salmon runs plummet over the past several years
    as global warming, ocean acidification, and habitat loss have decimated
    salmon populations. Our tribes are located upriver and when runs are
    low, the salmon fishing is closed so that international treaty-based
    escapement goals into Canada are met. That means our subsistence
    fishers are left with no fish while the commercial and recreational
    fishers downstream are guaranteed at least some salmon.
        In years of low runs, TCC's tribes have been forced to take the
    extraordinary step of voluntarily not fishing salmon. This is an
    extreme hardship for our subsistence fishers, but the difficult choice
    is necessary to allow as many salmon as possible to spawn so that fish
    will return in future years. It is difficult for tribal leaders to tell
    our people not to fish and fill their smokehouses when everyone
    downstream is harvesting salmon. No other stakeholder group, except for
    the tribal stakeholders, have had to make such sacrifices.
    Analysis & Comments on the SAFFA

        TCC would like to begin by reminding the Subcommittee that tribal
    rights, and the right to harvest fish, are rooted in the trust
    responsibility. The trust responsibility applies to all federal
    agencies, and it is not just confined to the Department of the
    Interior. The agencies with the responsibility for implementing SAFFA,
    such as the Department of Commerce and the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration, must consider the unique situation of
    tribes and their trust responsibility to tribes during that
    implementation.

        The following provisions and sections of SAFFA are of particular
    interest to the TCC:

            Title I Climate Ready Fisheries--This is the first time that
            the MSA will acknowledge and confront at a large scale the
            impacts that global warming is having on our fish stocks. Our
            tribes are on the front lines of the global warming crisis and
            this bill finally acknowledges what we have seen happening for
            years. Section 102 will require fishery management plans to
            incorporate climate change into their fish stock assessments
            and examine the vulnerability of not just the fishery but also
            its participants.

            Section 104 creates the Climate-Ready Fisheries Innovation
            Program, which will support science and management approaches
            that address ways to improve the conservation and management of
            fishery resources. This program could potentially provide the
            resources that TCC needs to support work that we are already
            doing to try to save our salmon runs. This federal investment
            in critical research and solutions is absolutely necessary as
            we try to limit the impacts that a changing climate will
            continue to have on salmon.

            Title II Supporting Fishing Communities--Section 202 clarifies
            and recognizes the impact that fishery disasters have on
            subsistence fishers. Section 201 of the SAFFA will set firm
            timelines for how the federal government processes fishery
            disaster requests and the disbursal of appropriated funds.
            These provisions will ensure that when tribal subsistence
            fishers suffer a fishery disaster that they will have access to
            the resources and support that they need in a timely manner.

            Title III Strengthening Public Process and Transparency--TCC
            has long advocated for the need to have tribal voices included
            in the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. Section 302
            will accomplish this by adding two tribal seats to the Council.
            These seats will guarantee that Alaska's tribes have the
            ability to finally be heard. TCC also supports Section 302(b)'s
            approach to conducting tribal consultation on how the seats
            shall be filled. This can be accomplished through a federal
            rulemaking.

            In addition, Section 302 adds subsistence fishing to the list
            of required expertise that would allow an individual to sit on
            any of the regional fishery management councils. It also would
            require, where applicable, that subsistence fishers be included
            in the fair and balanced apportionment of council seats. The
            SAFFA finally elevates and recognizes the voices of subsistence
            fishers to the same level as commercial and recreational
            fishers.

            Title IV Modernizing Fishery Science and Data--Section 402
            calls for the expansion of electronic technologies, which TCC
            believes is a valuable tool. TCC has long advocated for in-
            river sonar systems to help with stock assessment and
            calculations of the size of salmon runs. TCC would like to ask
            for clarification on whether sonar systems would be considered
            ``other forms of electronic technology.''

            Section 404 acknowledges the importance of local and
            traditional knowledge in order to make the most effective
            management decisions. Our tribes have lived on these lands and
            rivers for thousands of years and have unique knowledge that
            Western science may not have uncovered. TCC appreciates
            incorporating our traditional knowledge as scientific
            information to ensure effective fisheries conservation and
            management.

            Title V Sustaining Fisheries Through Healthy Ecosystems and
            Improved Management--TCC appreciates that Section 503 will
            create a nation-wide standardized bycatch reporting system
            while working to close loopholes. If there is not accurate
            reporting, it is hard to understand the true impact that
            bycatch has on our fisheries. We need to ensure that we are not
            incentivizing quick profits over the long-term sustainability
            of salmon.

    Conclusion

        Tanana Chiefs Conference supports the SAFFA and appreciates all the
    work that went into its drafting. This bill is the product of a long
    process of stakeholder engagement by Chairman Huffman and the bill
    reflects those diverse voices. The SAFFA represents the first time that
    tribal voices have been meaningfully included in the MSA, and finally
    acknowledges that what happens in the oceans impacts the inland
    fisheries.
        TCC urges the Committee to take up and pass the SAFFA. Our tribes
    cannot wait any longer for the tools and resources that the SAFFA
    contains to continue our fight to save salmon. I thank you all for your
    time and attention to this most urgent matter.

                                     ______

                    Guam Fishermen's Cooperative Association

                                                  November 28, 2021

    Hon. Jared Huffman
    2nd Congressional District--California
    Washington, DC

    Re: Public Testimony on HR 4690

        Hafa Adai Congressman Huffman:

        Buenas yan Saluda. The Guam Fishermen's Cooperative Association, a
    small Guam based artisanal fishing organization is humbly seeking your
    support in addressing upcoming changes to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
    Conservation and Management Act. The Act was a bi-partisan effort
    between Senator Magnuson; Washington-D and Senator Theodore Stevens;
    Alaska-R both deeply concerned about their fishing communities. The MSA
    as commonly known has been extremely successful for the last forty-five
    years and should be allowed to remain to perpetuate the exercise
    unabetted. The four main goals for the Act are to accomplish the
    following:

      1.  Prevent over-fishing

      2.  Rebuild over-fished stocks

      3.  Increase long term economic and social benefits

      4.  Ensure a safe and sustainable supply of seafood

        The underlying concept is to prevent our domestic fisheries from
    collapsing and protect our domestic fishermen from foreign competition.
    However, such is not the state of our fisheries today. Be mindful that
    the MSA created the most wonderful management regimes of any regulatory
    bodies in the US. A very inclusive, transparent, and logical ``bottoms
    up'' approach to resource management. To ensure our regional and
    fishery differences eight (8) regional Fishery Councils were created
    with the basic premise that each regional areas have different issues
    and attributes regarding their fisheries and afforded a semblance of
    localized solutions. In other words, ``the one size fits all'' is
    unjustifiable hence unapplicable.
        During a course of a year these eight regional bodies meet a couple
    of times to share experiences, differences, and similar commonalities.
    Again, no other federal or local body for that matter has demonstrated
    so much resolve to remedy any issue. The last Reauthorization of MSA
    was championed by the Late Senator Daniel Inouye over a decade ago.
    Technically all the kinks were tweaked, and a holistic approached
    document materialized. The only short coming of the decade old document
    and its advancement of our Pacific Islander communities was the lack of
    supporting Congressional appropriations.
        Kindly understand our small Pacific Island developing fishing
    communities are extremely small, scope and effort. The wonderful state
    of Hawaii has the infrastructure and populace to support a medium scale
    fishery. Our smaller island communities need the basic infrastructure.
    Our marinas have shrunken, shoreside amenities non-existent and other
    needed funding possibilities. MSA provides for these up-grades, yet
    appropriations not provided. Currently piece-meal funding is somewhat
    generously provided by NOAA Fisheries and fines from foreign
    incursions.
        As the saying goes ``it is great to be sanctioned to do something
    wonderful in thought but far best to materialize the thought.''
        So let us get to the crux of the matter at hand. Our organization
    was made to understand there is an active issue at hand being proposed
    by Congressman Jared Huffman; California-D. Congressman Huffman is
    proposing changes to the MSA language amending certain Native Pacific
    Island issues which we will address in the next section. These changes
    are not substantiated and blindsides three major Senate Leaders and two
    of which are Pillars of Leadership in the Democratic Caucus. As the old
    saying goes ``if it is not broken do not fix it'' just appropriate
    funding for its fruition.

        The following are the preposed amendments to MSA and our concerns:

      1.  Subsistence Fishing:

              a.   Proposed is a stringent definition of the term which
            limits the harvest use to personal or family consumption. This
            term needed to be broaden not further limited or restricted in
            qualifications.

              b.   Currently the fishing regulation is if one fish is sold
            this mere act is considered as commercial which subjects
            fishers to compliances far greater than the value of the
            harvest.

              c.   The preferred subsistence fishing value parameter should
            not exceed fifty percent of one's annual income. Another term
            could be applied is an ``Expense Fisherman'' where the value of
            the harvest cannot be greater than seventy percent (70%) of the
            total value of the total harvest.

              d.   Lastly, in following the standings of the MSA just
            simply include an authorization for the individual Councils
            develop the language to meet subsistence practices and remove,
            modify, and codify the one fish sold edict.

              e.   Again, regional issues are different proving again, one
            size does not fit all.

      2.  Staff and Administration:

              a.   The Councils by design are an Intendent body therefore
            its operation and staff should not be part of Federalized
            system. By design the Council and NOAA Fisheries are
            collaborators in developing regimes for our fisheries, neither
            superior to the other with neither able to trump one over the
            other using federal edicts or mandates.
              b.   Notwithstanding the concern for fluid operational
            objective recommendations may offered, discussed and
            possibility accepted. The aura of reprisals or reciprocity
            should not result in fear or retaliation.
              c.   Congress should not mandate draconian edicts of an
            independent creature of their own majestic creation. We truly
            believe that should the three intelligent Pillars MSA were
            alive today they will call on these young ins for harsh
            conversation.

      3.  Prohibiting Councils from Lobbying:

              a.   Lobbying for or against proposed edicts from
            Presidential Proclamations and EO's. The Council process is a
            transparent exercise. The Council should be allowed freely
            provide a unified opinion on any action affecting the
            performance of their duties as mandated by MSA.

              b.   The notion that a Proclamation or EO which affects the
            various Council jurisdiction should deem as superior
            Presidential edicts as a reminder Councils are creatures of
            Congress therefore it is unconscionable for Congress to give
            credence to anything generated by another branch of government
            such is quite baffling.

              c.   Suggest that the verbiage should be one of
            encouragement. Understand executive branch leadership changes
            with the times and yet Congress may not agree with the
            executive proposal especially when community may or not be
            successful.

              d.   The current politically controlled House should allow
            for a candid and open discussion raised by the Councils. This
            is opening pf the proverbial ``can of worms''. Allow the
            Councils to express itself properly and openly on all matters
            pertaining to fisheries; again, as a creature of Congress to
            ensure checks and accountability is paramount.
      4.  Voting Members:

              a.  The Councils is comprised of many organizations such as:

                      i.   Council Body. Community leaders and Government
                    Reps.

                      ii.   Scientifical and Statistical Committee. Top
                    scientist in the world.

                      iii.   Plan Team. Top fishery biologist regionally

                      iv.   Advisory Committee. Fishery community leaders.

                      v.   Various Standing Committees. Experts gathered to
                    address issues.

                      vi.   In conclusion the total number of participants
                    contributing to a Council meeting and discussion
                    includes recommendations for the Councils to consider
                    or act upon. The transparent meetings include over 150
                    individuals. What is interesting is that of the myriad
                    of public meetings held by Councils none of the
                    concerned detractors were ever present to observe yet
                    quick to offer criticism.

              b.   The expansion of member qualifiers to include non-
            consumptive users. How would that individual contribute by
            telling everyone to stop eating fish? Scientist inclusion is
            already occurring in the form of the SSC. This Body has a
            larger membership than the Council body. They are highly
            respected scientist who deal with science and rather let the
            Council balance the other intricacies of the Councils.

              c.   In closing this is another exercise in encroaching on
            executive privilege dictating to Governors in their duly
            elected position and further limit their choices while in all
            the while we are not allowed to question a Presidential EO is
            quite confusing.

      5.  At Large Membership to the WPRFMC to ensure some semblance
                balance:

              a.   Somewhat a good thing while some jurisdictions have a
            larger scale fishery however Island units have more fish
            species in possible need of management attention.

              b.   Managing Fisheries is an enormous task requiring much
            attention therefore the level of concern could be addressed by
            each Governor with the degree of seriousness that an ``at Large
            Seat be Acquired.

              c.   Therefore, a restrictive criterion may impede sound
            management regimes due to the issue of equal representation.
            Congress itself is by design is comprised of members based on
            population.

              d.   Again, as the saying goes ``if it is not broken do not
            fix.''

              e.   In the military, soldiers with experience lead into
            battle while the recruit follows. Four of the Greatest
            Statesmen that served in Congress are the true Leaders.

      6.  Marine Conservation Plans and sustainable Fisheries Fund Plans:

              a.   Marine Conservation Plans are created and vetted by the
            local government bodies and not a creation of the Council. The
            Council is provided the opportunity to ensure that there are no
            conflicts with MSA.

              b.   The MCP is a pass-through document expressing the plans
            and aspirations of the Territories. The US through MSA has
            recognized the need to encourage the wards a path to self-
            sufficiency.

              c.   The MCP is given proper notice most especially as an
            Agenda Item for no less than two Council Meetings and
            available. Again, the MCP is not a creation of the Council.

              d.   SFA or SFF is to assist the developing states in this
            case two territories and a Commonwealth to aspire. This concept
            has been endorsed by the US and International RFMOs. To
            institute a quagmire of hoops to realize these aspirations to
            proceed is unconscionable.

              e.   To create jurisdictional boundaries for these small
            island developing states is not inline with MSA and such an
            exercise deemed ludicrous.

              f.   One should not promote support for small island
            developing states and with equal breath deny the US Pacific
            Island unequal treatment.

              g.   After 400 years of Colonization, we ``Endeavor to
            Persevere''.
      7.  Essential Fish Habitat EFH and the removal of ``to the extent
                tractable'' also adding ``Adverse Effects of Fishing and
                Projects'':

              a.   The removal of this qualifier impacts the Council's
            ability to operate on a ``holistic approach'' to proper and
            effective fisheries management.

              b.   Pacific Island communities are too often affected by
            draconian one size fits all which does not lend to
            rationalization of the eight regional councils.

              c.   Understand for the most part the three Pacific Island
            Communities affected by these changes will suffer undue
            consequences. The three Island Units do not operate any shape
            or form of a commercialize fishery which is subject
            interpretation. Our fisheries are ``Artisanal''

              d.   Which is community based and operates from vessels as
            large as those seen on the TV series ``Swamp People'' and to be
            clear no where near the series ``Wicked Tuna'' except for the
            Fishing Charter business.

              e.   We are a small coastal fishing community. We fish for a
            day and at rare times for 2 days. Our fish stocks are highly
            seasonal that last for a few weeks to a couple of months if
            blessed. The average fisherman generates enough income to fall
            below the poverty line. Cost to operate a vessel is double the
            mainland counterparts.

              f.   Today's fisherman in our islands continue to strive to
            maintain Guam's 4000-year-old tradition. Due to the lack of a
            commercial fishery Guam imports over 96% of its fish dietary
            needs.

              g.   Recognize that without the latitude currently provide
            our society culture and traditions are booked as a display at
            the Smithsonian Museum. MSA as currently written should be left
            alone.

      8.  Transaction of Business:

              a.   The Council has provided public notice for each meeting
            for every entity within the Council bodies.

              b.   The Council has conducted all meeting using ``Robert's
            Rules of Order''. No one has ever been discouraged from
            speaking or addressing the Council during the entire agenda.
            ``Public Comment'' is a guaranteed agenda item.

              c.   The voting procedure is adaptive as to any voting. A
            single non-affirmative oral vote requires for a three-part oral
            voting which are. Yay, nay or abstention. Should the vote cast
            remain unclear of a request to clarify the votes cast and roll
            call vote is conducted.

              d.   The council's ability to conduct business as necessary
            should not be an exercise in what is procedural and non-
            procedural. Understand that every component is deemed ranking
            of equal importance.

              e.   The issue of remote Council Meetings is a disability to
            say the least. Interaction with Council members especially on
            major issues impacting their fishery and communities is an
            essential in the decision-making process. For each action no
            one knows the true effects of the issue within the Island Unit.

              f.   Financial Disclosure on the website is unwarranted and
            once reviewed by legal should remain personal and private. An
            intensive review and satisfactory review concerns should be
            sufficient.

              g.   Lastly, while we are all a part of a federally mandated
            creature of Congress we are comprised of many cultures. We do
            not condone harassment of any form however a friendly and
            cordial gesture may be misconstrued. While some may view a
            handshake as acceptable Islanders may see a simple peck on the
            cheek or a hug as an exercise of sincerity. I guess all subject
            to interpretation.
    Other sections:

      1.  Overfishing and By-catch; No fishing by one mean generation.

              a.   To change the descriptive word for over-fishing to
            ``depletion'' is absurd to say the least. Depletion generally
            gives rise to the concept that there is no expectation of
            replenishment it is incumbent on the Council to act long before
            such occurs. The use of overfishing should continue to stand as
            management regimes are developed to achieve scientific outcomes
            and various possibilities.

              b.   Recognize that each Council has the fiduciary
            responsibility to establish a path to s recovery of s fishery
            or fish stock within 10 years while highly funded Agency
            Programs have yet to realize of any specie of concern recovery
            in 50 years. Is this an exercise in pragmatism or programmatic
            perpetuation as it seems certainly not a theoretical exercise.

              c.   Overfishing is measurable while depletion is subjective.
            recall that the US Pacific jurisdictions are in the largest
            water mass in the world. Nearly all the other oceans can occupy
            equal space combined.

              d.   We possess the largest number of fish species. We have
            thousands of times of fish habitat than all oceans combine.

              e.   We only inhabit less than five percent of these areas.

              f.   The US has led the world in unnecessary protective
            measures for many remote Island Areas and has designated Marine
            Monuments due to confusion between Mid-scale commercial
            fisheries and industrialize effort.

              g.   The mere fact that the US domestic fishery based in
            Hawaii has a catch limit under 4,000 mt and purely provides
            fresh tuna to the Hawaii residents every year. The unrestricted
            industrialized Purse Seine vessel can harvest that amount in 4
            months.

              h.   Understand that a whole year's harvest by 130 Hawaii
            based longline fleet is dwarfed by the catch of a single vessel
            out of hundreds.

              i.   Hence, the term depleted lacks any form of logic
            therefore overfishing must remain in place. The removal of a
            10-year rebuilding plan and including ``one mean generation''
            is as draconian as it sounds. The meaning of this terminology
            is total end fishing and has no consequential bearing on fish
            stocks, its mortality rate or effort.

              j.   Essentially it a mean generation is comparable of using
            a shotgun to kill a fly. The act of removing a whole generation
            of fishermen is grossly objectional. Fishing is not a business
            opportunity it is the hopes, aspiration, and traditions for
            Pacific Islanders.

              k.   A case in point, a young Hawaiian approached the Council
            during the hearings for the ending of the permitted bottom
            fishery in the Northwest Hawaiian Islands and he requested as a
            native Hawaiian to carry on the tradition and legacy of his
            Hawaiian father due to the Presidential EO the Council could
            not assist the young man.

              l.   The effort to remove a whole generation of fishermen
            should not realize. Fishermen possess the heart and soul to
            endure fishing, and such can only be perpetuated and nurtured.
            To idea of skipping a whole generation should be forgotten.
            Really a fishing vessel sitting for 30 years as well as a
            fisher that is not fishery management.

      2.  National standardized by Catch Reporting:

              a.   The creation of 8 regional Councils has different By-
            catch issues and concerns. The Western Pacific fishery has
            probably the smallest by-catch concerns in the entire US.

              b.   By-catch is the non-target specie however the species
            are more of an ``incidental catch'' and is often landed and
            consumed. The unwanted species interaction comes basically on
            ESA and MMPA which are considered interactions and are subject
            to a myriad of strict compliance.

              c.   Understand that these two federal mandates and
            restrictive qualifiers often ``shuts down'' a fishery, during
            its evolution to regulate fisheries the exercise was based on
            mortality and now based on interaction despite any incident of
            mortality is non-existent.

              d.   Again, to reiterate the fact that even the WPRFMC has
            assisted in funding mitigation measures to protect nesting
            areas and nesting sites throughout the Pacific thus realizing
            the protection of over 200,000 hatchlings. Further conducted
            forums and workshop to foster the protection of all turtles
            except for culturally valued turtles with a vast foraging zone.
            This work was funded under many funding sources including SFF.

              e.   At the end of the day, fishery management is working
            harmonizing with people, cultures, and the resource. Please
            understand the western Pacific fishery management is one of the
            finest in the USA perhaps in the world.

              f.   The only fishery with issues in our region is the Amour
            head. It was harvested by using bottom trawl nets and was
            primarily a Russian Fishery. To be clear the fishing grounds
            was inherited through the ``Law of the Sea'' edict. Shortly
            after its inclusion in the WPRMC jurisdiction a prohibition of
            Bottom Trawl Gear was promulgated and hence never a concern.

      3.  Plans for Secretarial Approval

              a.   Such Plans require major vetting by the 5 main Council
            Bodies and too often requires much discussion and revision.
            However, the Council can for the most part its enormous task
            even in consultation at every step with NOAA Fisheries.

              b.   The difficulty of placing the timeline for a mandate of
            180 days is rather fruitless as the Secretarial review and the
            approval would take no less than two years deeming the Plan as
            outdated.

              c.   Allowing the Council to establish an interim Plan until
            such time the Secretarial approval achieved perhaps is more
            prudent.

      4.  Addressing climate change in fishery management regimes MSY and
                OY:

              a.   Climate change is constantly on the radar of fishery
            management and has been scientifically analyzed and explained.
            The oceanic El Nino and La Nina has explained the movement of
            migratory fish from the eastern Pacific and the western
            Pacific.

              b.   Also factored in the model is non-US fishing effort
            where our effort is severely overshadowed by foreign fleets.

              c.   Riddle me this; the WPRFMC has the most managed Fishery.
            Addresses interaction with species of concern. Applies
            mitigation measures for its fishery. Mandates Annual Catch
            Limits. Forces US domestic vessels to fish only the High Seas.
            Subjugates a US mid-scale fishery subject to a closure of the
            High Seas.

    Conclusion:

        Much more can said and at length should be discussed and foster an
    in-depth understanding of the fisheries and its intrinsic importance to
    Pacific Island Communities. MSA has been our community's voice in
    fostering the perpetuation of our traditions. Indigenous consideration
    and yet in sections denoting changes erodes those advancements, we have
    finally received the desired recognition by the previously adopted
    advances to fall prey to more subjugated regimes.
        I guess with a well-managed fisheries apparently micro-management
    is paramount. Imagine that an environment organization was so deeply
    concerned of our coral reef stocks that it petitions of an ESA listing.
    Again, in the Marianas alone there are 15 islands and nearly double in
    mass underwater seamounts with reef fish habitats. Further only 5 out
    15 have a population base cumulatively smaller than LA county. Except
    for one Island used as an ordinance firing rage all others are
    basically pristine with little or any human contact. A point in fact is
    the only contact has been conducted by military, scientific
    expeditions, and environmental groups all of whom have enjoyed our
    pristine waters.

        Just to clarify the un-necessary concerns brought forth in the few
    amendments mentioned we would like to state our community-based
    measures adopted by the Council to protect the Community as well as the
    fragile environment long before it became fashionable and money maker,
    they are:

      1.  Bottom Trawl Prohibition

      2.  Gill Nets

      3.  No anchoring by vessels greater than fifty feet on the offshore
                reefs.

      4.  No fishing by vessels greater than 50 ft. around Guam and off-
                shore Banks by 50 miles.

      5.  Annual Catch Limits

        Much more should be said about the disastrous implication raise by
    the change generated by Congressman Huffman; California-D. Too often it
    is said and heard that Pacific Island communities and people of color
    are to be given the utmost consideration. However, recognize that the
    few afore mentioned amendments readily negate any true effort to assist
    in developing ``Capacity'' and our constant challenge to preserver as a
    conquered people.
        The current MSA is not deserving of any changes as it was fine-
    tuned by time honored Statesmen such as Congressman Young, Senator
    Inouye, Senator Magnuson, and Senator Stevens. The greatest asset of
    the Act is that it allowed for Native People representation and a voice
    in the decision process affecting their communities. This effort to
    dismiss the concerns of a people with four thousand years of local
    knowledge by allowing others beyond our borders to be a member of the
    fishery council is unconscionable.
        I was rather hoping to see more financial assistance for the myriad
    of feel-good intentions within the current MSA. As small island
    communities we have the fore sight to discourage any form of
    industrialized fishing within our EEZ. Prohibition of bottom trawl, no
    anchoring of vessels greater than fifty feet. A closure zone where no
    longlining is allowed within fifty miles of the Island. Bottom fishing
    by vessels greater then fifty feet. In essence we are deeply concerned
    about our natural resources and rightfully so. Be cognizant that
    despite all our continued real conservation efforts the one
    industrialized fishery beyond the Council's control is the Purse Seine
    fishery and can fish without restraint anywhere in EEZ. Be cognizant
    that our community can harvest 50 metric tons of hundreds of different
    species in our best year and a single set of a PS can accomplish that
    in a day.
        I could provide more discussion however I personally feel this
    voice would just like whisper at a rock concert. Lips moving and not
    heard. I was deemed a ``Lobbyist'' as I am duly elected president of
    Guam Fishermen's Cooperative Association it my fiduciary responsibility
    to protect their interest and concerns. As it is said in Military
    Doctrine, I am charged with two major duties: first comply with the
    Constitution of the United States and morally protect and defend that
    cannot defend themselves. One would assume that these two human
    components would permeate through the Halls of Congress in establishing
    laws adversely affecting Pacific Island Communities and its cultural
    perseverance. Back to the issue of ``lobbying''. Kindly recognize that
    despite being a U.S. Citizen I possess no such unique potential. I have
    a non-voting Congressman representing our Island. I am unable to cast a
    vote for the President of the United States yet allowed to militarily
    protect the rights of the citizens of the 50 states can exercise their
    rights as citizens. Lastly the obvious fact is that I have never been a
    ``registered lobbyist''. Therefore, the notion that anyone from any of
    the territories is such can only conclude as ludicrous. This ludicrous
    concept was further advanced by the Congressional Public Sessions we
    held outside our communities and with those who have contributed to
    such a negative ``New MSRA.'' and its Draconian mandates.

        In conclusion I would like to share the wisdom and the words of
    another U.S. Senator George F. Hoar (R-MA) during the Treaty of Paris
    Congressional ratification who stated, ``This Treaty would make us a
    vulgar, common place empire, controlling subject races and vassal
    states, in which one class must forever rule and other classes forever
    obey.'' Recognize that only two in Congress found it fitting to oppose
    such a philosophy of a class structure. Again, the current effort to
    allegedly improve the MSRA it promotes the opposite and derails the
    multitude of accomplishments. Aside from alleged questionable
    expenditures on Native Communities issues not one mention was made of a
    non-native meeting for environmentalist where hundreds of thousands
    were spent to bring them to a Native Homeland . . . Hawaii but engaging
    Native Hawaiians is a over a hundred years of attitude and a never-
    ending story.
        I humbly request that this legislation be shelfed until a
    culturally sensitive review is conducted. Any adverse impacts should
    also include the concerns of the Governed. Should you or your staff
    have any concerns or viable questions please feel free to contact me at
    the above address. Until then I remain . . .

                Co-operatively yours,

                                           Manuel P. Duenas II,
                                                              President

                                     ______

                                                   December 1, 2021

    Water, Oceans, and Wildlife Subcommittee
    House Natural Resources Committee
    1324 Longworth House Office Building
    Washington, DC 20515

        Dear Chair Jared Huffman and Ranking Member Cliff Bentz:

        We write to submit this testimony to the record for the House
    Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife's hybrid
    legislative hearing on H.R. 59, H.R. 4690, and H.R. 5770 held on
    November 16, 2021. As Tribes and Tribal organizations of Western
    Alaska, the Eastern and Northern Bering Sea, and Interior Alaska,
    representing over 110 federally recognized Tribes, we submit this
    testimony in support of the Sustaining America's Fisheries for the
    Future Act, H.R. 4690 as introduced by Representatives Jared Huffman.
        We applaud the Sustaining America's Fisheries for the Future Act's
    (Act) acknowledgment of the importance of subsistence fishing to
    Indigenous communities in Alaska, and the inclusion of subsistence
    throughout the Act. The incredibly productive Bering Sea region,
    including countless species of seabirds, marine mammals, fish, and
    invertebrates have sustained our Tribal communities for millennia. Our
    oceans have critical cultural and subsistence value for our coastal
    communities, and we are committed to protecting them for future
    generations. As a result of climate change, we face, and will continue
    to face, unprecedented changes to our region. Our fishery management
    system must adapt to manage sustainably in the face of climate change.
    We welcome the provisions of this Act that confront the impacts of
    climate change and directly address them through fishery management and
    planning.
        Importantly, this Act also remedies the long-standing membership
    imbalance on the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC). It
    is critical that Tribes are equitably included in the decision-making
    that will impact our marine resources, ecosystems, and ways of life.
    This Act ensures that Tribes can meaningfully participate in fisheries
    management by creating two Tribal voting seats on the NPFMC. We support
    the bill as written, which would provide for two voting Tribal seats,
    and then the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration can, after
    notice and comment and Tribal consultation, promulgate regulations
    further detailing the process for nominating and selecting the Tribal
    members. We have stewarded the lands and waters in our region since
    time immemorial and this Act gives Tribes a long overdue seat at the
    decision-making table.
        HR 4690 also takes important steps to address the critical issue of
    bycatch by removing the qualifier ``to the extent practicable'' from
    National Standard 9. While many Indigenous communities throughout our
    region have had their subsistence and commercial salmon and halibut
    fisheries completely shut down, bycatch is allowed to continue at high
    levels in the trawl fisheries offshore. Removing the qualifier ``to the
    extent practicable'' from National Standard 9 (Section 503) is a much-
    needed change, which will reorient the MSA toward the original intent
    of reducing bycatch. This change is key to the sustainability of our
    fisheries, and to creating a more just and equitable management system.
        Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony. As
    introduced, the Sustaining America's Fisheries for the Future Act would
    create a more just and sustainable fishery management process in the
    North Pacific and we fully support it.

                Sincerely,

            Melanie Bahnke,               Vivian Korthuis,
            President                     Chief Executive Officer
            Kawerak, Inc.                 Association of Village Council
                                          Presidents

            Amos Philemonoff,             PJ Simon,
            President                     Chief/Chairman
            Aleut Community of St. Paul
            Island                        Tanana Chiefs Conference
            Mike Williams Sr.,            Brooke Woods,
            Chair                         Chairwoman
            Kuskokwim River Inter-
            Tribal Fish Commission        Yukon River Inter-Tribal Fish
                                          Commission

            Mellisa Johnson,
            Executive Director
            Bering Sea Elders Group

                                     ______

                 Pacific Seafood Processors Association (PSPA)

                                                  November 30, 2021

    Hon. Jared Huffman, Chairman
    Hon. Don Young, Acting Ranking Member
    Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife
    Committee on Natural Resources
    1324 Longworth House Office Building
    Washington, DC 20515

        Dear Chairman Huffman and Acting Ranking Member Young:

        The Pacific Seafood Processors Association (PSPA) represents the
    shared policy and regulatory interests of commercial seafood processors
    in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest. Our members support fisheries
    management efforts that rely upon scientific evidence and uphold
    sustainability, accountability, safety, stability, and community
    development, all of which have enabled our region to responsibly
    produce up to six billion pounds of seafood annually--two-thirds of
    wild fish production in the United States. Our sector delivers
    sustainably harvested wild Alaska pollock, cod, salmon, crab, whiting/
    hake, and other premium seafood products to both global and domestic
    markets, where consumers increasingly demand responsible fishing
    practices.
        The economic health of our sector, as well as the long-term
    productivity of our fisheries, depends squarely on the terms and
    underlying principles of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
    Management Act (MSA). PSPA staff and members carefully watched how the
    Water, Oceans, and Wildlife subcommittee legislative hearing on MSA
    reauthorization bills unfolded on November 16, 2021. On behalf of our
    members, I write to express our key concerns with the way MSA discourse
    is evolving among some lawmakers and concerned stakeholders, as these
    discussions and proposals--if implemented--would affect the very
    viability of our nation's commercial fisheries. We urge the
    subcommittee to proceed with a more informed understanding of how the
    MSA works and how proposed changes may impact fisheries-dependent
    stakeholders and communities, putting accurate information and analysis
    at the core of your discussions and decision making.
    Role of Practicability in MSA

        Certain provisions in H.R. 4690 would remove the term ``to the
    extent practicable'' in fisheries management national standards and
    fisheries management plan (FMP) requirements, including for incidental
    catch minimization and essential fish habitat impact minimization. This
    critical phrase was originally included and retained in the MSA because
    fisheries managers must account for multiple objectives and variables
    simultaneously in crafting FMPs customized for each unique fishery.
    Congress rightly recognized that managers would need to balance the
    multiple objectives embodied in MSA's ten national standards, and that
    they would need flexibility and discretion to allow limited levels of
    impact, consistent with other protective laws and safeguards, to ensure
    the optimal delivery of benefits to harvesters, processors, and
    communities.
        Based on information submitted to the record at this hearing
    regarding incidental catch minimization, we are concerned that Congress
    has been misled regarding the facts of how bycatch limits in the North
    Pacific work. This is troubling on two levels. First, contrary to
    allegations in the information submitted to the record, bycatch or
    prohibited species caps are not exceeded in the BSAI or GOA federal
    fisheries. Before bycatch caps are reached, NOAA Fisheries closes the
    fishery.\1\ In addition, bycatch of species managed under hard caps has
    been generally declining over the last decade.\2\ Second, it is
    troubling to think Congress would rely on falsehoods when crafting
    amendments to the most important fisheries law in the United States.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/alaska/commercial-fishing/
    fisheries-catch-and-landings-reports-alaska. Bycatch limits (which
    apply to PSC species that by definition are always to be avoided like
    salmon, halibut, herring, and crab) are hard caps that close groundfish
    fisheries when reached, or in the case of crab and herring, close large
    areas. Target species (like sablefish and cod) are targeted by multiple
    gear types and are managed by allocations, not hard caps. These
    species, like all groundfish species, are accounted for in full so that
    an overall allowable biological catch or overfishing limit is not
    exceeded.
        \2\ https://www.npfmc.org/wp-content/PDFdocuments/bycatch/
    bycatchflyer420.pdf. Halibut bycatch in the Bering Sea and Gulf of
    Alaska is about half of what it was in the 1990s. Bering Sea Chinook
    salmon bycatch has declined about 89% since the high of 2007 and
    implementation of hard caps under BSAI Am 91 and Am 110.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Currently, the MSA requires managers to minimize an impact ``to the
    extent practicable,'' meaning managers must minimize it to a degree
    that is both practical and reasonable, depending on the mix of other
    factors important to each fishery. This is good policy, and PSPA
    supports it. If this term is removed from MSA, how would managers know
    if and when ``minimization'' is achieved--especially difficult when
    managing stocks and ecosystems in constant flux? One outcome is that
    any amount of bycatch reduction, no matter how small, could be
    construed as minimizing bycatch. Another outcome is that managers would
    have to minimize impact absolutely, meaning bycatch or habitat impact
    would have to be impossible to reduce further, an idealistic but
    unrealistic standard. This outcome would have to take primacy over all
    other considerations embodied in the national standards, or face
    allegations and lawsuits based on the idea that any incidental catch or
    habitat impact could be further reduced regardless of ability to
    conduct fisheries.
        Similarly, if the term ``to the extent practicable'' is removed
    from the MSA provisions on minimizing ``adverse effect'' (defined as
    any reduction in quality or quantity, regardless of degree) on
    essential fish habitat (EFH), as proposed in H.R. 4690, councils would
    lose additional discretion to balance multiple objectives in developing
    FMPs. Managers would have to ensure habitat impact avoidance and
    absolute minimization, or--if some degree of habitat impact is
    allowed--risk litigation that could paralyze the FMP process. We have
    not seen compelling analysis justifying this change, as Councils have
    may tools to protect habitat and biodiversity, even outside the EFH
    construct. Under current MSA authority, for example, the North Pacific
    Council has instituted area-based habitat conservation measures that
    collectively close more than 65% of federally managed waters to some or
    all fisheries, in order to conserve habitat, protect marine mammals,
    and otherwise uphold the ten national standards. Any changes to current
    council- and science-based habitat conservation processes risk
    destabilizing progress to date--progress that has secured the support
    of the fishing industry--and the impacts of such disruption should be
    fully understood.
        While PSPA members share in the widespread desire to further reduce
    incidental catch and conserve habitat in all fisheries and gear types,
    lawmakers and their constituents must be aware that absolute
    minimization of impacts would have far-reaching consequences, many of
    which would be devastating to fisheries management and dependent
    communities. The impacts of such drastic changes must be fully analyzed
    and acknowledged up front, including recognition that--in cases where
    impacts are actually not caused by fishing but by other change to
    ecosystems--actions to minimize impact may not have the desired outcome
    on bycatch species or habitat. Congress should not remove the term ``to
    the extent practicable'' from the MSA. Instead, Congress should
    consider the role of ecosystem science and fisheries surveys in
    facilitating evidence-based council efforts to further reduce bycatch
    impacts, and work through the appropriations process to ensure
    sufficient funding for NOAA Fisheries surveys, science programs, and
    council support.
    Structure and Function of Fisheries Management Councils

        Another persistent theme of H.R. 4690 is reform of the eight
    fishery management councils, in structure and function, in ways that
    would both undermine and complicate their role as lead fisheries
    management advisors to NOAA Fisheries regulators. Congressman Huffman's
    bill, for instance, would centralize the climate research agenda and
    associated fisheries management council mandates at NOAA Fisheries, and
    it would force NOAA Fisheries to take over management plans if councils
    could not meet the impossible new standard of producing FMPs in only
    180 days (the current FMP process must navigate NEPA and a host of
    other laws and regulations, and allow for scientific review and public
    comment, which exceeds 180 days). Moreover, it would impose unwarranted
    new requirements on how councils meet and communicate.
        While these provisions may simply be rooted in a desire for council
    and FMP expediency and transparency, we find that the new requirements
    on council structure and function would be exceedingly onerous, costly,
    and--above all--far less effective for regionally-based fisheries
    management. First, in the original MSA and subsequently-enacted
    amendments, Congress recognized that regional councils best understand
    and can thus solve management issues specific to the area under its
    authority. Councils hold primary authority for developing and
    recommending FMPs, based on the advice of scientific advisors, NOAA
    regional fisheries science centers, and stakeholder input. All FMP
    inputs must be specific to the fish, stock complexes, vessel type, gear
    types, habitats, ecosystems, communities, safety issues, and other
    variables of the fisheries in question. This decentralization of
    expertise and awareness of unique, local conditions is the preeminent
    achievement of the MSA, and it fosters a system of FMPs that have been
    remarkably effective at nearly eliminating overfishing and sustaining
    fisheries productivity while also meeting community, safety, and other
    objectives. If Congress pursues MSA amendments that would replace
    council actions with top-down, centralized edicts from DC, analyses
    must occur showing how centralized control would impact the current
    system. Moreover, Congress must be fully aware of the cost of
    legislating away locally-led expertise and stakeholder buy-in. The MSA
    was premised on having regional input drive regional decision-making;
    changing this premise at all would be a monumental and fundamental
    change to the MSA.
        Second, under current MSA authorities, numerous safeguards are in
    place to ensure councils follow clear rules regarding communication and
    conflict of interest. All council proceedings are open to the public,
    and meetings are increasingly accessible as online services and
    participation continues to expand. Communications with agencies and
    lawmakers are closely monitored by counsel, as councils cannot lobby or
    take positions of support or opposition to Congressional proposals in
    order to shape outcomes. Additionally, NOAA General Counsel ensures
    compliance with conflict of interest and disclosure regulations, most
    recently updated in a September 2020 final rulemaking. The current
    rules enable councils to have members with the best possible expertise
    and experience on technical and operational aspects from
    representatives of the harvesting and processing sectors, while also
    prohibiting council members from voting on decisions where NOAA has
    determined a conflict of interest.
        Considering all the changes that H.R. 4690 would impose on
    councils, we urge Congress to heed the input from the councils
    regarding the impacts of the proposed changes. The cumulative impact of
    provisions that would effectively sideline, stifle, and silence
    councils would have disastrous effects on our fisheries management
    system, and, to date, a compelling case has not been made for such
    proposed changes.
    Climate Resilience and Ecosystem Science under MSA

        Significant attention is being devoted to the provisions of H.R.
    4690 that would mandate more action on fisheries management challenges
    driven by climate change. Some of these changes would centralize
    climate resilience mandates at NOAA, as described above, and some would
    be woven into other parts of council operation and FMPs (including new
    mandates for forage fish catch limits). We support the intent of these
    provisions, as they are consistent with actions long undertaken by the
    North Pacific Council; however, we question the need for new mandates
    related to climate considering Councils are already pursuing climate-
    resilient fisheries under existing MSA authority. In fact, doing so is
    already consistent with the MSA requirement to base FMPs on the best
    available scientific information, including trends and forecasts of
    stocks and ecosystems, as data and resources permit.
        For example, the North Pacific Council is increasing data
    utilization, incorporating climate information into stock assessments
    where possible, and has approved a 5-year plan (Climate Change
    Taskforce workplan) to evaluate how to change its management system to
    be more climate resilient. The North Pacific Council has also been
    supporting significant modeling work at the Alaska Fisheries Science
    Center (ACLIM 1.0 and 2.0), with the intent of increasing fisheries
    management resilience to climate impacts. The purposes of this work are
    to project physical and ecological conditions under levels of climate
    change and evaluate effectiveness of adaptation actions in fisheries
    management. This work combines realistic projections of ocean
    conditions under climate scenarios, alternative harvest strategies in
    the harvest limit setting process, and climate enhanced biological
    models that predict climate-driven changes to individual species and
    food webs. It is intended to increase its ability to forecast climate-
    driven distribution of species, tipping points, and thresholds. In
    addition, NOAA Fisheries has rolled out the Climate and Fisheries
    Initiative to build operational modeling and a decision support system
    to provide the information and capacity resource managers and
    stakeholders need to reduce impacts and increase resilience in their
    regions. This information support is needed in the face of a changing
    climate and is the proper role for NOAA.
        Any changes to MSA that would centralize or mandate top-down NOAA-
    led climate resilience management actions would risk adding unnecessary
    rigidity, bureaucracy, and delay to what should be regionally-led,
    flexible, and adaptive science-based undertakings. Any impacts from new
    mandates and burdens would be disruptive, and such costs should be
    factored into any Congressional review. The most important role for
    Congress in facilitating climate resilience would be in enacting
    sufficient funding for councils and NOAA Fisheries, to make sure such
    efforts led by councils and scientific advisors are well-resourced and
    producing timely, relevant stock and environmental data.
    Conclusion: Do No Harm

        Representing Alaska seafood processors that depend on having a
    sustainable and predictable flow of products from Alaska and the
    Pacific Northwest, PSPA understands that our councils are now facing
    unprecedented challenges related to climate and ecosystem change,
    climate driven and cyclic changes in fish stocks, and other sources of
    uncertainty. At the same time, PSPA finds that the current fisheries
    management system is performing as lawmakers intended in the North
    Pacific, putting science and representative councils at the forefront
    of sustainable fisheries management. The changes proposed in H.R. 4690
    would--on balance--inject unwarranted cost, risk, inefficiencies, and
    uncertainty into the council- and science-based fisheries management
    system. While we understand the intent of many provisions, we find that
    the proposals lack comprehensive analyses and awareness of impacts and
    consequences, and these shortcomings preclude us from supporting this
    bill as written. We continue to urge Congress to focus on the
    appropriations process, as the most effective way to facilitate
    sustainable fisheries management.

                Sincerely,

                                                 Chris Barrows,
                                                              President

                                     ______

                      The Marine Fish Conservation Network

                                                  November 30, 2021

    Hon. Jared Huffman, Chairman
    Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife
    Committee on Natural Resources
    1324 Longworth House Office Building
    Washington, DC 20515

    Re: Support for the Sustaining America's Fisheries for the Future Act,
            H.R. 4690

        Dear Chairman Huffman:

        The Marine Fish Conservation Network (Network) appreciates the
    opportunity to provide our views on the Sustaining America's Fisheries
    for the Future Act, H.R. 4690, for the record. We applaud the approach
    taken in developing this legislation by convening a nationwide
    listening tour seeking input from the many stakeholders with an
    interest in the sustainable management of our oceans and fisheries. The
    Network appreciates your leadership to ensure healthy oceans and
    sustainable, productive fisheries now and into the future.
        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act's
    (MSA) science-based conservation requirements are essential to
    maintaining and improving the long-term health and productivity of our
    nation's marine ecosystems, ocean fisheries, and coastal fishing
    communities. U.S. commercial and recreational fisheries generate $244
    billion in sales and support 1.74 million American jobs.
        Well-managed, abundant fisheries and successful fishing businesses
    begin with a strong federal law. The U.S. has taken a leadership role
    in implementing science-based fisheries management with the MSA, and
    this federal fisheries law is working. We are making steady progress in
    restoring the health of U.S. fisheries due in great part to Congress'
    leadership during the last two reauthorizations of the MSA.
        However, in some cases, the councils' ability to meet their
    management goals and objectives has proven challenging. In certain
    regions, some fish populations have been slow to rebound. Infrequent
    stock assessments, catch data limitations, and bycatch remain problem
    areas, affecting the productivity and recovery of fisheries in many
    regions.
        Congress, by moving this legislation forward, has the opportunity
    to continue to build upon the science and conservation advancements of
    the Magnuson-Stevens Act secured in previous reauthorizations of the
    Act. The Network supports those improvements in the Sustaining
    America's Fisheries for the Future Act that promote the long-term
    health of U.S. fisheries, strengthen the wellbeing of fishing
    communities, and ensure that our oceans and those who rely on them can
    successfully meet the emerging challenges of the future.

        The bill includes several of the Network's policy priorities, which
    include supporting fishing communities and working waterfronts,
    enhancing catch accounting and data management, strengthening bycatch
    provisions, upholding federal statutes that promote ocean conservation
    and public participation, improving forage species conservation and
    management, and assessing and mitigating climate change impacts on
    fisheries. In particular we would like to commend the measures in H.R.
    4690 that:

         Address for the first time the effects of climate change
                on U.S. ocean fisheries by incorporating climate science
                and adaptation strategies into management decisions.

         Incorporate language from the Keep America's Waterfronts
                Working Act that provides much needed support for our
                country's working waterfronts by allocating funding and
                resources to improve coastal infrastructure and confront
                the growing threats of climate change.

         Recognize the need for accurate, timely, and verified
                catch data for all major commercial and recreational
                fisheries and includes measures to modernize data
                collection methods and utilize electronic technologies to
                improve catch accounting, particularly in the recreational
                sector.

        The Sustaining America's Fisheries for the Future Act is a
    comprehensive bill that includes critical advancements to marine policy
    to ensure the ongoing conservation and restoration of U.S. fisheries
    and oceans. The Network looks forward to working you and Congress to
    ensure the final bill supports healthy marine ecosystems, vibrant local
    economies, sustainably-caught seafood, millions of jobs, and abundant
    recreational opportunities around the country for generations to come.

        Thank you again for your leadership on this matter.

                                          Robert C. Vandermark,
                                                     Executive Director

                                     ______

                   Submissions for the Record by Rep. Dingell

                                                      November 15, 2021

    Hon. Raul Grijalva, Chairman
    Hon. Bruce Westerman, Ranking Member
    Committee on Natural Resources
    Washington, DC 20515

        Dear Chairman Grijalva and Ranking Member Westerman,

        The undersigned 59 scientists seek your support for H.R. 5770, the
    Forage Fish Conservation Act. We represent a wide variety of areas of
    expertise, including fisheries biology and management, marine mammal
    and bird ecology, and social sciences. We understand the crucial role
    that forage fish species play in marine ecosystems and the U.S.
    economy, and as such, we know that the U.S. needs to manage forage fish
    for the larger ecosystem roles they play in the oceans.

        Forage fish are small- to medium-sized fish that directly and
    indirectly feed the entire ocean food web, ultimately fueling the
    productivity of marine ecosystems. There is an expansive, growing body
    of research that outlines the importance of these fish as food for
    recreationally and commercially important species such as tuna, salmon,
    Alaska pollock, and cod, as well as for seabirds, sharks, dolphins, and
    other animals that are integral to healthy fisheries and stable ocean
    ecosystems (Cury et al. 2011; Engelhard et al. 2014; Pikitch et al.
    2014, Essington et al. 2015, Worsoe et al. 2018). In addition to the
    ecological responsibility forage fish provide for the oceans, they also
    have unique biological characteristics that should be accounted for in
    fisheries management. For example, forage fish mature early, live short
    lives, and produce substantial numbers of offspring. Because of these
    life history characteristics, they generally show significant
    fluctuations in population size. Shifts in forage fish populations can
    cause ripple effects through the marine food web. Declines in forage
    fish populations are often accompanied by marked changes in ecosystem
    structure, including sharp decreases in the marine bird and mammal
    populations that depend upon forage fish for food (Cury and Shannon
    2004).

        Another unique biological characteristic of forage fish species is
    that they tend to form large schools, making them highly accessible to
    fishing, particularly as fishing gear and technologies become more
    efficient (Alder & Pauly 2006; Pikitch et al. 2012; Pikitch 2015).
    About one-third of wild marine fish caught globally are forage fish and
    this harvest adds around $16.9 billion to the global economy, from both
    direct harvest and eco-benefits to predators (Pikitch et al. 2014). The
    potential for overexploitation of forage fish is high, increasing the
    potential for multi-species population collapses, after which recovery
    of the forage fish and species that depend upon them is uncertain
    (Pikitch et al. 2012; Pikitch 2015).

        Despite the unique population dynamics of forage fish, conventional
    fisheries management does not adequately account for the ocean's
    expansive ecological dependency on forage fish populations. For
    example, conventional harvest control rules do not provide solutions
    for management trade-offs between catches and minimizing population
    collapse length and harvest strategies designed to maintain stability
    in catches result in more severe stock collapses (Siple et al. 2018).
    In contrast, a risk-based management scheme that reduces exploitation
    rates on forage species results in fewer ecosystem impacts, including
    population collapses, with little effect on long-term average forage
    fish catch. (Smith et al. 2011; Essington et al. 2015). Furthermore,
    ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) approaches introduce and
    integrate additional management levers for policymakers to achieve non-
    fishery-stock objectives at lowest costs to the fishing sectors
    (Sanchirico et al. 2021).

        Regional applications of EBFM approaches for forage fish are
    increasing. In August 2020, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
    Commission (ASMFC) unanimously adopted the first application of
    quantitative ecological models in management on the U.S. East Coast. As
    a result of this landmark decision, fishery managers now use ecological
    reference points (ERPs) to ensure the menhaden population never drops
    below levels that would put its predators at risk (Chagaris et al.
    2020; Drew et al. 2021; Howell et al. 2021; Anstead et al. 2021).

        Unfortunately, there remains a gap in forage fish management at the
    federal level. The country's flagship fisheries law, the Magnuson-
    Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), does not include
    forage fish in its framework despite the large supporting role forage
    plays in the health of U.S. fisheries. The Forage Fish Conservation Act
    would improve federal management of forage fish to the benefit of all
    Americans and U.S. marine ecosystems alike by:

         Requiring the development of a national, science-based
                definition of forage fish;

         Limiting the establishment of new forage fish fisheries
                until there is scientific evidence to support their
                management and determine the impact the new fishery would
                have on the ecosystem and other fisheries;

         Requiring that catch limits be set for forage fish in ways
                that account for predator needs; and,

         Conserving important forage species such as river herrings
                and shads.

        The U.S. has long been a world leader in using science to inform
    how our fisheries are managed. The Forage Fish Conservation Act will
    enhance a critical but sometimes overlooked aspect of U.S. fisheries
    management to the benefit of all. We urge you to enthusiastically and
    in a bipartisan way support the Forage Fish Conservation Act.

                Sincerely,

            Ellen Pikitch, PhD            Daniel W. Anderson, PhD
            Endowed Professor             Professor Emeritus
            Ocean Conservation Science    Wildlife, Fish & Conservation
            Stony Brook University        University of California, Davis
            Stony Brook, NY               Davis, CA

            Pat Baird, PhD                Kerry J. Nickols, PhD
            Doctor                        Associate Professor
            Simon Fraser University       California State University
            Burnaby, BC                   Los Angeles, CA

            Brian Tissot, PhD             Craig W Benkman, PhD
            Professor                     Professor of Zoology & Physiology
            Humboldt State University     University of Wyoming
            Trinidad, CA                  Timnath, CO

            Timothy E. Targett, PhD       James Byers, PhD
            Professor Emeritus            Professor
            University of Delaware        University of Georgia
            Lewes, DE                     Athens, GA

            David William Kerstetter,
            PhD                           Atsushi Fujimura, PhD
            Associate Professor           Assistant Professor
            Nova Southeastern
            University                    University of Guam
            Dania Beach, FL               Mangilao, GU

            James K. Dooley, PhD          Dennis Lavrov, PhD
            Professor Emeritus            Professor
            Adelphi University            Iowa State University
            Homestead, FL                 Ames, IA

            Geoffrey Cook, PhD            Michael LaBarbera, PhD
            Associate Professor           Emeritus Professor
            University of Central
            Florida                       University of Chicago
            Orlando, FL                   Chicago, IL

            Gustav Paulay, PhD            Prosanta Chakrabarty, PhD
            Curator/Professor             Professor/Curator of Fishes
            University of Florida         Louisiana State University
            Gainesville, FL               Baton Rouge, LA
            Jiangang Luo, PhD             David D. Dow, PhD
            Scientist                     Doctor (ret.)
            University of Miami           NOAA marine scientist
            Miami, FL                     East Falmouth, MA

            John Ogden, PhD               James Hanken, PhD
            Emeritus Professor            Professor of Biology
            University of South Florida   Harvard University
            St. Petersburg, FL            Cambridge, MA

            Stephen Kajiura, PhD          Karen Alexander, MA
            Professor                     Research Fellow
            Florida Atlantic University   UMass Amherst (ret.)
            Boca Raton, FL                Whately, MA

            Steven Green, PhD             Les Kaufman, PhD
            Professor Emeritus            Professor of Biology
            University of Miami           Boston University Marine Program
            Coral Gables, FL              Brookline, MA

            Megan Tyrrell, PhD            Miles Silman, PhD
            Research Coordinator          Andrew Sabin Professor
            Waquoit Bay National
            Estuarine                       of Conservation Biology
              Research Reserve            Wake Forest University
            Waquoit, MA                   Winston Salem, NC

            Rob Moir, PhD                 Ben Steele, PhD
            Executive Director            Professor Emeritus
            Ocean River Institute         Colby-Sawyer College
            Cambridge, MA                 New London, NH

            Suchi Gopal                   Carol R. Foss, PhD
            PhD Professor                 Senior Advisor for Science and
                                          Policy
            Boston University             New Hampshire Audubon
            Boston, MA                    Concord, NH

            Paul R. Spitzer, PhD          William Burgess Leavenworth, PhD
            Independent Scientist         Retired Environmental Historian
            Trappe, MD                    Searsmont, ME

            James Salierno, PhD           Lawrence Niles, PhD
            Professor of Biology          Partner/ Wildlife Biologist
            Fairleigh Dickinson
            University                    Wildlife Restoration Partnerships
            Madison, NJ                   Greenwich, NJ

            Don Lyons, PhD                Konstantine Rountos, PhD
            Director of Conservation
            Science                       Associate Professor of Biology
            National Audubon Society      St. Joseph's College New York
            Bremen, ME                    Patchogue, NY

            Jeremy Jackson, PhD           Judith S. Weis, PhD
            Emeritus Professor of
            Oceanography                  Professor Emerita
            Scripps Institution of
            Oceanography                  Rutgers University
            Brooksville, ME               New York, NY

            Phoebe Zarnetske, PhD         Paul L. Sieswerda
            Associate Professor           Associate President
            Michigan State University     Gotham Whale
            East Lansing, MI              Staten Island, NY

            William Resetarits, PhD       Jim Welch, PhD
            Professor                     Professor of Biology
            University of Mississippi     Wittenberg University
            University, MS                Springfield, OH
            Charles Scott Baker, PhD      Jan Hodder, PhD
            Professor                     Senior Lecturer Emeritus
            Oregon State University       University of Oregon
            Newport, OR                   Charleston, OR

            Gary Grossman, PhD            Jean Boal, PhD Ecology
            Professor                     Professor Emerita
            University of Georgia         Millersville University
            Athens, GA                    Millersville, PA

            John Cigliano, PhD            Eric Hallerman, PhD
            Professor of Biology          Professor
            Cedar Crest College           Virginia Polytechnic Institute
            Allentown, PA                 Blacksburg, VA

            Natasha Gownaris, PhD         Romuald Lipcius, PhD
            Assistant Professor           Professor
            Gettysburg College            Virginia Institute of Marine
                                          Science
            Gettysburg, PA                Gloucester Point, VA

            Gorka Sancho, PhD             Joseph Roman, PhD
            Professor                     Fellow
            College of Charleston         University of Vermont
            Charleston, SC                Richmond, VT

            Kirk Winemiller, PhD          Roelof M. Boumans, PhD
            University Distinguished
            Professor                     Doctor
            Texas A&M University          Accounting for Desirable Futures
            College Station, TX           Charlotte, VT

            Benjamin Elias Cuker, PhD     Dee Boersma, PhD
            Professor Emeritus            Wadsworth Endowed Chair
            Hampton University            University of Washington
            Hampton, VA                   Seattle, WA

            Donald J. Orth, PhD           Tessa Francis, PhD
            Thomas H. Jones Professor     Research Scientist
            Virginia Tech                 University of Washington
            Blacksburg, VA                Tacoma, WA

            Shannon Albeke, PhD
            Senior Research Scientist
            University of Wyoming
            Laramie, WY
    Citations:
    Alder, J., et al. 2008. Forage fish: from ecosystems to markets. Annual
    Review of Environment and Resources, 33: 153-166.

    Anstead, K., et al. (2021) The Path to an Ecosystem Approach for Forage
    Fish Management: a Case Study of Atlantic Menhaden. Frontiers in Marine
    Science. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2021.607657.

    Butler, C.M., Rudershausen, P.J., Buckel, J.A. 2010. Feeding ecology of
    Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) in North Carolina: diet, daily
    ration, and consumption of Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus).
    Fishery Bulletin USA, 108: 56-69.

    Chagaris, D., et al. (2020) Ecological Reference Points for Atlantic
    Menhaden Established Using an Ecosystem Model of Intermediate
    Complexity. Frontiers in Marine Science. https://doi.org/10.3389/
    fmars.2020.606417.

    Cury, P.M., and Shannon, L.J. 2004. Regime shifts in upwelling
    ecosystems: observed changes and possible mechanisms in the northern
    and southern Benguela. Progress in Oceanography 60(2): 223-243.

    Cury, P.M., et al. 2011. Global Seabird Respone to Forage Fish
    Depletion--One Third for the Birds. Science 334: 6063, 1703-1706.

    Drew, K., et al. (2021) Balancing Model Complexity, Data Requirements,
    and Management Objectives in Developing Ecological Reference Points for
    Atlantic Menhaden. Frontiers in Marine Science. https://doi.org/
    10.3389/fmars.2021.608059.

    Engelhard, G.H., et al. 2014. Forage fish, their fisheries, and their
    predators: who drives whom? ICES Journal of Marine Science, 71:1, 90-
    14.

    Essington, T.E., et al. 2015. Fishing amplifies forage fish population
    collapses. PNAS 112(21): 6648-6652.

    Howell, D., et al. (2021) Combining Ecosystem and Single-Species
    Modeling to Provide Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management Advice Within
    Current Management Systems. Frontiers in Marine Science. https://
    doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.607831.

    Pikitch, E.K. 2015. Stop-loss order for forage fish fisheries. PNAS 112
    (21): 6529-6530.

    Pikitch, E.K., et al. 2012. Little Fish, Big Impact: Managing a Crucial
    Link in Ocean Food Webs Lenfest Ocean Program, Washington, DC.

    Pikitch, E.K., et al. 2014. The global contribution of forage fish to
    marine fisheries and ecosystems. Fish and Fisheries, 15 (1): 43-64.

    Sanchirico, J.N., and Essington, T.E. 2021. Direct and ancillary
    benefits of ecosystem-based fisheries management in forage fish
    fisheries. Ecological Applications 31(7):e02421.10.1002/eap.2421.

    Siple, Margaret, et al. (2018). Forage fish fisheries management
    requires a tailored approach to balance trade-offs. Fish and Fisheries.
    20. 10.1111/faf.12326.

    Smith, A.D., et al. 2011. Impacts of fishing low-trophic level species
    on marine ecosystems Science, 333: 1147-1150.

    Tacon A.G.J., and Metian, M. 2009. Fishing for feed or fishing for
    food: increasing global competition for small pelagic forage fish.
    AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 38: 294-302.

    Worsoe Clausen, L., et al. (2018). Shifts in North Sea forage fish
    productivity and potential fisheries yield. Journal of Applied Ecology,
    55(3), 1092-1101.

                                     ______

                    Submissions for the Record by Rep. Young

                            Statement for the Record
                                 Seafreeze Ltd.
                                  Meghan Lapp
                               Fisheries Liaison
                               November 30, 2021

      Re: MSA Reauthorization, H.R. 4690, Committee on Natural Resources:
                   Subcommittee on Water, Oceans and Wildlife

        Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member Bentz, and Members of the
    Subcommittee:

        I would like to take the opportunity offer written testimony to the
    Subcommittee as Members consider H.R. 4690 and deliberate over Magnuson
    Stevens Act Reauthorization. As a member of our nation's coastal
    commercial fishing community, I would remind Members that the decisions
    made by this Subcommittee will directly impact the lives and futures of
    millions of Americans who make their living due to sustainably and
    responsibly managed U.S. ocean resources. My community will be on the
    front lines directly receiving management success or management failure
    as a result of the policies set by legislative action and subsequently
    implemented through the Regional Fisheries Management Councils. That
    importance cannot be understated.

        Climate Ready Fisheries: Title I of the bill, ``Climate Ready
    Fisheries'', and in particular Section 102, ``Promoting Climate
    Resilience in Fisheries Management'', has raised serious concerns from
    fisheries managers. All Regional Fishery Management Councils have
    submitted detailed comments about how they are already achieving the
    goals/intent of this section of the bill through existing management
    processes and scientific/management partnerships, while noting that the
    new requirements would create additional and unnecessary workloads
    which the Councils do not have the ability to fulfill.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ See all RFMC letters on H.R. 4690 here: http://
    www.fisherycouncils.org/msa-reauthorization.

        The November 4, 2021 Council Coordinating Committee (CCC) letter to
    Representatives Huffman and Case states: ``The CCC believes that some
    sections of H.R. 4690, as drafted, will increase the workload on the
    Councils and the agency, create demands for data and analyses that in
    many cases cannot be supported, could increase the risk of litigation
    on several important topics, appears to reduce the flexibility and the
    role of the Councils, and does not appear to authorize sufficient
    funding to meet its requirements.'' \2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ See CCC Letter to Congressman Huffman on HR4690 at https://
    static1.squarespace.com/static/56c65ea3f2b77e3a78d3441e/t/
    6184665bad15664b1e6f0a24/1636066908392/CCC+Letter+to+ Huffman-
    Case+HR4690+Nov2021.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This statement alone should create pause and concern for
    Subcommittee members, as well as a comprehensive and realistic
    assessment of the bill's requirements. I would strongly recommend that
    Subcommittee and Committee members read the CCC an RFMC letters in
    detail. The goal of any legislation should be management success, which
    the current legislation has largely achieved. Good intentions cannot be
    equated with good outcomes. While the intent of the legislation may be
    good, if the outcome in reality results in an inability for the
    Councils to successfully fulfill legal mandates, the management system
    will be plagued with unending legal challenges and result in failure to
    support the fishing communities of America through sustainable
    management.
        Several Councils and the CCC, for example, have noted the bill's
    requirements to project MSY under probable future conditions is not
    realistically possible. Similarly, they have noted that the bill's new
    definition of Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs) to include
    areas that ``may become important to the health of a managed species''
    \3\ and associated requirement that Councils predict these areas into
    the future for management is an impossible mandate. According to the
    CCC, ``These are just two of many examples of the bill placing
    unrealistic demands on the available scientific information.'' \4\ Such
    provisions would set up U.S. fishery management to fail, which should
    be neither the intended goal nor the accidental outcome of legislation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Emphasis added.
        \4\ See CCC Letter to Congressman Huffman on HR4690 at https://
    static1.squarespace.com/static/56c65ea3f2b77e3a78d3441e/t/
    6184665bad15664b1e6f0a24/1636066908392/CCC+Letter+to+ Huffman-
    Case+HR4690+Nov2021.pdf, p. 2.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        All stakeholders, regardless of sector, have an interest in
    management success. Creating a broken management system from the outset
    as a matter of federal governmental policy is not in the best interest
    of anyone. However, the real impacts of management failure would felt
    most by coastal fishing communities who will be the collateral damage
    if these provisions receive Congressional approval.

        Secretarial Power: A concerning and recurring theme of the bill
    seems to be the removal of management authority away from the Regional
    Fishery Management Councils and toward the Secretary. The CCC
    highlights this fact on page 3 of its letter: ``Several sections of
    H.R. 4690 could diminish the role of the RFMCs''. This is concerning
    because 1) the Secretary is a political appointee therefore subject to
    frequent political policy swings/lobbying efforts, 2) the Councils have
    expertise and knowledge that a political appointed Secretary is
    unlikely to possess, and 3) direct rule by one individual of the
    Executive branch is not the best way to govern.
        For example, Section 106 ``Emerging Fisheries'', removes the
    authority of Councils to request the addition of new fisheries via the
    90-day notice and removes the authority of the Council to submit
    changes to the list of fisheries; it essentially vests control of both
    of these issues in the Secretary. Section 102, ``Promoting Climate
    Resilience in Fisheries Management'', requires the Secretary to conduct
    climate vulnerability assessments of managed species, and then
    recommend management measures to the Councils consistent with the
    Secretary's determination(s), then requires the Councils to publish a
    prioritization plan within one year to implement management measures
    consistent with the Secretary's notification/recommendations; this
    section essentially allows frequent top-down management by the
    Secretary to direct the focus of the Regional Fishery Management
    Councils based on ``climate vulnerability assessments''.
        Section 506, ``Preparation and Review of Secretarial Plans''
    requires the Councils to submit an FMP for approval to the Secretary
    within 180 days of a partial approval or disapproval of a Fishery
    Management Plan (FMP) for a species requiring conservation and
    management. If the Council does not comply, the Secretary is required
    to issue the FMP directly. However, 180 days is not enough time for a
    Council to prepare an FMP in compliance with the National Environmental
    Policy Act (NEPA), existing MSA requirements, potential Endangered
    Species Act requirements, or even the Council public process.
    Therefore, the result of this section would be that all plans partially
    approved or disapproved by the Secretary would be then directly written
    and issued by the Secretary, rather than the Councils. The CCC
    comments, ``Section 504 contains similar language if the Secretary
    determines that a rebuilding plan is not making adequate progress . . .
    This would affect the Councils by reducing the regional role in
    fisheries management that is one of the foundations of the MSA.''
    Another clear example of this same problem is the bill's requirement in
    Section 508 to add river herring and shad to the list of managed stocks
    in the Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Mackerel Squid
    Butterfish FMP and New England Fishery Management Council's Atlantic
    Herring FMP within 180 days of the passage of the bill. The Mid
    Atlantic Council has already commented that 180 days would result in
    the above scenario and is not enough time to satisfy NEPA.
        While the Council process may not be perfect, it is better than the
    alternative. Directly creating legislative provisions where authority
    will be taken away from the public Council process and transformed into
    FMP management by the Secretary, a single politically appointed
    individual, via a non-public process is not good policy. It is not
    transparent, and it is not likely to experience the scientific or
    management scrutiny that would result as a result of the Council
    process.

        Council Input on Executive Orders: Section 305, ``Council
    Accountability and Membership'', contains language that prohibits
    Council members/Advisory Panel members/Council employees/Council
    contractors from using federal funds to attempt to influence executive
    orders or presidential decrees and would create civil penalties
    including expulsion from the Council or loss of Council employment for
    doing so.
        Councils are already prohibited from lobbying activities; they can
    only provide input on an issue when invited to do so by Congress, NOAA,
    other agencies, etc. However, this language appears to remove the
    ability of a Regional Fishery Management Council to provide input--
    whether or not that input is requested--on any Executive Order or
    Presidential decree regardless of the situation. This is particularly
    disturbing as the current Administration has announced the America the
    Beautiful initiative to conserve 30% of the nation's water by 2030.\5\
    To prohibit, under penalty of law, the Regional Fishery Management
    Councils as the managers of our nations marine resources from providing
    input in this process would be catastrophic. It is also counter-
    intuitive; prohibiting the inclusion of those with the most expertise
    in this area from participating in the process would certainly not be
    productive public policy.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ See https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/biden-harris-
    administration-outlines-america-beautiful-initiative.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The New England Fishery Management Council raises these concerns
    and also the provision's potential to encourage frivolous litigation:
    ``This section incorporates current restrictions on lobbying that apply
    to the Councils. However, it extends the prohibition to attempting to
    influence certain Presidential actions. This latter addition may
    inhibit the ability of the Council to provide its perspective on the
    arguments for or against the Presidential action. In addition, the
    enforcement mechanism proposed requires the Secretary to investigate
    any complaint or a potential violation received from any entity. This
    has the potential to encourage frivolous complaints that will burden
    the agency.'' \6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ See https://static1.squarespace.com/static/
    56c65ea3f2b77e3a78d3441e/t/615b0c3799fecf78c5fe 19fe/1633356856095/
    211001_NEFMC+to+Reps+Huffman+and+Case+HR+4690.pdf, p. 6.

        Forage Fish Provisions: Section 508, ``Forage Fish Provisions'',
    requires Councils to maintain ``sufficient abundance, diversity, and
    localized distribution of forage fish populations'' along with
    associated mandates; it also requires the Secretary within 180 days to
    add river herring and shad to the list of managed stocks in the MAFMC's
    Mackerel Squid Butterfish FMP and the NEFMC's Herring FMP.
        H.R. 4690 has an entire section--Section 105--dedicated to shifting
    stocks. Climate change and stock shifts are a foundational theme of the
    entire bill. Yet, Section 508 regarding ``forage fish'' management
    mandates that Councils somehow maintain ``localized distribution of
    forage fish populations''. Legislation cannot be created that
    simultaneously mandates certain management action because stocks are
    shifting and other management action to require localized abundance and
    localized distribution. It is self-contradictory. Additionally, it is
    realistically impossible. It is impossible for fishery management to
    pen fish into certain areas in the open ocean. This provision would
    create both management failure and an open door for litigation.
        Including river herring and shad as stocks in the fishery for the
    Mackerel, Squid, Butterfish and Herring FMPs would essentially close
    those targeted fisheries for species that are not only non-targeted but
    actively avoided and are in a depleted state only due to decades of
    habitat degradation in rivers due to dams and pollution. The result of
    adding them particularly to the Mid Atlantic Fishery Management
    Council's Mackerel, Squid, Butterfish FMP would be that two MSC-
    certified squid fisheries, leading in global sustainability, could be
    shut down due to requirements to manage to the lowest common
    denominator. My home state of Rhode Island, the smallest state in the
    union, is responsible for more MSC-certified longfin squid landings
    than all other East Coast states combined, with calamari heralded as
    our official state appetizer. To lose this fishery for factors related
    to river herring and shad outside of realistic fishery management
    control would be devastating.
        River herring and shad are depleted not due to fishing pressure but
    due to land-based habitat destruction. There is no way for Fishery
    Management Councils to manage road runoff in all the states on the
    Eastern seaboard, or remove all the dams, or revive water quality or
    habitat in areas that are now quite literally a metropolis. Over 3800
    dams still exist on rivers in the Chesapeake Bay watershed alone; and
    in watershed areas with 5-10% impervious cover, 50-100% mortality of
    river herring eggs and larvae occur.\7\ Addressing these issues is
    outside the realm of Regional Fishery Management Councils.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ See http://maps.tnc.org/EROF_ChesapeakeFPP/ and http://
    www.merrimack.org/web/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Water-Quality-Impacts-
    to-River-Herring-and-Other-Fishes.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Even so, the Mid Atlantic and New England Councils have implemented
    management measures focusing on avoidance of these species, and the
    Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission also has an established
    FMP. The Mid Atlantic Council has deliberated multiple times on
    potentially adding river herring and shad as stock in their Squid
    Mackerel Butterfish FMP, which it ultimately decided to abstain from as
    inappropriate. In its comment letter on this bill, the Council gives
    detail on why it chose not to do so and provides links to decision
    documents containing science, deliberations, etc., and other existing
    management for these stocks.
        Per the Mid Atlantic Council, ``As a general principle, we believe
    the Councils should retain the authority to determine species requiring
    conservation and management through FMPs. Any legislation that directs
    the Secretary to prepare or amend fishery management plans (e.g.,
    recent legislation to add shad and river herring as managed species)
    creates conflicts with current management under other existing
    authorities.'' \8\ I agree. Not because I support every Council
    action--far from it--but because there are much more detailed regional,
    scientific, management and other ongoing comprehensive issues that
    should go into such decisions than will ever be discussed in depth by
    this Subcommittee. This is why the existing Magnuson legislation relies
    on Council-based management to very high legislative standards.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ See https://static1.squarespace.com/static/
    56c65ea3f2b77e3a78d3441e/t/615628171bf7864459 884e00/1633036312180/
    MAFMC-HR4690_2021-09-30.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Creating additional blanket ``forage fish'' measures for all
    regions does not acknowledge both the differences between regions and
    the ongoing initiatives already undertaken by the Councils across the
    country. The Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Council has an established
    ``Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management'' policy and associated
    initiatives including consideration of predator needs that has actually
    been the leading focus of a joint initiative with the European Union's
    Pelagic Advisory Council.\9\ The Mid Atlantic Council has also
    proactively passed an Unmanaged Forage Omnibus Amendment,\10\ the New
    England Council has enacted an ABC control rule to specifically account
    for herring's role as forage,\11\ and similar actions specific to their
    regions have been taken by other Regional Fishery Management Councils.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ See https://www.mafmc.org/eafm.
        \10\ See https://www.mafmc.org/actions/unmanaged-forage.
        \11\ See https://www.nefmc.org/library/amendment-8-2.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        U. S. fisheries are already more extensively managed than U.S. oil
    and gas extraction and U.S. pharmaceutical and medicine manufacturing,
    according to a study conducted by George Mason University.\12\ Creating
    additional duplicative or conflicting requirements will not help
    management or stakeholders to succeed; the effect will be the exact
    opposite.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ See George Mason University Mercatus Center ``The McLaughlin-
    Sherouse List: The 10 Most-Regulated Industries of 2014'' at https://
    www.mercatus.org/publications/regulation/mclaughlin-sherouse-list-10-
    most-regulated-industries-2014.

        Essential Fish Habitat: Section 502, ``Essential Fish Habitat
    Consultations'' makes dramatic changes to fishery management
    requirements regarding Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). Not in the least
    is to change the current legal threshold requiring Councils to minimize
    adverse impacts to EFH ``to the extent practicable''. H.R. 4690 removes
    the qualifier ``to the extent practicable'' and inserts a new
    definition of ``adverse effect'', defined as ``any impact that reduces
    the quality or quantity of EFH''. The new law if adopted would
    therefore require Councils to essentially minimize all fishing
    activities, as ``any impact'' is not qualified by any measure or
    counterbalanced by context--i.e., if the impacts are minimal,
    temporary, do not create harm to the stock, etc. By removing ``to the
    extent practicable'' all discretion of the Councils is eradicated, and
    the Councils are mandated to essentially stop fishing activity in EFH
    areas, which are many and varied in nature.
        The New England Fishery Management Council has voiced serious
    concerns to both Council function and litigation of Council action that
    would arise from the adoption of such language: ``This section would
    modify the MSA required elements of FMPs to ``minimize adverse effects
    on essential fish habitat.'' This would remove the current phrase ``to
    the extent practicable.'' This is a significant change that would
    change the way measures to minimize adverse effects are evaluated. In
    the extreme, the only way to minimize adverse effects is to prohibit
    fishing, or at least prohibit certain gears. Removing the
    practicability language creates an opportunity to litigate any FMP that
    allows any adverse effects whatsoever to continue in order to comply
    with the goals of the MSA and its National Standards. Any plaintiff
    need only show that some additional measure would further reduce any
    effects, regardless of whether the measure is practicable or conflicts
    with one of the National Standards. Similar language would be added for
    HAPCs, and could have similar impacts'' \13\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ See https://static1.squarespace.com/static/
    56c65ea3f2b77e3a78d3441e/t/615b0c3799fecf78c5fe 19fe/1633356856095/
    211001_NEFMC+to+Reps+Huffman+and+Case+HR+4690.pdf, p. 7.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Council has voiced similar
    concerns. Additionally, the Council raises the point that removing ``to
    the extent practicable'' would place EFH provisions above all other
    Magnuson mandates, which are varied and have need of balance between
    them in order for conservation and management to function: ``The
    Council is concerned that this change could essentially require the
    elimination of any fishing that has, or could have, any impact on EFH .
    . . removal of the practicability clause could open the door to
    litigation (or re-litigation) on any fishery management action that
    allows for any degree of adverse impacts to habitat. The Council also
    notes that the new definition of ``Adverse Effect'' is quite broad and,
    in combination with the removal of the practicability clause, would
    significantly increase the Council's responsibility to restrict fishing
    activities that have any adverse effect (even temporary) on EFH. The
    Council believes that the EFH and HAPC provisions in the MSA are
    vitally important to protecting fish habitat. However, we are concerned
    that the proposed changes leave little flexibility to balance habitat
    protection with the other management objectives identified in the MSA,
    such as the requirements to achieve optimum yield, minimize adverse
    economic impacts, or consider efficiency in the utilization of fishery
    resources.'' \14\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ See https://static1.squarespace.com/static/
    56c65ea3f2b77e3a78d3441e/t/615628171bf7864459 884e00/1633036312180/
    MAFMC-HR4690_2021-09-30.pdf, p. 7.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        A balance of competing Magnuson requirements is necessary for
    effective management, and the explicit removal of ``to the extent
    practicable'' from the law not only makes this balance impossible but
    also sends a clear message that the intent of Congress is to prevent
    fishing in large areas of the ocean. From a stakeholder perspective,
    this is terrifying. Were members of the Subcommittee to go online to
    the Mid Atlantic Ocean Data Portal Map and click on the ``Essential
    Fish Habitats'' link footnoted below, they would find that every square
    mile of the Atlantic Ocean from the Canadian line to Cape Hatteras off
    North Carolina is designated as Essential Fish Habitat for one or more
    species.\15\ As every type of fishing has some kind of impact, however
    miniscule or temporary, the Councils would be mandated per the proposed
    language to minimize ``any'' impact to EFH without consideration for
    impacts to stakeholders. The result would most likely result in our
    bankruptcy.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ See MARCO Mid Atlantic Ocean Data Portal EFH map at: https://
    portal.midatlantic ocean.org/visualize/#x=-
    74.54&y=42.13&z=6.000000000000003&logo=true&controls=true&dls%5
    B%5D=true&dls%5B%5D=0.5&dls%5B%5D=162&basemap=ocean&themes%5Bids%5D%5B%5
    D= &themes%5Bids%5D%5B%5D=24&tab=data&legends=false&layers=true.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Also contained in Section 502 is a new definition for Habitat Areas
    of Particular Concern (HAPCs) and associated requirements to designate
    such areas and avoid adverse effects on such areas. Without balancing
    requirements with a practicability clause, the impacts of this language
    would presumably end with the same outcomes as the proposed EFH
    language. One additional requirement of the HAPC language, however, is
    to require Councils to predictively identify and manage HAPCs. The new
    definition would encompass areas that ``will be'' significantly
    stressed by human activities due to ``anticipated future environmental
    conditions'' or ``may become important to the health of the managed
    species''.
        Predictive management based on how well a Council can guess future
    conditions--when many don't have adequate scientific information to
    fulfill current management needs--is not good public policy. The CCC
    notes that ``This would require Councils to predict the future in a
    dynamic, highly variable system'' and would place ``unrealistic demands
    on the available scientific information.'' \16\ Fisheries management is
    already difficult enough due to the sheer reality that you are managing
    a resource that cannot be seen and that is continually moving.
    Requiring management based on a Council's best attempt to peer into the
    future will complicate an already difficult job and no doubt create
    management failures. The New England Fishery Management Council has
    stated that in practice these HAPC requirements would create ``a
    standard that will be difficult, if not impossible, to apply'' but also
    that the requirements ``will make it difficult for fisheries to adapt
    to climate change.'' \17\ I would hope that the Subcommittee would
    agree that measures making such adaptation difficult would not be in
    the best interests of the fishing communities of the United States.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ See https://static1.squarespace.com/static/
    56c65ea3f2b77e3a78d3441e/t/6184665bad15664b1e 6f0a24/1636066908392/
    CCC+Letter+to+Huffman-Case+HR4690+Nov2021.pdf, p. 2.
        \17\ See https://static1.squarespace.com/static/
    56c65ea3f2b77e3a78d3441e/t/615b0c3799fecf78c5fe 19fe/1633356856095/
    211001_NEFMC+to+Reps+Huffman+and+Case+HR+4690.pdf, p. 7.

        Bycatch Reduction: Section 503, ``Reducing Bycatch'' follows the
    lead of Section 502 and amends the MSA's existing National Standard 9
    regarding minimization of bycatch by removing ``to the extent
    practicable''. This could effectively outlaw most if not all commercial
    and recreational fisheries, and again removes the Council's ability to
    balance competing Magnuson mandates. The New England Fishery Management
    Council has highlighted both the fact that such a change would open the
    door to ``extensive litigation over bycatch measures'' and
    ``effectively elevat[e] National Standard 9 to take precedence over all
    National Standards''.\18\ The Mid Atlantic Council takes a similar
    stance and shares previous federal judicial determinations where the
    federal district Court found that individual MSA National Standards
    cannot be viewed in a vacuum but must be part of a balancing act within
    management.\19\ Removing flexibility is management is never going to
    result in good fisheries management, or perhaps in this case force
    ``management'' to mean no fisheries, commercial or recreational, at
    all.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \18\ See https://static1.squarespace.com/static/
    56c65ea3f2b77e3a78d3441e/t/615b0c3799fecf78c5fe 19fe/1633356856095/
    211001_NEFMC+to+Reps+Huffman+and+Case+HR+4690.pdf, p. 8.
        \19\ See https://static1.squarespace.com/static/
    56c65ea3f2b77e3a78d3441e/t/615628171bf7864459 884e00/1633036312180/
    MAFMC-HR4690_2021-09-30.pdf, p. 7-8.

        Northeast Regional Pilot Research Trawl Survey and Study: Section
    405 ``Northeast Regional Pilot Research Trawl Survey and Study'' would
    require the Secretary, relevant Councils and the Northeast Area
    Monitoring and Assessment Program (NEAMAP), to develop a fishing
    industry-based pilot trawl survey to study and enhance the existing
    federal vessel survey, and use the NEAMAP survey as a model. I fully
    support this provision. It would seriously enhance collaborative
    scientific research in the Northeast region, which has been lacking in
    this area. This provision has received bipartisan support and is
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    contained in both H.R. 4690 and the Congressman Young H.R. 59 bill.

        Atlantic Councils: Section 303, ``Atlantic Councils'' would create
    a new seat for the New England Fishery Management Council on the Mid
    Atlantic Fishery Management Council and vice versa; these individuals
    would be appointed by the Secretary. I support this concept--currently
    the two Councils have already appointed liaisons from their respective
    existing Council members to serve as liaisons between themselves.
    However, these individuals do not currently possess voting rights on
    the opposing Council. Granting these liaisons, or such appointees,
    voting rights seems to be the intent of Section 303, and I would
    support that intent.
        However, the Councils should appoint these individuals from their
    existing Council members, as currently practiced, and the liaisons
    simply granted voting rights. The Councils themselves know who has
    expertise where and in what fisheries, what issues are at hand for
    discussion, and are best suited to appoint their own liaisons. Giving
    this ability directly to the Secretary, who would not have this level
    of knowledge about expertise levels, is more likely to politicize the
    position(s). Also, there is no need to create entirely new seats. Both
    the Mid Atlantic and New England Councils have expressed concerns about
    Council vs Secretarial knowledge related to this type of an appointment
    where expertise is an essential component of the liaison role.
        I would support granting voting rights to liaisons within the
    existing Council liaison structure/practice. In my opinion, this would
    be a beneficial development to regional fisheries management. However,
    I would not support adding new individuals appointed by the Secretary.

        Depleted Designation: Section 505, ``Depleted Fisheries and
    Preventing Overfishing'' adds a definition of ``depleted'' to mean a
    stock that is below its biomass level due to various factors including
    but not limited to fishing. On face value, this would seem to be a move
    in the right direction of acknowledging that low stock levels can be
    attributed to many factors, such as habitat loss, for example, as in
    the case of river herring and shad discussed above. However, the
    section also explains that use of the term ``depleted'' shall be deemed
    a reference to ``overfished'' as defined currently in the Act and as
    found/defined in previous case law. Therefore, in practice, there would
    be no difference between current law/management and future law/
    management should this language be adopted.
        H.R. 59, the ``Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing
    Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act'' bill as proposed by
    Congressman Young does a better job of addressing the ``depleted''
    term. That bill would replace the term ``overfished'' with the term
    ``depleted'' but also require that the Secretary differentiate between
    stocks that are depleted due to fishing and stocks that are depleted
    due to factors other than fishing. Additionally, it would require that
    the Secretary differentiate if stocks are the target of directed
    fishing or not. Again, in the example of river herring and shad
    discussed above, these stocks are not only not a target of directed
    fishing but are actively avoided and associated with management
    measures designed to reduce incidental bycatch. Therefore, the
    difference in both designation and resulting management as well as
    public perception would be better addressed by the H.R. 59 language.

        Conclusion: Overall, H.R. 4690 contains some very concerning
    language on many issues that would directly negatively impact
    commercial fishing communities of the United States. Many provisions
    will force management failure, as noted by the comments from the
    various Regional Fisheries Management Councils, by requiring more of
    science as well as the management structure than they can provide.
    Failed management means direct negative impacts on the lives and
    businesses of commercial fishing stakeholders, as we are bound to the
    results of science and management, whether successful or failed. The
    goal of legislation should be to manage for success, both in express
    intent and indirectly in practice.
        Also concerning is the continual mention by the Regional Fishery
    Management Councils of opening doors to extensive litigation that would
    arise from various provisions of the bill. The goal of legislation
    should never be to create extensive litigation that will hinder sound
    and stable administration of the law. I would encourage Subcommittee
    Members to carefully consider those sections in light of the comments
    you have received from these bodies.
        And finally, certain sections of the bill, including those on EFH,
    Bycatch and Forage all pose the terrifying potential to shut down
    healthy and productive fisheries altogether. The goal of the Magnuson
    Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act is not just to
    conserve; it is also to manage fisheries. These two goals have to be
    balanced to provide the maximum benefit to the nation. The nation will
    receive no benefit by shutting down healthy fisheries and essentially
    eradicating the need for fishery management by placing conservation as
    the sole goal, whether directly or indirectly, of legislation. That is
    in essence what these sections would accomplish in practice.
        The current version of MSA is primarily working from a stock
    sustainability standpoint. What is needed now is a complimentary focus
    on sustaining fishing communities and greater flexibility for managers,
    not additional or duplicative burdens. I would encourage Subcommittee
    members to explore and support legislative action that would work
    toward achieving these ends, such as is contained in many sections of
    H.R. 59.

        Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony.

                                     ______

                    Submissions for the Record by Rep. Bentz

                                                  November 29, 2021

    Hon. Jared Huffman, Chairman
    Hon. Cliff Bentz, Ranking Member
    Hon. Don Young, Acting Ranking Member
    Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife
    Committee on Natural Resources
    1324 Longworth House Office Building
    Washington, DC 20515

    COMMENTS RE: H.R. 4690 Sustaining America's Fisheries for the Future
            Act of 2021

        Dear Members of the Subcommittee on Water Oceans and Wildlife:

        I am Roy Morioka, former Council Member and Council Chair to the
    Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. Thank you for this
    opportunity to comment on H.R. 4690. There are eight regional councils
    created by the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
    (MSA) to address the uniqueness of fisheries in each of these regions.
    As an overall comment, the one-size fits all should NOT be mandated as
    has occurred with each reauthorization by amendments to the MSA.
    Title 1: Climate-Ready Fisheries

        Broadly, Fishery Councils are the least equipped or funded to
    anticipate and address climate change impacts when those agencies
    assigned to singularly focus on this are not in consensus. Councils
    like all other agencies would be in a ``response'' and or ``react''
    mode given that varying impacts that climate change can cause to their
    respective regions. For islands like Hawaii, coastal flooding by sea
    level rise or changes in ocean currents due to ocean warming could
    cause dramatic changes to fishery habitats but anticipating where and
    how these changes and to what extent remedial actions would be needed
    would be in response to changes on a case-by-case basis. Most
    importantly, to require changes to the fishery management plans to
    address impacts to fish stocks, marine ecosystems, etc. will be in
    response to ever changing conditions is unrealistic.
    Section 305(c): Lobbying

        Further clarification is needed in this section with regard to the
    definition of ``lobbying''. When a legislator approaches the council
    and seeks information or invites the council or its members to contact
    him/her, to share concerns and or issues on a proposed legislation
    affecting its region, this should NOT be considered lobbying by the
    council or its members while on a fisheries related meeting in
    Washington D.C. convened by NOAA/NMFS.
    Section 406: Recreational Data Consistency

        The collection of ``good'' recreational data has long been a
    passion of mine as a Council Member and as a fisherman who believes in
    science-based sustainable fisheries. I viewed this section as a
    ``punt'' as NOAA/NMFS has been criticized by the National Academy of
    Sciences for years and have yet to produce results. Fishermen and
    councils have attended several recreational summit meetings to address
    this effort but nothing of substance ever resulted. Councils and
    fishermen long pushed for regional autonomy in addressing recreational
    data collection. I was heartened by Section 202: Subsistence Fishing to
    define the term ``Subsistence Fishing'' as we in Hawaii have long
    advocated to replace the term ``Recreational Fishing'' with the term
    ``Non-Commercial Fishing'' as it provides a broader definition of non-
    commercial fishing to include subsistence, artisanal, and
    ``traditional'' fishing practices.

        Each region is unique, and while 49 States have fishing licenses,
    Hawaii and Puerto Rico do not. However, in Hawaii there are fisheries
    like the Deep 7 Bottomfish fishery that requires all vessels including
    ``recreational'' vessels targeting these Deep 7 species to be specially
    registered. This is a small fishery but steeped in tradition and
    customs and is currently managed under the MSA's Annual Catch Limit
    (ACL). It has been difficult to determine the catch and effort made by
    the ``recreational'' fishery for stock assessment purposes since there
    are no requirements to report their Deep 7 catch while the commercial
    sector is required to report their catch of Deep 7 species within 7
    days of the trip. This requires a unique approach toward gathering the
    best catch and effort data by the non-commercial sector including the
    recreational sector by surveying only those individuals who are allowed
    to participate in the Deep 7 fishery rather than sending mailers to all
    households in Hawaii. Therefore, it is recommended that the proposed
    strategic plan to improve timeliness, accuracy and precision afford and
    allow councils and regional science centers the latitude needed to
    address unique fisheries as noted above toward obtaining the BEST
    available science to improve the management of our nation's sustainable
    fisheries.
        Thank you again for this opportunity to provide comments on a few
    areas included in H.R. 4690.

                Sincerely,

                                                Roy N. Morioka,
                                                           Honolulu, HI

                                     ______

                        PACIFIC ISLANDS FISHERIES GROUP
                                                 Kailua, Hawaii

                                                  November 22, 2021

    Hon. Jared Huffman, Chairman
    Hon. Cliff Bentz, Ranking Member
    Hon. Don Young, Acting Ranking Member
    Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife
    Committee on Natural Resources
    1324 Longworth House Office Building
    Washington, DC 20515

        Dear Honorable Congressmen:

        Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony on the
    Subcommittee's consideration ofH.R. 4690, H.R. 59 and H.R. 5770 which
    proposes to amend the nation's premier marine fishery law, the
    Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA).
        The MSA remains the cornerstone of effective marine fisheries
    stewardship in the United States. The law's emphasis on implementing
    science-based annual catch limits, mandating accountability across
    sectors, and requiring prompt rebuilding have led to numerous successes
    and well managed fisheries across the nation.
        A great example of this process has been the successful management
    of Hawaii's bottomfish fishery. This important fishery is rooted in
    Hawaii's rich diverse ethnic community and supports the thriving
    tourist-based economy. Bottomfish in Hawaii commands the highest year-
    round average price per pound as compared to all other commercially
    landed species. It is highly prized for its cultural value in the
    islands and is the center piece during celebrations such as New Year's,
    wedding, birthdays and other special occasions. In 1986 the Western
    Pacific Fisheries Management Council (Council) established the
    Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fishery Management Plan in Hawaii.
    That prohibited certain destructive fishing techniques, including
    explosives, poisons, bottom trawls and bottom-set gillnets throughout
    the Pacific island region.
        The Council implemented the first limited entry permit system in
    the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) for finfish in 1988. These
    rules helped to protect the traditional hook and line fishery and the
    unique deepslope ecosystem and habitat surrounding the Hawaiian
    archipelago. In 1999, the Council amended the FMP to create a second
    NWHI limited entry program in the southern Mau Zone establishing 10
    non-transferable permits, annual landing requirements and an allocation
    of 20% of the permits for the Indigenous Hawaiian communities.
        The NWHI made up 75% of Hawaii's most pristine bottomfish grounds
    where a maximum of 17 limited entry participants (7 Hoomalu Zone and 10
    Mau Zone) harvested 50% of Hawaii's total annual bottomfish landings.
    Unfortunately, the NWHI bottomfish fishery came to an abrupt end in
    2010 through the Presidential Proclamation 8031 issued under the
    authority of the Antiquities Act (16 U.S.C. 431-433) on June 15, 2006
    designating the NWHI as a Marine National Monument. The closure of the
    NWHI fishery further increased reliance on imported foreign fish from.
        The MSA has brought much needed resources to collect information
    and data to better understand and sustain the main Hawaiian island
    bottomfish fishery for generations. The Pacific Islands Fisheries Group
    (PIFG) has been working with NOAA Pacific Islands Fisheries Science
    Center (PIFSC) through Independent Cooperative Fisheries Research
    project for the past 10 years in the Main Hawaiian Islands. PIFG's
    fishermen have conducted the annual bottomfish survey throughout the
    Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI) in close collaboration with PIFSC. In 2020,
    PIFG successfully completed one of only three NMFS fishery surveys
    conducted across the Nation due to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. This
    new information along with a better understanding of the decades of
    fishery data collected has led to improved stock assessments and a six
    fold increase of the MHI bottomfish fishery' s annual catch limit.
        As an island community, surrounded by the sea, our highest priority
    is the continued access to our well-managed sustainable fisheries and
    the collection of information to ensure our families will enjoy these
    same resources into the future. Thank you for this opportunity to
    submit written testimony on the proposed Bills to amend the MSA and
    your continued support of fisheries in Hawaii and throughout our
    Nation.

                Sincerely,

                                                 Neil Kanemoto,
                                                         PIFG President

                                     [all]