[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]