[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 
[email protected].
    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]