[Senate Hearing 112-34]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-34
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND
MANAGEMENT ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, FISHERIES, AND COAST GUARD
of the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 8, 2011
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
67-219 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas,
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts Ranking
BARBARA BOXER, California OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
BILL NELSON, Florida JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota ROY BLUNT, Missouri
TOM UDALL, New Mexico JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
MARK WARNER, Virginia PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania
MARK BEGICH, Alaska MARCO RUBIO, Florida
KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire
Ellen L. Doneski, Chief of Staff
James Reid, Deputy Chief of Staff
Bruce H. Andrews, General Counsel
Ann Begeman, Republican Staff Director
Brian M. Hendricks, Republican Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, FISHERIES, AND COAST GUARD
MARK BEGICH, Alaska, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine, Ranking
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
BILL NELSON, Florida ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota MARCO RUBIO, Florida
MARK WARNER, Virginia KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 8, 2011.................................... 1
Statement of Senator Begich...................................... 1
Statement of Senator Kerry....................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Statement of Senator Snowe....................................... 5
Statement of Senator Rubio....................................... 20
Statement of Senator Cantwell.................................... 22
Statement of Senator Boozman..................................... 26
Statement of Senator Nelson...................................... 28
Witnesses
Eric C. Schwaab, Assistant Administrator, National Marine
Fisheries Service, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce;
accompanied by Dr. Douglas DeMaster, Acting Director,
Scientific Programs and Chief Science Advisor, NOAA's National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)................................ 8
Prepared statement........................................... 10
William C. Hogarth, Ph.D., Director, Florida Institute of
Oceanography, University of South Florida...................... 32
Prepared statement........................................... 34
Stephanie Madsen, Executive Director, At-Sea Processors
Association.................................................... 37
Prepared statement........................................... 38
Vito Giacalone, Gloucester Fisherman and Policy Director,
Northeast Seafood Coalition.................................... 43
Prepared statement........................................... 45
William R. Bird, Attorney at Law, Private Angler and Member,
Coastal Conservation Association............................... 52
Prepared statement........................................... 54
Appendix
Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg, U.S. Senator from New Jersey, prepared
statement...................................................... 65
Hon. Kelly Ayotte, U.S. Senator from New Hampshire, prepared
statement...................................................... 65
Robert E. Dooley, President, United Catcher Boats, prepared
statement, dated April 22, 2010, before the House Subcommittee
on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife--House Committee on
Natural Resources; Oversight Hearing: A Community Perspective
on Catch Shares................................................ 66
Response to written questions submitted to Eric C. Schwaab by:
Hon. Bill Nelson............................................. 68
Hon. John F. Kerry........................................... 73
Hon. Amy Klobuchar........................................... 79
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 80
Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg..................................... 83
Hon. Olympia J. Snowe........................................ 86
Hon. Roger F. Wicker......................................... 88
Hon. Kelly Ayotte............................................ 90
Response to written questions submitted to Dr. Douglas DeMaster
by:
Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV.................................. 91
Hon. Bill Nelson............................................. 92
Hon. John F. Kerry........................................... 94
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 96
Hon. Roger F. Wicker......................................... 98
Response to written questions submitted to William Hogarth, Ph.D.
by:
Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV.................................. 99
Hon. Bill Nelson............................................. 99
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 100
Hon. Olympia J. Snowe........................................ 101
Response to written questions to Stephanie Madsen submitted by:
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 102
Hon. Olympia J. Snowe........................................ 104
Response to written questions submitted to Vito Giacalone by:
Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV.................................. 105
Hon. John F. Kerry........................................... 106
Hon. Olympia J. Snowe........................................ 107
Response to written questions submitted to William R. Bird by:
Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV.................................. 109
Hon. Bill Nelson............................................. 109
Hon. Olympia J. Snowe........................................ 109
Letter, dated March 8, 2011 to Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV and
Hon. Mark Begich from Hon. Charles E. Schumer and Hon. Kirsten
E. Gillibrand.................................................. 110
Gordon Robertson, Vice President, American Sportfishing
Association, prepared statement................................ 111
Letter, dated March 21, 2011 to Senator Mark Begich, from
Citizens for Gloucester Harbor: Peter Anastas, Writer; Ann
Banks, Board Member, Gloucester Maritime Heritage Center; Damon
Cummings, PhD, Naval Architect; Henry Ferrini, Documentary
Filmmaker; Jeanne Gallo, PhD, Social Ethics; Jay Gustaferro,
Lobsterman, Former Gloucester City Councilor; Marcia Hart, RN;
Ann Molloy, Neptune's Harvest Organic Fish Fertilizer Company;
Valerie Nelson, PhD, Economics, Former Gloucester City
Councilor; M. Sunny Robinson, RN; Angela Sanfilippo, Gloucester
Fishermen's Wives Association.................................. 114
Letter, dated March 8, 2011 to Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV, Hon.
Doc Hastings, Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Hon. Edward Markey
from E2--Environmental Entrepreneurs........................... 116
Letter, dated March 21, 2011 to Senator Mark Begich from Dennis
O'Hern, Executive Director, Fishing Rights Alliance, Inc....... 121
Letter, dated March 21, 2011 from Capt. Gary Jarvis, F/V Back
Down 2, Back Down 2 Inc........................................ 122
Bruce Stedman, Executive Director, Marine Fish Conservation
Network, prepared statement.................................... 124
Art C. Ivanoff, Chair, Southern Norton Sound Fish and Game
Advisory Committee, prepared statement......................... 128
Letter, dated March 22, 2011 to the Subcommittee on Oceans,
Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard from David Krebs,
President, Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders' Alliance..... 129
Letter, dated March 18, 2011 to Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries,
and Coast Guard Subcommittee from David Walker, Walker Fishing
Fleet, Inc..................................................... 130
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and
Coast Guard,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:35 a.m. in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark Begich,
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK BEGICH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Begich. This hearing is called to order.
Senator Snowe will be here in short order. She's coming
from a Finance Committee meeting.
Why don't you go ahead and have a seat while I get the
meeting started. Now, you can say it. Thank you very much.
Good morning to all of you. Welcome, to our witnesses and
other guests, to this first hearing of the Subcommittee on
Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard in the 112th
Congress.
This also marks my first meeting as a subcommittee
chairman, a responsibility I take especially seriously, because
of its jurisdiction over so many issues in our economy, from
fisheries, oceans, weather forecasting--multiple roles played
by the Coast Guard in Alaska.
Today we will hear from testimony from two distinguished
panels of witnesses regarding the implementation of key
provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, or MSA, that were added
by Congress when it was last reauthorized. We hope to learn
more about the impacts these changes and additions to the MSA
have on--having on the Nation's fisheries and individuals,
businesses, and communities who depend on them.
This landmark legislation was originally sponsored by
several great friends of Alaska--Senator Magnuson, our own
Senator Ted Stevens, and Senator Inouye--and co-sponsored by
several Republican and Democratic members of the Committee. It
represented a truly bipartisan effort to carefully manage one
of America's greatest assets, our fisheries.
As most of us in the hearing room today know, marine
fisheries conservation and management is a subject this Nation
has struggled with, not just for years, not just for decades,
but for centuries. These issues are never easy. One of the most
challenging has been, and likely will always be, how to
properly balance the need for responsible stewardship of our
fisheries for future generations with needs of individuals,
businesses, and communities who rely on them today.
In Alaska, we've had, generally, a positive experience
under MSA. Since taking control of these fisheries from foreign
fleets in 1976, Alaska now produces over half the Nation's fish
landings, and our major fisheries, like the salmon, pollock,
halibut, and cod, are certified as sustainable. In fact, I
contend, Alaska has the best managed fisheries in the world. We
operate on the strict catch limits, or hard TACs, as they have
been known. None of our groundfish stocks is considered
overfished, and most operate under some form of limited access
program.
Not that these actions are not--noncontroversial,
fishermen--and our fishermen so argue at length at council
meetings. They feel the pain when quotas are cut and downturns
in fisheries cycle. But, at the end of the day, the Alaska
fishing industry has learned to work within the rules of MSA
and has largely prospered.
I'm pleased to welcome a fellow Alaskan, Stephanie Madsen,
a former Chair of the North Pacific Fishery Council and now
Executive Director at the At Sea Processors Association, to
address the Alaskan perspective, on the second panel.
Given how contentious fisheries issues can often be, it is
important to remind everyone that the 2006 reauthorization
wasn't your typical fisheries bill. At the end of the day, the
Senate passed it, by unanimous consent.
We're hoping for more of those things, right, John?
And the House passed it under suspension of the rules.
The 2006 reauthorization made several changes to MSA in
order to improve its effectiveness and strengthen the fisheries
conservation and management, domestically and internationally.
Most notably, it amended the MSA to require, for the first
time, the use of annual catch limits and accountability
measures in all management plans in order to end the
overfishing that provided fishermen and the councils with new
tools to rationalize fisheries, where they wish to do so.
Equally important, it imposed a requirement that all management
plans for overfished stocks include a timeline for rebuilding
that is as short as possible, and generally not longer than 10
years.
The 2006 reauthorization also made important changes to the
MSA, aimed at improving the accuracy and reliability of data on
recreational fisheries activities in order to better manage so-
called ``mixed use'' fisheries, fisheries that support charter
and private recreational fishing, as well as commercial
fishing, including through the authorization of a new National
Saltwater Angler Registry.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today on how
these and other changes and updates to MSA are being
implemented, and what effects they are having, and what
recommendations in the future.
Before I do the opening statements from the individuals
that are here, when Senator Snowe----
Perfect timing. Perfect. Good.
What I would like to do is recognize the Ranking Member,
Senator Snowe. Give her a minute, here.
Senator Snowe. OK. If you wanted to go to Senator Kerry,
that'd be fine. Thank you.
Senator Begich. Do you want to do openings? Or I'm going to
directly----
Senator Kerry. I'd like to say a couple things. Can I?
Senator Begich. Yes.
Senator Kerry. Mr. Chairman----
Senator Begich. I'm breaking my own rule. I hope you know
that.
[Laughter.]
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. KERRY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Kerry. Well, I appreciate you doing that, because I
have to speak on the floor, on the budget, in a little while,
and I'm locked into that, so I won't be able to be here for the
whole thing. But, I really appreciate it.
First of all, let me welcome you to the chair, Mr.
Chairman. As a former chair of this subcommittee, I'm really
happy to see you take over. I actually was chair, with my
Ranking Member, Senator Stevens.
And, to be honest with you, Senator Stevens and I worked
for a couple of years leading up to the rewrite of the Magnuson
Act, and we sort of got ready to do it, and then the Senate
changed and he became the chairman. And now we have the
Magnuson-Stevens Act instead of the Magnuson-Kerry Act, which
has----
[Laughter.]
Senator Kerry.--always been little bit of a, you know,
question.
[Laughter.]
Senator Kerry. But, Ted became, just, an enormous friend.
And he was a wonderful advocate for the fisheries, for the
environment. And he was really a pleasure to work with. And we
did a lot of things together, including going to the United
Nations together to get the drift net ban put in place. And we
still have problems with that.
The reason I say all of this is just--I wanted to lay a
predicate for my comments. I think I've rewritten Magnuson-
Stevens two or three times in the course of being here, and we
are still struggling. I just had a meeting, this past week,
with Secretary Locke and with Jane Lubchenco out of NOAA,
because our fishing folks up in Massachusetts are really having
a very, very difficult time right now. And I hope, Mr.
Chairman, that we'll be able to get the--some progress here in
the process.
I can remember Ted Stevens sitting here, probably right
here in this chair, saying how much we needed better science
and how we--and I know Senator Snowe knows this--we need better
science for our fishing people to make the judgments that are
being made. And they just don't have confidence in them. And we
still need it. We still need better science.
And I'm concerned that right now, in the current Northeast
Groundfish Fishery situation, we don't accurately reflect the
situation that is facing the fishermen there. And I've heard
people say, ``Well, the revenues are rising for the total take
in your ports.'' Well, for about 10 percent of the fleet, that
may be true; and that's because of the allocations. And the
allocations are hurting the, sort of, smaller fishermen. And we
need to get better in this job. We need, from you, Mr. Schwaab,
the hard science/evidence of what the state of those fisheries
are, so we can make a better judgment about how this is
impacting our industry. And I think you know this.
And I'd just very quickly say to you, there's a lack of
transparency and a lack of sharing of the data. And it
continues, assuming the data exists--the detailed individual
boat and permit revenue--I emphasize, ``individual boat and
permit revenue,'' not just the whole kit and caboodle--the
quota transfer and leasing information that's critical to
understanding this impact.
So, my hope is--I also think that the ACLs ought to be
increased for the remainder of the fishing season, consistent
with the requests that we've made, which I believe--I'm
convinced, and I've been one of the advocates over 27 years
here, for maintaining the stocks and preserving the oceans and
making sure we have fishing in the future--but, I'm convinced
that we could do that in the short-term without hurting either
of the goals. And so, I hope we'll look at that very, very
closely.
But, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for taking this on. This is
a committee/subcommittee that has a lot of impact on people's
lives, and this issue is really critical to a whole lot of
parts of our country.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Kerry follows:]
Prepared Statement of John F. Kerry, U.S. Senator from Massachusetts
Chairman, Begich, thank you for this opportunity to discuss the
implementation of the Magnunson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act and the increasingly difficult situation facing
fishermen in Massachusetts.
During my tenure on the Senate Commerce Committee, I helped to
rewrite the Magnuson-Stevens Act and remain committed to the goal of
building sustainable fisheries. However, I am concerned about the
negative consequences that have resulted from the implementation
sector-based management under Amendment 16 coupled with low Allowable
Catch Limits (ACLs) under Framework 44 in Massachusetts.
In a recent trip to Massachusetts I met with our fishermen, local
business leaders, Mayors, state representatives and officials from
Governor Patrick's administration. Each of these disparate groups asked
me to change direction of fisheries management in Massachusetts.
I have reviewed information from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on the current state of the Northeast
Groundfish Fishery, but I am concerned that the information does not
accurately reflect the situation facing the majority of fishermen in
Massachusetts. Revenues for the entire fishery may be increasing under
sectors. However, net revenues have been drastically reduced for much
of the fleet as the costs of leasing quota have become the highest
percentage of fishing expenses than any expense realized in the past.
There has also been a distinct shift of revenues from the bottom 90
percent of the fleet to the top 10 percent of the fleet mainly due to
an allocation schematic that left many of the fishermen with woefully
small allocations making them unable to fish or afford to lease quota
that would enable them to fish. Many of the fishermen are struggling
just to keep a roof over their heads and feed their families.
Specifically, during my time in New Bedford it was clear that there
was a deep sense of disappointment that the Department of Commerce has
rejected the Governor's request for direct economic relief that was
supported by the Congressional delegation. This denial is unacceptable,
and I strongly urge NMFS, NOAA, and the Department of Commerce to
continue to work with the Massachusetts delegation and the Governor to
provide direct economic aid to the fishing community. What I find
particularly frustrating is the continued lack of transparency and
sharing of data (assuming it exists) that details individual (boat and
permit) revenue, quota transfer, and leasing information which is
critical to answer consolidation and excessive share questions and
fully understand how the industry is changing.
Second, they believe that ACLs should be increased for the
remainder of the fishing season consistent with the Governor's report.
As I argued prior to the start of the Fishing Year 2010, catch limits
need to be increased for the choke stocks in order to minimize the risk
of failure of the sector management while still preventing overfishing
from occurring. Low ACLs coupled with the new management plan is one of
the main reasons that there has been a backlash against catch shares in
Massachusetts. While the Governor's Report did not provide new
scientific data, because they do not possess new scientific data, it
presented a well-reasoned analysis of how catch limits can be increased
within both sustainable and legal bounds. This increase would greatly
aid many fishermen in the last 2 months of this fishing year.
Third, there is continued distrust of the Federal agencies as a
result of the past abuses highlighted in the Inspector General's
reports. More must be done to restore credibility. Specifically, a
window should be opened for additional fishermen who did not initially
submit their cases to the Inspector General for fear of retaliation to
bring their cases to the Special Master, and the penalties associated
with the cases currently being reviewed by the Special Master be stayed
until the review is complete.
Finally, there is a lack of confidence in the science that informs
ACLs and fisheries management. This is an issue fishermen, scientists,
and decisionmakers have wrestled with for years. We must continue work
to increase the frequency of stock assessments, more quickly
incorporate the findings of cooperative research, and reduce the amount
of scientific uncertainty in our management decisions.
Taken together, these actions will help reduce the tensions between
our fishermen and the Federal Government. It will help our fishermen
join in the process to develop a healthy, profitable and sustainable
fishery that we envisioned in the 2006 Magnuson-Stevens
reauthorization.
Senator Begich. Thank you, Senator Kerry.
Senator Snowe, for your opening----
STATEMENT OF HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MAINE
Senator Snowe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I welcome you
as a chairman of this subcommittee. I'm looking forward to
working with you, and I congratulate you for assuming the
leadership of this subcommittee.
I think both of our states share the legacy of the fishing
industry and the traditions that are the hallmark of the states
that we represent. Not to mention that both of our states
represent about 40 percent of our Nation's shoreline, and how
instrumental this industry is to our respective states, and
obviously to the country. Extending the legacy as well of
Senator Stevens, as Senator Kerry indicated, was the chair of
this subcommittee for many years. In fact, I was on the
Commerce Committee when I first came to the U.S. Senate and
served on this subcommittee. Under the leadership of Senator
Stevens, we learned how this industry is crucial to Alaska and
to Maine, as well as to country.
Mr. Chairman, this committee passed the reauthorization of
the Magnuson-Stevens Act more than 5 years ago and reinstated
the critical balance between marine environments and the
economic imperative of commercial fishing to coastal
communities in Maine and elsewhere.
I want to welcome Assistant Administrator Schwaab, who,
this past weekend, joined me again at Maine Fishermen's Forum
in Rockland, Maine. There we both heard directly from the men
and women who have unsurpassed knowledge about the current
status of the New England groundfishery.
I also want to welcome NOAA's Fisheries' Acting Chief
Scientist Dr. DeMaster, as well as the rest of the witnesses,
for their testimony today and their work to achieve crucial
stability in our industries.
This is a vital moment for our New England groundfishery,
as Senator Kerry indicated, as we assess preliminary data from
the 2010 fishing season and look forward to 2011. It is
essential that, as we review the results from the first year of
implementation of the sector-based systems, we remember that
our fishery was in a crisis at this time last year.
The Days-at-Seas Program had created a downward spiral for
our industry: from 65 days, to 35 days, and the prospect of
having as few as 14 days at sea for 2010. We were running out
of days. And, moreover, we are running out of fish.
The 2009 Status of U.S. Fisheries report listed 12 of the
20 stocks as overfished in New England. And in 2009, New
England fishermen caught fewer cod than in the previous years
of recordkeeping.
Today, compared to last year, revenue has increased. My
fishermen inform me that the catch of healthy stocks, including
haddock and redfish, are up by more than 10 percent. And,
critically, bycatch has fallen from historical levels of 15
percent to roughly 2 and a half percent.
The bottom line is that the sector-based system, while it
cannot immediately turn around our fishery, is providing
cautious optimism for our fishermen for the first time in
decades. As a result, it is imperative that we redouble our
efforts to improve the management of the sector-based system.
While I strongly believe in the intent of a science-based
approach to fisheries management, we must also ensure the
science is being efficiently applied and working for our
fishing community.
Currently, policies are burdened by antiquated stock
assessments as well as painstaking Federal regulations, such as
the process required by the National Environmental Policy Act.
For example, I understand that, while Canada is able to
implement changes to its fishery management in 4 months,
bureaucratic delays can lead to a full year of waiting for
changes in U.S. policy. We must recognize that cumbersome
policies cost thousands of jobs today. And, frankly, Federal
agencies must exhibit a sense of urgency to address the crisis
in our fisheries.
There are opportunities for action today to improve the
management of our fisheries. Specifically, the legislation that
I authored and was signed into law this January, corrected an
interpretation of a bilaterally managed fishery and enabled
representatives of the New England Fishery Management Council,
NOAA, and Canadian fishery managers to recommended an increase
in catch levels for Georges Bank yellowtail flounder by 44
percent for 2011, compared to the expected catch limit for this
coming fishing year. We must similarly act with respect to
streamlining Federal regulations through the NEPA process, and
accelerate collection of baseline data that helps establish the
critical total allowable catch limitations.
Though the intent of Magnuson-Stevens was to foster
cooperation rebuilding overfished stocks while retaining jobs,
I remain gravely concerned that fisheries management in New
England is in a state of antagonism, mistrust, and dysfunction.
The Department of Commerce Inspector General report, issued
approximately a year ago, and the CBS News investigative report
last month, revealed Federal enforcement officials as reckless
and vindictive rather than the trusted, honest, and efficient
public servants that the complex management of critical fishery
stocks requires. I will not stand as individuals at NOAA and
NMFS undermine, harass, and in some cases bankrupt, the very
fishermen they should partner with to rebuild our Nation's
fisheries.
I look forward to the testimony of Assistant Administrator
Schwaab of the National Marine Fisheries Service to ascertain
exactly how the service is implementing the corrective action
plan to address the Inspector General's finding.
Make no mistake, the sobering assessment from the report
must result in action, not further planning. And I, for one,
will work aggressively to remove any perverse incentives that
lead to the excessive fining of fishermen merely to increase
budgets. Logically, fines should be invested in restoring
species harmed through violations, not more funding for more
enforcement. Further, the detailed abuses of the Asset
Forfeiture Fund must lead to an immediate overhaul that will,
as I called for last summer, freeze the fund until the full
scope of mismanagement is revealed and a new, transparent
policy is established that mandates rigorous oversight.
The bottom line is, the success of Magnuson-Stevens and the
recovery of the ground fishery will only be accomplished if we
build a climate of trust between fishing communities and
regulators. Increasing the frequency of stock assessments and
of data collection through cooperative research will be
critical to reduce the uncertainty about stock status while
rebuilding the broken relationships between the regulators and
the regulated.
As you have said, Assistant Administrator Schwaab, counting
fish is a lot like counting trees, except that fish swim and
consume each other. It is challenging and requires complex
methodology, but these assessments have far-reaching economic
consequences. In Maine, hypothetical stock assessments for
herring directly led to the closure of the Stinson Cannery in
Prospect Harbor, exacting further job losses in an already
economically distressed community. And I know you know this,
Administrator Schwaab, because you were at the Fishermen's
Forum this past weekend, where they auctioned off some of the
very last cans that came out of Stinson Cannery. This was the
only remaining sardine cannery in the United States, and it was
ultimately closed because the reductions in the allowable catch
of herring that could be caught ultimately depleted the supply
that was available for this cannery. Again, not because it was
being overfished, but because we had to make management
decisions based on uncertain science.
These assessments have dramatic ramifications and can lead
to draconian decisions for coastal economies. Stock assessments
and resulting management measures may make the difference
between employment and unemployment, or between a tradition
being passed down to children and a way of life being lost. As
a result, we must have independent and updated analyses of the
results of fishing management decisions on the economies of our
coastal communities.
And that's why in my first year, on this committee, I
worked to make sure that we included National Standard 8 to
consider the impact on the economic well-being of our
communities that depend on fishing as a result of any of the
regulations and was supposed to provide equal consideration in
determining the catch levels that would be available for
fishing.
I have also cosponsored Senator Scott Brown's legislation,
which would require independent assessments of the
socioeconomic impact of fishing regulations on already
beleaguered fishing communities.
While rebuilding our stock is an economic opportunity with
potential to generate $133 billion in sales and employ 2
million Americans, the policies must work for all fishermen,
for all boat sizes, and for every port. I hope that together we
can work through these critical issues for our fisheries for
the months and years to come.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much, Senator Snowe.
What I'd like to do is--Senator Rubio, if you have some
quick comments--what I'm going to try to do in future hearings
is just Chairman, Ranking, and get right into it. So--but I--
just because I gave some flexibility for Senator Kerry, do you
have anything you want to add to it?
Senator Rubio. No, just go to questions.
Senator Begich. OK.
Let me, again, thank the witnesses that are here. You will
have to bear with me. As my first meeting, I told--I promised
the staff that I would not make any mistakes, so I'm counting
on you to help me make that happen.
[Laughter.]
Senator Begich. But, let me first say, thank you again for
being here. We'd like to limit your comments to 5 minutes.
Whatever you do not--are not able to put in, we will put into
the record. So, feel very comfortable about that.
First, we have two speakers. One is Mr. Eric Schwaab who is
Assistant Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service; and
then Dr. Douglas DeMaster, Acting Director of Scientific
Programs and Chief Science Advisor for the National Marine
Fisheries Service.
What we'd like to do is--Mr. Schwaab, we will ask you to go
ahead and go first, and then we'll go to Dr. DeMaster.
STATEMENT OF ERIC C. SCHWAAB, ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE,
NOAA, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; ACCOMPANIED BY
DR. DOUGLAS DeMASTER, ACTING DIRECTOR, SCIENTIFIC
PROGRAMS AND CHIEF SCIENCE ADVISOR, NOAA'S
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS)
Mr. Schwaab. Thank you, Chairman Begich, Ranking Member
Snowe, members of the Committee. It is a great pleasure to be
here.
My name is Eric Schwaab. I am the Assistant Administrator
for Fisheries within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. Also with me is Dr. Doug DeMaster, our Acting
Chief Scientist, who does not have a formal statement prepared,
but will be available to help me answer scientific questions.
Mr. Chairman, I'm honored to be your first witness. Thank
you.
Senator Begich. You say that right now. That's great.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Schwaab. Our Nation's fisheries have been vital to the
economies and identities of our coastal communities for
hundreds of years. According to recent estimates, U.S.
commercial and saltwater recreational fisheries support almost
2 million jobs and generate more than $160 billion in sales.
Americans are the world's third largest consumers of seafood,
and we spend billions on recreational fishing. The economic
activity generated by our fisheries creates local jobs, jobs
that will never be outsourced. So, it is critical that we do
everything we can to rebuild fisheries and ensure strong
economic opportunities for fishermen and their communities.
At NOAA, we are committed to preserving and growing good
sustainable domestic fishing jobs: commercial, recreational,
and aquaculture. The reauthorization of Magnuson in 2007 gave
NMFS an important and clear charge to end overfishing. I am
happy to say that we're making very good progress toward
meeting that mandate. In 2010, the fishery management councils
put in place annual catch limits and accountability measures
for all stocks experiencing overfishing. I am also happy to
report that we are on track to meet the deadline of having
annual cash limits in place for all managed stocks in 2011.
Despite this progress, we know that many of America's
fishermen and their families face extremely challenging
economic times. We also know that nearly $31 billion in sales
and as many as 500,000 jobs are lost because our fisheries are
not performing as well as they would if all stocks were
rebuilt. While we are turning a corner toward a brighter future
for fishermen and fishing communities, many fishermen are
struggling, in part as a result of years of decline in fishing
opportunity. While we rebuild future opportunity, we are
committed to helping fishermen during this difficult period of
transition so that diverse, thriving family fishing businesses
remain a part of working waterfronts around our coasts.
The 2007 reauthorization also included new requirements to
ensure that management decisions are based on the best
available science. I know there is a significant amount of
tension around this issue, and there are certainly areas where
science needs to be improved. That is why the President's
budget request for Fiscal Year 2012 includes an additional $15
million for stock assessments, an additional $3 million to
improve recreational fishery statistics.
One longstanding challenge is obtaining more timely and
more accurate data on recreational fisheries. Magnuson provided
new tools to fix the problems with recreational fishing data,
and we are implementing wholesale changes under the Marine
Recreational Information Program, or MRIP. One of the main
components of MRIP is a new National Registry of Anglers. Since
January 2010, anglers and for-hire fishing vessels that fish in
the EEZ or for migratory species in shore have been required to
register with NMFS or through an approved State registration
process.
These data are being put to work quickly to estimate
catches more accurately, more efficiently, and in a more timely
fashion.
We have some very good examples of how fisheries management
ends overfishing and leads to improved economic conditions for
fishermen and our coastal communities. Many can remember when
Atlantic swordfish was a stock in serious jeopardy. However,
NMFS and ICAT lowered catch quotas and closed areas to fishing,
to protect young fish. And the overfishing of Atlantic
swordfish ended in 2002, leading to what is now a fully rebuilt
fishery.
Similarly, Atlantic sea scallops were once severely
overfished. But, through careful regulation and collaboration
with industry, that stock was rebuilt in 2001. It is now the
top-valued fishery in the United States, producing over $385
million in dockside revenue in 2009.
The reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens also gave the
councils and fishermen new tools to increase flexibility and
innovation in our fisheries. One such tool is limited access
privilege programs, a type of catch-share program. Catch shares
have been utilized in domestic fisheries since the 1990s. While
not appropriate for all fisheries, where catch shares have been
successfully implemented, they provide for greater safety at
sea and have successfully led to increased landings and reduced
bycatch. The flexibility the catch shares provide has fostered
innovative techniques and business practices that can add
substantial value to fisheries. The development of catch shares
has raised concerns for--from some fishermen, ranging from
industry consolidation to loss of community access to higher
costs associated with monitoring. We have worked hard with the
councils, fishermen, and fishing communities to ensure proper
program design and to allow for adaptive implementation to help
address these potential challenges.
These are just a few of the many efforts taking place to
meet the requirements of the Act and to ensure productive and
efficient fisheries. We have turned a corner in our management
of fisheries in this country. And the sacrifices made, and
being made, by so many who rely on this industry are showing
great promise. As we end overfishing and rebuild stocks, we
will increase the economic output of our fisheries, improve the
economic conditions for our fishermen, and create better, more
stable and sustainable jobs and opportunities in our coastal
communities.
Thank you for--again, for inviting me here, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. DeMaster and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schwaab follows:]
Prepared Statement of Eric C. Schwaab, Assistant Administrator,
National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce;
accompanied by Dr. Douglas DeMaster, Acting Director, Scientific
Programs and Chief Science Advisor, NOAA's National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS)
Chairman Begich and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today on the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). My name is Eric
Schwaab and I am the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, within the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of
Commerce. Accompanying me is Dr. Douglas DeMaster, Acting Director of
Scientific Programs and Chief Science Advisor for NOAA's National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS.) NMFS is dedicated to the stewardship
of living marine resources through science-based conservation and
management, and the promotion of healthy ecosystems. As a steward,
NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service conserves, protects, and
manages living marine resources to ensure functioning marine ecosystems
and recreational and economic opportunities for the American public.
Marine fish and fisheries, such as salmon in the Pacific Northwest
and cod in New England have been vital to the prosperity and cultural
identity of coastal communities in the United States for hundreds of
years. As of our most recent estimate, in 2008, U.S. commercial and
saltwater recreational fisheries supported 1.9 million full- and part-
time jobs and generated $163 billion in sales impacts.\1\ Americans are
the third largest consumers of seafood in the world and are global
leaders in marine sport fishing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Marine Fisheries Service. 2010. Fisheries Economics of
the United States, 2008. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/
SPO-109, [177 pp].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recreational fishing is an important social activity for
individuals, families, and communities, and it is a critical economic
driver of and contributor to local and regional economies, as well as
the national economy. Take for example, the Gulf of Mexico and the
Southeast Atlantic regions, where our most recent statistics (2008)
show combined expenditures on saltwater fishing trips and durable
fishing equipment total $20 billion dollars annually; or the Mid-
Atlantic and Pacific regions where expenditures for these items reach
$4.1 billion and $2 billion respectively, on an annual basis. This
significant economic activity generates local jobs--that cannot be
outsourced--which support communities large and small in our Nation's
coastal states, territories, and commonwealths.
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Reauthorization Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) was groundbreaking in many
respects and gave NMFS a very clear charge. It mandated the use of
science-based annual catch limits and accountability measures to
prevent and end overfishing, provided for widespread market-based
fishery management through Limited Access Privilege Programs (or catch
shares), focused on collaborative research with the fishing industry
and bycatch reduction, addressed the need to improve science used to
inform fisheries management, and increased international authorities to
end illegal fishing and bycatch problems around the globe so that
foreign fishing fleets are held to the same standards as, and do not
economically disadvantage, U.S. fleets.
My testimony today will focus on NMFS's progress in implementing
the Magnuson-Stevens Act's key domestic provisions. Specifically, I
will address progress implementing provisions to end and prevent
overfishing and improvements to fish stock population assessments and
recreational fisheries data. Additionally, I will discuss our efforts
to support Limited Access Privilege Programs, a management approach
that has been used in the U.S. since 1990, but that received additional
guidance with the 2007 Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization. All of
these efforts contribute to the success of U.S. fisheries management
and to ensuring sustainable fisheries and strong economic opportunities
for fishermen and coastal communities.
Implementing the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act
The Magnuson-Stevens Act created broad goals for U.S. fisheries
management and a unique, highly participatory management structure
centered on the eight Regional Fishery Management Councils (Councils).
This structure ensures that input and decisions about how to manage
U.S. fisheries develops through a ``bottom up'' process that includes
fishermen, other fishery stakeholders, affected states, tribal
governments, and the Federal Government. The Councils are charged with
developing fishery management plans to ``achieve and maintain, on a
continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery.'' The Councils
can choose from a variety of options to manage fish stocks--quotas,
catch shares, area closures, gear restrictions, etc.--and also
determine how to allocate fish among user groups. These measures are
submitted to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce for approval and are
implemented by the National Marine Fisheries Service.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act guides fisheries management by 10 National
Standards for fishery conservation and management. These standards,
which have their roots in the original 1976 Act, provide a yardstick
against which all fishery management plans and measures developed by
the Councils are measured. National Standard 1 requires that
conservation and management measures prevent overfishing while
achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery
for the U.S. fishing industry. Optimum yield is the average amount of
fish from a fishery that, over the long-term, will provide the greatest
overall benefits to the Nation, particularly by providing seafood and
recreational opportunities and affording protection to marine
ecosystems.
Thus, the Councils in developing their plans must carefully balance
fishing jobs and conservation. Other National Standards mandate that
conservation and management measures be based upon the best scientific
information available, not discriminate between residents of different
States, take into account variations in fisheries and catches, minimize
bycatch, and promote the safety of human life at sea.
Working with the Councils, coastal states, and a wide range of
industry groups and other constituents, NMFS has made significant
progress in implementing key provisions of this legislation. For the
rest of this testimony, I want to focus on progress implementing some
of the key domestic provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the
results that we are already seeing with the modernization of fisheries
management.
Progress Implementing the Magnuson-Stevens Act
Implementing Annual Catch Limits
One of the most significant new management provisions of the 2007
Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization is the mandate to implement annual
catch limits, including measures to ensure accountability and to end
and prevent overfishing in federally-managed fisheries by a certain
deadline.
Overfishing has both ecological and economic impacts for the U.S.
Overfishing reduces fish stock abundance, threatens and alters the
coastal and marine ecosystem productivity and negatively impacts the
economy. Depleted fish stocks reduce the Nation's supply of U.S. wild-
caught seafood and recreational opportunities, resulting in economic
revenue and employment losses, particularly in coastal economies.
Overfishing also contributes to increased dependence on foreign seafood
imports, often from countries using fishing practices that are more
harmful to ocean ecosystems. Overfishing jeopardizes the health of fish
stocks and ecosystems, the economic viability of the fisheries, and the
economic and cultural heritage of fishing-dependent communities.
Moreover, there are long-term economic benefits to rebuilding our
stocks. We estimate that if all stocks were rebuilt and harvested at
maximum sustainable yield, it would generate an additional $31 billion
in sales impacts, support an additional 500,000 jobs, and increase ex-
vessel value by $2.2 billion.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Internal analysis using the National Marine Fisheries Service
Commercial Fishing & Seafood Industry Input/Output Model. For
additional information on this model, see ``The NMFS Commercial Fishing
& Seafood Industry Input/Output Model.'' available at https://
www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/documents/Commercial%20Fishing%20IO%20Model.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted in the 2007 reauthorization's Senate report, ``requiring
routine adherence to an annual catch limit or TAC [total allowable
catch] is a well-known management approach that has been utilized
effectively by several Councils, but failure to adopt this technique
more broadly has contributed to continued overfishing.'' Federal
fishery management plans now must establish mechanisms for annual catch
limits and accountability measures such that overfishing does not
occur, with exceptions for stocks with a life cycle less than one year
or stocks otherwise provided for under an international agreement in
which the United States is a participant. Annual Catch Limits were in
place by 2010 for stocks subject to overfishing and must be put in
place by 2011 for all others. If the limits are exceeded in a fishing
year, accountability measures should provide for adjusting harvest
levels within the season or setting responsive levels for the following
year. This is an important move away from a management system that
could only be corrected by going back through the Council process--
often taking years to accomplish, all while overfishing continues. Now,
when developing a fishery management plan or amendment, the Councils
must consider the actions that will result if a fishery does not meet
its performance objectives.
Toward this end, NMFS has been working closely with the Councils to
ensure compliance with these requirements and statutory deadlines. In
January 2009, NMFS published new guidance on ending overfishing and
implementing annual catch limits through revised National Standard 1
Guidelines. Most significantly, the National Standard 1 Guidelines
describe how scientific and management uncertainty should be taken into
account as Councils establish annual catch limits and accountability
measures. NMFS is also working to ensure that the Councils have the
best available science upon which to base annual catch limits and that
they are accompanied by effective and credible accountability measures
to prevent catch limits from being exceeded and to make necessary
adjustments, if these limits are exceeded.
The strict deadlines for implementing annual catch limits required,
in many cases, difficult decisions and short-term sacrifice on the part
of commercial and recreational fishermen. We recognize this sacrifice
and are working to provide the Councils with the best scientific and
economic information available upon which to base management decisions,
to ensure that management actions are as precise and focused as
possible. However, history has shown that effective management does end
overfishing. For example, overfishing of North Atlantic swordfish
occurred from 1998 to 2002, but has not occurred since, due to action
taken by NMFS and the International Commission for the Conservation of
Atlantic Tunas to lower catch quotas and close areas to protect
juveniles. This fishery is now rebuilt. In the Pacific Northwest,
lingcod was designated as overfished in 1999, with overfishing
occurring for several years. Quotas, trip limits, depth restrictions,
size limits, seasonal closures, and gear restrictions ended lingcod
overfishing in 2005, and the stock was rebuilt several years ahead of
schedule. Atlantic sea scallops were once severely overfished, but with
cooperation from scallop fishermen the stock was rebuilt in 2001 and is
now the top-valued fishery in the United States. Compared to the 1990-
1999 time period when scallops were overfished, New England scallop
fishermen are now sustainably harvesting an additional 17.5 million
metric tons per year (131 percent higher landings) and ex-vessel
revenues have increased by $93 million annually.
Rebuilding Overfished Stocks
In addition to measures to end and prevent overfishing, the
Magnuson-Stevens Act includes actions to rebuild any overfished
fishery. If a stock is determined to be overfished, a Council, in
coordination with NMFS, must immediately end overfishing on the stock,
and within 2 years of the determination, develop and implement
management measures to rebuild the stock to healthy levels. The
requirement that rebuilding measures immediately end overfishing was
added by the 2007 reauthorization. Rebuilding of overfished fisheries
is required in as short a time as possible taking into account the
status and biology of the stock, needs of fishing communities,
international commitments, and the stocks' interactions within the
marine ecosystem. In addition, the time period for rebuilding cannot
exceed 10 years except where biology, environmental conditions, or
international agreements dictate otherwise.
Measuring Progress in Eliminating Overfishing and Rebuilding Stocks
Between 2000 and 2010, there have been a total of 84 stocks on the
overfished list; in that same timeframe, 36 stocks have come off the
list. Similarly, there have been a total of 76 stocks subject to
overfishing; 36 stocks have come off that list. There are currently 48
stocks that are overfished and 40 stocks subject to overfishing.
For fisheries subject to the 2010 deadlines, the Councils have
taken final actions to end overfishing and put annual catch limits in
place. The Councils and NMFS are also on track to meet the 2011
deadline to have annual catch limits in place for all managed stocks.
Even though measures have been implemented to end overfishing, we will
still report stocks as subject to overfishing until a new stock
assessment confirms that the management measures were successful.
Preventing future overfishing will be maintained only through continued
strong science, monitoring of fisheries, and adaptive management that
can quickly respond to new information and problems that may arise.
Also, ending overfishing is only one part of sustainable fisheries. For
stocks that are overfished, we need to continue our efforts to rebuild
those stocks.
Our progress and performance is also tracked by the Fish Stock
Sustainability Index, an overall index of sustainability for 230 U.S.
fish stocks selected for their importance to commercial and
recreational fisheries. The Fish Stock Sustainability Index tracks both
improvements in our knowledge about fish stocks, as well as performance
in ending overfishing and rebuilding stocks. According to the 4th
Quarter Update of the Status of U.S. Fisheries for 2010, our index
score increased by 63 percent over the last 10 years (from 357.5 to 583
points out of 920 possible points). Twenty one fish stocks have been
rebuilt in this same time period. The Fish Stock Sustainability Index
will continue to increase as overfishing ends and stocks rebuild to the
levels that provide for maximum sustainable yield.
Limited Access Privilege Programs
The 2007 reauthorization also added a new Section 303A, which
established rules governing the development and use of Limited Access
Privilege Programs in fisheries where Councils have voluntarily adopted
this management approach. Limited Access Privilege Programs include
programs that allocate harvest privileges exclusively to individual
entities, and the recipient of the harvest privilege is directly
accountable to stop fishing when its exclusive share or allocation is
reached. These programs were first implemented in the 1990s in the surf
clam/ocean quahog, wreckfish, and halibut/sablefish fisheries.
Limited Access Privilege Programs provide a valuable fishery
management tool that can play a significant role in meeting our
national goal of rebuilding and sustaining our U.S. fishery resources.
While not appropriate for all fisheries, Limited Access Privilege
Programs can bring a wide range of social, economic, and biological
benefits to a fishery. For example, these approaches can eliminate the
undesirable ``race-to-fish'' or fishing derby conditions, thereby
improving safety for fishermen. They have also demonstrated increased
landings, reduced bycatch, improved stability and increased season
length in some fisheries. These conditions encourage product
innovation, encourage savings in fishing costs and result in higher
profits. For example, in the long-overfished Gulf of Mexico commercial
red snapper fishery, quotas were regularly exceeded and fishing derby
conditions were resulting in shorter and shorter seasons. In 2007, an
individual fishing quota program was implemented as well as measures to
end overfishing. Since then the commercial season length has been
extended from an average of 88 days before the individual fishing
quotas to year-round access after program implementation. In
combination with other favorable factors, the quotas have also been
increased. Additionally the share price, which reflects the long-run
expectations of economic returns, has more than doubled since program
implementation and ex-vessel prices for red snapper had increased by 14
percent (6 percent when adjusted for inflation).
In many cases, Limited Access Privilege Programs can also help
modernize a fishery. In particular, these programs tend to require more
detailed and timely monitoring of the landings of the individual entity
holding the harvest privilege. This both ensures transparency in the
program, and facilitates market-based transfers between eligible
entities, which drives economic efficiency. With this, the quality and
quantity of fishery data improve significantly through new catch
accounting, monitoring and compliance systems, as well as improved
tracking systems for social and economic outcomes. These requirements
improve our scientific estimates of overfishing levels and reduce
scientific uncertainty in setting annual catch limits. With more
precise scientific data, further increases in allowable biological
catches are often possible.
The most recent program, the Northwest trawl individual
transferable quotas program, is a significant achievement modernizing
the management of this major U.S. fishery that was developed over many
years with significant input from industry groups in the Council
process. This program, as all other fishery management programs in the
U.S., will continue to evolve and adapt to meet changing management
objectives identified by NMFS, the Councils, and industry.
Limited Access Privilege Programs are a type of catch share
program. Catch share is a more general term used to describe fishery
management programs that allocate a specific portion of the total
allowable catch to individuals or other eligible entities. In November
2010, NOAA released a catch share policy. The policy supports the
voluntary consideration of catch shares by Councils in fisheries they
deem appropriate by removing impediments to the consideration of catch
shares, and informing and educating stakeholders of the different
options and capabilities of catch share programs. The policy aims to
support well-designed catch share programs to help maintain or rebuild
fisheries, and sustain fishermen, communities, and vibrant working
waterfronts, including the cultural and resource access traditions that
have been part of this country since its founding. The policy
explicitly recognizes that catch shares may not be the best management
option for every fishery or every sector of a fishery and that NOAA
will not require catch share programs. The development of catch share
programs should be based on close collaboration with Federal, state,
and industry partners through the council process to evaluate catch
share options and design programs that meet the needs of their unique
regional fisheries.
Improvements to Science and Recreational Fisheries Data to End
Overfishing
Science-based decisionmaking is at the core of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act. Each year, NMFS conducts stock assessments around the country
which include rigorous peer review processes to ensure the best
available results. All eight Regional Fishery Management Councils now
have functional Science and Statistical Committees that provide
science-based acceptable biological catch recommendations for stocks in
a fishery that the Councils must follow when establishing management
measures. The Councils and their Science and Statistical Committees
also more consistently account for scientific uncertainty in the stock
assessments and management uncertainty in the fishery. Based on these
uncertainties and where data permits, they are developing control rules
that identify the risk of overfishing stocks or exceeding an annual
catch limit under different management scenarios. They are also making
recommendations about what data is needed to improve management for
various fish stocks.
NMFS continues to strive to improve our scientific knowledge of
marine fisheries. The President's FY 2012 budget includes an increase
of $15 million to improve Expanded Stock Assessments. These funds would
improve assessments for high priority stocks; update assessments for
stocks more frequently; and conduct fishery-independent surveys to
enable assessment of more stocks, including data poor stocks. High
priority stocks include commercially and recreationally valuable stocks
and associated fishery-limiting stocks with high scientific or
management uncertainty influencing annual catch limits, as well as
those that were previously experiencing overfishing to verify that
overfishing has ended. All regions of the Nation have some assessments
that will benefit from these increased funds.
A workshop with 43 participants from NMFS, the Councils' Scientific
and Statistical Committees, and academia was held February 15-17, 2011,
to explore the science needed for even better implementation of annual
catch limits. Within each of eight topics, the workshop explored
feasible improvements for the next 5 years. Increasing data collection,
including advanced technologies and cooperative research, and more
methods standardization were key findings to support a faster tempo of
assessment updates needed for annual catch limit determinations. NMFS
will release a report of these discussions and seek additional input on
these topics.
Cooperative research with the fishing industry is another useful
component to ensuring sustainable fisheries. For example, the
development of the Ruhle trawl for the New England groundfish fishery
resulted in gear that retains abundant haddock and eliminates
overfished cod and flounder. Pelagic longline fishermen in the Atlantic
worked with NMFS to demonstrate that new circle hook and bait
requirements could reduce sea turtle interactions in Atlantic swordfish
fisheries. When the $20 million Hawaii-based pelagic longline fishery
was closed in 2001 due to turtle interactions, these innovations from
the Atlantic allowed the Hawaii-based fishery to reopen.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act also required improvements to recreational
fisheries data collected by NMFS for use in management decisions. In
October 2008, NMFS established the Marine Recreational Information
Program, a new program to improve recreational fishery data collection
efforts, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirement and the
2006 recommendations of the National Research Council. The Marine
Recreational Information Program is a national system of coordinated
regional data collection programs designed to address specific needs
for improved recreational fishing information. The design of regional
programs is guided by research projects which provide recommendations
for modifying or developing new survey methods. The President's FY 2012
budget includes an increase of $3 million to improve the timeliness and
quality of catch monitoring in recreational fisheries. This includes
funding to implement monthly, rather than bimonthly, surveys of fishing
effort to support updates to catch estimates in the Southeast and
Northeast Regions and to initiate electronic trip reporting and
dockside validation of such trip reports in ``for-hire'' fisheries in
the Southeast and Northeast Regions.
In January 2011, NMFS submitted a report to Congress, entitled
``Counting on the Future of Recreational Fishing,'' as required by the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. That report provided specific documentation of
the actions NMFS has taken to implement the statutory requirements,
including the requirement to implement the recommendations of the
National Research Council review to the extent feasible. Overall, the
report concludes that NMFS is on track toward fully implementing new
requirements of the law through a deliberate, scientifically rigorous
process engaging a broad and diverse range of scientists, state and
Federal agency partners, Fishery Management Councils, Marine Fisheries
Commissions, government and non-government marine scientists, stock
assessors, recreational fishermen, ocean conservationists, business
people, coastal communities, and others.
One major component of the Marine Recreational Information Program
is the development of a national registry of anglers, also required by
the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which will significantly improve the quality
of recreational fishing data. Since January 2010, anglers and for-hire
fishing vessels that fish in the Exclusive Economic Zone or who fish
for anadromous species have been required to register with NMFS (or a
cooperating state agency) so we can better collect effort and
participation information. Using these lists of known anglers as the
basis of telephone and mail surveys will significantly improve the
efficiency of recreational data collection and the quality of
recreational fishing data.
The Marine Recreational Information Program is also developing and
implementing numerous other survey improvements to address the National
Research Council's recommendations. Improved survey methods will be
phased in beginning this winter with the implementation of a new,
unbiased estimation method that will re-estimate Atlantic and Gulf of
Mexico recreational catches based on data collected in 2011 and prior
years by the Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey.
Complementing the improved estimation method, an improved shoreside
survey design has been tested for collecting catch data needed for
estimating total catches of different fish species. This new design
will be implemented in 2012 to further improve the accuracy of
recreational catch statistics for the Atlantic and Gulf States. Other
survey improvements to address the National Research Council panel's
recommendation regarding sources of potential bias and improvements in
for-hire fishery data will also be completed and implemented over the
next 2 years.
Challenges
Despite considerable progress, challenges still remain, including
continuing to increase the quality and quantity of scientific data,
dealing with difficult transitions to a more biologically and
economically sustainable condition, and ensuring that resource
allocations are fair and equitable.
Annual catch limits and accountability measures require
improvements to our stock assessments and monitoring efforts. They call
for us to look ahead to the catch levels that will prevent overfishing.
Solid, science-based determination of these levels needs better
linkages to ever-shifting environmental and ecosystem conditions.
Moreover, U.S. fisheries are extraordinarily diverse in value,
participation, and science needs. Our science efforts strive to balance
these needs, by conducting the best possible assessments of our more
important stocks, and conducting at least baseline monitoring of all
fished stocks. We struggle with implementing annual catch limits, in
particular, for fisheries with stocks that are considered data-poor or
for which monitoring improvements are needed. Together with our
partners, to address these situations, we continue to explore
alternative approaches that will produce the best available information
to incorporate into management. In light of climate change and ocean
acidification, it is increasingly important that we start to understand
ecosystem factors and incorporate them into our stock assessments and
management decisions as well.
The development of Limited Access Privilege Programs has raised
concerns from fishermen with respect to a variety of issues ranging
from consolidation to loss of community access to monitoring costs
among others. As we move forward in our development and implementation
of these programs, we are firmly committed to working with the
Councils, fishermen, and the broader fishing community to help them
consider the multitude of options a properly designed program can offer
to address these potential challenges.
Rebuilding fish stocks provides an opportunity to consider
allocation of resources among different users without necessarily
reducing the allocation of one stakeholder group at the expense of
another. Allocation discussions are challenging and can harden the
lines and attitudes of some stakeholders because of the real or
perceived loss of fish. However, as fishery resources increase, we can
have a more fruitful discussion about allocation in light of
conservation, social, and economic objectives of fisheries management.
We need to recognize that many people have made sacrifices and
acknowledge that short-term hardship was suffered with the expectation
of future benefits, but we also need to look at the greatest net
benefit to the Nation. We are starting to examine this issue in more
depth to determine if any new guidance or policy would assist the
Councils when they consider National Standard 4--ensuring fair and
equitable allocations--in their deliberations during the development of
fishery management plans.
The combined effects of implementing the Magnuson-Stevens Act will
result in: (1) increases in allowable harvests in some fisheries over
time; (2) improved stability and predictability in most stocks; and (3)
more stable incomes and increased profitability in catch share
fisheries. Achieving these benefits will not happen quickly or easily.
These changes take time and require some significant short-term
sacrifices by fishermen who participate in these fisheries. Challenges
in the short-term include:
Ending and preventing overfishing by means of annual catch
limits may mean lower harvests and incomes in the short-term;
Rebuilding overfished stocks, especially those with long
rebuilding periods, involves a difficult transition while the
stocks recover;
Improved scientific information depends on adequate support
for stock assessments and other research programs, an uncertain
proposition in light of the prevailing budget austerity;
Achieving our goals with respect to marine recreational
registries and data will depend on the continued cooperation of
the coastal States and recreational community; and,
Finally, addressing all of these issues and keeping us on
track will require a continued adaptive and participatory
management process, which will enable us to deal effectively
with new information and ecosystem changes.
While in the short-term, it may require sacrifices by fishermen,
following through on the steps being taken now will provide significant
long-term economic benefits to fishermen, coastal communities, and the
Nation. As previously mentioned, if all stocks were rebuilt allowing
harvest at maximum sustainable yield, we estimate this would generate
an additional $31 billion in sales impacts, support an additional
500,000 jobs, and increase ex-vessel value by $2.2 billion.
NMFS is mindful that all of these activities and efforts are
occurring in the midst of one of the most difficult economies we have
seen in years. As some fishermen make sacrifices to comply with these
new requirements, the state of our national economy is undoubtedly
compounding the weight of their sacrifices.
Conclusion
It is important to keep in mind that sustainability of our Nation's
fisheries, the goal of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, is something that is
maintained. Our living marine resources and the marine environment is
dynamic--constantly changing--and we need to have adaptive, responsive
management to sustain successful fisheries management. We have
mechanisms in place through the public, transparent Fishery Management
Council process and through our science and management programs to
monitor the status of fish stocks regularly, annually when we can, and
respond quickly to changes in stock abundance, especially if any
overfishing is detected.
We have dedicated significant funding to achieve the 2007
reauthorization's objectives. A total of $153.4 million is included in
the President's FY 2012 budget request to support implementation of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. Funding increases have been received each year
since 2008 to support a phased-in approach to implementing the new
provisions of the Act. This funding supports a wide variety of
activities undertaken by NMFS and the Councils, including developing
and implementing annual catch limits, expanding stock assessments and
improving commercial and recreational fishery statistics, supporting
at-sea observers, peer review of scientific information, cooperative
research, Limited Access Privilege Programs, enforcement, bycatch
reduction, economics and social science research, deep sea coral
research and technology, and international efforts.
Funding uncertainties may seriously affect implementation of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. Congress provided NMFS with significant resources
in FY 2010 to achieve these mandates including funding for annual catch
limits, stock assessments, and recreational fisheries data collection.
Significant deviations from the President's FY 2012 budget request, let
alone reductions below the FY 2010 level, would constrain our ability
to achieve our long-term objectives.
We are now in a unique position to ensure that the Nation's marine
fisheries are both biologically and economically sustainable in the
future. Implementing the Magnuson-Stevens Act's provisions to end
overfishing and rebuild stocks through the partnership between NMFS,
the Regional Fishery Management Councils, the commercial and
recreational fishing industry, environmental groups, and the public is
the key component in ensuring this future. With continued support we
will make substantial progress toward science-based, effectively
managed, and economically viable commercial and recreational fisheries
that will benefit coastal communities and the Nation as a whole. As
noted, the potential economic and social benefits of rebuilt fisheries
we stand to gain are considerable. The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides
great flexibility in adapting rebuilding plans to the life history
differences among species and nuances of particular fisheries. The
requirement for timely rebuilding of stocks within the context of
gaining improved economic performance from rebuilt fisheries has
already resulted in a number of successful rebuilding programs--such as
for Atlantic sea scallop, lingcod and swordfish--and much improved
resource conditions for others, such as the groundfish complex on the
West Coast. Over the next few years, having eliminated overfishing for
the 40 stocks where such conditions now exist will add to this list of
successful rebuilding plans.
As fisheries rebuild, they will also provide social benefits. More
stable fisheries should ease some of the stress on industry
participants that we have seen in recent years. Limited Access
Privilege Programs can contribute to stabilizing the economics of
coastal communities. Ending the ``race-to-fish'' and reducing
overcapacity should produce continued improvements to the safety of
fishermen at sea. The projected improvements in economic performance of
U.S. fisheries should result in an increase in employment in the
domestic seafood industry and more stable income to participants.
Importantly, future generations of Americans will be able to enjoy
abundant and productive marine recreational fisheries. Overall, robust
commercial and recreational industries will generate billions of
dollars of economic activity cross the broader U.S. economy, rippling
outward from the marine sector to support sales and employment in
manufacturing, wholesale, and retail along the coast and providing an
economic engine for sustaining working waterfronts and economically
resilient coastal communities.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much. Thanks for your
testimony.
What I'd like to do is ask Senator Snowe if she wants to go
through her questions. And we'll do this in 5-minute
increments. And then the list will go as follows: Kerry, Rubio,
Cantwell, Nelson.
Senator Snowe.
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
Welcome again, Assistant Administrator Schwaab. I
appreciate that you attended the Fishermen's Forum in Maine
over the weekend.
I want to address the issue of the sector-based approach,
because it is critical to our industry. And what I heard
repeatedly at the Fisherman's Forum--and I'm sure you did, as
well--is the fact that fishermen want sector management to
continue, because it's an improvement compared to the
fluctuations and the extensive nature of the regulations that
were implemented this last decade in particular, including the
Days-at-Sea regime which I went through in my opening
statement. The fact is, that numbers coming in so far are
evidence that the sector-based approach is working. I wonder if
it would have been different with the Days-at-Sea management
regime. For example, as I mentioned earlier, we are seeing
increased revenues for haddock. Also, looking at these charts,
I see that the catch of underutilized stocks has increased
slightly, and that's an increase over what would have been
caught under Days-at-Sea and the revenues that would have been
generated under Days-at-Sea. Finally, under sectors the
groundfishery has been catching fewer fish from overfished
stock, compared to under Days-at-Sea.
One of the concerns that was expressed at the Fisherman's
Forum was that somehow the sector-based approach might not last
or stay in place. So, first and foremost, I think it's
important to get assurances that we can continue this program,
even if it needs some changes, such as increased limits on some
of the species within the groundfishery, which I'll talk about
in a moment.
Mr. Schwaab. Thank you, Senator Snowe.
It is true that there have been significant signs of
promise in sector-based management. Obviously, as we faced the
increasingly tight catch limits, particularly for a number of
stocks in the groundfish fishery, going forward into the
current fishing year, there were concerns that, under a days-
at-sea management system, continued declines in opportunity
would have put increased--an intensive pressure on many aspects
of the fishery.
We do know that there are concerns that need to be
addressed, going forward. But, at the same time, we also know
that there are some very positive signs associated with sector-
based management. Many fishermen who feel that it has, even
under tight catch limits, given them the flexibility that they
need to fish more efficiently, to time markets more
effectively, to avoid limiting stocks. One of, I think, the
under-acknowledged benefits of sector-based management so far,
has been the significant reduce in discard waste and what that
will have--the effect that that will have going forward with
rebuilding programs.
What--we do see sector-based fishermen fishing more
effectively around the more limiting stocks, thereby securing--
taking greater advantage of the healthier stocks. That is
something that we hoped that sector-based management would
allow. It is something that we do see happening. And obviously,
of--the goal of securing and catching a higher portion of those
healthier stocks is something that we all share. It's been a
problem in the fishery for a long time, and it's something that
we think sector management will help to address.
Senator Snowe. First of all, you think that we should stay
the course in sector-based management. Is that correct?
Mr. Schwaab. Yes. Obviously there are some adjustments that
might be called for. But, in general, staying the course is the
right plan of action.
Senator Snowe. Second, you also agree, from what you have
said, that there have been some positive preliminary results
under the sector-based approach, such as increased revenues.
Mr. Schwaab. Yes. So, we've seen increased dockside
revenues. Some of that may be attributable to sector-based
management. We certainly can't claim that to be the case
universally. But, there has also been, we think, as you
indicated in your question--in your initial question--
opportunity for fishermen to more effectively secure a higher
percentage of the healthier stocks, going forward, which will
have significant benefits for the industry in the short term
and long term.
Senator Snowe. How will that happen? That's the other part
of the question. There are at least 7 of the 19 stocks within
groundfishery that have been rebuilt and the central issue is
whether or not we could increase total allowable catch for
those stocks, because it really is important for the community.
Is there a possibility of getting a mixed-stock exception?
Mr. Schwaab. Well so, there are----
Senator Snowe. For those species?
Mr. Schwaab. I'm sorry.
Senator Snowe. Yes.
Mr. Schwaab. There are several components to this. First is
securing a higher percentage of the available stocks before--
particularly as it relates to healthier stocks--before the
fishery is constrained by needed actions to protect the more
limiting stocks. That is happening now. A second part of this
is that we will see, as this rebuilding process unfolds, catch
limits increase for a number of stocks that will provide
greater opportunity for fishermen in the future. Of course, the
third component of that is continuing to refine the science so
that, where we have data that suggests improvements that are
quicker than what were anticipated, we can take more timely
action.
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much.
Senator Rubio.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARCO RUBIO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Rubio. Thank you.
And thank you, gentlemen, for appearing here before us
today.
Before I ask my question, I just want to kind of lay out
how important this issue is for Florida, from an economic
standpoint. I'm sure you're both aware of it. And I know
Senator Nelson will be back in a minute; he'll talk about this,
as well.
But, from Florida, this is almost a $13-billion-a-year
industry, and more than half of that is in the recreational
fishing endeavor. In fact, we've got over about 131,000 jobs in
Florida that are built on the recreational fishing.
And I think there are two starting points for my question,
and--that I think we all agree on. The first is a sustainable
fishery, is that--is a goal we all share. And, in fact, I don't
think anyone has a bigger stake in that than the fishermen,
themselves. And the second is that, in order to have a good
management plan, we have to have good data, and that the
decisions that are being made have to be driven by the data.
And, of course, that--number three, that data has to be used
effectively.
What we can't afford to do is arbitrarily shut down
fishing, based on incomplete or insufficient data, for a lot of
different reasons.
First of all, the economic impact of it is absolutely
devastating. Last year, when I traveled the state, I was
campaigning at the time, and I ran into people who were being
wiped out by, not just some of these restrictions that had been
put in place, but they also got hit with an oil spill in parts
of our state, which was a double whammy. And it was just
devastating for many of these folks that they couldn't get
going again. And I'm not sure they're going to be able to get
going this year.
The second is that it undermines the legitimacy of these
laws. When it's not based on data that people believe in or
that they can see, it undermines the legitimacy of the law. It
undermines the agencies that are trying to implement the law.
And I would add that one of the things that it does is it
creates this rift, this fight between two parties that I think
have the same interest in mind, and that's protecting the
stock. But, it creates this fight between them that, again, is
driven by the fact that they know that these decisions aren't
being made on data that's accurate, because it's not being
shown to them.
So, obviously, I think data, as far as the Florida
perspective and probably at the national perspective, is
critical to all of this. And that's why I'm puzzled as I looked
at some of this. It appears the Administration has transferred
about $6 million from the Cooperative Research Program to the
National Catch Share Program; and then it transferred another
$11.4 million from the Fisheries Research and Management
Program to the Catch Share Program. And so, my question is, if
data--is data a priority--data collection, accuracy of the data
a priority? And, if it is, why isn't it being reflected, at
least in my mind, based on what I'm reading, on the way we're
funding some of these programs?
Mr. Schwaab. Thank you, Senator.
Data is a priority. There are several elements to that.
Obviously, biological data is a big part of that question.
Catch-and-effort data are a big part of the question in the
recreational industry, as well as in the commercial and the
for-hire sectors. So, those are a priority. Those have been
reflected, I think, substantially in a number of our actions.
In 2010, we had an increase in our stock assessment line
item of approximately $10 million. Because of the particular
concerns in the Southeast, we did dedicate approximately half
of that increase to the Southeastern part of the country to
deal with some of the particular data-poor challenges down
there. As I indicated in my opening statement, the President's
budget for Fiscal Year 2012 does propose another $15 million
increase in stock assessment data. At the same time, we do have
to take steps to improve some, for the long-term, of our
management approaches.
And we see investment in catch share line item--in the
catch share line item, as a way to, over the long-term, improve
the efficiency of our management efforts, vest more authority
in the hands of the fishermen to make day-to-day management
decisions; thereby, over the longer term, freeing up more
resources within the agency to focus on, not only these stock-
specific data challenges that we face now, but some of the
broader challenges that we face in years ahead, going forward.
Also, the last thing I would note is that we do, obviously,
derive significant amount of data from the increased observer
and monitoring coverage that is associated with catch-share-
based systems. And that data does then feed right back into the
management decisionmaking process.
Senator Rubio. But, if I may, we have some fisheries,
particularly in the recreational realm, that we have very poor
data on, and some that we've had no assessments done on
whatsoever. Has there been, ever, any consideration or thought
that maybe we shouldn't be putting limits on these fisheries
until we actually know what we're basing it on?
Mr. Schwaab. So, there are obviously a range of challenges
that we face there. Some of those that deal specifically with
data-poor circumstances are one that, frankly, from the science
perspective, we've been placing a great bit of attention on in
recent months and even years.
And, if it's OK with you Senator, I would defer to Doug
DeMaster to say a few words about some of those efforts.
Dr. DeMaster. I'm Doug DeMaster. I'm the Director of the
Alaska Fisheries Science Center, from Juneau, Alaska. I'm the
Acting Chief Scientist for National Marine Fisheries Service.
The question about data-poor stocks is an important one.
There has been considerable effort, at our National Stock
Assessment Workshops, to address this. We've worked
specifically with the SSCs in the south Atlantic and the Gulf
Coast. We have four, kind of, specific approaches that we want
to test, in terms of computer simulations, to see how well they
perform.
But, I should start out by saying that, when you're trying
to manage a fishery on catch or landing data alone, you're in a
risky position. All of the history we have, and our experience,
suggests that catch data alone--it's very difficult to manage
fisheries properly.
That being said, if you have assessment scientists who have
some sense of the status of the stock--Are they depleted or not
depleted? Are they productive or not productive? Do they have--
are they long-lived or not?--those are the features that go
in--or some of the assumptions that are made in using these
catch-only assessments for data-poor stock. So, we are
developing those.
We recognize, in the south Atlantic and in the Gulf, we
need to improve our throughput, in terms of stock assessments.
So, certainly considerable effort is going to be put into
trying to increase the number of assessments--in particular,
for these data-poor stocks.
Senator Begich. Senator Rubio, if I can interrupt, we're--
I'm going to allow a second round. I--people have gone a little
bit over. So, if I can have you hold there, if that's OK.
Senator Cantwell?
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And it--I know I wasn't here at the beginning of the
hearing, but I wanted to say a congratulations to you on your
new position, and----
Senator Begich. Thank you.
Senator Cantwell.--to thank Senator Snowe for the time we
worked together, for the last 4 years, as I was the Chairman of
this subcommittee.
But, Mr. Chairman, you know that there is no more pertinent
relationship between Alaska and Washington State than the
fishing industry, itself. And I know you know how many jobs are
at stake. But, I think Alaska produces something like $3.7
billion in sales and 48,000 jobs; Washington State is about
$3.7 billion and 72,000 jobs. So, I certainly look forward to
working with you, as the new Subcommittee Chairman, on these
important issues.
And, I guess it's apropos, because this morning's, you
know, conversation is about resource management strategies and
questions. And Washington and Alaska, I think, have proven that
managing these resources in a sustainable way produces the best
outcome, in the long run, for the industry, and the economic
impact.
I noticed this ad that was in Politico, ``Catch Shares
Work,'' and all the various sectors there of people who have
benefited from that. So, a very interesting hearing this
morning.
But, I do, Mr. Schwaab, have a very specific question for
you on groundfish, because we've, obviously, been trying to
rationalize that. And people are anxious, because this
continuing resolution could undercut the implementation of
that. So, I want to ask you specifically, on the record, if we
are going to have the resource--can you commit that the West
Coast groundfish catch-share funding will be a top priority for
your agency?
Mr. Schwaab. Senator Cantwell, yes, we can. We certainly
appreciate the intensive effort in developing that program, put
forth by the Council, put forth by the fishermen of the region.
We recognize how important it is to them, going forward. We
also recognize the importance of some of the commitments made
by the agency in providing transitional support in funding for
significant portions of the observer and monitoring costs.
Obviously, there's significant uncertainty in the long--in the
prospects for the current fiscal-year budget. We recognize how
important that funding is. It is a top priority for us. And we
will do everything within our power to see that we meet the
commitments that have been made there from the agency.
Senator Cantwell. So, the implementation funding will be
there.
Mr. Schwaab. We will--it is a top priority--we will do
everything within our power to make sure that happens.
Senator Cantwell. Well, I think you know how important this
industry is, and the policies that it represents, so----
And I also just want to bring out another point. You know--
and when we were talking about the catch-shares strategies--and
I know this is a larger discussion, but--you know, when it
comes to, you know, the Alaskan/Washington fishing industries,
have these decisions on catch shares been made by the Fisheries
Service or by the regional fishery organization councils--the
management councils?
Mr. Schwaab. These--thank you, Senator--these decisions are
made by the Fishery Management Councils. In many cases, such as
the one just cited, the Trawl IQ in the Northwest, they have
been long-term under development. It is a tool that the agency
thinks is an important tool. And we have encouraged the
councils to explore that tool. But, the decision to adopt the
tool, and the important design elements that are infused in the
process, once that decision to adopt is made, are purely--are
purely at the----
Senator Cantwell. Bottom up.
Mr. Schwaab. I'm sorry?
Senator Cantwell. Bottom up.
Mr. Schwaab. Purely bottoms up. Purely at the discretion of
the council.
Senator Cantwell. Well, I hope that we can, you know, show
the success that we've had in the north Pacific. And that the
Council's work is critical to making those decisions; and,
certainly, once those decisions are made, like on the
groundfish, that we get the resources for implementing them.
So, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again, I look forward to
working with you on this important committee, in the interests
of our region.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much, Senator Cantwell. And
I do want to also thank you for your work here on the
Committee. I've only been on it for 2 years, but had a chance
to sit in on many opportunities, when you've put them on the
table. And there is no question the relationship between Alaska
and Washington, when it comes to our industry, is long and has
a great future, also. So again, thank you for the opportunity
to----
Senator Cantwell. Two years, and you're already the
Chairman.
[Laughter.]
Senator Begich. I don't know if that's good or bad, but----
Senator Cantwell. It's very good----
Senator Begich.--it feels good.
Senator Cantwell.--Mr. Chairman.
Senator Begich. It feels good. Thank you.
Senator Rubio, you had some folks you want to just quickly
introduce. And then I'm going to----
Senator Rubio. I do.
Senator Begich.--go ahead with my questions.
Senator Rubio. And I apologize I'm--I have another meeting
to leave to.
But, I wanted to welcome two Floridians, Mr. Bill Bird and
Dr. William Hogarth, who are going to be part of the next
panel. I wanted them to know I read their testimony and their
statements. And I appreciate your input on this.
And I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman and the Committee,
for holding these hearings. These are of critical importance in
our state.
And thank you, gentlemen, both for being here today and
being a part of this.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much, Senator Rubio.
Just--I know usually the chair would ask questions first.
But, I'd prefer to just give as much time to other members. But
I'm--now I'm at the end of the line, so I'll ask a few
questions, if I can.
I want to follow up on something Senator Cantwell asked,
but in kind of a specific, but a broader sense. And I was--you
were very careful with your words. You said implementation
funding will--you want to make sure it's there. So, let me ask
it a different way. Did you ask for the money necessary for the
implementation?
Mr. Schwaab. Yes, sir, we did, both in the Fiscal Year 2011
budget request and again in Fiscal Year 2012.
Senator Begich. OK. And that is in the current budgets that
are in front of us, 2012, but also 2011, which we're muddling
through as it's--working through it.
Mr. Schwaab. Correct.
Senator Begich. OK. To a broader question, if I can. Do
you, for all the stock assessments that are necessary--and, of
course, in Alaska it's, as you know--and we're very proud of
our fisheries, and I think stock assessments and this science
and research is critical for us to do the work we're doing;
sometimes, as I like to say, the fish wars are not always fun,
but if we have sustainable stock at the end of the day, that's
good--do you believe, in both the 2011--but really let's focus
on the 2012 budget, if we could, because 2011--it's hard to say
how this story will unfold, but let's go to 2012 budget--do you
believe you have the resources--let me put it in two parts.
Did you request resources, that maybe OMB might have shaved
down, based on what you think is necessary, versus what they
think, in a broader sense of the budget? I hate to be so
specific, but this is where I like to get to.
Mr. Schwaab. Yes, sir, Chairman Begich. We believe, both as
it relates to the biological data necessary to support stock
assessments, that we are making significant strides forward.
Obviously, there are always additional challenges. There are a
number of stocks that are on our radar to be the subject of
additional attention, going forward. But, in the President's
budget, both in Fiscal Year 2011 and Fiscal Year 2012, there
were significant funds that were proposed to allow us to move
forward substantially with respect to----
Senator Begich. Were those the amounts that you requested?
Did OMB shave those back at all? That's really the question. I
hate to put you on the spot, but, you know, welcome to my new
opportunity, here.
Mr. Schwaab. So----
[Laughter.]
Senator Begich. And, by not answering you can--that answers
my question.
Mr. Schwaab. So, honestly, Mr. Chairman, you know, I'm one
year into this job, so, as I sit here, I'm not sure that I even
could--if I was in a position to speak to that issue, that I
could actually factually speak to that issue. I do know that
there are significant increases that are contained. We see them
as significant steps forward.
Senator Begich. OK. I'll leave you at that. I'll get you
off the hook, there.
Let me ask you, with regards to science for the Northeast
versus, you know, in, what I would--obviously, the Alaska
region--do you think you--is there equity in the rate--in the
amount of science being developed for the Northeast compared to
what we have in Alaska? In other words, is there an additional
effort that really needs to be done in the Northeast? But, give
me your assessment. Either one of you, I guess, could answer
the question.
Mr. Schwaab. So, Mr. Chairman, at your pleasure, I would
defer that----
Senator Begich. Surely.
Mr. Schwaab.--to Dr. DeMaster.
Senator Begich. Dr. DeMaster.
Dr. DeMaster. Yes----
Senator Begich. You have a unique role, because of your
permanent position and your acting position, so----
Dr. DeMaster. I do know the Alaska scene quite well. I'm--
--
Senator Begich. Oh, you do.
Dr. DeMaster.--happy to talk about Alaska fishery issues
quite a bit.
Senator Begich. Well, how does that compare to science
data-gathering that you get in Alaska, for our state, compared
to the Northeast? That's really the fundamental question.
Dr. DeMaster. I'd say they're certainly comparable. I think
the stock assessment scientists, in terms of their respect in
the greater community, is certainly equal. The number of stock
assessments in Alaska per year is a little greater. Partly
that's because the process is designed to address 40 stocks a
year. And it works. It works in a very public, transparent
process, with significant participation by all the major
players.
Senator Begich. You say that with a smile. I know what you
mean.
Dr. DeMaster. Well, I--and I don't know quite how to
describe the situation in the Northeast, it's less--
``friendly's'' the wrong word--but there's more tension
involved.
I think they're--the number of stocks assessed per year are
about 20 per year. In the Northeast, I think the assessments
are of high quality. I think the--they're trying to incorporate
the most current information. For example, one of the recent
groundfish assessments, they held off on the implementation,
because they knew there was a new assessment coming in. So, I
think they've really tried to be flexible.
Certainly the number of NOAA vessels right now, if you look
at--we have five vessels that are supporting surveys in the
Gulf of Alaska and the Atlantic; we have two vessels that are
supporting the west coast in Alaska, and one vessel in the
Pacific.
So, I think it's clear we have put a priority on trying to
improve stock assessments, the number of stock assessments in
the Atlantic. We've certainly moved six new positions--stock-
assessment positions to Southeast. That was a--that in--was, in
particular, in response to trying to increase throughput. So, I
think we have a good situation in Alaska, in terms of the
quality of the assessments and number. I think we're trying to
improve the number of assessments in Southeast. And I think
we're in pretty good shape in Northeast, in terms of the
quality.
Senator Begich. Very good. Let me end there.
Senator Boozman, you came in at the right time for the end
of this first round. So, you are up now.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS
Senator Boozman. Being a good member, like I say, I
appreciate the testimony and things, and enjoyed looking at it.
But, I'm quite content to move on.
Thank you.
Senator Begich. OK. We are actually going to go to one more
round, if, Senator Snowe, you have additional questions.
Senator Snowe. Just a couple of questions.
Dr. DeMaster, what would you suggest is an acceptable level
of certainty, at which you would be comfortable making these
regulatory decisions? That's really the crux of the issue for
the fishing community, which depends on the most up-to-date
data. Again, I'll cite the herring fishery as an example
because it really is historical. This is one of the last cans
of sardines made in America. For hundreds of years the United
States of America has had a sardine industry. The last one was
in Maine, in Prospect Harbor; and now we have none. It is
closed, because there was a 40-percent reduction in the catch
limits for herring. And herring wasn't even overfished. That's
devastating. And that resulted in 130 jobs lost, and an
American industry shattered. That's the problem.
What would you do? How would you suggest we could do better
so that we can restore the integrity of the data and ultimately
the confidence in the decisions that result from those data?
Dr. DeMaster. Thank you, Senator Snowe. That's a difficult
question. The agency works closely with all the councils. In
the Northeast, in particular, the ACL is basically--it requires
policy input, it requires how much risk you're willing to live
with, in terms of overfishing. That risk isn't supposed to
exceed 50 percent. The--in a perfect world, we might be around
a--you know, a 25-percent risk of overfishing; but, that has
costs, as you just mentioned. When you're up at a 50-percent--
that is, you could--you're just as likely to overfish as not
overfish. In my professional opinion, that's too close. That's
not risk-averse enough.
On the other hand, how far down you move from 50 percent
is, frankly, an issue the council and the regional managers
decide. Once that decision is made, then the scientists can run
the assessment models and the ABCs, and the actual TACs come
out of it.
So, it obviously has to be no greater than 50 percent. How
much less than 50 percent is a policy question that's addressed
by the council and the regional managers.
Senator Snowe. The socioeconomic effect of fishery
management decisions is a key issue, Administrator Schwaab,
that as you know I have constantly addressed this issue
recently on this committee, and, as I said, early throughout my
career in the Senate and on this committee. I championed
National Standard 8; to ensure that we do examine the economic
impact of these regulations on the community and the fishing
industry as a whole. That assessment truly doesn't take place
as an independent analysis.
What can we do to live up to the requirements of National
Standard 8 and to give equivalency to that standard? Clearly if
we lose our fishing communities, we lose them forever. What can
you do or say to assure us that you're going to give that level
of commitment, that equal level of commitment, to considering
the socioeconomic impact of these regulations on the community?
Mr. Schwaab. Thank you, Senator Snowe. The councils and the
agency do undertake significant economic analyses, in support
of all of these fishery management decisions. As you indicated,
that is largely under the auspices of National Standard 8.
There has been, obviously, some concern and significant
discussion, with respect to relative waiting.
So, National Standard 1, which is the requirement to
prevent overfishing and to achieve optimum yield over time,
does, in some cases, create tension between the requirement to
end overfishing, the requirement to put in place standards to
rebuild stocks to historic sustainable levels; and the
potential short-term impacts of those activities, as they might
be felt through individual fishermen and fishing communities.
That is a tension that the councils do devote time to, that the
councils obviously spend significant amount of time
deliberating amongst various management choices. But, they do
exist--the realm of choices available to them do exist within
the context of those requirements to end overfishing and to
rebuild stocks.
Senator Snowe. Is there flexibility in the regulations to
allow changes in management decisions for a mixed-stock fishery
to allow for different decisions and adjust it accordingly?
Mr. Schwaab. So, there are flexibility in the regulations
to choose strategies that are more sensitive----
Senator Snowe. That's right.
Mr. Schwaab.--to some of----
Senator Snowe. Yes.
Mr. Schwaab.--those economic----
Senator Snowe. Exactly.
Mr. Schwaab.--considerations.
Senator Snowe. That's----
Mr. Schwaab. But----
Senator Snowe. For example, I had to pass legislation in
order to secure the 44 percent increase in yellowtail flounder
catch for this coming season. Without that legislation, it
would not have occurred through the agency. We couldn't get it
done. That's the point. Is there not that kind of flexibility
to make adjustments?
Mr. Schwaab. So, first of all, Senator, we, as you know,
supported your efforts on the transboundary issue on Georges
Bank yellowtail flounder. We appreciate what you did there. And
we thought it important, in the case of, particularly, that
transboundary stock, to treat Georges Bank yellowtail flounder
management in the same way that Magnuson treats a number of
other shared stocks, internationally.
But, to the basic point of your question, the flexibility,
in our view and understanding of the law, ends at the point at
which we have a reasonable expectation of ending overfishing
and rebuilding stocks, in accordance with the time lines that
are prescribed in the Act. And that's, I think, the--sort of,
the crux of the challenge.
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much.
Senator Nelson.
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Nelson. Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this
hearing.
And fishing, of course, is enormously important to our
State--commercial, charter, recreational. It's a multi-multi-
billion-dollar business in all three. And I'm grateful that
you've included two Floridians--Mr. Bill Bird and Dr. Bill
Hogarth--that are on the second panel. And I look forward to
their testimony.
But, while the government witnesses are here, let me say to
you all that I'm distressed at the fact that we don't have
updated data in which to make our assessments. We've been told
that the closures in certain fisheries are due to the Magnuson-
Stevens reauthorization to end overfishing, which is a
desirable goal. But, when Congress passed the reauthorization
in 2006, it was on the assumption that the data was going to be
complete, accurate, and up-to-date. And I think that your
organization is interpreting the Act in a way that it was not
intended. And so, I would ask you all to consider updated data
collection.
And yet, we've had this in 2006; we had another bill,
signed by President Bush, in 2007; and now, almost 40 months
later, the program's still not operational. Then it took the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill for us to get focused on the Gulf.
And we went in there and we found that 35 percent of all the
stocks that are under fishery management have never had a stock
assessment. And then, in the south Atlantic, less than a third
of all the stocks under fishery management have had a stock
assessment.
Now, recently, the National Marine Fisheries Service and
the regional councils have instituted these fishery closures,
shutting down virtually all the access. And we've seen it with
red snapper, black sea bass, and gag grouper. And now we may be
facing restrictions on wahoo, cobia, and others.
And then we've seen how science can really help us, if we
have the data. For example, last year, when there was the
looming possibility that waters, from Brunswick, Georgia, in
the north, all the way south to Cape Canaveral, were going to
be closed to all bottom fishing to protect one fish: the red
snapper, it was based on outdated data. And after going through
a lot of flailing about, then the updated stock assessment
showed that the bottom closure wasn't necessary.
And so, I'm concerned that we're not following the intent
of Congress. And so, I want to know, and my first question
would be, How does the National Marine Fisheries Service
prioritize which stocks we're going to assess?
Mr. Schwaab. Thank you, Senator Nelson. You covered a lot
of ground there. Let me make a couple of quick points and then
perhaps ask Dr. DeMaster to say a word or two about the
prioritization process.
As it relates to the biological data needed to support good
and timely stock assessments, we have been--both in Fiscal Year
2010 and again in the President's proposed budget in Fiscal
Year 2012, also reflected in the 2011 proposed budget--
increased stock assessment research funding. In Fiscal Year
2010, we dedicated over half of a $10 million--or approximately
half of a $10 million increase to the Southeast, because of
particular concerns there.
At the same time, I think part of your question was
alluding to concerns with respect to implementation of the
Marine Recreational Information Program that was prescribed in
the 2007 reauthorization. We are moving to implement an
entirely revamped Marine Recreational Information Program. We
have dedicated additional resources to help make that a reality
and to move that forward in several ways. Obviously, a big
component of that was the establishment of--in 2010, of the
National Angler Registry, but there are components associated
with revising the way that dockside assessments are undertaken,
looking, retrospectively, at the way some of those data have
been modeled and characterized in the past and revamping,
essentially, the whole data-crunching process. We are also
looking, this year, at, for example, in the Fiscal Year 2012
budget, funds that would allow us to move to one-month waives,
for the purposes of collecting recreational data on the East
Coast and in the Gulf, which would be a significant step
forward to allow timely actions in response to changing catch-
and-effort patterns.
So, let me----
Senator Nelson. Well, wait just a minute.
Mr. Schwaab. Oh, I'm sorry.
Senator Nelson. The question was, How do you determine
which stocks to assess? That's the question.
Mr. Schwaab. Thank you. So, the--I was going to, if it is
acceptable to you, ask Dr. DeMaster, our Acting Chief
Scientist, to address that question.
Senator Nelson. OK.
Mr. Chairman, now the--we've used 3 minutes of my remaining
time, and I am now 2 minutes over the allocated time. I'm
trying to get to a simple question and a simple answer.
Senator Begich. We'll allow a little bit more time. Dr.
DeMaster, if you could try to answer that very succinctly.
Dr. DeMaster. Thank you.
There are three vessels that are assigned to the Southeast
from NOAA. Those vessels are used to do stock assessments. The
actual stock assessments are basically--are based on an
agreement between the SSC, the council, and the region--the
southeast region. The additional funds that could be used, for
example, to increase the throughput, in Southeast, has a
problem, in terms of throughput for stock assessments. That
comes from headquarters. Decision was made to increase the
number of stock assessment scientists by six over the next,
about, year and a half. So, that's both a headquarters decision
and a regional decision.
Senator Nelson. So, is your answer--when we go and make
assessments on the lack of data, is your answer that who I need
to see is Dr. Lubchenco?
Dr. DeMaster. I think----
Mr. Schwaab. I'm----
Dr. DeMaster.--Mr. Schwaab should answer that.
Mr. Schwaab. I'm happy to, Senator Nelson, address those
issues directly.
Senator Nelson. All right. Well, how are we going to start
getting updated data so we don't make these blanket
eliminations of folks going out and fishing--and yet,
protecting the very fish that need to be protected? How are we
going to do it if we don't have the scientific data?
Mr. Schwaab. So, Senator Nelson, there are obviously a
number of steps that we are taking to try to improve both the
catch-and-effort data as well as the number and pace of our
stock assessments, both in the region and nationally.
We, to go back to your original question, do prioritize,
based upon the relative importance of those stocks to fishermen
and other interests in respective regions. Obviously, there are
factors related to the pace at which those--the circumstances
surrounding those stocks might change, as well, so there are
biological factors that also come into play there. But, if
there are specific stocks, or if you would like to talk
specifically about, sort of, the ranking of stocks within the
Gulf or the south Atlantic, I'm happy to assist you with that
personally.
Senator Nelson. All right.
I'm way over time. May I just close out with this? Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
You all----
Senator Begich. It's only because it's my first meeting I'm
giving you flexibility.
[Laughter.]
Senator Begich. Be prepared.
Senator Nelson. Did you all get additional data on red
snapper, and that is why that has been changed? Just yes or no.
Mr. Schwaab. Yes.
Senator Nelson. OK.
Senator Begich. Perfect.
Senator Nelson. Given the fact----
[Laughter.]
Senator Nelson.--that that's the case, do you realize that
there are a lot of other people that are suffering trauma
because a lot of that other ban is based on the lack of data?
That we wouldn't have had to go through all of that, with
regard to red snapper, if we'd have had the updated data?
Mr. Schwaab. I agree, sir.
Senator Begich. OK, leave it at that.
Let me say, we're ending the last--this round, here, and
we're going to bring up the next panel--but, just a quick
question, to follow up on Senator Nelson's.
Do you have a list of protocols that you utilize to
determine, kind of, the prioritization of how you do
assessments? You listed some of them just verbally. But, do you
actually have a written protocol that says, ``Here are the
things we will determine to create a prioritization?'' That's
really, I think, the question Senator Nelson is trying to get
to. How do you get to the bottom, here?
Mr. Schwaab. Yes, sir. We do use a sustainability index
that identifies relative importance of stocks, what we know
about stocks, and their relative status that factors in. As it
relates to a specific written set of criteria articulating some
of the things that I just mentioned----
Senator Begich. Right.
Mr. Schwaab.--honestly, I'm not certain. A lot of those
decisions get made regionally. But, I'm happy to----
Senator Begich. Could you get that for the record?
Mr. Schwaab.--look into that and get back to you.
[The information referred to follows:]
NMFS rationale and protocols for conducting fish stock assessments
are generally described in the Marine Fish Stock Assessment Improvement
Plan published in 2001. Although the Stock Assessment Improvement Plan
did not include explicit criteria for prioritization of stocks to be
assessed, each NMFS' Region uses similar concepts in selecting stocks
to be assessed for the first time or as an update of a previous
assessment. In 2010, a prototype set of national criteria was developed
and used in setting priorities for additional stocks to be assessed
with the FY 2012 request. This prototype set includes:
1. Commercially and recreationally valuable stocks and
associated fishery-limiting stocks with high scientific or
management uncertainty influencing annual catch limits;
2. Intensity of fishing, including stocks that have an
overfishing status, stocks that have fishing rates approaching
levels that would lead to overfishing, or stocks with high or
increasing fishing pressure that require additional attention;
3. Stock abundance including stocks that are overfished or on
the brink of overfished, on a rebuilding plan, or have
uncertain abundance trends;
4. Assessment frequency considerations such as stocks that have
never been assessed, stocks that have an assessment that is
more than 5 years old, or stocks with management plans that
require more frequent updates than currently provided;
5. Stock importance in terms of commercial and recreational
value, role in ecosystem, and as bycatch; and
6. Synergistic factors, including level of data already
available and benefit to other stocks and future assessments.
Ultimately, the particular assessments that will be updated in any
given year are determined through regional processes consistent with
national priorities and in consultation with the Regional Fishery
Management Councils and other partners as the execution year
approaches.
Senator Begich. Great. I think that's the question.
And let me add some additional ones. I'll submit mine for
the record, because I want to get to the next panel.
Senator Begich. But, I really appreciate both of you.
Senator Boozman, did you have anything, last, before this
panel is dismissed?
Senator Boozman. No. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Begich. Thank you.
Again, thank you both. You were on the hot seat a little
bit, but I guarantee you a lot of the information you laid out
helped us a little bit. And we'll have some more, I'm sure, for
the record, we'll submit to you both.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Schwaab. Thank you.
Dr. DeMaster. Thank you.
Senator Begich. Let's get prepared for the next panel.
We have four presenters. And we'll give a second for a
quick changeover.
And, Mr. Schwaab, you can see Mr.--Senator Nelson's already
on the path. So, there we go.
[Laughter.]
[Pause.]
Senator Begich. Thank you all very much for being here.
We--again, we have a distinguished panel of presenters. And
what I'd like to do--I'm going to go in order as it was listed
here.
Dr. William Hogarth, I'm going to have you first. Ms.
Madsen, I'm going to have you second. Mr.--is it
``Gicaloney''--``Giacaloney''?
Mr. Giacalone. Yes.
Senator Begich. Is that close?
Mr. Giacalone. That's perfect.
Senator Begich. Oh, very good. My wife will be happy.
[Laughter.]
Senator Begich. She's half Italian. So, I did it right.
And, Mr. Bird, we'll then have you last, if that's OK.
First person up, again, is Dr. William Hogarth, Interim
Director of Florida Institute on Oceanography, University of
Southern--South Florida. And last time we saw each other was
when I was Mayor and you were doing the IWC in Anchorage. And
you did a great job, and we thank you for that.
You're up. If you can keep your conversation--or your
comments to 5 minutes or less. And then whatever you would like
to submit for the record, we will do that.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. HOGARTH, Ph.D., DIRECTOR,
FLORIDA INSTITUTE OF OCEANOGRAPHY,
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA
Dr. Hogarth. Thank you, Chairman Begich and members of the
Subcommittee. I thank you for the opportunity to testify on the
implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act.
My name is Bill Hogarth, and I am the current Director of
the Florida Institute of Oceanography, which is--there are 20
institutions in Florida within--that's made up primarily of the
11 public universities. From 2000 to 2007, I was the Assistant
Administrator for Fisheries and Director of the National Marine
Fisheries Service. Many of the changes to the Magnuson Act that
occurred during the reauthorization of 2007 occurred during my
tenure as Director of the National Marine Fisheries Service.
Today, I would like to offer my perspectives on the issues
that were important in the 2007 reauthorization, and the
successes and challenges in implementation of its new
requirements.
The 2007 reauthorization of the Magnuson Act included a
number of key changes aimed at finally ending overfishing,
increasing the accountability of the councils for using best
available science, decreasing the IUU--illegal, unreported and
unregulated--fishing, and for managing fisheries, consistent
with an ecosystem view.
Many changes occurred to the basic law, in which many
regions of the country, such as Alaska, were perceived as
working well. Senator Stevens and many of the current members
of the subcommittee were deeply involved in making sure the law
lived up to the--its expectations to rebuild depleted stocks
and manage, on a sustainable basis, for the fishers of the U.S.
For over 30 years, a number of the stocks were chronically
overfished. These include some New England groundfish stocks,
reef fishes in the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, Caribbean,
and highly migratory stocks in the Atlantic.
Despite a series of increasingly restrictive management
plans, the councils were never able to eliminate overfishing
for about 40 of these stocks. It's also during this time that
we did a lot of work to look at the economics of not rebuilding
the stocks, and it is very clear that we'd lose some $2 billion
a year--$2 billion a year--by not rebuilding these stocks.
In my tenure as director of NMFS, I was concerned about--
that the detailed regulations on where, when, what year, and
how much fish to catch were limiting the ability of the
fishermen to act as rational businesses. This is a huge
business. I've heard, all morning, you talk about how much it
brings in. It is a huge business, billions of dollars. But,
investments in fishing vessels, processing jobs need to be
based on a rational business planning environment. And many of
the Nation's fisheries' allocations to individuals or sectors
have allowed regulators to reduce the overall regulatory
burden, as long as catches do not exceed allocation.
The 2007 authorization has helped to better define catch-
share programs, and encouraged their use, within certain
constraints. I support these programs, where appropriate; and
they should be from bottom up, not top down; and they're not
the salvation for all circumstances.
The 2007 reauthorization also emphasized the importance of
improving the science, its purview and use by the councils. It
mandated that advice by council scientific committees could not
be exceeded, and called for more research on stock assessment.
It also emphasized the importance of Cooperative Research
Program, where NMFS scientists work in concert with fisheries
to gather important data to use as help managing stocks.
Based on actions of the Fisheries Management Council, it is
highly likely that, in 2010, we have functionally ended
overfishing in federally-mandated domestic fishing. There are
several qualifications to this statement. One, it does not
necessarily include state-managed fisheries. Two, it does not
include management by the Regional Fishery Management
Organizations. And three, it does not mean that all stocks are
rebuilt. This will take some time.
One of the most important requirements emphasized in the
reauthorization of the Magnuson is a need for high quality
science supporting the ACLs. We've heard this all morning, as I
listened, the need for science. We must invest if we want to
rebuild.
Finally, in my view, the Magnuson-Stevens Act does not need
to be reopened; it ought to effectively address the various
issues raised above.
Congress and the Administration need to recognize the
enormity of the task they gave the agency in 2007. Further,
additional resources for science and management activities are
needed in order to make this system more timely, responsive to
stock increases, and more credible in the eyes of the
fishermen. We're all on the right path and--with the Magnuson-
Stevens Act.
NMFS has within its control, in my opinion--it can use the
National Standard guidelines to refine implementation of the
Act to address issues such as mixed-species harvesting,
rebuilding targets for overfished stocks, and other issues, and
even look at landing what you catch.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Hogarth follows:]
Prepared Statement of William C. Hogarth, Ph.D., Director,
Florida Institute of Oceanography, University of South Florida
Senator Begich and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me to this hearing on how the implementation of certain
aspects of the Act is impacting fisheries and the individuals,
businesses and communities who depend upon them.
I am Bill Hogarth, Director of the Florida Institute of
Oceanography (FIO) which is an Administrative Infrastructure Support
Organization (AISO) created by the Florida Legislative and serves under
the Board of Governors. FIO consists of 20 members including 11 State
University System institutions, the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, Florida Wildlife Research Institute, Mote Marine Lab,
University of Miami, Eckerd College, Smithsonian Institution, Florida
Sea Grant, NOVA SE University and New College.
From 2000 to 2007, I was the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries
and Director of the National Marine Fisheries Service. Many of the
changes to the Magnuson Stevens Act that occurred in the
reauthorization of 2007 occurred during my tenure as Director of the
National Marine Fisheries. Today, I would like to offer my perspectives
on the issues that were important in the 2007 reauthorization, and
successes and challenges in implementation of the new requirements to
date.
In my tenure as Director of NMFS, I was concerned that detailed
regulations on where, when, what gear and how much fish to catch were
limiting the ability of fishermen to act as rational businesses.
Investments in fisheries vessels, processing and jobs need to be based
on a rational business planning environment. In many of the Nation's
fisheries, allocations to individuals or sectors have allowed
regulators to reduce the overall regulatory burden as long as catches
to not exceed allocations. The 2007 reauthorization helped to better
define catch share programs and encouraged their use, within certain
constraints. I continue to support these programs, where appropriate--
and they are not necessarily appropriate in all circumstances. In my
opinion, the continuing debate about New England groundfish management
stems from the fact that we put into place restrictive annual catch
limits intended to end overfishing at the same time incorporating a
catch share program with its allocations to the various sectors. This
is the first time that I recall that important conservation and
economic objectives were addressed for such an important fishery
simultaneously. Thus there is confusion regarding the purposes of the
specific ACLs and the catch share system.
The 2007 reauthorization also emphasized the importance of
improving the science, its peer review, and use by the councils. It
mandated that advice by Council's Scientific and Statistical Committees
could not be exceeded, and called for more research on stock
assessments. It also emphasized the importance of cooperative research
programs--where NMFS scientists work in concert with fishers to gather
important data used to help manage the stocks. During my tenure working
with Congress and the Administration, we were able to increase funding
for science including the Expand Stock Assessments budget line, and to
build several acoustically-quiet fishery survey vessels. Incidentally,
these new fishery survey vessels were crucial to the response to the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill response because of their diverse
capabilities and ability to monitor gas and oil seeping from the
vicinity of the well head.
The discussions on the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act
were very intense and centered to a large extent on the annual catch
limits to be set to stop overfishing, prevent overfishing of stocks,
and the necessity of the rebuilding timeframe. In evaluating the
impacts of not controlling overfishing and overfished stocks it was
calculated that we could realize a $2 billion increase in revenue if we
properly managed and rebuilt the stocks
The potential economic impact to the fishing families, businesses
and communities created debate on the on balance of conservation and
economics. Many options were considered with the final requirements
that the Councils have 1 year to develop the plan, with an end to
overfishing occurring as soon as possible not to exceed 2 years. It is
my understanding that an end to overfishing has now been achieved for
U.S. fish stocks that are federally-managed, but not for some state or
International stocks.
Each Council must set ACLS such that overfishing does not occur. As
uncertainty in stocks status is caused by many factors: Change in
climate and ecosystem condition, type and amount of data, and year to
year variation in assessments. This uncertainty can be accounted for by
the Councils as they specify probability which in many cases would be
at least 50 percent, if not higher. In fact, some U.S. fisheries lack
complete or comprehensive collection programs needed to support stocks
assessments. This along with some of the complexes such as reef fish
where ``weak stocks'' that exist must be protected, have presented
challenges which need to be addressed. In my opinion, these can be
addressed by the Agency reviewing its guidelines for implementing ACLs
to see if they can be redefined to help in easing some of the economic
impact of preventing overfishing in data poor or weak stocks. I believe
reopening Magnuson-Stevens at this point to consider this issue would
be counterproductive, the act is working, overfishing has or soon will
be ended and increased catches should be available. The Agency should
examine every alternative including the requirement to land all fish
caught and re-examination of the ACL guidelines as a first step.
As for catch-shares, individual fishing quotas, rights based,
market based quotas or whatever term you wish to call this option,
should remain a vital part of the tool box for addressing fishery
management issues. While I was with the Agency we had implemented
approximately 11 market-based programs. These programs not only
resulted in increased safety for some fisheries such as the Alaskan
crab fishery, but in almost all market based quotas, extended seasons
allowed the fisherman to make the decision when to fish, taking
advantage of weather, market, etc. There are many options for the
Councils and each fishery to consider. The most important part is they
must be built from bottom-up and not top-down. At a workshop I
commissioned at the Heinz Center in 2002, the main issues were: (1) who
gets in and (2) consolidation of permits. The ``who'' is because many
do not have good catch records for various reasons, plus, there may not
be provisions for crew members and concern for one group or individual
buying the entire quotas. These are still issues today, but can be
handled in the developing the plan amendments. The future is operate as
a business--make your decision when and where to fish--realize better
prices, reduce by catch, etc. and increase safety.
The ongoing confusion regarding the use of catch shares and how
these programs are being applied is definitely creating an obstacle to
helping the industry realize a better price, product and safety
decisions. The most difficult situation appears to be in New England,
where additional cuts to the annual catch limits for several of the
stocks were required to be implemented for the 2010 season to meet the
MSRA requirements. Instead of taking additional day-at-sea cuts, the
Council opted for implemented the sector based allocation program,
which was a voluntary program on the part of the Council. There
continues to be confusion regarding the allocations under the catch
share program based on the 11-year catch history of fishing along with
the overall ACLs necessary to meet conservation requirements. I believe
the Industry and Council should be able to work through this issue.
In summary, the 2007 reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act of
1976 included a number of key changes aimed at ending overfishing,
increasing the accountability of the Councils for using best available
science, decreasing IUU (illegal, unreported and unregulated) fishing,
and managing fisheries consistent with an ecosystem view.
The requirement to end overfishing for some 40 stocks, where
documented by previous stock assessments, required Fishery Management
Councils (FMCs) to incorporate more stringent measures for New England
ground fish, as well as a number of reef fish stocks.
Based on the actions of the FMCs, it appears that the U.S. has
fundamentally ended overfishing in federally-managed domestic
fisheries. This is an enormous achievement, and one that Congress and
the Administration clearly intended in its 2007 reauthorization of
MSRA. There are several qualifications to this accomplishment: (1) it
does not necessarily include state-managed fisheries; (2) it does not
include stocks managed by Regional Fishery Management Organizations;
and (3) it does not mean that all stocks are rebuilt, this will take
some time, but we are on the upswing.
One of the most important requirements emphasized in the
reauthorization of the MSRA is the need for high quality science
supporting the stocks assessment proper and ACLs. While the science
used to support the status of stocks determination is generally robust,
additional resources are required to make the science more timely,
include more stocks, more fisheries independent surveys, and in some
cases such as weak stocks and reef stocks complex, increase the
precision of assessments. In particular, additional resources are
needed in the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, Caribbean, and in New
England to increase the production of assessments supporting
management. While there are 139 of the most important stocks in the
country that are routinely assessed, the Fishery Management Councils
have 522 stocks under management, and some of the stocks that are
assessed are not done so annually. The requirement to set annual catch
limits means that we need to be assessing stocks more frequently in
some areas. NOAA needs to increase funding for high quality fishery
independent surveys for as many harvested stocks as possible. This
includes using its fleet of fishery survey vessels to its full
potential.
At the University of South Florida-College of Marine Science we
began a new course in Marine Resource Assessment in order to address
some of the concerns I have heard about real time data and assessments.
This course is being conducted with the aid of National Marine
Fisheries Services. We have hired three new Faculty members; have five
dedicated fellowships and a large amount of interest from students
across the country. We believe this course which will utilize the
oceanographic data, and instruments at the College to better understand
fish behavior, etc. This should lead to move precise and timely stock
assessments.
Improvements in the recreational fishing data were an extremely
important requirement of MSRA. The requirements of recreational
registrations were designed to strengthen state-by-state recreational
fishery data collection programs. These catches are vital to an
accurate data collection program to conduct valid stock assessments.
The Agency needs to speed up the transition from the old MRFSS system
to the new MRIP system which will not use random-digit telephone calls
to coastal counties to assess recreational fishing efforts.
Finally, my honest opinion after much thought, is that the MSRA
does not need to be ``re-opened'' in order to address the issues raised
in my testimony. Congress and the Administration need to recognize the
enormity of the task it gave NMFS in 2007 reauthorization of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. We in the U.S. are recognized as having excellent
laws to management over fisheries; we must find the political strength
and resolve to see it through. The fisherman, businesses, communities
and American people will realize the benefits, it is working.
In my opinion, we need Congress to provide resources and support to
carry out the science and management activities. Thus, the process will
be more timely, responsive to stock increases, and more credible in the
eye of the fishermen.
The U.S. can be a leader again in fisheries and not rely on
importing over 80 percent of our seafood and over 90 percent of our
shrimp from foreign countries that do not have as stringent
conservation standards as the U.S. Rebuilt stocks, effective seafood
safety and marketing programs, and a robust aquaculture program will
realize over $2 billion in increased revenue for our coastal
communities economy, increased jobs and increased fishing opportunities
for our recreational fisherman. The United States has sent a clear
signal to the rest of the world that we will achieve sustainable
fisheries, which was our commitment to the World Summit on Sustainable
Development (WSSD). Importantly, it helps in our international
negotiations for stocks that the USA harvests under international
agreements.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much, Dr. Hogarth.
Let me move now to Ms. Stephanie Madsen, Executive Director
of the At-Sea Processors Association.
Again, welcome. And thanks for traveling the distance from
Alaska.
STATEMENT OF STEPHANIE MADSEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AT-SEA
PROCESSORS ASSOCIATION
Ms. Madsen. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of
the Subcommittee, for the opportunity to testify on the
implementation of the 2007 Magnuson-Stevens Act amendments.
I am testifying today on behalf of the At-Sea Processors
Association. APA is a trade association representing companies
that own and operate 19 trawl catcher/processor vessels. APA
members participate principally in the Nation's largest
fishery, the Alaska pollock fishery, which yields average
annual landings of nearly 3 billion pounds.
Since enactment of the Magnuson-Stevens Act in 1977, I have
been closely involved in fishery management process, including
serving from 2001 to 2007 on the North Pacific Council. I
chaired the Council for 4 of those 6 years.
My testimony today focuses on the requirement for fishery
management plans to include annual catch limits, the
requirement for accountability measures to ensure that catch
limits are not exceeded, and catch shares, including APA's
innovative Fish Harvesting Cooperative.
While the annual catch limit requirement is a new provision
in statute, it essentially tracks the process, established over
three decades ago by the North Pacific Council, to manage
species under its jurisdiction.
In the Alaska region, NOAA fishery scientists prepare
annual stock assessments for each of the target species. The
stock assessment report is peer-reviewed in public sessions by
the council's Groundfish Plan Team, which is composed of
Federal and State fishery scientists and academics. The Plan
Team recommends an acceptable biological catch limit and
forwards the stock assessment to the council's Scientific and
Statistical Committee, which also includes government
scientists and academics. The SSC then makes its own ABC
recommendation to the council. The council then develops a
total allowable catch level, which is synonymous, Mr. Chairman,
with annual catch limit, for each target groundfish fishery.
The North Pacific Council has never set a TAC above the ABC
recommendation of its scientific panels, and there has never
been overfishing of any groundfish stock.
While the annual ABC recommendations can be highly
anticipated by the industry, there is a distinct lack of
tension or friction to the process. NOAA Fisheries' Alaska
science programs have been adequately funded through the years,
providing critical survey research necessary for estimating
stock abundance with a high degree of confidence. There is also
a comprehensive data collection program that supports analysis
of stock characteristics essential to understanding whether the
population trend is likely headed up or down, allowing fishery
managers to plan accordingly. Stakeholders appreciate the
quality of the information collection process. They respect the
analysis and buy into the process because of its transparency.
In this budget climate, both the agency and the industry
are extremely concerned about maintaining current funding
levels for fishery science to ensure high quality annual survey
research. If basic fishery science funding levels are reduced,
catch levels will be sacrificed as more precautionary catch
limits will be imposed to account for increased scientific
uncertainty about fish stock trends and abundance.
We urge Congress to continue to invest in fishery science
as a cornerstone to maintaining a healthy commercial fishing
industry. We also urge Congress to continue to support a
council process that is transparent, inclusive, and
participatory.
My written testimony goes into some detail about various
accountability measures, but I'll just highlight one element
for the Subcommittee now. The centerpiece of accountability
measures in the north--is the North Pacific Groundfish Observer
Program. NOAA Fisheries' Alaska Science Center administers this
program, which has built a comprehensive observer program over
the last 20 years. The Alaska groundfish industry contributes
approximately $13 million annually to help fund the placement
of federally-trained and certified observers on vessels and at
processing plants.
It was the experience of the APA catcher/processor
companies that catch limits and accountability measures alone
were not sufficient tools to provide for a stabile and
prosperous fishing industry. During the 1990s, while catch
limits maintained healthy Alaska pollock stocks, the industry
suffered from chronic overcapacity and attendant economic
instability resulting from the race for fish.
The Alaska pollock fishery achieved socioeconomic stability
only when a catch-share-style program was adopted. The Alaska
pollock catcher/processor fleet banded together in 1999 to form
a fish harvesting cooperative. In that cooperative agreement,
we allocate the pollock under private contract, and there are
stiff penalties for violating any portion of that contract.
By making operational changes to maximize the value of
allocated catch instead of racing, the pollock catcher/
processors are producing almost 50 percent more food products
per pound of fish harvested than they did operating without a
catch-share-style program.
Mr. Chairman, our pollock conservation has measurable
conservation benefits, as well. I'm running out of time, so my
written comments will address that.
But, finally, Mr. Chairman, we're aware of recent efforts
in Congress to bar funding for developing or approving new
catch share plans on the East Coast or in the Gulf of Mexico.
We hope that Congress will not support efforts to derail new
catch share programs if that is the tool managers and
stakeholders identify as the best management option.
That concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman. Thank you again
for the opportunity to appear today. And I am pleased to answer
any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Madsen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Stephanie Madsen, Executive Director,
At-Sea Processors Association
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, for the
opportunity to testify on implementation of key provisions of the 2007
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA)
reauthorization.
I am testifying today on behalf of the At-sea Processors
Association (APA). APA is a fishery trade association representing six
companies that, among other commercial fishing and fish processing
interests, own and operate 19 trawl catcher/processor vessels eligible
to participate in the Bering Sea groundfish fishery. APA member vessels
participate principally in the Nation's largest fishery, the Alaska
pollock fishery, which yields on average nearly 3 billion pounds
annually in landings. Some APA vessels also harvest and process Bering
Sea cod and flatfish and west coast Pacific whiting.
Since 1974, I have worked in support industries for commercial
fisheries, transitioning into the commercial fishing industry along the
way. Since passage of the MSA, I have been closely involved in the
fishery management process. My involvement includes serving from 2001
to 2007 on the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, chairing the
Council for 4 of those 6 years. I served on the Council's stakeholder
Advisory Panel prior to being appointed to the Council. Currently,
though not a member of the Council, I chair its Ecosystem Committee.
Much of my testimony today is informed by my involvement over the past
three decades as a commercial fishing stakeholder and as a Council
member.
As requested by the Subcommittee, my testimony focuses on three
issue areas addressed in the 2007 MSA reauthorization. I will speak to:
(1) the requirement for fishery management plans to include Annual
Catch Limits (ACLs) for fisheries; (2) the requirement for
Accountability Measures in fishery management plans to ensure that ACLs
are not exceeded; and (3) NOAA Fisheries' catch share policy and
Limited Access Privilege Programs (LAPPs) as a subset within catch
share options.
1. Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) for Alaska Pollock
The 2007 MSA reauthorization required that each regional fishery
management council specify annual catch limits (ACLs) for each managed
fishery. Each council is directed to set ACLs for fisheries at, or
below, the sustainable fishing level recommended by that council's
scientific and statistical committee (SSC). While this is a new
provision in statute, it essentially tracks the process established
over three decades ago by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council
to manage the groundfish fisheries, and other species, under its
jurisdiction in Federal waters off Alaska.
In the Alaska Region, NOAA Fisheries' scientists prepare annual
stock assessment reports for each of the target groundfish species,
including Alaska pollock, Pacific cod, Atka mackerel, and various
flatfish species. The stock assessment report is peer reviewed in
public sessions by the Council's groundfish Plan Team, which is
composed of Federal and state fishery scientists and qualified
academics. Based on its review of the stock assessment reports, the
Plan Team recommends an acceptable biological catch (ABC) limit and
forwards the stock assessment with any proposed revisions to the
Council's SSC, which is similarly populated with Federal and state
scientists and academics. The SSC, which like the Plan Team also meets
in public and takes testimony from stakeholders, prepares an ABC
recommendation for the Council's consideration as well. Most often
there is a consensus view between these scientific panels on a
precautionary ABC recommendation.
Informed by this comprehensive and transparent scientific review,
the Council then develops total allowable catch (TAC) levels annually
for each target groundfish fishery. Even prior to the 2007 MSA
amendment, the North Pacific Council never set a TAC--which is
synonymous with an Annual Catch Limit--above the ABC recommendation of
its scientific panels. Not coincidentally, all of the Alaska groundfish
stocks have been sustainably managed since the MSA was enacted in 1977.
(Appendix #1 is a table showing the ABC and TAC levels for the Bering
Sea pollock fishery from 1977 to the present.)
For groundfish, the North Pacific Council has had to make minimal
changes to its current annual TAC setting process to be compliant with
the MSA implementation regulations. The Bering Sea groundfish fishery
management plan has been amended to identify ACLs for minor, non-target
species that can be incidentally harvested in the commercial pollock,
cod or flatfish fisheries, but that is more of an administrative change
than a substantive one. (Appendix #2 is the ACL specifications sheet
for Bering Sea groundfish fisheries for 2011.)
While the annual ABC recommendations for individual groundfish
species can be highly anticipated by the commercial fishing industry,
there is a distinct lack of tension or friction to the process. NOAA
Fisheries' Alaska Fisheries Science Center has been adequately funded
through the years, providing critical survey research necessary for
estimating stock abundance with a high degree of confidence. There is
also a comprehensive fishery dependent and fishery independent data
collection program that supports analyses of stock characteristics that
are essential to understanding whether the population trend is likely
headed up or down and allows fishery managers to plan, accordingly.
Commercial fishing stakeholders appreciate the quality of the
information collection process, respect the analysis, and buy into the
process because of its transparency.
The situation with Alaska pollock, a fish stock with a fluctuating
biomass, is useful in appreciating the industry's support for NOAA
Fisheries' work and the Council process. In 2004, the ABC for the
Bering Sea pollock fishery was 2.5 million metric tons--the highest ABC
level ever recorded--and the TAC was set at almost 1.5 million metric
tons. Favorable environmental conditions that boosted pollock stock
abundance in the early 2000s, were much less favorable in the latter
half of the decade. NOAA Fisheries' bottom trawl surveys and hydro-
acoustic surveys showed declining fish populations. By 2010, the ABC
and TAC were set at 813,000 metric tons. The commercial fishing
industry accepted NOAA Fisheries' stock assessments equally when the
projections were high as when they were low, and accepted the necessary
concomitant reductions in catch levels when the stock trended downward.
Good science and responsible, adaptive management pays off. The
Alaska pollock stock is once again trending upward. The 2011 ABC is
1.27 million metric tons, a more than 50 percent increase from a year
ago. The 2011 TAC, or ACL, is set just under the ABC and is just about
at the 35-year average for the fishery.
Industry confidence in the quality of the science fosters a
collegial working relationship between NOAA Fisheries' regional
scientists and managers and the commercial fisheries. In this budget
climate, both the agency and the industry are extremely concerned about
maintaining current funding levels for fisheries science to ensure high
quality, annual survey research. If basic fisheries science funding
levels are reduced, catch levels will be sacrificed as more
precautionary catch limits will be imposed to account for increased
scientific uncertainty about fish stock trends and abundance. The
Alaska groundfish fishery, which accounts for roughly 40 percent of all
U.S. seafood landings, is valued at more than $1.0 billion at the
primary processing level. Tens of thousands of men and women earn
family-wage jobs fishing and processing Alaska groundfish, and the
economic benefits of this commercial enterprise flow directly
throughout Alaska coastal communities and the Pacific Northwest.
We urge Congress to continue to invest in fisheries science as a
cornerstone to maintaining a healthy commercial fishing industry. We
also urge Congress to continue to support a council process that is
transparent, inclusive, and participatory.
2. Accountability Measures (AMs) in the Alaska Pollock Fishery
The 2007 MSA reauthorization included an Accountability Measures
(AM) requirement designed to complement the new ACL requirement. The AM
requirement is provided to ensure that, once established, sustainable
catch limits are not exceeded. Because annual catch limits have been in
place for Alaska groundfish stocks since U.S. fisheries management
authority was extended out to 200 miles in the late 1970s,
accountability measures that ensure compliance with such catch limits
have been developed and improved upon as well over time.
The centerpiece of accountability measures is the North Pacific
Groundfish Observer Program implemented in 1990. NOAA Fisheries' Alaska
Fisheries Science Center administers this program, which has grown from
providing minimal levels of observer coverage for some fisheries to a
comprehensive observer program. The Alaska groundfish industry
contributes approximately $13 million annually to help fund the
placement of federally trained and certified observers on vessels and
at processing plants. NOAA Fisheries covers some administrative costs,
but the industry bears most of the cost of this world-class monitoring
program.
With regard to the Alaska pollock fishery, two federally-trained
and certified fishery observers are stationed aboard all catcher/
processor vessels, processing-only vessels, and at onshore processing
plants during the fishing season. A single Federal fishery observer is
assigned to every Bering Sea pollock catcher vessel while it is
fishing. Among other responsibilities, fishery observers record all
catch amounts broken out by species, conduct fishery dependent
research, and record any marine mammal interactions.
The Federal fishery observer program is supplemented by other
accountability measures developed through the council process to ensure
that annual catch limits are not exceeded. At-sea processing and
onshore processing facilities are required to use government-approved
scales to weigh all catch, including non-target species. All fish
caught, whether retained or discarded, are accounted for in this system
so that the fishery's ecosystem impact is measured. Catch information
is reported electronically to NOAA Fisheries by the vessel operator and
by the fishery observer, providing real-time information to fishery
managers. The fishery closes when the target catch limit is reached.
For some Alaska groundfish fisheries, the fishery closes if certain
limits on non-target species are reached even if the quota for the
target fishery has not been achieved.
The Council and NOAA Fisheries also develop regulations stipulating
when and where fishing occurs, regulations that include accountability
measures to ensure compliance with time and area closures. For example,
every pollock fishing and fish processing vessel is equipped with a
Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) unit that transmits the vessel's
location to NOAA Fisheries at random intervals several times per hour.
The accountability measures identified above, which are supported
by industry funds in some cases, are viable because science-based catch
limits on fish stocks (and an innovative catch shares program that I'll
discuss below) lead to profitable fisheries. The fishing industry is
better positioned to take on a greater financial share of stewardship
responsibilities--such as contributing directly to the multi-million
dollar observer program--when businesses are stable. That is what you
see in the Alaska groundfish fishery in general and, specifically, with
the Alaska pollock fishery.
3. Catch Shares--Fish Harvesting Co-ops and Limited Access Privilege
Programs (LAPPs)
It was the experience of APA catcher/processor companies that ACLs
and AMs alone were not sufficient tools to provide for a stable and
prosperous fishing industry. During the 1990s, while ACLs and AMs
maintained healthy Alaska pollock stocks, the Alaska pollock industry
suffered from chronic overcapacity and the attendant economic
instability resulting from a race to catch the available quota. The
Alaska pollock fishery achieved socio-economic stability only when a
catch share-style program was adopted, rationalizing the harvesting and
processing of the resource.
The Alaska pollock catcher/processor fleet banded together in 1999
to form a fish harvesting cooperative, the Pollock Conservation
Cooperative (PCC). PCC members allocate among themselves under private
contract their sector's allocation of Bering Sea pollock. By
apportioning the allowable harvest among eligible fishery participants
(as determined through Federal law and regulation), vessel operators
need only utilize as much fishing and harvesting capacity as needed to
catch the quota and to do so at a pace that optimizes performance. By
making operational changes to maximize the value of allocated catch
instead of racing to catch as much of the sector quota as possible,
pollock catcher/processor vessel operators are producing almost 50
percent more food products per pound of fish harvested than in the last
year of operations under the race for fish format.
Our Alaska pollock fish harvesting cooperative has measurable
conservation benefits as well. Cooperative members share catch
information on a real-time basis to inform fishing vessel captains
about bycatch ``hotspots'' to avoid. In fact, the cooperative members
have entered into a private contractual agreement that closes areas to
fishing if incidental catch levels of certain non-target species of
concern are high. The government simply cannot adapt that quickly to
impose regulatory closures. The cooperative's area closure agreement
supplements existing Federal bycatch reduction rules and directly
improves fleet performance. The contract imposes substantial monetary
penalties for any member violating the agreement by ignoring area
closures imposed under the cooperative fishing agreement.
The APA catcher/processor fish harvesting cooperative is a type of
catch share program, though it is distinct from a LAPP. A LAPP is
defined in section 2 of the MSA as a privilege ``to harvest a quantity
of fish . . . representing a portion of the total allowable catch of
the fishery.'' The catcher/processor sector is assigned a portion of
the overall Bering Sea pollock quota, but the individual allocation is
determined through a private contract, not through law or regulation.
Nonetheless, APA members' experience is that catch share-style
programs, whether fish harvesting cooperatives or LAPPs or another
variation on the theme, provide measurable conservation benefits and
promote stable, family-wage jobs for commercial fishermen and fish
processors.
We are aware of recent efforts in Congress to bar funding for
developing or approving new LAPPs on the east coast or in the Gulf of
Mexico. While that might leave the door open for other catch share-
style programs, such as fish harvesting cooperatives, we hope that
Congress will not support efforts to derail new LAPPs. We need to keep
moving fisheries management forward.
Catch share-style programs are commonplace in the Federal fisheries
off Alaska, and they are working. All of the major federally managed
fisheries that occur in the waters off Alaska are benefiting from catch
share programs. The small boat halibut and sablefish fishery has had a
successful Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) program for nearly 20
years. The Alaska pollock cooperatives have been in effect for a dozen
years, and they are an unqualified success. The crab fisheries and the
non-pollock groundfish fisheries have converted more recently to ITQ
and cooperative management schemes, respectively, and both have strong
industry support. In those fisheries, catch share management is
resolving overcapitalization problems, fostering a safer fishing
environment, and maximizing utilization of fishery resources. Congress
should continue to provide commercial fishing interests around the
country with the same opportunities to improve their fisheries as those
of us have on the west coast and in Alaska.
That concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman. Thank you again for the
opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee today, and I am pleased
to answer any questions.
Appendix #1--Science-based ACLs for Bering Sea Pollock from 1977 to 2011--in metric tons
Source: Bering Sea Pollock Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report, December 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year ABC TAC Catch
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1977 950,000 950,000 978,370
1978 950,000 950,000 979,431
1979 1,100,000 950,000 935,714
1980 1,300,000 1,000,000 958,280
1981 1,300,000 1,000,000 973,502
1982 1,300,000 1,000,000 955,964
1983 1,300,000 1,000,000 981,450
1984 1,300,000 1,200,000 1,092,055
1985 1,300,000 1,200,000 1,139,676
1986 1,300,000 1,200,000 1,141,993
1987 1,300,000 1,200,000 859,416
1988 1,500,000 1,300,000 1,228,721
1989 1,340,000 1,340,000 1,229,600
1990 1,450,000 1,280,000 1,455,193
1991 1,676,000 1,300,000 1,195,646
1992 1,490,000 1,300,000 1,390,331
1993 1,340,000 1,300,000 1,326,601
1994 1,330,000 1,330,000 1,329,350
1995 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,264,245
1996 1,190,000 1,190,000 1,192,778
1997 1,130,000 1,130,000 1,124,430
1998 1,110,000 1,110,000 1,101,165
1999 992,000 992,000 989,816
2000 1,139,000 1,139,000 1,132,707
2001 1,842,000 1,400,000 1,387,194
2002 2,110,000 1,485,000 1,480,195
2003 2,330,000 1,491,760 1,490,899
2004 2,560,000 1,492,000 1,480,543
2005 1,960,000 1,478,500 1,483,286
2006 1,930,000 1,485,000 1,486,435
2007 1,394,000 1,394,000 1,354,097
2008 1,000,000 1,000,000 990,566
2009 815,000 815,000 810,731
2010 813,000 813,000 813,000
2011 1,270,000 1,252,000 --
Avg. ABC 1,382,000 TAC 1,192,260 Catch 1,168,547
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix #2--ACLs for Bering Sea Groundfish Fishery, 2011
NPFMC recommended TACs for 2011-2012 BSAI Groundfish; SSC recommended OFLs and ABCs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010 2011 2012
Species Area -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TAC Catch OFL ABC TAC OFL ABC TAC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollock EBS 813,000 809,238 2,450,000 1,270,000 1,252,000 3,170,000 1,600,000 1,253,658
AI 19,000 1,266 44,500 36,700 19,000 50,400 41,600 19,000
Bogoslof 50 131 22,000 156 150 22,000 156 150
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific cod BSAI 168,780 159,012 272,000 235,000 227,950 329,000 281,000 229,608
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sablefish BS 2,790 721 3,360 2,850 2,850 3,080 2,610 2,610
AI 2,070 1,049 2,250 1,900 1,900 2,060 1,740 1,740
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yellowfin sole BSAI 219,000 114,600 262,000 239,000 196,000 266,000 242,000 197,660
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greenland turbot Total 6,120 3,589 7,220 6,140 5,050 6,760 5,750 4,950
BS 4,220 1,706 n/a 4,590 3,500 n/a 4,300 3,500
AI 1,900 1,883 n/a 1,550 1,550 n/a 1,450 1,450
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arrowtooth flounder BSAI 75,000 38,098 186,000 153,000 25,900 191,000 157,000 25,900
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kamchatka flounder BSAI n/a n/a 23,600 17,700 17,700 23,600 17,700 17,700
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northern rock sole BSAI 90,000 53,111 248,000 224,000 85,000 243,000 219,000 85,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flathead sole BSAI 60,000 19,863 83,300 69,300 41,548 82,100 68,300 41,548
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska plaice BSAI 50,000 15,771 79,100 65,100 16,000 83,800 69,100 16,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other flatfish BSAI 17,300 2,179 19,500 14,500 3,000 19,500 14,500 3,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Ocean perch BSAI 18,860 16,567 36,300 24,700 24,700 34,300 24,700 24,700
BS 3,830 2,267 n/a 5,710 5,710 n/a 5,710 5,710
EAI 4,220 4,033 n/a 5,660 5,660 n/a 5,660 5,660
CAI 4,270 4,033 n/a 4,960 4,960 n/a 4,960 4,960
WAI 6,540 6,234 n/a 8,370 8,370 n/a 8,370 8,370
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northern rockfish BSAI 7,240 4,039 10,600 8,670 4,000 10,400 8,330 4,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blackspotted/Rougheye BSAI 547 232 549 454 454 563 465 465
Rockfish EBS/EAI n/a n/a n/a 234 234 n/a 240 240
CAI/WAI n/a n/a n/a 220 220 n/a 225 225
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shortraker rockfish BSAI 387 252 524 393 393 524 393 393
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other rockfish BSAI 1,040 676 1,700 1,280 1,000 1,700 1,280 1,000
BS 485 179 n/a 710 500 n/a 710 500
AI 555 497 n/a 570 500 n/a 570 500
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atka mackerel Total 74,000 68,643 101,000 85,300 53,080 92,200 77,900 48,593
EAI/BS 23,800 23,599 n/a 40,300 40,300 n/a 36,800 36,800
CAI 29,600 26,387 n/a 24,000 11,280 n/a 21,900 10,293
WAI 20,600 18,657 n/a 21,000 1,500 n/a 19,200 1,500
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Squid BSAI 1,970 402 2,620 1,970 425 2,620 1,970 425
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other species BSAI 50,000 16,614 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Skate BSAI n/a 16,419 37,800 31,500 16,500 37,200 31,000 16,500
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shark BSAI n/a 47 1,360 1,020 50 1,360 1,020 50
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Octopus BSAI n/a 149 528 396 150 528 396 150
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sculpin BSAI n/a 5,168 58,300 43,700 5,200 58,300 43,700 5,200
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total BSAI 1,677,154 1,347,836 3,954,111 2,534,729 2,000,000 4,731,995 2,911,610 2,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Begich. Thank you very much.
Our next person is Mr. Vito Giacalone, the Policy Director
of the Northeast Seafood Coalition.
STATEMENT OF VITO GIACALONE, POLICY DIRECTOR, NORTHEAST SEAFOOD
COALITION
Mr. Giacalone. Mr. Chairman, member of the Subcommittee,
thank you for this opportunity to share my thoughts on the
implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act,
which I'll refer to as the MSRA.
As an active fisherman and the policy director for the
Northeast Seafood Coalition, I have been deeply involved in the
process to implement key provisions of the MSRA as they relate
to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery.
Through Amendment 16 to the Groundfish Plan, this fishery
has made a profound transition from an effort-controlled
management system to a catch-based system of harvesting
cooperatives, called sectors. The Northeast Seafood Coalition
is sponsor of 12 of the 17 sectors in operation, with over 300
active vessels as members operating in ports from Maine, New
Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New
York. In a number of ways, the Council's decisions to broadly
expand the application of sector management fisherywide was a
consequence of key changes present in the MSRA.
Amendment 16 was conducted under heavy pressure to meet
statutory deadlines, implemented in the MSRA, which caused the
Agency and the Council to proceed in a manner that was most
expedient. Embedded in that action was a relatively
nontransparent and complex discussion of sector allocations,
which effectively resulted in an ITQ-type of system. It seems
very conflicting that, in the process of meeting the MSRA
timeliness for annual catch limits and accountability measures,
we effectively trampled over the LAPP provisions in the MSRA,
which clearly aim to minimize socioeconomic disruption to the
fishery and dependent communities.
I want to be clear, however, that I agree with the Agency's
final legal determination that the sectors ultimately developed
under Amendment 16 are not LAPPs, because they were not
developed under the LAPP provisions of the Act. More
importantly, I strongly concur with the Agency's published
interpretation that sectors and vessels are not issued a
permanent allocation.
We are extremely concerned, however, that the Agency's
message is not being heard, has not been made strong enough, or
that the Agency is wrongly backing off. If and when the
Northeast Council or the Agency take any future action to
formally establish an IFQ or any other form of LAPP program for
the groundfish, such program and associated allocations must
meet all Section 303(a) and other applicable MSRA requirements.
Anything less would perpetuate the inherent flaws we have
experienced with the current system, as well as the
circumvention of what was, in our strong opinion, plain
congressional intent for allocation systems, such as groundfish
sectors, to be designed according to the MSRA rules and
protections for LAPPs, including an IFQ referendum. This would
be a very helpful message for Senators interested in improving
current New England situation to deliver to the Agency and the
Council.
The final issue, regarding lost yields due to arbitrary
rebuilding timeliness, is far more than I can explain in a very
brief statement. And so, I hope you and the Committee staff
will find my written testimony useful.
While many people have expressed many different ideas about
the need for rebuilding flexibility, our consistent view has
been the need to simply eliminate any arbitrary time
requirements for rebuilding, and replace it with a rebuilding
strategy founded on natural population dynamics. We don't need
flexibility built into arbitrary rebuilding timeframes. We need
to get rid of them.
Those who understand the realities associated with
arbitrary rebuilding targets and timeliness, especially in a
mixed-stock fishery that is part of a complex ecosystem,
appreciate the reality that we have subjected our U.S.
fisheries to a fool's errand. The costs are simply too great to
continue to pursue an effort to control the uncontrollable, to
know the unknowable, to attain the unattainable. The costs of
this futile policy are huge losses of yields, jobs, and
revenues, which are contrary to optimum-yield mandates of the
Act. This is an inherent conundrum, presented by National
Standard 1, for multispecies fishery and a complex ecosystem.
The United States fishermen are doing their part by ending
overfishing and fishing at sustainable levels. It is time to
amend U.S. law to focus on controlling what we can, and stop
pretending what we cannot control, which is the entire
ecosystem and the productivity of wild fish stocks.
Finally, to that subject, I want to express our sincere
thanks to Senator Snowe and Senator Kerry and your
extraordinary committee staff for making the U.S./Canada
legislation a reality after 5 long years of intense efforts. I
assure you these efforts will pay off, as they have already
begun to do so with the Georges Bank yellowtail flounder stock.
The bilateral agreement between U.S. and Canada will set the
example of how we can successfully rebuild fish stocks without
arbitrary rebuilding timeframes while maintaining a viable
commercial fishery.
I'd be pleased to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Giacalone follows:]
Prepared Statement of Vito Giacalone, Gloucester Fisherman and Policy
Director, Northeast Seafood Coalition
Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank you
for this opportunity to testify before your Subcommittee and contribute
to your oversight of the implementation of the very important Magnuson-
Stevens Reauthorization Act (MSRA).
As an active Fisherman and the Policy Director for the Northeast
Seafood Coalition, I have been deeply involved in the process to
implement key provisions of the MSRA as they relate to the Northeast
Multispecies fishery, better known as the New England groundfish
fishery. Through Amendment 16 to the NE Multispecies Fishery Management
Plan (FMP), this fishery has made a profound transition from an effort-
based management system using Days at Sea (DAS) and vessel capacity as
the allocation currency, to a catch-based output control system of
voluntary fishery cooperatives called ``sectors'' that now use the
``catch history'' of a permit as the allocation currency.
The Northeast Seafood Coalition is the sponsor of 12 of the 17
sectors now operating under this Amendment including one serving as a
private permit bank of which I serve as the Director. Over 300 active
trawl, gillnet and hook gear vessels are members of the Northeast
Seafood Coalition-sponsored sectors operating in ports from Maine, New
Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut and New York.
While Northeast Seafood Coalition is now both deeply-invested in
and committed to making the existing sector system work, sector-based
management was not the preferred choice of the Northeast Seafood
Coalition, nor were a number of key aspects of the current sector
system. Nevertheless, because it was clear the Council was firmly
committed to adopting the sector approach notwithstanding our input to
the contrary, we felt a strong obligation to our members to fully
engage in the sector system in order to protect their best interests as
best we could.
As I will explain, in a number of ways the Council's decisions to
broadly expand the application of sector management fishery-wide, as
well as the ensuing details of the sector system structure they
developed, were both consequences of the key changes made to the
Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) in the MSRA.
While most of my comments are critical, please understand that we
fully recognize and greatly appreciate the efforts of this committee
and others in Congress to continually improve the MSA such as through
the MSRA. It is natural for me to point out the problems and concerns
with a hopeful eye toward another opportunity to make further
improvements to this landmark statute.
Having said that, certainly not all the problems we see in
groundfish management are due to the policies or legislative language
in these statutes. On the contrary, it has been our observation that
the Agency frequently makes excessively narrow or incorrect
interpretations of your legislation, ignoring useful opportunities to
apply flexibility where it exists throughout the MSA that might have
avoided unnecessary problems. This can be very frustrating for all of
us. We often wish the agency's attorneys would adopt a more common
sense approach to interpreting Congressional intent. Perhaps that is a
message this committee can convey to the agency.
Arbitrary Implementation Deadlines
The MSRA set forth two key implementation deadlines that had
important consequences for New England groundfish management; the
requirement to end overfishing immediately, and the requirement for
Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) and Accountability Measures (AMs) to be in
place for fishing year 2010 for stocks subject to overfishing.
Of course, those deadlines are well behind us now, but I think it
is important to use our experience as a case in point of how arbitrary
statutory deadlines of any kind that lack sufficient flexibility and/or
proper agency interpretation can generate unintended or at least
unanticipated consequences that are rarely positive. My testimony may
also help explain the reasons for the strong and loud voices you
continue to hear from New England regarding the sector system.
Amendment 16 began as a confluence of statutory and Council
objectives to achieve in a fair and equitable manner an historic
transition from effort-based management to catch-based management while
simultaneously ending overfishing immediately, establishing annual
catch limits, and imposing strict accountability measures to achieve
those limits--all while causing a minimum of disruption to the fishery
and communities. Adding to that, our fishery is a complex group of
disparate multispecies fisheries involving several gear-types and 19
stocks all under one FMP.
It is no surprise that such an overly ambitious agenda simply
could not be achieved according to the statutory deadlines without
making critical sacrifices to the quality of the outcome.
It is impossible to know what might have been the result under
different, more favorable circumstances, but in my personal view, the
New England Council's and the Agency's rush to achieve these
overwhelmingly complex objectives according to the MSRA-mandated
schedule had--or substantially contributed to--the following adverse
consequences:
1. Very early on, the Council hastily abandoned any serious
analysis or consideration of potentially more favorable
alternatives (e.g., the points system) to the sector system.
Instead, the design and operation of two existing sectors
originally adopted years prior as a very limited ``pilot
program'' for the small, directed cod fishery on Cape Cod
became the sole focus. Essentially by default, a sector system
quickly became the defacto Accountability Measure using the
existing Cape Cod ``non-LAPP'' sectors as the template.
2. There was insufficient time for the Council and the fishing
community to adequately analyze, understand or consider the
implications of the various allocation criteria alternatives.
This resulted in the expedient adoption of the most simplistic
alternative (catch history). Because the Days at Sea system
produced a series of ever increasing cuts in Days at Sea
allocations, traditionally single-permit fishermen were forced
to purchase additional permits for a completely different
purpose (increasing their DAS) than what was used to assign
value to those permits under the Amendment 16 sectors
allocation system. Consequently, as the currency on which all
non-speculative investment in the fishery had been based (DAS/
Capacity) was abandoned, substantial investments in the DAS
currency were stranded. This created instant winners and losers
that, for most fishermen, was a matter of pure chance and/or a
product of regional and inshore/offshore disparities in fishery
regulations affecting catch history.
3. Under pressure to meet the statutory deadlines, and for
expediency in dispensing with a protracted debate, the Council
adopted disparate allocation baseline periods for different
groups within the overall groundfish fishery. After completing
a difficult process to resolve the baseline period for the core
commercial fisheries, the recreational fishery was given a
separate, more favorable baseline as were the two previously
established Cape Cod sectors. These differences had very
significant implications for the resulting allocations to the
three groups. The vast majority of commercial permit holders in
our fishery have raised very serious concerns that the
Council's action to treat each of these three groups
differently was not fair and equitable. This action has raised
many ongoing concerns over its consistency with a number of MSA
provisions including National Standard 4. These concerns are
currently under review in Federal court.
4. The Council's adoption of the final sector design and
complex operational details took place well in advance of the
2009 GARM III stock assessment and subsequent ACL
determinations--before the biological objectives of the sector
system were known. Lacking information on the status of many
key stocks, the Council knew it had no idea what the actual
consequences of the sector system would be on the functionality
of sectors and the sector trading system, but was forced to
prematurely set an Accountability Measure in stone in order to
meet the MSRA deadline.
5. Perhaps the most damaging result of attempting to meet the
timelines set forth in the MSRA is the absence of legitimate
Amendment 16 alternatives to an ITQ-type system such as the
current Sector allocations scheme operating today. Creative
alternatives could not be proposed or developed adequately
absent updated biological objectives being made available in
time for the proper process to unfold. (the extra year granted
through interim rule was used exclusively for the purpose of
ironing out the complexities of the sector policy and
administration and to allow the industry and NOAA to prepare
the infrastructures necessary to handle the new system. The
extra time was not used to create sensible alternatives.
6. At least partly for the purposes of expediency, a deliberate
decision was made by the Council to develop the sector
allocation and management system outside of the MSRA rules
governing Limited Access Privilege Programs (LAPPs) now set
forth in section 303A of the Magnuson-Stevens Act after
receiving an initial legal opinion from the Agency confirming
that the existing Cape Cod sectors were not LAPPs as defined
under the MSRA. Thus, none of the rules and protections
envisioned by Congress for LAPP programs apply to the Amendment
16 sectors.
Sectors
With that last point in mind, I want to be clear, however, that the
Northeast Seafood Coalition has strongly concurred with the agency's
final legal determination that the Sectors ultimately developed under
Amendment 16 are not LAPPs. More importantly, the Northeast Seafood
Coalition also strongly concurs with the Agency's published
interpretation that sectors and vessels are NOT issued a permanent
allocation.
This latter determination is absolutely crucial to the current and
future investment environment with profound implications for the future
structure of the fishery and communities. It also confirms very
importantly that if and when the NE Council and/or agency take any
future action to formally establish an IFQ or any other form of LAPP
program for groundfish, such program and associated allocations must
meet all section 303A and other applicable MSA requirements.
We are extremely concerned, however, that the Agency's message is
either not being heard, has not been made strong enough, or that the
agency is wrongly backing off.
Consistent with the Agency's correct interpretation, it is not
possible to simply morph the current Amendment 16 ``non-LAPPs'' and the
associated non-permanent sector allocations into a section 303A-
consistent LAPP allocation system through a Framework or other
abbreviated process. A new, legitimate LAPP allocation system must be
fully developed from the ground up with all elements on the table,
including especially the allocation criteria and issues related to
consolidation, through a deliberate, comprehensive Plan Amendment
process to conform the new allocation system to Section 303A
requirements.
Anything less than this would likely perpetuate both the inherent
flaws we have experienced with the current system as well as the
continued circumvention of what was, in our strong opinion, plain
Congressional intent for allocation systems such as the Amendment 16
sectors to be designed according to the MSRA rules and protections for
LAPPs including a referendum for an Individual Transferrable Quota
(ITQ). This would be a very helpful message for Senators interested in
improving current New England groundfish management to deliver to the
Agency and Council.
With that in mind, let me further clarify that the current sector
system is effectively an ITQ system wearing a ``non-LAPP sector''
costume. Amendment 16 to the Northeast Multi-Species fishery management
plan established an initial allocation for each and every limited
access permit. Individually, each permit received a Potential Sector
Contribution (PSC) which is represented by percent quota shares based
upon historical performance for each stock allocated through the
amendment. The PSC values are what each fisherman brings to the sector.
Naturally, once a fisherman receives that information from the
Agency, he/she fully expects to take out what they brought into a
sector. The proof that this is the reality is that all 17 sectors have
sector/member contracts and operations plans that incorporate a ``what
you brought in is what you can take out'' redistribution method within
the sector. Sector members are allowed to trade their individual
allocations freely between members of their own sector. In addition,
Amendment 16 provides for inter-sector trading; a system which has
effectively operated as an ITQ given that members of different sectors
regularly make private business agreements to trade fish and then
instruct their respective Sector Managers to facilitate the
transactions through the inter-sector trading mechanisms.
That said, I must point out that the sector scheme has built a form
of protection to the smaller operators in the form of Right of First
Refusal for permit sales and quota leasing. Each sector has a hired
professional Sector Manager that assists the sector members in the
burdensome reporting requirements as well as acting as a communication
and trading facilitator. The low ACLs coupled with the straight catch
history method of allocation produced a very narrow distribution of
quota and without a referendum. I believe that the requirement that
vessels be members of a sector, and the manner in which the industry
formed the sectors, has created a layer of protection to fishing
communities that many do not yet understand. But, the fact remains that
the current Amendment 16 sector scheme is effectively operating as an
ITQ system.
Finally, while I have attributed a lot of the problems we've
experienced with the Amendment 16 sector development process to the
statutory deadlines, I feel I owe you my honest assessment that many of
these problems relate to the reality that Council members have the
extraordinary power to create winners and losers in the initial
allocation process of any catch share/LAPP program. Notwithstanding
statutory rules governing recusal and conflict of interest, I believe
Council members presented with a choice of plausible allocation
alternatives will naturally gravitate to what is best for their own
business interests. On a personal level, I am infinitely grateful to
those individuals who have invested countless days, months and even
years of their lives serving in the all too often thankless roles as
Council members. As an organization, the NSC supports the Council
process and strenuously endorses substantial industry representation on
the council. The statements I am making here are not intended to
discredit anyone or to insinuate that any improprieties or unethical
behavior took place. I am merely offering my sincere and honest
observation having lived this up-close and personally. Given similar
circumstances, I believe there are few human beings that are capable of
self-inflicting wounds when the alternative is to achieve instant
wealth through a favorable initial allocation scheme. The stakes are
simply too high which makes it almost unfair to Council members to have
to make ultimate allocation decisions when the results are as
financially profound as they can be in the initial allocation of a
valuable resource like New England groundfish.
The perception in New England, shared by a great many, is that the
allocation choices made by the New England Council were a product of an
exclusive and very closely coordinated working relationship among
Council members from the groundfish fishery, the recreational fishery,
the pro-catch share environmental community, and perhaps the agency
itself. This created a few big winners among those Council members and
their sectors, and many, many losers of those fishermen not privileged
to be inside that inner circle. This is, unequivocally, the perception.
Surely it must have been the fear and concern of precisely this
type of result that caused members of the New England delegation to
provide for a referendum requiring two-thirds approval before an IFQ
allocation scheme could be implemented. Similarly the MSRA LAPP
provisions and associated requirements must be placed front and center
if an action involves allocation to any group or persons that
represents a quantifiable portion of any stock or stocks within a
fishery. In New England, we effectively received an IFQ/ITQ-type
allocation scheme and a LAPP-type management regime without either a
referendum or full consideration as a LAPP under the MSRA.
Had NOAA determined Amendment 16 sector allocations to be an IFQ
subject to a referendum the Council would have avoided the level of
culpability now perceived to be attributable to them.
Having identified some of the pitfalls we experienced in trying to
accomplish too much with groundfish management within the MSRA
deadlines for ending overfishing and establishing ACLs and AMs, there
are certainly a number of positive aspects of a properly designed and
implemented sector management scheme that we can also learn from.
By definition, the input-control DAS management system deliberately
imposed inefficiencies on the fisheries in order to control catch
(fishing mortality). The transition to sectors relieved fishermen of a
number of those inefficiencies including seasonal/rolling closures and
trip/possession limits and the associated regulatory discards (waste),
among several others.
Certainly, the transition from input-control effort management to
output-control sectors also made it possible to avoid the consequences
of deep Days at Sea cuts that were inevitable absent a fully supported
effort to radically modify the effort control system. Had we attempted
to use the Days at Sea system that was in place as the tool to meet the
new mandates of the MSRA, the results would have been catastrophic.
To that point of the absence of real efforts to improve the DAS
system, over the years the Northeast Seafood Coalition proposed
numerous modifications to the Days at Sea system that were intended to
advance the tool to meet the anticipated MSRA requirements. Although
some were ultimately implemented, like the ``B-Days'' concept, they
were never adequately administered or utilized by the Council or the
agency. Other useful modifications were rejected such as the ``Cod
Cap,'' the ``Yellowtail Trigger'' and further development of the ``B-
regular day'' concept.
It was apparent, however, that these provisions were not taken
seriously because they ran counter to the ultimate desire of key
Council leaders and perhaps the agency to execute an ITQ allocation of
the resource. In my strong opinion, had there been an adequately
advanced Days at Sea alternative that could meet MSRA mandates without
collapsing the industry, it would have been impossible to have
implemented the sector ``catch share'' program we have now because the
industry simply would not have allowed it. The combination of MSRA
mandates, a lack of timely biological objectives in the stock
assessment, and the resistance to advancing the Days at Sea tool left
the industry with a ``Hobson's Choice'' that led to sectors.
In any case, theoretically, if individual initial allocations are
fair, equitable and sufficient, and if adequate quota is available to
support a healthy, functioning sector trading system, a sector system
can provide useful tools to improve the efficiency of fishing
businesses and economic stability overall. As we all know, on paper, a
sector ``catch-share'' system enables fishermen to choose to fish at
times and in places that can maximize catch-per-unit-effort, the market
value of the catch, and even vessel safety. A functioning sector
allocation trading system itself should provide for the greater
utilization of the optimum yield of strong stocks consistent with
national Standard 1. In theory, a sector ``catch share'' system should
provide important benefits.
When asked whether the sector system is actually working in
practice, my response is simply--it truly depends on which fisherman
you ask. As I indicated, the Council's deliberate decision to abandon
the DAS-based currency on which all non-speculative investments in the
fishery were previously based, it created instant winners and losers,
mostly by pure chance.
If a fisherman happened to have purchased a permit because of its
value in allocated DAS--and that permit also just happened to have a
lot of catch-history associated with it--then they became lucky
winners. If a fisherman bought a permit for DAS purposes that just
happened to have very little catch-history associated with it, then
they became unlucky losers. A lot of permit holders in the fishery--it
seems the majority--had substantial investment stranded in DAS currency
and are now faced with a sector allocation and trading system that is
not functioning in a way that enables them to recover. Consequently,
many permit holders are locked into dire circumstances at no fault of
their own. Naturally, that is why you have heard and will probably
continue to hear a lot of outrage about sectors coming from the region.
Rebuilding Timelines
The MSRA also revised the deadline for the Councils to prepare and
implement measures to rebuild overfished stocks. This deadline was not
in itself a problem, at least for New England groundfish management.
What continues to present a problem is the 10-year or any arbitrary
time-frame for rebuilding resulting from MSA section 304(e)(4)(A)(ii).
While many people have expressed many different ideas about the
need for ``rebuilding flexibility,'' as explained below, our consistent
view has been the need to simply eliminate any arbitrary time
requirement for rebuilding and replace it with a rebuilding strategy
founded on natural population dynamics. We don't need flexibility built
into arbitrary rebuilding time-frames; we need to get rid of them!
The fundamental MSA objective to simultaneously achieve the biomass
that produces the MSY for all stocks in a multispecies ecosystem and
fishery is a very expensive one (not to mention biologically
unachievable). The least-common-denominator management effect resulting
from this objective ensures that in a multi-species fishery, very
substantial amounts of the optimum yield of those stocks that happen to
be at their high points will be wasted in order for the fishery to
comply with the requirements to rebuild all stocks that happen to be at
a low point. When I say wasted, I mean that substantial portions of the
optimum yield will be left in the water uncaught and lost to natural
mortality. This is the inherent conundrum presented by National
Standard 1 for a multispecies fishery in a complex ecosystem.
What often greatly exacerbates this loss of sustainable yield are
the arbitrary rebuilding timeframes generated from MSA section
304(e)(4)(A)(ii) which generally require shorter timeframes and lower
fishing mortality rates than the true population dynamics of a stock
would otherwise require. In other words, even more sustainable yield of
the stronger stocks will be lost in the effort to rebuild more quickly.
In our multi-species groundfish fishery, approximately 60 percent of
the total optimum yield remains harvested each year.
To be successful, a rebuilding strategy based on an arbitrary time-
frame either requires knowing the unknowable, or pure luck. The
``unknowables'' are future recruitment, natural mortality and,
consequently, what the correct rebuilding target should actually be 10
years or more into the future. These parameters of fish stock
population dynamics are ultimately driven by the dynamics of the
ecosystem and environment--things that are completely beyond our
control.
And, these ecosystem dynamics are even further complicated by the
interrelationships between stocks in a multi-species ecosystem and
fishery.
We may get very lucky and by accident choose the right numbers, but
far more likely the population effects on a fish population caused by
the relatively small portion of mortality we do have control over
(fishing) will be far outweighed by the effects caused by those
ecosystem and environmental parameters we have no control over and
cannot predict.
Instead, as more than one distinguished NMFS Chief Scientist has
testified, the arbitrary timeframes for rebuilding set forth in MSA
section 304(e)(4)(A)(ii) should be replaced with a strategy linked
directly to the true population dynamics of a stock. In other words, a
strategy of setting a target fishing mortality rate at the level that
will over time, on average rebuild the stock to the biomass that will
produce maximum sustainable yield. This fishing mortality rate is known
as Fmsy, and managers may appropriately adjust the target with a buffer
to reflect scientific uncertainty.
The time it will take to rebuild any stock fished at Fmsy (or as
adjusted) will be exactly that which reflects the actual future
recruitment and natural mortality exhibited by the stock--parameters
that will be dictated by the uncontrollable and unpredictable dynamics
of the ecosystem. By definition, this strategy will prevent overfishing
and achieve rebuilding which are the true and legitimate biological
objectives of the MSA. The policy decision to rebuild more quickly than
this strategy was purely a political one, and I should point out that
even NOAA Administrator Lubchenco has suggested this question should be
reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), and that at some
point she was in discussions with NAS for this purpose. We would
encourage you to follow-up with Dr. Lubchenco on her plans.
Again, the current arbitrary rebuilding time frames have compounded
the difficulties in multispecies management, particularly with the 19
stocks subject to our groundfish plan. They force ACLs to be extremely
low for some stocks, choking the sector trading system needed to
achieve the Amendment 16 objective of increasing the utilization of
Optimum Yield.
ACLs
The MSRA requirement to set ACLs for all stocks was never a problem
per se'. The need to set annual catch limits was fundamental to the
decision to transition the New England groundfish fishery from effort-
based to catch-based management anyway.
As explained above, the arbitrary deadline for ACL implementation
was problematic for NE groundfish due to the complexity of the broad
objectives of Amendment 16 and the lack of updated biological
objectives from the new stock assessment before the sector system was
set in stone and the implications understood.
As also explained above, those ACLs that were set at artificially
low levels for stocks subject to the arbitrary 10-year rebuilding
timeframe, exacerbated the least-common-denominator (choke stock)
effect on the fishery resulting in even greater losses of Optimum
Yield.
Further, what came to light for some of us only after the MSRA was
enacted and more fully understood was the profound role the Scientific
and Statistical Committees (SSCs) were afforded. While purely advisory
pre-MSRA, the SSC's recommended catch levels now dictate the upper
limit of the ACLs developed by the Councils according to MSA section
302(h)(6).
The SSC's responsibility to generate catch limits involves
following the National Standard 1 guidelines, a process which can
generate a range of results, some more conservative than others, but
all consistent with the requirements of the Act. This is an
extraordinary authority, responsibility and level of discretion for a
group that includes non-Federal scientists and, therefore, is something
that should be accompanied by a process of checks and balances.
As we have seen with NE groundfish, there is indeed a great deal at
stake in the ACL-setting process--including whether the sector
allocation trading system can function. A functional sector allocation
trading system is fundamental to the premise that sectors, as coops,
can achieve a higher utilization of the Optimum Yield than under the
previous system and, thereby, achieve greater economic benefits for
sector members. This is among the most important purposes of the sector
system. Unfortunately, the ACLs generated for the NE groundfish fishery
were set so low for some stocks that when coupled with the narrow
distribution of the initial allocation, a vast majority of the vessels
that were relatively viable in 2009 suddenly found themselves too far
below the break point to actively engage the new system.
NSC has repeatedly noted that MSA section 302(h)(6) does not apply
to the Secretary and that this provides the Secretary with critical
``checks and balances'' authority to intervene if the ACLs need to be
adjusted in order to meet other equally important National Standards,
objectives and mandates of the Act. With this authority, the Secretary
can also serve as a ``peer review'' of the SSCs application and
interpretation of the National Standard 1 guidelines and of the
scientific data itself. We feel this is a critical and potentially very
useful Secretarial authority that Congress ought to encourage. It
appears, however, that this is one of those areas of the statute where
the agency's attorneys have adopted a very conservative, unhelpful
interpretation.
Finally, I would note that NOAA recently announced the anticipated
increases in ACLs for some groundfish stocks. To be clear, these
increases were not a result of the Secretary responding to the multiple
requests from members of the New England Congressional Delegation to
use his authority to adjust the groundfish ACLs described above.
Instead, these increases were a natural product of the Framework 44
ACL-setting process generated from Amendment 16. I should also point
out that these ACL increases are not a testament to the success of
sectors and ``catch-share'' management as some might suggest. In fact,
the data on which these ACL increases are based pre-date the
implementation of our sectors.
Senator Brown's Bill
S. 238, the Fishery Impact Statement Honesty Act introduced by
Senator Scott Brown and co-sponsored by Senators Snowe and Collins
brings focus to another very important issue that became apparent
during the Amendment 16 development process.
Because a basic purpose of Amendment 16 was to make the enormous
and complex transition from the DAS effort-based management system to
the sector ``catch share'' system, there was a great deal of
uncertainty about what the social and economic impacts would be on
individual fishermen, ports and communities throughout the region. In
any case, everyone knew the impacts would be huge.
However, because so much of what was being developed in Amendment
16 was unprecedented, the required Fishery Impact Statements and
associated socio-economic analyses were both difficult to produce and
of limited utility or influence in the Amendment 16 decision-making
process. In fact, in an effort to facilitate better industry-wide
understanding of these impacts in the face of a limited Council
economic analysis of the allocation options, the Northeast Seafood
Coalition itself commissioned a professional analysis of these options.
Unfortunately, none of these analyses had their intended impact and
under current law, once the Amendment is implemented, such analyses
basically sit on a shelf to gather dust. Further, there is no formal
process to go back and assess what the post-implementation impacts
actually were--much less do anything about them.
Nevertheless, Congress made clear in both National Standard 8 and
the required impact statements that understanding and minimizing the
economic impacts of Federal fishery regulations on fishermen and
fishing communities must be among the very top priorities of the
Councils and NMFS.
Notwithstanding this clear mandate, this has proved to be a weak
link in the fishery management process. Although prepared by Council
and agency staffs, fishery impact statements appear to have little if
any operative effect in the actual fishery management process and have
been reduced to a pro forma paperwork exercise.
When originally championed by Senator Olympia Snowe in the 1990s as
part of the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA), National Standard 8 was
intended to provide the crucial, missing balance to those elements of
the SFA that were focused strictly on fish stock conservation. In
practice, we saw little evidence that National Standard 8 mandate to
minimize adverse economic impacts on fishing communities was reflected
in the Amendment 16 process.
If enacted we think this legislation would have at least three very
important positive impacts on future fishery management. First, it
would improve the quality of Fishery Impact Statements given the
authors are both independent and would know their work will be reviewed
annually after implementation. Second, it would lead to the Council's
taking National Standard 8 and these economic analyses far more
seriously in their initial decision-making and implementation. And
third, the mandate for the Secretary of Congress to actually mitigate
unacceptable economic impacts identified in post-implementation reviews
would be a giant leap forward in restoring more balance between
conservation and economic impacts to the fishery management process.
These would be very big improvements that should be given the
Committee's full and serious attention.
U.S./Canada
As a final note, I want to express my very profound appreciation to
Senators Snowe and Kerry and other members of the Committee and
Congress, and especially the Committee staff, for getting the job done
on clarifying how the MSA rebuilding provisions will apply to stocks
covered by the U.S.-Canada Transboundary Resources Sharing
Understanding.
We worked with you on this issue for more than 5 years beginning,
in fact, with the development of the MSRA. Thus, I must recognize your
exceptional persistence which has already paid off with a critical
adjustment to the Georges Bank Yellowtail Flounder catch limits agreed-
to by the U.S. and Canada last month.
As is appropriate and intended by Congress for stocks managed by
international agreement, the U.S. catch limits for our U.S.-Canada
transboundary fisheries will now reflect the true status and population
dynamics of the stocks rather than the fishing mortality rate needed to
rebuild a stock according to an arbitrary timeframe. The ``apples and
oranges'' approach to fishery management between the U.S. and Canada
threatened to collapse the critically needed joint cooperative
management of these valuable transboundary stocks, and so I see a very
bright future for continued cooperation.
I should also note that while the recent increases in Georges Bank
yellowtail flounder catch limits enabled by this legislation are not
yet large enough to support a directed fishery, they will make a very
substantial difference in alleviating the ``choke stock'' effect on
fishing for other valuable groundfish stocks and on the valuable New
England scallop fishery. As this stock continues to rebuild according
to its natural population dynamics, we fully expect to see the return
of the directed yellowtail fishery on Georges Banks. Thank you again
for your hard work in making this happen.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much.
Next person is William Bird, Attorney at Law, private--
for--and a private angler, himself.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM R. BIRD, ATTORNEY AT LAW,
PRIVATE ANGLER AND MEMBER,
COASTAL CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION
Mr. Bird. Thank you, Senator Begich, for this opportunity
to testify before the Senate committee on the implementation of
the 2006 reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act.
Specifically, I will address how the current implementation
of the changes made to the MSA in 2006 are impacting
recreational fisheries in the State of Florida.
I would also like to thank Senator Nelson for his work on
several important fishery issues for Florida, and his
introduction, in the last Congress, of Senate bill 3594, the
Fishery Conservation Transition Act.
Many of the points of my testimony have already been
touched on, particularly by Senators Nelson and Rubio, but I'm
going to proceed and pile on, too; with my apologies to Mr.
Schwaab, in any event.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bird. My name is Bill Bird. I'm a long-time member of
the Coastal Conservation Association and past Chairman and
President of the Florida chapter of CCA. I'm a life-long
recreational angler, and have enjoyed fishing the beautiful
inshore and offshore waters of Florida for the last 25 years.
The passage of the 2006 reauthorization of the MSA ushered
in new--important new provisions to end overfishing, improve
data collection for recreational fisheries, and requiring, for
the first time, necessary economic and social analyses of the
impacts of fishery management decisions on all participants in
each sector of the fishery.
As a recreational fisherman concerned about the health and
abundance of our saltwater fisheries, I view these provisions
as critical to improving Federal fisheries management. However,
as someone who has followed Federal management of recreational
fisheries in Florida for considerable amount of time, I can
tell you that there is a management crisis facing many
recreational fisheries, with the current implementation of the
2006 reauthorization of MSA.
In an effort to end, once and for all, overfishing of
historically overfished stocks, the 2006 reauthorization of MSA
included a provision requiring annual catch limits, or ACLs,
that must not be exceeded, for every federally-managed fishery.
The problem is that, without a recent and accurate stock
assessment or a baseline stock assessment for a fishery, there
is no way to meet the legal requirement of the 2006
reauthorization that an annual catch limit be established and
not exceeded. It is the legal equivalent of requiring drivers
to not exceed the speed limit while driving cars without
speedometers.
ACLs are a particular concern in recreational species for
which there is only poor data or a complete lack of data. In
the south Atlantic region, there are several recreationally
important and valuable fisheries for which there are--no stock
assessment has ever been undertaken, and many others that had
an initial stock assessment and then were never reassessed to
determine the current health of the stock.
The potentially most egregious example of this can be found
in the recommendation, by the South Atlantic Council's Science
and Statistical Committee, of a generic formula designed to
reduce harvest of stocks of fish that have never been assessed
but are otherwise considered healthy and not showing any signs
of decline. This formula would be applied to species such as
cobia, wahoo, and dolphin in the south Atlantic, all species
for which no assessment has ever been undertaken, that have no
indication that overfishing is occurring in any of them. The
logical option would be to set the annual catch limit for these
species at current harvest levels until assessments are
performed. Unfortunately, fishery managers are recommending
reduced catch levels for these species, even though there is no
indication that they are in any trouble.
Recognizing the need to improve information about the
status of recreational fisheries, the 2006 reauthorization of
MSA provided a potentially valuable provision to establish a
national program for the registration of marine recreational
fishermen. The new national program was required to be in place
by January 1, 2009, but, to my knowledge, is still not
operational. This is not only a failure by NMFS to meet the
legal requirements of the 2006 Act, but it also exacerbates the
inability of NMFS to properly implement Annual Catch Limits for
recreational fisheries that lack timely data.
Improved data collection is imperative to the successful
implementation of annual catch limits. Given the failure of
NMFS to meet the legal requirements of the reauthorization to
establish a national program to improve recreational data
collection, NMFS cannot justify shutting down or reducing catch
in recreational fisheries under catch limits when there is no
data to support those limits for species that are not in
trouble.
The mandatory requirements for drafting a fishery
management plan were amended in four separate and distinct
areas to require economic analyses. And many things are
different now than they were when MSA was first passed. And a
big part of such analysis is the allocation of the take among
sectors, which is an ongoing and important responsibility of
MSA.
Coastal State populations have exploded, as have the number
of visiting anglers, and allocations have not been adjusted to
reflect those realities.
The MSA has a mechanism to accommodate all of these
changes. It requires the councils to review and change
allocations, as necessary. Fishery managers and councils are
inherently reluctant to do this, because allocation of the use
of any public resource creates winners and losers, and the
inevitable controversy. However, MSA now requires economic
analyses of the impact of harvest restrictions on all sectors
in a fishery.
Thank you again for the opportunity, Senator. And that
concludes my testimony. And I'll be glad to field any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bird follows:]
Prepared Statement of William R. Bird, Attorney at Law, Private Angler
and Member, Coastal Conservation Association
Thank you, Chairman Begich, for this opportunity to testify before
the Senate Commerce Committee on the implementation of the 2006
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (MSA). Specifically, I will address how the current
implementation of the changes made to the MSA in 2006 are impacting
recreational fisheries in the state of Florida.
I would also like to thank Senator Nelson for his work in the last
Congress on several important fisheries issues for Florida and his
introduction last Congress of S. 3594, the Fishery Conservation
Transition Act.
My name is Bill Bird. I am a long-time Member of the Coastal
Conservation Association (CCA) and the past Chairman and President of
the Florida Chapter of CCA. I am a life-long recreational angler and
have enjoyed fishing the beautiful inshore and offshore waters of
Florida for the last 25 years.
CCA is the leading marine recreational fishing group in the United
States. Formed by a small group of sport fishermen in Houston in 1977,
CCA has grown to become a seventeen-state association with over 90,000
members. Our volunteer membership, which spans from Brownsville, Texas
to Portland, Maine to Seattle, Washington, prides itself on passionate
grassroots efforts to influence policies and laws that promote
sustainable fisheries for recreational anglers. We believe that we, as
recreational anglers, have proven that we are and always have been the
best stewards of our fisheries.
Over the last 30 years, CCA has been active in a number of
conservation issues on both the state and Federal level, including all
of the east and Gulf coast net bans; gamefish status for redfish;
protective measures for species such as speckled trout, tarpon, striped
bass, shad, marlins, swordfish and sailfish; and the reduction of
wasteful bycatch through the use of technology and time and area
closures. CCA has also pushed for the improvement of fishery management
systems through the restructuring of state and Federal regulatory
bodies; the elimination of conflicts of interests by decisionmakers;
and the active involvement of its membership in the management process.
The passage of the 2006 reauthorization of the MSA ushered in
important new provisions to end overfishing; improve data collection
for recreational fisheries; and requiring for the first time necessary
economic and social analyses of the impacts of fishery management
decisions on all participants in each sector of the fishery. As a
recreational fisherman concerned about the health and abundance of our
saltwater fisheries, I view these provisions as critical to improving
Federal fisheries management.
However, as someone who has followed Federal management of
recreational fisheries in Florida for a considerable amount of time, I
can tell you there is a management crisis facing many recreational
fisheries with the current implementation of the 2006 Reauthorization
of MSA.
Ending Overfishing
In an effort to once-and-for-all end overfishing of historically
overfished stocks, the 2006 Reauthorization of MSA included a provision
requiring ``annual catch limits'' or ``ACLs'' that must not be exceeded
for every federally-managed fishery.\1\ The Senate Report filed with
the passage of the Senate MSA bill (S. 2012) provides some explanation
of the rationale for including annual catch limits to end overfishing--
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Reauthorization Act (P.L. 109-479), 16 U.S.C. 1853(a)(15); MSA
303(a)(15).
``The [Sustainable Fisheries Act] established new requirements
in the Magnuson-Stevens Act designed to prevent overfishing and
rebuild overfished or depleted fisheries. The SFA attempted to
address overfishing by capping fish harvests at maximum
sustainable yield (MSY) and requiring FMPs to include measures
to rebuild overfished stocks. However, recent evaluations of
stock status have shown that 10 years after enactment of the
SFA, overfishing is still occurring in a number of fisheries,
even those fisheries under a rebuilding plan established early
in the SFA implementation process.'' \2\ (emphasis added)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ U.S. Senate. Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Reauthorization Act of 2005 (to accompany S. 2012). (S. Rpt. 109-229),
pg. 6. U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, 2006.
Annual catch limits were intended to put a ceiling on the allowable
take in a fishery so as to prevent continued overfishing. As noted in
the Senate Report, this was not a new concept, and in fact was the goal
of the Sustainable Fisheries Act, which was the reauthorization of the
MSA that Congress passed in 1996. However, 10 years later, when the
Senate Commerce Committee took up the latest reauthorization of the
Federal fisheries law, overfishing of stocks found previously to be
overfished was still occurring.
One critical factor of implementing annual catch limits, however,
was the requirement to have accurate data on the status of the
fisheries. Indeed, accurate data is a prerequisite for establishing a
``catch limit'' that can then be measured during subsequent fishery
years. Without a recent and accurate stock assessment or a baseline
stock assessment for a fishery, there is no way to meet the legal
requirement of the 2006 Reauthorization of MSA that an annual catch
limit be established and not exceeded. It is the legal equivalent of
requiring drivers to not exceed the speed limit while driving cars
without speedometers.
Unfortunately, species in which there is a significant recreational
component have long suffered from poor data or a complete lack of data
and a general lack of proper management by the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS). In the South Atlantic region there are
several recreationally important and valuable fisheries for which no
stock assessment has ever been undertaken, and many others that had an
initial stock assessment and then were never assessed again to
determine the current health of the stock. In spite of a lack of
accurate information for many species, NMFS has nonetheless decided to
close recreational fishing for some species in order to meet the
requirement of annual catch limits. In the case of black sea bass, this
decision was based entirely on an outdated stock assessment that
previously showed the fishery to be overfished nearly 10 years ago,
even though no new assessments have been made to determine if that is
the situation presently. The stock is likely rebuilding as planned,
because the recreational fishery, which responds to abundance, is
catching more fish than the current total allowable catch. However,
with the advent of annual catch limits, NMFS has chosen to close the
recreational black sea bass fishery in the entire southeast for 4
months, notwithstanding the lack of information on the current status
of the stock.
Another significant problem we have faced is the potential closure
of completely healthy fisheries to rebuild 1 particular stock. In 2007,
the first full, modern stock assessment was completed on red snapper,
an extremely popular recreational species in the South Atlantic. That
stock assessment revealed that the red snapper stock was undergoing
overfishing and was overfished. While few questioned that red snapper
had been fished to a level below its historical abundance, none
questioned that this was a result of decades of Federal negligence in
actually managing such an important recreational stock. However, to end
overfishing of red snapper, fishery managers considered closing not
only the directed red snapper fishery, but also several thousand square
nautical miles of the South Atlantic to all bottom fishing to prevent
any red snapper mortality as bycatch.
The most absurd and potentially punitive result of implementing
annual catch limits can be found in the recommendation by the South
Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Science and Statistical Committee
of a generic formula designed to reduce harvest of stocks of fish that
have never been assessed but are otherwise considered healthy and not
showing any signs of decline. This formula would be applied to cobia,
wahoo and dolphin in the South Atlantic, all species for which no stock
assessment has been undertaken, with no indication that overfishing is
occurring in any of them. The logical option would be to simply set the
annual catch limit for these species at current harvest levels until
assessments are performed. Unfortunately, fishery managers are
recommending reduced catch levels for these species even though there
is no indication that these species are in any trouble.
If NMFS proceeds to implement annual catch limits under such a
draconian approach for data poor stocks and stocks without assessments,
recreational fishing in Federal waters could be indefinitely
prohibited--a result I am certain that neither this committee nor the
Congress ever intended to take place.
One of the goals of annual catch limits was to drive better data
collection and provide greater accountability in fisheries management.
Some are now concerned that NMFS intends to implement catch limits in
such a restrictive manner that no new information on data poor or
unassessed fisheries will be gathered, and that these fisheries will
simply be closed or the allowable catch will be significantly reduced.
Again, this was never the intention of this Committee, and the Senate
Report explaining the need for annual catch limits to drive better data
was clearly stated----
``The Committee intends that these annual catch limits, taken
with the existing overfishing and rebuilding authorities, will
ensure full compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, thereby
producing better data collection on the abundance of stocks and
eventually providing real time catch figures--information that
will help achieve greater accountability in fishery management.
The intent of this provision is not only to prevent overfishing
from occurring, but also to drive improvements in fishery data
collection and research to develop a more precise assessment of
the amount of fish that can be caught without exceeding
[optimum yield].'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Id. at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improving Data Collection for Recreational Fisheries
Recognizing the need to improve information gathering on
recreational fisheries, the 2006 Reauthorization of MSA provided a
potentially valuable provision to establish a national program for the
registration of marine recreational fishermen. The program is
authorized ``to improve the quality and accuracy of information
generated by the Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey, with a
goal of achieving acceptable accuracy and utility for each individual
fishery.'' \4\ This provision was the result of a National Research
Council report on the Review of Recreational Fisheries Survey Methods
(2006), which determined that NMFS's recreational fisheries survey
methods were fatally flawed and completely ineffective in establishing
accurate recreational catch data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Reauthorization Act (P.L. 109-479), 16 U.S.C. 1881(g)(3)(A); MSA
401(g)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The new national program for recreational data collection was
required to be in place by January 1, 2009, but to date the program is
still not operational. This is not only a failure by NMFS to meet the
legal requirements of the 2006 Act, but it exacerbates the inability of
NMFS to properly implement annual catch limits for recreational
fisheries that lack timely data. In fact, this committee understood the
need to implement improved data collection for recreational fisheries
before the requirements of annual catch limits could be implemented,
when it noted in the Senate Report explaining the national program----
``Improved [recreational] fishing data collection is imperative
to the successful implementation of section 104(7) [annual
catch limit section under S. 2012] of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act.'' \5\ (explanation of section number added)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ U.S. Senate. Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Reauthorization Act of 2005 (to accompany S. 2012). (S. Rpt. 109-229),
pg. 38. U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, 2006.
Improved data collection is imperative to the successful
implementation of annual catch limits. Given the failure of NMFS to
meet the legal requirement of the 2006 Reauthorization of MSA to
establish a national program to improve recreational data collection,
NMFS can not justify shutting down or reducing catch in recreational
fisheries under annual catch limits when there is no data to support
those limits. Recreational fisheries that have suffered for years from
a complete lack of Federal management cannot now be expected to
implement arguably the most aggressive legal fishery management
requirement ever established.
Considering the failure to properly meet the legal requirement to
improve data via implementation of the national recreational registry
program, recreational fisheries for which no stock assessment has ever
been performed, and those fisheries for which no stock assessment has
been performed within the last 5 years, should not be subject to annual
catch limits below current levels.
Assessing the Impacts of Harvest Restrictions on Recreational Fisheries
New information and analyses are now required under the 2006
Reauthorization of the MSA. The mandatory requirements for drafting a
fishery management plan were amended in four separate and distinct
areas to require a description, consideration, analysis and assessment
of economic impacts of harvest restrictions on each sector or
participant in the fishery.\6\ ``Sector or participant in the fishery''
are defined as ``commercial, recreational, and charter fishing.'' \7\
These four separate changes to the requirements for implementing a
fishery management plan taken together ``require an assessment of the
relative economic importance of the commercial, recreational, and
charter fishing sectors of the fishery . . . to ensure that in
allocating harvest restrictions among sectors, the economic impact of
such restrictions on each sector participating in the fishery is
considered.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ MSFCMRA (P.L. 109-479), 16 U.S.C. 1853(a)(5),(9),(13),(14).
\7\ Id.
\8\ (S. Rpt. 109-229), pg. 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allocation is an ongoing and important responsibility of the MSA.
It is a duty that should be performed by the Councils on a periodic
basis to ensure that all sectors of the fishery are being treated
fairly, and that the public's resources are being used for the best
benefit to the Nation. It is also the best way to accommodate the
biological, economic and social changes in a fishery. The world today
is not the same world that existed in 1977. Look at the population
growth in only two states along the Gulf Coast over the life of the
MSA. Florida has grown from about 8 million residents in 1977 to over
18 million in 2010. Texas has grown from approximately 13,000,000 to
25,000,000. Not all of the new population has gone saltwater fishing,
but a substantial portion of them have. Florida is reported to have
some 3,000,000 saltwater anglers, Texas another million. Those numbers
do not include the many visitors that come to fish the same waters. All
of these anglers are fishing the same stocks that existed in 1977.
These anglers are not fishing with the same level of efficiency as
they were in 1977, either. Most of the present day fisherman use
significantly better gear today than their parents did. In the 1970s,
offshore recreational fishing was undertaken with primitive sonar,
boats with inboard engines and little knowledge of things like release
mortality. Today we can go twenty miles offshore in a boat with three
350 horsepower outboards and locate a reef the size of this table.
Technology has made today's angler much more efficient. It has also
produced a significant industry for fishing tackle, electronics and
boats. NOAA estimates that marine recreational fishing contributes some
$80 billion to the U.S. economy, which includes a lot of jobs here at
home. A big part of that, especially for the Federal fisheries, is the
sale of boats. The National Marine Manufacturers Association estimates
that recreational fishing takes place on some 70 percent of the boats
sold in the U.S.
The MSA has a mechanism to accommodate all of these changes--the
Councils need to review and change allocations as necessary. Fishery
managers and councils are inherently reluctant to do this because
allocations of the use of any public resource creates winners and
losers and the inevitable controversy. However, the MSA clearly points
to the elements necessary to consider changes in allocation. It now
requires economic analysis of the impact on the various sectors of
changes in the fishery. It has always required an analysis of the
fairness of any redistribution of the resource and the conservation
impact of the measures on each sector.
My State of Florida, along with many other states, has managed such
changes constructively. In many cases, states have declared gamefish
status for key recreational species. In Florida there are no sale
provisions for snook, tarpon and bonefish. The state has banned the use
of highly-destructive and non-selective gear like gill nets. It has
placed size, season, and bag limits on recreational fishermen that have
allowed for continued access to the fisheries but also conserved the
stocks. Last, they have enlisted the support and cooperation of the
recreational angling community to ensure acceptability and compliance.
All of this has been allocative, and all of it was done to provide
greater access to the public resource. NOAA recently adopted a catch
share policy which includes a requirement that allocation decisions be
made by the regional Councils to reflect the social, economic and
conservation needs of the fishery. The Gulf Council has recently
initiated just such a review for red snapper, gag and red grouper. The
outcomes of these reviews must reflect the reality on the water. We can
no longer close out the public because of decades old allocations based
on historic catches of 20 or 30 years ago.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on how the current
implementation of the changes made to the MSA in 2006 are impacting
recreational fisheries in the State of Florida. The problems I have
described are real, and the impacts are creating a damaging rift
between conservation-minded anglers and the Federal agencies charged
with managing our fisheries. It is critical that before annual catch
limits are imposed on data poor fisheries and fisheries that have had
no assessments, the Congress require program funds for more stock
assessments and improved data collection.
We would like to work with the Subcommittee toward that end. Mr.
Chairman, that concludes my testimony, and I would be happy to take
questions.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much. Thank you for your
testimony.
Let me, if I can--Ms. Madsen, I want to--you were--you
stayed through the first round of the panel. You heard some of
the Senators, here, in regards to the Northeast. You've heard,
now, some additional commentary. In your opinion--help me
understand--I mean, in Alaska we have gone to catch shares,
we've gone to, you know, rationalizing our fisheries in a way
that--instead of just first out gets whatever they can get. Why
do you think it doesn't work, or at least it's not embraced
aggressively, in the Northeast? I--and I only--I ask this
because it seems--our history, today in Alaska, is very
positive, but the history, when we started with this, was not
as--I mean, we went through some trying times to get to where
we are today. Would that be a fair statement?
Ms. Madsen. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Begich. I mean, it just didn't happen overnight.
Ms. Madsen. No.
Senator Begich. And that's why I still call them the ``fish
wars.'' I think we remember those well.
Why do you think it's not embraced from the--kind of a
fisherman's viewpoint of--in the Northeast, yet, in how to
manage this resource differently? Or--and can it work? Can what
we do in Alaska really work elsewhere?
Ms. Madsen. Mr. Chairman, thank you for question. I think
that from--my personal view over the years is that--I think the
first thing that has to happen is the good science, and the
trust between the fishermen and the managers and stock
assessment authors, and a transparent process. If you're going
to doubt the fundamental basis that you're going to set these
annual catch limits on, I'm not sure how you move forward from
there.
I believe that maybe it's just a convergence of untimely
issues. I think the Northeast seems to have to face two things
at once, possibly; and that is the implementation of annual
catch limits, which they have not had before, and, in addition
to that, a new catch-share model that they're not familiar
with, either. And so, those two things seem to be happening at
the same time in the Northeast, which probably does cause
people a lot of concern, a lot of uncertainty.
So, Mr. Chairman, briefly I would say, you've got to get
the science, you've got to trust the science, you have to have
a transparent process, you have to have buy-in. I think that
once people get comfortable that they know what the actual
available catch is, then I think people can start focusing on
how to maximize the value of the limited catch that they might
have. And I think that's what we have done in the north
Pacific.
Senator Begich. Let me--when it was originally set up, or
when elements were set up, how did--or how did we remind--I
guess, for the record here--the connection to the communities,
how did we deal with the economic issues of the communities? In
creating that balance, as mentioned by Mr. Bird, there are
winners and there are losers, absolutely. So, how did we
address that?
Ms. Madsen. Mr. Chairman----
Senator Begich. Or--yes.
Ms. Madsen.--again, I think that people oftentimes forget
that the councils have to consider a lot of laws besides
Magnuson. And I certainly think that there are other laws that
have to be considered that have to take in socioeconomic
impacts to both communities, under National Standard A, and
small and large players in the industry. I think it is a
balancing act.
In our examples, we have required landings to occur in
certain communities, when we move to a rationalized program, so
that you don't--we did have one IFQ program, in halibut/
sablefish, that didn't have landing requirements. And we did
see a shift and a loss of revenue in a lot of smaller Southeast
communities, because of the increased value that went to the
road systems in Alaska. So, I think we learned from that. And
we designed a program that required certain landings to be
maintained to protect those coastal communities.
Additionally, we had the community development quota in the
pollock fishery that allocated 10 percent of the pollock quota
to 56 communities that lived on the coast of the Bering Sea,
that now have become investors and owners in the resource. That
was another example. They're also looking at a set-aside, in
the Gulf of Alaska, for coastal communities that want to, kind
of, bootstrap their constituents in those communities, to
provide some start-up quota for them to get into the fishery,
that they can then buy into the fishery, when a rationalized
program.
So, I think--in short, Mr. Chairman, I think the Council
has tried to limit the barriers to entry for communities in
Alaska.
Senator Begich. You think some of this can be--this--the
concepts can be exported out to New England and other parts of
the country?
Ms. Madsen. I think that if you can get over the rift that
Senator Snowe talked about, between--the lack of trust between
the science and the fishermen--yes.
Senator Begich. OK. Thank you very much.
Mr. Giacalone, let me ask you a couple things. How long has
sector management--I'm not as familiar with the Northeast, but
how long has the sector management program been in play?
Mr. Giacalone. Sector management actually was implemented,
as a provision that could be utilized voluntarily, in 2004 in
the previous Amendment 13.
It was utilized by two sectors. First one was on a pilot
level, directed cod fishery. And then the second one was a very
similar, almost a brother-type sector. So, it was never used in
a broad application. It was never used on all gear types.
So, we're just completing--we've got a month and a half
left to our first full fishing year, where the entire fishery
is basically under this sector management.
Senator Begich. Have you seen--in the allowable catch, have
you seen increase?
Mr. Giacalone. Not yet. On some species, we've seen some
increases. The incentives have created more targeting of some
of the healthier stocks. But, we haven't seen an overall
increase in yields.
Senator Begich. Have you seen any change in the economic
element of it--or its--more value, less value, the same?
Mr. Giacalone. None that we can tie to the supply, yet.
It's too early, I think, to see the market differences. We have
had a fairly strong market this year, but it doesn't seem to
follow any trend with consistency of supply over the years
prior. So, we're not seeing it.
We do see a big difference in the economics of the fishery.
And one of them is, the cost of fishing is now dramatically
increased. And I--we still don't see any economic studies that
are looking at that. I know what my gross revenue is this year,
and it's a lot more than it was in previous years, but my net
is a lot less. The cost of renting fish, right now, is
somewhere--anywheres between 40 percent and 80 percent of the
X-vessel value.
And where it's dramatically, starkly different than what
goes on in the Northwest is that we don't have a bunch of
bycatch fisheries. What we have is--or bycatch species--what we
have is 19 stocks that each stock is someone's target and
someone else's bycatch. And the stock assessments are so
volatile from year to year that your bycatch this year becomes
your target next. So, that makes it a lot more complicated,
that you can't just, you know, dole out the--so people are
paying for hot-target species, in order to stay in business
right now, which is not very economically viable.
Senator Begich. Are you going to do anything, within your
group--as a coalition, are you going to do anything in any
economic analysis after the season is done? Are you going to do
anything that say, kind of, the--to analyze what you think
are--worked, what didn't work?
Mr. Giacalone. We're now consulting with several folks that
are in the research community, both public and private. And
right now, the resources that we have--the human resources--are
totally tapped out with just trying to stay up with the
reporting and the requirements that come with the new system,
and ironing the bugs out of it. So, we don't have the resources
to actually be doing the work, but we are compiling the data.
Senator Begich. And you--I'm assuming you would--that
getting that kind of data would be helpful in analyzing the
future. Correct?
Mr. Giacalone. Absolutely.
Senator Begich. OK. Let me ask just a couple of quick last
questions, then I'm going to close it out, unless someone pops
in here, last minute. I don't--I'm a believer that once we've
done asking the questions, I don't have to wait for other
people if they're not here.
So, let me ask, Mr. Bird, if you could comment, in general.
Your agreement--or your comments lead me to believe--and I
think I'm starting to hear, not only from the four in
Southeast, but also the Northeast, that there is a grave
concern of--and I'll ask, actually, both of you, if possible--
and that is regards to the data and the trust level. What do
you think are the steps to ensure that--as Ms. Madsen
mentioned--how do we build the trust on making sure the right
research data is there for both of your areas of fishery? So,
when you look at that data--and I will just tell you, from
Alaska experience, we see--you'll always have some fishermen
that don't like the data.
Is that a fair statement, Ms. Madsen?
Ms. Madsen. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Begich. No matter what the data says. It could say
that there's going to be a lot of fish and they say, ``Well,
that's not enough.'' Or, not enough one day, then it's too
little.
But, knowing that, do you think there's a point--and what
would cause the opportunity to create a better trust with the
agencies, in regards to the data?
Let me start with Mr. Bird, then I'll come back to you, Mr.
Giacalone.
Mr. Bird. You know, Senator, I think what has to--where you
have to get is where a majority of the people on the water,
what they see matches up with what the managers are telling
them, in terms of abundance and fishing levels. Once you get
there, I think you will get buy-in, particularly from the
recreational community. I think that the recreational anglers
have always been the best stewards of the resource. And if we
have any faith, as a group, that what we're being told needs to
be done to properly manage the species, we'll buy into it.
Senator Begich. And that means making sure the stakeholders
are at the table, right?
Mr. Bird. Correct. And I think it also means, as Mr.
Schwaab has recognized, we need fishery-independent data, in
addition to data just from the fisheries themselves.
Senator Begich. So, peer review and others.
Mr. Bird. Yes. And ultimately, it comes down to commitment
of money and time and effort to get there.
Senator Begich. Mr. Giacalone?
Mr. Giacalone. I would echo what Mr. Bird just said on
that. And the fishery-dependent data and getting the industry
involved--there have been a lot of programs that have be
conducted for industry-type side-by-side surveys, and I think
that's an absolute essential thing for buy-in.
A big problem for us is just the understanding that a lot
of it is driven by the law, and sometimes it's falsely--the
blame is placed on the science. The SSCs are required to come
up with rebuilding programs that are--or mortality rates that
are, in essence, trying to--with very little time left, trying
to get there, where you can't--you know, you try to get there
from here, and you can't reach there. And that's driving very
small TACs, even on--as the stock is increasing; that's what a
lot of people don't understand. So, fishermen would believe
that, ``Why are we reducing TACs, when we see the stocks
increasing and they're admitting that the stocks are
increasing?'' Well, it's because we have a rebuilding target
that may be unattainable. So.
Senator Begich. Let me--I'm going to--I said that was my
last question, but I don't want to leave Dr. Hogarth without
any opportunity.
Do you want to comment, anything, in regards to what you've
just heard in the--some of the comments from the other three
panelists?
Dr. Hogarth. I think they hit it right on the head.
I think one thing, though, is that you do have to recognize
that Alaska has a tremendous fishery. And when you deal with
the south Atlantic, for example, and you deal with what we used
to call ``boutique fishers''--they're very small, and you don't
have the opportunity to really build in much margin; if you do,
then you don't have a fishery left.
I think the key is science. The key definitely is science,
and timely science. The fishermen see things; they're on the
water every day. And the science that we've been able to
collect in the agency is--sort of lags behind. And I think you
have to look at using full resources that the--the Federal
Government has a fleet of vessels, have to be operated fully.
And I think, if you check, they're not being operated fully,
because of money, fuel costs, things like that. So, I think you
have to--we have to begin to look at the science, cooperative
research, and bringing the fishing industry along together.
We knew this was a tough law, back when we dealt with it.
We talked about this. But, there are 139 species that have
pretty much vanished. There are 522 this--the councils have a
responsibility for. And I think you have to, somewhere along
this line, figure is it--where do you put your money? And can
we really afford to look at 522 species and how they fit
together in an ecosystem approach?
And so--but, I think the agency has an enormous job ahead
of them. I think they have the tools to do it. And I think that
we have to figure a way to get the industry and the fishermen
together.
I--at the University of South Florida, I have started a new
course in marine resource assessment, for what I learned here,
from the government. And it's amazing how much interest it had
the first year of the course; taught by the Federal Government,
by their scientists and our scientists.
We had to turn away students from the course. And it has
been helped financed by the National Marine Fisheries Service,
because they need--know we need more stock assessment people.
And we need to learn to look at the oceanographic conditions to
why the fish behave.
So, we have a lot to learn, but I think the Act is working.
And I think that's what we need to look at. We need to look at
how to tweak it so that--so some of these data-poor and mixed
and weak stocks, we can look at differently.
And thank you for the opportunity.
Senator Begich. No, thank you very much.
And I appreciate all your testimony.
I'm going to just lean back to my staff, here, and make
sure I did not forget anything I'm supposed to be doing here.
So----
[Pause.]
Senator Begich.--one last comment just, again, for not only
the four panelists, but others, that the record will be held
open for the next 2 weeks for additional questions and comments
that will be put into the record.
Again, to all four of you, thank you very much for being
here this morning. And we appreciate your testimony. And also,
again to remind you, your full text of your comments will also
be part of the record.
Thank you very much.
This committee meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg,
U.S. Senator from New Jersey
Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing and giving us an
opportunity to discuss this important issue.
More than 5 years ago, we amended our Nation's fisheries laws to
better protect the health of our marine ecosystems and our vibrant
fishing communities.
I am proud that the law included my language to safeguard deep sea
corals--which are sometimes known as the ``rainforests of the ocean''
because of the diversity of species that call them home.
We know that we must ensure the sustainability of fisheries--not
just for the health of our oceans, but for the continued success of the
U.S. fishing industry.
Across the country, commercial and recreational fisheries support
nearly two million jobs and generate $163 billion in sales annually.
In New Jersey, the commercial and recreational fishing industries
are cornerstones of our $50 billion a year coastal economy.
Up and down the shore, you see commercial fishermen bringing in
their catch, and hundreds of New Jerseyans working in the processing
plants that get our seafood out to restaurants across the country.
You see shipbuilders and other businesses that depend on a strong
fishing industry.
And you see recreational boats carrying kids out for their first
fishing trip, or groups of tourists that come to the shore for the
fishing, but also spend their money in our hotels, restaurants, and
casinos.
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Reauthorization Act passed the Senate by unanimous consent in 2006,
with strong support from both parties and a variety of stakeholders.
As with any law, time has revealed elements that have worked well
and elements that have not.
On balance, the law has been a success.
The goal of the law was to end overfishing and rebuild fisheries
that had been overfished within 10 years.
And 5 years down the road, we have made admirable progress.
But we have also heard complaints from fishermen and others about
some aspects of implementation of the law.
I want to make sure that NOAA is listening to the fishermen and
communities that know their local waters best.
And we must take steps to ensure that regulators are using the best
available science at all times.
I look forward to hearing from Mr. Schwaab how he intends to
address these issues, and from other witnesses on how we can improve
implementation of our fisheries laws.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Kelly Ayotte,
U.S. Senator from New Hampshire
Catch limits and sectors established by NOAA for the Northeast
Multispecies Fishery Management Plan represent significant obstacles
for the fishing industry in New Hampshire. Because NOAA has been
relying on incomplete and in some cases nonexistent data, it is
difficult to trust the agency's current basis for establishing catch
limits and assigning catch shares.
NOAA has been measuring fish stocks and catch history in New
Hampshire based on insufficient records and, as a result, subjecting
the fishing industry to unnecessary and burdensome regulations. This
represents bureaucracy at its worst and is forcing historically small
New Hampshire fishermen out of business.
Sustainable fisheries are in everyone's best interest. However, in
keeping with National Standard 8 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, we must
ensure that efforts to sustain fish stocks do not adversely impact our
fishing communities. According to a 2008 report, the commercial and
recreational fishing industries in the United States are worth $163
billion and responsible for 1.9 million jobs. With the unemployment
rate hovering around or above 9 percent for the past 22 months, NOAA
should not be putting more Americans out of work by regulating this
industry out of business.
______
Prepared Statement of Robert E. Dooley, President, United Catcher Boats
House Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife--
House Committee on Natural Resources
Oversight Hearing: A Community Perspective on Catch Shares
--Thursday, April 22, 2010 10:00AM
Chairwoman Bordallo, Ranking Member Young, and members of the
Subcommittee; thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today
regarding NOAA Catch Shares and, in particular, the West Coast
groundfish rationalization plan. My name is Bob Dooley. I am the
President of United Catcher Boats and co-owner of a commercial fishing
company with my brother John.
John and I have lived in Half Moon Bay, CA our entire lives and
have been commercial fishermen for over 40 years. Our families have
been active in commercial fishing and its supporting businesses on the
West Coast for over 70 years. We presently own and operate three
vessels. Two participate in the Alaska Pollock fishery and the West
Coast Pacific Whiting fishery and our third vessel fishes Dungeness
crab off the West Coast.
United Catcher Boats (UCB) is a trade association of 62 commercial
fishing vessels that participate in the Alaskan Pollock, Alaskan crab,
and West Coast groundfish fisheries. Our vessels are called catcher
boats because that is all we do--we catch fish and deliver our catch to
processing facilities. UCB members are very familiar with the benefits
of catch share programs, participating in American Fisheries Act
Pollock cooperatives as well as the Alaskan crab IFQ program, both of
which were approved by Congress and developed through the North Pacific
Fishery Management Council process.
I am here today to express the strong support of both UCB and
myself for Catch Shares programs in general and specifically for the
West Coast Trawl Rationalization Program approved by the Pacific
Fishery Management Council (PFMC). We also support the subsequent
request for Federal funding to help implement this new fishery
management program that is presently in the President's FY 2011 draft
Budget.
I participate in the fully rationalized Bering Sea Pollock fishery
in Alaska. That fishery was fully rationalized in 1999 through the
provisions of the American Fisheries Act. I not only helped in the
implementation of that program but also have the unique perspective of
having participated in this trawl fishery since 1981. I have seen the
problems an open access race for fish creates and the resulting
downward spiral, both economically and environmentally. I have
witnessed first hand the benefits to the health of the fishery,
communities, crews and environment a rationalized fishery provides.
This is what has been missing in the current and past management of the
West Coast trawl fisheries.
Over the past two decades the PFMC has struggled with finding a way
to rebuild depressed fish stocks off the West Coast, implement an
accurate catch accounting system both at-sea and at the dock, and
structure the fishery so the trawl boat owners can once again be
profitable and thus support the local communities that they live in and
deliver their harvests to. During this time period, the Federal
Government has declared the Pacific Coast ground fish fishery a Federal
disaster and the PFMC has implemented a license limitation program that
did not control effort. The fishery has been managed via monthly trip
limits that required regulatory discards and has a minimal observer
program. Congress authorized and funded a vessel and license buyback
loan program that failed to reduce overall effort in the fishery. My
2009 Pacific Whiting Season lasted just 3 weeks. All of these measures
have failed to rebuild the fishery and the value of the fishery
continues to be at an all-time low. Six years ago, the PFMC embarked
upon a project that would allow for ``rationalization'' of the West
Coast Trawl fishery, otherwise known as a Catch Share program, and last
year made their final recommendation to the Department of Commerce.
This new management program is scheduled to go into effect just prior
to the start of the 2011 fishery.
The first point I would like to make is that this program was
developed from the ground up with full participation of all
stakeholders in the West Coast groundfish fishery from Southern
California to Northern Washington. This is not an example of NOAA
Headquarters in Washington, D.C., trying to impose catch shares on the
fishery. The PFMC established a special stakeholders committee that
included a broad membership of fishermen, processors, NGO's and
community representatives. Out of this open process came a preferred
option for an IFQ-based system for the shoreside groundfish and Whiting
fisheries and a Co-op-based system for the offshore Whiting fisheries.
The second point I want to make is that this new program will do
two things that will have a dramatic positive effect on the health of
the fish stocks and the value of the fishery. The first is that it will
end the practice of ``regulatory discards.'' Under the present trip
limit style management fishermen are required to throw valuable fish
overboard. This discard is subtracted from existing quotas under an
assumed estimated discard rate thus contributing to the actual decline
of the resource while no value is being added to the fishery or our
communities. Under the new program, each fisherman will be allocated
their own quota, or percentage, of the stocks of fish they catch and
once they reach their assigned amount, will either have to stop fishing
or find another fishermen to acquire fish from. This individual
allocation allows each fisherman the opportunity to harvest their own
fish when it is most valuable and the ability to utilize each pound of
their quota to return the maximum benefit to themselves and their
communities.
The second thing that will occur under this new program is accurate
accounting all fish that are harvested. Every boat will be required to
carry a Federal observer that will account for the harvest at-sea.
There is also a requirement of a Federal weigh-master at each
processing or receiving plant to observe the delivery of fish and to
check the weight of each delivery. These measures will result in
accurate accounting of the fish that are harvested and delivered.
My third point has to do with Federal funding of this new Catch
Shares Program. To implement this new West Coast program, NOAA is
requesting about $12 million in the FY11 budget. A large portion of
this requested funding will go to help fishermen afford the cost of
having a Federal observer on board their boats (estimated at between
$300 and $900 per day per observer).
Note that this request of funding is not a request to subsidize the
Federal groundfish trawl fishery. In fact the Federal Government has
the authority under the Magnuson-Stevens Act to assess fishermen a LAPP
management fee of up to 3 percent of the value of the fishery. The
fishermen participating in the program will pay an annual fee for the
cost to manage the fishery. The $12 million request is for the start-up
cost of the program in 2011.
Some have said that this funding for implementation of our new
Catch Shares program will take funds away from current collaborative
fishery research and fishery science research. This is simply not true.
Mr. Barry Thom, the Acting NMFS West Coast Regional Director, and Dr.
Eric Schwaab, the newly appointed head of NMFS, both have stated
recently that the new Catch Shares programs will not take Federal money
away from current research programs (Mr. Thom at the March 2010 PFMC
Meeting in Sacramento and Dr. Schwaab at the previous House Resources
Subcommittee hearing on Catch Shares on March 16, 2010.)
Good management of a fishery requires accurate stock assessments of
the fish populations, and a reliable system to determine the amount of
fish that can be sustainably harvested all based on good science. Catch
Share programs in other parts of the country and world have resulted in
the stakeholders, namely the fishermen, demanding the best available
science and research be used. The reason for this is under a Catch
Share system the fishermen have a vested interest in the sustainability
and health of the fishery resource.
Catch Share programs also set up the opportunity for fishermen to
find solutions to management problems without a government mandate, or
regulation. Rather, fishermen work cooperatively to find creative,
voluntary programs to solve real problems. Let me give you a couple of
examples of what I am talking about by looking at the Bering Sea
Pollock fishery. The first is the Pollock fleet's actions to address
the problem of incidental salmon bycatch taken while we are fishing for
Pollock. Under our co-op system, the boat owners developed and approved
a voluntary program to close small, discrete areas on the fishing
grounds for a limited duration when high rates of salmon bycatch are
encountered. We call these areas Hot Spot Avoidance Areas. Unlike the
government, we are able to close these areas to individual boats or a
group of boats that have above average rates of salmon bycatch while
keeping these Hot Spots open to boats that have low rates of bycatch.
This fleet-sponsored bycatch avoidance program can only happen when we
are operating under a Catch Share program. We are beginning the process
of designing a rockfish bycatch avoidance and management program for
the West Coast Whiting fishery when the Groundfish Trawl
Rationalization program goes into effect. So what we did in the Alaska
Pollock fishery due to AFA we will do in the West Coast Whiting
fishery. Our goal is to harvest 100 percent of our allocation while at
the same time stay under a bycatch cap for incidentally caught species.
Government initiated regulations have failed to achieve this goal.
The second example is the development of a salmon excluder device.
Through a Pollock industry initiative, we designed, developed and
tested a number of devices to put into our mid-water trawl nets that
exclude the bycaught Chinook salmon. After 4 years of trials and
testing we now have arrived at a device that over 60 percent of the
Pollock fleet is now using -without any government regulation requiring
us to do so.
As I mentioned in my introductory comments, I fish in both the
rationalized Bering Sea Pollock fishery and the soon-to-be rationalized
West Coast Whiting fishery. I can tell you that back in 1998 when
Congress and the North Pacific Fishery Management Council were
developing the American Fisheries Act, many of us out on the water
fishing were very skeptical of this new program. Because of this, our
concerns expressed at NPFMC meetings when they were developing the AFA
regulatory provisions were very skeptical and there were a lot of boat
owners that were quite nervous and in fact didn't support the program.
You have to realize what we were going through in those days. Most if
not all of the fishermen were just trading dollars and a number of the
Pollock companies had gone bankrupt. In addition, many of the multi-
national, large fishing companies were acquiring a lot of the vessels
and consolidation was happening. During a 10-year period, from 1989 -
1999, the Pollock industry experienced three bloody sector allocation
battles at the NPFMC. For me personally, the only reason I am still in
the Pollock business is due to the provisions of the AFA that gave me
and my brother a certain, known allocation of Pollock annually and the
ability to get the most value out of our harvest of Pollock. The
ownership and use caps in this law have protected the smaller fishing
companies. I do not know a single participant in the Bering Sea Pollock
fishery today that does not emphatically support the American Fisheries
Act and the rationalized manner of the fishery.
I can also tell you that the Whiting fishermen who also fish
Pollock, like myself, were the first ones to go to the Pacific Fishery
Management Council and ask for an AFA-style co-op management structure
6 years ago, to address the very same problems we were experiencing in
the Alaska Pollock fishery 15 years ago. Again, this is a ``ground
up,'' not ``top down'' built program and one that the fishermen who are
dependant on this fishery are very excited about.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to share my and UCB's
perspective on catch shares.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to
Eric C. Schwaab
Question 1. As I've said, there is a serious lack of data on many
recreational and commercial fisheries both in the Gulf and the South
Atlantic. This, combined with the National Marine Fisheries Service
interpretation of the reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens, has led to
very restrictive harvest and season limits. It is my understanding that
other Regions have better science even with limited resources. Can
similar alternatives be used in the Gulf and South Atlantic for data-
poor stocks instead of presuming the worst and resorting to overly
restrictive harvest measures?
Answer. Harvest and season limits are needed to prevent fisheries
from overfishing. Some fisheries have large numbers of participants and
the degree of management can be high just to get the total catch down
to the biological limit. Where data about the biological limit and
other factors have higher levels of uncertainty, it is necessary to use
additional mortality reductions to account for the chance that the
actual biological limit is lower. In some fisheries, this additional
reduction for uncertainty has been a 25 percent reduction from the
theoretical maximum allowable catch.
The increased difficulties of dealing with data-poor situations are
shared throughout all of the various NMFS' Regions. The Gulf and South
Atlantic are somewhat unique in this regard because of, among other
things, the relatively large participation in the recreational
fisheries, which can present a different set of challenges than those
of the commercial operations. In an effort to foster collegiality and
consistency in the approach to the problem, this issue was a topic of a
recent National Scientific and Statistical Committee meeting. The
workshop revealed that there are many different approaches to meeting
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act National
Standard 1 guidelines relative to incorporating scientific uncertainty
into the setting of Annual Catch Limits. Where feasible, Scientific and
Statistical Committees are considering the P* approach, which uses
quantified scientific uncertainty to set Acceptable Biological Catch at
a level to match a pre-specified probability of overfishing. Variations
include the methods used to calculate scientific uncertainty; tiered
approaches linked to the quality of information about uncertainty;
inclusion of stock productivity scores in the risk calculation; and
fixed buffers where uncertainty is not fully quantified.
The South Atlantic Scientific and Statistical Committee has
developed tiers and dimensions (assessment information, uncertainty
level, stock status, productivity and susceptibility) to establish a
control rule framework for Acceptable Biological Catch determinations.
The Gulf of Mexico Council is developing an approach that generally
mirrors the South Atlantic. Further efforts to share methodology for
dealing with data poor situations were shared at the NOAA-sponsored
American Fisheries Society 2010 session entitled, ``Stock Assessment
Methods for Data Poor Situations.'' Presentations were given by NMFS
scientists from both U.S. coasts and advising all the various Regional
Management Councils. Developing alternative methods suited to data-poor
situations is an ongoing process in the development of improved stock
assessment methods by NMFS.
Question 2. During the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of
Mexico, NMFS ramped up efforts at data collection. I've heard that
there is often at least a month lag between the time NMFS collects data
and when it is available to the regional fishery management councils.
Can you assure me that the latest and best information will be made
available to the councils in a timely manner so that they can make
informed decisions?
Answer. Stock assessments are based on several sources of
information: fishery-independent data on population trends, obtained
from field surveys; and fishery-dependent data, obtained from landings
data, fishery observers, and, for stocks with significant recreational
fisheries, from surveys of recreational fisheries. NMFS is taking
several steps to increase operational efficiency and reduce the time
between data collection and the application of the data to management
decisions.
In the FY 2012 President's Request, NMFS is requesting $67.1
million to expand annual stock assessments, an increase of $15 million.
These funds will be used to improve assessments for high-priority
stocks; update assessments for stocks more frequently; and, conduct
fishery-independent surveys to enable assessment of more stocks,
including data poor stocks, 3-5 years from now. NMFS proposes to use a
portion of these funds, $3 million, to invest in advanced technologies
for fishery-independent surveys. Among the projects that would be
supported with these funds is near real-time processing of survey data
as it is collected at sea and more rapid delivery of these data to
shore-based analysts conducting the stock assessments.
For fishery-dependent data, NMFS is currently developing new ways
to improve the data quality and timeliness of recreational catch data.
Our Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) has begun the use of
electronic logbook reporting in the Gulf of Mexico to speed up data
processing. NMFS also hosted an MRIP workshop focused on improving the
timeliness for recreational catch data. The workshop was able to
identify key ideas that could increase timeliness for recreational
fisheries and improve the ability to make in-season management
decisions. The President's FY 2012 budget request therefore includes an
increase of $3 million to leverage these current recreational fisheries
monitoring efforts, $2 million of which would allow MRIP implementation
to address the timeliness issues identified in the aforementioned
workshop and $1 million to fully implement electronic logbooks in the
Southeast Region.
NMFS is also working to increase observer coverage and the number
of staff available to process and manage the data collected by
observers. This is important because observers collect high quality
information on catch and bycatch that is directly incorporated into
stock assessments. Biological samples such as ear bones (otoliths), fin
rays, or vertebrae collected by observers are used to determine the age
of fish, a critical component of any stock assessment. Unbiased,
fishery-dependent catch and bycatch data from observer programs are
also used in stock assessments. Additional staff, including fisheries
scientists to process the data, would increase the timeliness of catch
and bycatch estimates.
NMFS is working with the Scientific and Statistical Committees of
the Regional Fishery Management Councils to streamline the scientific
review process, so that more assessments can be delivered quickly to
the councils as updates, rather than as extensive investigations that
require more thorough peer review. The tempo of assessment updating was
a significant topic at the NMFS-sponsored workshop in February 2011 on
the scientific needs for implementation of annual catch limits.
Question 3. How does the National Marine Fisheries Service
prioritize which stocks to assess?
Answer. NMFS rationale and protocols for conducting fish stock
assessments are generally described in the Marine Fish Stock Assessment
Improvement Plan published in 2001. Although the Stock Assessment
Improvement Plan did not include explicit criteria for prioritization
of stocks to be assessed, each NMFS' Region uses similar concepts in
selecting stocks to be assessed for the first time or as an update of a
previous assessment. In 2010, a prototype set of national criteria was
developed and used in setting priorities for additional stocks to be
assessed with the FY 2012 request. This prototype set includes:
1. Commercially and recreationally valuable stocks and
associated fishery-limiting stocks with high scientific or
management uncertainty influencing annual catch limits;
2. Intensity of fishing, including stocks that have an
overfishing status, stocks that have fishing rates approaching
levels that would lead to overfishing, or stocks with high or
increasing fishing pressure that require additional attention;
3. Stock abundance including stocks that are overfished or on
the brink of overfished, on a rebuilding plan, or have
uncertain abundance trends;
4. Assessment frequency considerations such as stocks that have
never been assessed, stocks that have an assessment that is
more than 5 years old, or stocks with management plans that
require more frequent updates than currently provided;
5. Stock importance in terms of commercial and recreational
value, role in ecosystem, and as bycatch; and
6. Synergistic factors, including level of data already
available and benefit to other stocks and future assessments.
Ultimately, the particular assessments that will be updated in any
given year are determined through regional processes consistent with
national priorities and in consultation with the Regional Fishery
Management Councils and other partners as the execution year
approaches.
Question 4. Does the Magnuson-Stevens Act actually mandate the use
of scientific and management uncertainty, or does that come more from a
National Marine Fisheries Service Policy?
Answer. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires conservation and
management measures to achieve a number of goals, including preventing
overfishing while achieving optimum yield. The Act also requires use of
the best scientific information available. Uncertainty is an inherent
part of the information available for use in managing a fishery.
Identification and consideration of uncertainty is necessary to achieve
the required objectives of the Act, including those of National
Standard 1.
Recommendations to incorporate uncertainty and manage catch at a
catch limit are not a new concept. NMFS described scientific and
management uncertainty as primary reasons why overfishing was still
occurring in about 20 percent of U.S. fisheries in 2008. Specifically,
those reasons included:
1. Setting optimum yield too close to maximum sustainable
yield;
2. Failure to consider all sources of fishing mortality;
3. Failure to adequately consider the uncertainty in the
reference points provided by stock assessments; and
4. Failure to consider the uncertainty in management control of
the actual catch.
The use of these terms also aligns with the Magnuson-Stevens Act's
National Standard 6, which states that ``conservation and management
measure within a fishery management plan shall take into account and
allow for variations among, and contingencies in, fisheries, fishery
resources, and catches.'' The National Standard 6 Guidelines (published
in 1996) specifically mention that lack of scientific knowledge about
the condition of a stock could be a reason to reduce optimum yield,
which is consistent with the concept of reducing Acceptable Biological
Catch from an overfishing limit to account for scientific uncertainty
in knowing the true overfishing limit.
Question 5. What is the NOAA's plan for oversight of the science
and statistical committees with regards to membership, conflicts of
interest, and guidelines for addressing scientific uncertainty in 2011?
Answer. NMFS published regulations addressing the membership and
conflict of interest of the Councils' Scientific and Statistical
Committees on September 27, 2010. The regulations provide requirements
for the establishment of the Scientific and Statistical Committees, and
these requirements need to be reflected in the Councils' Statements of
Organization, Practices, and Procedures. Regulations also were
established for financial disclosure of Scientific and Statistical
Committee members. These regulations require Scientific and Statistical
Committee members to submit financial disclosure reports annually and
the NMFS Regional Offices to retain financial disclosure forms for
Scientific and Statistical Committee members as reference when conflict
of interest questions arise. NMFS annually submits a report to Congress
on Disclosure of Financial Interest and Recusal Requirements for both
Council members and Scientific and Statistical Committee members
detailing financial disclosure or recusal issues occurring during the
year. NMFS submitted the 2010 report on March 23, 2011. NMFS will
continue to monitor the Councils and their Scientific and Statistical
Committees to ensure they meet the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act and these regulations and to report any discrepancies in the annual
report to Congress.
With regard to guidelines for addressing scientific uncertainty,
NMFS's National Standard 1 Guidelines provide general guidance for
addressing scientific uncertainty and on the responsibilities of the
Councils and Scientific and Statistical Committees when developing
Acceptable Biological Catch control rules (i.e., accounting for
scientific uncertainty). The Councils' role is to provide the
Scientific and Statistical Committees with a risk policy for developing
Acceptable Biological Catch control rules, while the Scientific and
Statistical Committees are responsible for reviewing the best available
scientific information and creating a control rule that meets the
requirements of its Council's risk policy. NMFS has been very active in
providing the Scientific and Statistical Committees with guidance at
Scientific and Statistical Committee and Council meetings since 2009
when the revised Guidelines were published.
Additionally, over the last 3 years, NMFS scientists have published
(or have in press) eight peer reviewed articles providing fisheries
scientists with technical approaches to addressing scientific
uncertainty. These articles range from highly quantitative probability
based methods for data-rich species to semi-quantitative index based
methods for data-poor species (citations listed below).
Brooks. E. N., J. Powers, and E. Cortes. 2010. Analytical
reference points for age-structured models: application to
data-poor fisheries. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 67:165-175.
Field, J., J. Cope, and M. Key. In press. A descriptive example
of applying vulnerability evaluation criteria to California
nearshore species. Proceedings from the data-poor fisheries
workshop; Berkeley, CA, Dec. 2008. Southwest Fisheries Science
Center, Santa Cruz, CA.
Linton, B. C. and J. R. Bence. 2008. Evaluating methods for
estimating process and observation error variances in
statistical catch-at-age analysis. Fisheries Research 94(1):26-
35.
Patrick, W. S., P. Spencer, J. Link, J. Cope, J. Field, D.
Kobayashi, P. Lawson, T. Gedamke, E. Cortes, O. Ormseth, K.
Bigelow, and W. Olverholtz. 2010. Using productivity and
susceptibility of Unites States fish stocks to overfishing.
Fish. Bull. 108:305-322.
Punt, A. E., M. W. Dorn, and M. A. Haltuch. 2008. Evaluation of
threshold management strategies for groundfish off the U.S.
west coast. Fish. Res. 94:251-266.
Ralson, S., A. Punt, O. Hamel, J. DeVore, and R. Conser. 2011.
A meta-analytic approach to quantifying scientific uncertainty
in stock assessments. Fish. Bull. 109:217-231.
Shertzer, K. W., M. H. Prager, and E. H. Williams. 2008. A
probability-based approach to setting annual catch levels.
Fishery Bulletin 106:225-232.
Shertzer, K. W., M. H. Prager, and E. H. Williams. 2010.
Probabilistic approaches to setting acceptable biological catch
and annual catch targets: Reconciling methodology with National
Standards Guidelines. Marine and Coastal Fisheries 2:451-458.
Lastly, since 2008, NMFS has sponsored annual meetings at which
representatives of all eight of the Scientific and Statistical
Committees met collectively with one another to build capacity and
exchange ideas for addressing scientific uncertainty. The overarching
themes from these meetings were: develop best practices (2008);
establish a scientific basis for Annual Catch Limits (2009); and
Acceptable Biological Catch control rule implementation and peer review
procedures (2010). Currently, the Scientific and Statistical Committees
and NMFS are planning a fourth meeting for September 2011.
Question 6. Can the National Marine Fisheries Service comply with
the requirements and timelines for all species or species groupings
based on recent and complete data as required by the Magnuson-Stevens
Act? In other words, does the agency have the scientific output
capability to meet the new requirements of this Act without undue
reliance on the precautionary approach?
Answer. NMFS is working diligently to comply with the Magnuson-
Stevens Act deadlines for establishing Annual Catch Limits and
accountability measures in all U.S. fisheries by 2011. However, for
both data-rich and data-limited stocks, there will always be
uncertainty surrounding the status of a stock (i.e., scientific
uncertainty) and uncertainty in the ability of managers to either
constrain catch so the Annual Catch Limit is not exceeded or in
quantifying the true catch amounts (i.e., management uncertainty).
Therefore, some degree of precaution is warranted. The National
Standard 1 Guidelines allow for flexibility in establishing Annual
Catch Limits to address situations with data-limited stocks, such as
the use of stock complexes, indicator stocks, and multi-year measures.
To ensure that precaution is not overly restrictive, NMFS is
actively working with the Councils and Scientific and Statistical
Committees to enhance guidance on developing control rules for
specifying Acceptable Biological Catch; to create new methodologies for
determining the status of data-limited stocks; and to prioritize the
data collection of at-risk data limited stocks (e.g., highly vulnerable
to becoming overfished) so that even the most basic semi-quantitative
or quantitative stock assessments can be performed in the near future
(3 to 5 years). NMFS is also exploring ways to further improve data
collection through cooperative research with fishermen and experimental
fisheries.
Question 7. Is NMFS in a situation where demands for information
have intensified but overall capabilities have fallen behind?
Answer. NMFS has been able to increase its stock assessment and
fishery monitoring capabilities and to apply assessments to more stocks
due to recent increases in our stock assessment program (i.e., through
FY 2010), but not at a rapid enough rate to meet new expectations.
Unfortunately, reductions in days-at-sea on NOAA vessels has resulted
in a number of fishery surveys being canceled. It is critical for NMFS
to achieve its stated goals in setting Annual Catch Limits that
requested funding for research is received. Without additional funds,
as requested in the President's FY 2012 Budget, NMFS will fall farther
behind in meeting demands from constituents.
There are three factors that led to increased demands:
a. The Magnuson-Stevens Act now requires Annual Catch Limits in
all fisheries. This new requirement has created a demand for
scientific methods that can provide baselines even in data-poor
situations, has increased the demand for full assessments for
more stocks, and more frequent updating of these assessments.
b. The National Standard 1 Guidelines recognize and advise that
scientific and management uncertainty needs to be taken into
account when recommending catch targets that safely avoid
exceeding the catch limit. Calculation of the chance that a
catch target will exceed the imperfectly known catch limit
increases the technical requirements for stock assessment
statistical models. Methods have been developed and published
by NMFS scientists, but application of these methods across the
wide range of data availability remains a significant
challenge.
c. The peer review systems now in use throughout all the
regions have improved the quality of the scientific products
and the transparency with which they are communicated to the
public. However, these improvements come at the cost of
increased time to conduct the analyses and to provide more
complete documentation. NMFS and the Regional Fishery
Management Councils are working on protocols to conduct more
assessments as streamlined updates, while focusing the in-depth
peer reviews on new methods and first-time assessments.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John F. Kerry to
Eric C. Schwaab
Question 1. In your testimony, you discussed the goals of Magnuson
to create a highly participatory, bottom up management structure
through the Regional Councils. During my recent trip to New Bedford, I
again heard concerns about the Council, its inefficiencies, and its
inability to adequately represent the concerns of many fishermen and
industry stakeholders. In December 2009, John Pappalardo, Chairman of
the New England Fishery Management Council, sent a letter to Secretary
Locke that discussed the additional demands placed on the New England
Council, the Northeast Regional Office, and the Northeast Science
Center as a result of the 2007 reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act. Specifically, he requested a comprehensive system analysis and
efficiency review of the three institutions to provide a blueprint for
reform of the three institutions. What actions have been taken in
response to Mr. Pappalardo's request?
Answer. Last September, Assistant Administrator Eric Schwaab
announced his plan to conduct a regional assessment of the fishery
management process in New England. Every organization, no matter how
large or how well run, can benefit from constructive guidance as to how
it could improve its processes because they want to ensure they do not
miss opportunities to perform better. NMFS contracted with Preston Pate
to oversee this process and Touchstone Consulting Group to work with
Mr. Pate on this effort. On Tuesday, April 26, 2011, Eric Schwaab and
Preston Pate provided a summary to the New England Fishery Management
Council of Phase I of the agency's Management Review of fisheries in
the Northeast, which focused on the relationships among the Council,
NMFS' Northeast Regional Office and the Northeast Fisheries Science
Center, and factors that affect the effectiveness of the three entities
to carry out their responsibilities under fisheries law. NMFS will take
short term and long term actions in response to the report.
In the short-term, NMFS will work to improve collaboration with
partners on science, cooperative research with industry and reviews of
science programs. Especially in this budget climate, it is critical
that the science conducted by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center
and partner research institutions is done in a more collaborative
manner and in ways that maximize involvement of fishermen in the
findings. We will work and plan together with research and academic
institutions and fishermen to make the best use of limited research
funding to answer some of the critical questions facing New England
fisheries. We will immediately initiate an expedited mid-term review of
the 2009 strategic plan for cooperative research in a way that involves
all regional cooperating agencies and academic institutions. The
results will be incorporated into FY12 research funding prioritization
decisions.
Next, we will work to improve our communications efforts.
Specifically, in the Northeast we will consolidate our communications
staff under one program and coordinate them under one communications
plan. We will build on recent efforts like the Navigator now found in
Commercial Fisheries News to simplify the way we explain the actions we
are taking and how they impact industry. We will also build on our
efforts to communicate directly with industry through programs like the
pilot Fisheries Information Centers, bi-weekly calls with the sector
managers, and our new compliance liaison in New England.
We will also clarify roles and responsibilities of our Regional
Office, Science Center and Council. This has both short-term and long-
term implications. We will immediately update the Regional Office and
Science Center operating agreement in light of the report
recommendations. In addition, through the Northeast Region Coordinating
Council (made up of the region's fisheries executives from the New
England and Mid-Atlantic councils, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission, NOAA's Northeast regional administrator and Northeast
Fisheries Science Center director) we will renew our efforts to clarify
NOAA and council functions and specific staff roles through new
operating agreements. More importantly, subject to additional feedback
from the Fishery Management Council and other interested participants,
we envision this to be a particular area of focus for phase II of the
review.
We will also improve data management systems. We will integrate and
consolidate our fishery dependent reporting/collection systems and the
underlying data management systems in the region. To improve the
timeliness and accuracy of fisherman reported data and simplify
industry reporting requirements, our Regional Office and Science Center
have been working with the industry to transition from paper to
electronic logbooks. This will speed processing of data, reduce errors
in the data and relieve the industry of having to obtain, carry and
fill out paper logbooks. The program will be available initially on a
voluntary basis to vessels in multispecies sectors. While these are
immediate steps we will take, some of the recommendations in the
reports will require much more thought and analysis. The Council will
also need time to review the findings and consider next steps.
The report and related documents can be found at the following web
address: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/publicreview/new_england_phase1/index.htm.
Question 2. What efforts are underway at NMFS to facilitate a more
effective, representative approach to fishery management in New England
through the Council process?
Answer. Phase I of the New England Assessment and Management Review
contains several recommendations to help ensure that the Council
process is effective. For example, the Review recommends simplifying
governance by clarifying expectations, roles and responsibilities of
the various NOAA offices and the Council. It also recommends exploring
ways to eliminate unnecessarily redundant programs, activities, and
resources among these groups at key hand-off points. It recommends
redesigning key engagements to be more collaborative and communications
to better meet stakeholders' needs. NMFS will take immediate steps to
address these recommendations and we expect the Council to be full
partners in this effort after they have had time to review the findings
and consider next steps.
The Management Review complimented the fisheries management process
for being transparent and noted that overall constituent interaction
with the process as good; however, NMFS is committed to building on and
improving it.
Question 3. As you know, the Governor of Massachusetts' request for
direct economic relief was denied by the Secretary. However, he was
informed that NMFS is prepared to work with the Massachusetts Division
of Marine Fisheries (DMF) to more finely analyze necessary data
regarding fishermen and communities specifically in need of targeted
assistance. To date, this effort remains hindered by the DMF's lack of
access to quota transfer data that is critical to answering
consolidation and excessive share questions in the fishery as a result
of catch shares and low catch levels. The DMF has requested access to
the data submitted by the sectors to National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS). Recently, I handed Secretary Locke and Administrator Lubchenco
letters urging them to grant the DMF's request. Transparency and the
sharing of all data is critical to fully understand and address issues
of consolidation and excessive shares in the fishery. Where does the
Division of Marine Fisheries request for sector data stand?
Answer. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts and NMFS have had a
Memorandum of Understanding in place that provides the Commonwealth
with access to Northeast region data bases since 1991. Through this,
the Commonwealth has had access to most of the region's data bases.
This access has recently been expanded and the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts now has access to all of the region's multispecies
related data bases including quota transfer data.
Question 4. In what ways is NMFS currently working with the DMF to
provide targeted assistance for Massachusetts fishermen and
communities?
Answer. NOAA has formed a team comprised of people from NMFS and
the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries to further analyze the
economic data from the first year of the sector management program.
This will allow us to better understand if and where more targeted
assistance may be needed.
Additionally, NMFS committed over $47 million in Fiscal Years 2009
and 2010 to ease the transition to sector management including paying
for required dockside and at-sea monitoring and providing funding for
state permit banks to help small boat fishermen stay competitive in the
fishery.
The Department of Commerce also deployed Economic Development and
Assessment Teams to six Northeast fishing ports, which will provide
customized technical assistance for impacted fishing communities. The
teams will work with community leaders, regional planning
organizations, and economic development organizations to explore issues
ranging from infrastructure challenges to development and financing
needs, to look at the total economic picture for each community.
Question 5. While NOAA data from fishing year 2010 shows that
revenues are comparable (or in some cases greater) to the levels
observed for this time period last year, aggregating the data masks
significant economic impacts occurring at local levels. Success in the
Massachusetts fisheries cannot be measured solely in terms of revenues
without taking costs into consideration. Net revenues have been
drastically reduced for much of the fleet as the costs of leasing quota
(renting fish allocation) have become the highest percentage of fishing
expenses of any expense realized in the past. There has been a distinct
shift of revenues from the bottom 90 percent of the fleet to the top 10
percent of the fleet mainly due to an allocation schematic that left
many of the fishermen with woefully small allocations making them
unable to fish or afford to lease quota that would enable them to fish.
What is the Agency's estimate of the revenue necessary for vessels in
sectors to break even?
Answer. Economic break-even analysis for vessel-operation requires
analysis of the multiple classes, sizes and groups of fishing vessels
operating in a fishery. The data that NMFS' Northeast Fisheries Science
Center needs to evaluate the break-even cost for vessels includes:
1. Fishery vessel fixed costs based on dockside surveys;
2. Fishing vessel operating costs on a sample of trips; and
3. Vessel-specific data from Sector Managers and NOAA data
bases related to the cost of sector operations as well as the
cost of Annual Catch Entitlement trading.
Much of these data is not currently available but will be available
in Fall of 2011. NOAA expects to use these data to calculate break-even
costs for various vessels classes as part of its year-end economic
report for the Northeast Multispecies fishery. NMFS staff will develop
this analysis cooperatively with Dr. Dan Georgianna from the University
of Massachusetts, Dartmouth's School for Marine Science and Technology,
and provide the analysis by October 2011.
Question 6. How many vessels in sectors have reached these break
even points? How many do you expect will fall short?
Answer. The best measure of economic performance would be reliable
estimates of vessel-level profits. Vessel-specific revenue estimates
(developed from dealer data) coupled with vessel operating costs will
allow us to calculate profits as well as the number of vessels that
have reached (or exceeded) their break-even points. Those data are not
completely available to NMFS at this time. NMFS expects to report on
that in more detail in our annual report, which will be released in the
fall of 2011.
Question 7. What has the effect been on the crew of fishing vessels
and on the shore-side support structure such as ship chandlers, gear
suppliers, and ice houses?
Answer.
Effects on Crew
We use two measures to assess the effects on crew (Table 1). The
number of crew positions, measured by summing the average crew size of
all active vessels, is an indicator of the availability of crew jobs,
while the total number of crew trips, calculated by summing the crew
size of all trips, provides a measure of the number of separate
opportunities for crew to earn a share of landing revenues. Comparing
the first 9 months of the 2009 Fishing Year to the same period in FY
2010 we find that crew jobs declined by 10 percent (125 positions) and
the total number of crew-trips declined by over 15 percent (8,428
trips).
We expect to report on this in more detail in our annual report
which will be released in fall of 2011. NMFS Northeast Fisheries
Science Center has commissioned a study on crew that is due mid-Summer
2011 and is also planning to conduct a major crew survey in the Fall of
2011. Both of these studies should shed further light on the changing
social and economic circumstances of crew in New England and
Massachusetts.
Table 1.--Changes in Employment Indicators by Home Port State
(all trips)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007 2008 2009 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Crew Positions 1,388 1,304 1,253 1,128
Total Crew-Trips 57,555 54,071 55,015 46,587
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* First nine-months of each fishing year.
Effects on Shore-side Support Structures
NMFS can currently only surmise the changing circumstances of
shore-side support businesses based on the number and duration of
fishing trips. Both of these measures provide an indication of the
changing demand for inputs required to fish--such as fuel, ice and
other gear--that are provided by shore-side businesses. For that
reason, a significant increase or decrease in numbers of trips and days
absent may also be indicative of changing circumstances of shore-side
businesses.
The first 9 months of the 2010 Fishing Year demonstrate a 19
percent drop in overall trips by groundfish vessels that declared a
home port in Massachusetts in comparison to 2009; this was despite the
continued increase in trips by groundfish vessels which focused on non-
groundfish species like scallops and monkfish (Table 2). Similarly,
there was an overall 22 percent decline in fishing trip duration (in
days) during the same period (Table 2). The decline in total trips by
groundfish vessels means that the demand for purchased inputs and
services from shore-side businesses supplying groundfish trips has gone
down and that shore-side businesses may be experiencing some additional
economic pressure in 2010. However, it is important to take into
account that shore-side marine businesses do not depend only on
groundfish-permitted vessels (i.e., most of the value in Massachusetts
marine fisheries is not in the groundfish sector) and we have not done
an analysis of number and duration of trips for all fleets.
Furthermore, our analyses of the Massachusetts groundfish fleet show an
increase in revenues and improved economic performance in terms of
revenue per unit effort in 2010 in comparison to 2009. Increased
efficiency and profitability can shift revenues away from shore-side
businesses and the fishing economy in general into other commercial
sectors of the local/regional economy. NMFS hopes to be able to provide
better information on shore-side businesses performance trends through
analyses that will be conducted this summer.
Table 2. Mass Trips and Fishing Trip Duration (in days) by Home Port
State *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007 2008 2009 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Groundfish trips 13,002 13,617 13,959 8,320
Fishing trip duration on groundfish 12,431 12,753 12,060 9,252
trips
Non-groundfish trips ** 12,409 12,908 13,702 14,159
Fishing trip duration on non- 9,803 9,219 10,361 9,866
groundfish trips
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* First 9 months of each fishing year
** Trips made by groundfish permitted vessels that focused on non-
groundfish species
Question 8. What are the projected employment losses or gains due
to the sector management system in Massachusetts?
Answer. NMFS expects to report on this in more detail in our annual
report, which will be released in the fall of 2011. NOAA will develop a
year-end economic report for the Northeast Multispecies fishery to help
answer these questions. Annual Catch Limits for twelve of twenty
groundfish stocks will increase in FY 2011 suggesting that there will
be an increase in fishing activity in 2011, which should result in an
increase in groundfish fishery-related employment. Moreover, as stocks
continue to rebuild and Annual Catch Limits are increased, we
anticipate that other employment indicators will also increase.
Question 9. Why did NMFS not perform socioeconomic analyses of
impacts on individual fishermen of the shift from many years of days-
at-sea management to hard-quota management coupled with the new
approach of direct allocations to individual fishermen who joined
groundfish sectors?
Answer. NMFS routinely performs analysis of the social and economic
impacts of all proposed management actions in compliance with the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, E.O.
12866, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Amendment 16's Environmental
Impact Statement included detailed economic analysis of the sector
allocation alternatives as well as the economic impacts of the proposed
common pool measures (see http://www.nefmc.org/nemulti/planamen/
Amend16/final_amend16_oct09.html). Analysis of the impacts on
individual vessels of the sector allocation alternatives were
summarized by home port state, vessel size, and preliminary sector
rosters. Anticipated economic impacts on individual vessels of the
common pool measures were summarized by home port state, home port
groups, vessel length, gear, and dependence on groundfish. Given
uncertainties over potential sector operations plans and rosters, these
quantitative analyses were supplemented by qualitative assessments of
economic and social impacts. Estimated economic and social impacts were
also assessed as part of the Environmental Assessment for Framework 44
(http://www.nefmc.org/nemulti/index.html). These analyses included
estimated potential revenues associated with the 2010 Annual Catch
Limits as well as economic impacts on individual vessels of the
proposed changes to the common pool measures. Economic impacts on
individuals that had elected to join a sector were assessed in the
accompanying Environmental Assessment to the proposed and final rules
implementing sectors for the 2010 Fishing Year.
Question 10. When will those analyses be done and how will NMFS use
those results to correct problems and alleviate the impact of Amendment
16 regulations on fishermen and their families?
Answer. NMFS expects to report on this in more detail in our annual
report, which will be released in the fall of 2011. Additional analyses
will be provided as part of the annual report for the Northeast
Multispecies fishery, expected to be completed in fall 2011. NMFS will
provide these analyses to the New England Fishery Management Council to
facilitate its ongoing review of the realized impacts of sector
management in 2011. NMFS will work with the Council to identify what
issues, if any, need to be addressed to more effectively achieve the
objectives of the fishery management plan and applicable law. Once
those issues are identified, NMFS will assist in the development,
analysis, and implementation of any remedies that may be developed by
the Council. One of the issues that will be analyzed is any
consolidation of active fishing effort onto fewer vessels. NMFS is
already working closely with the Council to identify the scale and
nature of consolidation that has occurred in the fishery since 1994,
and what measures may be necessary to prevent further consolidation, if
warranted, as part of Amendment 18 to the Northeast Multispecies
Fishery Management Plan.
Question 11. The Massachusetts Fisheries Institute (MFI) Report
submitted by the Governor to Secretary Locke concludes that
consolidation is occurring in the fleet. Amendment 16 has no provision
to prevent permit or quota consolidation into the hands of a few to
prevent excessive shares. Updated MFI analyses reveal that shares going
to the top 10 percent of vessels' proportion of total revenue shifted
significantly in 2010 from an average of 50 percent to almost 60
percent. Likewise the share going to the bottom 90 percent shifted down
from 50 percent to about 40 percent. While it is my understanding that
the Council is working to address the consolidation issue, what actions
is NMFS taking to support this effort and what can be done to prevent
the worsening of the shift in shares and concentration of fisheries
wealth?
Answer. NMFS is working to provide the New England Fishery
Management Council with adequate information to make these important
policy recommendations regarding consolidation. Various analyses have
either been completed or are planned that will be directly relevant to
the issue of consolidation. For example, NMFS has done an analysis of
the performance of the fishery under sectors that looks at the first 3
quarters of fishing year 2010. This report contains data on recent
trends of landings, revenue, number of active vessels, and the
distribution of revenue among active vessels that will help answer
questions about the distribution of catch among vessels, as well as the
economic health of the fishery and its components.
In 2009, NMFS initiated a project to compile information on vessel
ownership that will provide new insights on the control of multiple
vessels by individuals (or corporations). The NMFS' Northeast Fisheries
Science Center is planning additional analyses to analyze the full
fishing year (May 2010 through April 2011) that will include data on
vessel profitability. In addition, NMFS's staff have been active
participants on the Council's Plan Development Team, which drafted a
white paper on the subject of consolidation.
The Council recently requested that NMFS implement a control date
of April 7, 2011 to start the regulatory process of addressing
consolidation. This control date is intended to discourage speculative
behavior in the market for fishing privileges, and may serve as a
reference date for future management measures that may be developed to
limit the accumulation of fishing privileges. The control date alerts
the fishing industry and the public that any present or future
accumulation of fishing privileges may be limited or may not be allowed
after or prior to the published control date. If it chooses, the
Council could set specific limits on the amount of fishing privileges
(e.g., permits, or days-at-sea, quota) that an individual or sector may
control.
Question 12. What is your expectation for overages by sectors for
individual species ACE?
Answer. Sectors managers and NMFS are monitoring each sector's
allocation on a daily basis. Currently, it does not appear that sectors
will exceed their annual catch entitlement for individual stocks. If an
overage does occur, sectors can acquire additional quota up to a month
after the end of the 2010 fishing year to allow a ``balancing of the
books.'' In subsequent years, sectors will have 2 weeks after the end
of the fishing year to trade allocations. Consequently, NMFS does not
expect sector overages to occur.
Question 13. What is the Agency's plan for accountability measures
if overages occur?
Answer. Amendment 16 regulations require that within season, sector
vessels must cease fishing in a particular stock area if the sector
exceeds its allocation of a groundfish stock in that particular stock
area. Any overages of a sector's annual catch entitlement that remain
after sectors have had a chance to balance their allocation at the end
of the year, will be deducted from that sector's allocation during the
subsequent fishing year.
Question 14. What percentage of the total ACLs does the Agency
expect sectors to land this fishing year?
Answer. Table 3 compares projected landings and catch (landings
plus discards) to the total sector sub-Annual Catch Limits. The
preliminary cumulative sector data presented in this table are based on
data received as of May 20, 2011. Based on these preliminary catch and
landing totals, overages are not currently anticipated for the sectors
in aggregate.
Table 3. Expected \1\ Sector Landings and Catch (mt), End of FY 2010 (May 1-April 30)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catch: \1\
Sum of Landings \1\ Landings,% Landings + Catch, %
Stock Sector Sub- (mt) of Sub- Discards of Sub-
ACL (mt) ACL (%) (mt) ACL (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Georges Bank Cod 3,302 2,733 82.8 2,858 86.6
Gulf of Maine Cod 4,327 3,595 83.1 3,677 85.0
Plaice 2,748 1,364 49.6 1,542 56.1
Georges Bank Winter Flounder 1,823 1,361 74.7 1,379 75.6
Gulf of Maine Winter Flounder 133 83 62.5 85 63.7
Witch Flounder 827 660 79.8 720 87.0
Cape Cod/Gulf of Maine Yellowtail Flounder 729 591 81.1 653 89.6
Georges Bank/Yellowtail Flounder 803 652 81.2 720 89.6
Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic/Yellowtail 235 184 78.1 188 80.2
Flounder
Georges Bank Haddock 40,186 8,245 20.5 8,287 20.6
Gulf of Maine Haddock 799 399 49.9 401 50.2
White Hake 2,505 2,250 89.8 2,283 91.1
Pollock 16,178 5,520 34.1 5,601 34.6
Redfish 6,756 2,007 29.7 2,164 32.0
Southern New England/ -- 12 -- 50 --
Mid-Atlantic/
Winter Flounder
Northern Windowpane -- 1 -- 159 --
Southern Windowpane -- <1 -- 55 --
Ocean Pout -- <1 -- 59 --
Halibut -- 6 -- 27 --
Wolffish -- <1 -- 20 --
Total (allocated stocks) 81,351 29,644 36.4 30,558 37.6
\1\ Preliminary, as of May 20, 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: NMFS Northeast Regional Office Any value for a non-allocated species may be due
to landings of that stock; misreporting of
species and/or stock area; and/or estimated
landings (in Lieu of missing reports) based on
vessel histories.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These dates are the best available to NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Data sources for this
report include: (1) Vessels via VMS; (2) Vessels via vessel logbook reports; (3) Dealer via Dealer Electronic
reporting. Differences with previous reports are due to corrections made to the data base.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 15. Do you expect an improvement in the percentage of the
ACLs landed by sector vessels in 2010 over 2009?
Answer. Yes, we do expect an improvement in the percentage of the
Annual Catch Limits landed by sector vessels in 2010 over 2009. Prior
to the implementation of Amendment 16, the Northeast Multispecies
fishery was managed primarily by input controls, which restricted the
number of days-at-sea fishermen could fish each year. There was limited
individual incentive to selectively fish and flexibility afforded to
fishermen was limited by the days-at-sea system. In the multispecies
fishery, the sector system provides fishermen much more flexibility and
incentives to more fully exploit healthier stocks and avoid catching
weaker, more limiting stocks. This should result, over time, in higher
capture of available quota.
Question 16. I have been informed by NMFS and NOAA that we will
have a better idea of how sectors are working in Massachusetts at the
end of the fishing season after all that relevant data has been
collected and analyzed. However, for some fishermen, this may be too
late. Fishermen are feeling the impacts of the new management plan now.
Some appear to be faring well, but others have been already been driven
out of the fishing industry and many more feel they cannot survive
until the end of the fishing year. What can be done to provide more
timely data throughout the fishing season so major issues can start to
be addressed before the end of the fishing year?
Answer. Electronic reporting by fishing vessels will substantially
improve the timeliness of fishing reports and the quality of the data
being provided. This, coupled with electronic reporting by seafood
dealers, which was implemented in 2003, will improve the timeliness of
reports on the status of landings throughout the year. Agency staff and
independent developers have built several reporting applications for
use onboard fishing vessels. NMFS anticipates that these systems will
be available to interested fishermen this summer. NMFS' Northeast
Regional Office has also been working closely with individual sector
managers to identify missing reports, incorrect reports and data
errors.
NMFS' staff have also concentrated work on improving the
completeness and accuracy of landings information provided by seafood
dealers, as these reports provide the definitive data on landings
throughout the region.
More complete, accurate, and timely data will minimize fluctuations
in catch estimates and reduce uncertainty with respect to the amount of
groundfish landed for each sector, enabling sector managers and
participants to more effectively plan fishing operations throughout the
year. In addition, this will facilitate trading of sector quota by
enabling sectors to more precisely evaluate their need for additional
quota based on catch rates of participating vessels. Throughout 2010,
NMFS has strived to incorporate the most updated data in all facets of
monitoring, including increasing pollock quotas mid-year to reflect
updated stock status, integrating more precise gear-specific discard
data once available, and approving additional sector exemptions from
existing regulations. NMFS will continue such efforts in FY 2011, as
appropriate, to maximize fishing opportunities for participating sector
vessels.
Question 17 While I appreciate efforts by NOAA and the Department
of Commerce to address the Asset Forfeiture Fund to date, more needs to
be done to restore trust and credibility between fishermen and the
agencies as a result of past abuses highlighted in the Inspector
General's reports. Why has there not been an opportunity for fishermen
who did not initially submit their cases to the Inspector General for
fear of retaliation to bring their cases forward as requested by the
Massachusetts delegation?
Answer. On March 16, 2011, Secretary Locke announced that fishermen
and businesses would have until May 6, 2011, to submit new complaints
about potentially excessive enforcement penalties to the Special Master
for review, as well as request stays of their penalties as part of the
complaint process. This is part of a series of ongoing improvements to
NOAA's Law Enforcement programs and responds to calls to allow
fishermen who did not initially submit their cases to do so.
To have been eligible, the Notice of Violation and Assessment
(NOVA) must have been issued on or after March 17, 1994; settled or
otherwise resolved before February 3, 2010; and a civil penalty must
have been paid. In addition, the person making the complaint must
certify the alleged facts are true. Cases are not eligible for review
if they were decided by a Federal district court judge, or are
currently pending before for an Administrative Law Judge or the NOAA
Administrator. The Special Master will review cases that meet the
criteria and make recommendations to Secretary Locke regarding whether
the civil penalties imposed and paid in those cases should be remitted
or modified.
Question 18. Why have the penalties associated with the cases
currently being reviewed by the Special Master not been stayed until
the review is complete as requested?
Answer. On March 16, 2011, Secretary Locke announced that fishermen
can request that the Special Master recommend whether payment of
penalties should be stayed while their case is under review. In
addition, Secretary Locke has stayed the current penalty obligations of
those complainants whose cases have been under review and had requested
a stay.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to
Eric C. Schwaab
Question 1. In the last Congress, I was a co-sponsor of Senator
Lieberman's Fish Habitat Conservation Act which was supported by the
American Sportfishing Association, the Congressional Sportsmen's
Foundation Trout Unlimited, and others. This bill authorizes funding to
encourage collaborative regional conservation efforts that bring
together Federal Government agencies, state and local governments,
nongovernmental organizations, fishing industry groups, private land
owners, stakeholders and businesses. Can you discuss how this
legislation would complement the conservation provisions of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act?
Answer. The Magnuson-Stevens Act and the National Fish Habitat
Action Plan offer complementary approaches toward the shared vision of
productive fish populations supported by healthy habitats. The National
Fish Habitat Action Plan is an existing, state-Federal effort focused
on protecting and restoring fish habitat throughout the range of
keystone species, supported by approximately $7 million in direct
appropriations to the U.S. Department of the Interior and for regional
partnerships, and leveraged with significant resources from states and
private sector partners. NOAA has been a committed partner in the
implementation of the National Fish Habitat Action Plan to achieve its
ambitious goals, including a scientific assessment of all of the
Nation's fish habitats, the identification of priority habitats, and
the establishment of regional Fish Habitat Partnerships to protect and
restore those priority habitats. The goals and principles of the
National Fish Habitat Action Plan align with NOAA's vision to use a
science-based, ecosystem approach to natural resource management.
The Fish Habitat Conservation Act would codify the National Fish
Habitat Action Plan's early success and ease efforts to connect
National Fish Habitat Action Plan activities with other natural
resource programs. NMFS' Magnuson-Stevens Act mandate offers a solid
companion to the National Fish Habitat Action Plan model, based on 35
years managing marine fish stocks. The Magnuson-Stevens Act's marine
emphasis provides a logical connection along the Nation's coasts, where
National Fish Habitat Action Plan programs transition into coastal
watersheds, and extend to include river species outside Regional
Fishery Management Council jurisdiction. Together, the National Fish
Habitat Action Plan's focus on fish habitat and the Magnuson-Steven
Act's mandate to conserve essential fish habitat and restore habitat
through the Community-based Restoration Program will combine to provide
NMFS and its partners with stronger tools to increase ecosystem
benefits from these valuable resources.
Question 2. As the Chair of the Subcommittee on Competitiveness,
Innovation, and Export Promotion, one of the things we're taking a look
at is how we can compete with other countries to attract more foreign
visitors in the U.S. Has there been an examination of how changes in
fishing stocks correlate to tourism activity?
Answer. NMFS has insufficient data and models to relate tourism
activity to fish stocks. However, there are academic studies on this
topic that can provide general guidance to states and communities. The
only recreational activity NMFS routinely monitors is saltwater
recreational fishing. While the Marine Recreational Information Program
survey effort does collect information on whether the interviewed
angler is a foreign visitor, it is not possible to post-stratify the
survey results to then estimate the total number of foreign visitors.
To correlate fishing stocks with recreational fishing activities, a
necessary piece of information is an estimate of total foreign visitors
who go recreational fishing. NMFS does not have this information.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Eric C. Schwaab
Question 1. I know that catch shares have been extremely
controversial along the east coast, but we've had a fair amount of
success with them in the Washington and Alaska fishing industries. Are
catch shares a panacea for all problems in fisheries management?
Answer. No. To manage fisheries in Federal waters, the Magnuson-
Stevens Act sets up a unique and highly participatory structure through
eight Regional Fishery Management Councils. The Councils actively
consider a variety of management tools in determining how to manage the
fisheries in their respective regions. Catch share programs are only
one of many fisheries management tools that Councils may choose to
utilize. Catch shares programs are not required and are not appropriate
for every fishery.
The specific goal(s) that Councils are trying to achieve will help
determine whether a catch share program is appropriate for a specific
fishery. Goals may include improving safety for fishermen by
eliminating ``race-to-fish'' conditions; increasing fishery stability
and economic viability; rebuilding an overfished stock; ensuring
participation from new entrants; and protecting communities from
possible economic impacts by anchoring quota with them. Catch shares
are an extremely dynamic and flexible tool and, when properly designed,
can better ensure sustainable fisheries. We have seen Councils take a
wide variety of approaches in the design of catch share programs to
address a variety of biological, economic, and social objectives.
Question 2. In what ways are they helpful tools and what are some
of their limitations?
Answer. The Councils have great latitude to design catch share
programs to achieve a wide variety of management objectives. Catch
share programs can be, and have been, designed to address issues of
concern to smaller owner-operated vessels, for example, by establishing
consolidation and ownership limits, establishing set-asides of quotas
for particular fleets or ports, and providing assistance in the form of
permit banks and loan programs to assist small entities and new
entrants to a fishery consistent with the Council's objectives. Under a
catch share program, a vessel owner has more flexibility to operate in
a way that maximizes their efficiency and profit. The potential
economic benefits of catch share programs can be particularly valuable
to smaller operations. In the past, small vessels/businesses had to
compete with larger operations, but under a catch share program, how
and when they fish is largely within their individual control, as long
as consistent with the fishery regulations.
Catch share programs can be designed to minimize impacts on fishing
communities that include smaller fishing operations and promote
community sustainability. The Councils have the tools to develop
programs that help communities by taking advantage of Magnuson-Stevens
Act provisions under Section 303A to designate Fishing Communities and
Regional Fishery Associations. These types of entities can be flexibly
developed (e.g., a specific port, group of ports or communities, a
group of fishermen using the same gear type, or other grouping), while
at the same time providing a structure and framework for anchoring
quota with a particular community. NOAA can provide support and
technical advice on designating Fishing Communities and Regional
Fishery Associations, and encourage partnerships for community capacity
building, which can be a tool for ``mom and pop'' operations to
successfully and sustainably build and maintain their business.
Impacts to participants, including smaller operators, vary across
programs, but have generally been positive. Benefits include increased
ex-vessel prices of fish, increased landings, increased value of
harvesting privileges, increased season length, reductions in bycatch
and improved safety. Accurate monitoring of quota that is essential for
catch share programs also improves the quality and quantity of fishery
data, which leads to reduced scientific uncertainty and potential for
increased catch quotas.
At the same time, these programs can result in increased cost for
the purchase of new shares. Larger operations may have better access to
capital which can give them an opportunity to purchase more (or
additional) quota or upgrade vessels more easily than a small operator;
however, that is true regardless of whether the fishery management
regime is a catch share program or any other management program. The
Magnuson-Stevens Act allows Councils to specify NMFS' Finance Program
loans to assist small operators and first time buyers of catch share
privileges.
While consolidation and ownership limits can be established,
consolidation can be a concern even in relatively successful programs
like the sablefish and Pacific halibut longline individual fishing
quota program in Alaska. It is important that NMFS and the Councils
continue to monitor the biological and socioeconomic performance of all
their fisheries and amend Fishery Management Plans that are not working
to meet the program objectives. For limited access privilege programs,
the Magnuson-Stevens Act specifies program reviews after the first 7
years of the program and every 5 years thereafter. The NOAA Catch Share
Policy recommends the Councils consider similar reviews in the
development of any new catch share program.
NMFS has heard concerns with respect to consolidation during the
development of the NOAA Catch Share Policy and, in response, key design
elements connected to consolidation such as allocations,
transferability, and fishing community sustainability, are among the
guiding principles in the policy. In some instances, the Councils' goal
may be to reduce overcapacity, and that goal should not be precluded;
however, we will work diligently with the Councils to ensure that the
possible impacts of consolidation, such as lost crew positions, are
considered and mitigated during the development of any catch share
program.
Question 3. How can catch shares better-equip fishing fleets to
deal with the economics of a fluctuating resource?
Answer. Catch shares provide vessel owners with more flexibility to
operate in a way that maximizes their effectiveness and profit. Having
an individual allocation of the resource, and not having to compete
with others to make landings against a common quota, allows fishermen
to plan their fishing efforts to best match market and weather
conditions, and their individual operations, thus improving both their
efficiency and safety. Catch shares also provide for opportunities for
groups of fishermen to work collectively to harvest the resources more
efficiently, as well as in ways that avoid catching the limiting stocks
in multispecies fisheries. In times when the resource is less abundant,
fishermen can work together to harvest their quota using fewer vessels,
or individually by timing the market to increase profits.
Transferability of catch shares, such as leasing a certain amount of
quota to another fisherman, provides flexibility for fishermen in their
business planning and allows them to receive income when they may not
otherwise be able to (e.g., their vessel is in need of repair and they
cannot fish).
Question 4. Some segments of the fishing industry have called for
legislation to make Magnuson-Stevens more ``flexible'' and point to the
ten-year rebuilding requirement as an example of an arbitrary and
inflexible requirement under the law. Isn't it true that the rebuilding
timeframes for many fisheries greatly exceeds 10 years because the
Magnuson-Stevens Act already gives managers a great deal of
flexibility?
Answer. Yes. The Magnuson-Stevens Act and the National Standard 1
Guidelines provide a great deal of flexibility in rebuilding timeframes
to consider the biological needs of the species, as well as the social
and economic needs of fishing communities. Many rebuilding plans for
overfished stocks exceed 10 years; the longest of which is 100 years.
Out of 64 rebuilding plans, both past and current, 26 (41 percent)
have/had rebuilding timeframes that exceed 10 years, and the average
rebuilding plan time-frame was 21 years.
Question 5. At what point are we talking genuine flexibility to
rebuild stocks versus weakening the bill to avoid the pain of
rebuilding at all?
Answer. The Magnuson-Stevens Act currently incorporates sufficient
flexibility to provide for the unique needs of specific fisheries and
fishing communities, while also providing strong guidance to rebuild
overfished stocks quickly to improve their health and abundance, as
well as to support a sustainable fishery.
In the National Standard 1 Guidelines, NMFS recommends, that
consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, a target rebuilding time be
set somewhere between the absolute shortest time to rebuild and the
absolute longest time to rebuild, but that the longest rebuilding
period should be avoided whenever possible. When developing a
rebuilding plan, it is good practice for Councils to calculate the
probability of achieving rebuilding by several alternative target
rebuilding times, in order to inform the decision. In deciding the
rebuilding timeframe, Councils must take into account the needs of the
fishing community consistent with National Standard 8.
Question 6. My colleague Senator Brown has proposed legislation
that would require the Fisheries Service to do a full economic analysis
of each fisheries management decision. Would such a requirement pull
funding away from stock assessments, fisheries surveys, and the
scientific analyses that we need to do to actually manage our
fisheries? If such economic analyses were ever required, do you believe
they should just examine the short-term economic impacts of fishery
management decisions, or should they also examine the long-term costs
and benefits of those decisions?
Answer. Economic analyses on each fisheries management decision are
currently conducted in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act (e.g.,
10 National Standards), National Environmental Policy Act, Regulatory
Flexibility Act, and E.O. 12866, as required by law. These analyses
incorporate short-term, long-term, and cumulative impacts. NOAA and
NMFS believe that identifying and evaluating both short- and long-term
economic impacts of management measures is of great importance, and
conducting economic analyses on each fisheries management decision has
been a fundamental component of our existing management process. Guided
by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS and the Regional Fishery Management
Councils strive to ensure that U.S. fisheries are sustainable--
economics and viable fishing communities are key components of
sustainability.
While NMFS understands the desire to have more information on
economic impacts of management actions to reduce economic hardships on
fishermen and fishing communities, the independent economic impact
statements required in S. 238 could introduce significant complexity
and conflicts with existing efforts, process, and mandates. The
economic impact statements called for in the bill:
Are largely duplicative of those already required by law,
yet do not require the external entity developing the impact
statements to be held to the same legal requirements, including
use of best available data;
Would not be streamlined into the current fishery management
process and its prescribed timelines, which puts key
information in front of decision-makers during the management
process;
Do not take into account previous mitigation measures or
positive impacts from past management actions, nor recognize
that a short-term negative impact is sometimes needed to
achieve a longer-term positive impact; and
Conflict with the highly participatory and adaptive fishery
management process that Congress created under the Magnuson-
Stevens Act in 1976 and could jeopardize conservation mandates,
particularly the mandate to end overfishing and rebuild stocks.
NMFS currently funds economic analyses and research to fulfill our
legal mandates and to improve the science upon which fisheries
management decisions are based. If the additional economic impact
statements as proposed in S. 238 were also required, an outside entity
would conduct these analyses and how that would be funded is unclear.
The additional funding required to support those activities, which
could be approximately $15-20 million per year, is likely to result in
a competition over funds necessary to manage our fisheries in
accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
Question 7. As you know, NMFS has recently issued several
biological opinions regarding the impacts that pesticides have on ESA
listed salmon on the West coast. Jeopardy findings have triggered
``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' that many in the agriculture
industry feel are draconian, unnecessary, and irrational. In the past
when various fishing fleets have been shut down due to ESA findings,
NMFS has provided support by facilitating experiments to find new,
alternative ways of meeting ESA mandated standards or requirements
(like experiments to find gear modifications that reduce bycatch
levels). Isn't it possible to view the pesticides situation through a
similar lens, where the agricultural community needs assistance finding
alternative ways of meeting new standards being required under the
Endangered Species Act?
Answer. NOAA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the United States Department of
Agriculture's (USDA) Agriculture Research Service and Office of
Pesticide Management Policy have formed an interagency working group to
address pesticides registrations and Endangered Species Act (ESA)
issues. The working group will call upon the expertise of the EPA and
USDA to work with states and the agricultural community to minimize
exposure of ESA listed species to pesticides.
Question 8. If the Federal Government helps the agricultural
industry experiment to find new ways to lessen farmers' impacts on
salmon, couldn't such innovations be considered for future ``reasonable
and prudent alternatives'' in NMFS biological opinions?
Answer. Yes. Should new methods become available for minimizing
risks to threatened and endangered Pacific salmon, NMFS would consider
those methods as it develops any reasonable and prudent alternatives in
future biological opinions, and fashions recommendations to EPA. NMFS
would welcome the expertise and capabilities of other agencies and the
states in fashioning effective and efficient strategies.
Question 9. Don't you think it is a laudable goal to empower
farmers to help find solutions to this problem? Would a collaborative
effort between farmers, NMFS, EPA, and USDA to develop and field-test a
wide range of possible methods for reducing pesticide impacts on salmon
be one possible way forward?
Answer. Yes. All of the agencies that participate in the
interagency working group recognize the desirability of facilitating a
collaborative effort to reduce pesticide impacts on ESA-listed salmon.
The agencies are working to expand opportunities to participate in the
consultation process to the pesticides registrants, the affected
states, farming organizations and other interested parties. NMFS will
solicit recommendations to improve access to scientific information,
monitoring data, and other information pertinent to ESA consultation
issues ``up-front'' in the early preparation of biological assessments
by EPA, and over the course of the preparations of biological opinions
by both NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the case of
formal consultations.
Question 10. Rather than just focusing on the legal and scientific
disputes, wouldn't it be helpful for both the government and farmers to
engage in a process that is solutions-oriented, collaborative, on-the-
ground, and data-driven?
Answer. Yes. NMFS is committed to increasing participation of
agricultural organizations and other stakeholders in the consultation
process, in both EPA's preparation of its biological assessments and in
both NMFS' and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's preparation of
biological opinions. NMFS will actively explore the capabilities of
USDA's Agricultural Research Service and Natural Resource Conservation
Service to refine projections of pesticide and herbicide uses and
potential environmental and aquatic exposures. The interagency working
group will also undertake parallel work with relevant state pesticide
programs to further refine the information utilized in the ESA
consultation process. Finally, NMFS will explore the expanded use of
the monitoring and modeling capabilities of the U.S. Geologic Survey
(USGS) as appropriations allow.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg to
Eric C. Schwaab
Question 1. What steps are you taking to improve the quality of
stock assessments?
NMFS is working on several fronts to improve the quality of stock
assessments. These include improvements in the monitoring of commercial
and recreational catch, in the number of fishery-independent surveys,
in survey and assessment methods, and in the peer review processes to
assure that the best science information available is delivered to
fishery managers. As shown in the table below, these improvements have
been implemented partly through funding increases provided in the
Expand Annual Stock Assessment budget line.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY12
FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 President's
Budget
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expand Annual Stock Assessment 20.5 24.4 26.6 31.6 40.5 51.0 51.7 67.1
Funding ($M)
Percentage of Fish Stocks with 51.7% 52.2% 55.7% 56.1% 59.1% 57.4% 59.6% 60.0%
Adequate Population Assessments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the past 5 years, NOAA has been able to replace four aging
research vessels with new, state-of-the-science Fishery Survey Vessels.
The advanced capabilities of these new vessels can improve stock
assessment information. In addition, NMFS uses the Expand Annual Stock
Assessment budget to support an Advanced Sampling Technology program to
improve our ability to fully utilize the acoustics and other advanced
equipment on the new vessels. Funding to sail these new vessels at
their full operating capacity has been requested. Funding to repair and
replace aging fisheries research vessels will help to maintain the
increase in the number of stock assessments per year throughout this
decade.
NMFS has added new surveys targeted on particularly important fish
and shellfish stocks, including scallops and quahog in the Northeast
and reef fish in the Southeast.
NMFS has invested in increased biological sampling from the
fisheries to provide stock assessment data and is working on
implementing the recommendations of a National Research Council review
to improve the monitoring of catch and effort in the recreational
fisheries.
NMFS has added stock assessment positions to all of its Science
Centers and supports a fellowship program to increase the supply of
highly trained candidates for these positions. These stock assessment
scientists are experts in their field and work to conduct comprehensive
stock assessments using state-of-the-science statistical methods.
NMFS has partnered with the Regional Fishery Management Councils to
create peer review systems in each region and has supported a Center
for Independent Experts to provide external, independent experts to
participate in these peer reviews. These peer review systems assure a
thorough and transparent review of new scientific assessments.
Question 2. Will you improve communication with the regulated
community?
Answer. Yes, NMFS is taking specific steps to improve outreach to
and communication with all stakeholders, including the regulated
community. We must work diligently to listen to our stakeholders,
especially the regulated community, in order to foster clear, balanced,
and consistent external communications.
NMFS recently commissioned an independent Regional Assessment and
Management Review that made recommendations about how we communicate
with and provide customer service to the industry and the general
public in the Northeast. We are committed to continuing our efforts to
improve our communications with external audiences. Specifically, in
the Northeast, we will consolidate our communications staff under one
program and coordinate them under one communications plan. We will
build on recent efforts like the Navigator now found in Commercial
Fisheries News to simplify the way we explain the actions we are taking
and how they impact industry. We will also build on our efforts to
communicate directly with industry through programs like the pilot
Fisheries Information Centers and our new compliance liaison position
in the Northeast.
Question 3. What specific steps will you take?
Answer. NMFS is working through its Office of Communications and
with the regional communications and outreach teams to increase the
frequency and quality of electronic communications with specific
stakeholders on the national and regional level, including the
regulated community. These communications include a new ``External
Affairs Newsletter'' which can be sent nationally, or targeted to
regions or states. This approach was lauded as part of NOAA's effort to
keep stakeholders up to date on response efforts in the Gulf of Mexico
during the Deepwater Horizon BP oil spill. An increased emphasis is
also being placed on in-person meetings with stakeholders. For example,
to strengthen its efforts to improve communication with, and outreach
to, the regulated community in New England, NMFS recently hired a
former commercial fisherman as a ``compliance assistance liaison'' in
the Northeast Region. NMFS recently announced that we will expand the
compliance liaison program nationwide to assist fishermen in better
understanding regulations and having stronger incentives to comply with
them. As a liaison, this NMFS employee interacts daily with individuals
and groups among the regulated communities and works with them to solve
problems. Another recent and successful communications effort the
agency launched is providing an insert into popular fishing community
newspapers that highlights and interprets fisheries information for
fishermen and others interested in Federal fishery issues along the
East Coast.
Question 4. The MSA provides several exemptions from certain
requirements for species whose management exceeded our scientific
capabilities or our sole jurisdiction. For example, the Act provides
exceptions for unique short-lived species such as squid and shrimp, and
for species that are part of an international agreement in which the
U.S. participates. Similar to a short-lived species, extraordinarily
high levels of natural mortality in species such as butterfish may
limit our ability to determine overfishing. This sets up a scenario
that could affect fishermen from other fisheries that interact with
butterfish as an unintended consequence, such as our domestic squid
fishery. Would providing an exemption from the Annual Catch Limit
requirements for a data poor species with a unique life history such as
butterfish make practical management sense?
Answer. The data for butterfish and its life history are not so
extreme or unique as to warrant an exception to the Annual Catch Limit
requirement, i.e., butterfish can be assessed and can be managed using
Annual Catch Limits, particularly given the flexibility provided in the
National Standard 1 Guidelines. Butterfish is a highly productive
species that usually matures by age one and has a 3 year life span. In
the past, there has been ample data to construct a quantitative stock
assessment, and it has been assessed in the past (i.e., 1983 and 2004).
In general, providing exemptions from the Annual Catch Limit
requirement for data-poor species or species with varied life histories
would likely weaken the Councils' and NMFS's ability to obtain the
optimum yield of those species and prevent overfishing on them,
consistent with National Standard 1. Due to their unique life history,
Congress provided an exception from the Annual Catch Limit requirement
for stocks with a life cycle of approximately 1 year, as the process
for setting Annual Catch Limits (i.e., annually) does not fit well for
such stocks. This exception allows flexibility for Councils to use
other management measures for these stocks which are more appropriate
for the unique life history and the specifics of the fishery which
captures them. However, these short-lived species are still required to
have estimates of other biological reference points (e.g., maximum
sustainable yield, optimum yield, Acceptable Biological Catch, etc.).
Also, if the species is experiencing overfishing, the exception cannot
be used and Annual Catch Limits are required to be implemented.
Guidance for appropriately accounting for uncertainty in managing
data-poor stocks has been available since at least 1998. Some examples
of guidance provided to date for data-poor species includes:
The use of a 75 percent Acceptable Biological Catch control
rule which is applied to catch levels that are thought to be
sustainable;
The use of stock complexes to address management of data-
poor stocks in a fishery and the use indicator stocks as a
management proxy for data poor stocks;
Methodologies for assessing the vulnerability of stocks,
which can be used to aid managers in the formation of stock
complexes and to determine the risk of overfishing;
The use of data tiers to develop Acceptable Biological Catch
control rules for a stock or complex to allow flexibility to
address different levels of scientific uncertainty; and
Multiyear averaging of data for fisheries that have highly
variable annual catches.
Additional guidance for specifying Annual Catch Limits for data-
poor species is currently being developed. At the 2009 National
Workshop of the Councils' Scientific and Statistical Committees, a
working group was established to identify and evaluate alternative
approaches for setting Acceptable Biological Catch for data-poor
fisheries. Members of the working group come from a variety of
organizations and agencies: Council staff, Council Scientific and
Statistical Committees, academia, non-governmental organizations, state
agencies, and NMFS. The working group is currently finalizing its
report, and plans to make it available to the public this spring.
Question 5. We share the Atlantic mackerel stock with Canada but do
not have a formal international management agreement. Therefore, the
current trans-boundary exception in the Act does not apply to mackerel.
However, there is evidence this stock is moving more toward Canadian
waters. Do you take the shared nature of this stock into account when
making management decisions about mackerel?
Answer. The Atlantic mackerel stock spans both U.S. and Canadian
waters; thus, the U.S. considers the status of the entire stock in
setting quotas. The U.S. Atlantic mackerel Fishery Management Plan
requires that the U.S. Acceptable Biological Catch must be calculated
by deducting estimated catch of Atlantic mackerel in Canadian waters in
the upcoming year from a target total catch level. Though the U.S.
quota-setting process accounts for Canadian landings, there is no
related limitation on Canadian landings.
Question 6. Would the law allow you to provide for a limited
exception from the ACL requirement despite not having a formal
agreement with Canada?
Answer. There is no authority in the Magnuson-Stevens Act to exempt
the Atlantic mackerel fishery from the Annual Catch Limit requirement
absent an agreement with Canada for this species. There is currently no
such agreement with Canada.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe to
Eric C. Schwaab
Question 1. In the New England groundfishery, we have 20 separate
stocks, some of which are rebuilt and the rest of which are on their
individual rebuilding trajectories. Yet, by assigning total allowable
catch to each stock, our fishermen are now confronting the practical
reality that the first species that reaches its limit can completely
shut down the entire fishery. Effectively, our ocean economy is
confined by the most delicate species, or ``choke stocks,'' as they are
often called. As a chain is only as strong as the weakest link, our
fishing economy will fail to grow if we continue to be inflexible with
respect to the management of the entirety of the groundfishery. Would
NMFS consider increasing allowable catch of one stock if that would
permit harvest of another species that is not overfished? Although
reducing overfishing and rebuilding stock is of course required by
Magnuson-Stevens how can NMFS also balance the requirement to have the
highest possible yield for healthy stock as well?
Answer. The spatial co-occurrence of multiple stocks of Northeast
groundfish and their potentially widely different abundance levels has
been a major challenge to the fishing industry, the New England Fishery
Management Council (Council) and NOAA's National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) for many years. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires all managed fisheries to
be fished at a sustainable rate that can produce the maximum
sustainable yield (MSY), and rebuild depleted (overfished) stocks to a
sustainable level within a defined time period. The effect of the MSA
requirements on a multi-stock fishery may make it difficult for the
fishery to achieve full utilization of healthy stocks, because of the
measures needed to effectively manage the ``weak'' stocks. Although the
design of management measures and modification of fishing behavior can
minimize this under-utilization, it is not always possible to harvest
the entire quota for stocks that are rebuilt or relatively healthy.
However, NMFS is confident that because of the flexibility provided
through the sector management system, vessels have been more successful
at targeting healthy stocks while avoiding stocks of concern. For
example, haddock and redfish landings for the first 10 months of this
fishing year have exceeded landing from the same time period in 2009 by
37 percent and 30 percent, respectively. We expect this trend to
continue.
The MSA does not explicitly provide for a mixed-stock exception.
However, NMFS did allow for a limited exception regarding the
prevention of overfishing when it established the advisory guidelines
on development of fishery management plans (based on the MSA's National
Standards). This is what has come to be referred to as the ``mixed-
stock exception.'' This exception was intended to enable flexibility in
managing fisheries that catch and land several stocks of fish using the
same gear types in the same general areas by temporarily allowing
overfishing to occur (i.e., allowing a higher rate of catch that would
not be sustainable over the long term) on some stocks so that higher
levels of catch may be realized on other stocks. This mixed-stock
exception, however, does not apply to overfished stocks, and it does
not create an exception to the MSA's mandatory rebuilding requirements.
Thus, the applicability of the mixed-stock exception is narrowly
constrained. A discussion of the exception may be found in the final
rule implementing revised National Standard Guidelines (74 FR 3178;
January 16, 2009).
In response to a court order in a case challenging Framework 42 to
the Northeast Multispecies fishery management plan, NMFS wrote two
papers addressing the applicability of the mixed-stock exception to
Framework 42*. The conclusions of those papers were that the mixed-
stock exception was not applicable to Framework 42, because temporarily
allowing overfishing of some stocks through the ``mixed-stock
exception'' would prevent overfished stocks from rebuilding within
statutory timeframes and cause the fishery to be inconsistent with the
requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Although these papers apply
specifically to Framework 42,* they provide further
background and analysis on the applicability of the mixed-stock
exception to any fishery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ ``Consideration and Analysis of the Application of the Mixed
Stock Exception to Ending Overfishing and its Applicability to
Framework 42 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan''
(January 2009), and ``Further Consideration and Analysis of the
Application of the Mixed Stock Exception to Ending Overfishing and its
Applicability to Framework 42 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery
Management Plan'' (February 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use of the mixed-stock exception is very limited when overfished
stocks are involved. However, the fishery Councils can choose to adopt
rebuilding timelines for some stocks that are less aggressive than for
other stocks. The New England Council has chosen to rebuild stocks at
different rates, within limits and timelines established by the MSA, to
account for the different characteristics of the stocks and to help
reduce short-term economic impacts (Amendment 13). For example, the
Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan extends the rebuilding
deadline for Georges Bank cod to 2026, Gulf of Maine Yellowtail
flounder to 2023, and Acadian redfish to 2051. Such management
decisions will provide similar results as those that can be achieved
through the Agency's use of a limited mixed-stock exception.
Question 2. As you know there is significant interest in developing
renewable offshore energy in the Gulf of Maine and this will likely
affect the New England groundfishery. Clearly, it is critical that we
determine the most suitable areas for fishing or energy production, and
in some situations both. In addition, while there is some experience in
Europe, there remains significant uncertainty about the potential
effects of developing offshore renewable energy facilities. How is NMFS
working to provide data to determine the areas that should be
streamlined for permitting as well as areas that raise potential
concerns? Has NMFS researched whether wind turbines may modify
circulation patterns and whether this would have implications on key
migratory species?
Answer. NMFS participates in the ocean energy siting process by
identifying habitat areas of known ecological value, including Habitat
Areas of Particular Concern, corals, live or hardbottom habitats,
topographic features, estuaries, etc. NMFS provides information to
other Federal agencies and the public about the vulnerability of these
areas and the need to avoid them during siting of ocean energy
facilities, as well as information about the types of habitat impacts
that should be avoided, minimized, or mitigated during installation and
operation of ocean energy facilities. By working with Federal action
agencies that are involved with leasing, licensing, or permitting ocean
energy projects, NMFS is attempting to develop a consultation process
that will not unduly impede development of renewable ocean energy while
recognizing the need to preserve and protect certain marine habitats.
NMFS staff also participates on all of the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) task forces for the
northeast region (ME, MA, RI, NY, NJ, DE, MD, VA). As a participant on
these task forces, NMFS is providing technical support to the U.S.
Department of the Interior's Smart from the Start Initiative for
offshore wind energy development. Through this process, NMFS has
provided comments and information regarding habitat and protected
resources concerns within BOEMRE's proposed wind energy areas; alerted
BOEMRE to fishing activity and fishery management regulations within
these areas; educated BOEMRE on the role of Regional Fishery Management
Councils in the process, and encouraged that agency to coordinate with
broader Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning initiatives. NMFS has
compiled existing agency data within the proposed BOEMRE wind energy
areas, and staff members are also coordinating with the Fisheries
Management Councils to ensure they are included in the process.
NMFS staff is also involved in a joint research project with the
Navy, BOEMRE, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to improve our
knowledge of marine mammal, sea turtle, and sea bird distribution and
abundance along the Atlantic Coast. Alternative energy development
along the Atlantic was a significant driving factor leading to this
cooperative project. The project is planned to continue through FY
2014, subject to funding, with the possibility of further data
collection through FY 2018. Additionally, NMFS and other NOAA line
offices also participate in the Federal Renewable Energy Ocean Energy
Working Group, which is working to promote the successful,
environmentally and socially responsible deployment of offshore
renewable energy devices.
Outside of NMFS, NOAA's Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric
Research's National Sea Grant Program also has a role in community
outreach regarding offshore wind energy. Specifically, the Maine Marine
Extension Team, a partnership between Maine Sea Grant and University of
Maine Cooperative Extension, is holding a series of discussions in
Spring 2011 about research and monitoring plans for the University of
Maine's Deepwater Offshore Wind Test Site that has been established in
coastal waters south of Monhegan, Maine. Project leaders will share
highlights of research and monitoring results, and seek community input
from residents, fishermen, and business owners in midcoast Maine
regarding plans to develop a world-class offshore wind research site.
The meetings are sponsored by the DeepCwind Consortium, Advanced
Structures and Composites Center, Maine Sea Grant, and University of
Maine Cooperative Extension.
Multiple NOAA line offices also supported the FY 2010 funding
opportunity for Developing Environmental Protocols and Monitoring to
Support Ocean Renewable Energy and Stewardship, which was conducted
through the National Oceanographic Partnership Program (NOPP). NMFS,
the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, and NOAA's National
Ocean Service joined partners at the BOEMRE, as well as the Department
of Energy to provide over $6 million in funding for eight projects that
were focused on understanding, characterizing, and monitoring the
environmental impacts of ocean energy.
NMFS is not aware of any research indicating that wind turbines may
modify circulation patterns and whether this would have implications on
key marine migratory fish species. However, in response to the July 19,
2010 National Policy for the Stewardship of the Oceans, Our Coasts, and
the Great Lakes established by Presidential Executive Order No. 1354
(commonly referred to as the ``National Ocean Policy''), Federal, and
New England state and tribal governments, in consultation with the New
England Fishery Management Council, will be working to develop a
comprehensive and ecosystem-based regional plan starting this summer.
This regional Coastal and Marine Spatial Plan will include a
characterization (regulatory and scientific) of the Gulf of Maine to
help us to consider how to minimize conflicts among uses like energy
and fishing, while mitigating the environmental impact of those uses.
This proactive and transparent planning process will enable managers to
make more informed decisions about how we use the Gulf of Maine
resources as well as consider the cumulative impacts of those uses into
the future.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roger F. Wicker to
Eric C. Schwaab
Question 1. In your testimony you discussed improving the Expanded
Stock Assessment programs. These improvements could reduce uncertainty
in estimating fish populations and improve fisheries management
decisions. Please describe how NMFS can decrease the time between data
collection and dissemination of these data to fisheries management
councils.
Answer. Stock assessments are based on several sources of
information: fishery-independent data on population trends, obtained
from field surveys; and fishery-dependent data, obtained from landings
data, fishery observers, and, for stocks with significant recreational
fisheries, from surveys of recreational fisheries. NMFS is taking
several steps to increase operational efficiency and reduce the time
between data collection and the application of the data to management
decisions.
In the FY 2012 President's Request, NMFS is requesting $67.1
million to expand annual stock assessments, an increase of $15 million.
These funds will be used to improve assessments for high priority
stocks; update assessments for stocks more frequently; and, conduct
fishery-independent surveys to enable assessment of more stocks,
including data poor stocks, 3-5 years from now. NMFS proposes to use a
portion of these funds, $3 million, to invest in advanced technologies
for fishery-independent surveys. Among the projects that will be
supported with these funds will be near real-time processing of survey
data as it is collected at sea and more rapid delivery of these data to
shore-based analysts conducting the stock assessments.
For fishery-dependent data, NMFS is currently developing new ways
to improve the data quality and timeliness of recreational catch data.
Our Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) has begun the use of
electronic logbook reporting in the Gulf of Mexico to speed up data
processing. NMFS also hosted an MRIP workshop focused on improving the
timeliness for recreational catch data. The workshop was able to
identify key ideas that could increase timeliness for recreational
fisheries and improve the ability to make in-season management
decisions. The President's FY 2012 budget request therefore includes an
increase of $3 million to leverage these current recreational fisheries
monitoring efforts, $2 million of which will allow MRIP implementation
to address the timeliness issues identified in the aforementioned
workshop and $1 million to fully implement electronic logbooks in the
Southeast Region.
NMFS is also working to increase observer coverage and the number
of staff available to process and manage the data collected by
observers. This is important because observers collect high quality
information on catch and bycatch that is directly incorporated into
stock assessments. Biological samples such as ear bones (otoliths), fin
rays, or vertebrae collected by observers are used to determine the age
of fish, a critical component of any stock assessment. Unbiased,
fishery-dependent catch and bycatch data from observer programs are
also used in stock assessments. Additional staff, including fisheries
scientists to process the data, would increase the timeliness of catch
and bycatch estimates. However, funds for observer programs were
reduced in FY 2011, so the time required to provide data from observers
to fishery management councils will likely increase.
NMFS is working with the Scientific and Statistical Committees of
the Regional Fishery Management Councils to streamline the scientific
review process, so that more assessments can be delivered quickly to
the councils as updates, rather than as extensive investigations that
require more thorough peer review. The tempo of assessment updating was
a significant topic at the NMFS-sponsored workshop in February 2011 on
the scientific needs for implementation of annual catch limits.
Question 2. In your testimony you discussed the fact that increases
in fisheries stock levels take time and require some significant short-
term sacrifices by fishermen. These short-term sacrifices could force
some fishermen to exit the fishery. Will NFMS facilitate the re-entry
of these fishermen to the fishery when stocks are rebuilt and annual
catch limits are increased?
Answer. NOAA is very concerned about the hardships that some
fishermen and fishing communities have experienced recently as NOAA and
the Regional Fishery Management Councils work to fulfill the Magnuson-
Stevens Act requirements to end and prevent overfishing through
implementation of annual catch limits. As overfished stocks rebuild, it
is anticipated that there will be more harvest opportunities as the
stocks reach their sustainable abundance level.
NMFS and the Regional Fishery Management Councils work closely with
fishermen and other stakeholders in a highly participatory public
process during the development of fishery management programs to
minimize impacts to the industry. The Council process is highly
adaptive and flexible allowing for new information to drive
modifications to management measures. For example, if there is new
scientific information that supports raising the catch limits, which
could provide more opportunities for some fishermen to re-enter the
fishery, then management options will be revisited through the Council
process.
People who leave a fishery may be able to re-enter, depending on
the management provisions of the fishery management plan. In some
cases, fishermen leaving a fishery may retain their permit, and can re-
enter the fishery at a later date. In other cases, fishermen may sell
their permits upon leaving the fishery, and, depending on the
provisions in the fishery management plan, might have to purchase a
permit from another permit holder in order to re-enter the fishery.
NMFS has several programs, such as the individual fishing quota loan
program and Capital Construction Fund that may assist fishermen in re-
entering fisheries.
The FY 2012 President's Budget includes a proposal for $8 million
to create a working waterfronts grant program. This program will assist
fishing-dependent coastal communities adversely affected by changes in
the fishing industry on which they depend. This program will assist
distressed or at-risk fishing communities by providing resources for
communities to engage in planning, capacity building, and other
activities.
Question 3. In your testimony you cited NMFS research that supports
past and projected fishery contributions to our economy. The most
recent estimates of sales revenue and jobs directly supported by U.S.
fisheries comes from 2008, which does not fully reflect the effects of
the recession or the 2010 Gulf oil spill. Is NMFS working on an updated
fisheries economic report that will include these factors? Do you have
independent research to corroborate these NMFS statistics cited in your
written testimony?
Answer. The 2009 commercial and recreational fisheries economic
impacts will be available in the coming weeks. NMFS uses IMPLAN, a
commercially available software package for modeling economic impacts,
to estimate sales, jobs, income, and value-added impacts. IMPLAN
recently released a new version of its software causing NMFS to update
its models, which delayed the release of the 2009 estimates. The 2010
commercial fisheries data will not be available in all fisheries until
summer 2011. NMFS plans to release the 2010 economic impacts in late
summer.
NMFS has had its national models internally reviewed. In addition,
we have validated all of the results from these models against
regionally-implemented IMPLAN models developed by NMFS, as well as
regionally-implemented models using other software platforms. The
regional models are used in management and have been externally peer-
reviewed. The national model compares well with the regional models
because they use the same information and information structure as the
regional models. NMFS also validates its models against models
developed by other entities, e.g., state agencies.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Kelly Ayotte to
Eric C. Schwaab
Question 1. In your testimony you state that the 10 National
Standards for fishery conservation and management provide a yardstick
against which all fishery management plans and measures developed by
the Councils are measured. As you know, National Standard 4 requires
that fishery management councils ``apportion fishing privileges in a
fair and equitable manner.'' Many in the fishing industry believe that
NOAA's catch share allocation system favors those with well-documented
catch history and does not reflect accurate historical data for all
participants. In light of these concerns, please explain whether the
catch share allocation scheme is consistent with National Standard 4.
Answer. There is not an over-arching, national NOAA catch share
allocation system. In both catch share and non-catch share fisheries,
allocation decisions are made by the individual Regional Fishery
Management Councils (Councils) and are based on the specific needs and
unique characteristics of each fishery and its participants. The NOAA
Catch Share policy recommends that Councils periodically revisit
allocations and that the basis for allocation should include
consideration of conservation, economic, and social criteria.
With respect to the Northeast sector program, the New England
Fishery Management Council considered a range of participation criteria
and ultimately adopted the allocations it considered the most fair and
equitable. Individual fishermen have the opportunity to correct
inaccurate historical data by appealing the specific allocation they
received to the NMFS. NMFS continues to work with fishermen to correct
historical catch information when appropriate documentation supporting
the change is provided. In addition to requiring allocations be ``fair
and equitable,'' National Standard 4 requires allocations to be
``reasonably calculated to promote conservation'' and carried out in
such a way that no individual or entity acquires an excessive share.
For all new sectors approved under Amendment 16, the sector vessels
were subject to the same criteria for determining sector allocations,
which were calculated to promote conservation and do not allow one
entity to acquire an excessive allocation of any stock, because sector
allocations are temporary and allocations can be traded among sectors.
Further, allocation among commercial and recreational components of the
fishery and between sector and non-sector vessels is reasonably
calculated to ensure accountability in the fishery and more effectively
achieve conservation objectives.
With any allocation decision, the Councils consider a range of
participation criteria and ultimately adopt the allocation system it
considers the most fair and equitable. Individual fishermen have the
opportunity to correct inaccurate historical data by appealing the
specific allocation they received to NOAA's National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS). NMFS continues to work with fishermen to correct
historical catch information when appropriate documentation supporting
the change is provided.
Question 2. As you know, National Standard 8 of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act requires that fishery management plans ``take into account
the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities in order to
provide for the sustained participation of such communities, and to the
extent practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on such
communities.'' The fishing industry is concerned that the bureaucratic
regulatory costs of catch share sectors have imposed unreasonable
administrative burdens on fishing operations too small to absorb them.
New Hampshire cannot afford to lose more jobs, especially in this
difficult economy. In what ways could NOAA change catch share and
sector policies in order to minimize these adverse economic impacts on
the small fishing communities in New Hampshire?
Answer. The NOAA Catch Share policy includes fishing community
sustainability as one of its guiding principles. Specifically, the NOAA
policy recommends that Regional Fishery Management Councils (Councils)
develop policies to promote the sustained participation of fishing
communities and take advantage of the special community provisions in
section 303A of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The community provisions in
section 303A establish explicit eligibility and participation criteria
and other obligations such as the development and submission to the
Secretary of a community sustainability or regional fishery association
plan. As with other considerations in the design of catch programs, the
Councils strive to balance support for fishing communities with the
flexibility fishermen and related businesses need to operate
efficiently and implement innovative ideas. NMFS is committed to
working with fishermen, state and local governments, public and private
non-profit organizations, tribal entities, and others to help
communities build their capacity to address long-term fishery and
community sustainability such as by working across the Federal
Government to provide technical assistance related to community
economic development.
The catch share programs affecting communities in New Hampshire
were designed through the New England Fishery Management Council
process. The New England Council and NMFS developed the monitoring and
reporting requirements for the sector management program in order to
ensure accountability. Part of these requirements includes the
submission of annual operations plans from each sector and an analysis
of the impacts of the sector operations plan for approval by NMFS.
These plans give the sectors the freedom to design their own plan to
harvest their quota and the flexibility to make adjustments from year
to year; however, these are detailed documents which require
significant input from the members of the sector. Thus far, NMFS has
taken on the responsibility of preparing the analyses for the sectors
to relieve them of that burden. NMFS has, and will continue to, work
with the Council and interested stakeholders to adjust the reporting
and monitoring requirements for sectors, where additional flexibility
could be provided and if there is interest from the fishing industry
and the New England Council to do so. Additionally in FY 2010 and FY
2011, NMFS has provided significant funding to help the industry
transition to the sector management program. Among other items, this
funding has been used to pay for dockside and at-sea monitoring which
would have otherwise been paid for by industry and to develop
electronic reporting systems to be used in completing required catch
reports. The Administration's FY 2012 budget requests additional
funding to help fishing sectors, including funding to pay for dockside
and at-sea monitoring requirements through the 2012 fishing year.
A proposed rule soliciting public comment on additional sector
exemptions from groundfish regulatory requirements, as requested in the
fishing year 2011 sector operations plans, closed on March 15, 2011.
NMFS received several comments on these requested exemptions, some of
which are specific to relieving administrative burdens, including
exemptions from certain reporting and dockside monitoring requirements.
The final rule on this action, which published April, 25 2011, included
17 regulatory exemptions for sectors, an increase from the 2010 Fishing
Year. The final rule exempts specific handgear and small vessel
permitted vessels from dockside monitoring requirements, removes the
requirement for industry to pay for dockside monitoring in Fishing
Years 2011 and 2012, and allows additional time for sectors to trade
quota at the end of the fishing year to avoid exceeding their
individual allocations among other measures. Additional New England
Council actions underway to assist small fishing communities include
actions that provide funding to the states of Maine, New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, and Rhode Island in the form of Federal grant awards for
the purpose of establishing several permit banks of Northeast
multispecies fishing vessel permits. These permit banks are intended to
provide small vessels and small communities with an opportunity to
obtain additional quota or days-at-sea on the open market at a reduced
cost.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV
to Dr. Douglas DeMaster
Question 1. You mentioned in your testimony that Acceptable
Biological Catch (ABC) limits are set at a level such that there is an
estimated 50 percent or less chance of overfishing a given stock. How
was this < 50 percent probability-of-overfishing limit determined?
Answer. During the scoping period for revising the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) National
Standard 1 Guidelines, NMFS received many comments on the topic of
setting a specific probability of successfully preventing overfishing.
Some commenters expressed that a 50 percent probability of success each
year is all that is legally required, while other commenters expressed
that the probability of success should be higher (e.g., 75 percent or
100 percent).
Section 303(a)(15) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that Annual
Catch Limits be set ``such that overfishing does not occur''. Courts
have found, and as a result it has been generally accepted practice in
fisheries management, that to take actions that will prevent
overfishing, those actions must have at least a 50 percent chance of
success. The court in NRDC v. Daley \1\ rejected a NMFS action intended
to prevent overfishing that NMFS determined had only an 18 percent
chance of success. The court held that at a minimum, when taking
actions necessary to end overfishing, NMFS's actions must have at least
a 50 percent chance of success in order to find that those actions are
sufficient to prevent overfishing. When developing the relationship of
the reference points--overfishing limit, Acceptable Biological Catch,
Annual Catch Limit, and an optional Annual Catch Target--NMFS
considered including specific probabilities of success regarding
preventing overfishing and preventing catch from exceeding the Annual
Catch Limit. In the final revised National Standard 1 Guidelines in
2009, NMFS did not include specific guidance on how much below 50
percent the probability of overfishing should be. This preserves
flexibility for case-specific analysis and implementation for each
fishery management plan. By taking a probability approach (e.g., chance
of overfishing), the inherent scientific uncertainty in knowing the
true overfishing limit is acknowledged and incorporated into management
decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 209 F.3d 747, 754 (D.C. Cir. 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Standard 1 Guidelines explain how the Regional Fishery
Management Councils should each work with their Scientific and
Statistical Committees to understand the uncertainty involved in each
fishery and then determine, based on scientific advice, the level of
risk of overfishing they think is appropriate to take with each stock
however that risk should not exceed 50 percent and is recommended to be
lower.
Question 2. How often have ABCs been set too high, resulting in
overfishing?
Answer. When an Acceptable Biological Catch is established, it is
an estimate of a catch level that would not result in overfishing, with
a specified probability, if the exact Acceptable Biological Catch was
caught. The probability that catch equal to Acceptable Biological Catch
would result in overfishing cannot exceed 50 percent. However, the
actual catch will seldom be exactly the Acceptable Biological Catch, as
there is uncertainty in the management of the fishery to its catch
limit. In order to prevent overfishing, the actual catch will usually
be somewhat less than the Acceptable Biological Catch.
A subsequent stock assessment might indicate, based on new
information, that the prior Acceptable Biological Catch had been set
too high. So, in some cases, management that was thought to be safe
(i.e., not overfishing), could be determined later to have been
overfishing. In the coming years, Annual Catch Limit performance,
including evaluation of the Acceptable Biological Catch control rules,
will be evaluated. This evaluation will occur over the next several
years, as fisheries are managed under Annual Catch Limits and new stock
assessments are completed.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to
Dr. Douglas DeMaster
Question 1. While anecdotal evidence may not be as compelling as
other types of information, it would only help NMFS develop a complete
view of a given fishery. Does NMFS incorporate anecdotal evidence from
fishermen in stock assessments? Why or why not?
Answer. Anecdotal information is an invaluable part of the stock
assessment process. Often, our first indicator of a shift in stock
status comes from observations of commercial and recreational fishers
who are out on the water. Input from fishers is obtained at question
and answer periods and during public testimony held at each Fishery
Management Council meeting, and through their Advisory Panel
representatives at stock assessment workshops. NMFS makes a concerted
effort to stay in touch with the participants of the fisheries and to
take advantage of their ``on the water'' perspectives for verification
of trends seen in the data, as well for insight into trends that may be
less obvious by examination of the data alone. Observations provided by
recreational and commercial fishers have been used to generate
hypotheses that can be tested by conducting new studies or by analyzing
existing data. Stock assessments are quantitative and as such, it would
be rare to use anecdotal information, which is often qualitative, as a
substitute for quantitative information. During a stock assessment
workshop, such as the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review process
(SEDAR) used for South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean
assessments, anecdotal information can be used to inform decisions that
are made or to address questions that may arise regarding fishing
practices, or changes in fishing patterns over the history of the
fishery. Input from fishers or their Advisory Panel representative has
been sought to address those questions. Use of anecdotal information in
these ways is appropriate and strengthens the stock assessment process.
Similar efforts to involve fishermen and their perspectives are
practiced by the Northeast through species-specific working groups and
the Northwest Fisheries Science Center via Pre-Assessment Workshops.
While it may not always be obvious from examination of the final stock
assessment product that gets published, the unique perspectives and
evidence afforded by the various stakeholders is viewed as a critical
part of the overall stock assessment process.
Question 2. It is my belief that the National Marine Fisheries
Service could find creative ways to manage fisheries that will avoid
closures and minimize restrictions in the Gulf and South Atlantic. What
are you doing to create flexible, creative solutions that will keep our
fishermen on the water?
Answer. NMFS recognizes the economic impacts of closures and other
regulations on Gulf and South Atlantic fishermen and fishing
communities, and we are committed to working with the Regional Fishery
Management Councils to identify flexible and creative ways to achieve
conservation mandates at the least cost. While Federal mandates require
fishery managers to prevent overfishing by holding fisheries
accountable to annual catch limits, NMFS is actively exploring
opportunities to incorporate increased flexibility into the guidelines
for specifying and managing Annual Catch Limits within the constraints
of the law.
NMFS is encouraging the Regional Fishery Management Councils to
consider the variability around landings data when specifying Annual
Catch Limits for data-poor species and when monitoring landings
relative to Annual Catch Limits. For example, accountability measures
adopted by both the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Councils for some
stocks require Annual Catch Limits to be compared to average landings
over a three-year period, rather than to annual landings, to reduce the
likelihood of unwarranted corrective action.
In addition, NMFS is encouraging the Councils to consider measures
to minimize the incidence of unplanned seasonal closures and/or Annual
Catch Limit reductions. For example, the Gulf of Mexico Council
recently approved a fixed two-month seasonal closure for greater
amberjack to maximize the number of fishing days available to the
recreational sector while reducing the likelihood of exceeding the
Annual Catch Limit. The South Atlantic Council recently approved new
measures to slow catch rates of black sea bass, gag and vermilion
snapper for the same purpose. Finally, NMFS is also encouraging the
Councils to consider the appropriateness and feasibility of using catch
share management strategies to avoid unplanned closures and
restrictions, as the individual fishing quota programs recently
implemented in the Gulf of Mexico red snapper, grouper and tilefish
fisheries have proven to be effective in this regard. However, such
programs can be controversial and would not be implemented unless
broadly supported by affected fishery participants.
Question 3. How much precaution is necessary before regulations
start to undermine the ability to harvest maximum sustainable yield?
Answer. This question identifies the trade-off between the degree
to which overfishing is prevented and the amount of foregone fishing
opportunity in the short-term. This trade-off is also apparent in the
harvest goal defined by the Magnuson-Stevens Act (and reiterated in the
National Standard 1 Guidelines): to achieve the optimum yield from each
fishery, while preventing overfishing (Magnuson-Stevens Act 2(b)(4)).
Ideally, stock assessments would provide near perfect information on
the maximum annual level of catch that would not be overfishing, and
fishery monitoring and management systems would be able to control the
catch to exactly that level. In that case, the sequence of annual
catches would average out to the maximum sustainable yield without any
overfishing. However, our knowledge of the fish stocks and our control
of the fisheries are never perfect, so the best that can be achieved in
the long-term will likely be somewhat less than the maximum sustainable
yield while we aim to set catch levels as close to it as possible. The
National Standard 1 Guidelines recommend that the inherent uncertainty
of the fishery assessment and management system be taken into account
so there is no greater than a 50 percent chance that overfishing will
occur, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirement that Annual
Catch Limits be specified at a level such that overfishing does not
occur. The National Standard 1 Guidelines recommend that the chance of
overfishing be less than 50 percent, but does not provide a specific
level because the trade-off between degree of reduction in catch and
degree of reduction in chance of overfishing is very case-specific.
Question 4. How does the National Marine Fisheries Service intend
to address this conflict in 2011?
Answer. The Regional Fishery Management Councils are responsible
for assessing and specifying optimum yield for each fishery in their
fishery management plans (see Magnuson-Stevens Act 303(a)(3) and
(4)), subject to Secretarial approval. In addition to working directly
with each of the Councils, NMFS provides descriptive yet flexible
national guidance for assessing and specifying optimum yield, and will
continue to work with the Councils to ensure that proposed management
actions are appropriately analyzed according to requirements of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws (e.g., National
Environmental Policy Act, Regulatory Flexibility Act, E.O. 12866,
Endangered Species Act, etc.). The Council process is highly
participatory, allowing fishermen and other stakeholders multiple
opportunities to comment on and contribute to the development of
proposed management action(s) in order to balance social, economic, and
ecological objectives and to minimize negative social and economic
impacts to the extent possible.
NMFS has been, and will continue, assisting the Councils in
implementing the new requirements for Annual Catch Limits in various
ways, such as through participation in the National Scientific and
Statistical Committee Workshops in 2008, 2009, 2010, and upcoming in
September 2011. Presentations at the Scientific and Statistical
Committee Workshops in 2009 and 2010 demonstrated potential methods to
better calculate and portray the linkage between the degree to which
fishing is reduced and the degree to which the chance of overfishing is
reduced.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John F. Kerry to
Dr. Douglas DeMaster
Question 1. The trawl surveys have been criticized for under
sampling the fishing environment. Fishermen in Massachusetts are eager
to see the type of technology Eric Schwaab witnessed at Northeastern
University, namely the ocean acoustic waveguide remote sensing (OAWRS),
which has the ability to instantaneously image fish populations over
wide areas in highly complex environment used in stock assessments.
This technology was presented to NOAA as early as 2003 and has yet to
be utilized for any stock assessments. What steps in NMFS taking to
explore new types of technology such as OAWRS and how are these
technologies being integrated into stock assessments?
Answer. NMFS' scientists at the Northeast Fisheries Science Center
have been involved in Ocean Acoustic Waveguide Remote Sensing (OAWRS)
research with investigators from Northeastern University and
Massachusetts Institute of Technology from the outset of that field
program. NOAA personnel are viewed as principal collaborators in
published studies that have mapped large shoals of Atlantic herring
abundance within the region. Our scientists are enthusiastic about
potential broader applications of this technique, but have noted
practical issues that must be addressed before this technology becomes
a standard tool to develop stock assessment data. Any acoustic method
requires long-term investment in the identification of species and size
composition from acoustic signals, automation of that process, and
biological validation of the results. While these methodologies are
relatively well-developed for single pelagic species targets such as
Atlantic herring, there has been relatively less progress with respect
to multispecies bottom-dwelling targets such as the New England
groundfish complex. Current regional research using OAWRS includes
estimation of spawning aggregations of Atlantic cod, while they are
densely distributed and off the bottom. Extension to multispecies
results for the entire New England groundfish complex (including
bottom-tending flounders) will likely require a core 5-10 year program
to develop a robust operating version of what currently is research
technology, and address the species identification, automated
processing, validation and statistical modeling questions.
NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center scientists have also been
working closely with researchers at the Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution, NOAA's Office of Atmospheric Research, and the U.S. Navy's
Office of Naval Research to evaluate broadband acoustic and optic
underwater remote sensing systems. The Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution researchers have shown that broadband acoustic methods can
resolve signals as individual fish at length, and when combined with
biological sampling can detect multiple species within a single
acoustic sample. This methodology could potentially be implemented in
pilot mode with installation of a broadband transducer on an existing
research vessel. Development of a towed optic underwater remote sensing
system (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution's Habitat Camera [HabCam])
to survey sea scallops has advanced to the point that several pilot
surveys have already been undertaken, and a comparison of estimates
from the video camera system versus traditional scallop dredge samples
is planned for this summer. Development of video processing technology
for that survey approach is in the initial test phase. Use of the
HabCam system will enable NMFS to significantly expand the bottom area
surveyed for sea scallop abundance. NMFS and NOAA's Office of
Atmospheric Research are also working with the Office of Naval Research
to develop the use of autonomous underwater vehicles (e.g., Remote
Environmental Monitoring Units [REMUS] 100) coupled with an optic
sensing system to survey bottom habitat for shell and finfish. A pilot
study has just been completed in Massachusetts Bay.
Question 2. In New England, critical management decisions are being
based on data (GARM 2008) that are up to 3 years old. The time lag
between the collection of data and the inclusion of that information
into the management process is poor. The assessment process should be
better aligned with the management process so that the best available
science is available at the time decisions are made. There is also much
concern from industry that time and money is being spent on cooperative
research that never makes its way into stock assessments. I want NMFS
and NOAA to improve the science and how it is utilized in the
management process. What can be done to increase the frequency of stock
assessments and more quickly incorporate the findings of cooperative
research?
Answer. NMFS recently released Phase I of the New England
Management Review, which was an independent review that solicited
information--positive and negative--from a variety of constituents and
others knowledgeable about New England fisheries management. NMFS
listened to feedback received, is taking this input seriously, and
plans to act aggressively to build on the current system and improve
the overall process. NMFS has a strong set of specific actions we are
going to take to begin now to address concerns raised by people both
inside and outside of this managements system and make improvements.
The Review was very specific regarding the opportunity to improve
science collaboration. It is critical that the science conducted by our
Northeast Fisheries Science Center and partner research institutions is
done in a more collaborative manner and in a way that maximizes
involvement of fishermen in the findings.
Cooperative research is an essential component of our science work
and we committed to two actions: (1) NMFS will work and plan together
with research and academic institutions and fishermen to make the best
use of limited research funding to answer some of the critical
questions facing New England fisheries; and (2) NMFS will immediately
initiate an expedited mid-term review of the 2009 strategic plan for
cooperative research to involve all regional cooperating institutions.
The results will be incorporated into FY 2012 funding prioritization
decisions.
NMFS and the New England Fishery Management Council are in the
process of re-engineering the stock assessment process to increase the
frequency of stock assessments. At present, most stocks are reassessed
every 5-8 years. Under the new process, almost all commercial stocks
will be reassessed at least once every 3 years. This will be done
largely by applying previously peer-reviewed baseline models to produce
operational assessments, rather than going through development of a new
benchmark model with every assessment. Stocks which require development
of new assessment models will continue to be operationally assessed,
while the new models are developed separately in a research track (this
will avoid slowing the operational assessments for research).
Scheduling operational assessments every 2-3 years will allow more
timely incorporation of a variety of new data available from surveys
and cooperative research, and will better align the frequency of
assessments with the underlying biological variability in stock size.
It will also provide a stable multiyear harvest level which will allow
industry to better plan their investments in fishing effort.
Fishery managers are also reviewing all of NMFS' Northeast Region's
fishery management plans to determine if there are changes that may be
necessary or may facilitate incorporation of more frequent assessments
into management action. This could mean revising fishery management
plans to allow for multi-year specifications, adjusting/aligning
fishing years, and regrouping similar stocks within fishery management
plans.
The Northeast Region Coordinating Council has concluded their
review of the proposed new process, and has charged NMFS and Council
staff with development of an implementation plan. It is expected that
this new process will be implemented in either 2013 or 2014, so as to
not conflict with important benchmark assessments already planned for
New England groundfish stocks and Atlantic herring.
Two sets of data are generated by cooperative research to inform
the assessment process: data on fish stock abundance and distribution
like the Northeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program (NEAMAP)
inshore trawl surveys, and research on the biology of harvested species
(including tagging studies). Data from survey efforts are incorporated
into the assessment process as soon as a time series is sufficiently
long to make the data useable statistically. For example, the NEAMAP
surveys were not fully implemented until 2008, and will be used in
assessments for the first time with this spring's winter flounder stock
assessments, now that there is a 3-year time series available to
monitor the trends shown in the survey. Other relevant research on
stock biology is included as quickly as possible in the assessments.
Again as an example, research on cooperative tagging research with cod
in the Northeast was evaluated at a recent meeting of the New England
Fishery Management Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee.
Based on this, a special review of Atlantic cod stock structure will be
convened in 2011-2012 to determine if the current two stock definition
for Atlantic cod in U.S. waters is still consistent with the best
available scientific and commercial data.
Question 3. What steps can be taken to lower the high amount of
scientific uncertainty that is built into catch levels?
Answer. Specification of catch limits begins with the calculation
of a stock's Overfishing Limit, which is the maximum allowable catch
that could be taken from a stock in a given year without causing
overfishing. The Overfishing Limit is measured with uncertainty that
arises from the underlying model and its assumptions. Roughly speaking,
a catch recommendation set exactly at the mean Overfishing Limit would
have a 50 percent chance of overfishing and 50 percent chance of not
overfishing the resource. Acceptable Biological Catches represent the
reduction in catches necessary to ensure that overfishing does not
occur. The primary steps necessary to minimize the catch buffers are to
reduce the uncertainties in the stock assessment model.
Uncertainty in stock assessment models arises from the imprecision
of basic data in the stock assessment model and from assumed
mathematical relationships in the model. Imprecision in the data is
called observation error; imprecision in the mathematical relationships
is known as process error. Both types of uncertainty can be addressed
through improvements in the: (1) quality and timing of data collection
and processing; (2) sampling strategies; and (3) basic research.
Improvements in the collection of commercial landings data include
application of quality assurance and control procedures, and
implementation of outreach strategies to inform fishermen about the
critical importance of the data they provide. Incomplete or missing
landings data increase the uncertainty in measures of abundance and
fishing mortality rates. Similarly, accurate estimates of discards are
important for establishing the scale of populations. If discards are
underestimated then population estimates will be biased low and the
potential productivity of the fishery will be underestimated. Another
step toward reducing the uncertainty of stock assessments is through
improved sampling strategies for allocating observer coverage,
collecting biological samples from fisheries, and conducting fishery-
independent surveys. Increases in sampling coverage will nearly always
improve precision (and reduce uncertainty), but increases in sampling,
coupled with improved designs, can lead to even greater gains. Finally,
there is much to be gained through basic research and collaborative
research efforts. Basic research on factors such as natural mortality
can be accomplished through improvements in sampling, monitoring, and
experimentation. A well-designed experiment can pay huge benefits.
Collectively these steps can reduce the uncertainty in the model
inputs and uncertainty in model structure or parameterization. No
single step is sufficient to reduce the uncertainty so it is unwise to
invest solely in one component without considering the whole system.
As NMFS continues to monitor the response of fish stocks to the
fishery, greater certainty will gradually be achieved. The rate at
which greater certainty is achieved depends upon the biology of the
fish stock and the level of scientific data collection. NMFS has been
using budget increases in the Expand Annual Stock Assessment budget
line to increase scientific data collection by providing for additional
fish abundance surveys, increasing the collection of data from the
fisheries, and assessing more fish stocks more frequently. NMFS works
with the fishing industry to collect additional data through
cooperative research. In addition, NMFS is using advanced sampling
technology, such as that on the four new NOAA Fishery Survey Vessels,
to improve the accuracy and timeliness of scientific data collection.
The at-sea monitoring and new reporting required under the Sector
management system will provide additional valuable information to help
reduce uncertainty in groundfish assessments.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Dr. Douglas DeMaster
Question 1. I have heard many scientists argue that we are still
grappling with the core scientific questions that lie at the heart of
the conflicts between Steller sea lions and fishermen in the North
Pacific. After many millions of dollars spent on research, we still
cannot definitively say to what extent fishing is impacting Steller sea
lion populations. Under the Endangered Species Act, NMFS is required by
law to arrive at an answer, but scientifically we still lack a
fundamental understanding of the answer to that question with any
certainty. Would it be useful to consider an adaptive management
approach, where the fishery management regime is designed as a series
of experimental treatments with the explicit purpose of attempting to
answer some of the fundamental Steller sea lion questions?
Answer. NMFS attempted to implement an adaptive management
framework in its 2000 Biological Opinion (BiOp). In that approach,
fishing grounds in the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands
were divided into 13 zones. Some of these areas would have been closed
to fishing; others open, but with certain restrictions. On inspection
by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council and based on public
comment, this approach would have had devastating economic impacts for
the groundfish fishery in Alaska. The fundamental problem in any
adaptive management approach is twofold: (1) the contrasts between
different areas has to be sufficient to produce statistically
significant results, which creates problems for fisheries in certain
areas, and (2) the time-frame to achieve statistically significant
results is relatively long (e.g., 5-10 years), and is therefore
difficult for a Federal agency to support throughout the life of the
experiment.
The 2003 National Research Council report on declines in Steller
sea lion abundance, Decline of the Steller sea lion in Alaskan waters;
untangling food webs and fishing nets,\2\ encouraged NMFS to reconsider
an adaptive management approach. In response, NMFS worked closely with
the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. Efforts were made to
solicit proposals for robust experimental approaches that included
close cooperation with the fishing industry. After approximately 18
months of effort, no proposals were forthcoming from any State, Federal
or private institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ National Resource Council. 2003. Decline of the Steller sea
lion in Alaskan waters; untangling food webs and fishing nets. National
Academy press. Washington, D.C. 184 pp, available at http://
www.amazon.com/Decline-Steller-Lion-Alaskan-Waters/dp/0309086329.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMFS has implemented several small scale experiments that were
intended to be responsive to the recommendations of the National
Research Council, but also acceptable to the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council (e.g., study on pollock in the vicinity of Kodiak
Island; study on cod in the Unimak Pass area; and study on Atka
mackerel in the Aleutian Islands). The details of these studies are
described in the 2010 Biological Opinion.
Question 2. What would be some potential benefits of utilizing an
adaptive management approach for Steller sea lions and the fishing
industry in the North Pacific? What outcomes would we hope to achieve
under such an approach?
Answer. Adaptive management experiments are typically designed to
answer specific management questions. Over time and with constancy in
operations, area-specific contrasts in specified metrics are
statistically tested to ascertain whether a particular hypothesis is
consistent with the available data. For example, in the proposed
adaptive management experiment described in the NMFS BiOp (2000),
changes in trends in abundance and pup condition were to be tested
between areas closed to fishing and areas open, but with some
restrictions. The spatial and temporal scale of these experiments to
address complicated ecological relationships has to be large.
Therefore, to be effective, such experiments tend to be costly to
implement and disruptive to local constituents. Nonetheless, the
expected outcome of such an approach, if appropriately designed and
effectively implemented, would be to accept or reject specific
hypotheses that have to do with the relationship between commercial
fishing and the lack of recovery in the western Steller sea lion
Distinct Population Segment.
Question 3. Hasn't adaptive management been recommended and/or
proposed in the past with respect to Steller sea lions?
Answer. NMFS recommended an adaptive management approach in past
BiOps (e.g., 2000). Further, the National Research Council and the
North Pacific Fishery Management Council have also recommended that
NMFS attempt to design an adaptive management experiment that was
statistically robust, affordable, and acceptable to the fishing
community. Efforts to date to design such an approach have not been
successful.
Question 4. Under the current management, research, and monitoring
regime, is it likely that we will still lack definitive answers to the
core questions discussed above five or 10 years from now? To have any
hope of dramatically increasing our understanding of those fundamental
questions, do we need a different approach (like possibly adaptive
management)?
Answer. Over the past 15 years, considerable understanding has been
achieved. For example, there is general agreement that the current lack
of recovery is primarily a problem in the western and central Aleutian
Islands and to a lesser extent in the central Gulf of Alaska. In
addition, a statistically significant improvement in trend in abundance
in the decade of the 1990s compared with the most recent decade was
detected. Nonetheless, the Endangered Species Act requires that NMFS be
able to ensure that management actions have removed the likelihood of
jeopardizing the existence of listed species or adversely modifying
their critical habitat.
The existing approach implemented by NMFS in 2011 can be considered
an application of adaptive management. That is, there are three
contrasts in fishing practices established: (1) closure; (2) reductions
in catch levels and spatial restrictions; and (3) no change. Therefore,
NMFS can test various hypotheses regarding relations between Steller
sea lions and commercial fishing, using data from the 1990s (overall
period of decline), 2000s (overall a period of stability, with
significant declines in certain sub-regions and significant increases
in other sub-regions), and the next decade. Critical to our full
utilization of this paradigm is funding to support: (1) biennial
surveys of pups and non-pups; (2) biennial surveys of fish biomass in
the Aleutian Islands; (3) food habits studies in each of the seven sub-
regions; (4) tagging studies to better determine the manner in which
different age and sex classes forage inside and outside of critical
habitat; and (5) life history studies to allow for the estimation of
age and sex specific rates of natality and survival.
Question 5. Would NMFS be open to considering or discussing
adaptive management for North Pacific fisheries with respect to Steller
sea lions?
Answer. NMFS welcomes working with the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council and other entities in an effort to design, fund, and
implement an effective adaptive management experiment to better
understand whether commercial fishing in Alaska is having a negative
impact on the recovery of western population of Steller sea lion. NMFS
has pursued small scale experiments to address uncertainty in
qualifying the relationship between Steller sea lions and commercial
groundfish fisheries in the past. In 2011, NMFS, with support from the
industry and the North Pacific Research Board, intends to conduct
tagging studies on Atka mackerel in the Aleutian Islands. Recovery of
tags will provide information on movement patterns of Atka mackerel
between critical habitat and area outside of critical habitat. If the
information provided from this study indicates an ability to revise the
existing management regime in a manner that would be consistent with
the ESA, yet beneficial to the fishery, NMFS will implement the process
needed for such a change.
Question 6. For such an approach to be successfully designed and
implemented, do you believe that it would require the support and
participation of stakeholders such as the fishing industry and
environmental groups?
Answer. Yes, all relevant stakeholders should be involved to
maximize the likelihood of success in this type of adaptive management
experiment. At the very minimum, the North Pacific Fishery Management
Council and directly affected fishing interests would have to be
involved, given the necessarily large differences between treatments
and control for there to be any chance of statistical robustness.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Roger F. Wicker to
Dr. Douglas DeMaster
Question. You provided a general overview of how fishery stock
assessments are prioritized by NMFS. The 2010 BP oil spill severely
impacted the Gulf Coast fishing industry, and there remains a high
level of scientific uncertainty regarding how fish populations were
affected and how they might recover. Considering the broad impacts of
this tragedy in the Gulf of Mexico region, how will NMFS prioritize the
assessment of fisheries critical to the Gulf Coast economy?
Answer. In FY2010, Congress provided a $10.4 million increase to
the Expand Annual Stock Assessments budget line. This increase enabled
NMFS to provide substantial new resources to enhance our capabilities
for conducting and reducing uncertainty in stock assessments in the
Gulf of Mexico. Even prior to the BP oil spill, NMFS used a portion of
the FY 2010 increase in stock assessment funds (the Expand Annual Stock
Assessment budget line) to add additional assessment scientists to the
NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center. The addition of these
scientists will allow NMFS to conduct more comprehensive analyses of
available data for Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, Caribbean, and
Atlantic highly migratory species stocks, and to update the assessments
for more stocks more frequently.
In addition, because of the BP oil spill, the NMFS Southeast
Fisheries Science Center received a one-time infusion of $10 million in
FY 2010 emergency supplemental funding to enhance our ability to assess
stocks in the Gulf. To maximize the benefits derived from these funds,
the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center and the Gulf States Marine
Fisheries Commission organized two workshops in August and September
2010, to evaluate and improve the sampling design of the surveys
conducted by the Southeast Area Assessment and Monitoring Program.
Subsequently these funds were distributed to maximize the impact for
enhancing stock assessments in the Gulf. Over half of the funds were
provided to the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission for chartering
commercial vessels to conduct additional fishery-independent surveys.
The remaining funds were used to contract for additional scientists for
staffing these surveys at sea, increased observer coverage to improve
data on bycatch in commercial fisheries, increase capacity for
processing biological samples for incorporation of age data into stock
assessments, and improve data processing and management for trip
tickets and electronic reporting in the for-hire segment. In addition,
a portion of these funds was used to provide 2 years of support for an
additional staff member for the SouthEast Data, Assessment, and Review
(SEDAR) process for supporting additional peer-review activities
related to assessing Gulf of Mexico stocks.
NMFS's criteria for prioritizing stocks for assessments were also
applied to help identify the highest priority stocks for assessments.
Briefly, these criteria are:
Economically valuable stocks and associated fishery limiting
stocks with high uncertainty;
Intensity of fishing: if overfishing is occurring;
Stock abundance : if the stock is overfished or on a
rebuilding plan;
Assessment frequency: if the current assessment is over 5
years old;
Stock importance: if the stock is of high commercial or
recreational value; and
Synergy factors: if a small increment can produce an
assessment or contribute to other assessments.
Given these enhancements to NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science
Center's capacity to generate and analyze the data used in stock
assessments, current plans are to assess Gulf stocks of vermillion
snapper and grey triggerfish in 2011 and red snapper and mutton snapper
in 2012. In addition, the enhanced data collections and processing will
contribute to improved assessments for several other Gulf stocks in the
future, including red grouper, gag grouper, amberjack, and shrimp.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV
to William Hogarth, Ph.D.
Question 1. Will NMFS be able to utilize scientific data from
sources outside the agency (such as data from academic institutions) in
their stock assessment process?
Answer. Yes. Magnuson encourages this. I believe this is a key to
improving our fisheries independent data.
Question 2. How could collaborative research efforts between NMFS
and fishing communities be improved to increase the amount and accuracy
of stock assessment data?
Answer. Funds have been one of the problems with maintaining a good
scientifically, defensible cooperative research program. With the
regulations being required to rebuild the stocks, cooperative research
becomes more important to obtaining the necessary fisheries independent
data.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to
William Hogarth, Ph.D.
Question 1. Thanks for all your work on the Deepwater Horizon oil
spill and for your testimony. What is your perspective on the fact that
the reauthorization of Magnuson required a new Marine Recreational
Information Program by January of 2009?
Answer. I think this is essential to obtaining an accurate count of
the recreational catch. The recreational industry is huge in many
states such as Florida, and is a vital part of the State's economy. It
is critical to have accurate catch and effort data in order to conduct
scientifically stock assessment.
Question 2. Does the lack of accurate data on recreational effort
and catch hamper efforts to manage fisheries?
Answer. Absolutely.
Question 3. What could be done to improve fishery independent data,
given the current fiscal constraints?
Answer. We can rely more cooperative research, but we must find a
way to fund the fuel costs for the NOAA research fleet. The number of
days at sea for surveys has decreased by 48 percent from 2008 to 2011
for NOAA vessels supporting fisheries missions. Priority has to be set
on the economically important fishery surveys. See attachment 1.
Appendix 1
FY05-10 Accomplished DAS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ship 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albatross IV 239 236 195 136 42
Belle M. Shimada 37
David Starr Jordan 239 234 243 239 83
Delaware II 215 222 159 197 214 148
Fairweather 211 164 177 165 176 192
Gordon Gunter 227 198 191 132 233 121
Ferdinand Hassler
Henry B. Bigelow 39 161 182 111
Hi'ialakai 184 234 196 210 172 203
John H. Cobb 157 125 161 145
Ka'imimoana 234 231 198 223 147 208
McArthur II 172 237 184 206 189 211
Miller Freeman 218 232 243 202 135 171
Nancy Foster 236 185 191 193 158 137
Okeanos Explorer 59 132 191
Oregon II 233 227 174 229 217 40
Oscar Dyson 120 130 212 230 215 203
Oscar Elton Sette 238 232 220 218 212 200
Pisces 11 131
Rainier 212 190 172 192 183 0
Ronald H. Brown 224 243 232 197 213 165
Thomas Jefferson 175 191 172 186 179 157
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total DAS 3,534 3,511 3,359 3,520 3,093 2,626
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMFS DAS 1,988 2,012 1,974 2,044 1,733 1,331
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% NMFS 56.3 57.3 58.8 58.1 56.0 50.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yellow denotes ship under construction/conversion.
Red denotes ship permanently deactivated.
Notes: FY05--FY10 accomplished DAS includes program funded DAS in addition to base funded DAS. FY10 and FY11 DAS
do not include reimbursable DWH response activities. FY11 and 12 are estimates based on FY11 draft Fleet
Allocation Plan and FY12 President's budget request.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
William Hogarth, Ph.D.
Question 1. When you were head of the Fisheries Services several
years ago under the Bush Administration, what areas of Magnuson-Stevens
implementation did you feel were the most challenging?
Answer. Recreational aspects because the fishery is extremely
important but we did not have a credible program to collect accurate
catch information. Most of the regulations were therefore, placed on
the commercial industry. With some 500 species to be managed, it is
fiscally impossible in my opinion, to adequately sample and conduct
regularly scheduled stock assessments for all species.
Question 2. Could you specifically explain the need to improve our
recreational fishery data? Does this continue to be an area where we
need significant improvement?
Answer. The recreational catch in my instances can be as large or
larger than the commercial catch for certain species. We simply do not
have a reliable method to obtain the recreational catch, which is
critical for the stock assessments. Inaccurate catch data have
ramification on the stock assessment which could cause lower quotas and
consequently reduction in jobs, etc. Even though the Magnuson
reauthorization required a new recreational methodology and licensing
of fisherman fishing in Federal waters, the program has not been
implemented. It should be immediately.
Question 3. If Congress underfunds the National Marine Fisheries
Service, will this translate into management, scientific, and economic
challenges for our Nation's fishing industry? Is it possible it could
result in lost jobs?
Answer. In my opinion NMFS is already underfunded and by not having
necessary data to conduct stock assessments and rebuild stocks we are
not realizing an approximately $2 billion increase in fishing revenue.
In the Gulf of Mexico for example we do not have background information
of many species, are not conducting sufficient surveys to provide
timely-stock assessments. The number of days at sea per NOAA research
vessel has declined from about 195 in 2000 to 153 in 2011 projected and
even lower for 2012. These vessels could operate 240 days per year. The
total number of days for the vessels supporting fisheries mission has
decreased 48 percent from 2008 to 2011, which in turn translates into
less fisheries independent data, etc, to conduct the stock assessments
which are critical for implementing effective regulations to rebuild
stocks and prevent overfishing. Also, lack of funding increases the
uncertainty in the stock assessments which results in lower catches and
greater economic losses to the fishing industry and communities.
Without accurate and essential data the Agency must respond
conservatively which means reduced catches and loss of jobs, etc
throughout the industry.
Question 4. Do you believe that there are currently major fisheries
being managed in the U.S. that need more data and better science?
Answer. Absolutely. Critical need for more fisheries independent
data and more frequent stock assessments.
Question 5. Do we have any data-poor fisheries that require major
investment? If so, which fisheries?
Answer. Wahoo, mahi-mahi, tuna, snapper/grouper, sharks, mixed
stock species, groundfish to mention a few. Data poor stocks need to be
addressed as all data poor stocks are not recreationally or
commercially valuable, but are important from ecosystem perspective.
Many of these species spend a small amount of their life in U.S.
waters.
Question 6. How can the Fisheries Service gain credibility with
fishermen in those fisheries that have had a history of data
deficiency?
Answer. Create program such as cooperative research that utilizes
industry, have regular sessions with fisherman to receive input and
discuss and exchange ideas. Improve, data collection and improvement
stock assessment schedule to provide more frequent updates to
fishermen.
Question 7. What are the long-term consequences of NOT investing
appropriately in the science we need for those fisheries?
Answer. Over restrictive regulations, stocks that are not rebuilt
and a loss of revenues of approximately $2 billion annually to the
fishing industry. Greater uncertainty in science, increased
disagreements with fishing industries, both recreational and
commercial.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe to
William Hogarth, Ph.D.
Question 1. Do you believe there should be flexibility on the
rebuilding timelines of some key ``choke'' stocks that are currently
considered to be overfished, but where there is no overfishing
occurring?
Answer. As you know, I was NOAA's Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries when the Magnuson-Stevens Act was reauthorized in 2007. At
that time, I reasoned that if strong controls on ending overfishing
were front-loaded into rebuilding plans, and overfishing was avoided,
that greater flexibility in the recovery process would follow for
normal variations in fish stocks. Of course, the final version of MSRA
retained the 10-year rebuilding time frames, but with significant
exceptions. Those exceptions are for stocks where the life history
would not allow rebuilding in 10 years, or where international
fisheries agreements must reflect differing laws and systems occurring
in each nation. In the case of New England fisheries, a number of
stocks such as Georges Bank cod, Acadian redfish and Atlantic halibut
have the exceptions for longer time lines allowed under the Act because
of their life histories. In the case of other Georges Bank stocks
(e.g., yellowtail flounder) their bilateral status allows them longer
time frames for rebuilding also consistent with MSRA. As demonstrated
in the 2010-2011 fishing year, given proper incentives, fishermen can
avoid weak stocks to the extent that they do not constrain the fishery
into premature shut downs. Thus, with respect to the time lines for
rebuilding, these do not seem to be the limiting factor in allowing the
fishery to achieve its annual optimum yields. Rather, I think there
needs to be greater emphasis on gear technology development to avoid
weak stocks, combined with greater real time bycatch information shared
by the fishermen, similar to the situation in the Alaskan fisheries.
With only 1 year of experience in the current New England groundfish
management system I think there should be a careful review of what
works and what needs improvement with the goal of maximizing harvests
under the species TACs that prevent overfishing. Managing mixed-species
fisheries under stock rebuilding plans is one of the greatest
challenges of fisheries management because of the different rates of
rebuilding of productive and less productive species. Our challenge is
to rebuild the diversity of the fisheries, which is one of the factors
that sustained them for hundreds of years.
Question 2. Are there any modifications to the Act of further
guidance that could assist in achieving the recovery of species in a
cost-effective manner?
Answer. The Magnuson-Stevens Act is without doubt the premier
fisheries law in the world. Many recent global reviews have emphasized
the importance of having clear definitions of who much fishing is too
much and for clear standards for fishery management plans, such as
those in MSRA. The recent reauthorization in 2007 will accomplish what
we all think is its most important goal--to finally rid the country of
overfishing and to set all stocks on a path to rebuilding. However,
considerable challenges persist. I think that there are two areas in
which we must continue to emphasize.
First, the MSRA has as its key, the use of best science available
with which to manage the fisheries. While the agency and the states are
doing the best they can with what they have, we need to increase the
amount, quality and timeliness of scientific information available to
the Councils and the Secretary. In some regions of the country, stock
assessments only occur every 5 years or so, and even then, limited or
no fishery independent data are available. Similarly, the use better
information on recreational fisheries, as called for by the National
Research Council, needs to be operationalized by NOAA/NMFS and the
states. Increased funding for stock assessments, fisheries dependent
and independent data collection using a cooperative research framework
are imperative--the credibility of the management system relies on high
quality, timely scientific information.
Second, while ending overfishing in the United States will provide
more seafood for our domestic and export markets, the United States
still imports over 80 percent of its seafood. Some of this comes from
nations with much less restrictive management controls than ours. We
have an obligation to assist in increasing global fishery management
effectiveness. Programs to identify and help countries eliminate
illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing, combined with strong
partnerships in regional fishery management organizations (RFMOs), and
technical assistance to other countries will help assure the
sustainability of world fisheries and make sure that U.S. fishermen
compete on a level playing field. A strong national policy on
aquaculture would also go a long way in increasing the consumption of
domestically-produced seafood.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Stephanie Madsen
Question 1. Has the At-Sea Processors Association ever lobbied
Congress to increase a fish catch limit that was set by the North
Pacific Council?
Answer. No, APA has never sought support from Congress to influence
the setting of annual catch levels set by the North Pacific Council.
Question 2. How often, if ever, do fishermen from the North Pacific
lobby Members of Congress to increase fish harvest quotas? If not, why
not?
Answer. I am not aware of any instance in which commercial fishing
interests participating in federally-managed fisheries in waters off
Alaska lobbied Members of Congress to influence or supersede the annual
catch limits recommended by the North Pacific Council and approved by
the Secretary of Commerce. Commercial fishing interests participate
fully in the public process by which annual catch limits are set. NOAA
Fisheries' stock assessment experts freely share data from stock
surveys. NOAA Fisheries' scientists are accessible and open to
discussing their findings with interested industry members.
Stock assessment reports are peer-reviewed by two panels--the North
Pacific Council's Groundfish Plan Team and Scientific and Statistical
Committee (SSC). The Plan Team and SSC are comprised of Federal, state
and independent scientists. Both scientific panels recommend to the
Council a safe harvest limit and the Council then determines a catch
limit at, or below, the safe harvest limit proposed by the panels. It
simply would not be credible for the industry to come to Congress to
argue for an annual catch limit that contradicts the findings of the
stock assessment author(s) and the science panels or the decision of
the Council.
Question 3. It seems that fishermen on the east coast and in the
Gulf of Mexico approach their Members of Congress frequently asking for
political intervention to raise fishery quotas and total allowable
catch. Why do you think this difference exists between the East and
West coasts?
Answer. While I don't have firsthand knowledge of the situation on
the east coast and Gulf of Mexico, in conversations with colleagues in
the industry there appears to be a lack of confidence in NOAA
Fisheries' stock assessment work on the east coast that contrasts
starkly with our experience in the Alaska region. Uncertainty is a part
of stock assessments and the data is always open to interpretation. If
the industry does not have confidence in the data collection and
analytic processes, then it is more likely to seek to have its
interpretation of the science adopted through the political process.
Question 4. If the North Pacific pollock fishery were managed with
little data and poor science, how do you think it would change the
management dynamics in your sector?
Answer. The existing healthy, collegial working relationship
between stakeholders, including the commercial fishing industry, and
NOAA Fisheries and the Council would certainly be strained if there was
great uncertainty in the science across a range of management issues.
Assuming that a precautionary, ecosystem-based management approach was
still applied in a world of much greater scientific uncertainty, one
certainty is that economic returns would be lower as catch levels would
be reduced to account for the uncertainty.
Question 5.How important is it to your fleet and the jobs in your
industry that Congress appropriate sufficient funding to the Fisheries
Service to conduct fisheries surveys, collect fisheries data, and
conduct thorough stock assessments?
Answer. It is critically important that Congress continue to fully
fund fisheries surveys, data collection, and stock assessment work.
Federal groundfish fisheries in waters off Alaska account for about 40
percent of all fish landed annually in the U.S. The fishery is worth
more than $1.0 billion at the primary processing stage. The current
modest Federal investment in basic science results ensures abundant
fishery resources that sustain a very healthy and important commercial
fishing industry in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest. We are already
quite concerned about the lack of funding for cooperative research and
for NOAA survey ship time, and we urge Congress to fully fund core NOAA
fisheries science programs.
Question 6. From your experiences in the North Pacific, does
implementation of catch shares sometimes lead to consolidation?
Answer. Yes. In the North Pacific region, catch share programs have
been implemented in the halibut/sablefish fishery, the crab fishery,
the Alaska pollock fishery, and the non-pollock groundfish fishery. In
each instance, while the stocks were managed at sustainable levels
through science-based catch levels and rigorous catch accounting
requirements, the race to catch the available quota resulted in
overcapitalization of the fisheries. The over-investment in vessels and
processing facilities versus the return on that investment was not
economically sustainable. Catch shares allowed less efficient producers
to sell their shares and exit the fishery, allowing the fishery to
achieve a rational balance between the value of the catch and the
investment in production.
The North Pacific Council, however, has implemented rules to place
upper limits on how much of the annual catch any one entity can
control. Each catch share fishery has different characteristics, and
the Council has tailored consolidation limits to meet socio-economic
goals for each individual catch share program.
Question 7. How do catch shares typically impact fishing jobs? Do
fishing jobs get eliminated? Do they change in terms of stability and
whether they are seasonal or more permanent in nature?
Answer. There is often a difficult transition period when a catch
share program is implemented as excess fishing and harvesting capacity
is retired through the economic rationalization of a fishery through
catch shares. Jobs are often lost in this transition. However, the
experience of the catch share programs in Alaska is that the jobs that
remain pay higher wages, are more stable and secure, and safer. With
fishing capacity reduced, fishing seasons last longer. Crewmembers,
whose pay is generally based on the value of the catch, see incomes
rise as the remaining vessels have more days at sea. With a guaranteed
share of the catch assigned to a vessel, jobs are more stable. If there
is an operational problem with the vessel, repairs can be made and the
vessel can return to the fishing grounds without sacrificing
production. It is very much our experience in Alaska that while there
are generally fewer jobs, the jobs are better.
Question 8. You represent a sector that is big and corporate in
nature, and some fishermen fear that catch shares will mean the end of
small, family fishing businesses. In your view, do catch shares
inevitably only help the ``big guys'' and hurt the ``little guys''?
Does it depend on how a given catch share system is designed and
structured?
Answer. Good catch share programs are designed to accomplish
publicly stated goals for managing both the fish stock and the fishery
participants. In Alaska, prior to having a catch share program, the
halibut/sablefish fishery was conducted by smaller longline vessels
operated by fishing families. That is pretty much the situation today
almost 20 years after the halibut/sablefish catch shares program was
implemented. The difference is that there are more full-time fishermen
and fewer part-time fishermen, the fishery is no longer
overcapitalized, and the season lasts 6 months instead of 2 days. It is
safer and more professional, but the fishery is still conducted by the
``little guys.'' In the Alaska pollock catcher/processor sector, we
still have single vessel operators as well as larger companies that own
multiple catcher/processors. To some extent, consolidation limits that
are part of the program design help preserve diversity in the fleets,
but just as important is that a rational management system rewards
efficient operators regardless of the size of their companies.
Question 9. Can you please explain how the implementation of catch
shares impacts fishing safety?
Answer. The most obvious safety benefit of catch share programs is
that because a harvester is assured a percentage of the catch, the
harvester is not penalized for staying in port (or returning early to
port) for weather-related reasons or if a mechanical problem develops
on the vessel. Also, ending the race for fish eliminates any incentive
for crewmembers to work beyond their limits where long hours or
exhaustion can lead to workplace accidents.
Question 10. Have catch shares had a positive impact on fishing
safety after they have been implemented in the North Pacific?
Answer. Yes. The small boat halibut/sablefish fishery is much safer
now that participants are not locked into two one-day openings per year
where they feel compelled to fish regardless of weather conditions.
Also, vessel owners can more easily attract experienced, professional
crewmembers under the catch share program, and that undoubtedly
promotes a safer operating atmosphere. There have been similar
improvements in the safety record of the crab fleet following
implementation of a catch share program. The Alaska pollock fleet,
which operates larger, stable trawl vessels, maintains a good safety
record; improving vessel safety was not a factor for the pollock fleet
in pursuing a catch shares program.
Question 11. From your experience, in what ways do catch shares
change fishing behavior that impact safety and environmental
stewardship?
Answer. One immediate benefit of creating fish harvesting
cooperatives for the catcher/processor fleet was implementing an
information sharing system in which each co-op member shared catch
information with other members. This data sharing provided vessel
captains with real-time information about areas where higher catch
rates of non-target species could be expected, so vessel captains knew
to avoid such areas. In fact, co-op members entered into legally
binding contracts to voluntarily close such ``bycatch hotspot'' areas.
Such an approach is feasible under a catch share program since a vessel
captain can take the time to search for other productive fishing
grounds when the vessel's share of the catch is assured.
Question 12. Have you ever seen a catch share system that made
safety problems worse, or is the impact always a positive one?
Answer. No, I am not familiar with any catch share program that
created safety concerns. As noted above, improving safety was a major
impetus to developing catch share programs for halibut/sablefish and
crab, but it was not a significant factor in rationalizing the Alaska
pollock fishery. If there were improvements in safety realized in the
pollock fishery, it was from creating stable, higher wage jobs that
increased retention rates among employees, enhancing the experience and
expertise of crewmembers. I can think of no scenario where
rationalizing a fishery exacerbated safety issues.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe to
Stephanie Madsen
Question. You raised concerns about the current stock assessments
and the level of uncertainty in management decisions of the
groundfishery. While clearly we must have additional cooperative
research, increased surveys to inform stock assessments, and more
baseline assessments, since there will always be some uncertainty in
these assessments, the broader question is how we incorporate
scientific uncertainty into these management decisions. Deferring to
caution and reducing total allowable catch can destroy a community,
such as Prospect Harbor, Maine, which lost its supply of herring for a
sardine factory. At the same time, we have seen the negative
consequences of overfishing, and we should not use uncertainty in the
data as an excuse to continue to overfish. How would you recommend that
the Councils and NMFS incorporate scientific uncertainty into fisheries
management decisions? Do you believe that the economic conditions of
specific fishing communities should be also considered in these
decisions, and, if so--how?
Answer. While there are technical aspects of incorporating
scientific uncertainty into stock assessments that I am not qualified
to speak to, as a former Council Chair, I looked to the Magnuson-
Stevens Act National Standards to guide my decisionmaking. National
Standard #1 mandates that conservation and management measures achieve
optimum yield, and National Standard #2 requires use of the best
available science in the decisionmaking process. The first standard
emphasizes the importance of maintaining a healthy fishing industry
while protecting the resource from overfishing, and the second standard
recognizes that the science need not be perfect, but the best
available. From time to time, we might lose focus on the importance of
food production and job creation in fisheries. That said, I don't want
to suggest that fishery managers should be less precautionary based on
the economics of the situation. I believe we need to strike the
appropriate precautionary balance in setting catch limits regardless of
the economic circumstances facing a particular fishing community.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV
to Vito Giacalone
Question 1. How specifically would you change the process by which
catch allocations are determined, if not based on historical catch
data?
Answer. In my opinion, the initial allocation is the most critical
consideration in the process of developing a plan to implement a catch
share type of system. To be consistent with MSRA, a plan should
consider current investment in and reliance upon the fishery from both
a fisherman participant level and a community/infrastructure
perspective. A well designed plan should also strike a balance between
the fisheries ability to harvest Optimum Yield (OY) in the near and
long term along with assessment of the current capacity of the fleet as
it relates to both near and long term achievement of OY.
That said, it would be nearly impossible to design an allocation
method that could ignore historical catch data altogether and still
accomplish the core objectives of minimizing disruption to the existing
fishery and its capacity to attain OY.
On the other hand, in my opinion, it is equally impossible to meet
the core objectives if the allocation method is based solely on
historical catch data. Among the most fundamentally simple reasons for
this I list below. These were applicable to my experience with the
Sector Allocation method adopted in Amendment 16:
If the Limited Access currency allocated in the fishery
prior to the implementation of a new system (i.e.: Days At Sea
limited by vessel Length and Horsepower) has been relied upon
for permit valuations and recent fishing revenues and that
currency is weighted at or near zero for the new allocations,
the likelihood that the new allocation will cause substantial
disruption to current participants is high and the range of
impacts extraordinarily broad.
If conservation mandates to End Overfishing and Rebuild fish
stocks are the primary driver/purpose for the shift to a new
system, the underlying fact is that the past participants in
the fishery all contributed to Overfishing. If that same
fishery chooses to allocate access to the future fishery using
Historical Catch Data only, the message and practical result of
that policy decision is to reward those who contributed most to
the Overfishing of each stock subject to overfishing in the
past will be rewarded highest allocations the rebuilding period
including that same proportionally higher share of the fully
rebuilt fishery.
However, it is also extremely important to recognize that
the participants who have contributed most to the historical
catch performance of the fishery are also those who are likely
to be most dependent upon the fishery, have substantial
investment in the fishery and are those who contributed most to
their port infrastructures that are dependent upon the fishery
in question. If these high performing participants were gutted
by an inadequate initial allocation scheme which ignored the
reality that historical catch data must be a critical
consideration, the disruption to the fishery would be
substantial and patently unfair.
All of this is further complicated when an initial allocation for a
multi-species complex must be developed due to the species leveraging
dynamics associated with harvesting opportunities of healthy stocks
being constrained by weaker stock ACLs (Annual Catch Limits).
In direct response to your question, Senator, with regards to a
specific recommendation, I have often suggested that as a strong
supporter of the Regional Council process, I believe initial allocation
decisions and alternatives development should receive assistance from a
national body of experts to remove individuals with a direct interest
in the outcome from the unavoidable appearance of conflict and to
create a base of expertise in this most critical issue for the future
of U.S. fisheries. Specifically, an allocation of future access to a
fishery should have performance and accountability incentives built in
which create promise and opportunity based upon participants
performance in the new system and far less weight on their performance
in the past.
Question 2. You mentioned in your statement that one problem faced
by the multispecies groundfish fishery is the restriction of catch
based on the most vulnerable or ``weakest'' stock that is managed.
Under the current management scheme, are fishers allowed to trade quota
shares among different fish stocks?
Answer. In our fishery, members of the same sector can lease/trade
quota of individual stocks in any amounts, to each-other. Further, one
sector can do the same with another sector and do this on behalf of
specific members. What cannot be done with the allocations from
Amendment 16 is for a permanent transfer/sale of individual stocks. A
permit must be sold as a complete package and is not separable. This is
not a complaint. In fact, it is a constraint that is has an unintended
but arguably beneficial public policy effect in that it may be
preventing a higher level of consolidation that would otherwise occur
if permanent transfers of individual stocks were allowable.
Question 2a. If not, would implementing such a system decrease
fishery closures that result from exceeding annual catch limits for the
weakest stock?
Answer. Since temporary transferability (through leasing) of
individual stocks is allowable under the current rules the fishery is
not experiencing closures due to weak stock constraints. However, the
low allocations of Annual Catch Limits resulting from MSRA/SFA
arbitrary rebuilding timelines is preventing Optimum Yield and
constraining the fishery overall.
Question 3. You mentioned in your testimony that although your
gross fishing revenue has increased since the implementation of the
sector management system, your net profits have gone down due to
increased costs. Which costs specifically have increased since the
implementation of the sector management system?
Answer. The costs of LEASING quota necessary for the majority of
the permit holders to meet breakeven or attempt profitability. Lease
costs are now a dominant proportion of a vessels ex-vessel value which
has radically altered the gross/net ratios for the business.
Question 3a. Are these costs directly related to the change in
fisheries management system, or to other external factors such as an
increase in fuel prices?
Answer. Yes. These costs are directly related to the change in the
management system.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John F. Kerry to
Vito Giacalone
Question 1. In your estimation, what is the biggest obstacle to the
effective implementation of Amendment 16 in New England?
Answer. Arbitrary rebuilding timelines coupled with a lack of
creativity and leadership with regards to sensible implementation of
the MSRA by the secretary will continue to frustrate any effort to
implement a plan that will achieve the mandates for rebuilding fish
stocks and preserving a viable fishing industry.
The low ACLs for some stocks and the narrow distribution of the
initial allocation are both products of a process that was not
developed from the bottom up which means industry ``buy-in'' cannot be
expected. The industry feels as though they have been left with no
choice but to join a sector. This ``Hobson's choice'' scenario is not
conducive to an effective implementation.
The sector system has been setup in a manner that places a
tremendous amount of management, data collection, data processing and
complex reporting burdens on the industry. Cumulatively, the costs of
At Sea and Dockside Monitoring programs coupled with the enormous data
and reporting requirements have created a system that is financially
infeasible if these costs shift entirely to the industry. Currently,
the regulations spell out that industry must accept the burdens
starting 2012-13. This threat must be addressed with a longer term
approach or the system will fail under its own weight.
Question 2. In your statement you note that low ACLs for some
stocks are choking the sector trading system. This is an issue that
Senator Snowe and I, along with 23 of our colleagues, flagged for
Secretary Locke prior to the beginning of the Fishing Year 2010.
Specifically, we requested that the Secretary ``promulgate an emergency
regulation increasing the ACLs for groundfish--especially the five
choke stocks--sufficient to minimize the risk of failure of the sector
management while still preventing overfishing from occurring.'' Can you
explain the effect a minor increase in the ACLs for choke stocks would
have on the sector trading system?
Answer. Any increase in the ACLs for constraining stocks will have
at least two profound and positive effects: (1) each permit holder
would receive more in their base allocation which relieves the
necessity to lease from others which effectively lowers the cost of
those fishing trips and increases the profitability for crew and boat
owner; and (2) when constraining stocks are increased there is a
greater opportunity to harvest a higher portion of the healthier stocks
which continue to be fished far below the allowable levels due to the
constraining stocks.
Question 3. How would you characterize the ease with which quota
can be traded both within a sector and between sectors?
Answer. I would say that the trading has been exceptionally easy
considering this has been the first year. Although it is not easy to
attain the quota most of us need for the price needed to be profitable,
this is not a problem with the trading system but instead it is the
lack of available fish at affordable lease prices.
Question 4. Beyond low ACLs, are there any major obstacles to an
effective sector trading system in New England?
Answer. No. None that the industry couldn't overcome or improve
upon ourselves. I have not seen a regulatory or administrative
obstacle.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe to
Vito Giacalone
Question 1. Your testimony points out that the rebuilding timelines
mandated by the Magnuson-Stevens Act are essentially arbitrary
deadlines without a relationship to the biological reality of any given
stock. It seems to me that whatever timeline we choose for rebuilding
will be influenced by ``unknowable'' variables, and that any management
strategy under the Magnuson-Stevens Act needs to be informed by the
best, and most recent, data we can collect. While we have to recognize
that we will never know exactly how many fish are in the sea, I agree
that it is essential that currently we have fisheries managed by flawed
stock assessments.
If we were to manage stocks based on maintaining fishing mortality
at maximum sustainable yield, like you suggest, how do you think this
would change management of the groundfish in New England, for example?
Answer. The most important change would be to allow scientists and
managers to implement a management strategy that achieves a more stable
and predictable regulatory environment for the fishery to operate
within, and most importantly, to achieve a much higher percentage of
the optimum yield.
Because recruitment, growth, natural mortality and, consequently,
stock biomass simply cannot be predicted with any reliability 4 or 6
years, much less 10 years into the future, the current approach of
trying to achieve an arbitrary biomass target in an arbitrary time-
frame is doomed to failure. It places a completely unrealistic demand
on the scientific community to produce information and predictions at a
level of precision that is beyond their capacity. It creates utter
havoc for managers in the latter years of the rebuilding plan when it
becomes clear that ``we can't get there from here'' in the remaining
time without severe reductions in fishing mortality. This produces a
wildly draconian and pointlessly disruptive regulatory environment at
great loss of optimum yield and economic costs.
The implementation of a management strategy for groundfish based on
hard TACs, output controls and intensive catch monitoring has
eliminated any value that arbitrary rebuilding timeframes and targets
may have had in the past. A simplified strategy based on maintaining
the fishing mortality rate at a level that is some margin below Fmsy
that reflects the true level of scientific uncertainty and both
biological and economic risks will achieve what are the truly important
goals of the Act. These goals are to prevent overfishing and to rebuild
overfished stocks with the minimum of disruption to the fishery and
fishing communities. And, this strategy will place a realistic demand
on the scientific community to produce the information needed to
implement this strategy.
This is not just my view, but one held by many of the most
distinguished fishery population dynamicists in the world including at
least two highly-distinguished fishery biologists that are former NMFS
Chief Scientists and Directors of the NE Fishery Science Center.
Unfortunately, few have taken the time to understand the scientific
realities underlying this strategy and so there is a natural but
unfortunate suspicion that eliminating the 10-year rebuilding
requirement in the Act will somehow gut fishery management. We greatly
appreciate the fact that Senator Snowe is among those few that have
taken the time to reach this understanding. It is time for all other
fishery policy decision-makers in Congress and the Agency to become
educated on this issue and amend the statute appropriately.
Finally, I would note that the recent legislation successfully
championed by Senator Snowe to conform U.S. management to the
management strategy applied by the U.S.-Canada Transboundary has the
effect of making the transition from the arbitrary rebuilding time-
frame approach to an Fmsy-based approach for three key Georges Banks
stocks--yellowtail flounder, cod and haddock. We look forward to the
success of this new management approach as a clear demonstration of its
validity.
Question 2. Are there particular stocks that you have reason to
believe would be better managed under this rebuilding regime?
Answer. All stocks in the groundfish fishery would be more
successfully managed under an Fmsy-based management and rebuilding
regime. Some of the most ``underfished'' stocks from which we realize a
low percentage of the optimum yield today include Georges Bank haddock,
pollock, and redfish. But, that is just today. This same situation
could exist for virtually any stock in the future.
Further, at present the SNE winter flounder, Cape Cod/Gulf Of Maine
yellowtail flounder, witch flounder (grey sole) and the white hake
stocks are nearing the end of their rebuilding periods and are
suffering from unnecessarily-low catch limits needed to achieve the
arbitrary rebuilding target by the end of the arbitrary timeframe. But
again, this scenario could occur for just about any stock at any time
in the future. Such stocks might be reasonably healthy and could
sustain much greater yields, but catches are severely constrained for
no other reason but to reach a biomass target in a very short arbitrary
timeframe. What's worse is the very real possibility that the target is
simply biologically unattainable, but that fact may not reveal itself
in time to avoid potentially irreversible damages to the economic
infrastructure of the industry.
Question 3. You raised concerns about the current stock assessments
and the level of uncertainty in management decisions of the
groundfishery. While clearly we must have additional cooperative
research, increased surveys to inform stock assessments, and more
baseline assessments, since there will always be some uncertainty in
these assessments, the broader question is how we incorporate
scientific uncertainty into these management decisions. Deferring to
caution and reducing total allowable catch can destroy a community,
such as Prospect Harbor, Maine, which lost its supply of herring for a
sardine factory. At the same time, we have seen the negative
consequences of overfishing, and we should not use uncertainty in the
data as an excuse to continue to overfish. How would you recommend that
the Councils and NMFS incorporate scientific uncertainty into fisheries
management decisions?
Answer. Scientific uncertainty must be incorporated into fishery
management decisions but what is missing is the evaluation of the costs
to the fishery and communities of being wrong. Some level of biological
precaution is appropriate. But, so is some level of economic
precaution. Currently there does not appear to be a balance between
those two.
Through its National Standard 1 guidelines, the Agency has
incorporated what many feel are excessive levels of precaution. In the
groundfish fishery, this has produced ACLs that are very difficult to
justify and which are making it very difficult to implement the sector
system which depends on a healthy allocation trading system.
In my view, part of the impetus for inserting such excessive
precaution into stock assessments and projections is the fact that
science is simply unable to meet the demands of the current statutory
approach of setting rebuilding goals and trajectories so far out into
the future. Given the profound uncertainties of wild fish population
dynamics, it is simply not possible to predict what the biomass of any
stock will be 10-years into the future at the level of precision
demanded by the statute. Consequently, scientists and managers feel
compelled to reflect that uncertainty in their stock assessments,
projections and regulations.
As I explained above, the alternative is to replace the current
approach of trying to achieve an arbitrary biomass target in an
arbitrary time-frame with an Fmsy-based strategy that can accommodate
those unpredictable uncertainties in recruitment, growth and natural
mortality that have plagued groundfish management in recent years.
Question 4. Do you believe that the economic conditions of specific
fishing communities should be also considered in these decisions, and,
if so--how?
Answer. I believe Congress has already clearly spoken to this
question when it adopted National Standard 8 championed by Senator
Snowe in 1996. Yes, every decision that affects fishing communities
must give full consideration to a serious analysis of the impacts of
such decision. And, that analysis must be based on adequate scientific
and economic information. It is not sufficient for the Agency to say it
used the ``best available'' information if what is available is simply
insufficient to do a proper analysis. If data is needed, then the
agency should be compelled to gather it.
It is my view that in adopting National Standard 8 Congress
intended to bring balance to the considerations that must be made in
all fishery management decisions, but that this intent has not been
adequately implemented by the Agency or the Councils. This has been for
two reason--one is that Congress has not insisted on it through
sufficient oversight, and second, because there is an insufficient
effort to gather and analyze adequate information on economic and
social impacts.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV
to William R. Bird
Question 1. How far back in time do you believe it is appropriate
to look when assessing whether a stock's abundance has increased,
decreased or remains constant?
Answer. In assessing the status of a species of fish, it is
appropriate to look as far back in time as the period for which
reliable data exists, most importantly fishery independent surveys that
can detect trends in abundance without the use of catch data.
Question 2. Why is the time-frame you specified above the
appropriate one?
Answer. The southeast region has been largely ignored by the
National Marine Fisheries Service and Congress when it comes to funding
and implementing fishery independent data collection systems, data that
is critical to better stock assessment. Only a very few surveys even
exist in the region, thus making the task of assessing the health of
these valuable fisheries much more difficult.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to
William R. Bird
Question 1. Which coasts do you fish?
Answer. Both the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico.
Question 2. Would you be willing to provide better information on
when you fish and what you catch?
Answer. I would, and I believe many recreational anglers would as
well. However, recreational license fees already provide significant
funding for marine resource management, and managers must do a much
better job of accounting for effort and catch by the general public.
Question 3. Are you discouraged that the Marine Recreational
Information Program is not up and running yet?
Answer. Yes, and so are all concerned recreational anglers. While I
would like for a better recreational data collections system to be in
place, I understand it is a very complicated task. I believe it is
better to take the time necessary to get the new data collection system
right rather than implement it hastily. Producing the best possible
recreational catch data should be the goal.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe to
William R. Bird
Question. You raised concerns about the current stock assessments
and the level of uncertainty in management decisions of the
groundfishery. While clearly we must have additional cooperative
research, increased surveys to inform stock assessments, and more
baseline assessments, since there will always be some uncertainty in
these assessments, the broader question is how we incorporate
scientific uncertainty into these management decisions. Deferring to
caution and reducing total allowable catch can destroy a community,
such as Prospect Harbor, Maine, which lost its supply of herring for a
sardine factory. At the same time, we have seen the negative
consequences of overfishing, and we should not use uncertainty in the
data as an excuse to continue to overfish. How would you recommend that
the Councils and NMFS incorporate scientific uncertainty into fisheries
management decisions? Do you believe that the economic conditions of
specific fishing communities should be also considered in these
decisions, and, if so--how?
Answer. Thank you for your follow-up questions. Perhaps I could
have been clearer in my testimony. My concern about scientific
uncertainty in management decisions is tied mostly to the many
fisheries with significant participation by the general public for
which no stock assessments have ever been undertaken, and those lacking
recent assessments. Scientific uncertainty should always be a factor in
fishery management decisions, and for fisheries that are overfished or
undergoing overfishing, the uncertainty involved will usually dictate a
conservative approach. On the other hand, in fisheries that are viewed
as abundant or for which there is no evidence of any decline in
abundance, an overly-cautious approach based simply upon scientific
uncertainty could be needlessly drastic in its impact on the economic
vitality and sustainability of our coastal communities.
Unfortunately for many communities, overfishing has resulted in
economic devastation. Nonetheless, the economic condition of fishing
communities can not take precedence over the rebuilding of overfished
stocks. I believe the best management course in such situations is the
implementation of the measures required to re-build the stocks coupled
with government support programs such as equipment buy-outs and re-
training in other fields to help sustain those communities.
______
United States Senate
Washington, DC, March 8, 2011
Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV,
Chairman,
Senate Committee on Commerce,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Mark Begich,
Chairman,
Senate Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fish and Coast Guard
Senate Committee on Commerce,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairmen Rockefeller and Begich:
Last year, fishermen from our home state of New York came to the
Washington, DC by the busload to appeal for help from Congress.
Commercial and recreational fishermen joined together with a bipartisan
Congressional coalition calling for relief from fisheries regulations
which are harming fishing communities. In particular, our constituents
are concerned about the lack of flexibility and scientific data used in
determining fishing quotas, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's (NOAA) push for implementation of catch shares
programs.
Since that rally, things have not gotten much better for these
fishermen and their families. Our constituents in New York, for
example, are now facing onerous regulations on black sea bass and scup
harvest, fish stocks which are nearly or completely rebuilt, simply
because the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(MSA) does not permit regulators to manage these fisheries in a way
that allows the fish stocks to rebuild without driving hard-working
fishermen out of business. Fisheries like black sea bass, scup and
summer flounder are crucial economic resources for the coastal
communities in our state and others. We fully support the goals of the
MSA and so do our constituents and we believe that we must rebuild
stocks and conserve resources for the long-term vitality of the
environment. However, the fishing tradition is a way of life in New
York that is under real threat due to the arbitrary timelines mandated
by MSA for rebuilding fisheries. From Montauk, LI to the Hunts Point
market in New York City, fishing represents hundreds of millions of
dollars in economic output. But in recent years, the pressure of
inflexible regulation has threatened this industry. And it's not just
the fishermen who are hurt--tackle shops and marinas are closing their
doors and, across Long Island, seafood restaurants are unable to serve
fresh locally harvested fish.
We will soon reintroduce the Flexibility in Rebuilding American
Fisheries Act, legislation which would allow consideration of the
impact on coastal communities when determining fishery management
plans. This modest change would allow for fish stocks to be rebuilt at
a more gradual pace if the Secretary of Commerce finds this is
necessary to minimize economic impacts to coastal communities. We
believe this legislation offers a responsible solution, and we
respectfully request that your committee examine this bill. We are
confident that such reforms will be supported by New York State's
Department of Environmental Conservation, as they have supported this
legislation in the past.
In addition to the need for greater flexibility in implementing the
MSA, there is a tremendous need for more fisheries research to insure
that regulators have the best data available to make management
decisions. As you know, when there isn't enough good data for
regulators, they must implement overly conservative quotas, which in
turn hurts employment and industry in coastal communities. Last month,
we joined Senators Hagan, Burr and Brown to express concern that NOAA
has committed $36.6 million to encourage the adoption of catch share
programs when it had not committed sufficient funds to adequately
assess the stocks of our Nation's fisheries. The MSA expressly directs
NOAA to assess the health of fishing stocks, but NOAA has not committed
significant funding to fulfill this requirement in its budget. NOAA
should first commit funding to carry out this important duty before
providing funding for a new fishery-management tool that requires--and
currently does not have--broad-based support from the fishing industry.
The recreational and commercial fishing industries generate
billions of dollars each year and are central to America's history and
culture. Honest fishermen work very hard to make a living in our state
every day. For them and for our economy, we must institute fishery
management programs that enhance the industry's vitality while
protecting our natural resources. We urge you to carefully consider
these concerns and we look forward to working with you to ensure the
long-term health and vitality of American fisheries.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Schumer,
United States Senator.
Kirsten E. Gillibrand,
United States Senator.
______
Prepared Statement of Gordon Robertson, Vice President,
American Sportfishing Association
Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony for the
record regarding implementation of the 2006 reauthorization of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). The
American Sportfishing Association (ASA) is the sportfishing industry's
trade association, committed to representing the interests of the
entire sportfishing community. We give the industry a unified voice
when emerging laws and policies could significantly affect sportfishing
business or sportfishing itself.
ASA also invests in long-term ventures to ensure the industry will
remain strong and prosperous, as well as safeguard and promote the
enduring social, economic and conservation values of sportfishing in
America. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries),
saltwater fishing alone contributes $82 billion to the Nation's economy
creating employment for over 500,000 people.
Since its inception in 1933, ASA has understood that the foundation
of the sportfishing industry and the broader sportfishing community is
sound fisheries management that results in public access to sustainable
fisheries. One of ASA's core tenets is to support this basic precept.
Through the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act, passed in 1950
at the request of the fishing industry, special excise taxes on fishing
gear and boating fuel have contributed over $8 billion for fish
conservation. From the industry's continuing support of this program,
which constitutes the cornerstone of the states' fisheries programs, to
a myriad of actions that promote and support essential habitat programs
to efforts that maintain and increase access to fishable waters, ASA
has steadfastly approached sportfishing's challenges and opportunities
in a deliberate and collaborative fashion.
The saltwater sportfishing community and the sportfishing industry
are currently facing an unprecedented set of challenges as a result of
the 2006 MSA reauthorization. The current breakdown in Federal marine
fisheries management is deeply rooted in the culture of the NOAA
Fisheries, which has virtually ignored the recreational fishing sector
in favor of the commercial sector. Recently NOAA has shown a new
interest in addressing this, which we appreciate, but the inattention
to recreational fishing over time, combined with new mandates included
in the MSA 2006 reauthorization has led to major problems in need of
significant and immediate action. Because of NOAA Fisheries' strict
interpretation of MSA, and a lack of understanding of many culturally
and economically important stocks, many popular and economically
valuable fisheries are now being unnecessarily closed at an alarming
rate, taking anglers off the water and seriously harming businesses
dependent on recreational fishing.
Roots of the Problem
Important amendments made to MSA during its 2006 reauthorization
were intended to drive NOAA Fisheries toward more effective marine
fisheries management and stock rebuilding. The MSA reauthorization
included key provisions to end overfishing, set annual catch limits
(ACLs) and accountability measures (AMs) for all stocks by 2011. These
requirements were predicated on two critical assumptions:
NOAA Fisheries would invest in proper fisheries management,
including up-to-date and accurate stock assessments.
NOAA Fisheries would invest in a method to capture catch
data on which to base management decisions and anticipate
potential problems in the fishery.
Neither of these assumptions was met. As a result, the recreational
fishing community is now faced with massive fisheries closures, and the
attendant job loss, because the appropriate investment in recreational
fishery stocks, economic data and angler catch data was not made.
Saltwater recreational fishing has increased in popularity in
recent years as people migrate to the Nation's coastal areas. Over the
years, some state natural resource agencies have enhanced their
fisheries and angler data, while NOAA Fisheries has done little to
improve recreational fishing angler and stock assessment data. It's so
``data poor'' that the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy has called for a
substantial investment in fisheries data and stock assessments.
Further, in 2006 the National Academy of Science called the Marine
Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey conducted by NMFS ``fatally
flawed.''
Recreational fishing accounts for only 3 percent of the marine
finfish harvested by weight, yet it produces 56 percent of the jobs
from all saltwater fisheries. Unquestionably marine recreational
fishing is a coastal economic engine that deserves an investment
commensurate with the jobs and economic output it provides to the
nation, not to mention the millions of hours of recreation it provides
to 13 million saltwater anglers who contribute over $82 billion to the
Nation's economy.
As required by the 2006 reauthorization of MSA, NOAA Fisheries has
increased the regulatory measures applied to recreational fishing but
has yet to improve either the data collection or its basic
understanding regarding recreational saltwater fishing. When Congress
reauthorized the MSA, it did so with the intention of ending
overfishing--not ending fishing. However, NMFS is implementing the
statute in a way that is unnecessarily shutting down sustainable
recreational fisheries, primarily by:
Shutting down entire multispecies fisheries, including
healthy and valuable recreational stocks, in order to rebuild
weaker stocks.
Applying ACLs to each individual stock of fish, including
many that do not have accurate, up-to-date stock assessments.
Challenges in the Southeastern U.S.
While regions across the country are laboring to meet the
requirements of MSA before the end of 2011, this challenge is most
acute in the Southeast. The South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico are home
to a multitude of complex fisheries and have historically received
disproportionately low funding for science and data collection given
the number of fish stocks and anglers in the region. With the deadline
to end overfishing looming, the South Atlantic Fishery Management
Council (SAFMC) and Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC)
are now resorting to drastic measures to ensure overfishing does not
occur.
Last year, the sportfishing community held its collective breath as
the SAFMC considered options to close massive areas of the south
Atlantic to all bottom fishing in order to address problems in the red
snapper fishery. Because red snapper are considered severely overfished
and are subject to bycatch when fishing the larger snapper-grouper
complex, Amendment 17A to the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery
management plan was introduced in 2010 by the SAFMC. This amendment
proposed a nearly 5,000 square mile area closure off the coast of
southeastern Georgia and northern Florida where fishing for all species
in the snapper-grouper management complex would be prohibited. Closing
healthy stocks in order to address problems in a single weak stock is a
draconian approach and would have had dire ramifications for the
sportfishing industry and coastal communities throughout the South
Atlantic that depend on bottom fishing for much of their tourism
revenue. Fortunately, a new assessment on South Atlantic red snapper
was completed in December 2010 which indicated that the stock was
healthier than originally projected and the bottom closure proposal was
tabled.
While the sportfishing community let out a collective sigh of
relief, it was with acknowledgement that the red snapper closure was
only the first in a line of looming problems coming in the near future.
In fact, at the same time that the bottom fishing closure to address
red snapper was removed, a separate bottom fishing closure in depths
240 feet or greater was approved to address overfishing of speckled
hind and Warsaw grouper. This closure, while smaller in scope, is
having considerable impacts on businesses that manufacture specific
equipment for these deeper water snapper-grouper and coastal economies
that are supported by these fisheries.
In addition to the threat of multispecies closures, both the South
Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the Gulf of Mexico Fishery
Management Council are currently developing ACL proposals for numerous
important recreational fisheries, which may result in severe
limitations due to a lack of data. Because MSA requires that ACLs be
developed for all fisheries, the Councils are currently pursuing
options on species such as dolphin, wahoo and cobia that have no up-to-
date stock assessments, and for which the only data from which to base
decisions is landings. The Councils are currently developing
precautionary and overly restrictive ACLs for these fisheries even
though there is no indication that any of these species are in trouble.
Need to Restore Balance and Re-Inject Commonsense
The Nation's 13 million recreational anglers and the thousands of
businesses that rely on healthy marine fisheries support rebuilding
fish stocks in a way that is balanced with public access and economic
impacts. Ending overfishing, maintaining reasonable access and
sustaining economic activity are not mutually exclusive. The MSA
contemplated a range of options for ending overfishing on fish stocks.
However, NOAA Fisheries has historically managed recreational fisheries
by proxy; waiting until a fishery is in trouble to implement management
measures or full-scale fishery closures, which isn't fisheries
management: it's crisis management. It can avoid the default closures
only with adequate data and facts in hand and the agency needs the time
to gather this information.
Through the leadership of Senator Bill Nelson and others, ASA and
its partners in the marine sportfishing community pursued legislation
in the 111th Congress to address the crisis in Federal marine fisheries
management. ASA and others in the recreational fishing community will
continue to pursue comprehensive legislation to give NOAA Fisheries the
time, resources and guidance to reprioritize its responsibilities in
order to properly implement the Magnuson-Stevens Act in the manner in
which it was originally envisioned by Congress in 2006.
The way that MSA is currently being implemented will unnecessarily
close healthy fisheries and cause tremendous damage to recreational
fishing dependent businesses. The recreational fishing community fully
supports ending overfishing, but believes it must be done in a
thoughtful, science-based manner that balances socioeconomic
considerations with conservation principles. The recreational fishing
industry depends on abundant fisheries and access to those fisheries.
We can have sound fishery management, recreation and a healthy business
community built around sound fisheries. It is of the highest priority
for ASA to work with NOAA Fisheries and Members of Congress to ensure
that the needed data collection and stock assessments are in place
before the data-dependent provisions of MSA are enacted. ASA looks
forward to working with this committee to ensure that a commonsense
approach is developed to meet these challenges.
______
To: Senator Mark Begich, Chairman
Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard Subcommittee
of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee
cc: Senator John Kerry
Senator Brown
Senator Olympia Snowe
Secretary Gary Locke, Commerce Department
From: Citizens for Gloucester Harbor
Date: March 21, 2011
Re: March 8, 2011, ``Issues'' Hearing on the Implementation of the
Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act: Comments
We are a citizens group from Gloucester, Mass who are concerned for
our historic fishing community and the ability of our fishing families
and the businesses they support to weather the regulatory storm they
are currently facing.
It is widely accepted here that stewardship of our precious fish
stocks and the creation of a sustainable fishery is in everyone's best
interest. We are not driven by greed or immediate gratification, nor
are we environmentally ignorant. We believe that the goals of ending
overfishing and restoring and rebuilding fish stocks to sustainable
levels can, and must, coexist with the preservation of the livelihoods
and way of life of our relatively small boat fishermen and the
community that is their homeport.
It is most disturbing to witness how current allocations are
especially hurting the small boats that characterize much of
Gloucester's remaining fleet. These small businesses have a multiplier
effect in our community's economy as they are mostly family owned boats
that are serviced and outfitted locally, with local crews who deposit
their pay in local banks and shop in local stores. These businesses are
important to our City's economic stability and its continuation as a
hub port. Additionally, they are a critical part of our heritage and
character as a community.
What is most disturbing is that some of the forces which are coming
to bear on, or that have most significantly impacted the economic
viability of our local fleet, are a part of a flawed process. It is one
thing to have the economy and the heritage of a community inexorably
altered for a greater cause, such as a sustainable fishery for future
generations. It is quite another thing to be brought to your knees by
inadequate or withheld science or by the sobering abuses detailed in
Inspector General Zinser's Report. Accuracy, decency, transparency, and
the current health of humans and their communities must be considered
hand and glove with the saving of our fish stocks and the preservation
of future economic gain. Current fiscal stability and the preservation
of viable fishing communities must be considered now, in the ways in
which the Magnuson-Stevens Act originally intended them to be.
A pattern of actions taken by NMFS in recent years has been
directed at the consolidation of fishing fleets, in the guise of
achieving greater economic efficiency in the pursuit of conservation
goals. This single-minded focus is driving small, local boats out of
business, and unless changes are made will eliminate the industry as we
know it. Policies and activities that we believe subvert the intent of
the Magnuson-Stevens Act include:
Passage last year of a sector management system, which was
implemented on May 1st, despite great concerns about its
viability and necessity;
Punitive enforcement measures (documented by the Department
of Commerce Inspector General) that have forced boat-owners out
of fishing;
Inadequate and potentially inaccurate scientific that have
had a history of underestimating fishing stocks;
Failure to conduct adequate research and/or failure to
properly utilize existing research results;
Diversion of funds away from cooperative research and into
policing efforts;
Unnecessarily strict limits on fishing that exceed what is
necessary for stock recovery;
Shutting down an entire multi-species fishery once the quota
for any one species fishery, although it is clear, that in
practice, all species do not recover at the same rate.
In particular, the sector approach, as currently implemented, will
inevitably lead to concentrated ownership. Larger vessels owned by
outside investors will displace the smaller local family fishing
business and local fisheries will be unable to compete. The effects on
local fishermen, employment, and economic activity in local ports, the
safety of local fish stocks, and the long-term viability of ocean
fisheries and ecosystems will be devastating.
Especially in New England, it is the fish caught, only hours
before, by our small inshore day fishing boats for which our
restaurants and markets are famous that will be most greatly impacted.
An intentional destruction of this industry and replacement by large
industrial ships that stay further at sea for longer trips would result
in replacement of our fresh fishery with fish stored for days in ice or
brine or frozen at sea. The policy of increasing efficiency by
replacing small fishing businesses, both at sea and in small harbors
ashore by a few larger concentrated industrial operations in a few
large ports seems ill-advised in the present national economic and
under employment crisis and will not enhance the sustainability of
fishing stocks.
The history of economic rationalization, deregulation, and a
singular drive for ``efficiency'' has had unintended and disastrous
results in other economic sectors in the United States. The
deregulation and subsequent collapse of financial markets is the
foremost example of excessive reliance on free market ideology and
``efficiency.'' Similarly, in agriculture, the ideology of free-market
fundamentalism has led to devastated farming communities, unsafe and
unhealthy food supplies, and toxic pollution.
Properly designed sector management can restore ecosystems and
fisheries, protect local jobs, and secure safe and local food supplies,
but only if the approach is based on principles of community-based
management. As Dr. Elinor Ostrom (2009 Nobel Prize in Economics) and
others have demonstrated repeatedly around the world, community-based
management assures long-term sustainability of environmental, economic,
and social values.
If perceived as a catch share system, as opposed to a temporary
management measure, these goals will not be achieved. Therefore, we
believe they ought to only be seen as a temporary management measure.
We particularly call attention to the fact that the National Marine
Fisheries Service chose not to establish the sector approach according
to the policies and procedures set forth in section 303A of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act governing Limited Access Privilege Programs
(LAPPs). LAPP would have required a review of proposals that would have
been subjected to a very comprehensive and deliberate set of standards
and process, where the interests of all parts of the fisheries,
including fishermen, port communities, and other public interests and
benefits would have been reviewed. The deliberate decision by the New
England Fisheries Management Council (NEFMC) to develop a comprehensive
fishery-wide sector allocation and management system that is not based
on or consistent with MSA section 303(A) was largely based on ill-
advised advice provided to it by NOAA through the NMFS Northeast
Regional Office.
NOAA needs to recognize that potential sector contributions (PSCs)
should not be considered quota shares for the purposes of buying,
selling, and trading with any mid-term or long-term value.
Nevertheless, because of confusion over the long-term status of PSCs,
there is a danger in artificially inflated permit values. Local
fishermen may be unable to pay higher prices for permits when they have
to compete with speculative outside investors who are misinformed about
the duration of the sector allocation.
We urge the Secretary of Commerce to take the following actions:
1. Issue a public notification stating that the non-LAPP status
of Amendment 16 Sector Allocations and individual PSCs means
the fishery is still open to allocation through a deliberate
and free standing allocation amendment process. The statement
should also make clear that PSCs are short-term management
currencies analogous to Days at Sea and have no long-term
economic value. PSCs do not have the same effect as quota
shares, unless NEFMC initiates a fully LAPP compliant amendment
in strict compliance with the LAPP requirements in the
Magnuson-Stevens Act.
2. Amend the sector management program by adding measures to
prevent excessive consolidation and outside investment.
3. Increase the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) limits,
particularly on species that would otherwise shut multi-species
fisheries down unnecessarily, but not to exceed levels
considered ``overfishing". This increased flexibility would
sustain the local fishing fleets through the next few years of
the rebuilding of sustainable stocks.
These actions are all within the discretion of the Secretary of
Commerce.
We thank you for your attention to these requests and look forward
to hearing: (1) when an additional hearing to address these matters
will take place; and (2) what actions the Secretary of Commerce has
taken.
Yours truly,
Citizens for Gloucester Harbor
Peter Anastas, Writer
Ann Banks, Board Member, Gloucester Maritime Heritage Center
Damon Cummings, PhD, Naval Architect
Henry Ferrini, Documentary Filmmaker
Jeanne Gallo, PhD, Social Ethics
Jay Gustaferro, Lobsterman, Former Gloucester City Councilor
Marcia Hart, RN
Ann Molloy, Neptune's Harvest Organic Fish Fertilizer Company
Valerie Nelson, PhD, Economics, Former Gloucester City Councilor
M. Sunny Robinson, RN
Angela Sanfilippo, Gloucester Fishermen's Wives Association
______
E2--Environmental Entrepreneurs
San Francisco, CA, March 8, 2011
Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV,
Chairman,
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Doc Hastings,
Chairman,
Natural Resources Committee,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison,
Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Edward Markey,
Ranking Member,
Natural Resources Committee,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Rockefeller and Hutchison and Representatives Hastings
and Markey:
As members of Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2), a national
community of 850 business leaders, we ask you to stay the course in
ending overfishing and rebuilding our Nation's valuable commercial and
recreational fisheries. This is a historic moment in the stewardship of
our oceans. In 2006, Congress amended the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries
Conservation and Management Act (MSA), our Federal fisheries law, with
broad bipartisan support to require an end to overfishing through the
use of science-based catch limits. These requirements are currently
being implemented by regional fishery management councils around the
country and we are on the verge of making unprecedented progress in
building long-term sustainable fisheries for this Nation. This is a
vital economic initiative, which will add jobs and wealth in coastal
economies around the country. We urge you to reject calls to weaken the
law and turn back the clock to the short-sighted and unsustainable
fishery management practices of the past.
E2 works to promote thoughtful environmental policy that grows the
economy. We are entrepreneurs, investors and professionals who
collectively manage nearly $90 billion of venture capital and private
equity. Our members have started over 1,100 businesses, which in turn
have created over 500,000 jobs.
Halting overfishing and rebuilding depleted stocks has been an
issue of concern to E2 for many years. For example, in 2005, E2
sponsored a study of 22 commercially valuable overfished stocks that
found that the economic value of these stocks if they are allowed to
rebuild to sustainable levels is nearly three times the value of the
depleted, overfished annual harvest.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.R. Sumaila et al., ``Fish Economics: The Benefits of
Rebuilding U.S. Ocean Fish Populations,'' Fisheries Economics Research
Unit, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.
(October 2005), available at .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current economic value of the Nation's marine fisheries is
quite substantial. The commercial fishing industry contributed more
than $38.4 billion to the gross national product in 2009.\2\ Direct
expenditures by saltwater anglers totaled $8.9 billion in 2006,
supporting about 300,000 jobs and $20 billion in economic activity per
year.\3\ Together this amounts to close to $60 billion in economic
benefits to the Nation from marine fisheries, many of which are
actually under-producing due to years of overfishing. This economic
value will increase significantly as our fisheries reach healthy
levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ NMFS Fisheries Statistics Division, ``Fisheries of the United
States, Statistical Highlights,'' available at .
\3\ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ``2006 National Survey of
Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation,'' Table 16, at 72
(2007), available at ; U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, ``An Ocean Blueprint for the
21st Century,'' Final Report, at 275 (September 20, 2004), available at
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to NMFS, rebuilding the Nation's fisheries would generate
an additional $31 billion in sales and support an additional 500,000
jobs.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ NMFS, ``MAFAC Catch Shares Presentation,'' at 6, available at
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continued overexploitation of marine fisheries prevents the
additional economic benefits of healthy fisheries from being realized.
Of the 230 most valuable stocks monitored by National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), one-fifth of those assessed are subject to overfishing,
while nearly one-quarter are overfished.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ NOAA Fisheries, ``Status of the Fisheries: 4th Quarter 2010
Update,'' available at .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Investing in the future productivity of the Nation's fisheries
requires a commitment to catch levels that are based on the best
available science and accountability measures that ensure adherence to
these catch levels and trigger clear and predictable management
responses if and when those catch levels are exceeded. This approach,
as embodied in the current MSA, will pay dividends to the fish,
fishermen, and the Nation in perpetuity. We urge you to support
sensible and sound fisheries management policies by maintaining a
strong MSA.
We appreciate your attention to this important issue.
Sincerely,
The following 218 E2 members have signed this letter:
Curtis Abbott (CA)
CEO, Lucesco Lighting Inc
Maryvonne Abbott (CA)
Dan Abrams (CA)
President/CEO, Cross River Pictures
Bill Acevedo (CA)
Attorney, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean
Clifford Adams (NY)
Managing Director, Coady Diemar Partners
Christopher Arndt (NY)
Patty Arndt (NY)
Principal, ONG Designs
Jay Baldwin (MA)
Partner, Wind River Capital Partners, LLC
Dora Barlaz Hanft (NY)
Environmental Science Teacher, Horace Mann School
Karl Batten-Bowman (CA)
Ed Beardsworth (CA)
Principal, Energy Technology Advisors
Lisa Bennett (CO)
Jeff Bennett, Ph.D (CO)
Founder, Big Kid Science
Fiona Bensen (CA)
Tod Bensen (CA)
Chairman, WildAid
Tony Bernhardt (CA)
Physicist; Angel Investor
Aron Bernstein (MA)
Professor of Physics, MIT
Maureen Blanc (CA)
Social Entrepreneur
Dayna Bochco (CA)
President, Steven Bochco Productions
Steven Bochco (CA)
Steven Bochco Productions
David Bowen (CA)
Consultant
Barbara Brenner Buder (CA)
CFO, VP--Operations, The San Francisco Theological Seminary
Diane Brinkmann (CO)
Alan Buder (CA)
Monica Burton (NY)
Dianne Callan (MA)
Independent Legal Consulting, Green Tech Legal
Pete Cartwright (CA)
CEO, Avalon Ecopower
Warner Chabot (CA)
CEO, California League of Conservation Voters
Steve Chadima (CA)
Chief Marketing Officer, TweetUp
John Cheney (CA)
CEO, Silverado Power, LLC
David Cheng (CA)
Senior Manager, Advisory, The Cleantech Group
Roger Choplin (CA)
Proprietor/Owner, Our Earth Music, Inc.
Diane Christensen (CA)
President, Manzanita Management Corp.
Brooke Coleman (WA)
Assistant Professor, Seattle University Law School
Ann Colley (NY)
Executive Director, The Moore Charitable Foundation
Catherine Crystal Foster (CA)
Consultant, Policy & Advocacy Consulting
Jane Cuddehe (CO)
Broker Associate, Coldwell Banker Devonshire
Michael Cuddehe (CO)
President, Seven Trust Advisors
Andrew Currie (CO)
Investor, Active Minds LLC
Tim Dattels (CA)
Managing Director, Newbridge Capital
Lynne David (VA)
Gordon Davidson (VA)
President, Davidson & Associates
Jayne Davis (CA)
Peter Davis (CA)
Retired Attorney
Rick DeGolia (CA)
Executive Chairman, InVisM, Inc.
Chris Dennett (OR)
Systems & Analytics Manager, Account Management, Regence
Heather Dennett (OR)
Harry Dennis (CA)
Pediatrician, Palo Alto Medical Clinic
Susan Dennis (CA)
Fine Arts Advisor, Self-employed
George Denny (MA)
Partner, Halpern Denny & Co.
Sally DeSipio (OR)
Ted Driscoll (CA)
Venture Partner, Claremont Creek Ventures
Robert Earley (NY)
Principal, Armor Capital
Scott Elliott (WA)
CEO, MountainLogic
Bob Epstein (CA)
Co-founder, Sybase, New Resource Bank, Environmental Entrepreneurs
Christina Erickson (CA)
Founder, Green by Design
Rob Erlichman
Founder & President, Sunlight Electric, LLC
Lynn Feintech (CA)
Anne Feldhusen (CA)
Marketing Program Manager, Hewlett Packard
Kacey Fitzpatrick (CA)
President, Avalon Enterprises Inc.
Jon Foster (CA)
SVP Global Operations, Atempo
Karen Francis (CA)
CEO, Academix Direct, Inc
Nell Freudenberger (NY)
Rona Fried (NY)
President, SustainableBusiness.com
Matthew Frome (CA)
VP of Business Development, Linkage Biosciences, Inc.
Ken Gart (CO)
President, The Gart Companies
Rebecca Gart (CO)
Donna Geil (CA)
Teacher, Clovis Unified School District
Sam Geil (CA)
CEO, Geil Enterprises
Bonnie Gemmell (CA)
GoFavo
Rob Gemmell (CA)
Co-founder, AlikeList
Devon George (NY)
President, DMV Capital Corp.
Howard Girdlestone (CA)
Martha Girdlestone (CA)
Nancy Gail Goebner (CA)
Gardenpeach Place
Susan Goldhor (MA)
Biologist, C.A.R.S.
Dan Goldman (MA)
Co-Founder and Managing Partner, Clean Energy Venture Group
Diana Goldman (MA)
Founder, ICanPlanIt
Ken Goldsholl (CA)
CEO, Movidis, Inc.
Nancy Goldsholl (CA)
Tom Goodrich (CA)
Managing Director, Duff, Ackerman & Goodrich
Jon Gordon (CO)
Executive Vice President, JobPlex, Inc.
Vicki Gordon (CO)
Peter Gorr (IL)
Retired
Marianna Grossman (CA)
President & Executive Director, Sustainable Silicon Valley
Tom Haggin (CA)
Co-Founder, Sybase and Tilden Park Software
Vicki Haggin (CA)
Debbie Hall (CA)
Chair of the Board, Village Enterprise Fund
Russell Hall (CA)
Managing Director, Legacy Venture
Bert Hartman (MA)
E2 New England Chapter Director, Hartman Consulting
Hyman Hartman (MA)
E2, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Paula Hawthorn, PhD (CA)
Sheryl Heckmann (CA)
Alan Herzig (CA)
Independent Director
James Higgins (CA)
Partner, Lakeside Enterprises
Jill Tate Higgins (CA)
General Partner, Lakeside Enterprises
Jerry Hinkle (VA)
Manager, Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight
Elaine Honig
Robin Hruska (WA)
Art Teacher, Blakely Elementary School
Kristine Johnson (CA)
Director, Kingfisher Foundation
Fred Julander (CO)
President, Julander Energy Company
Charlene Kabcenell (CA)
Former Vice President, Oracle Corporation
Derry Kabcenell (CA)
Former Executive Vice President, Oracle Corporation
Jerome Kalur (MT)
Attorney at Law
Christopher Kaneb (MA)
Principal, Catamount Management Corporation
Lisa Kaneb (MA)
Timothy David Karsten (CA)
TDKA Group
Van Katzman (WA)
Principal, Beacon Law Advisors, PLLC
Holly Kaufman (CA)
CEO, Environment & Enterprise Strategies
Marie Kent (OR)
Stephanie Kiriakopolos (CA)
Karinna Kittles Karsten (CA)
Charly Kleissner (CA)
Co-Founder, KD Cura Corporation
Lisa Kleissner (CA)
KL Felicitas Foundation
Eric Kloor (CO)
CEO, MacroSystem US
Gina Lambright (CA)
Managing Partner, TOZ Consulting
Sue Learned-Driscoll (CA)
Administrator, Stanford University
Noelle Leca (CA)
Vice Chair, Chair-Elect, NCPB, Inc.
Nicole Lederer (CA)
Co-Founder, Environmental Entrepreneurs
Rebecca Lee (CA)
Waidy Lee (CA)
Grace Lee Park (OR)
Mark Liffmann (WA)
Vice President of Business Development, EnerG2
Paul Logan (NY)
Vice President, Jones Lang LaSalle
Alison Long Poetsch (CA)
Principal, SHR Investments
Tracy Lyons (CA)
Singer-Songwriter, Mythic Records LLC
Joe Madden
CEO, EOS Climate
Andrew Magee (MA)
Senior Consultant, Epsilon Associates
Felicia Marcus (CA)
Western Director, NRDC
Ryan Martens (CO)
Founder, Rally Software Development
Wynn Martens (CO)
Outreach, University of Colorado
Christine Martin (CA)
Clinical Nurse Specialist, San Francisco General Hospital
Nancy McCarter-Zorner (CA)
Plant Pathologist
John McGarry (NY)
Elizabeth McPhail
CEO, KUITY Corp.
Kate Mitchell (CA)
Managing Partner, Scale Venture Partners
Wes Mitchell (CA)
Board Member, Foto Forum, SFMOMA
Kris Moller (CA)
Founder, ConservFuel
Carol Mone (CA)
Producer, Our Earth Productions
John Montgomery (CA)
Chairman, Montgomery & Hansen, LLP
Linda Montgomery (CA)
Andrew Moon (DC)
Senior Manager, SunEdison Solar
Michael Moradzadeh (CA)
Commodore, Corinthian Yacht Club
David Moyar (NY)
President & CEO, MEI Hotels Inc.
Emilie Munger Ogden (CA)
Gib Myers (CA)
Partner Emeritus, Mayfield Fund and Founder/Board of the Entrepreneurs
Foundation
Susan Myers (CA)
Armand Neukermans (CA)
Founder, Xros
Tori Nourafchan (CA)
Rick Nowels (CA)
Doug Ogden (CA)
CEO, North Ridge Investment Management
Larry Orr (CA)
Managing Partner, Trinity Ventures
Michael Brian Orr (WA)
Senior Computer Scientist, Adobe Systems
Alex Osadzinski (CA)
Jiali Osadzinski (CA)
Controller, Applied Biosystems
Lyn Oswald (CA)
Jim Panttaja (CA)
Vice President, Corporate Development, RebelVox
Mary Panttaja (CA)
Vice President, Product Management, RebelVox
Peter Papesch
Architect, Papesch Associates
Eric Park (OR)
Director, Ziba Design
Mark Parnes (CA)
Attorney, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
Neela Patel (CA)
Director, Biology, Poniard Pharmaceuticals
Rebecca Patton (CA)
Matt Peak (CA)
Director of Technology Ventures, Prize Capital, LLC.
Jean Pierret (CA)
Ethan Podell (NY)
President, Babel Networks Limited
Jeff Poetsch (CA)
Principal, JCP Advisors
David Rosenheim (CA)
Chairman, JamBase, Inc.
David Rosenstein (CA)
President, Intex Solutions
Amy Roth (CA)
Laurie Rothenberg (NY)
Jacqueline Royce (MA)
Independent Scholar
Paul Royce (MA)
Independent Scholar
Carina Ryan (CA)
Ella Saunders
Tedd Saunders
President, EcoLogical Solutions, Inc., Director of Sustainability, The
Saunders Hotel Group
Eric Schmidt (CA)
Chairman and CEO, Google
Wendy Schmidt (CA)
Founder, The 11th Hour Project
David Schwartz (CA)
James Schwartz (MA)
Director, Business Development, GMZ Energy
Lauren Scott (CA)
Paul B. Scott (CA)
Chief Science Officer, ISE Corp.
Carol Sethi (CA)
Patient's Administration, Valley Medical Center, San Jose
Kuldip Sethi (CA)
CEO, SV Greentech Corp.
Cynthia Sexton (CA)
Tim Sexton (CA)
Founder & CEO, The Sexton Company
JoAnn Shernoff (CO)
Former President, Institute for Ecolonomics
Steve Silberstein (CA)
Co-founder, Innovative Interfaces Inc.
Barbara Simons (CA)
Research Staff Member, Retired, IBM Research
Jon Slangerup (CA)
CEO, NEI Treatment Systems, LLC
Sandra Slater (CA)
Owner, Sandra Slater Environments
Kristen Steck (CA)
June Stein (CA)
Virtual Group, LLC
Lee Stein (CA)
Chairman and CEO, Virtual Group, LLC
Marc Stolman (CA)
Attorney, Stolman Law office, E2 Climate Project Leader
Scott Struthers (CA)
Co-Founder, Sonance
Jim Sweeney (MA)
President, CCI Energy, LLC
Todd Thorner
Vice President, Business Development, Foresight Wind
Laney Thornton (CA)
The Laney Thornton Foundation
Pasha Thornton (CA)
Flashpoint
Cariad Thronson (CA)
Robert Thronson (CA)
VP Managed Service Solutions, Genesys Telecommunications
Mike Ubell (CA)
Architect, Oracle
Bill Unger (CA)
Partner Emeritus, Mayfield Fund
Maria Vidal (CA)
Aino Vieira da Rosa (CA)
Architect, Aino Maria Vieira Da Rosa, AIA
Alex Wall (OR)
Director of Consulting, Discover-e Legal, LLC
Dorothy Weaver (NY)
Babel Networks Limited
Jeffrey Weiss (RI)
Dave Welch (CA)
Chief Technology Officer, Infinera Corporation
Heidi Welch (CA)
Robert Wilder (CA)
CEO, WilderShares, LLC
Tonia Wisman (CA)
Daniel Yost (CA)
Partner, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
Margaret Zankel (CA)
Martin Zankel (CA)
Emeritus Chairman, Bartko, Zankel, Tarrant & Miller
Anthony Zolezzi (CA)
Founder, Pet Promise
Paul Zorner (CA)
President and CEO, Hawaii BioEnergy LLC
cc:
Senator Mark Begich, Chairman, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation; Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and
Coast Guard
Senator Olympia Snowe, Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation; Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere,
Fisheries, and Coast Guard
Representative John Fleming, Chairman, U.S. House Natural Resources
Committee; Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular
Affairs
Representative Donna Christensen, Ranking Member, U.S. House Natural
Resources Committee; Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and
Insular Affairs
Secretary Gary Locke, U.S. Department of Commerce
Administrator Jane Lubchenco, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Chair Nancy Sutley, White House Council on Environmental Quality
______
Fishing Rights ALliance
St. Petersburg, FL, March 21, 2011
Senator Mark Begich,
Chairman,
Transportation's Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard
Subcommittee,
U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Dear Chairman Begich and Subcommittee members:
Thank you for the opportunity for the Fishing Rights Alliance to
comment on the recent U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation's Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard
Subcommittee hearing on implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act. Two Fishing Rights Alliance Directors
were present for the hearing.
The Fishing Rights Alliance, Inc. (FRA) is composed primarily of
recreational anglers and includes charter captains, headboat operators
and some commercial fishermen that fish the U.S. waters of the Gulf of
Mexico, Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. FRA members are all good stewards
of our marine resources and are engaged in the conservation and wise
use of those resources.
Magnuson-Stevens was conceived as a defense against foreign
interests exploiting our domestic fisheries. The FRA is concerned that
it is now being used to reduce the nations fishing activity in a
squeeze play designed to force the use of catch shares on our fisheries
as the only tool that will allow SOME to continue fishing. This
apparent blatant theft of our Nation's fisheries is un-American and
needs to be stopped.
While NMFS claims it is committed to preserving and growing jobs,
it continues to destroy jobs, communities, and our heritage. While NMFS
claims ``Magnuson, made me do it,'' the agency ``continues to ignore
parts of Magnuson that are ``inconvenient,'' while embellishing other
parts that lead to the draconian regulations promulgated by the agency.
NMFS has ignored MSA's mandate of a new recreational data collection
system. This should not come as a surprise, since NMFS has ignored
reviews by the National Research Council in 2000 and again in 2006,
both of which pointed out the flawed data collection and processing of
the unreliable recreational catch and landing estimates and both of
which specifically stated that the MRFSS was not to be used as an in-
season quota monitoring tool.
An example of ignoring/embellishing MSA is NMFS' failure to have a
recreational angler registration system operating by January 1 of 2009
while feverishly advancing the catch-reducing Annual Catch Limits on
all species, even those with poor or non-existent data. Annual Catch
Limits as promoted by National Marine Fisheries Service reduce previous
harvest levels by 25 to 50 percent, then put ``buffer levels'' in to
``slow down'' fishing. This ignores the cyclical nature of the fish
stocks. In some years, the stock is more abundant than other years,
affected by bait supply, extreme weather events and other non-fishing
factors. Catches, too, will fluctuate. Fishermen are penalized if
catches fall by NMFS claiming that a reduced catch indicates an
overfished stock The agency has repeatedly ignored the effect of
regulations on the catch, instead using every instance as support for
further restrictions to ``protect the stock.'' Fishermen are also
penalized if they catch more fish, which is mischaracterized as
``overfishing.'' There is no ``good'' news from catch information.
NOAA Fisheries Assistant Administrator Schwaab admits missing the
deadline for implementation of a new recreational angler registration.
Yet his agency argues in court that it met its obligation. The FRA asks
``which way is it?''
Senator Snowe spoke of NMFS' ``antagonism, mistrust and
dysfunction'' and its ``reckless and vindictive actions'' that
``undermine, harass and sometimes bankrupt fishermen.'' She was
referring to the recent activities of the NMFS North East regional law
enforcement group. Interestingly, the same terms can be applied to the
current regulatory actions of NMFS South East regional office.
Vindictive actions include a closure of Gulf recreational amberjack
with 5 days notice, based on the fatally flawed MRFSS data being used
as an in-season quota monitoring tool. When the National Marine
Fisheries Service Southeast regional administrator was asked how far in
advance he knew he was going to close Gulf recreational amberjack in
2009, he stated that he knew 60 days in advance but chose not to tell
the recreational fishing community because he ``did not want to hear us
(recreational anglers) complain.'' The FRA finds this to be
antagonistic, reckless and vindictive, to say the least. How long must
we suffer the mismanagement of our fisheries by this agency?
Catch shares are opposed by nearly all recreational and most
commercial fishermen in the United States. There are a few pro-catch
share individuals who currently attempt to represent themselves as the
face of commercial and recreational fishing. Nothing could be further
from the truth. These individuals all have a financial stake in the
future of catch shares. Their activities are supported by nonprofit
environmental groups who are acting on behalf of institutional
investors that wish to be able to buy and sell the fishery. The same
environmental group purchased pro-catch shares ads in a Washington D.C.
magazine during the week of this hearing.
Senator Cantwell's comments regarding the Environmental Defense
Fund pro-catch shares ad was indicative of her pro-catch shares
position. The FRA urges the Committee members to take a long look at
who really supports catch shares, who really is opposed to catch
shares, and who is funding the blind, mad drive to a catch share
system.
The opportunity to fish is what drives the recreational fishing
sector. Bag limits, size limits and other landings restriction tools
have the most affect on fish stocks while having the least effect on
fishing opportunity. The FRA opposes the privatization of our public
marine resources.
The FRA requests that all closures based on outdated stock
assessments be reversed until such time as a current, reliable stock
assessment can be completed and evaluated for each species.
Regulatory dead discards are hidden and ignored by catch share
proponents. These same proponents inflate the dead discard estimates
for non-catch share fisheries in an attempt to justify their theft of
our public resource.
The FRA echoes Senator Rubio's concerns about $6 million being
taken from Cooperative Research Programs and given to the catch share
effort and the $11.4 million taken from the fisheries research
management program and put into the catch shares program.
Why is data priority not reflected in the funding? Why are ACL's
being pushed ahead of the data? Why are catch shares being funded with
money that was designated for recreational fisheries data improvement?
Who at NMFS will be held accountable for ignoring MSA?
The FRA also shares the concerns of Senator Nelson, who noted that
MSA passed based on the data being current, accurate and up to date and
that NMFS is using MSA in a way not intended by Congress. We urge the
Committee to address the Senator's and our concerns that NMFS is not
following the intent of Congress.
Congress should strongly consider repealing the closures that are
hotly contested and seem to be contradicting what is seen on and under
the water. Gulf Gag Grouper and Red Snapper as well as South Atlantic
Red Snapper are the first species that come to mind.
The FRA urges the Committee to investigate how NMFS prioritizes the
stocks to be assessed, as AA Schwaab's answer on this was evasive, to
say the least.
The FRA was disappointed by the makeup of the panel that the
Committee chose to interview. We feel the panel was heavily slanted
toward the pro-catch share agenda, with no representation of those
active in fisheries management on behalf of the recreational anglers.
The FRA was encouraged by the knowledge of the Committee members as
exhibited by their line of questioning.
The FRA thanks the Committee for their time and the opportunity to
comment on this hearing.
Respectfully submitted,
Dennis O'Hern,
Executive Director,
Fishing Rights Alliance, Inc.
______
March 21, 2011
Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard Subcommittee
I'm writing this letter in regards to the issues and motions being
made at the NMFS Southeast Regional Gulf Council. There has been a
perversion of the entire council process due to the political nature of
how the council representatives are selected. It has become very
apparent that the interpretation of Congress in its writing of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA)has been skewed by the politics of the
Governors appointing process. The MSA already has the flexibility and
language needed for regional councils to properly manage the Nation's
marine resources; however the MSA is supposed to ensure fair and
balanced appointments. The Gulf Council is not providing fair
representation to all fishery sectors. If the commercial fishery sector
is to continue to thrive, we have to figure out a new way to fairly
represent all of the fishery sectors that are governed by the council
process. What the commercial sector has in the Gulf is clearly not fair
or balanced. I'm substantially dependent on the commercial fishery and
very concerned that if left unchecked the Gulf Council will continue to
make bias management decisions. Decisions like re-allocating the
Nation's resource to an unaccountable recreational fishery that
accounts for less than 5 percent of the Nation population.
The source of the problem is that the regional councils and the
advisory panels that they appoint have become unfairly dominated by the
recreational sector. The leading cause for this is that in the Gulf
Council all the state chairs 5 total, that have automatic appointments
that are not approved by the commerce secretary have now become
recreational seats due to the nature of state politics. Recreational
organizations have extensively lobbied each state Governor and their
game commissions to have their respective candidates nominated . This
has led to a total omission of fair representation due to the politics
of the day. None of these groups care about the American consumer and
their access to the Nations resources . The commercial sector knows
that it has become very difficult to get involved in the AP process
because our resumes are not fairly considered for AP Panels because the
make up of the council itself leads to a distinct disadvantage getting
commercial members the votes necessary to get put on the AP. The
results of this bias has led to the regional councils finding it hard
to recruit un-bias fishery scientist to the SSC panel at this point
because of the influence of the recreational sector. Standard operating
procedure approved by the council process has made minor and incidental
fisheries violations a justification for removal or ineligible
participation in panels. These same standard operating procedures for
violations don't apply to the recreational sector, they are immune.
The current balance of the Gulf Council is an issue that needs to
be addressed immediately. The present Gulf Council is so out of balance
that is has had a significant effect on Allocation Issues, ACLs,
Economic Impacts, Advisory Panels, Ad Hoc Panels, and Catch Shares that
especially affect the Gulf of Mexico commercial fishermen. The
commercial sector has legitimate issues about the balance of the Gulf
Council. Alabama has not had a commercial representative for at least
the past eleven years. There are currently three at-large appointment
seats currently available, however even if they are all filled from the
commercial sector, the council will still be would still be unbalanced
when it comes to fair and equitable appointments for each stakeholder
groups. The APs obviously needs to be examined closer for fairness. By
reviewing the voting records of the regional gulf council that the
members Congress will clearly recognize the bias. Even all five of the
State Representative's vote recreational. The uneven Gulf Council
either out votes or simply rejects the commercial fishery
representative's motions.
Let me provide some specifics. At each of the last four gulf
council meetings members of the commercial red snapper fishery have
requested they form an Ad Hoc 5 year review panel to allow the
commercial fishermen a way to provide input on the red snapper IFQ
system; however, one year later the Gulf Council has yet to complete
this request. Another example is fin-fish. Fin-fish are probably the
most discussed issue at the council meetings but there has never been a
commercial fin-fish fishermen appointed to the Gulf Council for over 20
years , that sir is a crime.
At the last Council meeting, this February 2011, I witnessed a gulf
council member from the State of Florida who is a Florida CCA board
member before his council appointment begin a discussion to re-address
the recreational allocation to acquire an even larger percentage of the
red snapper and grouper TAC. The recreational sector to date still has
failed to implement accountability measures in compliance with MSA.
Eleven years after the Council set up the split for king mackerel they
came back and reallocated 5 percent to the recreational sector. They
also reallocated 17 percent of commercial red grouper TAC 2 years ago
by raising their aggregate bag limit of red grouper. Motion after
motion is passed over to develop a real time accountability measure for
recreational sector that mirrors the commercial sector.
When it comes to allocation, the Gulf Council simply picks and
chooses from the years that help the recreational sector the most. They
choose different years for different species to obtain an unfair
advantage by using two different baseline years. Roy Crabtree strongly
advised the Gulf Council not to use that method. I think he understood
the backlash it could cause later when a case could be made against it.
But the Chairman of the council who receives large research grants from
CCA allowed the process to continue in spite of the regional
administrators leadership to do other wise. Below are incidents that
show these types of actions of the Gulf Council that need to be
addressed:
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council demonstrates
unfairness to the commercial sector when it comes to ACLs or
Accountability Measures. Over harvest by either sector for
amberjack, triggerfish or grouper disallows that sector
eligibility for a raise in their quota. It's not the same for
red snapper though; the council did not apply the same measure
for that species. We feel this is a double standard due to the
fact that the recreational sector has over harvested their
quota of red snapper eighteen out of the last twenty 1 years.
In many of those years the recreational fishery went 100
percent over their quota.
The full potential of commercial fishery economic impacts
had been devalued for years because of bad fishery management
regulations mandated by the Gulf Council. Commercial Fishermen
provide access for the Nation's consumer and using just red
snapper alone that accounts for almost 3\1/2\ million meals for
the Nation's consumer. According to NMFS less than 5 percent of
the U.S. population accounts for saltwater anglers.
In 2008 the commercial sector (Seafood Industry) generated
$104 billion in sales impacts, and supported 1.5 million full
and part-time jobs, while the recreational sector generated
$58.9 billion in sales impacts and supported 385,000 full and
part-time jobs, using 2008 as the baseline year. Now that is
significant commercial fishery economic impact that the Gulf
Council pays no attention to.
In conclusion, I think the Gulf Council already has the flexibility
and language needed in MSA as it stands today. The IFQ red snapper
commercial fishery is the most accountable, well managed and successful
fishery management plan ever developed in the Gulf of Mexico. It has
increased the optimal yields, reduced regulatory discards and is
meeting the goals of MSA. The establishment of a red snapper IFQs
working in conjunction with reduced size limits have allowed red
snapper to be removed from overfishing status. We need more successful
management plans for the other sectors. The recreational sector wants
to open the MSA simply to reallocate the resource. They have had 31
years to develop a good Marine Resource Management Plan, but have
failed to do so with their ``business as usual'' position of resisting
a fishery management plan that still after 31 years has No
Accountability. Successful fishery management is going to require a
balanced representation from both sectors to achieve management goals
that will reach optimum yield. The future of sustainable fisheries
requires true stewardship of the resource.
Sincerely,
Capt. Gary Jarvis,
F/V Back Down 2,
Back Down 2 Inc.
______
Prepared Statement of Bruce Stedman, Executive Director,
Marine Fish Conservation Network
Chairman Begich and members of the Subcommittee:
On behalf of the nearly 200 member groups nationally who are
dedicated to conserving marine fish and achieving sustainable
fisheries, the Marine Fish Conservation Network (Network), I thank you
for the opportunity to submit the following testimony for the record
concerning the implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (MSA).
NOAA and NMFS are responsible for the management and conservation
of living marine resources within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone
(EEZ), encompassing an area larger than the combined land area of all
fifty states. Our nation's fisheries are among the many benefits
provided by this vast territory, and they are managed as a public
trust. Ending overfishing is essential to sustain those benefits for
present and future generations. Implementing management measures that
achieve the MSA's goals for sustainability will require ongoing
cooperation and support from Congress, state and Federal agencies,
regional fishery managers, fishermen and other public stakeholders.
This Subcommittee's ongoing oversight is vital to ensure that regional
fishery managers are complying fully with the MSA.
The Network's comments will focus on efforts to prevent
overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, use the best available science,
and ensure that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) provides
adequate guidance and technical support to the regional fishery
management councils as they implement a system of annual catch limits
(ACLs) and accountability measures (AMs) that will prevent overfishing
in accordance with the MSA.
Preventing Overfishing, Rebuilding Overfished Stocks
Preventing overfishing and achieving sustainable use of fisheries
resources for U.S. fishermen has been the goal of the MSA since its
passage in 1976. National Standard 1 (NS1) of the Act mandates that
``conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while
achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each
fishery.'' \1\ However, the MSA's lack of explicit measures for
preventing overfishing allowed unsustainable levels of fishing to
continue and, as a consequence, many of the Nation's fisheries were
depleted and in crisis by the 1990s. The inclusion of fishery
management reforms in the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) of 1996 were aimed
at preventing overfishing and rebuilding overfished stocks in a timely
manner, but fishery managers too often ignored the advice of scientists
on fishing limits and there was still no explicit statutory requirement
to establish a firm catch limit and stop fishing when the limit has
been reached. The result was numerous instances of chronic overfishing
that continued unabated year after year, a practice the Network
documented in 2007.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ MSA Sec. 301(a)(1); 16 U.S.C. 1851.
\2\ MFCN (2007), Taking Stock, The Cure For Chronic Overfishing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ending overfishing was the highest priority of the reauthorized
Magnuson-Stevens Act of 2006 (MSRA), a bipartisan legislative effort
signed into law by President Bush in January 2007. The MSRA's approach
to ending overfishing builds on and strengthens the 1996 amendments on
overfishing because Congress believed that the basic provisions were
sound \3\ To close the loopholes which had allowed overfishing to
continue in numerous fisheries, Congress adopted key recommendations
from the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (2004) including the
requirement to establish ACLs in all U.S. fisheries with AMs to ensure
accountability for staying within the catch limits.\4\ In addition, the
MSRA requires each Council to maintain a Scientific and Statistical
Committee (SSC) and requires each SSC to make fishing level
recommendations for Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC), which serves as
the upper limit on Council specification of an ACL.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Senate Report 109-229 on S. 2012 (April 4, 2006), p. 23.
\4\ MSRA Sec. 303(a)(15) (16 U.S.C. 1853(a)(15)), Senate Report
109-229 on S. 2012 (April 4, 2006), p. 21.
\5\ MSRA Sec. 302(h)(6) (16 U.S.C. 1852(h)(6)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The intent of these new measures is to provide transparent
accounting mechanisms for measuring compliance with the MSA's
requirements to prevent overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks.\6\
In addition, the MSRA also includes requirements for the establishment
of a national saltwater angler registry and other measures to improve
the quality of recreational fisheries data--critical priorities for the
implementation of ACLs in recreational fisheries. Equally important,
the MSRA reaffirms the existing rebuilding provisions for restoring
overfished stocks, including the 10-year rebuilding timeframe, while
retaining ample flexibility to extend the time in specific situations
in which the life history of a fish or other circumstances make the 10-
year schedule infeasible. It should be noted that, in 2010, fully half
of the stocks in rebuilding plans had rebuilding target dates greater
than 10 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Senate Report 109-229 on S. 2012 (April 4, 2006), p. 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In regions where a system of catch limits has already been
implemented, and where accountability measures are in place, fisheries
managers have successfully prevented overfishing and are rebuilding
overfished stocks. Based on the final Status of Stocks update from NMFS
in December 2010, however, it is clear that overfishing stubbornly
persists in regions which have not employed hard catch limits in the
past. Although there are fewer stocks subject to overfishing in 2010
than in 2006, and fishery managers continue to make progress in
rebuilding overfished populations, overfishing was occurring on fully
one in five of the major fish stocks assessed for overfishing in
2010.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See the NMFS 4th Quarter 2010 Status of Stocks Update,
available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/
SOSmain.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although NMFS and the Councils still have much work to do to end
overfishing, they are making significant progress in amending each
fishery management plan (FMP) to comply with the MSRA's deadline for
implementing ACLs and AMs in all U.S. fisheries by the end of 2011. A
system of ACLs and AMs is already in place for all stocks subject to
overfishing (completed in 2010), and implementation of ACLs for all
other fishery stocks is well underway. With a system of ACLs and AMs in
all U.S. fisheries, fishery managers will have a framework in place to
achieve the MSA's goal of ending overfishing. Regularly evaluating the
performance of ACLs and AMs to ensure success at addressing this
chronic problem should be one of the Subcommittee's top priorities.
The results are clear: catch limits effectively prevent overfishing
where they have been implemented and where accountability measures are
in place to ensure that fisheries stay within limits. While there is
always some risk of overfishing, successful fishery management councils
have created a system that enables managers to adjust catch limits in a
timely manner when new information indicates that adjustments are
needed to stay within safe limits. Moreover, with the adoption of
rebuilding programs that establish catch limits and accountability for
staying within the limit, overfished stocks have begun to recover--
since 2007, 11 have achieved their rebuilding goals and another 10 have
rebuilt to 80 percent of maximum sustainable levels.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See NMFS Status of U.S. Fisheries, Report to Congress 2007-
2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress should resist the temptation to micromanage the fisheries
management process to achieve specific outcomes in catch-setting,
although the Subcommittee should exercise its oversight authority to
ensure that the MSA reforms aimed at ending overfishing and restoring
overfished stocks are working as intended. Efforts to increase catch
limits or extend rebuilding timelines through political intervention
have failed to produce longterm healthy fisheries in the past and have
often contributed to chronic overfishing that hurts, not helps,
fishermen. The appropriate place for making such determinations is
within the science and management processes established under the MSA,
including the regular regional stock assessment workshops and peer
review processes and the SSC review prior to making their fishing level
recommendations for each regional fishery management council's ACL-
setting process.
Accounting for Uncertainty and the Risk of Overfishing in the ACL-
setting Process
Because all fisheries information is uncertain and there is always
some risk of overfishing, an effective system of ACLs and AMs will
require fishery scientists and managers to treat uncertainty explicitly
when specifying catch limits. The revised NS1 regulatory guidelines for
specifying ACLs and AMs (NMFS 2009) require fishery managers to take an
approach that considers uncertainty in scientific information and
management control of the fishery in the catch-setting process.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 50 CFR 600.310(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some critics of this approach to uncertainty have argued that the
adoption of uncertainty ``buffers'' in the ABC- and ACL-setting process
at the regional councils is overly precautionary to the detriment of
fishermen. History advises that the failure to account for uncertainty
at all has more often been the problem, resulting in risky fishing
strategies such as setting a catch limit at the overfishing limit
(OFL), a practice which virtually guarantees that the OFL will be
exceeded. For this reason, science and policy recommendations have
overwhelmingly recommended more explicit treatment of uncertainty and
measures to reduce target fishing levels below the maximum allowable
limits. The guiding principle is: ``The greater the degree of
uncertainty in the assessment of stock status or in the ability to
effectively implement management actions, the greater the difference
between [catch] targets and limits should be.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ NMFS Stock Assessment Improvement Plan (2001), p. 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In revising the NS1 guidelines to comply with the new legal
requirements to specify ABCs and ACLs, NMFS says it sought to retain
the principle of limit and target fishing levels in which targets are
set sufficiently below the limits so that the limits are not
exceeded.\11\ But while the terms ``ABC'' and ``ACL'' were introduced
in the MSRA as required elements of the catch-setting process and were
intended as clear limits,\12\ the new guidelines provide limited
guidance on how to incorporate scientific uncertainty into scientific
ABC recommendations or to address management uncertainty (in addition
to any relevant Optimum Yield factors) when setting ACLs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See NMFS response to comments in the NS1 final rule, 74 Fed.
Reg. at p. 3183.
\12\ See MSA 302(g)(1)(B) and MSA 303(a)(15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Subcommittee should ask NMFS to provide additional details on
how the Councils are proposing to address scientific and management
uncertainty in the catch-setting process. At present, it appears that
methods vary substantially from region to region and it is difficult to
determine if uncertainty is being treated more thoroughly in some
regions than others. Regardless of the approach in a particular region
or fishery, the Network believes scientists and managers should address
uncertainty and risk as transparently as possible in the ACL-setting
process.
Use of Best Available Science to Comply with the MSA's National
Standard 2
The MSRA materially strengthened the role of science in the fishery
management process.\13\,\14\ To ensure that a system of ACLs
and AMs meets the MSA's National Standard 2 for ``best scientific
information available,'' it is hoped that the NMFS revised NS2
guidelines (currently in final rulemaking) will clarify the roles and
responsibilities of stock assessment review teams, peer reviewers, SSCs
and the Councils in the catch specification process. The NS2 guidelines
should also include explicit procedures for compiling, evaluating and
using the best scientific information available in the catch-setting
process. Regularly updated Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation
(SAFE) reports should be required for each FMP, so that all the
information used for ABC- and ACL-setting is readily available to
decision-makers and the public. Such clarifications of roles,
responsibilities and procedures for using and presenting the best
available scientific information used will go a long way toward
instilling trust in the science, the process and the outcome.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 16 U.S.C. 1852(g)(1)(A) and (B); 1852(h)(6).
\14\ Senate Report 109-229 on S. 2012, April 4, 2006, pp. 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some critics of rebuilding plans and new ACL requirements,
particularly in New England, have attempted to discredit the science
used to set catch limits and have sought intervention by the Secretary
of Commerce to increase ACLs and relax rebuilding requirements for
overfished groundfish. Yet those status determination criteria and
catch limits have been intensively vetted and peer reviewed through the
established regional stock assessment and peer review process, the
Stock Assessment Workshop/Stock Assessment Review Committee (SAW/SARC).
Indeed, a 2009 Department of Commerce Inspector General's investigative
report to Senator Snowe of Maine found that the science on which the
fishing limits are based meets the MSA's ``best scientific information
available'' requirements.\15\ Circumventing the results of that process
by political means would undermine and politicize the entire ACL-
setting process. Such actions would also violate the MSA's requirement
that fishery management actions be based on the best scientific
information available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Department of Commerce, Office of Inspector General
Investigative Report, Letter to Sen. Snowe re: the Northeast Fisheries
Science Center and the Quality of the Science Used to Determine Catch
Limits for New England Commercial Fisheries, Feb. 26, 2009. 42 pp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Guidance and Technical Support to Regional Fishery Management
Councils
Establishing science-based recommendations for ABCs, ACLs and AMs
that prevent overfishing will require each council to establish
procedures for receiving SSCrecommended ABCs and making recommendations
to NMFS for ACLs and AMs. Agency guidance on best practices for ACL-
setting is critical to ensure that regions which are adopting formal
catch limits for the first time can benefit from the experience of
regions that already employ them.
Although the agency has decided not to pursue technical guidance on
the development of ABC control rules to assist the Councils' SSCs in
their deliberations, better agency guidance on the ACL-setting process
in general is needed to ensure that best practices and lessons learned
are available to all regional fishery scientists and managers as they
amend their operating procedures and FMPs. In regions where catch-
setting has been employed already, for example, a regular cycle of
scientific and management review has been established to ensure that
ACLs can be promulgated in a timely manner before the beginning of the
fishing year for each fishery in the FMP. Providing guidance to the
remaining Councils on how to establish an efficient, transparent catch
specification process is essential.
The revised Federal NS1 regulatory guidelines on overfishing (NMFS
2009) provide flexible approaches to ACL-setting that can be tailored
to meet the needs of many different fisheries and situations, including
recreational and data-limited fisheries,\16\ but NMFS must do a better
job in communicating the options available to Councils. The February
2011 national ACL Science Workshop in Silver Spring, MD illustrated the
importance of NMFS's role in convening regional experts involved in the
ACL-setting process to share expertise, discuss best practices, and
identify key needs and challenges in the regions. In general, NMFS
should take a more hands-on and pro-active approach that seeks to avoid
problems rather than waiting until they occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See NMFS response to comments in the NS1 final rule, 74 Fed.
Reg. at p. 3183.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, NMFS must ensure that basic scientific standards and
practices are employed in all regions so that ACL specifications meet
the MSA's requirement for the use of the best scientific information
available in National Standard 2. Currently NMFS is completing
rulemaking on revisions to the NS2 regulatory guidelines to clarify the
roles and responsibilities of the regional stock assessment and peer
review teams, the SSCs and the Councils in the ABC- and ACL-setting
process. The Subcommittee should ask NMFS to provide an update on the
status of the NS2 rulemaking, completion of which has been delayed
considerably.
Conclusion
Overfishing is considered by many to be the single biggest threat
to marine biodiversity and ecosystems worldwide,\17\ but the complex
biological, technological, economic and social dimensions of the
problem have made efforts to prevent it exceedingly difficult. In the
U.S., successive reauthorizations of the Magnuson-Stevens Act in 1996
and 2006 have established a responsive, adaptive, and flexible
framework for addressing the problem and making good on the MSA's
promise of ending overfishing at last. This is, ultimately, the only
way to achieve the sustainability of America's marine fisheries
resources so that present and future generations of fishermen may enjoy
them fully.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ For instance, see: Pauly et al., 1998; Jackson et al., 2001;
Pauly et al., 2002; Myers and Worm 2003; Hutchings and Reynolds 2004;
Ward and Myers 2005; Worm et al., 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for accepting our testimony,
Bruce Stedman,
Executive Director,
Marine Fish Conservation Network.
______
Prepared Statement of Art C. Ivanoff, Chair, Southern Norton Sound Fish
and Game Advisory Committee
Mr. Chair and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to provide written testimony on the implementation of
several key features of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (MSA).
Southern Norton Sound Fish and Game Advisory Committee (SNSAC) is
composed of village representatives from Shaktoolik, Saint Michael,
Stebbins, Koyuk and Unalakleet. SNSAC advocates on behalf of the
villages for the conservation and use of fish and game resources.
Our testimony is brief. We will focus on: (1) Tribal consultation
and Composition on the Regional Councils, in particular the North
Pacific Fisheries Management Council (Council); and (2) Total Allowable
Catch of Pollock in the Bering Sea Aleutian Islands. These are not
problems, but opportunities to improve the process that will protect
our national interests and the interests of Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim
villages. Really, the interest of conservation is global in nature.
Composition of Regional Councils/Tribal Consultation
SNSAC has been engaged with the Council for a brief period of time,
nearly 3 years. During this brief tenure, however, the experience and
observation has revealed glaring and significantly problematic issues
with the composition of the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council.
The Council offers no voting seat for federally-recognized tribes.
Alaska is home to 226 federally recognized tribes, nearly half the
tribes in the United States. Without voting representation on the
Council, the federally-recognized tribes cannot effectively advocate
for the conservation issues that are pivotal to the survival of the
cultural heritage and our subsistence way of life. We have sat on the
side during Council meetings and deliberations with no opportunity to
influence the process and no opportunity to help frame questions. It
has been suggested that federally-recognized tribes work through the
Governor's office using the appointment process. However, history has
exposed a truculent relationship between tribes and states making an
appointment to the Council improbable. Our analysis suggests that the
system is broken.
The United States Constitution is the prime catalyst for developing
tribal consultation. However, over the last twenty years, the efforts
by the Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service have neglected
the inclusion of tribes in helping shape policy and regulations. In
fact, it has been repeatedly stated that the Council is exempt from
tribal consultation. We believe the Council's to be an extension of the
Federal Government and therefore obligated to engage in a government-
to-government relationship with federally-recognized tribes.
Consultation with federally-recognized tribes can be effective only,
and we stress only, by being directly involved in the decision-making
process.
Total Allowable Catch
SNSAC is keenly aware of the overall harvest on Pollock in the
Bering Sea. Over the twenty years, the average harvest, we estimated,
is 800,000 metric tons. The total allowable catch is based on science
of the Pollock in the Bering Sea. With an extraction rate of nearly 1.6
billion pounds annually, we are compelled to ask the question, what
impact does this have on the ecosystem? How do we calculate the need to
ensure the ecosystem is capable of regenerating or the Pollock from
regenerating with such an extraction rate? Are there other resources
showing sign of stress due to overfishing? The MSA National Standards
primary focus is ``optimum yield'' while attempting to prevent
overfishing. This is a complete contradiction in terms. The shear
nature of industry along with the composition of Regional Councils
should leave little doubt overfishing will occur. Josh Eagle's report
Taking Stock of Regional Councils suggests that the North Pacific
fisheries discard more than 300 million pounds of bycatch annually. How
do we prevent activity that profligate's resources at a phenomenal
rate? After research, SNSAC concurs with Josh Eagle's report which
suggest that the most important reform would be to separate
conservation and allocation decisions, leaving allocation decisions in
the hands of the Councils but giving responsibility for conservation
decisions to a separate governmental entity. The Minerals Management
Service underwent reform; we believe reform with the National Marine
Fisheries Service and Regional Councils is also warranted. The concern
today should focus not only on the overall harvest of marine resources,
but other the looming giant impacting the health and productivity of
our oceans, acidification.
One thing is for certain, the MSA allows for extraction, but allows
very little for conservation. Language in the MSA relating to
conservation is weak at best and without MSA amendments the marine
resources will continue to spiral down. SNSAC encourages the total
allowable catch to be based on an ecosystem approach verses a single
species which is the current practice.
In closing, we are requesting changes to improve the MSA which will
reduce waste, reduce the chance of overfishing and provide the
federally recognized tribes with an opportunity serve to help make
decisions.
Thank you for the opportunity.
______
March 22, 2011
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Re: March 8, 2011 Hearing on Implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act
Dear Chairman Begich, Ranking Member Snowe and Members of the
Subcommittee:
On behalf of the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders' Alliance,
please accept these comments for inclusion in the record of the March
8, 2011 hearing on implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (``MSA'').
The Shareholders' Alliance is a leading organization representing
commercial fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico who operate under catch
share programs. We are avid proponents of catch share programs because
we have experienced the economic and conservation benefits that these
programs can achieve. We strongly support the $54 million in proposed
funding for NOAA's National Catch Share Program in Fiscal Year 2012. We
oppose recent efforts to prohibit fishermen from evaluating catch share
programs as a management option because fishermen should have the
flexibility to use whatever management tool they think is appropriate
to manage the fisheries in which they are engaged.
The unqualified success in rebuilding the red snapper fishery in
the Gulf of Mexico shows the benefits that can be achieved through
catch share programs. Red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico were overfished
for decades. A management plan first took effect in 1991, creating a
fishery that operated as a derby with an overall catch limit and a
season that opened and closed when that quota was met. Under that
system, each individual fisherman would race to catch as many fish as
possible during the season. This was similar to the old halibut and
salmon derbies in the Northwest and had a similar outcome--a short
season (less than 3 months), low prices, and a market void of domestic
red snapper the remainder of the year. It was an unsafe, inefficient,
and uneconomic way to manage the fishery. It also did little to improve
the conservation of the resource. Other attempts at using traditional
methods of managing fisheries, including shortened seasons, trips
limits and size limits, also failed to improve economic conditions in
the industry or rebuild the stock.
A better approach was needed, so the stakeholders in the fishery
began the process of developing a red snapper individual fishing quota
(``IFQ'')--a form of catch share or limited access privilege program.
The stakeholders voted on the program by referendum, and it was
implemented in January 2007.
The red snapper fishery is better now than I have seen in my
lifetime. It has a longer season. It is better economically, and we are
seeing a resurgence of red snappers. The difference was that by
assigning an individual his own quota, the collateral damage was
reduced since he could now keep fish that he used to discard while
fishing for other reef fish species during other closed seasons. An IFQ
program designed by the stakeholders is a very important tool in the
fishery management strategy. It is the only tool that allows fishermen
the individual flexibility to meet their needs. I feel that it is
imperative that this tool be available for future consideration by
fishermen who want to use it.
One of the criticisms of NOAA's National Catch Share Program
(``NCSP'') is that it is taking funds away from cooperative research
and other science-based programs. Such criticisms are unfounded. NOAA
has indicated that the funds it has requested be transferred out of the
cooperative research line item and into the NCSP line item will
continue to be used to fund cooperative research programs in catch
share fisheries.\1\ It is also important to note that NOAA is
requesting $67.120 million for critical research programs like stock
assessments in FY12, a 112 percent increase over the $31.631 million
for stock assessments enacted in FY08. As stated by Eric Schwaab, head
of NOAA Fisheries, funding for the NCSP ``is not requested at the
expense of other important fisheries research and management
programs.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See testimony of Eric Schwaab, Assistant Administrator for NOAA
Fisheries, before the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and
Wildlife of the Committee on Natural Resources, U.S. House of
Representatives, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, Second Session,
regarding oversight hearings on ``Catch Shares as a Management Option:
Criteria for Ensuring Success--Parts 1 and 2 (Mar. 16 and Apr. 22,
2010), at pp. 17-18, available at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-
bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_house_hearings&docid=f:55542.pdf.
\2\ Id. at p. 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We understand the concerns of those who find it difficult to be
told when to fish, where to fish, what to keep and what to discard. In
the Gulf of Mexico we have lived with overfishing, chronically low fish
populations and unstable fishing communities. With scientifically based
catch limits and catch shares, we have reversed that process and now
have a thriving commercial fishery for red snapper. Today's constraints
are the result of putting off hard choices, sometimes for decades. The
new law made those choices unavoidable. We're making progress, and
stopping the process now means going back to the downward spiral. We
simply can't go back to the old ways of overfishing and pretending the
resource doesn't have limits.
Catch share management is a way to empower fishermen to shape their
own fishing future. We were very active in developing our catch share
program and think others should be too. Just like other management
measures, catch shares work best when they are developed with input
from fishermen. The fishery management council process allows that to
take place and as far as we know most catch share programs come about
that way. They are important tools for effective management and we need
to be able to continue to consider using them.
The $54 million in funding NOAA has requested for its NCSP in FY12
is not only crucial to programs that are already on the water, such as
the red snapper IFQ, but also to the development of new programs to
further improve the management of our Nation's fisheries. We urge the
Subcommittee to support this level of funding, and to oppose provisions
that would limit the ability of the regional fishery management
councils to consider the use of catch share programs.
Thank you for considering our views.
Sincerely,
David Krebs,
President,
Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders' Alliance.
______
March 18, 2011
Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard Subcommittee
I'm writing this letter in regards to the Magnuson-Stevens Act
(MSA). The MSA already has the flexibility and language needed for
regional councils to properly manage the Nation's marine resources;
however the MSA is supposed to ensure fair and balanced appointment.
What the commercial sector has in the Gulf is clearly not fair or
balanced. I'm substantially dependent on the commercial fishery and
enormously concerned that if left unchecked the Gulf of Mexico Fishery
Management Council (GMFMC) will continue to make bias management
decisions. Decisions like re-allocating the Nation's resource to an
unaccountable recreational fishery that accounts for less than 5
percent of the Nation.
The GMFMC is not providing fair representation to all fishery
sectors. The GMFMC interpretation of MSA is arguably contradictory to
the intent of what Congress intended. If the commercial fishery sector
is to continue to thrive, we have to figure out a new way to fairly
represent all of the fishery sectors that are governed by the GMFMC.
The GMFMC has become such a bias ruling organization that many
fishermen from the commercial sector have stopped attending Advisory
Panels (APs) and Ad Hoc meetings. Panels are unfairly dominated by the
recreational sector. The commercial sector knows it's of no use to send
in a resume for AP Panels because GMFMC will not choose a commercial
person over a recreational. The GMFMC is finding it hard to recruit un-
bias fishery scientist to the SSC panel at this point because of the
influence of the recreational sector. Standard operating procedure
approved by the GMFMC has made minor and incidental fisheries
violations a justification for removal or ineligible participation in
panels. These same standard operating procedures for violations don't
apply to the recreational sector, they are immune. Many feel it's just
another ploy by the GMFMC to displace the commercial fishing sector.
The current balance of the GMFMC is an issue that needs to be
addressed immediately. The out of balance GMFMC has had a significant
effect on Allocation Issues, ACLs, Economic Impacts, Advisory Panels,
Ad Hoc Panels and Catch Shares that especially affect the Gulf of
Mexico commercial fishermen. The commercial sector has legitimate
issues about the balance of the GMFMC. Alabama has not had a GMFMC
commercial representative for at least the past eleven years. There are
currently three at-large appointment seats currently available, however
even if they are all filled from the commercial sector, the GMFMC would
still be unbalanced. The APs obviously needs to be examined closer for
fairness. APs created by the GMFMC are heavy recreational sector allied
also.
By reviewing the voting records of the GMFMC members Congress will
clearly recognize the bias. Even all five of the State Representative's
vote recreational. The uneven GMFMC either out votes or simply rejects
the commercial fishery representative's motions.
Let me provide some specifics. At each of the last four GMFMC
meetings members of the commercial red snapper fishery have requested
they form an Ad Hoc 5 year review panel to allow the commercial
fishermen a way to provide input on the red snapper IFQ system; however
the GMFMC has yet to complete this request. Another example is finfish.
Finfish are probably the most discussed issue at the GMFMC meetings but
there has never been a commercial finfish fishermen appointed to the
GMFMC.
At the last Council meeting, this February 2011, I witnessed a
GMFMC discussion to re-address the recreational allocation to acquire
an even larger percentage of the red snapper and grouper TAC. The
recreational sector to date still has failed to implement
accountability measures in compliance with MSA. Eleven years after the
Council set up the split for king mackerel they came back and
reallocated 5 percent to the recreational sector. They also reallocated
17 percent of commercial red grouper TAC 2 years ago by raising their
aggregate bag limit of red grouper. Motion after motion is passed over
to develop a real time accountability measure for recreational sector
that mirrors the commercial sector.
When it comes to allocation, the GMFMC simply picks and chooses
from the years that help the recreational sector the most. They choose
different years for different species to obtain an unfair advantage by
using two different baseline years. Roy Crabtree strongly advised the
GMFMC not to use that method. I think he understood the backlash it
could cause later when a case could be made against it. Below are
incidents that show these types of actions of the GMFMC that need to be
addressed:
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council demonstrates
unfairness to the commercial sector when it comes to ACLs or
Accountability Measures. Overharvest by either sector for
amberjack, triggerfish or grouper disallows that sector
eligibility for a raise in their quota. It's not the same for
red snapper though; the council did not apply the same measure
for that species. We feel this is a double standard due to the
fact that the recreational sector has overharvested their quota
of red snapper 18 out of the last 21 years. In many of those
years the recreational fishery went 100 percent over their
quota.
The full potential of commercial fishery economic impacts
had been devalued for years because of bad fishery management
regulations mandated by the GMFMC. Commercial Fishermen provide
access for the Nation's consumer and using just red snapper
alone that accounts for almost 3\1/2\ million meals for the
Nation's consumer. According to NMFS less than 5 percent of the
U.S. population accounts for saltwater anglers.
In 2008 the commercial sector (Seafood Industry) generated $104
billion in sales impacts, and supported 1.5 million full and part-time
jobs, while the recreational sector generated $58.9 billion in sales
impacts and supported 385,000 full and part-time jobs, using 2008 as
the baseline year. Now that is significant commercial fishery economic
impact that the GMFMC pays no attention to.
In conclusion, I think the GMFMC already has the flexibility and
language needed in MSA as it stands today. The IFQ red snapper
commercial fishery is the most accountable, well managed and successful
fishery management plan ever developed in the Gulf of Mexico. It has
increased the optimal yields, reduced regulatory discards and is
meeting the goals of MSA. IFQs working in conjunction with reduced size
limits have allowed red snapper to be removed from overfishing status.
We need more successful management plans for the other sectors. The
recreational sector wants to open the MSA simply to reallocate the
resource. They have had plenty of years to develop a good Marine
Resource Management Plan, but have failed to do so with their
``business as usual.'' Successful fishery management is going to
require a balanced representation from both sectors to achieve
management goals that will reach optimum yield. The future of
sustainable fisheries requires true stewardship of the resource.
Sincerely,
David Walker,
Walker Fishing Fleet, Inc.